|
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 
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
Ardennes posted: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. Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but I think if you can’t recognize shared near-term goals despite long-term ideological differences, then it’s going to be really hard to translate theory into practice? I don’t see how there’s more to gain by putting yourself on an island and putting progressives and reactionaries on the same team, that just feels like it’s rigging the game against yourself under the pretense of ideological superiority. I think the reality in the US is that the overwhelming majority of people don’t give a poo poo about ideology. Or if you think the better route for the American left is to let the dominant forces of conservative and reactionary capitalism continue towards the precipice of its own collapse, then I can understand the aversion to lumping in e.g. Nordic model capitalists with state socialists under a bigger umbrella of progressivism. But that seems like a hell of a gambit to me, given how advanced and entrenched the Military Industrial Complex has become especially in the past 20 years... The Oldest Man posted:Yeah I'm not arguing that "I think we should improve society somewhat" is incoherent as a belief or, like, bad. I'm arguing that it's not sufficient to effect any change because it says nothing about the mechanism and scope of that change and almost anything that isn't obviously regressive psycho poo poo can be marketed as "improve society somewhat" and have some claim to truth, which makes the label useless as a tool for effecting change. I think if you’re expecting a label to be useful for effecting change in itself, then maybe you just need to adjust your expectations of what the purpose of a generalized label can do in the context of 2020 American politics? The label is intended to be broad enough to encompass varied scopes and mechanisms for change, I think? I’m not the OP you’re responding to, and I’m not a tax policy expert by any means, but I don’t see how eliminating the SALT tax cap could be framed as a progressive policy? Unless you’re saying that “Pelosi wants to do it, Pelosi’s a powerful Dem, Dems want to be seen as progressive, therefore it must be defined as a progressive policy” or something to that effect? I don’t think neoliberals trying to appropriate the progressive label when they’re clearly fighting for status quo conservative policies means that the progressive label is worthless. (its late here, I’m kind of sleep deprived, hope my post is at least coherent, and look forward to the replies)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
Doctor Jeep posted:the whole point is that there are no shared near-term goals except the vague "let's be nice to each other" bullshit Are M4A and the GND not shared near term goals? Honest question. My extreme oversimplification would be: Progressives (with socialist ideology): in favor Progressives (with Nordic capitalist ideology): in favor Conservatives (mainstream Dems): opposed Reactionaries (GOP): opposed Isn’t that a case where there’s a shared near term goal within a progressive coalition that cuts across ideology? Does the shittiness of mainstream Dems (ie conservatives) really justify abandoning such an intuitively good label as progressivism?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2020 09:37
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:I think it's important to emphasize that not "[giving] a poo poo about ideology" is not a reason to back away from ideological critique, but even more reason to double down on it - after all, it's those that don't think that ideology ultimately matters that are most in the clutches of it. I think i agree with what you’re saying about the non-ideological being the most in the clutches of it — basically if you’re marginalized and oppressed, you don’t have the luxury of examining ideas and this is a massive barrier to developing an ideology, yes? That’s what I mean, I’m not at all suggesting that neoliberalism is neutral and everything else is ideology; I know that sometimes neoliberals imply this, so want to be clear it’s not what I’m suggesting. To me, an implication of this dynamic isn’t to run away from leftist ideology, but I think pragmatically it’s going to be more persuasive to more people to say “I’m in favor of progressive policies like the GND” than “I’m in favor of leftist policies like the GND”. The latter presupposes a level of ideological understanding that just isn’t really widespread enough in the US, whereas the former is more intuitive. I don’t see how this is dismissive or inconsistent with a materialist approach. Policies that appeal to material conditions will always be insufficient if your communication appeals to ideology instead. No, I don’t think AOC is too ideologically pure or whatever, I think she’s a great example of being able to communicate leftist policies in a way that comes across as common sense and not polemically ideological. Ytlaya posted:People frequently vaguely phrase this as "we need to gradually elect more leftists," but if you actually think about what would be necessary to exercise high-level political power (which is the kind needed to actually address the most harmful things in our country or caused by it) it's basically like trying to turn New York or California red or something (it's actually significantly worse than this, but it's the best clear analogy I could think of at the moment). There's a flawed logic of "because the left can win some Democratic seats, it is possible to win most of them if we try hard enough," when a significant portion of those seats are effectively unwinnable for the exact same reason solid red places often are (and if anything the most wealthy and populous blue states are some of the worst in this regard, due to the power focused in them). It's basically making the flawed assumption that blue areas are universally at least possibly receptive to the left. Do you think leftist goals will be more achievable under conservative Dem or Republican control of all branches of government? Or that a collapse of the US empire is imminent enough that there will be enough time to pick up the pieces to address climate change AND that the collapse won’t entail worsening of material conditions for oppressed people at the hands of military-industrialists? Unfortunately, all possible non-dystopian future visions for America require flawed logic (it’s a bad country), so what’s yours?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2020 08:36
|
|
|
Man I could not disagree more with the arguments against “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. It’s just a heuristic formulation of the scientific method, and is fundamentally aligned with a Marxist analysis of history and social progress*. Don’t let rationalism blind you from what’s actually happening in front of your eyes. The perfect only exists as an abstract concept, social relations in the real world will, by definition, never be perfect. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It’s super weird that y’all don’t understand this *marxist social progress, aka progressivism
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 08:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Donald J. Trump single-handedly killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. All hail the most progressive president of the last 30 years. Couldn’t you just replace progressive with leftist and this satire would be just as valid?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2020 06:55
|
|