Difference between revisions of "Talk:Progressivism"

Revision as of 01:40, September 18, 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.

This section is need of RobS's thoughts. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Progressivism was hijacked by immigrant socialists and anarchists. The "Progressive Party", such that it existed, was low-hanging fruit for being hicked by the Comintern after 1921.

The Wall Street bombing of 1919 (see here Alger_Hiss#Early_career) caused the most stringent immigration reform up to that point (in 1927); European radicals, socialists, and anarchists, had masqueraded as progressives between the 1880s and 1920s. All the original reformers abandoned progressivism after the 1919 bombing (Bob Lafollette lingered on for awhile).

The early Progressive Republicans were people who loved America, and had a proud heritage as Civil War victors. Republican Progressivism was also the post-Reconstruction civil rights movement, opposed by segregationist Democrats. Republicans for the most part (Harold Stassen notwithstanding) abandoned the progressive label after the 1920s (Look at both Harold Stassen and Henry Wallace's platforms in 1948, who both ran as Progressives that year, to understand the difference between Republican Progressivism and Democrat Progressivism as it evolved from the end of WWI til 1948).

So while Republican Progressivism lingered on in Wisconsin and Minnesota for some time after the 1919 Wall Street bombing, immigration reform in 1927 killed it, as it acquired a reputation associated with sedition. Scott Walker sparked some debate when he claimed the mantle of Progressivism during his recall election; in Wisconsin it's still basically associated with being a reformer. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 21:22, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

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. One important part of this section is about the Russian Druzhina(vigilantes) and how the state employed them together with the media to keep people in line.Progressingamerica (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

The quote you give speaks exactly about American Progressivism: censorship, alliance with criminals, etc. Bernie Sanders, and others are running right now wanting to give imprisoned criminals the vote. Solzhenitsyn speaks from experience what Progressives today are only proposing. Need I go on?

Look, I understand the point you are making. But he is talking about these things from a Russian context, and a fairly historical context at that. The book does not link this to America the way you suggest nor did Solzhenitsyn write about Bernie Sanders in 1953 nor did he predict the rise of Antifa in 2019. Your edits are overall good, they're just on the wrong page. They are over here: Progressive Progressingamerica (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

The universal ideal is a core premise of progressivism. Yes, Solzhenitsyn cites examples of its implementation in the Russian experience throughout the book. But core ideals of progressivism are universal. American readers need to understand the experience of living under those ideals.RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:06, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Another thing about that quote: Solzhenitsyn refers, as he does throughout the book, to competition that Soviet Progressivism had with U.S. progressives even prior to WWII; they were trying to "out-progressive" the progressive U.S.. During the Cold War, the Soviets were the first to put a woman in space in 1961, at a time the U.S. never heard of feminism or the women's rights movement.

The U.S. never heard of any feminist.... The U.S. never heard of Margaret Sanger prior to 1961? This isn't making any sense. Please read this: Feminism "First wave feminism" as it is called goes back to the 1900s. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

I was a kid. I recall. Most Americans thought it was horrible and cruel, evidence that Communists didn't value women's lives (this was at a time of peacetime conscription, and the space program definitely was a military program). Feminism and the women's rights movement had to be explained to them, by communists and communist media, of coarse. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:06, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Here in lies the difference: Most American's regarded the space race as technological competition; the Russian's regarded it as competition for social change.RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:20, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

How about this: We put in a subhead ==Progressivism in the Soviet Union==?RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:25, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

That to a certain extent already exists. https://www.conservapedia.com/Progressive#Marxism

The section there which already existed had a really good segway into the edits as you made them. Again, just so its said, I'm not saying your edits are bad. I'm saying they are in the wrong place. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Actually, after thinking about it for a moment Progressivism in the Soviet Union would make a good article all on its own. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Did you read the footnote Solzhenitsyn has about killing dogs? Once you digest that, you understand much of progressivism. I can't understand why it's just a footnote, but there are many such things like that in Gulag. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:58, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Can you explain what any of this has to do with Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Sure. TR & Wilson were not elected as progressives. When TR openly ran as one, he was soundly defeated. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:42, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

I don't follow. What do TR's and Wilson's elections have to do with the use of hunger as a motivating tool by the government? Maybe I should be even more specific. Once President, how did Woodrow Wilson use hunger to motivate people? How did Theodore Roosevelt keep people starved in order to make sure they acted more "progressively"? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

TR & Wilson were big government, civil service system reformers. TR & Wilson's expansion of rule by bureaucracy was expanded upon by Marxist-Leninist theory in the 1920s. Lenin even used TR's anti-monopolistic "trust busting" big government bureaucracy to attack "speculators", which Bernie Sanders just did in last Thursday night's debates. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 21:40, 17 September 2019 (EDT)