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. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:22, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
::::This has been troubling me since I first read it, and I want to make sure you have the opportunity to summarize this down correctly in case I am misunderstanding.
::::Is it your intention to tell me that you believe there were good big-government progressives? Specifically, do you think the original big-government progressives of the 1900s were "good progressives"? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 11:48, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
:::::I'm saying Progressivism has different shades of meaning since the original popularization of the term c.1882. I've summarized the basic thesis here ([[Democratic_Party#Civil_service_replaces_Reconstruction_and_the_spoils_system]]) and here ([[Civil_service_system#U.S._civil_service]].
:::::It cannot be understood without a full understanding of the Spoils system and Political patronage (and their potential for rampant corruption), which still exists in many states and municipalities. Additionally, it has nothing to do with social policy, other than lifetime bureaucrats attempting to hold onto their jobs and implement social spending programs legislated by elected officials, which itself is a hybrid Spoils system that extends itself past a two year election cycle.
:::::The early progressives would be Cleveland and TR Roosevelt; the middling progressives would be Colonel House, and [[V.I. Lenin]], who introduced the idea of specialized [[technocrat]]s beyond merely non-partisan civil servants (See also [[Wisconsin Idea]] for how this came about).
:::::The Civil War was fought over the notion of [[popular sovereignty]] - that a majority of white male voters over 18 could vote to restrict black rights and make slavery legal in any state - and a civil service under the spoils system would enforce it. The Republican party, founded in 1854, was a single issue party that captured the White House and Congress in six years. After the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment, it had no reason to exist other than to administer the Spoils system in both North and South. Veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic were its beneficiaries. The same old rampant corruption, coupled with post-Civil War violence (i.e. the Ku Klux Klan which was the remnants of the Democratic party and civil service beneficiaries of the Spoils system in the South) made the proper functioning of the civil service and the spoils system impossible. The "Progressive Era" was born, to create a society in which people could live without violence (segregation was a form of "popular sovereignty" and the spoils system that survived on the state level).
:::::In the period from about 1900 to the New Deal, unionization and collective bargaining rights crept into Progressive rhetoric. Here's where socialism - an import from Europe - crept in. After WWII, more specifically the early 1960s, unionization was so widespread and politically powerful, unionization of civil service began. This is where a [[Marxist-Leninist]] form of socialism took shape in federal, state, and municipal civil service systems (although it had its roots in the New Deal).
:::::Progressivism began as Civil Service reform; it ended with civil servants handing out welfare and food stamps allocated by their paymasters (elected officials) in the name of "compassion" and "fairness" to buy votes, maintain power for themselves, and keep blacks down on the farm. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:54, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
:::::Progressiveism today has nothing to do with Civil Service Reform - in fact it is dead set against it. Progressivism today is a struggle for control of the civil service. [[Obamacare]], for example, is a form of popular sovereignty; the idea that a one time victory in the 2008 election cycle can impose a spending program on yet unborn generations costing trillions to be administered by the progressive beneficiaries created by the Affordable Care Act, never mind the fact that the creators of this Spoils system [[boondoogle]] were booted out 2 years later.
:::::Progressives today oppose Civil Service Reform (a 180 degree shift from its original meaning); the [[intelligence community]] was ''not'' created by the National Security Act of 1947 and later reforms that created the Department of Homeland Security and O[[DNI]] to meddle in U.S. elections and decide who will be president. We're having this fight right now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:36, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
::::::There's a lot wrong here but I just want to focus because your answer is very indirect. You say Progressivism has many shades, ok. Are any of those shades "good"? Or are all of those shades bad? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:03, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
:::::::Progressivism was founded as a reform to the [[Spoils system]], patronage , and corruption. It was hi-jacked by socialists to usher in the [[welfare state]]. It not only failed to eliminate patronage and corruption, it created a system in which it is impossible to vote out corruption. The Spoils system at least had that advantage. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:10, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
:::::::[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-security/trump-orders-substantial-cut-in-national-security-council-staff-bloomberg-idUSKBN1WK02X To the Victors go the Spoils (dated today, October 4, 2019).] Trump has had it with these Progressive civil service deep state coup efforts against him and the Constitutionally elected people's choice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:28, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
==Name Change==
::Just so it is noted, there is only one place between pages 422-440 which mentions the United States, and it is this:
:<blockquote>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!)</blockquote>
::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.[[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk: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]] [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 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. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 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.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:20, 17 September 2019 (EDT) :::How about this: We put in a subhead ==Progressivism in the Soviet Union==?[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 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. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk: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''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:58, 17 September 2019 (EDT) :::::I cut this part for space reasons, but could just as easily used it as the next paragraph beginning, ''How many citizens who were robbed knew'', which describes modern America. This excerpt here describes America since the rise of the [[New Left]] in the 1970s as referenced in the Intro. The Progressive Soviets were 50 years ahead of America:::::::''The twenties, the thirties, the forties, the fifties! Who does not remember that eternal threat hovering over the citizen: Don't go where it's dark!. Don't come home late! Don't wear your. watch! Don'f carry money with you! Don't leave the apartment empty! Locks! Shutters! Dogs! (And nowadays those writers of satirical columns who weren't cleaned out at the time ridicule these loyal watchdogs. . ' .. )1.'':::::And here is part of the footnote right before the paragraph I excerpted:::::::''In the consistent struggle against the individuality of a man, first they deprived him of one friend-the horse, promising a tractor in its place. As if a horse were only draft power for a plow, and not, instead, your living friend in sorrow and happiness, a member of your family, part of your own heart! And soon afterward they began a persistent campaign against his second friend-the dog. Dogs had to be registered; they were hauled off to the skinners; and often special teams from '''the local soviets simply shot dead every dog they came across. And there were no hygienic or miserly economic reasons for this - the basis was much more profound: After all, a dog doesn't listen to the radio, doesn't read the papers; he is a citizen who is, so to speak, beyond the control of the state, a physically strong one, moreover, but his strength goes not to the state but to defend his master as an individual, without regard to any kind of decree that might be issued against him in the local soviet and any kind of warrant they might come to him with at night.''' In Bulgaria in 1960 the citizens were told, and not as a joke either, to fatten up ... pigs-instead of their dogs! Pigs don't have principles. They grow their meat for everyone who has a knife. However, The persecution of dogs never extended to those dogs who were useful to the state - the Security and guard dogs.''::::A profound example of Progressive reasoning and thinking, not far removed from forcing Christian caterers, florists, and photographers to serve at gay weddings. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 22:10, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
And from here ::::::Can you explain what any of this has to do with Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:24, 17 September 2019 (EDT):::::::Sure. TR & Wilson were not elected as progressives. When TR openly ran as one, he goes on to was soundly defeated. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk about murderers in the west with their photographs plastered on the wall:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:42, 17 September 2019 (EDT)::::::::I don't follow. This is page 432. Hardly anything What do TR's and Wilson's elections have to do with people like the use of hunger as a motivating tool by the government? Maybe I should be even more specific. Once President, how did Woodrow Wilson or Saul Alinsky. use hunger to motivate people? How did Theodore Roosevelt keep people starved in order to make sure they acted more "progressively"? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 1820:55, 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:5140, 17 September 2019 (EDT)