/histories/ - Humanidades y ciencias sociales

>>94

I think what you call the communication revolution is simply a continuation of the scientific revolution. If you really think about it, there hasn't been a point where you can say the technological development actually stopped or even slowed down in the XX century, it just kept going.

However, that part where you say that the current technological revolution is the biggest change in human society since agriculture, I don't know. Sure, society is developing new ways of communicating with each other, but it hasn't changed the social structure, we have the same social classes, the same relationships we had 100 years ago, but we can talk faster now, so I wouldn't be brave enough to say that this technological change is really important for human society.

>>96

Yeah, my point is exactly that the communication, science and industrial revolutions are all part of the same set of changes that's been happening since the 1800s. When I say the biggest change in human society since agriculture, I am referring to these changes, not only communication in recent decades.

>but it hasn't changed the social structure, we have the same social classes

In the less than 300 years since the beginning of this technological revolution, there have been several huge challenges to the existing social hierarchies and attempts to dissolve certain classes.

>>98

>and attempts to dissolve certain classes.

The keyword here is attempts. Let me give you an example from Mexico. The state of Chihuahua, in northern Mexico, is basically owned by the Terrazas' family, they are the richest family in the state.

If you look throughout their history, you'll see that pretty much since the spanish foundation of Chihuahua, these people have always been in charge. Maybe not as the authority/government, but they definetly own the power of this state and others in the border with the Unites States.

I'm sure this story has been repeated countless of times across the world, where a powerful family has always been there, it's just that most of the population forgot about its power and we need to remember that not always the government has the power, but the people with resources.

>>94

>Okay, I know this board is starting really slow, but hopefully traffic picks up.

not that likely. and frankly if you are looking for users you might want to shill your board a little outside 8ch. anons don't simply migrate, especially since you can have a little bit of the same kind of discussion in other well established boards.

but that doesn't mean that you cannot carve your niche.

>>94

well if BO show his board on /b/ /islam/ /christian/ /fringe/ that may cause good things.

Attempts, even failed, are still significant. And I'm speaking to the fact that these attempts to fundamentally change social orders have coincided with the current technological revolution.

I'm thinking specifically of socialism and related movements. Whatever your opinion on them, such a radical cosmopolitan attempt at changing the social order is very significant. The ideological struggle of left vs right (radical egalitarianism vs tradition) could be the result of the nature of human society evolving past the agricultural phase.

I'm trying to say this apolitically, it just seems like this particular struggle (as opposed to what is historically a struggle between more or less ideologically similar populations competing) is unprecedented in history.

Obviously there's always been the question of humanitarianism vs tyranny on some level, but even in pre-industrial Greek and American democracy, there was a defined set of classes and it remained similar to a feudal system with more safeguards in practice.

>>114

>>114

OP here trying to respond to >>99

>>114

>I'm thinking specifically of socialism and related movements. Whatever your opinion on them, such a radical cosmopolitan attempt at changing the social order is very significant.

I don't think it's a cosmopolitan attempt, it is more of a european attempt, not even western, since there was never a strong socialist movement in the Unites States. Now, I don't consider latinamerica as part of the west since it's a whole different beast, even after 500 years of control, but the socialist governments that appeared in the 20th century were not because of an established socialist ideology that matured in them, but because it would've been a way to rest american control in the region in favor of the URSS.

Now, the communist governments in Asia were not created from society either, but from certain individuals that made horrifying and inhumane changes in order to educated the population, for example Mao in the cultural revolution and Pol Pot in Cambodia.

In other words, socialism needs to be enforced by the lower and middle classes in order to work, if not, it becomes an ideology from a new high class to control the population.

>I'm trying to say this apolitically, it just seems like this particular struggle (as opposed to what is historically a struggle between more or less ideologically similar populations competing) is unprecedented in history.

It's not that unprecedent, remember the struggles between the petite bourgeoisie or third state against the church and royalty in France. However, this movement wasn't created in one week, it was part of an enormous process that started the shift of power from the first and second state, to the third one. A socialist society would have to be the same case, a gradual shift of power from a very powerful sector of the population to another, if not, it would completely fail like the Soviet Union.

Okay, I understand what you're saying, I think you're right. In this way the ideological struggles of the 20th century in the form of the US vs the USSR would still be the struggle of two ideologically similar nations because the Soviet revolution failed to change the social structure of Russia in any truly meaningful way.

But I would disagree with you that Latin American socialism was only a means to resist American imperialism. I would say Latin American socialists alliances with the USSR were a means to resist US imperialism, but many of their movements, regardless of success or failure, were sincere. I would even say that socialist revolutions in places like Nicaragua and Mexico were more in line with socialist ideology than the USSR and China - hell, the Zapatistas remain a sovereign and influential political force in southern Mexico today.

Even regardless of the concrete examples that do exist, isn't the emergence of such ideas indicative of social changes in itself? Even if socialism is absolutely a failed economic philosophy.

>>121

Ah, this is in response to this >>118

Also, when I say "Even if socialism is absolutely a failed economic philosophy.", I'm not necessarily saying it is, I'm only saying in the case that it is it doesn't mean that the emergence of it as an idea isn't significant.

>>121

>I would even say that socialist revolutions in places like Nicaragua and Mexico were more in line with socialist ideology than the USSR and China - hell, the Zapatistas remain a sovereign and influential political force in southern Mexico today.

I think we should be a little more careful with our terms. The Zapatista movement is not a socialist movement, it doesn't look for a change in society. Instead, it is an indigenous movement, trying to return to a time where people who work the lands actually owned them.

It's a movement to return to old traditions than a socialist one.

I would argue it's both.

>a time when people who work the lands actually owned them

That's compatible with socialism, and their leaders are heavily influenced by Marxism and socialist anarchism.

The goal is definitely freedom from neo-liberal economics and imperialism with a focus on the indigenous population, but the systems they use are self declared libertarian socialist in nature.

>>125

>and their leaders are heavily influenced by Marxism and socialist anarchism.

I think you're confusing Zapata with the Flores Magon brothers. These two were fighting in northern Mexico and read about socialism and anarchism, but Zapata was a "cacique" in the center of Mexico. He didn't read Marx or other socialist writers, so he and his land workers had no influence by them.

Also you're making a big mistake, neo-liberalism didn't exist up until the 80s. Zapata and his troops weren't fighting against american imperialism because it didn't affect them (in fact, american imperialism only began to exist since 1898 after the "liberation" of Cuba), they were fighting against land owners.

Also I just realized my mistake, when I said the Zapatista movement, I mean the one from Emiliano Zapata from the mexican revolution, no the new zapatistas from the year 1994.

My apologies.

>>94

It is a common mistake to think of ages, epochs and revolutions as boundaries that surround certain periods of time and locations, precisely defining them. History, as it turns out, is much more complicated than that. Because processes like the fall of the roman empire and the renaissance take several decades, individuals living during those times are unlikely to perceive the massive shift that is happening around them. Instead of a line with a bunch of markers telling us the start and the beginning of things, think of history as a somewhat linear collection of Venn diagrams. It isn't really our job to determine if we are still part of that process, that job falls to the historians who are yet to be born.

If we define an age as a period of time during which a significant set of circumstances is present and partially contained, I would say that the length of ages will tend to decrease, as the speed of changes increases geometrically. But that's just my opinion.

>>127

I completely agree.

old thing