Liberals and Progressives

[trivas7]

All I see on cable on the left are liberals and progressives. What is their political pedigree? Do they want to ameliorate the evils of capitalism while retaining it? Are they Democrats? I grew up in an immigrant lower middle class Democratic household, but never was drawn to the Democratic Party. They sure don't sound like socialists to me.

[GPDP]

All I see on cable on the left are liberals and progressives.

The mainstream political spectrum, you will come to see, is extremely narrow, and is, for the most part, widely reactionary. The most "leftist" range of opinion you see is people like Michael Moore, who is a social democrat. And even that is pretty rare.


What is their political pedigree? Do they want to ameliorate the evils of capitalism while retaining it?

Pretty much. Some more than others, though. Even this is considered pretty radical, which is why you don't see Michael Moore on cable very often. You're more likely to see people who are right of center, and just talk like they want to do this, but are pretty much just as committed to neo-liberalism as the so-called "conservatives".


Are they Democrats?

Depends on whether you're asking about the politicians in the Democratic Party, or the people that make up their base. I would say there is a disconnect between the two, one that the base does not seem to realize. Much of the Democrat base is actually left of center, and could reasonably be perceived as social democratic, while the actual politicians are really right of center, and merely employ left of center rhetoric to pull in their base.


I grew up in an immigrant lower middle class Democratic household, but never was drawn to the Democratic Party. They sure don't sound like socialists to me.

That is because they are not. They are a capitalist party through and through.

[Lost In Translation]

All I see on cable on the left are liberals and progressives. What is their political pedigree? Do they want to ameliorate the evils of capitalism while retaining it? Are they Democrats? I grew up in an immigrant lower middle class Democratic household, but never was drawn to the Democratic Party. They sure don't sound like socialists to me.

These people don't ameliorate the evils of capitalism. They make excuses for it, and blame it on the administration for not doing this and that. These people believe capitalism is perfect, but their opposition are just screwing it up.

Democrats (politicians) are right-wingers but they hide it well. The Republicans are so right they're almost fascist. As GPDP said, their supporters are center-left, but when you start noticing rich people supporting Obama and not McCain, you know that the Democrats are anything but center-left. These people are about the economy first and foremost. If the economy is stable, the gravy train will be put back on track, and then it's time to start worrying about the people. They are not socialist, they are capitalist to the bone.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

All I see on cable on the left are liberals and progressives. What is their political pedigree? Do they want to ameliorate the evils of capitalism while retaining it? Are they Democrats? I grew up in an immigrant lower middle class Democratic household, but never was drawn to the Democratic Party. They sure don't sound like socialists to me.

Heh I had a similar situ, though I was drawn to the dems like a fly to a bug zapper. I was utterly enamored with the "party of the people." I think folk need to realize that liberals and progressives are by and large well off and well educated types who want to make the system more efficient, and less brutal. The original progressive movement back in the 10s was a movement of professionals and businessmen. They didn't really understand or care too much about working people like us. They viewed us as a sort of collective charity case. Their most pressing concern has always been the scientific mangement of society and capitalism. Capitalism is just another machine to these people and the machine needs to be fixed. While that machine may spew out less misery, its still a brutal machine.

[trivas7]

Their most pressing concern has always been the scientific mangement of society and capitalism. Capitalism is just another machine to these people and the machine needs to be fixed. While that machine may spew out less misery, its still a brutal machine.
I don't know exactly what you're referring to. It's the right that's always calling socialism social engineering.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I don't know exactly what you're referring to. It's the right that's always calling socialism social engineering.

State socialism loves social engineering in much the same way progressivism loves social engineering. Lenin absolutely adored Frederick Taylor and scientific management. He had a phallic fixation on the dude. It all goes with the "new soviet man" nonsense. Building and molding humanity in a new die cast. That's part of why I'm an anarchist. Leninism is something of a professional class ideology, just like progressivism. Its interested in making society legible and rational from a million different angles, but not the perspective of any common worker.

[Red October]

The Democratic Party is not like the Labor Party of the UK, which is historically supposed to be a working class party, as implied in the name. America (especially in recent times) has never really had a major working class based party, though the Socialist Party was strong at one time. While it always stays slightly to the left of the Repulican Party, the Democratic Party has been shifting farther to the right for a long time. I know many democrats who consider themselves "democratic socialists", but the Democratic Party itself is not socialist, never was, and furiously denies all accusations of being socialist.

[trivas7]

Lenin absolutely adored Frederick Taylor and scientific management.
That type of Leninism went into the dustbin of history long before Gorbachev. I still don't know why you say progressives love social engineering.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

That type of Leninism went into the dustbin of history long before Gorbachev. I still don't know why you say progressives love social engineering.

Well, what Leninist party has taken power since Gorbachev? The Nepalese Maoists I guess and they openly endorse "national industrial capitalism," which sounds like support for scientific management for me.

Progressive love social engineering becuase that is their ideology. Taylor and scientific management was a corner stone of progressive policy. It wasn't a coincidence. Progressives focus on the scientific management of capitalism, and they engineer society to such ends. That's why their policy focuses on fixing and tinkering the system of liberal democracy.

[shorelinetrance]

these "progressives" only wish to refine the system to a point of "equality", without addressing underlying class antagonisms, i find this quite dubious.

[trivas7]

Progressive love social engineering becuase that is their ideology. Taylor and scientific management was a corner stone of progressive policy.
AFAIK it was Stalin, not Lenin, that first implemented Fordism and Taylorism in the USSR in the '20s.

The Progressive Era in the USA began with T. Roosevelt and Taft. Are you saying they were big on Taylorism and scientific management? I hardly think so. Besides, it's a management technique, not a political ideology.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The most "leftist" range of opinion you see is people like Michael Moore, who is a social democrat.

I thought he was a left-liberal, no?

[GPDP]

left-liberal, social democrat, not that much of a difference.

I suppose social democrat is more of a European term, but then again, many on the right do suggest that Moore should just move to Europe as it is. :)

[shorelinetrance]

I thought he was a left-liberal, no?

I thought he was a blubbering idiot, no?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That, too. ;)

[ChristianV777]

Michael Moore seems to really love the Democrats. I'd say he was a progressive Democrat. He doesn't seem as far to the Left as Nader (if that tells you anything), but he seems much farther to the Left than Obama or Clinton (even though he supports them).

The Labour Party in Britain has always been a bit of a joke as a working class party. They were more representative of the working class than the Democrats in the United States, but they were never farther to the Left than Social Democrats, which is what they were.
I wouldn't argue that Social Democrats were truly a working class political party.
Now, today, after the days of Blairite Labour, the "Third Way", and New Labour they've become a neoliberal party and I don't see much to classify them as anymore to the Left of center than the Democrats in America.
It's nice to see Britain to join the U.S. in the realm of the two-party dictatorship. Or, no, more like sad to see....

Liberalism is the idea that there are some problems in the Capitalist system that need to be addressed, but that the system is the best one and overall works fairly, so if there are problems it is the failings of individuals, but unlike Conservatives, Liberals argue that those who aren't "good enough" still deserve some help.
Liberals were originally the main proponents of Capitalism. Conservatives looked back to the good ol' days of Feudalism and of course the newly emerging Left saw Capitalism as a horrid system, although there were arguments as to whether it was superior or a regression from Feudalism.

For those who believe the Democrats as any sort of Left alternative, check out the amount of contributions Obama is getting from Wall Street. Follow the money, because money does the talking in politics.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

AFAIK it was Stalin, not Lenin, that first implemented Fordism and Taylorism in the USSR in the '20s.

This is incorrect comrade.


Lenin went even further. He wrote: "We must raise the question of piece - work and apply and test it in practice . . . we must raise the question of applying much of what is scientific and progressive in the Taylor system (50) (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/1918.html#50) . . . the Soviet Republic must at all costs adopt all that is valuable in the achievements of science and technology in this field . . . we must organise in Russia the study and teaching of the Taylor system"


The Progressive Era in the USA began with T. Roosevelt and Taft. Are you saying they were big on Taylorism and scientific management? I hardly think so. Besides, it's a management technique, not a political ideology.The progressive movement was a movement. TR was a prominent progressive, and I'm sure he liked Taylor. Progressivism as an ideological
also liked Taylor.


Taylor is regarded as the father of scientific management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management) and as one of the first management consultants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_consulting)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor#cite_note-0). He was one of the intellectual leaders of the Efficiency Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_Movement) and his ideas, broadly conceived, were highly influential in the Progressive Era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era).

My point with Taylor is that, he exemplifies the ideology of Progressivism. Scientific efficiency in the name of "Progress." Of course as it is a philosophy of the elite, "progress" does not take into account the concerns of working people, only the elite's concern for working people. As a result, we get Taylorism, simultaneously bringing forth efficiency and dehumanization. All out of concern for the wellbeing of "humanity".

[Aurelia]

What can one say about the 'progressive' left other than that a part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society?

The advocation of 'social-capitalism' has long been a tool with which the bourgeois try and partially redress the losses incurred by the anarchy and decay inherent in capitalist production. That being said, it is impossible to do away with the destruction effects of capitalism upon industry without doing away with the basis of bourgeois society entirely.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In my experience even American liberals (left-liberals) can be defined as social democrats. On DemocraticUnderground, for example, there's a new thread every day where they harp on corporations. A lot suggest abolishing corporations. When a topic on socialism was brought up, most professed to liking the idea (~60%), but either believed the country wasn't ready or it was practical. I've also noticed a growing presence of socialists.

[Aurelia]

In my experience even American liberals (left-liberals) can be defined as social democrats. On DemocraticUnderground, for example, there's a new thread every day where they harp on corporations. A lot suggest abolishing corporations. When a topic on socialism was brought up, most professed to liking the idea (~60%), but either believed the country wasn't ready or it was practical. I've also noticed a growing presence of socialists.

Oh, that has never been in doubt, the base of the Democratic party, which is overwhelming a changing demographic, is becoming more and more young and idealistic, and many unconsciously, if not consciously, are socialists. But I don't think anyone needs a lecture on the anti-communist past of the Democrats, and no doubt the old elites still feel that way. Also, that being said, it's likely also that those young idealists will eventually become so disillusioned with the deadlocked failed congressional system that they become reformists and careerists.

[trivas7]

The progressive movement was a movement. TR was a prominent progressive, and I'm sure he liked Taylor. Progressivism as an ideological
also liked Taylor.

The Progressive Era politics seems like what we would today call populism. You fail to convince me that progressivism has a basis in a political ideology. AFAIK progressives are the left-wing of the Demopublican party

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The Progressive Era politics seems like what we would today call populism. You fail to convince me that progressivism has a basis in a political ideology. AFAIK progressives are the left-wing of the Demopublican party

Well since your arguing style usual consists of "no you're wrong, " I'm not surprised ;)

The populists and the progressives were two distinct movements. They seem to have merged nowadays amongst the new "progressive" movement. Which is why a lot of democratic rank and file sound more populist, while others (especially bloggers) focus primarily on secularism, civil liberties, ecology, and foreign policy. I think understanding the genealogy here helps us understand these modern subgroups.

The populists focused on reforming capitalism to provide social justice, mostly for farmers. But basically populists pushed policy from the bottom up, it was by and large, a commoners party. They were eventually duped into an alliance with the democrats and henceforth...died. The Progressives believed partially in social justice, but social justice from the top down. Their primary mission was to make capitalism and democracy work better. which is why they liked Taylorism, unelected professional city managers, trust busting etc. These types persist to this day. They are like liberals, but with a distinct flavor, a protestant, upper class, scientific method flavor.

[GPDP]

Oh, that has never been in doubt, the base of the Democratic party, which is overwhelming a changing demographic, is becoming more and more young and idealistic, and many unconsciously, if not consciously, are socialists. But I don't think anyone needs a lecture on the anti-communist past of the Democrats, and no doubt the old elites still feel that way. Also, that being said, it's likely also that those young idealists will eventually become so disillusioned with the deadlocked failed congressional system that they become reformists and careerists.

Pretty much what I'm talking about. The Democrat base and the Democrat rank-and-file are quite different. The base is naive and idealistic, and the rank-and-file take advantage of their idealism to secure them as their base through rhetoric and, well, marketing of specific policy ideals. Just take a look at the Obama phenomenon. Liberals love him. Conservatives (the base, I mean) hate him, and consider him tantamount to a socialist of some kind, not know any better, of course. And we all know just how much of a leftist Obama really is.

Hmmm... perhaps another thread is in order. I'd like to get into the conservative Republicans in the US, and see if there is also a substantial disconnect between the base and the rank-and-file.