I’m speaking purely in a Hegelian “world spirit” sense. Like at one time liberalism was revolutionary, and that’s where all these progressive values come from. Any individual liberal is more or less moved by those values, liberals of all kinds want to defend private property, but sometimes it is because they want to keep what they think is a fair and just society, and capitalism uses the appearance of these values in society as evidence for its own progressive nature.
For “progressive” I kind og mean removed from its political meaning, beliefs and actions that represent progress for humanity. Socialism is progressive by this definition as well. To me, and this is a fine place to disagree, “progressive” liberals are people who are moved by injustice more than by defending private property. Like they don’t want to get rid of it, but are willing to give up some property if it means more people have rights (a false equivalence but a worthy sentiment.) These people are the ones who can be “moved left”, like I said elsewhere every socialist starts out a liberal (and many socialists revert to liberals, but that’s often said unfairly.)
“progressive” liberals are people who are moved by injustice more than by defending private property.
I completely agree with your categorization of progressive liberals which is why i said the progressive movement doesn’t strike me as caring too much about private property. Except if it means more people gain rights like you said.
Oh sure, I see what you mean. I agree that “defending private property” isn’t exactly a progressive slogan, but it boils down to a difference in strategy maybe? Socialists advocate a radical, revolutionary transformation; progressive libs see the system as sort of neutral and behaving badly, which can be fixed with reforms. So right there at the last second, in theory, the progressive liberals might resist revolutionary change. But in the throes of revolutionary change, All theory goes out and the hard cruel realities set in. We won’t know what its like until we get there. In my mind there wouldn’t really be many progressive liberals left, we would be opposing forces for, and against revolution. Middle strata tend to melt into the whole, or at least seem to, during these times.
I guess so, if there were to be a socialist revolution right now, I’d probably be in support, but it doesn’t mean I’d think it was necessary. I’m a progressive and i don’t necessarily oppose radical overhaul, i just think reform is satisfactory.
I appreciate the engagement! Sorry for any criticisms, I’m just trying to lay out a perspective that is based in Marxism but not like prejudicial against liberals (which Marx and Engels weren’t even if many of their followers are).
Damn… DSA is a big thing. Respect to you for getting your hands dirty with politics. I wish more realised that you don’t win over opponents by trying to be ideologically pure but by trying to accommodate multiple ideologies and finding common ground.
Intellectual differences stand out, and political discourse is just terrible as a rule. Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment as I work very hard to draw these ideas together. I’m just a regular worker, but political marxism provides opportunities for functioning on a very high level intellectually, and collaborate with very smart people, because we are committed to the work of it. That’s all power is really, just peoples labor captured in various forms, and having the ability to use them to achieve our best interests. And the best interest of the working class is solidarity.
And that’s why I try not to be idealist about these differences, its the work that matters most!
I’m speaking purely in a Hegelian “world spirit” sense. Like at one time liberalism was revolutionary, and that’s where all these progressive values come from. Any individual liberal is more or less moved by those values, liberals of all kinds want to defend private property, but sometimes it is because they want to keep what they think is a fair and just society, and capitalism uses the appearance of these values in society as evidence for its own progressive nature.
For “progressive” I kind og mean removed from its political meaning, beliefs and actions that represent progress for humanity. Socialism is progressive by this definition as well. To me, and this is a fine place to disagree, “progressive” liberals are people who are moved by injustice more than by defending private property. Like they don’t want to get rid of it, but are willing to give up some property if it means more people have rights (a false equivalence but a worthy sentiment.) These people are the ones who can be “moved left”, like I said elsewhere every socialist starts out a liberal (and many socialists revert to liberals, but that’s often said unfairly.)
I completely agree with your categorization of progressive liberals which is why i said the progressive movement doesn’t strike me as caring too much about private property. Except if it means more people gain rights like you said.
Oh sure, I see what you mean. I agree that “defending private property” isn’t exactly a progressive slogan, but it boils down to a difference in strategy maybe? Socialists advocate a radical, revolutionary transformation; progressive libs see the system as sort of neutral and behaving badly, which can be fixed with reforms. So right there at the last second, in theory, the progressive liberals might resist revolutionary change. But in the throes of revolutionary change, All theory goes out and the hard cruel realities set in. We won’t know what its like until we get there. In my mind there wouldn’t really be many progressive liberals left, we would be opposing forces for, and against revolution. Middle strata tend to melt into the whole, or at least seem to, during these times.
I guess so, if there were to be a socialist revolution right now, I’d probably be in support, but it doesn’t mean I’d think it was necessary. I’m a progressive and i don’t necessarily oppose radical overhaul, i just think reform is satisfactory.
I appreciate the engagement! Sorry for any criticisms, I’m just trying to lay out a perspective that is based in Marxism but not like prejudicial against liberals (which Marx and Engels weren’t even if many of their followers are).
Don’t worry about it. You were pretty respectful compared to some others i conversed with
I’m in DSA. As a communist in a group with a lot of social democratic progressives, we have to learn to work together!
Damn… DSA is a big thing. Respect to you for getting your hands dirty with politics. I wish more realised that you don’t win over opponents by trying to be ideologically pure but by trying to accommodate multiple ideologies and finding common ground.
Intellectual differences stand out, and political discourse is just terrible as a rule. Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment as I work very hard to draw these ideas together. I’m just a regular worker, but political marxism provides opportunities for functioning on a very high level intellectually, and collaborate with very smart people, because we are committed to the work of it. That’s all power is really, just peoples labor captured in various forms, and having the ability to use them to achieve our best interests. And the best interest of the working class is solidarity.
And that’s why I try not to be idealist about these differences, its the work that matters most!