Because my current working hypothesis for the Leftward trend of history has thus far boils down to technological progress. I thought Reactionaries et al were going to provide an alternative explanation involving power structures and perverse incentives.
Wikipedia seems to be pretty unambiguious about Marx being the first notable theorist here. It’s not about “neutrality”, there just isn’t any evidence that this claim is mistaken.
Neither of the above. Your comment’s style was suboptimal, technological determinism is different from economic determinism, and the neo-reactionary position is neither. (This is obvious from the fact that they think that they can reverse the left-ward trend of history, but that it will take a concentrated effort.)
Your comment’s style was suboptimal, technological determinism is different from economic determinism
I cannot see how it is different then a mix of historical materialism and economic determinism. Please elaborate.
and the neo-reactionary position is neither
Near as I can tell, the point is that Yvain and others (Ishaan specifically) are arguing that the reactionary position is wrong by asserting some form of historical materialism/economic determinism.
i.e. reactionaries cannot reverse the trend of history because the structures of governments are largely an adaptation to the technological world we live in. The reactionaries want to divorce the government/culture from technological progress and assert they can move independently.
The argument against them seems to be that government/culture may well be a response to the technological climate, and as such as technology changes so will the culture and government.
I cannot see how it is different then a mix of historical materialism and economic determinism. Please elaborate.
Economic determinism refers specifically to the economic structure. The basic outlines of the US’s economic structure have not changed since at least the 1930′s, and arguably even earlier. The development of TV, the internet, or for that matter the printing press, are all changes in technology, not changes in a society’s economic structure. Marx, for example, was not a technological determinist; Yvain et. al. are not economic determinists. Changing an economic structure is significantly easier than destroying all technology and preventing new developments.
Other stuff
In that case, I switch this critique to ‘sub-optimal style’- i.e. it was difficult for me to tell who Multiheaded was addressing and how his point was relevant.
Economic determinism refers specifically to the economic structure.
You missed roughly half of my sentence, and half of Multiheaded’s. The other half was historical materialism- below is a quote from the wikipedia article
[Historical materialism] is a theory of socioeconomic development according to which changes in material conditions (technology and productive capacity) are the primary influence on how society and the economy are organised.
Nah, I was deliberately ignoring the other half. The fact that one part of Multiheaded’s comment was correct (though, AFAICT, irrelevant to the above discussion) doesn’t mean that the other part (regarding economic determinism) is too.
Would anyone care to dispute the object-level claim I made, or are people just spree-downvoting?
Assuming the claims are correct (haven’t a clue personally and nearly as little interest) I don’t know why you got downvoted. The style is a little way from optimal but not enough that I’d expect serious penalties to be applied. Have you been pissing people off elsewhere in this thread? Voting tends to build up momentum within threads and the reception of later comments is at least as strongly influenced by earlier comments as it is by individual merit.
Yvain’s argument appears to be an attempt to put a positive spin on one of the neo-reactionary definitions of leftism:
Leftism is would happens when signaling feed back cycles no longer interact with reality, in the sense of the Philip K. Dick quote “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”.
Edit: Yvain tries to be pro-leftist by associating it with technological progress. Except he runs into this problem, i.e., leftism is how people in technological (or merely prosperous) societies like to behave, which is not the same thing as the behaviors that lead to technological progress (or prosperity).
Well, once you’ve got the bottom few tiers of Maslow’s pyramid secured out, shouldn’t you start to think about the upper ones? And is chess evil because the pieces don’t refer to anything outside the game?
The word was secured. And yes, it means that most of your attention no longer needs to go to that area. That’s the entire point of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Once people have satisficed their low level needs they tend to focus more attention on higher, more abstract, goals.
I don’t mean you no longer need to eat, I mean that once you’ve reached a stable income that will allow you to eat as much as you need, you no longer need to worry about eating, and you can spend some of the time left over playing darts or whatever, rather than getting even more food into your fridge. Or why did you take the time to write that comment? Did it help you meet your basic survival needs somehow?
And is chess evil because the pieces don’t refer to anything outside the game?
Chess does a reasonable job of relating to reality in the sense I mean because the rules of the game and the person who wins are objective and (relatively) independent of any false beliefs about strategy the players might have. (If chess ever reaches the point that a player can get away with arguing that the laws of the game are arbitrary and that therefore he should be able to play some illegal move, that will be a sign that chess is becoming corrupted.)
While I’m sure that there are ways in which our society could be much better geared to cultivating technological progress and/or prosperity, looking to the standards of earlier times does not seem like a particularly effective way to do so.
Considerations of how to best cultivate further prosperity aside, I would say that there is a lot to recommend having people in a society behave as they like to behave, rather than ways that they don’t like to behave.
While I’m sure that there are ways in which our society could be much better geared to cultivating technological progress and/or prosperity, looking to the standards of earlier times does not seem like a particularly effective way to do so.
Why not? Look at societies that achieved and/or maintained prosperity and imitate them; look at prosperous societies that collapsed and avoid doing what they did.
What societies maintained prosperity without either collapsing or turning into, well, us?
In any case, we are by many standards the most prosperous civilization ever to exist; by what older prosperity-promoting behaviors do you think our society might be improved?
What societies maintained prosperity without either collapsing or turning into, well, us?
That’s like saying that because everyone has either died or is currently living there is nothing we can learn about health and longevity by looking at other people’s lifestyles.
Not especially, since not only do civilizations not have hard limits on their persistence times like humans do, the very qualities which made certain civilizations particularly stable in their own time periods might cease to be viable in other ones (which is in some cases why they ended.)
Civilizations also tend to change their qualities over time, thus we can see what changes tend to promote increased prosperity (or collapse).
the very qualities which made certain civilizations particularly stable in their own time periods might cease to be viable in other ones
What do you mean by “time periods”? The logic of your argument suggests you mean it as a proxy for some other changes. It would help to thing of those variables explicitly. For example, if you mean different levels of technology, it makes sense to look at qualities that were helpful in societies of different technological level.
Different technology, different memetic environments, different relationships with other nations. Possibly other factors I’m leaving out.
Once a new meme enters the environment, it can be transformative to the political environment the way, say, the evolution of lignin-degrading bacteria, or of angiosperms, were to the ecological. Adaptations which were useful in the prior context can be totally obsoleted, with no backtracking.
I have studied history, and continue to do so, and this is not a helpful comment.
It’s easy to take the tact of “I know stuff you ought to know and would believe differently if you also knew it” without actually raising those matters in the discussion, but a useful dialogue it does not make.
When I asked you before about what specific prosperity-promoting behaviors from the past we ought to emulate, that was also not a rhetorical question.
Yvain’s too.
HUGE SPOILER: Technically, historical materialism and economic determinism was first… yup, a core Marxist idea.
Would anyone care to dispute the object-level claim I made, or are people just spree-downvoting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_determinism
Wikipedia seems to be pretty unambiguious about Marx being the first notable theorist here. It’s not about “neutrality”, there just isn’t any evidence that this claim is mistaken.
Neither of the above. Your comment’s style was suboptimal, technological determinism is different from economic determinism, and the neo-reactionary position is neither. (This is obvious from the fact that they think that they can reverse the left-ward trend of history, but that it will take a concentrated effort.)
(I did not downvote.)
I cannot see how it is different then a mix of historical materialism and economic determinism. Please elaborate.
Near as I can tell, the point is that Yvain and others (Ishaan specifically) are arguing that the reactionary position is wrong by asserting some form of historical materialism/economic determinism.
i.e. reactionaries cannot reverse the trend of history because the structures of governments are largely an adaptation to the technological world we live in. The reactionaries want to divorce the government/culture from technological progress and assert they can move independently.
The argument against them seems to be that government/culture may well be a response to the technological climate, and as such as technology changes so will the culture and government.
Economic determinism refers specifically to the economic structure. The basic outlines of the US’s economic structure have not changed since at least the 1930′s, and arguably even earlier. The development of TV, the internet, or for that matter the printing press, are all changes in technology, not changes in a society’s economic structure. Marx, for example, was not a technological determinist; Yvain et. al. are not economic determinists. Changing an economic structure is significantly easier than destroying all technology and preventing new developments.
In that case, I switch this critique to ‘sub-optimal style’- i.e. it was difficult for me to tell who Multiheaded was addressing and how his point was relevant.
You missed roughly half of my sentence, and half of Multiheaded’s. The other half was historical materialism- below is a quote from the wikipedia article
Nah, I was deliberately ignoring the other half. The fact that one part of Multiheaded’s comment was correct (though, AFAICT, irrelevant to the above discussion) doesn’t mean that the other part (regarding economic determinism) is too.
Assuming the claims are correct (haven’t a clue personally and nearly as little interest) I don’t know why you got downvoted. The style is a little way from optimal but not enough that I’d expect serious penalties to be applied. Have you been pissing people off elsewhere in this thread? Voting tends to build up momentum within threads and the reception of later comments is at least as strongly influenced by earlier comments as it is by individual merit.
Yvain’s argument appears to be an attempt to put a positive spin on one of the neo-reactionary definitions of leftism:
Leftism is would happens when signaling feed back cycles no longer interact with reality, in the sense of the Philip K. Dick quote “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”.
Edit: Yvain tries to be pro-leftist by associating it with technological progress. Except he runs into this problem, i.e., leftism is how people in technological (or merely prosperous) societies like to behave, which is not the same thing as the behaviors that lead to technological progress (or prosperity).
Well, once you’ve got the bottom few tiers of Maslow’s pyramid secured out, shouldn’t you start to think about the upper ones? And is chess evil because the pieces don’t refer to anything outside the game?
...then you can ignore them, because that’s done?
The word was secured. And yes, it means that most of your attention no longer needs to go to that area. That’s the entire point of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Once people have satisficed their low level needs they tend to focus more attention on higher, more abstract, goals.
I don’t mean you no longer need to eat, I mean that once you’ve reached a stable income that will allow you to eat as much as you need, you no longer need to worry about eating, and you can spend some of the time left over playing darts or whatever, rather than getting even more food into your fridge. Or why did you take the time to write that comment? Did it help you meet your basic survival needs somehow?
Chess does a reasonable job of relating to reality in the sense I mean because the rules of the game and the person who wins are objective and (relatively) independent of any false beliefs about strategy the players might have. (If chess ever reaches the point that a player can get away with arguing that the laws of the game are arbitrary and that therefore he should be able to play some illegal move, that will be a sign that chess is becoming corrupted.)
While I’m sure that there are ways in which our society could be much better geared to cultivating technological progress and/or prosperity, looking to the standards of earlier times does not seem like a particularly effective way to do so.
Considerations of how to best cultivate further prosperity aside, I would say that there is a lot to recommend having people in a society behave as they like to behave, rather than ways that they don’t like to behave.
Why not? Look at societies that achieved and/or maintained prosperity and imitate them; look at prosperous societies that collapsed and avoid doing what they did.
What societies maintained prosperity without either collapsing or turning into, well, us?
In any case, we are by many standards the most prosperous civilization ever to exist; by what older prosperity-promoting behaviors do you think our society might be improved?
That’s like saying that because everyone has either died or is currently living there is nothing we can learn about health and longevity by looking at other people’s lifestyles.
Not especially, since not only do civilizations not have hard limits on their persistence times like humans do, the very qualities which made certain civilizations particularly stable in their own time periods might cease to be viable in other ones (which is in some cases why they ended.)
Civilizations also tend to change their qualities over time, thus we can see what changes tend to promote increased prosperity (or collapse).
What do you mean by “time periods”? The logic of your argument suggests you mean it as a proxy for some other changes. It would help to thing of those variables explicitly. For example, if you mean different levels of technology, it makes sense to look at qualities that were helpful in societies of different technological level.
Different technology, different memetic environments, different relationships with other nations. Possibly other factors I’m leaving out.
Once a new meme enters the environment, it can be transformative to the political environment the way, say, the evolution of lignin-degrading bacteria, or of angiosperms, were to the ecological. Adaptations which were useful in the prior context can be totally obsoleted, with no backtracking.
If you actually study history, you will find that there are a lot more patterns than you seem to be implying.
I have studied history, and continue to do so, and this is not a helpful comment.
It’s easy to take the tact of “I know stuff you ought to know and would believe differently if you also knew it” without actually raising those matters in the discussion, but a useful dialogue it does not make.
When I asked you before about what specific prosperity-promoting behaviors from the past we ought to emulate, that was also not a rhetorical question.