|
At this point, as far as I can tell "progressivism" is just a shifting of goalposts that's happened now that "liberalism" has gradually lost its former cachet in the anglosphere. People have finally started to realize that "liberalism" is too broad an umbrella to just cover everything left of "conservative," but even this new category completely obscures the serious rifts between people who are ultimately reformists that accept or even embrace capitalism on the one hand, and staunch anti-capitalists of various stripes on the other. This is a huge distinction that a lot of commentators and activists try to paper over by sticking with the word "progressive," but you can't ignore the serious differences between the two camps, and as long as people try to use "progressive" the way people used to use "liberal" there's going to be a lot of ideological confusion, and a lot of instances of infighting and arguments that won't make sense if everyone involved is just painted as being "progressive." "Progressivism" seriously needs yo be defined clearly, and there has to be an acknowledgement of the fundamental ideological conflict that exists within the most common uses of the term right now.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 22:20 |
|