With the end of the Cold War, the theme of progress seemed, at first glance, to fade. But today it is clearly visible in several major political projects. Trump seeks to keep the keys to progress firmly in American hands. Xi’s doctrine says: one cannot develop at China’s expense; one can develop together with China. Putin’s doctrine is “Fortress Russia”—independent, without grandiose global ambitions, yet determined to hold its own keys to the future, writes Valdai Club Programme Director Ivan Timofeev.
The idea of progress has long stood at the heart of a wide variety of political doctrines. Faster, higher, stronger—this sporting motto could be applied universally to any sphere of life. It is no coincidence that the Olympic Games were revived precisely at the turn of the 20th century, when faith in progress was being reinforced by achievements on an unprecedented scale. The revival was a reconstruction of the spirit of the age, elegantly framed against the backdrop of Ancient Greece. The imperative of progress still shapes the smallest details of our lives—from KPIs and performance reports to the very meaning of existence: higher income, greater status, expanded influence, and so on. Yet the idea of progress has always been accompanied by reflection on its dangers. The concept of alienation emerged as the concentrated expression of progress’s dark side, ultimately signifying the loss of self and, with it, the loss of any deeper meaning to progress itself. In contemporary political debates, both progress and alienation have receded into the background amid the noise of postmodern simulations. Reality, however, will compel us to revisit them.
Over the past three centuries, the idea of progress has served as the foundation of all major political ideologies and, more broadly, of political theory itself. At its core was the conviction that human reason could transform the world, creating better conditions for human life and society. Progress encompassed multiple dimensions: technical innovation rooted in scientific discovery and the educational advances that made it possible; the rational organization of society through law and professional bureaucracy; economic improvement via cost optimization and the generation of greater added value; and the transformation of international relations through rational international law, offering a potential solution to the problem of war. Ultimately, it promised the emergence of a new human being—liberated from irrational customs and prejudices, endlessly striving for new heights. The idea of progress first underpinned liberal theory and was later adopted and significantly reworked by socialism. Liberalism and socialism offered competing visions of progress, yet its fundamental value remained the bedrock of both. Even conservatism, while rejecting radical social engineering, was forced to reckon with the concept: ideas of cautious, organic, or evolutionary progress were born precisely within conservative thought.
Reality itself provided rich material for the idea of progress. It was reshaped by that idea, and in turn gave it fresh impetus. Humanity has made extraordinary strides. Over the past three hundred years, people have come to live far longer, eat better, and enjoy vastly improved clothing and shelter. Levels of comfort once unimaginable have become widespread. Knowledge has expanded dramatically, production has reached astonishing volumes, and information now proliferates at an exponential rate. The list of achievements is long—and continues to grow.
Yet every advance has had its shadow. First, progress generated serious threats. By extending life, it also perfected methods of mass killing, tested in wars and advanced weaponry. It deepened inequality and oppression. In international affairs, those who first seized the advantages of progress often suppressed or destroyed those who lagged behind or refused to follow. Nuclear weapons and the ever-present risk of their use became the ultimate symbol of this paradox: a force created to improve life now capable of destroying it.
Second, there is the problem of progress’s infinite nature and uncertain purpose. What is its endpoint and is it even conceivable? Is the “end of history” possible? This question appears in concepts ranging from Fukuyama’s now-familiar thesis to the Marxist vision of communism—both, at root, depictions of history reaching its culmination in an ideal society. Yet the end never arrives. Progress becomes an end in itself, a self-perpetuating force. If it is truly endless, what is the point? The pragmatic answer has always been that we cannot stop—because others will not. To pause is to invite destruction at the hands of the more “progressive.” But this reduces progress to mere survival of the fittest, undermining its original promise to elevate human life and human beings as intrinsic values.
Third, and perhaps most profoundly, comes the issue of alienation. Questions about how progress distorts human nature predate the great breakthroughs of the 19th and 20th centuries—think, for instance, of early debates on the corrupting effects of private property. The decisive contribution came with the materialist theory of alienation developed by Marx and his followers. They focused primarily on the economic dimension: the worker produces more than he receives, with the surplus appropriated by the owner, generating inequality that would eventually doom capitalism. Liberals countered, with some justification, that this appropriation was the price of risk—the capitalist stakes the entire enterprise, while the worker risks only his wages.
Yet the concept of alienation proved far richer. A major breakthrough occurred at the intersection of Marxism and psychoanalysis. Modern rationalized society, with its standardization and efficient mechanisms of repression, alienates people not merely from the fruits of their labour but from themselves. It erodes their vital instincts. Humanity risks becoming what George Calhoun called a “mouse utopia,” where material abundance leads to the loss of instincts, degeneration, and eventual extinction. The destruction of the life instinct does not eliminate the death instinct: progress leaves people as dangerous, aggressive animals, fully capable of destroying others and themselves.
With the end of the Cold War, the theme of progress seemed, at first glance, to fade. In the contest between two visions of progress, the liberal variant appeared victorious. The necessity of progress itself was never questioned, but its very ordinariness diminished its mobilizing power. It had become routine. The clash of grand modernist ideologies gave way to postmodern simulations. This was tolerable during the relatively stable period of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, when one could comfortably be “sort of” left or “sort of” right. Ideological brands drifted ever further from their original content; liberals, socialists, and conservatives increasingly became informational phantoms of a previous era.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
