Aside from technology, humanity is not better off ...

[Sindaena]

So, I am rendered speechless by a statement made on another board I frequent:

For all technological advancements we have made, humanity is not any better off now than it was 5000 years ago. There is still some type of class system in place, with those in the lower classes being kept there by the ruling class.

When I questioned the seriousness of the statement and pointed out relative life expectancy and infant mortality the response was:

Yes, I do believe it. I group life expectancy in with technological advancement. Strip away all the trappings and we still have a ruling class, a middle class and a lower class. Strip away all the trappings and parents are trying to get the best available education for their children. There is still slavery, children being exploited and someone or some group trying to rule the world. When you take it down to the very basic of levels, nothing much has changed.

I am debating whether to pull hard numbers and citations for relative proportion of the population living where slavery is legal, relative existence and size of a middle class in 3000 BC, proportion of children receiving any education beyond directly needed skills at all, etc. But all the historical wrongness aside, the attitude just floors me. How is technological advance in any way trivial to human well-being in any case? Is it worth even pursuing an argument that seems to assume that?

Has anyone ever run across this belief before? What would you say in response? Should I be scared that noone else on that forum seems even phased by the statement?

[Bakustra]

It's a den of commies. My suggestion is to pull out an American flag, rent a DVD of Patton, and start practicing some patriotic speeches.

Seriously, if the person thinks of the world in such terms, then things have not changed for the better. Hardcore Marxists are obsessed with one thing, and one thing only: social class. All else is immaterial to them. Arguing against them is usually pointless, as if they disregard quality of life altogether, the best you can do is ask whether they would prefer smallpox, cholera, or bubonic plague to die from. So in summary, there's no real point in arguing further unless you think that you can convince other people.

[Samuel]

There is still slavery, children being exploited and someone or some group trying to rule the world.

These only happen due to poverty. And the current rates are pathetic compared to those in the past.

Strip away all the trappings and we still have a ruling class, a middle class and a lower class.

So? You need people to be managers, people to be scientists and people to be mechanics. Being a member of the lower class isn't bad as long as the standard of living is decent, your children can leave and you can organize in order to avoid being squashed like a bug. While the US isn't perfect, compared to 3000 BC with God kings and serfs, I think we have a definate improvement.

[Sindaena]

I ignored Bakustra's wise words and persisted in arguing that we are, indeed better off. Unfortunately, it was a pointless exercise, though apparently not because she is a die-hard Marxist. She seems to genuinely believe she is not better off than "a middle class Ancient Roman matron." This disturbs me on so many levels, not least of which is that the discussion occurred as a thread hijack on a classical homeschooling board, and noone else has remarked on the statement at all, even though the educational philosophy of the board calls for a full year of study of ancient history in 1st, 5th, and 9th grades (or 3 times through a 4 year history rotation).

[Junghalli]

How exactly is she defining better off if she throws out all the stuff that would be influenced by more advanced technology?

[Simon_Jester]

How exactly is she defining better off if she throws out all the stuff that would be influenced by more advanced technology?

...Does she consider "not mourning her dead children" to be better off?

Though I suppose it is possible that she is, poor woman.

It's a den of commies. My suggestion is to pull out an American flag, rent a DVD of Patton, and start practicing some patriotic speeches.

Seriously, if the person thinks of the world in such terms, then things have not changed for the better. Hardcore Marxists are obsessed with one thing, and one thing only: social class. All else is immaterial to them. Arguing against them is usually pointless, as if they disregard quality of life altogether, the best you can do is ask whether they would prefer smallpox, cholera, or bubonic plague to die from. So in summary, there's no real point in arguing further unless you think that you can convince other people.

Even Marxists generally prefer technological progress to a lack of it- witness the kind of development programs communist countries usually jump into (with occasional exceptions, as the Khmer Rouge demonstrated). Lenin's program of "socialism plus electrification equals communism" was in many ways the prototype of communist domestic policy for the twentieth century; these people are at the fringe of even that movement.

[K. A. Pital]

Strange Marxist she is. Point out to her that the change of the social formation cannot, at least in Marx's view, happen without the corresponding change in means of production. In fact, the new economic means of production lead to the destruction of old social relations and the creation of new ones, which is (in Marxism) called the change of the social formation. I thought this things are common knowledge.

Point out to her that the class relations alone have changed a great deal from the ages of feudalism and slavery. Not to mention female rights, worker rights... Has she been living under some sort of rock? Thankfully, such people are rare even among us commies, as Simon correctly noted.

[CaptainChewbacca]

What about the fact that we irradicated smallpox? That doesnt' require ongoing technology to keep it up.

[Broomstick]

I ignored Bakustra's wise words and persisted in arguing that we are, indeed better off. Unfortunately, it was a pointless exercise, though apparently not because she is a die-hard Marxist. She seems to genuinely believe she is not better off than "a middle class Ancient Roman matron." This disturbs me on so many levels, not least of which is that the discussion occurred as a thread hijack on a classical homeschooling board, and noone else has remarked on the statement at all, even though the educational philosophy of the board calls for a full year of study of ancient history in 1st, 5th, and 9th grades (or 3 times through a 4 year history rotation).

I'm gobsmacked this is a woman arguing this!

If I recall, women in Ancient Rome had to bear three children in order enjoy full legal rights, didn't they?

Women in Rome had few inheritance rights.

Limited rights to property.

Good luck getting a job other than whore if her husband left her. Or if she was unmarried. If she did, she would definitely get paid less than a man for the same work.

Probably a bunch of other stuff I've forgotten about regarding the second-class status women, too.

[Solauren]

In the nut-job woman's defense, her 'education' on what the life of a Roman woman was like probably comes from TV shows like Spartacus and Rome.

[Omeganian]

A Roman matron would have likely been married off to her own cousin or uncle at the age of twelve, and would have had to bear a dozen children with all the bodily changes coming from that (and would have seen most of them die). That's the harsh truth for these times, TV shows aside.

[Omeganian]

BTW, did she define a type of society she WOULD consider a better one?

[Nephtys]

This is such an absurd argument. It's like 'Aside from improvements in medicine, biology and technology, doctors haven't changed at all!'

Yes, there's an upper, middle and lower class. But the gaps are far less than they were even a few hundred years ago. So is society not going to be perfect until every cent is equalized in distribution between the people?

[ChromodynamicGirl]

If these Marxists think that society hasn't improved they should go live in the forests of some island in the south pacific they can have all to themselves. I promise nobody will give a flying f*ck about repressing them.

Also, there's nothing wrong with people having different levels of wealth. Stop confusing class (which is purely classification and arbitrary) and caste. If there is any caste it is between the politicians and their lackeys (media, University) and the rest of us who have to support these useless human leeches.

[ray245]

If these Marxists think that society hasn't improved they should go live in the forests of some island in the south pacific they can have all to themselves. I promise nobody will give a flying f*ck about repressing them.

Also, there's nothing wrong with people having different levels of wealth. Stop confusing class (which is purely classification and arbitrary) and caste. If there is any caste it is between the politicians and their lackeys (media, University) and the rest of us who have to support these useless human leeches.

Wait, you are saying people who work in universities are useless?

[Serafina]

If these Marxists think that society hasn't improved they should go live in the forests of some island in the south pacific they can have all to themselves. I promise nobody will give a flying f*ck about repressing them.

Also, there's nothing wrong with people having different levels of wealth. Stop confusing class (which is purely classification and arbitrary) and caste. If there is any caste it is between the politicians and their lackeys (media, University) and the rest of us who have to support these useless human leeches.

No, they are not confusing the two words. When Marxism historically started, caste and class were virtually indistinguishable - due to the free market economy back then, it was almost impossible to get out of the lower classes. Government regulation and government-funded education were responsible for changing that.


Oh, and if you think that politicians fulfill no useful function, you are an idiot. They DO - they coordinate the government. They are not different from employees in a company in that regard - and like a company, the government provides services. Those services are often very important. Government-funded police prevents crime, therefore ensuring public safety (which is also good for the economy). Government-funded health services and welfare ensure that people don't die (also good). Government-funded infrastructure is essential to the economy.

If you think that the media do not have a useful function, you do not understand the worth of information.
And if you think that universities do not fulfill a useful function, you are a utter retard who does not understand the value of education.

[LaCroix]

I believe CromagnonGirl would like the old days without government back.

They are called 'the dark ages'...

The person with the most money and/or men assembled an army and claimed a land 'his'. Everyone else was just living there at his sufferance. If they didn't like that, they were free to form a bigger army and make a different person king. The army/police was as bad in treating the people as the rich ones, and no social services at all. And they took from you what they wanted, when they wanted, on top of the regular taxes.

Now, we have governments where we can replace unwanted elements every few years or even earlier, law, a police force upholding it, social security, streets, hospitals, schools...

And all you have to do is pay your fee (called taxes) to be part of the 'club' or to get the fuck out and live in the woods as a hermit. You know, without paying taxes, you are stealing from the taxpayers the very moment you set your foot out of your house, using the street.

[D.Turtle]

Oh, and if you think that politicians fulfill no useful function, you are an idiot. They DO - they coordinate the government. They are not different from employees in a company in that regard - and like a company, the government provides services. Those services are often very important. Government-funded police prevents crime, therefore ensuring public safety (which is also good for the economy). Government-funded health services and welfare ensure that people don't die (also good). Government-funded infrastructure is essential to the economy,

Actually, while all of this is true, I think it is not a very effective way of defending the existence of a government, as it reinforces the thought that an effective government only exists to offer specific, directly viewable/measurable services (that a market can not or will not effectively provide).

The more important part of what a government does is provide rules and laws. It regulates what is allowed, acceptable, forbidden, restricted, etc. Government essentially provides a framework in which a society can exist.

[Serafina]

Uh, yes, of course - i guess i wanted to cover that under "police", but of course it's more extensive than that.

[Simon_Jester]

The police are just a practical detail compared to the overall structure of law, I'd argue; that's why they have so little discretion over how to enforce it.

The real contribution of the legal system exists in the minds of the people it governs: we all collectively make certain assumptions that are very good for our ability to live in civilized society, and for other people's ability to live around us. We automatically assume that arbitrarily deciding to harm other people is wrong (as opposed to merely impractical), that we will in fact be paid for things that someone contracts with us to pay us for, that the people we deal with on a day to day basis are not out to cheat us (or are cheating us only within certain acceptable bounds), and so on.

One of the biggest differences between pleasant 'first world' and unpleasant 'third world' parts of the Earth is the degree to which those assumptions take hold. Not just how many policemen are around to (in theory) enforce those assumptions, but how effective the government is at getting people to honor them even when the police are not and cannot be watching.

[D.Turtle]

Uh, yes, of course - i guess i wanted to cover that under "police", but of course it's more extensive than that.

My point is that it is a fundamentally wrong and damaging argument.

Libertarians argue against government because they believe that the role of government can be better done by private agencies. If you argue against this by pointing out various services governments currently provide, you do nothing to disprove their argument. At the same time, you also reinforce their viewpoint of government being a pure service provider. This leaves you open to lots of counter-arguments pointing towards government inefficiency etc in providing those services.

Yes, there are some areas where a government is apparently more efficient and effective than private companies providing the same service, but why open yourself to that argument at all when it is just a tiny part (and one wildly different between countries) of what a government actually does?

Instead you have to attack the assumption that a government is only there to provide certain services in a similar way to private companies.

And how you do that is by pointing out that governments provide the framework under which a society works. Police, politicians, soldiers, etc. are just a tiny part of that.

[Junghalli]

I believe CromagnonGirl would like the old days without government back.

They are called 'the dark ages'...

Even during the Dark Ages there was plenty of government. To actually go back to no government you'd have to go back a lot farther. I'm not sure even pre-human cave-men would count; they probably would have had a tribe elder or alpha male or something.

[Broomstick]

Arguably, apes like chimps and gorillas have government. It's the strong man/alpha male variety, but you typically have a lead gorilla with enforcers, politics among the females who jocky for social standing, and so forth.

[Rye]

It's a difficult subject.

Most of humanity is in horrid conditions in several cases (like in Somalia) worse conditions than pre-agriculture.

More people commit suicide now than ever before. There are more people than ever before, meaning more people on the bottom rung of society being exposed to the hideous ruthlessness of absolute poverty.

We live longer, but how much more of our life by proportion do we work? How much of it is full of irrational fears from the information overload that we rely on to keep us company outside of work?

The elites are better off than before. I'm not particularly convinced that Joe Average is.

[Nephtys]

It's a difficult subject.

Most of humanity is in horrid conditions in several cases (like in Somalia) worse conditions than pre-agriculture.

More people commit suicide now than ever before. There are more people than ever before, meaning more people on the bottom rung of society being exposed to the hideous ruthlessness of absolute poverty.

We live longer, but how much more of our life by proportion do we work? How much of it is full of irrational fears from the information overload that we rely on to keep us company outside of work?

The elites are better off than before. I'm not particularly convinced that Joe Average is.

Let's say you have a totally godawful lower-class job. Say, working retail or flipping hamburgers. Is that not better than plowing fields so that your family can eat, while your Lord takes a good chunk of the food? How much of your life is irrational fears promuglated from priests declaring that any disobedience will result in horrific damnation?

Today's absolute poverty is way better than yesterday's absolute poverty. Way, way better.