What is social progressivism?

Gloominary · December 15, 2020, 11:49pm

What is social progressivism, or to put it another way, what is leftwing social control/authoritarianism?
By social I mean as opposed to fiscal, not socialism the economic theory.

Is it (a species of) speech/thought control?
Is it gun control?
Is it giving more positive and negative rights to minorities and women than the majority and men?
Is it compulsory education?
Compulsory healthcare?
Animal rights?
Environmentalism?
One or more of the above/something else?

I think social conservatism is easier to define than social progressivism because it’s been around longer.
We’ve had it for centuries if not millennia whereas social progressivism appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon.
Social conservatism is basically the imposition of religion and traditional moral values (in the west, that would be Christianity, white nationalism, patriarchy, heteronormativity as they say and moderation: don’t eat or drink too much or take reactional drugs, work hard, don’t lie, cheat or steal, be responsible).

When the Marxists took over Russia, they attempted to impose some social programs on the Russian people, forced atheism and so on (I’m far from an expert on this subject, perhaps others could fill us in as to many of the social programs they tried to impose and how they differ from contemporary social programs).
I suspect their programs were more mixed, containing some stuff that was both progressive and conservative, whereas ours are more strictly progressive.
It wasn’t the same as the social progressivism we have today, but you could say it started there.

I would also like to add by social progressivism I don’t mean libertarianism.
I’m not talking about progressivism as something negative/the absence of x, merely the depoliticization or removal of social conservatism from politics and law, I’m talking about it as something positive/the presence of x, the imposition of new moral values, or at least the removal of social conservativism from, not only politics and law, but from the business world and even our sociopersonal lives.

Also, what do you think of social progressivism, do you think it’s positive/negative?
If you’re a socialist, do you think it complements socialism, or is it a hinderance, even antithetical?

promethean75 · December 16, 2020, 12:35am

“it (a species of) speech/thought control?
Is it gun control?
Is it giving more positive and negative rights to minorities and women than the majority and men?
Is it compulsory education?
Compulsory healthcare?
Animal rights?
Environmentalism?”

You know if you first made significant structural changes to economy and society in the way of the ‘socialism’, and in say a couple years or so - projecting a significant increase in employment, income, access to medical, regulated rent and interest rates so that expenses and debts are less, … and some kind of corporatization of the job/field each person works in so that there is better more even distribution of profit… - the vast majority of people might more easily agree on an answer to each of those and be far less obstinate.

Think of it like this. If approximately equal people take each side of each argument there, it means something makes sense about their position and they believe fervently in it.

This being the case, it’s demonstrated that there can’t be a ‘right’ answer to those arguments, and that what matters, now, is that a majority make the decision… as that’s as close to what we can get to a reasonable solution.

But now imagine if people were less divided in other ways so that, perhaps, that spirit of obstinacy and the feeling of importance of defending one’s position against the perceived enemy at any cost, would be less severe.

Even the fact of being divided and calling a set of core, principle beliefs the ‘basis’ of a party, predisposes someone to vilify the opposition.

Never mind I’m swerving. The point is that if each side of an argument are approximately equal in their duration and strength, there’s nothing to prove one or the other is the ‘right’ way to conclude the argument objectively (these aren’t math problems), and we end up at compulsory intersubjective agreement anyway. Only there happens to be two of these agreement sets.

First step is for the world to recognize there IS NO objective right answer to the guns and animals and environment and everything else, and then to modify the whole fuckin so sigh it tee so that people no longer vilify the other side.

Real talk. When’s the last time you saw a pro choice leftist admit that while he thinks what joe the christian believes regarding the soul and the moment of conception, etc., etc., is nonsense, he nonetheless understands how joe might find his position the most reasonable one to have; no abortion. change society so that accidental pregnancies stop happening. Restore old protestant work ethic values, etc.

Now this is reasonable. But that doesnt make it right, or wrong. Just a different way to address a problem.

In the same way, it’s perfectly possible to make abortion illegal and pentalize it. Doing this could be made ‘reasonable’ with the proper support of more arguments, and so on.

And in turn righty needs to understand why lefty is pro choice, and examine his beliefs and arguments.

Not until they stop bickering and accept that what ‘makes sense’ to someone is not something they can control, they can begin the discussion about reconfiguring and resolving the problems.

Mr_J · December 16, 2020, 5:39pm

Social, cultural, and racial Marxism mixed with big corp technological humanism for a one world order that solely exists for the global elites but simultaneously tricks the small people into believing that they’ll somehow benefit also when in reality the objective goal is their total elimination or annihilation. One big massive cognitive dissonance circle jerk for everybody everywhere.

Gloominary · December 16, 2020, 6:18pm

promethean75:

“it (a species of) speech/thought control?
Is it gun control?
Is it giving more positive and negative rights to minorities and women than the majority and men?
Is it compulsory education?
Compulsory healthcare?
Animal rights?
Environmentalism?”

You know if you first made significant structural changes to economy and society in the way of the ‘socialism’, and in say a couple years or so - projecting a significant increase in employment, income, access to medical, regulated rent and interest rates so that expenses and debts are less, … and some kind of corporatization of the job/field each person works in so that there is better more even distribution of profit… - the vast majority of people might more easily agree on an answer to each of those and be far less obstinate.

Maybe, maybe if we solved our economic problems, maybe people wouldn’t care much about this sociocultural stuff, one way or the other.

Think of it like this. If approximately equal people take each side of each argument there, it means something makes sense about their position and they believe fervently in it.

This being the case, it’s demonstrated that there can’t be a ‘right’ answer to those arguments, and that what matters, now, is that a majority make the decision… as that’s as close to what we can get to a reasonable solution.

But now imagine if people were less divided in other ways so that, perhaps, that spirit of obstinacy and the feeling of importance of defending one’s position against the perceived enemy at any cost, would be less severe.

Even the fact of being divided and calling a set of core, principle beliefs the ‘basis’ of a party, predisposes someone to vilify the opposition.

Never mind I’m swerving. The point is that if each side of an argument are approximately equal in their duration and strength, there’s nothing to prove one or the other is the ‘right’ way to conclude the argument objectively (these aren’t math problems), and we end up at compulsory intersubjective agreement anyway. Only there happens to be two of these agreement sets.

First step is for the world to recognize there IS NO objective right answer to the guns and animals and environment and everything else, and then to modify the whole fuckin so sigh it tee so that people no longer vilify the other side.

Real talk. When’s the last time you saw a pro choice leftist admit that while he thinks what joe the christian believes regarding the soul and the moment of conception, etc., etc., is nonsense, he nonetheless understands how joe might find his position the most reasonable one to have; no abortion. change society so that accidental pregnancies stop happening. Restore old protestant work ethic values, etc.

Now this is reasonable. But that doesnt make it right, or wrong. Just a different way to address a problem.

In the same way, it’s perfectly possible to make abortion illegal and pentalize it. Doing this could be made ‘reasonable’ with the proper support of more arguments, and so on.

And in turn righty needs to understand why lefty is pro choice, and examine his beliefs and arguments.

Not until they stop bickering and accept that what ‘makes sense’ to someone is not something they can control, they can begin the discussion about reconfiguring and resolving the problems.

Yea, all, or at least a lot of this stuff is subjective.
Much of our values come down to subjective cognition, feelings, personal experience.
If we want to live together, we have to compromise, or get a divorce, we’re never all going to agree.

Fixed_Cross · December 16, 2020, 6:23pm

Gloominary:

What is social progressivism, or to put it another way, what is leftwing social control/authoritarianism?
By social I mean as opposed to fiscal, not socialism the economic theory.

Is it (a species of) speech/thought control?
Is it gun control?
Is it giving more positive and negative rights to minorities and women than the majority and men?
Is it compulsory education?
Compulsory healthcare?
Animal rights?
Environmentalism?
One or more of the above/something else?

I think social conservatism is easier to define than social progressivism because it’s been around longer.
We’ve had it for centuries if not millennia whereas social progressivism appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon.
Social conservatism is basically the imposition of religion and traditional moral values (in the west, that would be Christianity, white nationalism, patriarchy, heteronormativity as they say and moderation: don’t eat or drink too much or take reactional drugs, work hard, don’t lie, cheat or steal, be responsible).

When the Marxists took over Russia, they attempted to impose some social programs on the Russian people, forced atheism and so on (I’m far from an expert on this subject, perhaps others could fill us in as to many of the social programs they tried to impose and how they differ from contemporary social programs).
I suspect their programs were more mixed, containing some stuff that was both progressive and conservative, whereas ours are more strictly progressive.
It wasn’t the same as the social progressivism we have today, but you could say it started there.

I would also like to add by social progressivism I don’t mean libertarianism.
I’m not talking about progressivism as something negative/the absence of x, merely the depoliticization or removal of social conservatism from politics and law, I’m talking about it as something positive/the presence of x, the imposition of new moral values, or at least the removal of social conservativism from, not only politics and law, but from the business world and even our sociopersonal lives.

Also, what do you think of social progressivism, do you think it’s positive/negative?
If you’re a socialist, do you think it complements socialism, or is it a hinderance, even antithetical?

It is a result of envy.
It is made by people who are in some way irreparably deformed (probably often enough only in their own mind) and thus have no perspective on healthy forms of happiness and are tormented by seeing healthy, wholesome people. There are of course some better people who get caught up in it by being made to feel guilty, but the root is envy from depravity.
Envy is the most powerful “sin”. Marx is its most powerful manifestation.

You see it in ogres like zuckerborg en bill getz. The more money they make, the more frustrated they get, as they realized that money is not going to make them less ogre-like. So they spend their fortunes on destroying the lives of the wholesome to “get even”.

I may be seen to be simplifying it just a little bit, but Ive come to realize that it is essentially this simple.

Gloominary · December 16, 2020, 6:49pm

FTMP that’s how I feel about them.
I agree with fiscal progressives on some things, like affordable housing, education, healthcare and higher wages, but I agree with sociocultural progressives on abortion, some environmental concerns and that’s about it.
I can get along with fiscal progressives who’re socioculturally libertarian or moderately conservative, see eye-eye with them on quite a bit, but not with social progressives.
Unfortunately the social progressives appear to have come to dominate the left.

Gloominary · December 16, 2020, 6:52pm

Gloominary:

Zero_Sum:

Social, cultural, and racial Marxism mixed with big corp technological humanism for a one world order that solely exists for the global elites but simultaneously tricks the small people into believing that they’ll somehow benefit also when in reality the objective goal is their total elimination or annihilation. One big massive cognitive dissonance circle jerk for everybody everywhere.

FTMP that’s how I feel about them.
I agree with fiscal progressives on some things, like affordable housing, education, healthcare and higher wages, but I agree with sociocultural progressives on abortion, some environmental concerns and that’s about it.
I can get along with fiscal progressives who’re socioculturally libertarian or moderately conservative, see eye-eye with them on quite a bit, but not with social progressives.
Unfortunately the social progressives appear to have come to dominate the left.

And (social) progressives seem to be pushing this Covid tyranny the most.

Gloominary · December 16, 2020, 6:54pm

Fixed Cross:

Gloominary:

What is social progressivism, or to put it another way, what is leftwing social control/authoritarianism?
By social I mean as opposed to fiscal, not socialism the economic theory.

Is it (a species of) speech/thought control?
Is it gun control?
Is it giving more positive and negative rights to minorities and women than the majority and men?
Is it compulsory education?
Compulsory healthcare?
Animal rights?
Environmentalism?
One or more of the above/something else?

I think social conservatism is easier to define than social progressivism because it’s been around longer.
We’ve had it for centuries if not millennia whereas social progressivism appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon.
Social conservatism is basically the imposition of religion and traditional moral values (in the west, that would be Christianity, white nationalism, patriarchy, heteronormativity as they say and moderation: don’t eat or drink too much or take reactional drugs, work hard, don’t lie, cheat or steal, be responsible).

When the Marxists took over Russia, they attempted to impose some social programs on the Russian people, forced atheism and so on (I’m far from an expert on this subject, perhaps others could fill us in as to many of the social programs they tried to impose and how they differ from contemporary social programs).
I suspect their programs were more mixed, containing some stuff that was both progressive and conservative, whereas ours are more strictly progressive.
It wasn’t the same as the social progressivism we have today, but you could say it started there.

I would also like to add by social progressivism I don’t mean libertarianism.
I’m not talking about progressivism as something negative/the absence of x, merely the depoliticization or removal of social conservatism from politics and law, I’m talking about it as something positive/the presence of x, the imposition of new moral values, or at least the removal of social conservativism from, not only politics and law, but from the business world and even our sociopersonal lives.

Also, what do you think of social progressivism, do you think it’s positive/negative?
If you’re a socialist, do you think it complements socialism, or is it a hinderance, even antithetical?

It is a result of envy.
It is made by people who are in some way irreparably deformed (probably often enough only in their own mind) and thus have no perspective on healthy forms of happiness and are tormented by seeing healthy, wholesome people. There are of course some better people who get caught up in it by being made to feel guilty, but the root is envy from depravity.
Envy is the most powerful “sin”. Marx is its most powerful manifestation.

You see it in ogres like zuckerborg en bill getz. The more money they make, the more frustrated they get, as they realized that money is not going to make them less ogre-like. So they spend their fortunes on destroying the lives of the wholesome to “get even”.

I may be seen to be simplifying it just a little bit, but Ive come to realize that it is essentially this simple.

Yea, there’s probably a lot of truth to that.

Gloominary · December 16, 2020, 8:00pm

Traditional values could be characterizes as a series of hierarchies:

Superior>Inferior
Christian>NonChristian
Western>Nonwestern
White>Nonwhite
Male>Female
Monogamy>Polyamory
Fertile>Sterile
Able>Disabled
Adult>Child
Fit>Fat
Sober>Drunk
Hardworking>Lazy
Saver>Spender
Rational>Irrational
Law-abiding/Lawbreaking

Progressive values aren’t so much new values, as they are the inversion of traditional values.
Superior>inferior are reconstrued as Oppressor>Oppressed.
Social justice is giving more positive and negative rights to the oppressed, as a form of compensation for perceived past and present injustices, until the oppressed are thought to no longer have inferior sociocultural standing.

There are other aspects of social progressivism, like gun control, compulsory education, compulsory healthcare and environmentalism, which I don’t believe are necessarily socially progressive in the sense I meant it above, western education, healthcare and science may even be seen as antithetical to social progressivism, because they developed in the occident.
Hardcore social progressives may even be anti-western education, healthcare and science, or apprehensive about aspects of it.

As for gun control, from what I gather, many conservative authoritarians implemented gun control, so I don’t see it as necessarily being progressive or conservative, more generally authoritarian.
As for environmentalism, if environmentalism is practiced more for the sake of wildlife, then I see it as being more strictly progressive (inverting traditional values: civilization>environment becomes environment>civilization), whereas if its practiced more for the sake of humanity, like conserving wildlife and natural resources for the sake of future generations, so they can enjoy their beauty and utilize their resources, then I don’t see it as being strictly progressive.

Urwrongx1000 · December 16, 2020, 9:00pm

To me, Social Progressivism is Corporate Authoritarianism, Big Tech, MSM takeover of “Truth” (“fact-checking”), and takeover of the internet, or internet “culture”.

“Cancel-Culture” (attacking and destroying Conservative-Right institutions and people) is their primary weapon.

BLM and Antifa are their Strong-arm, enforcement agency. They use Race and “Critical Race Theory” as another tool/weapon and mean of Leverage.

They claim a lot of “progress”, in terms of Environment, Politics, and Race, but they do almost the exact-opposite of what they claim. They are Dupes, of the DNC establishment. Pawns in a war. They are “progressing” nothing.

They are actually Regressivists, not Progressives.

They are driven by lust for Power, and do not stand upon Virtues. Thus they are morally corrupt.

Ecmandu · December 16, 2020, 9:05pm

Dude…

Urwrong,

It’s very obvious that you are either being paid to post here or you’re fucking insane.

There are no other options.

You’ve been radicalized by propaganda, that much is obvious.

Your posts are a joke dude. Trump is a joke.

Did Biden win? Maybe not. But I can tell you this for 100% certainty! If Biden didn’t win, trump didn’t either.

You think about that as you take a shit on your toilet and get back to me.

Urwrongx1000 · December 16, 2020, 9:10pm

Shut the fuck up, Ecmandu, retard.

Say something smart or quit pissing in people’s threads. We are here for Philosophy, not your psycho-manic episodes where you cry-out “ME ME ME ME SOMEBODY LISTEN TO MEEEE!!!”

Take some meds and fuck off.

(My apologies to Gloominary)

Ecmandu · December 16, 2020, 9:14pm

You know what’s funny Urwrong…

And this may actually send chills down your spine…

Everyone who’s ever lived eventually sees the entire life stories of everyone who’s ever lived.

I don’t know who the fuck you think you are… but next time you take a shit in a toilet about who you are; think about that

Urwrongx1000 · December 16, 2020, 9:16pm

Excuse me while I start counting these $100, C-notes…

flip flip flip flip flip

sniffs the luscious green wad of cash

You jealous??

Ecmandu · December 16, 2020, 9:26pm

Urwrong,

Not a bit. I’m never jealous of a moron. I have the most beautiful mind on earth… I’m still in hell, but having my mind even makes hell somewhat beautiful.

What do you have? Pieces of cloth-paper. In heaven, where most things are given to you free of charge (this gets a little complicated - but go with me for a moment) what do you think pieces of cloth paper mean?

Nothing. Not one damn fucking thing.

Am I jealous of you? I pity you.

I don’t think you understand the full magnitude of me…

I’m a resurrected being who’s been to hell.

And none of that does or could make any sense to you…

But what can make sense to you, is that spiritually, my friends are the spirits that can and will send you to hell.

I earned my ‘bones’ in hell… I’m one of the super elite spirits. I understand things like: “Ecmandu is just trying to overcompensate for his lack of superiority”

Dude, you have no fucking clue what’s occurring here.

My best advice to you: stop

Will you listen to me? Fuck no.

Gloominary · December 16, 2020, 11:19pm

Urwrongx1000:

To me, Social Progressivism is Corporate Authoritarianism, Big Tech, MSM takeover of “Truth” (“fact-checking”), and takeover of the internet, or internet “culture”.

“Cancel-Culture” (attacking and destroying Conservative-Right institutions and people) is their primary weapon.

BLM and Antifa are their Strong-arm, enforcement agency. They use Race and “Critical Race Theory” as another tool/weapon and mean of Leverage.

They claim a lot of “progress”, in terms of Environment, Politics, and Race, but they do almost the exact-opposite of what they claim. They are Dupes, of the DNC establishment. Pawns in a war. They are “progressing” nothing.

They are actually Regressivists, not Progressives.

They are driven by lust for Power, and do not stand upon Virtues. Thus they are morally corrupt.

FTMP I agree.
Even many fiscal progressives don’t want anything to do with social progressives/divisive identity politics.
While there may be some genuine social progressives on the fringes of the left, social progressivism is mostly a tool used by the deep state to deflect, distract, divide and rule, to attack libertarians and populists, to use as a pretext to militantly globalize the world, because that’s what these people, the heads of the international organizations and multinationals want ultimately, the total centralization of wealth and power.

Gloominary · December 16, 2020, 11:22pm

No worries, maybe Ecman will approach our threads more constructively in the future, but I won’t hold my breath.

Ecmandu · December 17, 2020, 12:42am

Oh that’s funny,

Define constructive. Actually, define unconstructive from my posts.

I’m of the old guard of the Internet … where people debated points raised. I know that’s a really complicated idea for all of you, but the internet actually used to be this way.

Gloominary · December 17, 2020, 1:15am

Yea, racial and other minorities will be the 1st on the chopping block after they’ve outlived their usefulness.

If you think the dem/lib establishment and the MSM, the banks and the multinationals, which donated billions to BLM give a shit about you, you’ve got another thing coming.

Gloominary · December 17, 2020, 2:00am

So social progressivism, more narrowly defined, is the inversion of social conservatism or traditional values.
Much of what we regarded as bad becomes equal to or greater than what we regarded as good.
What’s bad is either differentiating good and bad, or what’s good.
Women, minorities of all kinds, and noncitizens good, men, the majority and citizens bad.

By this definition, gun control is not necessarily progressive, in fact arms control has been practiced by the authoritarian right for millennia, if anything it may be rightwing.
Compulsory education and compulsory (mental) healthcare aren’t so much examples of progressive authoritarianism, as they are examples of scientific authoritarianism, some hardcore progressives even reject scientific authoritarianism, because they see it as too western, too rational and oppressive (healthy/sane/good, sick/insane/bad).
They may prefer no compulsory education or healthcare or a more inclusive education and healthcare, where prescientific ideas from Africa, the Americas and the orient, about medicine and nature are given more priority.
Environmental preservation (nature has intrinsic value) can be seen as more progressive authoritarianism, environmental conservation (nature has extrinsic value) as more scientific authoritarianism.

So there you have it, gun control isn’t progressive authoritarianism, it’s just authoritarian.
Compulsory western education, healthcare and environmental conservation isn’t progressive authoritarianism, it’s scientific authoritarianism.
Leftwing Identity politics is what progressive authoritarianism really is, if you want to narrow it down.
It ought to be distinguished from gun control, and scientific authoritarianism.
The left typically employs all three forms of authoritarianism, but there may come a time when scientific authoritarianism divorces progressive authoritarianism and becomes its own thing.
Look what the left has been able to accomplish with scientific authoritarianism, with Covid.
Perhaps the future of authoritarianism is scientific, rather than communism or leftwing identity politics.
They are not the same thing.