Thursday, March 31, 2011

Dictatorships and Democracy

I have wanted to touch on recent events in the Middle East/North Africa for some time now, but I almost don't know where to start. Certainly there is a lot of history related to global capitalism and imperialism that contextualizes these events. However, I think I would prefer to start at a more theoretical level and extend my earlier discussion of state power toward a discussion of democracy and dictatorships.

If you don't care to read my earlier posts, here are some key points:

1. There is only one "form of government": oligarchy. If one is referring to control over the means of legitimate state violence and the ability to create and enforce the law, this always (and can only) lie in the hands of a select few. Even in a system of representation, ultimate decision-making abilities are always monopolized by a handful of people.

2. Power is a property of relationships, which extend beyond the state. The state is not a locus or source of power.

3. The state is merely a tool of various (sometimes conflicting) capitalist interests that control the state apparatus.

It follows that there is no fundamental difference between a "democracy" (like the U.S.) and a dictatorship. Clearly, however, there is some difference. Yet, contrary to common perception, it is a difference in degree and not in kind.

In effect, "democracy" is a strategy for managing dissent that is available to nations enjoying a certain amount of wealth and infrastructural (both physical and ideological) development. By allowing people to feel as though their voices are heard and their actions have influence, "democracy" quells frustration with the system at the same time as it channels energy and actions into practices that ultimately support the system, all while creating a smokescreen to cover up the power relations that are really at play.  When people are allowed to participate in "fair" elections, lobby their congressional representatives, speak their minds on the radio or in blogs, and criticize the government without fear of retribution, people are less likely to see need for full-scale change in the current social order, even as they are being exploited. They are more likely to believe that things just need to be "tweaked" and reformed; they are more likely to believe that they live in circumstances that, while not perfect, are probably the best they can hope for; they are more likely to believe that the state exists to uphold the common good.

Thus, "democracy" is an excellent means of maintaining the status quo. If everyone could use this tactic, they probably would. Yet, there are significant barriers to the accessibility of this option.

Democracy is expensive. Many underdeveloped nations simply cannot afford to set up polling stations, invest in voting equipment, hire election officials, and take all the necessary steps to prevent fraud. Furthermore, the elections that occur in the U.S. (not sure how this compares to other countries) require a HUGE amount of wealth and resources from those who are campaigning and their associated political parties. Additionally, wealth is a requisite for development of the infrastructure that supports "democracy":

Physical infrastructure
This includes what is normally placed under the heading of infrastructure: roads, transportation, communications, public works, etc. It also includes social welfare programs and non-profit organizations (a small investment, far less than what is gained via exploitation, to ensure that people believe democracy is "working for them" and supporting their goals), and most importantly, it includes bureaucracy. There are many ways in which bureaucracies contribute to the illusion of democracy, most notably the fact that if people are able to gain employment through the state or interact on a daily basis with other "ordinary" people who represent the state in this way, the state is more likely to appear "of the people" - more anonymous and diffuse. Bureaucracies also allow agendas to be carried out in more indirect and covert ways. (For example, if certain FDA regulations are designed to support and subsidize particular agricultural industries, it is easy to employ the research of a number of public health officials and scientists to create a faux rationale for the regulation that addresses the "public good": and most of the people involved in the decision and its execution would honestly believe that is the case. Cogs in the wheel don't always know in what direction the wheel is spinning!) Finally, just as wealth supports physical infrastructure, physical infrastructure supports ideological infrastructure.

Ideological infrastructure
Partially, the ideological infrastructure consists of hegemonic ("natural" or "obvious" to the point of being unquestionable) ideas. This may include the concept of "founding principles" of the nation (usually involving freedom/liberty.... essentially meaningless terms if one looks at reality); notions of "nationhood," national unity, land rights, patriotism, loyalty, and citizenship; other ideas derived from social contract ideology - that power is located completely in the government, which, in turn, represents the will of the people; and components of neoliberal ideology - that "government" and "business" are distinct entities, that "capitalist" societies possess free markets, and that anyone can make it if they work hard enough and play by the rules of the system. These hegemonic ideas are cultivated primarily by the educational system (an important piece of physical infrastructure), political rhetoric, and the media, all mutually reinforcing one another. So, for example, to mobilize people to engage in warfare in defense of capitalist interests (which are ultimately antithetical to their own), all one needs to do is invoke discourses of patriotism, nationhood, and liberty. Interesting how every war seems to be about "defending our liberties," right?

Ideological infrastructure also involves "organized disagreement." What better way to create the illusion of "democracy" than to populate all sectors of society with diverging points of view? Thus, in the U.S. we have Republicans and Democrats; we have Fox News and MSNBC; the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post; the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal; anti-war protests and Tea Party rallies; the Open Society Institute and the Heritage Foundation. And people feel like they have options, that their choice of political leadership will shape the direction of the country, and that they participate in a "free marketplace of ideas." Yet these seemingly diametrically opposed points of view are grounded in the same fundamental assumptions (some of which are the hegemonic ideas described above) that work to uphold the social order. Any points of view which could seriously undermine the status quo are militantly squelched (and that is why Marxism is derided as "radical," "subversive," and "obviously wrong"... it is not as acceptable to be a Marxist in the U.S. as it is to be a Democrat or Republican, and it was not even legal to be a communist at certain points in our history.) People like to think it makes a differences whether they elect a Democrat or a Republican, but in reality there have been more significant changes in policy within presidential administrations than between them. For example, Reagonomics was implemented at the end of Carter's term, and Reagan himself, several years into his own tenure, took up a military Keynesianism which has continued to the present, through both Democratic and Republican adminstrations.

Therefore, in neither dictatorships nor democracies do people have the power. All states take actions to curtail civil liberties when they face some sort of "threat" to their legitimacy. The big difference is that states with more robust infrastucture do not feel as threatened as often and consequently are able to limit these actions compared to the classic dictatorship. And since infrastructure requires wealth, it is no coincidence that dictatorships are most common in the poorest countries in the world (in addition to the fact that starving people are less likely to be pacified by appeals to "liberty" and "patriotism").  Certainly, it is more comfortable to live under a "democracy" than a dictatorship, even if one has no real power, but that is just one of the many advantages of living in conditions of great wealth.

What, then, of this notion of a "power vacuum"? In truth, it is an infrastructural vacuum. Dictatorships are most likely to emerge out of infrastructural ruins: for example, that which is caused by war. (No coicidence, then, that Hitler appeared in the ravages caused by WW1....).

And what does this mean for the MENA unrest? Subject of my next post.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

More Proof that Obama is not a Marxist

The Brazilian democracy?  Really??

No Marxist in their right mind would praise one of the most stratified societies in the world.

The Real Threat of National Debt

There has been a lot of talk in the U.S. recently about national debt, balancing the budget, and reducing the federal deficit.  Many Americans think that our debt has become just too high.

It is true that national debt can undermine the long-term stability of a country.  I don't think many people would try to argue that debt is a good thing.  However, to what extent is our national debt simply a problem endemic to the U.S., and more narrowly, of irresponsible governance?  How does U.S. national debt compare to other countries?

The answer to the last question is, it's high, but certainly not the highest.  About 35 other countries have national debts that exceed the U.S.  Furthermore, world debt, as a whole, has been steadily increasing.

The increasing debt of any single country is merely a symptom of a global phenomenon that is inherent to the capitalist world system.  Manufacturing, the base of the industrial capitalist economy, has for the last few decades been characterized by a crisis of overproduction, decreasing profitability, and overall stagnation.  This, in turn, is a result of the general contradictions of the capitalist system:  in particular, the drive to increase production through economies of scale and investment in technology, while simultaneously limiting demand through the containment of wages and employment rates.

To counter the crisis of overproduction, capitalist interests have been forced to turn to the state (the life-support system of capitalism) to create demand through deficit spending, most especially on a permanent arms economy.  Thus, worldwide state deficit spending and rising national debts are a result of the inability of capitalists to sustain the profitability of their enterprises.

So, the capitalists can't maintain a high rate of profit, and what do they do?  They continue to engorge themselves with wealth, essentially by leaching money from everyone else's pocketbooks.  We all drown in debt to finance the 38% increase in wealth of the handful of the world's wealthiest.  That is where all this debt is going!!

Will balancing the budget and cutting government spending solve all our problems?  No.  Because the root of the problem is overproduction and stagnation within the manufacturing sector.  Cutting spending will just further cripple the already ailing economy... which may or may not be a bad thing.  Clearly real systemic change is needed.  If hitting rock bottom is necessary to give impetus to this change, then perhaps spending cuts will ultimately help move things in the right direction.  It will just be very painful for most of us.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Forbes Rich List: Wealth Increased By 38%

Forbes released the 2011 Rich List.  "Shockingly" it appears that the world's wealthiest are getting even wealthier.  For example:
How is it possible that the richest people in the world are continuing to get richer in the midst of a global economic recession and a long-term decline in industrial profitability?

Accumulation of wealth is always a redistribution of wealth - skewed in favor of the wealthy.  Thus, as the richest people get richer, everyone else will necessarily become poorer.  The world does not possess unlimited resources and labor power; total value is limited.  The more surplus value that is appropriated by a handful of individuals, the less there is for everyone else in the world.

So, the world's richest increased their wealth by 38% in the face of a global economic recession.  Meanwhile, more than a billion of the world's 6.91 billion population lives on less than $1 a day.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Obama Possesses An Anti-Colonial Worldview

Number One.  Obama does not possess an anti-colonial worldview.  If he did, why would he run for American public office?  Why would he perpetuate American neo-colonial foreign policy?  Why would he continue to prosecute the war in Afghanistan?  Why would he not withdraw all of the American troops from all the corners of the world?

Number Two.  What is wrong with being anti-colonial?  Generally, people who are critical of colonialism hold this attitude based on the grounds that it entailed genocide, slavery, and other forms of oppression, in addition to undermining the sovereignty and self-determination of all non-European societies.  Is there something wrong with disliking genocide, slavery, and conquest?  God help me.  I don't like it when innocent people are killed.  May I burn in hell.

Obama Is A Marxist/Anti-Colonial/Socialist/Racist/Muslim

Although these types of statements have been fairly habitual the past couple of years, a couple of recent ones have prompted me to devote a few posts to debunking these claims.

Now, for the purposes of this blog, I neither support nor oppose Obama (and honestly, that comes pretty close to my personal feelings as well).  I am not writing about this because I am an ardent follower of Obama.  I think it is relevant to my blog because the unspoken premises on which these claims are based form an important part of the ideological fabric which cloaks the forces of domination in this world.

I will start, in this post, with "Obama is a Marxist."

I wish.

Seriously, I wish.

On what grounds is this claim made?
-Actual policies?  Obama has continued, without hesitation, the economic strategies of his predecessors.  If Obama is a Marxist, then so is Ronald Reagan.

-Government take-over of healthcare?  Healthcare is probably the one area where Obama has appeared to do something different.  Appearances can be deceiving.  I will definitely devote a post to healthcare.  But, assuming Obama did make significant changes to the relationship between the state and the healthcare industry, considering that state subsidization and regulation of industry is endemic to capitalism, and considering that Marx envisioned a stateless society, this would still not make Obama a Marxist.

-Stated beliefs?  I never heard one thing come out of Obama's mouth that sounded the slightest bit Marxist.

-What about redistribution of wealth?  Obama may have made statements that directly or indirectly referenced this principle (though the accuracy of these quotes I cannot verify), but it certainly has not been a component of his platform.  Furthermore, redistribution of wealth is NOT A MARXIST PRINCIPLE!  Marxists are not so concerned with distribution of wealth per se as they are relations of production.  On the other hand, under the aegis of capitalism, a significant redistribution of wealth occurs every day - from the poor to the rich.  The excesses of millionaires are financed by the Third World.

-I am afraid of black people, especially when they attain positions of power?  Now we're getting somewhere...

So I say to all of you, as a proud Marxist, Obama is not one of us!!  Please don't call him a Marxist!

Monday, March 7, 2011

Myths About Marx

In my first post, I listed some common misconceptions about Marx, Marxism, and communism... sort of as a teaser.  Now that I have sketched a rough outline of my Marxist perspective, I thought it might be a good time to revisit that list of myths and explain (briefly) why these beliefs are unfounded.  Hopefully I will have time in future posts to expand on some of these a bit more.  (The last two on the list I have already touched on to some extent, so I will postpone, for now, discussing them further.)

1.  Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests.  Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.

2.  Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality.  He never criticized individual expression.  The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential.  In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life.  However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.  

Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy.  Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.

3.  Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind.  Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.

4.  Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism.  Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale.  One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor:  machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit. 

5.  Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare.  He never advocated violence.  He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation.  (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.)  Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.

6.  Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism.  I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.

  • Marx argued that the communist revolution could only occur after attaining a certain level of technological development and globalization, which had certainly not been reached by 1917, nor even now.
  • Marx was very clear that true a communist revolution had to be a global movement.  It could not occur in one country or one region of the world alone.
  • Marx's utopia was stateless... it was not a ruthless, genocidal dictatorship/empire.
  • The revolution in Russia turned into a movement toward industrialization, which, I have already argued, made it more capitalist.  For Marx, the communist revolution was a movement from industrial society to something different.
I should definitely do a post about this one, because I could keep going on and on and on....

Sunday, March 6, 2011


Now that I have set out most of the main premises of my Marxist worldview, which I will be elaborating in future posts, probably with more attention to specific current events, I thought it would be a good idea to summarize the ideas I have presented so far before moving on.

  • Accumulation of wealth, in general, occurs through relationships of exploitation and the limitation of competition (often via use of state mechanisms).  Accumulation of wealth is always a redistribution of wealth, and as such, it strains the very system by which it occurs, rendering it unsustainable for any particular individual or corporation in the long run.
  • Power is not a "thing" that one "has" but a characteristic of relationships (acting upon another's actions).  Most forms of power are decentralized and present in any type of social relationship.  Sovereignty is a more centralized form of power that adheres between an institution wielding legitimate use of violence and enforcement of law, and those upon whom the legitimate violence and rule of law are exercised.  Nominally, the former is "the state," although the state is actually a tool employed by the dominant groups of society.

  • The primary defining characteristic of capitalism is wage labor.
  • Wage labor allows for large-scale organization of production and investment in technology that creates "economies of scale."
  • When production occurs at such a large scale and is simultaneously oriented only toward profit-making goals rather than the actual societal need, over-production is the inevitable result.
  • To overcome crises of over-production, capitalists must create demand (results:  excessive marketing and advertising, constantly outmoded technology and outdated fashions, a consumerist lifestyle, state deficit spending, extension of credit, increasing public and personal debt).
  • However, the ultimate result of over-production is decreasing profitability of the manufacturing sector and economic stagnation, as well as waste on a large scale.
  • For example, as we have all seen, U.S. deficit spending and the stock-market and housing bubbles created by extension of credit were not ultimately able to overcome the global crisis of over-production and economic stagnation that emerged in the late 1960s.  It only postponed the inevitable and made the fall much more drastic.
  • Since the late 1960s, any period of economic growth in one country has been accomplished primarily through the manipulation of exchange rates and other monetary policy (rather than resolving the global crisis of over-production) and, thus, has occurred directly at the expense of all the others.

  • Under capitalism, the condition of wage labor constituting the basis of value provides a point of intersection between sovereign power (self-interested, territorial, focused on wealth and resources) and governmental power (oriented toward the management and cultivation of the life, productivity, and health of populations).  Governmental power relationships have greatly expanded, encompassing more areas of life, and have been appropriated to a limited degree by the state.  Simultaneously, life itself has come to constitute a basis of sovereignty, whereas previously people were only encountered as objects of secondary importance to territory and resources.
  • Thus, under capitalism, life itself has become a grounds of political struggle and power.  (For example, the issue of abortion and defining when life begins.)

  • The profitability of capitalist enterprise requires cheap inputs.
  • This was initially provided by the emergence of a class of landless, unemployed peasants (dispossessed of their land) whose labor could be exploited.  This was followed by the large-scale use of slave labor in the American colonies.
  • Later, capitalists were forced to turn their attention toward procuring cheaper raw materials.  This was achieved via colonization of the rest of the world where these resources were located.
  • More recently, there has been a swing back toward the pursuit of cheap labor, as well as cheap "light" manufactured goods as inputs for more "value-added" industry.  This is accomplished by using "neocolonial" relationships of exploitation to open the markets of formerly colonized nations to multi-national corporations.  This also serves the purpose of creating additional markets for commodities in the face of global over-production.
  • These are the relationships of exploitation that characterize capitalist accumulation of wealth.
  • The end result is an increasing gap between the wealthiest nations and the poorest.

  • These realities are concealed from popular awareness by a number of ideologies that uphold the social order.
  • Social contract ideology promotes the belief that states have a power of their own, apart from dominant groups, and by consent of all the citizens.  In so far as states are seen as the real locus of power, rather than dominant groups, all attempts to limit or combat power are errantly directed at the state, such as trying to "reduce the size of government."
  • Social contract ideology also encourages people to view economies as nationally bounded, and to assume that state policies (or lack thereof) are the root cause of economic growth and recession.  Thus, economic crises are not seen as resulting from inherent flaws in a global system, but as something which can be "fixed" and permanently avoided through the proper state action (or inaction, depending on one's perspective).
  • Neoliberal ideology supports the belief that the system is fair, the playing field is level, and any inequalities result from "natural" inadequacies and moral deficiencies.  Thus, poverty is accepted as the just due of the unworthy.  It is not the consequence of exploitation or an inherently unjust system.

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Accumulation of Wealth

I have already discussed some of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system, but I think it is important to identify some more general characteristics of the accumulation of wealth, based on historical patterns, that may shed some light on those that pertain specifically to capitalism (the items in my list below link to previous posts so that a comparison may be made).

**By accumulation of wealth, I mean accumulation far beyond what one can produce by oneself or among a freely associating group of people, given whatever technology is available at the time.

1.  It occurs at the expense of others.
2.  It is generally dependent on some form of state support.
3.  It is dependent on limitations to competition.
4.  It is always unsustainable in the long run.
     -The greater the economic expansion, the more strain is put on the system, and thus the bigger and faster the subsequent collapse
5.  Continuing to invest in a profitable enterprise ultimately reduces its profitability.
6.  Expansion occurs primarily via:
     -Strategic monopolies
     -The debt of other people
7.  Contrary to neoliberal ideology:
     -Success derives from a mixture of relative initial weakness and historical accident
     -The most successful enterprises lose their adaptability in the process of attaining their success and ultimately fail
     -Unfettered competition generally leads to decreased profitability for everyone

Friday, March 4, 2011

Neoliberal Ideology

Just as the ideology of Progress has been absolutely vital to the development of current power structures, its highly successful offspring, neoliberal ideology, is crucial to the maintenance of systemic inequality.

Neoliberal ideology is a "survival of the fittest" perspective that upholds competition and individualism as the engine of Progress.  According to this ideology, wealth is the result of harder work, higher intelligence, and superior techniques, and, as such, is in some way a measure of a person's worth as a human being.  Competition ensures Progress by weeding out the "unworthy" and incentivizing beneficial behaviors by giving them their just due.

Neoliberalism is perhaps so successful because it has found fertile ground in multiple domains, particularly in various sciences (giving it the appearance of a "natural law").  For example, some of the earliest evidence of neoliberalism (or, at that time, just "liberalism") is apparent in the field of demography with the concept of "survival of the fittest."  At the same time, analogies were made between the domains of economics, population studies, and biology, ultimately leading to Social Darwinism in economics (classical economics itself being pervaded by neoliberal ideology), and Darwinian evolutionary theory.  The latter, for its part, was from the very beginning associated with racism and the eugenics movement.  The first European eugenics society was spearheaded by Darwin's compadres.  All of these schools of thought and social movements are examples of neoliberal ideology because they are premised on the idea that the "unfittest" of the human race should not be given a helping hand, lest they get in the way of Progress, which demands that they wither away and leave only the strong to survive.

(Although I am no ardent Darwin fan, I would be remiss if I did not note:  Darwin himself did not espouse a "survival of the fittest" paradigm.  He put forward more of a tautological observation that the effect of a particular trait on reproductive success, if any, and according to given environmental conditions, which are always subject to change, determines its prevalence within a population.  Thus, if something is "fit," it is only fit for the particular conditions that exist now, and not in general; and it is "fit" only in terms of reproduction.)

It is clear how neoliberal ideology legitimates the social order.  It is used to create the illusion of an equal playing field while diverting attention away from exploitation and enduring structures of inequality.  Inequality is perceived to result from "natural" differences in ability, intelligence, work ethic, etc.  Consequently, the poor are held responsible for their poverty and the rich are venerated for their success - for wealth is a measure of one's moral character.

Additionally, neoliberalism seeks to channel movements for social reform into strategies based on competition, market participation, private/individual initiative and the use of inequalities to create incentives:  processes that exacerbate existing inequalities by more fully entrenching the poor and oppressed in the exploitative relationships that structure the "free" market.  Any reform movement that seriously challenges the status quo, such as redistribution of wealth, is seen as an egregious crime against nature.

Finally, neoliberal ideology, by insisting that our current economic system is based on free market enterprise (when, in fact, it has limited the freedom of markets), allows capitalism to be defined in such a way that everything desirable is encompassed  by the definition (freedom, technology, efficiency) while the pitfalls and limitations (waste, debt, instability, monopolies, exploitation) of capitalism are, not only excluded, but construed as either internal "malfunctions" (the result of rogue individuals not playing by the rules; e.g. those idiots on Wall Street who created the current financial crisis) or as external rivals pitted against the capitalist system.  Every negative aspect of capitalism in its essence is portrayed as a perversion of capitalism or its antithesis.

In sum, neoliberal ideology looks at structures of exploitation and oppression and insists it is watching a fair game conducted on an even playing field.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

The Ideology of Progress

The real master ideology of modernity, which has spawned the neoliberal ideology that I will be discussing in the next post, is that of Progress.

Quite simply, the ideology of Progress is an ardent faith that things are constantly getting "better."  Society is evolving, knowledge is increasing, and humans are gradually mastering the universe.  Of course, the foundations of this belief are not quite so sound.  First, there is the question of what criteria one chooses to measure Progress, and generally there is circular logic at play:  the criteria that are chosen are those which support the Progress narrative, while other aspects of life are deemed irrelevant.  Second, things are not so black and white.  Any beneficial development will simultaneously have its downside.  For example, while technological innovation and industrialization have greatly increased the efficiency and comfort of many people's lives, they are also responsible for massive waste, environmental degradation, and highly destructive weapons.  Third, the ideology of Progress has rested on a certain distortion or ignorance of historical and ethnographic evidence.  For instance, many people are unaware of the various complexities of non-industrial societies, or the unprecedented scale at which poverty has increased since the industrial revolution.

However, I should cut myself off there, because my goal in this post is not to "disprove" the ideology of Progress, but rather identify its important role in modern thought and point to its effects.

More generally, by forcing us to focus on all of the positives of the social order, to minimize the negatives and identify them with a receding past, we are less likely to challenge structures of domination and to truly understand our social world.  Additionally, Progress has great legitimating power.  Any number of things may be justified by recourse to Progress, including violence and discrimination.

A very specific consequence of the ideology of Progress is that it enables the perception that the accumulation of wealth is something that occurs in and of itself, by internal forces, rather than through relationships which ultimately only alter the distribution of wealth.  Thus, the relationship between wealth and poverty is never fully examined, and wealth on an unprecedentedly large scale is not viewed with caution.