In regards to American politics, not individuals, they’re correct. The American “Progressive” party is majority Reagan Republicans. You have outliers like Bernie. Well, only Bernie.
Yes. It’s an American term used to describe those who are in opposition to conservative views. It’s not an ideology.
But please, tell me what being a progressive values compared to any other leftist. What makes a progressive different from a anarchist, communist, or a dem soc who have defined values and beliefs?
And the fact that you bought the abortion culture war bullshit tells me that you’re unintelligent. Do you actually believe a billionaire whose daughter hypothetically gets pregnant from rape won’t find her an abortion doctor?
Wake the fuck up. The ideology you subscribe to wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. Or maybe it would, if you are filthy rich. If so, then shame on you. This isn’t a sport, it’s serious issues that affect millions of people who are not you.
But something tells me you would rather die than admit to yourself, and anyone else, that you are wrong.
Anarchism wouldn’t piss on me if I’m on fire? Doubt.
I’m a hardcore burn the state down and send the rulers to the gallows if they resist leftist.
“Progressive” is not a system of beliefs, it’s not an ideology, it’s a term Americans used to describe differentiate from their conservatives because they can’t just use the label “leftist” because surprise surprise most of them are filthy capos.
Communist: a person who believes that the people should own all industry and means of production, but the government should control it. Mostly describes the economic system of the old Soviet Union. Misunderstood and widely used for generations as a pejorative term by conservatives for anyone who isn’t conservative.
Socialist: a person who believes that the people should own all industry and means of production, and the people should control it. A “co-operative” is a socialist construct.
Democratic Socialist: a person in favor of capitalism as an economic system, but with robust protections and measures against the extreme economic inequality and centralization of power that capitalism creates. Includes an understanding that we collectively are only as successful as the least successful among us. Misunderstood and widely confused with the above two definitions by conservatives.
Progressive: a person who understands that future success of society is dependent on adaptation and change, open-ness to new ideas and ways if doing things, embrasure of science and education as a means to overcome ignorance, superstition, xenophobia, and racism.
Leftist/Liberal: in principle anyone who ascribes to the above two definitions. In common vernacular also a pejorative term used by conservatives to describe anyone who isnt a hard right conservative (i.e., centrists).
Conservative: opposite of progressive; a person who wants to conserve old methods and ideals at the expense of progress and equality. Progress toward a fair and equitable society which offers everyone real opportunity invariably inconveniences and offends other people and factions. Therefore conservatives aren’t a homogeneous group. Similar to the way that ‘Protestant’ is defined by what it’s not (Catholic), ‘conservative’ is comprised of various ideals that aren’t progressive. These include religious zealots, LGBTQ intolerant, xenophobes, anti-science, anti-education, anti-democracy, fascists, nazis, conspiracy theorists, oligarchs, plutocrats, nepotists, the 1%. Basically the conservative moniker is adopted by anyone who stands to be disenfranchised (either financially or morally) by progress toward systemic fairness and equal opportunity. Interestingly, many of the factions within the conservative roundup do not have a mutual interest. For example the oligarchs are most interested in coalescing wealth and power whereas the religious zealots want a Christian state. Either way, many disparate groups within the conservative faction share a perceived persecution.
Regressive: a weaponized conservative with the added desire to roll back progress to an earlier period: i.e., eliminating reproductive healthcare, eliminating contraception, making it harder for certain groups to vote.
Yeah, it actually fucking does. It’s the the name. “Progress.” Move forward. As in giving everyone a share, giving everyone a say, and giving everyone a decent life. You know, the opposite of "Conserve.’ Keeping the Status Quo, never changing, a state of perpetual stasis. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor. Ad Infinitum.
Progress to fucking what? Progress looks very different depending on which direction you want to progress in.
Likewise the opposite of conserve is not a fair go, that’s semantic bullshittery on your behalf. It’s change and change is neither good nor bad, much the same as conserving is neither good nor bad.
Various forms of socialism, communism, anarchism, and other leftist beliefs generally have a set of defining traits. What sets “progressive” as different from say georgism?
“In Marxist philosophy, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a condition in which the proletariat, or working class, holds control over state power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitional phase from a capitalist and a communist economy…”
Except, there’s no such thing as a communist economy, so the transitional phase lasts as long as there’s capital to reallocate. Then peoole start to flee across the barbed wire and the facade falls down.
Can you back this claim up? Market economy is a term for a reason. An economy doesn’t have to be market to be an economy. Have you never heard of a planned economy?
the transitional phase lasts as long as there’s capital to relocate
No. The transitional phase lasts as long there is classes that necessitate a state.
You have a very simplistic understanding of marxism that cannot be rectified through a fucking wikipedia search. Read the source material or stfu
I could read the lifework of Marx, but it wouldn’t change the unviability of planned economy. My parents and grandparents lived in one.
If we ever stumble upon some kind of mathematical or technological miracle, able to predict the future, I’d be worth to try again. Until then, socialism is a dangerous cult.
The statement “communism is a conservative authoritarian dogma” being backed up by referencing the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is… definitely something
I see. Well, if I take what you’re saying as fully correct, then it sounds like communism compared to anarchism, is just “a different path for how we reach the same utopia”.
And this different path passes through more authority (quantity and quality), through the existence and emphasis of the state.
How much authority, is probably what makes the spectrum of Anarchy to Stalin-Lenin.
And well… As an anarchist, deafboy’s comment might be polemic, but I get it. Any authority that can, will get corrupted.
To play Devil’s Advocate, communism looks good on paper. The problem is human beings are involved. There will always be narcissistic, greedy, and psychopathic individuals who will abuse the will of the people to take control. There has never been a truly successful communistic system of government. Well, maybe Jeebus and the Apostles, but even Judas sold out for the silver.
Progressives aren’t a thing, it’s simply an Amaerica counter label to conservatives so they have something to attack.
And as an anarchist, I’ve no problem being lumped in with like minded views.
We’re leftists and proud of it.
Because you say so?
Nonsense.
In regards to American politics, not individuals, they’re correct. The American “Progressive” party is majority Reagan Republicans. You have outliers like Bernie. Well, only Bernie.
Yes. It’s an American term used to describe those who are in opposition to conservative views. It’s not an ideology.
But please, tell me what being a progressive values compared to any other leftist. What makes a progressive different from a anarchist, communist, or a dem soc who have defined values and beliefs?
The desire to make everyone’s life better by progressing appropriate legislation.
That’s so vague that a conservative could call themselves progressive because they think it’s saving lives to ban abortion.
Fuck Milton Friedman.
And the fact that you bought the abortion culture war bullshit tells me that you’re unintelligent. Do you actually believe a billionaire whose daughter hypothetically gets pregnant from rape won’t find her an abortion doctor?
Wake the fuck up. The ideology you subscribe to wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. Or maybe it would, if you are filthy rich. If so, then shame on you. This isn’t a sport, it’s serious issues that affect millions of people who are not you.
But something tells me you would rather die than admit to yourself, and anyone else, that you are wrong.
Anarchism wouldn’t piss on me if I’m on fire? Doubt.
I’m a hardcore burn the state down and send the rulers to the gallows if they resist leftist.
“Progressive” is not a system of beliefs, it’s not an ideology, it’s a term Americans used to describe differentiate from their conservatives because they can’t just use the label “leftist” because surprise surprise most of them are filthy capos.
State ownership of utilities for one.
What, progressives are in favour of state owned utils or aren’t? Explain yourself properly.
Communist: a person who believes that the people should own all industry and means of production, but the government should control it. Mostly describes the economic system of the old Soviet Union. Misunderstood and widely used for generations as a pejorative term by conservatives for anyone who isn’t conservative.
Socialist: a person who believes that the people should own all industry and means of production, and the people should control it. A “co-operative” is a socialist construct.
Democratic Socialist: a person in favor of capitalism as an economic system, but with robust protections and measures against the extreme economic inequality and centralization of power that capitalism creates. Includes an understanding that we collectively are only as successful as the least successful among us. Misunderstood and widely confused with the above two definitions by conservatives.
Progressive: a person who understands that future success of society is dependent on adaptation and change, open-ness to new ideas and ways if doing things, embrasure of science and education as a means to overcome ignorance, superstition, xenophobia, and racism.
Leftist/Liberal: in principle anyone who ascribes to the above two definitions. In common vernacular also a pejorative term used by conservatives to describe anyone who isnt a hard right conservative (i.e., centrists).
Conservative: opposite of progressive; a person who wants to conserve old methods and ideals at the expense of progress and equality. Progress toward a fair and equitable society which offers everyone real opportunity invariably inconveniences and offends other people and factions. Therefore conservatives aren’t a homogeneous group. Similar to the way that ‘Protestant’ is defined by what it’s not (Catholic), ‘conservative’ is comprised of various ideals that aren’t progressive. These include religious zealots, LGBTQ intolerant, xenophobes, anti-science, anti-education, anti-democracy, fascists, nazis, conspiracy theorists, oligarchs, plutocrats, nepotists, the 1%. Basically the conservative moniker is adopted by anyone who stands to be disenfranchised (either financially or morally) by progress toward systemic fairness and equal opportunity. Interestingly, many of the factions within the conservative roundup do not have a mutual interest. For example the oligarchs are most interested in coalescing wealth and power whereas the religious zealots want a Christian state. Either way, many disparate groups within the conservative faction share a perceived persecution.
Regressive: a weaponized conservative with the added desire to roll back progress to an earlier period: i.e., eliminating reproductive healthcare, eliminating contraception, making it harder for certain groups to vote.
Contrarian semantics aren’t clever.
This isn’t about clever sementics, it’s about them not being able to define what something is.
Progressive isn’t an ideology, you can’t lump it in with leftist ideals because it doesn’t stand for anything.
Yeah, it actually fucking does. It’s the the name. “Progress.” Move forward. As in giving everyone a share, giving everyone a say, and giving everyone a decent life. You know, the opposite of "Conserve.’ Keeping the Status Quo, never changing, a state of perpetual stasis. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor. Ad Infinitum.
Progress to fucking what? Progress looks very different depending on which direction you want to progress in.
Likewise the opposite of conserve is not a fair go, that’s semantic bullshittery on your behalf. It’s change and change is neither good nor bad, much the same as conserving is neither good nor bad.
Various forms of socialism, communism, anarchism, and other leftist beliefs generally have a set of defining traits. What sets “progressive” as different from say georgism?
State ownership of utilities for one.
Communists believe in state ownership of utilities as well as many other things atleast until the state withers away
Yes and what about it?
Socialists would be in favour of state ownership of resources.
Anarchists and communists wouldn’t be in favour of a state.
What do progressives value about state ownership of utils, are they for it, against it?
If you can’t answer such a simple question yourself, I’m not sure there’s any point continuing this discussion. Have a great day.
… Riiiightio
Communism is a conservative authoritarian dogma. The exact opossite of progress… or anarchy.
Lol, said confidently by someone who very clearly has not read anything marxist
“In Marxist philosophy, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a condition in which the proletariat, or working class, holds control over state power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitional phase from a capitalist and a communist economy…”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
Except, there’s no such thing as a communist economy, so the transitional phase lasts as long as there’s capital to reallocate. Then peoole start to flee across the barbed wire and the facade falls down.
Can you back this claim up? Market economy is a term for a reason. An economy doesn’t have to be market to be an economy. Have you never heard of a planned economy?
No. The transitional phase lasts as long there is classes that necessitate a state.
You have a very simplistic understanding of marxism that cannot be rectified through a fucking wikipedia search. Read the source material or stfu
I could read the lifework of Marx, but it wouldn’t change the unviability of planned economy. My parents and grandparents lived in one.
If we ever stumble upon some kind of mathematical or technological miracle, able to predict the future, I’d be worth to try again. Until then, socialism is a dangerous cult.
“Despite knowing nothing about this economic system I am convinced of its failure due to a single anecdotal experience where it did fail”
Have you even bothered to look at why it failed?
Single experience? Have you been hibernated for the past 100 years? Millions have suffered under this self inflicted pleague.
The statement “communism is a conservative authoritarian dogma” being backed up by referencing the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is… definitely something
It’s called the “Anal Extraction” fallacy.
love it
You’re thinking of ML tankies.
Communism is a stateless, classless, system where people enact mutualism and socialism without state coercion.
What makes this thing you’re describing, not anarchism?
I think you’re thinking of anarchocommunism specifically. Which is "not all communism"™.
State-based communism is a thing, that many people usually called tankies by others, do believe in.
The difference between non-ML tankie communism and anarchism is the means of getting there.
Communists want a vanguard state to slowly whittle away.
Anarchists want to skip that step.
I see. Well, if I take what you’re saying as fully correct, then it sounds like communism compared to anarchism, is just “a different path for how we reach the same utopia”.
And this different path passes through more authority (quantity and quality), through the existence and emphasis of the state.
How much authority, is probably what makes the spectrum of Anarchy to Stalin-Lenin.
And well… As an anarchist, deafboy’s comment might be polemic, but I get it. Any authority that can, will get corrupted.
Wrong.
To play Devil’s Advocate, communism looks good on paper. The problem is human beings are involved. There will always be narcissistic, greedy, and psychopathic individuals who will abuse the will of the people to take control. There has never been a truly successful communistic system of government. Well, maybe Jeebus and the Apostles, but even Judas sold out for the silver.