The Infrastructure of Progress

American Thinker ^ | 25 Jan, 2022 | Anthony Matoria

[MtnClimber]

At the end of World War II, stories circulated of returning Soviet soldiers, many from undeveloped towns and farms, who were impressed by the modern amenities that they observed in defeated Nazi Germany. They were especially impressed with electrical lighting and indoor plumbing and, consequently pilfered light bulbs and plumbing fixtures to take back to their more primitive homes in the hopes that they too could have electrical lighting and indoor lavatories.

The stories have something of the nature of a parable. It is tempting to mock the backwardness and naivete of thinking that one can have electric lighting without an electrical distribution system, or indoor running water without external supply and sewer lines. The stories highlight the apparent folly of thinking that one can experience the benefits of technological progress by acquiring only the most visible aspects of that progress, e.g., light bulbs and commodes, without regard to the more extensive and hidden elements that make the whole thing work. It is also tempting to ridicule someone who is so unsophisticated and backward that they do not recognize that folly. Yet, this same folly is apparent in the agenda of the political left in Western societies.

To the extent that the stories of the simple Soviet soldiers is a parable, the lesson that is illustrated is that progress has preconditions. It requires a type of infrastructure that is congenial to the changes that are intended by reformers. The modern Left often misses this point. There are multiple examples of this. The most obvious fallacy is that a President can fundamentally transform a Republic without a clear popular mandate to do so. Mistaking a transient and tenuous legislative majority for such a mandate is as fallacious as thinking that having a light bulb is all that is necessary ...

[MtnClimber]

Most leftists would starve if they had to grow their own food.

[Cboldt]

The most obvious fallacy is that a President can fundamentally transform a Republic without a clear popular mandate to do so.

Unpopular and negative changes can be effected. Stalin effected fundamental transformation, so did Hitler, so did the Emperor of Japan, so did Mao. Has nothing to do with "a clear popular mandate."

No one person does this alone, of course. These swings involves groups of people. There are many ways things can go haywire, and things will inevitably go haywire. Result: many bad people will become enriched beyond their imagination.

US is under predominantly failed institutions and governed by psychopaths. This group is remarkably united in desire to have and exercise power as national government transform into parts of one world government.

[Bookshelf]

“At the end of World War II, stories circulated of returning Soviet soldiers, many from undeveloped towns and farms, who were impressed by the modern amenities that they observed in defeated Nazi Germany.”
Precisely the same situation occurred following the defeat of Napoleon. Russian troops in Europe were amazed at its amenities, and they were impressed by the freedoms enjoyed there. The result in Russia was the eventual publication of Turgenev’s marvelous opus, Fathers and Sons. There followed in Russia the struggle between the modernizers like Turgenev, and the Slavophiles, most notably Dostoevsky. Unfortunately, the Slavophiles won out and Russia continued its primitive ways — as can be seen by the quote, above.