The Left Does not Reason

[C-Mag]

I agree that it is far from simple. From what I can tell there was no "magical switch moment." That's a red herring.

OK, hey look at us in agreement. There is no switch moment, but ebbs and flows over time.

For aid in our discussion, every POTUS election map http://www.270towin.com/historical-pres ... elections/

If you deny the switch theory, you can either claim that Democrats were always progressive, which doesn't bear out well in history, or you can say they were never progressive, which is a denial of the present moment. So you have all the work ahead of you to explain the "true" story and how the "myth" has become so pervasive as to be widely accepted by historians and common people alike.

I see Progressivism very differently than you present it here. IMO, Progressivism may be semantically tied to the Democrats and what we call the Left, however Progressivism is the primary ideology of the Washington Establishment and our political elites in both parties.

Progressives do not believe in inalienable human rights, government decides who has rights
Progressives believe it is governments role to create individuals rather than protect individuals
Progressives believe a strong executive with a wide government network and accessible funds are required to shape individuals and improve humans

And during the last 100 years both partys have advanced the cause of Progressivism.

Perhaps our conversation has reached its limit then since it is based in semantics. I don't agree with your definition of Progressive, it sounds more like authoritarian communism. But it was good conversing.

OK, I am interested in what you see as the primary tenants of Progressivism

[BjornP]

That whole Jesus thing messed us up pretty bad.

You Vikings can be Proud. Most of Europe went down without a fight. You guys had a couple hundred good years of raiding monasteries and Christendom before you fell to the Cross.

Pfeh..."fell". Franks tried and failed. Just some Anglo-Saxon, Saxon or German (historians disagree) missionary that got into the head of a Danish king a little over a thousand years ago.

[JohnDonne]

OK, hey look at us in agreement. There is no switch moment, but ebbs and flows over time.

For aid in our discussion, every POTUS election map http://www.270towin.com/historical-pres ... elections/





I see Progressivism very differently than you present it here. IMO, Progressivism may be semantically tied to the Democrats and what we call the Left, however Progressivism is the primary ideology of the Washington Establishment and our political elites in both parties.

Progressives do not believe in inalienable human rights, government decides who has rights
Progressives believe it is governments role to create individuals rather than protect individuals
Progressives believe a strong executive with a wide government network and accessible funds are required to shape individuals and improve humans

And during the last 100 years both partys have advanced the cause of Progressivism.

Perhaps our conversation has reached its limit then since it is based in semantics. I don't agree with your definition of Progressive, it sounds more like authoritarian communism. But it was good conversing.

OK, I am interested in what you see as the primary tenants of Progressivism

A progressive believes positive change to the human condition is brought about through:

Philosophical and scientific advancement and innovation.
Social and economic equality.
Empirical knowledge as the foundation for society.
The recognition of human rights by governments.

They seek to reform governments and institutions to further these causes.

They also believe that human life is fundamentally of value and that social programs are the civilized response to people in economic despair.

It's not all roses of course, Progressives have advocated things like eugenics. One of the dangers of progress is that innovations by definition go into uncharted territory, leading to false utopias and unintended outcomes. That's why Conservatives are a necessary part of the balance in our society.

The progressive part of my brain is of the opinion that with the advent of automation and post-scarcity, the government should start giving people a mincome and let them use their free time to study, innovate and invent. Perhaps then we would see artistic and technological advancements at a truly awe-inspiring scale. But a conservative would be right to question whether it would really be a utopia.

[Speaker to Animals]

The underlying theme is the marxist concept of historical determinism. They believe there exists a direction to history, at the end of which they will realize their social utopia on Earth.

It's a quasi-religious concept.

It's also why they freaked out so hard when Trump won the election. The fact that they lost all power indicates they in fact are *not* on the "right side of history", and they simply don't know how to process it. It's as if their religion were proved totally wrong before their eyes.

The word "progressivism" has always been a slogan that means different things to different people. It's a way of recasting your political goals as somehow predetermined and necessarily right without having to justify or explain them very well. The people who call themselves progressives today fall into two camps: marxists and globalists.


I would caution people to not conflate globalists with marixsts either. They may align on certain issues for now, but ultimately, if they are successful, one will have to destroy the other.

[apeman]

Am I a globalist if I think globalization and global trade are responsible for massive increases in quality of life around the globe?

[Speaker to Animals]

Globalists are primarily the corporate class who want to eradicate national borders to create unified global markets that allow them to produce at the lowest cost and sell wherever they want without tariffs and differing national regulations. Hillary Clinton is a globalist. The old GOPe were globalists.

The democratic party was run by globalists who manipulated marxists for votes and then rigged the system for globalism. Marxists went along with it because they too hate nation states, borders, etc. But The similarities only go so far.

Soros is a globalist who pays for Antifa to inflict political violence across the western world for his personal gain. But if the marxists ever actually took control of our governments, Soros would be lined up and shot.

[C-Mag]

Perhaps our conversation has reached its limit then since it is based in semantics. I don't agree with your definition of Progressive, it sounds more like authoritarian communism. But it was good conversing.

OK, I am interested in what you see as the primary tenants of Progressivism

The progressive part of my brain is of the opinion that with the advent of automation and post-scarcity, the government should start giving people a mincome and let them use their free time to study, innovate and invent. Perhaps then we would see artistic and technological advancements at a truly awe-inspiring scale. But a conservative would be right to question whether it would really be a utopia.

I can see why Progressivism is seductive, you are hoping for Star Trek: The Next Generation.

I will have to give up my inalienable rights or have them taken from me. Once I do, I will be given a stipend for sustenance. I will have some down time to develop myself. There is going to have to be a very powerful government to make this happen. They are going to have to influence people to go along with putting their future into the hands of governments accepted science and technology. To do all this government needs to be large, have the agencies, personnel and resources to influence and if necessary force people to accept governments utopia.

How are we in disagreement about Progressivism ?

[JohnDonne]

The underlying theme is the marxist concept of historical determinism. They believe there exists a direction to history, at the end of which they will realize their social utopia on Earth.

It's a quasi-religious concept.

It's also why they freaked out so hard when Trump won the election. The fact that they lost all power indicates they in fact are *not* on the "right side of history", and they simply don't know how to process it. It's as if their religion were proved totally wrong before their eyes.

The word "progressivism" has always been a slogan that means different things to different people. It's a way of recasting your political goals as somehow predetermined and necessarily right without having to justify or explain them very well. The people who call themselves progressives today fall into two camps: marxists and globalists.


I would caution people to not conflate globalists with marixsts either. They may align on certain issues for now, but ultimately, if they are successful, one will have to destroy the other.

^^^
The propagandist makes everything fearfully simple, he creates only two options, directs your mind to dismiss both distasteful categories and align yourself against them without thinking too much.

Like someone screaming at the top of their lungs that there's a race war between the blacks and whites, so you white boys better put down your idealistic books and choose a side real quick, cause it just got real.

[Speaker to Animals]

That's interesting since I am telling people there aren't two options, that this ridiculous notion of a left-right spectrum is totally bogus, and that the thing we need to oppose here outright is merely marxism.

[C-Mag]

Am I a globalist if I think globalization and global trade are responsible for massive increases in quality of life around the globe?

There have definitely been some improvement in quality of life for some folks as a result of globalism. Doesn't make you a globalist. I like that there has been positive improvement in areas. Doesn't make me a Globalist either. There's been plenty of Neg's as well.