History will not remember us fondly (2021)
drewdevault.com
drewdevault.com
A better system might not need 'redistribution' since it would not be structured in a way that allows (even encourages) billionaires, for example.
What "we" will or will not recall in the future is anyone's guess. Suffice to say that the collective "we" really doesn't exist: there are many people today that recall the Middle Ages fondly, and to think of a future "we" with a collective memory of the present is even more fraught with peril.
Maybe that's hair-splitting to some extent, we are used to a single narrative forming of which we all are captive: "the victor writes the history" etc. But we can perhaps be allowed to wish that "we" in the future manage to escape from such tunnel vision, somehow.
And, in fact, I'd say that most students in the humanities -- i.e., those who generally study and care about history -- tend to view the past through the lens of the present, which often leads to negative perceptions even of reformers and progressives of their time. I recall several instances in my own classes -- now nearly 20 years ago, sigh -- when students criticised medieval writers for their racist/sexist/etc. views, even when the writers were notably forward-thinking. Chaucer, in particular, skewed the institutions of the time, and portrayed female characters of remarkable agency, but is often criticised by those who don't consider the context in which he lived. You can see this today with the founding fathers of the US, too -- wholesale castigation of slave owners, even those who were more modern in their thinking than the average politician of the time.
What I think the author of the linked article really misunderstands is that our own mores and inclinations are not those of the past, nor are they those of the future. The people of early modern Europe looked down on the middle ages and viewed ancient Greece and Rome as Platonic ideals (pun somewhat intended), which is a view the author would probably disagree with, given the fact that most of Rome's history was, in fact, anti-democratic, and that Greece's "democracy" was far less egalitarian than even early America's.
Perhaps future generations will see us as enlightened. You never know.
Sorry for being a bit like a terrier here, not letting go of my "prey" once I have sunk my teeth into it. The prey in this case (which I tried to express in the parent) is the notion that one can generalize the opinions, or lenses if you like, of an entire age, be it the present, or some age in the past or future. So, "future generations will see" is a variety of this, and I'm protesting: one should not use such language at all, instead one could for example say "the dominant view among people in academia", or "some mechanics that work in east coast autoshops", or "the druids generally held the view", or "the mainstream view in the future will probably be" etc.
That aside, yes - this is also one of my problems with large trends not only in academia, but culture in general: there is not much of attempt to understand previous ages on their own terms. Instead the present day ideas and ideals are projected on radically different times. Not always; historians who are serious about their work will at least try to avoid it.
And if you take off the dark colored glasses, there are things to be optimistic about. For example, in response to the Freedom House picture. The world is a power law. Statistics about total numbers of countries paint only half the picture because some small dictatorial countries matters less than huge countries such as the USA or Germany with liberal democracies. Compared to the 1950's, for example, Japan and South Korea have become a friend of the West, which is a major win for everybody if you ask me.
In general, I rather live in 2023 than 1990. Entertainment, healthcare, transportation, and availability of knowledge are all much better. Yes, some people end up using things they might regret later, but that doesn't hold for everybody.
A more productive mindset, I think, is to pick some "bad" things and focus on trying to make those things a little bit better. It's the "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade". Yes, there are some real problems, but it's not all bad. Only chipping away at the problems will solve them.
Or more likely, a different system, focused on human flourishing rather than profit-uber-alles, could be so much better. That seems quite optimistic to me.
Yes, you are right that I guessed the mindset of the author. My reasoning is that the title is "History will not remember us fondly". This is not a statement that we can with certainty verify today. It could be true, it could be false. Claiming that it is true is a very negative view, I would say. But you're right that I would have better focused on the argument. Thank you for the feedback.
> Or more likely, a different system, focused on human flourishing rather than profit-uber-alles, could be so much better.
That's my point. Let's try to fix the current system step by step. Capitalism is not perfect, but it can be better. Or as Churchill put it in 1947: "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried." I think it's the same for capitalism. There seems to be some idea going around nowadays that there is some kind of third system that will solve all problems, but I don't see much practical evidence for that.
Also, "profit-uber-alles" is not what all companies aim for. Sure profits are important and there are many examples of. companies where the investors have taken over and aim for profit only. However, that's not a long term strategy. Companies which aim to make the life of consumers genuinely better tend to do better because morale is higher.
In the case of capitalism, I think it is inherently and fundamentally misaligned, and can only be 'tamed', 'harnessed' and 'counterbalanced' to provide benefits to society, just as we currently do with taxes, fair trade/antitrust laws, and so on, but not actually 'fixed'.
At which point in human history will this not be true?
I, too, tend to concentrate more on problems rather than what was achieved, but without that in hindsight you can be perpetually miserable for no reason.