The relationship among "progress", "economic growth", and "increased consumption" needs to be clarified. If growth means more material consumption (more coal, more steel, more plastic, more tchotchkes and rubbish, then no. If "economic growth" means more services provided socially and more efficiently, then yes. More cars, no. More railcars, yes. More 1 use throwaways, no. More multiple use and recycling, yes. More built-to-last, yes, built for 25 years then landfill, no.

Extreme global warming may render the whole discussion irrelevant. But assuming we can and actually do reduce CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases to the point where worst-case scenarios don't kick in, there remains the problem of population growth. 12 billion people isn't going to work very well either, and this isn't just a Third World problem. 500,000,000 Americans are too many as well.

Shrinking population without the aid of horrendous epidemics, mass starvation, or nuclear war is really quite difficult to plan. Most population control schemes tend to lead to mushroom shaped age distributions which are quite problematic: Too many old people and way too few young people. Forced birth and death schemes (1 child policy for young people, suicide at 75 for old people) are not generally well received. Now, it may be that epidemics and mass starvation will save us the trouble of having to manage birth and death so that we get a sustainable population. But Mother Nature's approaches are not very pleasant either. And Mother Nature may opt to kill you! and me! rather than our stupid, avaricious, wasteful, bourgeois neighbors.

If by "progress" we mean an upward leveling off, so that everyone lives like upper-middle class people (meaning, professional/technical education, family incomes in the +/- $200,000 range, spacious home, cabin on the lake, 2 luxury cars, world travel, frequent fine restaurant meals, excellent sport and recreational equipment, and so on), then NO.

If by "progress" we mean an upward leveling off where cultural goods (esp. an over-all high literacy rate, solid education in technical, liberal arts, or professional trades, excellent enriched child care, etc.) and opportunities to use one's skills and intelligence for the common good are plentiful (rather than material accumulation--a la entrepreneurial culture), without the expectation of high levels of material consumption, then YES.

I'm not suggesting that highly literate, educated people should contribute to the over-all well being of society but then live in a box under a bridge (albeit with a high speed broadband connection and a tablet computer). Rather, I'm suggesting that the quality of cultural participation level up and the quantity of material consumption level down.

For poor countries, there has to be a leveling up of basic goods: housing, health care, education, communication. For rich countries, there has to be a leveling down of material consumption.

"Socialism" and "Planning" go together like sunshine and orange juice, but successful planning is very difficult.

The elimination of human suffering caused by material scarcity and inequality requires the development of science and technology and an anticapitalist vision of economic growth. Many progressive activists today are skeptical of material growth, for ecological reasons and a concern with consumerism. But this often confuses consumption for its own sake and as a status symbol with the legitimate popular desire to live a better material life, and wasteful and ecologically damaging economic growth with economic growth as such.

For decades social democrats allied with left-leaning conservatives in a consensus that with growth, everyone wins. But this obscured the fact that the fundamental problem within an advanced Western economy is one of distribution. This is distribution of power and wealth as much as income: our businesses are as dictatorial as North Korea, our unions are hobbled and disempowered,
At the same time, the ecological argument against overall economic growth is becoming more and more compelling. Fossil fuels can't supply the energy of the future; climate change demands a dramatic shift to sustainability straight away. Steady-state economics is feasible and manageable, but it does take away the cover story that a rising tide lifts all ships. That doesn't work any longer. The rich get richer while the rest stagnate or get worse off.
Steady-state economics doesn't stop there being 'progress'. There has to be technological change and enterpreneurial innovation. Nil economic growth isn't stagnation, it's just a decision that we can't, as a rich country, keep on exploiting the planet and its people - ourselves - as we have done.

I think steady-state economics doesn't even stop economic growth; it would stop economic growth based on increased resource consumption. There's still room for better recycling (increased resources without diminishing reserves), increased efficiency in production (less use of resources) and higher quality (longer lasting, making the cycle of resource use longer).

Is material progress required for socialism? — jamalrob

I don't think so, though I found myself agreeing with most of the points in Farber's essay. One of the counter-points Farber didn't seem to respond to, though alluded to, was the ecological concern of economic growth. At least redirecting the economy into green industries like socialist transportation, I don't think, would actually address ecological impact.

I think of socialism as economic freedom as defined by the working class. Laissez-faire capitalism looks like freedom because it is freedom to a particular class. Socialism is the freedom of the working class -- which, by necessity, must be collective just because of our position in society. It is the way in which economic life is organized that defines socialism.

All that being said, it's not like most people are opposed to material progress. If our democratic system is set up in such a way that collective preferences are actualized in the economic realm then I'm sure that the majority of people would prefer material progress within the confines of ecological restraint. But I don't think it's the defining feature.

Is it required for human beings generally?

I don't think so.

Can environmental problems best be overcome with more, or less, economic growth?

I suppose that all depends on whose defining the terms. I would say, in the present way of organizing the economy, environmental problems are better addressed through less economic growth. Economic growth in a capitalist economy doesn't -- and cannot -- account for environmental values. You can retranslate ecological values into capitalist logic, but all such efforts so far just seem to mitigate environmental damage rather than actually do something about it. The bottom line just isn't the environment.

And are these issues connected with wider cultural, moral and philosophical notions of progress?

I could see that.

I suppose my whole thing with progress is that people treat it like some kind of force in history.

I certainly don't believe in that, and neither -- so it seems -- does Farber.

And when Farber points out that those involved in practice must believe in progress, I would disagree there too. All that one has to do to be involved in political practice is to want something. It doesn't have to be progressive, necessarily. One can have a goal without, thereby, believing in progress of society or something akin to that. I would prefer to live in a free society, and so I pursue socialism. It's freedom that entails social commitments, but preference which drives action.

Though I tend to think that preferences can't all be lumped together. It's not like all preferences are like ones preference for ice cream flavors. There are a wide variety of aesthetic preferences, I think -- and principles, feelings, attitudes, and so forth -- and there are ones which are more serious and ones which are less serious.

Beyond a certain point I don't think continued economic growth is that important if we're talking about the overall well being of society (whatever that means can be discussed), which to me should be the vision which guides all other considerations. I would at the very least give the radical Left credit for questioning the assumptions at work guiding both capitalists and socialists. As Heidegger astutely noted, capitalism and communism are - metaphysically speaking - the same.

Sounds outrageous, but there do seem to be many shared assumptions about man and world and their relation which underlie and guide both positions, despite their appearance of being at complete odds with each another. The old-style socialist wants a more just distribution of wealth, but generally speaking he or she doesn't question the idea that individual happiness and contentment is synonymous with improved material well-being, or that social well-being is dependent upon continued economic 'progress'.

I think a more important development than economic progress would be a piecemeal shift in values from those fixated upon the material well-being of people as their primary means towards happiness, in the direction of more 'spiritual' or 'transcendent' ones. Of course this position is often ridiculed as outdated or unscientific or mystical or romantic and quickly dismissed, but I do believe that, generally speaking, we yearn for respect and recognition and deep connection with other people. Capitalism, as it is currently practiced, is too hedonistic and alienating and destructively competitive to satisfy this longing.

Perhaps a shift in deeper values will lead to a thriving capitalist society, one in which the unbridled lust for wealth and status is tempered by ethical imperatives to treat people as ends in themselves, and also a shared sense of stewardship of our localities and the wider environment generally. I'm inclined to believe that we're both material and 'spiritual' beings, and our happiness is contingent upon that realization and the consequent attempt to fulfill both aspects. I've worked at jobs where there's a genuine sense of harmony and concern amongst the employer and employees, and this is deeply satisfying for all involved. I recall Nietzsche mentioning somewhere that if capitalists had the slightest trace of nobility then socialism would have never arisen.

Yeah I think I may be losing my mind guys but I believe every bit of what I just wrote. Don't have all the answers but I'm confident I can recognize a dead end when I see one, having traveled down quite a few in my life.

Glad to be here by the way. Nice place.

Glad to be here by the way. Nice place. — Erik

Welcome to the insane asylum :P

I know this may not be a popular opinion, but our "progress" is ultimately doomed, whether it be from the trigger-happy terrorists with nuclear weapons, or from the eventual entropic heat death of the universe. We can plug our ears and cover our eyes from this reality and pretend it doesn't exist, but ultimately we are just kicking the can down the road.

"In a fragmented global culture and economy of exclusion that deem entire peoples and the earth itself expendable, Francis insists that members of human communities encounter one another first as persons, before ideas, traditions, and ideologies, and that we strive to encounter the poor and excluded primarily and most deeply: “We need to build up this culture of encounter. We do not love concepts or ideas; no one loves a concept or an idea. We love people.” " -- Intentional Communities in Our Common Home: Building Interfaith Cultures of Encounter in a New Appalachia