The Myth of Progress

The Myth of Progress

Part 1: Progress, Modes of Production & Consequences

§1. Define “Progress”

1.1 Progress is an excessively utilised tool of political phraseology in the modern world. Generally speaking, progress is the fundamental aim or goal of society and has been accepted as such by actors from all points along the political spectrum, so much so that it would be no exaggeration to describe political discourse as demonstrative of a Cult of Progress. Nevertheless, for a term used so frequently and with such fanatical certainty, it’s a notion that we have failed to define. What is progress? What attributes are associated with policy initiatives deemed progressive?

1.2 Regardless of society’s pretence in the socio-cultural sphere, it largely appraises progress in economic terms. The way in which it does this are both conscious and subconscious, abstract and tangible. The abstract measure of progress is what we might call the Aesthetic of Progress. We can define this as the presence of urban centres of business denoted by a saturation of skyscrapers, office blocks and recognisable brands, coupled with the widespread presence of technologically advanced devices and machines (mobile phones, computerisation) that have cosmetic or practical application. Such a measure is not consciously appreciated, but subconsciously recognised. Our sensory perception, when it detects this aesthetic, recognises that the immediate environment is “progressive” in contrast to the past or in underdeveloped parts of the world, in which “progress” has not yet occurred.

1.3 Additionally, we have more tangible measures that are widely accepted to denote progress by way of economic advancement. Invariably these measures are simply means by which we quantify production; Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is perhaps the most commonly used and widely accepted measure of economic development (“progress”), which simply measures the value of production in any given economic territory – this being a thoroughly more accurate term than ‘nation’ in the modern era. Another popular measure is disposable income and, by implication, the ability of individuals within a territory to purchase non-essential material goods.

1.4 What we quickly notice when analysing these measures of progress is that they measure nothing more than the relative optimisation of mass production. Mass production is the mode of production that has, since the Industrial Revolution, ostensibly driven the growth of GDP and the presence of surplus wealth within an economy. Thus, we can conclude that “progress” is measured by the degree of efficiency attained by this particular mode of production.

1.5 This way of measuring progress is obviously and fundamentally flawed. The obvious problem is that it is radically subjective and fails to take into account any notion of human development – we have no evidence that this mode of production, with all its alleged benefits, produces any anthropocentric benefit, but we have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Considering “progress” does no less than defines the direction of mankind, to use a subjective measure such as the regnant mode of production is clearly flawed.

1.6 To measure progress, we really must shift our perspective entirely. We must avoid falling prey to the Aesthetic of Progress, abandon GDP idolatry and embrace an authentic, anthropocentric measure(s) that determines human progress. It is entirely more sensible to measure progress using metrics such as physical health and longevity of the individual, as well as his or her psychological-spiritual wellbeing. These encompass human experience in its entirety and do not succumb to the biases of economy.

1.7 When we shift our perspective of progress from the subjective material to the objective metaphysical, we begin to sense that the culprit of regression is in fact the very thing that we believed to be the source of progress. That is to say that the present, bourgeois mode of production – to borrow a phrase – exerts a corrosive influence to progress when a cursory analysis is conducted.

§2. Industrialism

1.1 There are many terms than can be used to describe our present economic system. As to what it is, we may say that in practical terms it is the bourgeois mode of production for reasons to be made clear below. The overarching ideological driver of our economy and, thus, our civilisation, is Industrialism. This term is accurate because our economic system has remained fundamentally unchanged since the Industrial Revolution ushered in the concept of mass production, AKA the bourgeois mode of production.

1.2 We call it the bourgeois mode of production because, now as it was then, Industrialism consists of products produced en masse by the many for the profit of the few.

1.3 Yet this is not descriptive enough of its characteristics. The key aspects of a society beholden to the Industrial Mindset are the mass production of all produce, rabid materialism, overpopulation, wage slavery and the destruction of the environment. These aspects of Industrialism are as present now, perhaps even to a greater degree, as they were at the height of the Industrial Revolution.

1.4 Moreover, we shouldn’t fall into the trap of assuming our fundamental economic structure has changed, simply because coal mines and general manufacturing are rapidly declining in the western world. Crucially, it is not what is being produced that defines Industrialism, but rather the mode of production – how it is produced and for whose benefit. Nevertheless, the products are relevant for certain aspects of our discussion.

1.5 Observe the modern economy and one may witness precisely what their forebears witnessed centuries earlier; all industry, whether service or manufacturing, is owned by a small number of proprietors. Individuals within a society are coerced, through various indirect political measures, into Wage Slavery (they have little choice but to sell their labour to one or another of the industry owners). Rabid materialism prevails, so society’s highest virtue is the ability to accumulate products mistakenly believed to be of importance. Any higher purpose is, of course, forsaken. Perpetual growth demanded by business owners and shareholders stimulates overpopulation, whilst the associated problems destroy more and more of the natural world, an endeavour aided and abetted by those manufacturers who take no issue with exploiting natural resources that they neither own nor care for.

§3. Industrialism as Antagonist

1.1  There are myriad reasons why Industrialism is regressive, most notably because it fails the basic test of genuine, anthropocentric progress; it negatively affects the physical and psychological wellbeing of humanity.

1.2  Industrialism in the past required man to work physically dangerous tasks in extremely unhealthy environments, such as in mines or polluted factories. Whilst such practises are no longer commonplace, we must not believe, therefore, that modern employment in the industrial society is healthy. The office, for instance, is a fantastic example; one may not be likely to suffer some fatal misfortune, but the lack of natural light, physical activity and so on are pernicious health hazards that produce similar, if delayed, results.

1.3  Modern society demonstrates this perfectly. The greatest health problems of our age are obesity and mental illness (depression & anxieties, or general psychological malaise). This is almost exclusively due to the economic dictations made upon the lifestyle of man, forcing him to live in an inauthentic manner which is inevitably detrimental to his health.

1.4  The demands Industrialism makes upon a society, most notably in the form of overpopulation, are also pernicious and will prove fatal. Not only are urban centres expanding at an increasingly rapid rate, destroying all natural environments in their wake, but the increasing numbers of people dwelling therein consume fuel (thus contributing to pollution), demand public services and, due to the density of habitation, contribute to the rapid spread of disease. The environments naturally occurring in most territories are able to sustain only a fraction of the population currently burdening them.

1.5  Moreover, the city as magnet and stimulation for overpopulation, along with the consumer consequences of mass production, have created an environment in which the individual is no longer such, but instead represents a depersonalised cog in a machine designed to benefit society’s self-appointed leaders. Personal relations are no longer personal, material frivolities are worshipped as the highest good.

1.6  Most corrosively of all, the natural communion between man and nature has been shattered by the emergence of the city as the home of peoples. We now know little more than concrete and artificial structure, having long forgotten the relationship we once enjoyed between ourselves and the land, the very ground on which we live. The spark of nature that one feels when in the presence thereof can no longer be felt; the spiritual peculiarity is but mere myth.

1.7  Modern society knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The abovementioned consequences of Industrialism, coupled with this devaluation of values, are the antithesis of progress. Man is worse, physically, spiritually amd psychologically, as a direct result of the bourgeois mode of production.

§4. Industrialism vs. Nature

1.1  Perhaps of equal tragedy, if not more tragic, than the corrosive affects of Industrialism on humanity are its severely harsh crimes against the natural world.

1.2  In the first instance, deforestation was the mainstay of Industrial antagonism against the natural world. Western Europe was, as recently as 2,000 years ago, covered entirely in forestland – mass agriculture must bear some blame for its destruction, also. But as a result of mass production, we have all but destroyed the forestry of Europe. In North America, too, the story is similar.

1.3  This has had unforeseen consequences; our air is less clean, of course, and we have a weaker natural immune response to increasing carbon dioxide emissions. But equally, we have fundamentally changed the climate already; deforestation is the primary culprit behind the increased flooding we witness in so-called advanced societies, in addition to the stronger winds and sudden changes in weather patterns than are harming many western areas.

1.4  Industrialism is also the primary antagonist against the animal world which we, as the most intelligent product thereof, have a responsibility to protect. Instead, we have permitted mass production to dictate our behaviour towards animals, which has become increasingly barbaric. Overpopulation requires more inhumane methods of animal captivity, rearing and slaughter, whilst corporations, always seeking to “perfect” the latest faux innovation, think nothing of testing their theories on unsuspecting creatures of nature.

1.5  The expanse of the urban centre, as well as the greater expansion of the corporate world, are responsible for the extinction of massive numbers of animal species. It is true to say that 99.9% of all species ever to have existed on our planet are now extinct – many due to our actions

1.6  We have failed to grasp the anthropological damage caused by this assault on the natural world. Man is fundamentally a product of nature – he is not above or beyond it, as the Industrial mindset asserts. Our greater intelligence does not permit our abdication of responsibility towards the natural order. Thus, we cannot act in disharmony with nature without consequence. We disrespect nature at our peril. What is bad for nature is bad for us, for we are of it, not detached from it.

§5. Mass Society

1.1  Since the dawn of the human race, the earth has been sparsely populated by us. After the first expansion of anatomically modern humans into Eurasia, what is now Europe was home to no more than 3,000 humans; that’s not to claim this to be an ideal number, but it adds perspective to today’s population of Europe which sits at over 500 million. The planet’s global population of 7 billion is absurd.

1.2  Mass production is persistently seeking to grow its capital and, therefore, increase output. Increased output may only be realised by increased input, thus the demand for wage slaves is perennially increasing. This drives up population until we reach a state of Mass Society – that is, a depersonalised, rootless collection of people; the masses.

1.3  This is perpetuated by the requirement of Industrialism for an always increasing pool of consumers, to whom it may sell its produce. This has the dual effect of fuelling population growth and perpetuating commodity idolatry.

1.4  Moreover, the “individuals” who comprise the mass are totally devoid of any individuality and authenticity; they behave in uniformity, performing identical roles and consuming identical commodities. The vast majority have nothing of themselves with which to present a case for individuality or anything that creates a demarcation between themselves and the robot.

1.5  The vast majority of thinking people are well aware that the planet is drastically overpopulated. Humanity is overwhelming the planet, its resources and other species like a parasite, consuming until nothing remains but dust.

1.6  The degree to which mankind is making physical, psychological or spiritual progress is inversely correlated to the number of people present in society. Only through personalisation and individuation, which are only possible when man is free to live within nature rather than as an oppressive force upon it, can we make true, anthropocentric progress.

§6. Industrialism and Power

1.1  An oft overlooked element of the Industrial model of economy is the way in which it wields political power in its own right. We overlook this because we labour under the delusion that the political is supreme and wields an economy that is downstream from it. This is essentially backwards; the political runs downstream from the economic in Industrialised societies. The metapolitical environment is wholly dependent on the bourgeois mode of production.

1.2  This means that elected representatives in a democracy cannot possibly enact the will of their electorate, regardless of their pretences. Rather, political power simply reacts to the demands of Industrialism. It exists purely to structure society in a manner favourable to the bourgeois mode of production. In other words, the political is yet another tool of the economic with which Industrialism can optimise mass production.

1.3  Inevitably, this offers no recourse to ordinary people within a society. They are entirely at the whims of Industrialism and what it will or won’t permit.

1.4  This strikes at a more fundamental point, namely that Industrialism removes the power of free choice from the individual, neutralising his ability to shape his own destiny in an authentic manner in harmony with himself and the world. From youth, man is subject to the forces of Industrialism, actualised by political power. Where he lives, his occupation and hobbies are effectively chosen for him by the economy under whose tyranny he exists.

1.5  Furthermore, this shares traits with the problems engendered by mass society. The demands of Industrialism for an ever-increasing urban zone of labour and consumers effectively remove the power of the individual to exercise freedom of association. Who he builds a community with is entirely out of his control; he shall dwell amongst the fellow wage slaves places there by the economy.

1.6  Removing the power of the individual to shape his own destiny, to exercise fundamental freedoms that contribute to his individuality, is regressive by any measure, but especially by our anthropocentric measures defined previously. And a society governed by Industrialism is akin to feudalism in all but name and, thus, must be considered equally antithetical to progress.

Part 2, Further Evaluation

§7. Medical Innovation

1.1  It is often charged at those opposed to Industrialism that this mode of production is complementary of medical innovation and, thus, is inherently valuable and important for the wellbeing of mankind. Clearly this is a falsehood. This defines correlation as causation, an elementary mistake. It is, of course, true that life expectancy is greater now than prior to the Industrial Revolution, but this has arisen in spite, not as a result, of Industrialism.

1.2  We see throughout recent history that medical advancement and industrial perpetuation are diametrically opposed concepts and antagonistic towards one another. This stems from the primary values at the cores of each; in medicine, the primary motivator for innovation is the benefit derived for humanity; whereas, the industrial motive for advancement is simply profit.

1.3  The primary objection given today against the utilisation of revolutionary innovations in the medical sphere is the cost of mass producing it for the number of people who would require it. This demonstrates brilliantly the concept in point 1.2, namely that medical advancement and the bourgeois mode of production are effectively incompatible. Medical innovation may only be accessible should it fit within the scope of Industrialism.

1.4  Moreover, the ability to harness new innovations in the medical sphere are hampered by the overpopulation we’re experiencing today.

1.5  This effect is compounded by the proclivity of densely populated urban centres to act as breeding grounds for the genetic mutation and proliferation of viruses. We are witnessing the rise of the superbug, or, in medical terms, the emergence of drug-resistant strains of infection that are spreading in overpopulated urban centres and their hospitals. This will render medicine’s most important discover, penicillin, obsolete, and present a catastrophic risk to the health and wellbeing of humanity.

§8. Industrialism is not Technology

1.1  It is common for people to make a link between Industrialism and technological advancement, as if to suggest the latter is not possible without the former. Industrialists, aware of our reliance on modern technologies especially in the field of medicine, perpetuate this myth in order to ensure a perception of their system as indispensable.

1.2  This is a false dichotomy. Industrialism has indeed harnessed technological innovation for its own ends, to optimise production, but is certainly not responsible for creating it. The only technology for which Industrialism can claim responsibility are those things exclusive to production.

1.3  Otherwise, we must recognise the real source of technological innovation. Advances are generally made at particular instances, rather than over the course of long periods of time, and they are made by rare individuals of genius intellect who pursue an idea for curiosity’s sake.

1.4  Industrialists themselves are parasites who feed upon the innovations of others. Never, in the history of innovation and Industry, has an Industrialist entered into that sphere first and then became a technological innovator. Neither is it true to say that innovators are motivated by the foresight through which they envisage the profit maximisation potential of their endeavours.

1.5  The crucial point here is that we must uncouple the notions of Industrialism and technological advancement from one another, cease to view them as complementary and instead observe the true, parasitic relation in play.

1.6  Furthermore, the implication running strongly throughout this document that we must break from Industrialism does not similarly imply plans to break with technological advancement. One may alter his way of life radically, without expunging the knowledge of what came before from his intellect.

§9. Benefits of Industrialism?

1.1  As with anything evaluated by the human mind, the question of Industrialism’s benefit or lack thereof to progress is not entirely one-sided. Industrialism is, essentially, a Curate’s Egg, one which is mostly rotten but that, nevertheless, contains positive aspects. We must recognise these.

1.2  Mass transit systems were initially conceived of in the context of Industrialism, for they enabled the products of mass production to be transported to new consumers outside of its immediate catchment area. Railways, for instance, are an example of transportation designed to move goods to consumers and labourers to the centres of industry.

1.3  Transportation, insofar as it operates complimentary to the environment, is largely progressive in its application independent of Industrialism. It broadens the horizons of man, enabling human relations otherwise not possible, as well as giving one the power to experience things otherwise unreachable. Thus, we may conclude this is largely positive in terms of human progress.

1.4  Other innovations, initially developed with an industrial application in mind, can be considered complimentary to human progress. The advent of mass communications and access to information has greatly enriched the lives of individuals around the world. Communications, especially, have enabled a coordination of family and community life that was previously challenging.

1.5  Equally, widespread access to knowledge must always be viewed as an objective good. The individual now has the power to access knowledge that, in ages of old, was out of reach to the vast majority of people. We have the power to enrich our experiences with information and arm ourselves with information that has all manner of practical utility.

1.6  It is important to remember that these and other potential benefits of Industrialism are not dependent on the latter; concrete sprawls and wage slavery are not required conditions for railways and the internet.

Part 3, Conceiving a New Society

§10. Authentic Modes of Living

1.1  To rediscover and perpetuate human authenticity, we must completely abandon the Industrialism economic model. This means abandoning the city, wage slavery, mass production, “nothing sectors” (banking, speculation, insurance etc), Mass Society and, generally, the urban way of life.

1.2  Authenticity is to be found by breaking down the artificially erected barriers between man and nature, thus reigniting the communion between them.

1.3  Such a return to ruralism will enable man to make progress once again in the spheres of physical, psychological and spiritual health. This can be achieved by reuniting the individual with land and community, perpetuating the notion of labour of necessity for the common good, and the broader migration from indoor to outdoor modes of production.

1.4  In this realm, we must reject the notion of mass production and economic surplus. We must produce to meet the authentic requirements of real people untainted by the manipulation engaged in by Industrialism at present.

1.5  To do this, we must reinvent the concept of individual specialisation, so that products are created by humans for human needs.

1.6  Rural communities, which must form the bedrock of the New Society, may then possess a carpenter, a craftsman, a baker, an artist, a writer, farmers and so on, but need not the city that can only mass produce a substandard perversion of these human skills. That these communities have little need for the banker, the speculator and the factory requires nothing except confirmation.

1.7  Additionally, we must rediscover a sense of communalism and cooperation of a tribal nature present prior to the advent of Industrialism and mass production. In other words, we shall repair the broken social relations that plague mass society and instead foster a sense of progress towards common goals of health, fulfilment and the satisfaction of our basic needs, as opposed to the antagonism and hostile competition between peoples today.

1.8  To nurture man’s relationship with nature, it is necessary to abandon the concept of artificial fortress that determines habitation today.

§11. Sustainable Communities

1.1  To say communities are unsustainable in the modern world would be misleading, for there is no such thing that can be described as community in existence.

1.2  A community is a collection of individuals who have freely chosen their neighbours, and who are united therewith in terms of common goals and, thus, collective progress. It is also personal and, therefore, it is necessarily small in size of both land area and population.

1.3  A sustainable community is one which does not encroach upon the natural world, but lives instead in harmony with it. It is rural in that it is of nature, but not against it.

1.4  Harmony exists between nature and community when the fundamental structures of the latter are compatible with the former. Therefore, a sustainable community does not pollute its environment with the consumption of fossil fuels, nor does it build its dwellings of materials not consistent with local ecology.

1.5  Leadership and political direction in the sustainable community appears radically different to that which we know in industrial society. In the sustainable community, individuals are aware of their naturally ordained responsibilities towards anthropocentric progress, and are thus capable of exercising political power without recourse to faux representatives.

1.6  In practical terms, a community must be small enough, from necessity, so that every individual may contribute towards the public forum. More permanent leaders may emerge of the natural order, but this should not hamper the community’s ability to make genuine progress and shape its own destiny.

1.7  The individual of the sustainable community does not require political authority to confer rights upon him, but rather he is aware of his power to shape his own destiny unmolested by Industrialism’s demands.

1.8  Yet, the sustainable community cannot harbour an imbalance between the needs of the individual and the collective. Industrialism has produced both extremes of this spectrum, with disastrous consequences.

1.9  A sustainable community is not necessarily of fixed abode; there is no contradiction between nomadic and sedentary modes of existence, for authenticity can be found within both.

§12. Radical Ecology

1.1  Rapid measures must be taken to reverse the catastrophic damage to both humanity and nature by industrial society.

1.2  It is necessary to address the overpopulation of our planet, for both the sake of nature and human health and wellbeing.

1.3  It is also necessary to destroy, with great prejudice, the great artificial structures appearing like tumours in our territories. This means, in practical terms, tearing down the concrete monstrosities and returning as much land as is feasible to its natural state.

1.4  In the areas vacated by the urban centre, radical reforestation should be practised. Our ambition should be a territory of majority forestland.

1.5  For the wellbeing of mankind and nature, we must immediately abandon polluting forms of energy production in favour of sustainable sources of energy enabled by our technological knowledges. This means harnessing solar, wind and hydroelectric potential, as well as exploring other clean energy sources.

1.6  As mentioned in §4, man has abdicated his responsibility to the natural world. As the most intelligent product of nature, we must embrace this responsibility and not neglect our role in its maintenance.

1.7  To this end, it is incumbent upon us to protect as much of earth’s biodiversity – flora and fauna, and human. This means the cessation of our encroachment on natural habitats, a total abandonment of the usage of animals in mass production, a commitment to avoid causing unnecessary suffering to living things and the maintenance of our surrounding environments.

Part 4, A Warning

Society is sick. The symptoms of this sickness are myriad and overwhelmingly evident. We, as a people, almost universally agree that our existence has little purpose, that our occupations are meaningless and that our personalities are based upon material frivolities. We display the signs of collective despair, with rates of psychological malaise increasing at such a rate that really should encourage us to address the reality of the situation. Furthermore, we are in such dire physical and spiritual health, individually and collectively, that it is plain to the meanest intellect or knowledge of history that something is disturbingly wrong with our society. Yet, the vast majority of people fail to see it. We have been conditioned so thoroughly by the Industrial Society that we believe the cause of our malaise to be the cure, and the genuine cure to be undesirable.

We are living through the Myth of Progress, for we are aggressively pursuing an agenda that is inherently regressive yet sold as otherwise by those who direct it.

We may take solace in the fact, however, that this “civilisation” will collapse whether we take part in its destruction or not. The problem, though, is in allowing it to run its course. With each passing day, rabid Industrialism damages people and the environment to such an extent that we’re bordering the irreversible. The almighty crash with which industrial society will implode upon itself, if permitted to run its course, risks the very future of nature. Put simply, we may not have the opportunity to rectify this aberration should we fail to act in order to mitigate the harm. Therefore, take head of this warning. Ensure that the perception of progress as subjective materialism is not permitted to continue unchallenged, and that we strive, in everything we do, for an objective metaphysical approach to the notion of human progress.