The Progressive Movement

[Paradoxium]

I am sure some of you are sick of Alinsky now. I am going to make an effort in the next couple days to talk more about Progressive outside of Alinsky.

One of those topics include "Whig History". One of the antecedents of the Progressive movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

It's this linear "progression" which partially derives this naming.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Lately my brain has been going nutty haywired. Especially since reading that Drakon post. It got me thinking, what if a society by majority wanted the government to oppose democracy. If you are a staunch supporter of democracy... how would you reconcile this? Perhaps someone can come up with an answer to this, because I don't have one.

 

[Kelly]

Ok I am going to start posting up materials by Alinsky (quotations and summaries):



The RULES by Alinsky
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.

3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.

4. Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

Hmmmm.... interesting...

 

[Paradoxium]

It is worth noting (this might please Overlord), I do not consider Hitler a Progressive.

 

[Paradoxium]

It is worth noting (this might please Overlord), I do not consider Hitler a Progressive.

 

[The Overlord]

I think in part the problem is this:

National Socialism (I.e. Hitler, Mussolini), more likened in Europe to "Right Wing Socialism". Has a nationalist flavor and capitalism in name only.

Except sometimes a name is just a name and it doesn't reflect the true nature of the entity. Ex: The Democratic republic of Congo is not democratic.

Nazism main attribute its ethnic nationalist bent and most left wingers, especially extreme left wingers tend to sneer at such things, that's mainly why I don't think Nazism is left wing.

International Socialism (I.e. Most Marxists, Gramaci), more likened in Europe to "Left Wing Socialism". This is why Mussolini opposed Gramaci btw.

The point is, socialism is not the only choice.

A real right wing anti-individual liberty state would actually be Singapore. High economic freedom, bat**** insane individual liberty. Try getting executed for having pot to boot! That is bat**** insane.
[/url]

What about countries like Iran? Its a dictatorship that exists to enforce social conservative norms. Is that left wing?

 

[Paradoxium]

It is possible to argue a state reinforces a conservative type of social status quo (whatever it maybe), simultaneously can be low in economic and individual liberty of a populist persuasion. Hence right-wing socialism.

A rightwing socialist for an example is not a progressive, he is a reactionist of sorts. These two terms are different.

 

[The Overlord]

It is possible to argue a state reinforces a conservative type of social status quo (whatever it maybe), simultaneously can be low in economic and individual liberty of a populist persuasion. Hence right-wing socialism.

A rightwing socialist for an example is not a progressive, he is a reactionist of sorts. These two terms are different.

I guess, I don't think the Iranian government cares about economics that much, their main goal is enforcing these social values on everyone, everything, including economics, is secondary. I also don't anyone you mentioned as a right wing socialist would think of themselves as a socialist, unlike say a left wing socialist who would like the title. What is more important determining someone's ideology, economic or social views?

Also there people who are merely opportunists, who just like power and will do anything to get it. Saddam never seemed to have a consistent ideology and which would change his ideas to whatever allowed him to maintain power. I don't think you can apply things like left and right to Saddam, because those things were irrelevant to him.

However you can have society that has low economic freedom and is not socialist, like a feudal society, which seems to be what Saudi Arabia is. Feudalism has low economic freedom but its not socialism.

I also think the term socialism has become somewhat diluted in recent times, I mean both Sweden and North Korea have been described as socialist, but clearly one of these countries is a way better place to live then the other.

 

[Paradoxium]

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Yeat's The Second Coming.

 

[Paradoxium]

Cancer might be help you lose weight, and you might think it is positive. In the whole picture, it is something else.

 

[bell110]

What the hell does this have anything to do with my not caring to identify with a political association?

Because you used conservative arguements to paint the Nazism as a left ideology. The right has been bending over backwards to label anything negative as leftist. So, if you truely didn't care, why would you bother using their arguements?

Which brings us to:

I think in part the problem is this:

National Socialism (I.e. Hitler, Mussolini), more likened in Europe to "Right Wing Socialism". Has a nationalist flavor and capitalism in name only.

International Socialism (I.e. Most Marxists, Gramaci), more likened in Europe to "Left Wing Socialism". This is why Mussolini opposed Gramaci btw.

The point is, socialism is not the only choice.

A real right wing anti-individual liberty state would actually be Singapore. High economic freedom, bat**** insane individual liberty. Try getting executed for having pot to boot! That is bat**** insane.

More linky and info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_deal_fallacy

Ok. I don't have the gift of brevity. But this sums up what I was trying to say. Despite it's pseudo-socialism, Nazism still leans much father right. Your fallacy came with the arguement that, they are called national socialist, socialist are left, therefore Nazis are left.

So, what are your political leanings?

 

[Paradoxium]

Because you used conservative arguements to paint the Nazism as a left ideology. The right has been bending over backwards to label anything negative as leftist. So, if you truely didn't care, why would you bother using their arguements?

Which brings us to:



Ok. I don't have the gift of brevity. But this sums up what I was trying to say. Despite it's pseudo-socialism, Nazism still leans much father right. Your fallacy came with the arguement that, they are called national socialist, socialist are left, therefore Nazis are left.

So, what are your political leanings?

Left within the giant Nolan chart spectrum. Closer to the right within only the socialist/populist box. The European "sandbox" at that time especially is limited, this is why they tagged it with right wing. And as I pointed out, there was an actual conservative party at that time too who opposed the Nazi. It's also debatable if that conservative is actually really "right" right.

I kind of prefer left and right instead of liberal and conservative because it leads to more mixups. And the left and right connotes a more "scaled" understanding. Instead of pure black and white. So I have not changed any of my arguments maybe clarify at most.

There aren't many really "extreme right wing" (sans personal liberty). governments to begin with. Singapore again is one of those cases. Maybe Hong Kong as well, but not nutty as Singapore in terms of personal liberty. The whole, if you "get caught with weed in your luggage, you are not deported back to your country, you get hanged and executed" type of extreme. They have punishments for chewing and spitting gum on the street. Look I am all for cleanness and good health, but this is way too much. Bush to me is the same story, he is a populist/socialist as well, despite being a bit right to say Obama.

 

[Paradoxium]

I don't know what I lean. Not sure it matters either.

Sometimes I say I identify with classical liberalism and sympathize somewhat with the libertarians. But with reservations. This is the closes I can give. But the more I think about it, it is not really a good explanation...

Epistemologically, I use Austrian economics at most to evaluate things in Politics. However with ONE HUGE CONSIDERATION/RESERVATION in mind, I do believe humans - as in normal ones without any mental or physical disorders - are capable of wholesale irrationality. That is, even the most rational of us, can fall pray to the most irrational sensibilities. Rationality does not always prevail. This has a lot to do with some of my own understanding and studies of behavior economics. In other words, I do not treat this epistemology as completely correct. This is where my critiques of capitalism comes into play and at times had particular critiques of say Ron Paul.

I am actually a recovering (progressive strain) liberal beyond this.

The problem of political causes or identities is that one loses themselves into it, it becomes pseudo religious, and I find this very dangerous. It doesn't matter if it is Demo or Republo, it's the same story. This is why in practice I just completely ditch the notion of how one ought to think if they are part of a movement, or if it is hip to think this way, AND MORE if it is congruent with my own internal sets of observations. This is the best I can describe how I think nowadays. If I am wrong about something, I have in the past admit to this, I will adjust.

 

[The Overlord]

Left within the giant Nolan chart spectrum. Closer to the right within only the socialist/populist box. The European "sandbox" at that time especially is limited, this is why they tagged it with right wing. And as I pointed out, there was an actual conservative party at that time too who opposed the Nazi. It's also debatable if that conservative is actually really "right" right.

What makes the giant Nolan chart the be all and end all authority on what is left and what is right?

Plus didn't a lot of left wingers oppose Hitler as well, heck Trotsky, the communist, was one of the most hawkish people in the 30s to talk about Hitler, wanting the USSR to take him out right away. Because Trotsky thought Hitler was more dangerous to communism then anything else on the planet. If Hitler was such a left winger, why did many left wingers at the time hate and why did he in turn really communism?

Also if Hitler was left wing, why did he support the fascists against the communists in the Spanish civil war?

There aren't many really "extreme right wing" (sans personal liberty). governments to begin with. Singapore again is one of those cases. Maybe Hong Kong as well, but not nutty as Singapore in terms of personal liberty. The whole, if you "get caught with weed in your luggage, you are not deported back to your country, you get hanged and executed" type of extreme. They have punishments for chewing and spitting gum on the street. Look I am all for cleanness and good health, but this is way too much. Bush to me is the same story, he is a populist/socialist as well, despite being a bit right to say Obama.

Bush was not left wing though, almost no one thinks he was, just because her supported big government doesn't make him left wing. Supporting big government doesn't make one left wing, in of itself. Government is just a tool, its not good or evil, the purpose you give it, makes it right or left, not the size. As I have noted anarchists support a smaller government then most right wingers and they are a radical left wing movement.

But you did say Iran was a right wing socialist government, so can't there be extreme right collectivists?

What about the family values crowd in the GOP, aren't they right wing collectivist? Can't you be both collectivist and right wing, just a different kind of collectivist then a left winger? Was the military dictatorship installed by the CIA in Chile to combat socialism, left wing?

Here's the problem, many right wingers seem to blame left wingers for all the evils in the world, ever, Rush once said the dems and Al-Qaeda had the same talking points. That's incorrect and annoying, so a lot of left wingers have little tolerance for suggestions that almost every dictatorship ever was left wing. At least most left wingers can admit that there are left wing dictatorships, some right wingers seem to think there is no such thing as a left wing dictatorship. That's a double standard.

 

[Paradoxium]

What makes the giant Nolan chart the be all and end all authority on what is left and what is right?

Plus didn'a a lot of left wingers oppose Hitler as well, heck Trotsky, the communist, was one of the most hawkish people in the 30s to talk about Hitler, wanting the USSR to take him out right away, because Trotsky thought Hitler was more dangerous to communism then anything else on the planet. If Hitler was such a left winger, why did many left wingers at the time hate and why did he in turn really communism?

But you did say Iran was a right wing socialist government, so can't there be extreme right collectivists?

What about the family values crowd in the GOP, aren't they right wing collectivist? Can't you be both collectivist and right wing, just a different kind of collectivist then a left winger?

Here's the problem, many right wingers seem to blame left wingers for all the evils in the world, ever, Rush once said the dems and Al-Qaeda had the same talking points. That's incorrect and annoying, so a lot of left wingers have little tolerance for suggestions that almost every dictatorship ever was left wing.

You deem them to be right wing, but there is a reason why I called them religious populists. Retainers of sociallly religious conservative values can be very much populist, this was the Democratic party before it got hijacked.

And there is a reason I brought up Gramaci, I am well aware the communists in Italy and Germany opposed their respective status quo. And it again changes nothing about the "sandbox". It fits perfectly with what I have said.

I use Nolan because it is the most consistent and concise in terms of framing various political views. It is not perfect, but far less flawed than the simplistic left/liberal and right/conservative dichotomy. I am referring the 3 dimensional version with a z-axis. Part of this thread will try to explain and reconcile progressives to reactionist and what this all means. Some thing I don't believe Nolan actually addresses.

 

[The Overlord]

You deem them to be right wing, but there is a reason why I called them religious populists. Retainers of sociallly religious conservative values can be very much populist, this was the Democratic party before it got hijacked.

One can be a populist and be right wing or left wing, populism is politically neutral in of itself. The fact is almost everyone thinks social conservatism is right wing, left wingers and right wingers think this, is that incorrect now or something?

Besides weren't the dems the right wing party back then?

And there is a reason I brought up Gramaci, I am well aware the communists in Italy and Germany opposed their respective status quo. And it again changes nothing about the "sandbox". It fits perfectly with what I have said.

Except there are many right wing aspects to Nazism, such as the bastardization of Nietzsche as a basis for many of their ideas and the obsession with ethnic nationalism, which many left wingers don't believe because its counter acts their goals.

Most left winger thinker actively discourage ethnic nationalism amongst their followers (Marx, Rousseau, etc), plus most ethnic nationalist groups active today see themselves as right wingers (the KKK doesn't think they are liberals or socialists.)

I use Nolan because it is the most consistent and concise in terms of framing various political views. It is not perfect, but far less flawed than the simplistic left/liberal and right/conservative dichotomy. I am referring the 3 dimensional version with a z-axis. Part of this thread will try to explain and reconcile progressives to reactionist and what this all means. Some thing I don't believe Nolan actually addresses.

It seems flawed if you are using such board strokes to define what is right and what if left.

To some this may come off as excuse to brand all the evils of the world as left wing.

 

[Paradoxium]

One can be a populist and be right wing or left wing, populism is politically neutral in of itself. The fact is almost everyone thinks social conservatism is right wing, left wingers and right wingers think this, is that incorrect now or something?

Besides weren't the dems the right wing party back then?



Except there are many right wing aspects to Nazism, such as the bastardization of Nietzsche as a basis for many of their ideas and the obsession with ethnic nationalism, which many left wingers don't believe because its counter acts their goals.

Most left winger thinker actively discourage ethnic nationalism amongst their followers (Marx, Rousseau, etc), plus most ethnic nationalist groups active today see themselves as right wingers (the KKK doesn't think they are liberals or socialists.)



It seems flawed if you are using such board strokes to define what is right and what if left.

To some this may come off as excuse to brand all the evils of the world as left wing.

Individualism

This is what you are missing.

The bastardization of Nietzsche was turning his individualistic philosophy to a collectivist one. The Ubermensche and Last Man comparison says it all. And really step back and think: which of the two can corrupt into something like racism? Joe is Jewish, or Joe is Joe?

Liassez-fare economics is incredibly individualist. Epistemologically, their capitalist theorist conduct their analysis with "methodological individualism" (not the same as political individualism).

It is claimed that methodological individualism is an essential part of modern neoclassical economics, which usually analyzes collective action in terms of "rational", utility-maximizing individuals. This is the Homo economicus postulate. In this view, the structure and dynamics of most economic institutions can be explained using it.

However, methodological individualism does not require that the utility function of each individual may be known. In Mises' praxeology, for instance, rational individuals are held to act on their most important needs first, but individuals don't necessarily have a numerical value for each of their needs.

One alleged example of methodological individualism in economics was the criticism of the Historical School's promotion of statistical analysis by the Austrian School of economics in the Methodenstreit.

In essence, the most extreme right (with poor personal liberty) has ONE quality the populist version does not have: individualism. Populism is saturated in collectivism. This is how Nolan is able to reconcile this difference, and along with economic thought, all the while remaining consistent. You will never find a Individualist Communist or Nazi for an example. The issue of anarchists is easily dealt with in political liberty, something a lot of progressives love to muddle on: negative and positive liberties.

 

[The Overlord]

Individualism

This is what you are missing.

The bastardization of Nietzsche was turning his individualistic philosophy to a collectivist one. The Ubermensche and Last Man comparison says it all. And really step back and think: which of the two can corrupt into something like racism? Joe is Jewish, or Joe is Joe?.

Except the Nazis adopted social Darwinism as a policy, the rights and privileges are given to those they considered strong (fit Aryans) and those they consider weak (homosexuals, Jews, the handicapped, communists) hold society back and must be done away. That's not what Nietzsche had in mind, but again I'm talking about a bastardization.

Again right wing ideologies are not always individualistic and most left wingers I know of, don't believe in things like Social Darwinism.

Liassez-fare economics is incredibly individualist. Epistemologically, their capitalist theorist conduct their analysis with "methodological individualism" (not the same as political individualism).

Interesting, but doesn't change the fact that there are right wing ideologies that are collectivist in nature like social conservatism. Social conservatism is a collectivist ideology and its right wing. Members of the Dominionist movement consider themselves and they are collectivist, but they aren't left wing or socialist, because they believe in religious collectivism, not economic collectivism.

The problem you have is you have false dichotomy: right wing always individualistic and left wing always collectivist, that's incorrect. Anarchists believe in a smaller government then you do, they don't believe in private property either, but its not like they would have any to enforce their ideals if they succeeded, so they cannot create a "defato" state, even if they wanted too.

The mistake you are making is assuming the size of the government determines its ideology, which is incorrect, the purpose of a government determines its ideology, not its size.

In essence, the most extreme right (with poor personal liberty) has ONE quality the populist version does not have: individualism. Populism is saturated in collectivism. This is how Nolan is able to reconcile this difference, and along with economic thought, all the while remaining consistent. You will never find a Individualist Communist or Nazi for an example. The issue of anarchists is easily dealt with in political liberty, something a lot of progressives love to muddle on: negative and positive liberties.

Again you are relying on a logical fallacy, saying there is no such thing as right wing collectivism and there is no such thing as a right wing collectivist, which is false. Even in America there people who say if you don't supporter certain policies (a war, anti abortion laws, a gay marriage ban) then you aren't a "real American", that's a form of collectivism, but its not left wing.

If Nolan's chart doesn't take into account collectivist right wing ideologies like social conservationism, its extremely flawed.

 

[Paradoxium]

Except the Nazis adopted social Darwinism as a policy, the rights and privileges are given to those they considered strong (fit Aryans) and those they consider weak (homosexuals, Jews, the handicapped, communists) hold society back and must be done away. That's not what Nietzsche had in mind, but again I'm talking about a bastardization.

Again right wing ideologies are not always individualistic and most left wingers I know of, don't believe in things like Social Darwinism.



Interesting, but doesn't change the fact that there are right wing ideologies that are collectivist in nature like social conservatism. Social conservatism is a collectivist ideology and its right wing. Members of the Dominionist movement consider themselves and they are collectivist, but they aren't left wing or socialist, because they believe in religious collectivism, not economic collectivism.

The problem you have is you have false dichotomy: right wing always individualistic and left wing always collectivist, that's incorrect. Anarchists believe in a smaller government then you do, they don't believe in private property either, but its not like they would have any to enforce their ideals if they succeeded, so they cannot create a "defato" state, even if they wanted too.

The mistake you are making is assuming the size of the government determines its ideology, which is incorrect, the purpose of a government determines its ideology, not its size.




Again you are relying on a logical fallacy, saying there is no such thing as right wing collectivism and there is no such thing as a right wing collectivist, which is false. Even in America there people who say if you don't supporter certain policies (a war, anti abortion laws, a gay marriage ban) then you aren't a "real American", that's a form of collectivism, but its not left wing.

If Nolan's chart doesn't take into account collectivist right wing ideologies like social conservationism, its extremely flawed.

You are talking about a perverted collectivist eugenics. Even individualism in its most perverted form cares little about groups and races. It results in a anti-social amoral selfish dick bankrupt of any empathy. Individualism does not concern itself with lopsiding people into groups, and assigning privileges and engineering means to deal with other group. Oh wait, that sounds kind of like another recent collectivist ideal - multiculturalism.

Again what I have said retains: it is turning it from individualism to collectivism.

Strange as it may seem, the strong have always to be upheld against the weak; and the well constituted against the ill constituted, the healthy against the sick and physiologically botched. If we drew our morals from reality, they would read thus: the mediocre are more valuable than the exceptional creatures, and the decadent than the mediocre, the will to nonentity prevails over the will to life, - and the general aim now is, in Christian, Buddhistic, Schopenhauerian phraseology 'It is better not to be than to be

I protest against this formulating of reality into a moral: and I loathe Christianity with a deadly loathing because it created sublime words and attitudes in order to deck a revolting truth with all the tawdriness of justice, virtue, and godliness....

I see all philosophers and the whole of science on their knees before a reality which is the reverse of the struggle for life as Darwin and his school understood it- that is to say, wherever I look, I see those prevailing and surviving, who throw doubt and suspicion upon life and the value of life.- The error of the Darwinian school became a problem to me: how can one be so blind as to make this mistake?"

I have not said right wing collectivism does not exist. I am saying right wing individualism is even more extreme.

And there is absolutely nothing individualistic about anarchism considering how it views private property alone which "De facto"s it, into a different form of collectivism. I already discussed this before in another thread. In fact, this is a rerun of that monument shooter thread, which we dealt with already. You are retreading on that topic and this has nothing to do right now with to progressives.

Progressives are collectivists, period.

Although it is worth mentioning, the mob intimidation, power and thug tactics by Alinsky are things employed by both the Nazis and their "opponents" the communist in Germany.

 

[bored]

Just jumping back in, because I'd sort of left this thread to die, why are you so hung up on Alinsky? I get that Clinton wrote a thesis on him (did you ever tell us what the context was), and Obama apparently included some of his philosophies in a lesson plan, but you almost seem to think he is the be-all end-all of progressivism/liberalism, which is a massive oversimplification.