Progressives never struck me as sharing the spirit of change with socialism. The progressive movement always felt - to me - an attempt at drawing more attention to social issues. In other words, the core of the progressive movement is based on social issues.
I’m speaking purely in a Hegelian “world spirit” sense. Like at one time liberalism was revolutionary, and that’s where all these progressive values come from. Any individual liberal is more or less moved by those values, liberals of all kinds want to defend private property, but sometimes it is because they want to keep what they think is a fair and just society, and capitalism uses the appearance of these values in society as evidence for its own progressive nature.
For “progressive” I kind og mean removed from its political meaning, beliefs and actions that represent progress for humanity. Socialism is progressive by this definition as well. To me, and this is a fine place to disagree, “progressive” liberals are people who are moved by injustice more than by defending private property. Like they don’t want to get rid of it, but are willing to give up some property if it means more people have rights (a false equivalence but a worthy sentiment.) These people are the ones who can be “moved left”, like I said elsewhere every socialist starts out a liberal (and many socialists revert to liberals, but that’s often said unfairly.)
“progressive” liberals are people who are moved by injustice more than by defending private property.
I completely agree with your categorization of progressive liberals which is why i said the progressive movement doesn’t strike me as caring too much about private property. Except if it means more people gain rights like you said.
Oh sure, I see what you mean. I agree that “defending private property” isn’t exactly a progressive slogan, but it boils down to a difference in strategy maybe? Socialists advocate a radical, revolutionary transformation; progressive libs see the system as sort of neutral and behaving badly, which can be fixed with reforms. So right there at the last second, in theory, the progressive liberals might resist revolutionary change. But in the throes of revolutionary change, All theory goes out and the hard cruel realities set in. We won’t know what its like until we get there. In my mind there wouldn’t really be many progressive liberals left, we would be opposing forces for, and against revolution. Middle strata tend to melt into the whole, or at least seem to, during these times.
I guess so, if there were to be a socialist revolution right now, I’d probably be in support, but it doesn’t mean I’d think it was necessary. I’m a progressive and i don’t necessarily oppose radical overhaul, i just think reform is satisfactory.
I appreciate the engagement! Sorry for any criticisms, I’m just trying to lay out a perspective that is based in Marxism but not like prejudicial against liberals (which Marx and Engels weren’t even if many of their followers are).
Damn… DSA is a big thing. Respect to you for getting your hands dirty with politics. I wish more realised that you don’t win over opponents by trying to be ideologically pure but by trying to accommodate multiple ideologies and finding common ground.
I thought about this a little more. I guess a progressive wouldn’t be a champion of private property per se, but they might not be too crazy about tearing down and rebuilding the institutions that undergird private property. The legal justice system is a big institution and presents concrete answers to many contradictions created by private property. Socialism will have to remain a mixed system of some kind, containing different elements of private property relations in different places at different times. So yeah, a Marxist would look at institutional challenges to change, relationships to the status quo and to progress, in order to determine what actions to take, and when.
This is typically where one would start researching Lenin, for practical applications of Marxist theory.
When you say socialism has to remain a mixed system of sorts, are you implying a social democracy? Or are you saying that socialism would remain a mixed system if the justice system is left intact and therefore should read Lenin to see how one could go about transforming institutions to better fit socialism?
Progressives never struck me as sharing the spirit of change with socialism. The progressive movement always felt - to me - an attempt at drawing more attention to social issues. In other words, the core of the progressive movement is based on social issues.
I’m speaking purely in a Hegelian “world spirit” sense. Like at one time liberalism was revolutionary, and that’s where all these progressive values come from. Any individual liberal is more or less moved by those values, liberals of all kinds want to defend private property, but sometimes it is because they want to keep what they think is a fair and just society, and capitalism uses the appearance of these values in society as evidence for its own progressive nature.
For “progressive” I kind og mean removed from its political meaning, beliefs and actions that represent progress for humanity. Socialism is progressive by this definition as well. To me, and this is a fine place to disagree, “progressive” liberals are people who are moved by injustice more than by defending private property. Like they don’t want to get rid of it, but are willing to give up some property if it means more people have rights (a false equivalence but a worthy sentiment.) These people are the ones who can be “moved left”, like I said elsewhere every socialist starts out a liberal (and many socialists revert to liberals, but that’s often said unfairly.)
I completely agree with your categorization of progressive liberals which is why i said the progressive movement doesn’t strike me as caring too much about private property. Except if it means more people gain rights like you said.
Oh sure, I see what you mean. I agree that “defending private property” isn’t exactly a progressive slogan, but it boils down to a difference in strategy maybe? Socialists advocate a radical, revolutionary transformation; progressive libs see the system as sort of neutral and behaving badly, which can be fixed with reforms. So right there at the last second, in theory, the progressive liberals might resist revolutionary change. But in the throes of revolutionary change, All theory goes out and the hard cruel realities set in. We won’t know what its like until we get there. In my mind there wouldn’t really be many progressive liberals left, we would be opposing forces for, and against revolution. Middle strata tend to melt into the whole, or at least seem to, during these times.
I guess so, if there were to be a socialist revolution right now, I’d probably be in support, but it doesn’t mean I’d think it was necessary. I’m a progressive and i don’t necessarily oppose radical overhaul, i just think reform is satisfactory.
I appreciate the engagement! Sorry for any criticisms, I’m just trying to lay out a perspective that is based in Marxism but not like prejudicial against liberals (which Marx and Engels weren’t even if many of their followers are).
Don’t worry about it. You were pretty respectful compared to some others i conversed with
I’m in DSA. As a communist in a group with a lot of social democratic progressives, we have to learn to work together!
Damn… DSA is a big thing. Respect to you for getting your hands dirty with politics. I wish more realised that you don’t win over opponents by trying to be ideologically pure but by trying to accommodate multiple ideologies and finding common ground.
I thought about this a little more. I guess a progressive wouldn’t be a champion of private property per se, but they might not be too crazy about tearing down and rebuilding the institutions that undergird private property. The legal justice system is a big institution and presents concrete answers to many contradictions created by private property. Socialism will have to remain a mixed system of some kind, containing different elements of private property relations in different places at different times. So yeah, a Marxist would look at institutional challenges to change, relationships to the status quo and to progress, in order to determine what actions to take, and when.
This is typically where one would start researching Lenin, for practical applications of Marxist theory.
When you say socialism has to remain a mixed system of sorts, are you implying a social democracy? Or are you saying that socialism would remain a mixed system if the justice system is left intact and therefore should read Lenin to see how one could go about transforming institutions to better fit socialism?