Being a Progressive means never taking a stand.
Good can be a confusing word indeed, but humanity appears very straightforward.
Equality is generally understood in two ways - equality of opportunity and absolute equality, which are mutually exclusive.
Equality of opportunity means a society should be organized in such a way as to give everybody an equal opportunity in realizing their potential despite their social and economic background. Of course, this proves to be a hard task to do because some people who are possibly more competent and intelligent are born in poor families and never have a chance at receiving a proper education while some people who are possibly less intelligent can get ahead merely based on the fact they are born into a wealthy family.
Let’s say that at start everybody is equally rich (poor) and nobody has an advantage and let’s call it the natural state, the state without any sort of a political system. In such a state the factor of chance will play a trivial role and who gets ahead will most likely be determined by skill, intelligence and overall capability - people will do what they excel at with no obstructions by the society as they are the ones who will create and shape it. The problem is that for the next generation the stage is already set and different for everybody - the children of the people who got ahead will have a better chance to get ahead too, and this is the ultimate problem with capitalism.
Equality of opportunity is what most progressives have been advocating since the inception of their ideology, ironically though, some people who call themselves progressive now are actually anti-progress because they advocate absolute equality, which is in direct conflict with equality of opportunity and reality. Absolute equality demands no difference, equality of opportunity is about recognizing the difference and allowing different people to realize their potential accordingly. Absolute equality is discriminative towards everybody who is above average, though of course equalists will try to deny there is such a thing as average as it implies there are those who aren’t average and who are better or worse, aka UNEQUAL. The entire political terminology requires an update IMO.
Would anybody here even attempt to defend such obviously false and ignorant statements?
Equality != Sameness
Equality means to embrace diversity not to suppress diversity.
It’s met with general denial and equivocation about what it means to be a “conservative” usually. Or a fatalist attitude that everything is going to shit (because of liberals/progressives). Though it’s also true liberals/progressives have been wrong about things in the past and tend to do the same thing when they get called on it. Rationalizing away one’s errors is something humans do, not a left/right thing. But in any case i guess the answer to your question is those errors (fighting to preserve an obsolete status quo and losing) will be rationalized away such that the integrity of the broader ideology is preserved in spite of its failings and faults.
So progress is about “social issues/equality”. Social issues can mean just about anything, so it’s too vague to discuss. In regards to equality, are we talking about equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, or some metaphysical justification of equality?
“Progressives” today often like to claim they are part of a group that has made every advancement in history. But it’s not correct. Today’s “progressive” has nothing in common with, for example, the creators of sanitation systems, fresh running water, auto-mobiles, medical science, washing machines, dishwashers, the internet (this was originally designed and created by the US military, lol, the “progressives’” worst enemy, apart from Jews), computers, etc. etc. etc.
It needs to be constantly pointed out that those who idolise and glorify the rights of gays, women, ethnic minorities above that of the mainstream (usually done through quotas in employment, public service, political parties) are not progressives in the sense as was conceived in the past. It is also true of conservatives. A conservative today is not necessarily someone who would be conservative in the past. Conservatism isn’t all about maintaining the status quo anyway. There is change (pragmatic change), but not change for the sake of change.
When “progressives” want to claim all the accolades for fighting for equal rights in the past, do they include the millions that died in the name of equality under Stalin, Pol Pot and other socialist dictators? This is where the “progressive” starts to squirm. He wants all the accolades, but not the millions of deaths that came with it.
K: You are wrong. if we were living in a fascist dictatorship, conservatives would be for it because it is
tradition and history. Liberals are against fascist dictatorship because it is wrong regardless of
the fact it has existed for a time. Tradition and history are the driving force of conservatives.
Conservative being a dirty word? NO, just someone who is confused.
Phyllo: You put democracy on the list even though it is tradition and history NOW.
You want to make the point that ‘conservatives oppose change’.
You are saying that when democracy was initially being implemented, the conservatives of the time were against it.
K: yes, that is my argument, no matter how badly I put it, (I have to remember not to post during
really busy times at work. I work retail and Christmas is a rather time of the year)
P: Okay that seems to support you position. But a change from democracy to fascism would also be opposed by conservatives of the time. That would be potentially be a good thing but you can’t give conservatives credit for it. That’s not how you roll. Your view is that liberals support what is right and conservatives oppose everything."
K: I included democracy with other past things conservatives opposed. So, yes in the past, when democracy
was being implemented the conservatives were against it. Mind you, when the US openly rebelled against
the UK, thousands left the US for Canada and the UK, being against the revolt against the King. Which was
(and still is) tradition. I’ve read estimates that suggest that as high as 10% of the US population left
for other places when congress declared independence.
Now for your other point, if you look at Russia, the right wing, conservative factions of Russia want
a return to old style Russian dictatorship, be it communism or Tsar. Putin is very popular with
conservatives because he represents old style dictatorship that take no prisoners. Hell, he is very
popular with conservatives here in the U.S. Putin was praised by quite a few conservatives in the US because
of his perceived toughness and the fact he is WHITE. Recall your basic dictatorships and the vast majority
of them are right wing dictatorships, from Nazi’s to Chili to Haiti to Fascism. The few that were so called left wing
dictatorships really weren’t left wing. They were about power and whatever kept them in power. Stalin
wasn’t all that interested in Marxism outside of it being a means to power and keeping power. It wasn’t
Marxism that drove him, but power. The same for Mao and Pol pot. The driving force was power, raw naked
use of power. They keep the Marxism because it kept them in power. A means to an end.
anyway back at the ranch, I truly believe that if (when) this country fails, it will be at the hands
of the conservatives. Their failure to adapt and change and allow the country to adapt and change will
be what will kill the US. For any creature to succeed, it must change and adapt to the changing conditions
and we must be doing that right now, but we can’t because conservatives are holding America hostage to
the past, old ways of doing things. the way into the future is changing and adapting to the new ways
and we can’t because conservatives won’t allow change, thus we will end our days as a third rate banana
republic, courtesy of conservatives.
Kropotkin
[quote=“Jr Wells”]
I think Phyllo has a valid point in that if we take out fundamentalist liberals and conservatives then most, if not all, conservatives (and liberals) would not support a change from democracy to fascism. In such a case why aren’t the conservatives being given credit where credit is due. One could argue that fundamentalist conservatism may support fascism in the same way that a fundamentalist liberalism may support anarchy. I think neither is favourable and I think the vast majority on both sides support the norm. I think Phyllo is suggesting that there is selective attention and inattention. Are there any circumstances where conservatists got it right? Obviously there are countless examples where they did.:
K: ok, there is a challenge that hasn’t any takers. Can anyone name circumstances where conservatives got
it right? I won’t hold my breath.
Kropotkin
I agree that today’s progressive doesn’t have much in common with the progressive of the past, but you’re transiting beyond social issues with your examples about technological advancement, which aren’t the focus of this thread. What was considered progressive by people in the 19th century may as well be considered bigoted even by some conservatives today. The point is to notice the relation between liberals and conservatives in their own respective times in the past and how in every conflict regarding social issues so far the liberal has come out on top and the liberal idea was accepted to be right by conservatives in the future. I’ve provided some examples for that, if you (or somebody else) think there are conservative ideas which won over liberal ones in history regarding social issues, as PK said, I’m listening.
Myself I too would disagree with glorifying the rights of gays, women and ethnic minorities ABOVE other people’s rights, and that is one of the things that so called “liberal progressives” of today are doing that is completely inconsistent with everything their ideological ancestors stood for, however, not all of them are doing it.
Did you seriously just call totalitarian systems progressive? You think Stalin and the team advocated social equality?
Opposition to US involvement in Vietnam. JFK sent in advisers and LBJ escalated it to a full conflict. Democrats had a majority in congress when large numbers of troops were deployed.
Notice that Republicans thought that it was a mistake long before Democrats:
[attachment=0]oppositionvietnam.JPG[/attachment]
Yes.
Before they took power, the Bolsheviks were promising to overthrow an unjust totalitarian system and to bring freedom and equality to the people.
This is some very confused logic. Fascism is tradition and history? They call this logical fallacy ‘begging the question’ and/or ‘circular logic’.
Yes. Their goal was the classless society.
The drive to equality always ends up in big government; because, equality doesn’t occur naturally; it has to be forced. So, they have to take control of the public service, the executive branch of government, the education institutions, the military, and the media.
K: as it happened that I was alive during said time period and I think some historical revision is going on.
The protest really didn’t go mainstream until 1969 or 70. Before that it was driven by youths who really, really
didn’t want to go to Vietnam. If there were complaints by the right, it was about the cost of the war, not about
the war itself. Recall Nixon won in 68 pretty much admitting he was continuing the war and that election
was a pretty straight forward right vs left election with Nixon winning the right vote handily. The right just
thought Nixon would run the war cheaper and with competence. Also, the right really didn’t object to the war
because to do so meant you were anti-American and a traitor, a la fonda and hayden. The basic division
between right and left was the right objected because of the cost, the left objected because of the loss of lives.
The division between right and left was almost enough to drive this country apart and was the greatest division
seen in this country since 1932 -36. A little side note, JFK actually followed in Eisenhower footsteps sending
in “ADVISORS” as Eisenhower sent advisors in as early as 1958, but the real escalation was after JFK was killed,
1964 and later. LBJ was the real driver of the escalation, not JFK.
Kropotkin
There's a combination of factors here, but the first is a confused understanding of history. So for example, you have racism completely backwards- it was the progressives that wanted eugenics, that wanted to treat blacks like inferior beings, and so on. The progressives supported abortion specifically to reduce minority populations because they thought they were bad for the nation's gene pool. Now you are [i]taught[/i] that race relations is the single biggest example of progressives being right and conservatives wrong because, well, progressives lie. About the only aspect of race that breaks down on left/right the way you suggest is interracial marriage- everything else from slavery to segregation ends up with conservative, religious, Republicans being the advocate of minorities.
Also, your point omits counter evidence. Namely, socialism. The left was all about socialism and communism, and they were absolutely wrong about that- the world has moved on from communism except in a couple backwater shitholes that will continue to suffer until they drop that economic plan. Conservatives were right there, progressives were wrong- but we're taught that socialism has never been tried and that Mao, Stalin, Castro, and so on 'don't count' because again, progressives lie.
Vegetarianism is a great counter example too. You may well be right that in the future, we won't be allowed to eat meat because progressives will have forced that sort of social change upon us. You pointed out that you disagree with this. Well, in that possible future, the world will be convinced that veganism is the only ethical choice, and you and I here in the present know that the world will be wrong about that, just like the world is wrong about gays and transsexuals now (because of the lies of progressives, there again). Of course, if the progressives get their way about that, you won't be allowed to disagree with vegans withing being called some horrible kind of bigot (speciesist, probably) and losing your job- so if they WERE wrong, how would the next generation ever find out? Don't confuse being in control and restricting the flow of information with being 'correct'- the left isn't correct just because they don't let the other side speak- not now with sexual issues, and not in a possible future over vegetarianism.
So in summary, the trend you are noticing is a combination of four factors- progressives lying to you about history, progressives omitting their failures, progressives controlling society such that they can’t be disagreed with and (I didn’t bring this up before), the simple fact if one side is pushing for change and the other side is pushing for stability, it will be much easier to point to examples of the ‘change’ side’s successes because, well, something changed. The resistance to (so far) pedophile groups like NAMBLA is a conservative victory against progressives, but that won’t get in a history book because “in the end, nothing happened” isnt’ a good story.
What the fuck? Pronouncements of objective right and wrong coming from PK? Do I even have to bother going through the giant list of posts of yours that absolutely contradict the existence of any such thing?
Like I keep saying, 'right' and 'wrong' are just words to a progressive, and they use them for their ends. Relativist when it suits them, absolutist when it suits them.
It’s not a logical fallacy. Fascism is a far right ideology originating in Italy based precisely on Italian tradition and history, in fact, on roots of Italy itself. Fascists thought they can return Italy to its former glory in the days of ancient Rome through a radical authoritarian system with a powerful figure on top of the hierarchy to be an equivalent of the emperor in past.
You’re pretty much wrong by definition. Every totalitarian system seeks to conserve itself, it isn’t open to any sort of change (progress) once it fully establishes itself because the specific totalitarian ideology itself (such as fascism or communism) is usually viewed as the peak of progress and anything which deviates from it is therefore regress.
If by equality you mean equality of opportunity, so what if it’s not natural? I don’t find the appeal to nature argument convincing, why should humans attempt to imitate the rest of nature? Humans are the most intelligent beings in nature, they should be the ones determining IT, they shouldn’t LOOK UP to beings LOWER than themselves, that is the epitome of regress in every possible meaning of the word.
Equality of opportunity is generally accepted as desirable because if properly incorporated it allows for every person to achieve their full potential regardless of the social and economic background they’re born into. Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that the only people who would oppose such a system are the ones who are born into better social/economic background than they deserve and attempt to preserve their privileged state.
K: I really have to post once I’ve woken up and not the very first thing.
Once a fascist dictatorship has been up and running, for the soviets, say the 1950’s, it is now history
and tradition. It is the conservatives that want a continuation of system because it is history and tradition.
Liberals who want to change the system into a less dictatorship and say so and are promptly shipped off to
Siberia. Improving the system is not tolerated and dealt with severely. conservatism is about maintaining
the system, not changing it. Any and all changes are done at the top with the top giving approval and strict
guidelines on how change is to happen. What happens to any dictatorship is in fact a situation where
the system itself regardless of how much it declares itself socialist, it becomes afraid of changes.
Fear of change, which might lead to an undermining of the dictatorship, drives the dictatorship
to freeze and change is forbidden. Which is what conservatives are all about. This is
what I mean by conservatives fighting change to the dictatorship and how liberals who want change to
the system are sent to Siberia. This is what I meant, I just wasn’t clear. It is about the fossilization of
dictatorships that leads said system to lock out liberals and be cheered on by conservatives.
Kropotkin
Those Gallup polls were taken in the 1960s. How could those polls be a revision?
It was opposed more by older people than young people.
jstor.org/discover/2747894?s … 7720&uid=4
Cost was one complaint but not the major one.
Complete nonsense as can easily be seen:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ni … aign,_1968
u-s-history.com/pages/h1888.html
This statement is completely unsupported by the historical record. It’s simply leftist propaganda.
The numbers don’t lie:
China and Cuba have been communist for multiple generations and conservatives are still against it, because those systems are anti-tradition, anti-liberty, and anti-personal-responsibility no matter how long they last. Socialism and Communism are leftist movements, leftists the ones shipping you off to Siberia if they catch you hording property, praying, or advocating free elections. The typical leftist/liberal response to socialist tyranny was that of Walter Duranty- lying, denial, and apologetics. To try and tell me that it was leftists heroically standing up against fucking Stalin is sickening. Uncle Joe was the fucking hero of American Progressives, and you can find books and tracts all over the place advocating for the U.S. to become more like the USSR.
A week ago you were creating thread after thread about how there’s no such thing as right and wrong, so much so that other progressives were dissecting your relativism. Now you’re saying progressives are against tyranny because Its the Right Thing To Do irrespective of tradition and culture.
You are simply making up bullshit to make liberals sound heroic, even if the bullshit you made up today contradicts the bullshit you made up yesterday.
That kind of intellectual dishonesty (remember that term?) is exactly what is to be expected from the progressive ideology- making whatever claims about ethics are immediately useful to them. This kind of behavior is what results in posts like the one started this thread, where young people are so twisted up by political lies that they think racism is a conservative thing and the Left in the US has never been wrong about a social engineering project.