The Progressive Movement and the American Left

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Progressive Movement and the American Left

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Sharks Eat Bear posted:

I don't know if this is helpful, but I tend to think of progressivism in relation to other descriptors like conservative and reactionary. These labels probably tend to align along the left-right spectrum in consistent ways, but I think that's a correlation by circumstance, not by definition.

Reactionary - thinks society was better before, wants to return to the glory days (MAGA!)
Conservative - thinks society is pretty good as is, wants to basically maintain status quo (reclaim the soul of America!)
Progressive - thinks the best form of society will always exist in the future

I don't think that any of these labels require a specific economic ideology to be legitimate/coherent; i.e. I don't think the fact that you could lump together believers in the Nordic mixed-market model of capitalism along with believers in socialism as "progressive" means that it's an incoherent label, though I do agree that the breadth of the label means that using more specific terms is probably necessary in the context of an online debate thread (as opposed to talking about progressivism in a colloquial way with your boomer parents or whatever).

As to the question of the OP -- the most compelling path forward that I've heard is basically the DSA model of grassroots organizing within the Democratic party at the state & local level to try to pull the party left from within, in addition to commitment to non-electoral forms of civic engagement (activism, mutual aid, etc). It's maddeningly slow, but pragmatically I don't see an alternative that doesn't result in more suffering of vulnerable peoples at the expense of the oligarchs further consolidating their power. But I know a lot of other posters here probably disagree and I'm all for hearing why

Well you can't lump them together because there is a pretty fundamental divide between liberalism and most forms of anti-capitalist if not capitalist-critical leftist/socialism. They would say that reactionary/conservative/progressive/social democrat are really 4 variations of the same "team" and that all 4 are firmly capitalist which some modest functional differences between them. For example, even a Nordic "mixed-market" model would probably be open to progressive privatization if not tax avoidance.

Also, I think leftists if not even many progressive liberals have given up on reforming the Democratic party because, in all honesty, it is an institution that resists all serious change and that it is very unlikely to ever pass anything which would seriously restrict business. It is why it is an endless discussion because it is a fundamental different philosophical point of view.

It also leads to serious other issues more than equality/moralism since the US is having an increasingly difficult time competing in terms of trade if not outright economic growth but institutional factors (resistance against taxation, lobbying, infrastructure spending) is putting it in a more precarious fiscal position.

Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Nov 14, 2020

# ¿ Nov 14, 2020 00:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 13:44

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Btw, the UK and Canada have first past the post and have a similar safety-net arrangement (or stronger) than Australia, I don't know why the voting system would be an important distinction beyond Australia is a Western country that isn't the US. I think the point is that the focus on voting systems is a way to get around actually addressing how a society works and why it is failing, "one weird trick."

Also "don't let x be the enemy of the good" is a way of communicating that "there are problems but the system itself is good and reformable" .... which I don't think has born itself out in modern times.

# ¿ Dec 6, 2020 12:13

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

twerking on the railroad posted:

This is obviously not correct. Say what you will about the affordable care act and it's formation, but it did seriously restrict the health care business.

And not because it is any sort of socialism, but because it can be sold to conservatives as being like socialism, it's being slowly dismantled by the Republican party.

In exchange for a restriction on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, insurance companies got massive subsidies and their operations were not seriously affected by the bill neither were pharma or hospitals. If you had invested in Anthem stock in the early 2010s, you could have made over 6x your investment.

Also, the GOP was never able to agree on an alternative because none of those firms actually want to cash to stop flowing.

Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Dec 26, 2020

# ¿ Dec 26, 2020 19:49

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

twerking on the railroad posted:

Yeah, the thing is though that although campaign contributions from the health insurance industry have always been biased towards Republicans and conservative groups, they took a decisive and visible swing in more so in 2012, tapering off only this year.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=f09

When the ACA was in place, the health insurance industry evidently decided they didn't like it and were big on funding an opposition.

And if we're talking stocks, most of the stock market was soaring during that time. The Dow jones tripled from beginning of year 2010 to end of year 2020.

There has been little sign that the health insurance industry actually wants to get rid of the ACA other than "tweaking" it more to their benefit, why would they give up the money they are getting. Anthem did twice as well as the DJI as a whole...that is pretty drat good (maybe not Tesla level but that is a separate conversation).

The health care insurance shows little signs of "suffering" from the current situation and is in fact doing quite well. It is also why there is little hope from a breakout of the current situation because the leadership of both parties agree on the basics (some basic restrictions plus huge corporate subsides) but differ on the details such as the individual mandate and how subsidies are targeted. It is why progressives have little leverage and don't seem to be interested in a serious fight with the leadership.

Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Dec 26, 2020

# ¿ Dec 26, 2020 22:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Progressive Movement and the American Left