Difference between revisions of "Talk:Progressivism"

Revision as of 22:51, September 17, 2019

This article should be written. By that I mean having the entire article be a quote doesn't tell anyone anything except you are lazy. Rellik 15:47, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

After World War I

Where did all of the progressives go? Did they all of a sudden give up their ideas, admit that they were wrong, and seek another path? Or did they just put on masks and change the label on the box?

Section: Understanding Progressive Ideology

I created a simple table to help illustrate the claims of Progressivism about how "x group" or "x initiative" will be helped, but in reality the actual beneficiary is always, always big government.

Looking at the platform of the Bull Moose Party(and I hope every conservative will read this platform) there are some things that are so nebulous that they can't be quantified. It's merely campaign rhetoric.(Campaign rhetoric is not necessarily good nor bad, it just is) Examples of this from the platform are the section on "The Old Parties", and some parts of the section on "Social and Industrial Justice". Conversely, the call for a living wage needs no explanation needs no explanation in the table, along with others.

Amendment of the Constitution

This is a long time dream of progressives, to finally get around that pesky Constitution. The beneficiary they point to is a nebulous "the people". What the progressives ended up settling on is the concept of the Living Constitution. Since Judges can on a whim decide what the Constitution means at any given moment, the progressives no longer have a need for a reform of the amendment process. The Judges do it in real-time now.

Conservation

The dream of progressives has long been to control the land of the country. Where we are at today, 2016, states like Alaska, Utah, and Oregon all have over a 50% Federal ownership in their land. Nevada is almost 85% owned, there are more than 10 states with more than 33% Federal ownership. One thing that progressives are very good at is grabbing at the "low hanging fruit". Get everybody to agree that government intrusion is necessary now, and then once government intrusion has been established as a fact, haggle over the details later.

The Old Left

Many of the original progressives were republicans, and where they weren't, they were not generally favorable to the competing socialist movement.

Herbert Croly, Jane Addams, Learned Hand, Felix Frankfurter, Hiram Johnson, Albert J. Beveridge, Boies Penrose, Alf Landon, Frank Knox, Theodore Roosevelt, Hamilton Fish, John M. Parker, Gifford Pinchot, Thomas R. Marshall, and A. Mitchell Palmer. Mitchell Palmer might be the most stark of everybody in the list, being both a progressive and a democrat. One of the best-known parts of Palmer's legacy was the "Palmer Raids", also known as the first Red Scare. There's not much more that can be done to demonstrate anti-communism than knocking heads, rounding them up, and throwing away the key. And deportations in some cases.

Being anti-communist or anti-socialist does not then mean that progressives are good people, at least not in the context of their belief that government should control every aspect of your life. Of which all progressives did or do believe. The Bull Moose platform as well as the Second Bill of Rights are declarations of total government control.

Name Change

The section regarding when progressives re-named themselves into liberals contains a small section of an FDR speech:

"Yes, the people of this country want a genuine choice this year, not a choice between two names for the same reactionary doctrine. Ours must be a party of liberal thought, of planned action, of enlightened international outlook, and of the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens"

Liberalism never stood for "planned action"/central planning. Liberalism never stood for the utilitarian doctrine of the "the greatest good to the greatest number". Liberals did not use the word "reactionary"; radicals use this word to juxtapose themselves as progressives against reactionaries. Finally, there is even some question as to an "enlightened international outlook".

The main reason for this speech was for FDR to accept the nomination. But beyond that, the secondary main reason for this speech was to rename the ideology.

European influences

Among those who believed in progressivism early on, there is an influence that all of them found in European thinkers in a variety of ways: Margaret Sanger, for example, was strongly influenced by Thomas Malthus. Theodore Roosevelt had European influences through his good friendship with Jacob Riis, as well as his reading of Herbert Croly's books.(Croly was raised as a Comtist/Auguste Comte) One of John Dewey's most well known college professors, George Sylvester Morris, was a huge fan of G. W. F. Hegel. Other progressives were influenced by the Fabian Society, such as one of FDR's advisors, Stuart Chase. Sanger was also influenced by the Fabians. This story is repeated across the spectrum of early progressivism. However, these influences only came into effect after the progressives had already given up on American culture and ideals and came to the conclusion that big government was the only valid path forward.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Solzhenitsyn wrote about soviet communism, not American Progressivism. The word progressivism does not even appear in Gulag Archipelago.[1] Progressingamerica (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2019 (EDT)

Search here; the word "progressive" occurs 12 times; Progressive Doctrine 4 times; and Progressive Teaching occurs once. In all contexts, it refers to the leftwing socialist/Marxist teaching, or doctrine, of Progressivism, as modified by its importation from America (I'd recommend reading pages 422 to 436 to get a good understanding of Progressivism).

Anyway, there are four references cited to page; in full there are at least 15 that could be cited. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:44, 16 September 2019 (EDT)

You're removing words without any context. All of those words appear, but not one of them discusses nor even hints at "importation from America". This is quite clearly all based on the Russian Progressive Doctrine, not the American. These are good edits, but we already have a generic Progressive page which is where these should go. We need at least one page around here that is devoted specifically and exclusively to American Progressivism. Progressingamerica (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

One thing that is not clear is why some of this has not been placed on the The Gulag Archipelago. Can I help you build that page? Some of these edits may belong there the most. Progressingamerica (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Just so it is noted, there is only one place between pages 422-440 which mentions the United States, and it is this:

Our newspapers are filled with reports on production victories which are a big bore to everyone, but you will find no reports of trials or crime in them. ()After all, according to the Progressive Doctrine, criminal activity arises only from the presence of classes; we have no classes in our country, therefore there is no crime and therefore you cannot write about it in the press! We simply cannot afford to give the American newspapers evidence that we have not falled behind the United States in criminal activity!)

And from here, he goes on to talk about murderers in the west with their photographs plastered on the wall. This is page 432. Hardly anything to do with people like Woodrow Wilson or Saul Alinsky. Progressingamerica (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2019 (EDT)