Compare & Contrast - Socialist. Progressive.

[Harry Guerrilla]

What's with Prussia? Just becuase they got a few things right, or wrong, a hundred years ago doesn't mean that a hundred years later we haven't changed it beyond recognition.

They had a huge influence on the U.S. political system, that for some reason is not discussed much.
Our education system was completely remodeled based on theirs.

I didn't say we didn't change, what I said was that these things are still observable in the present time.

 

[Barbbtx]

Broadly defined, Progressivism tends to follow the idea of scientific management(Taylorism) of people and the economy.

eeeewwwww...that sounds dreadful, but also sounds believable, considering the progressives we have in Congress.

 

[UtahBill]

Did you even bother to read the links?
There is nothing inherently wrong with it but I do have a few problems with the early Progressive movement.
In my opinion, they get a more than fair acclaim in American politics, some of it undeserved.

Edit:
What is this fascination with turding arguments with "Glen Beck" lately?
It's quickly becoming the new Godwin.

Idealists come and they go, and they go faster when the taxpayer sees what it is going to cost him to educate other people's children.
It really doesnt matter much what kind of govt or society we have, education is going to be just good enough to get us by. Any more than that, and the public will start voting with their brains instead of thier feelings. Govt does not want that....
Woodrow Wilson said something like this, paraphrasing as I don't have the book with me...
"A good liberal education should be available to the few who will be the leaders, the rest should be trained in a trade so they can be gainfully employed".
He was for restricting education to a few, while just training the rest of us.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Idealists come and they go, and they go faster when the taxpayer sees what it is going to cost him to educate other people's children.
It really doesnt matter much what kind of govt or society we have, education is going to be just good enough to get us by. Any more than that, and the public will start voting with their brains instead of thier feelings. Govt does not want that....
Woodrow Wilson said something like this, paraphrasing as I don't have the book with me...
"A good liberal education should be available to the few who will be the leaders, the rest should be trained in a trade so they can be gainfully employed".
He was for restricting education to a few, while just training the rest of us.

Yep he was.
Social Darwinism, in that form, was prevalent during the time of the early progressives.
Some of them believed in the separation of the classes.

I'm merely talking about how past beliefs can have effects on the future.
I'm not trying to smear modern Progressives because many of them believe in similar things but not for the same reasons.

Example, the Social Darwinist belief that welfare was needed because the lower classes were inherently inferior and could not provide for themselves.
I know the vast majority do not believe this.

I just think the origin of the ideas need to be reviewed more critically, so that modern progressives could think more deeply on how they come to their conclusions.

 

[Barbbtx]

Well, the current year is 2011...

I don't know of any progressives in this day and age that are social darwinists or have a desire to create an underclass of chronic poor. That would be people who want to remove the minimum wage...

Maybe they don't desire to create poor people, but that's exactly what their policies do.
What do you think a forced living wage would do to people who weren't all that bright, educated, coodinated, experienced, fast, etc.?
They'd find it very difficult to find a job. If you really could raise a family flipping burgers, a lot of people would be willing to do jobs like that and not bother furthering their educations or looking for better jobs. Teenagers would find it even more difficult to get into the workforce.
What's the problem with working your way up? Fast food jobs aren't meant to be careers. They are a starting point.

 

[drz-400]

I think more than anything the early progressive movement in america had to do with the modernization of america. It was more or less a reaction to the industrial revolution. Many people thought the government had become corrupt during the gilded age so they wanted to reform it (hence the idea of trust busting). The efficiency aspect of it meant reforming government to make it more modern. Removing the inefficient old system. It was thought a universal education system would make the us more efficient. There are also the subjects like prohibition and eugenics which once again had to do with "efficiency" in society, though i strongly disagree with these ideas within the movement.

 

[UtahBill]

They had a huge influence on the U.S. political system, that for some reason is not discussed much.
Our education system was completely remodeled based on theirs.

I didn't say we didn't change, what I said was that these things are still observable in the present time.

It must have some merit to have lasted this long and still be observable.
I must have missed it, tho, when it was explained how this has much to do with modern progressive movement, whatever that is..
So far, the progessive movement appears to be nothing more than something for fearful conservatives to attack, without really knowing what it is..
when I registered republican, I saw other choices on the list, democrat, libertarian, even communist. Didn't see progressive....
What is there to fear about it?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It must have some merit to have lasted this long and still be observable.
I must have missed it, tho, when it was explained how this has much to do with modern progressive movement, whatever that is..
So far, the progessive movement appears to be nothing more than something for fearful conservatives to attack, without really knowing what it is..
when I registered republican, I saw other choices on the list, democrat, libertarian, even communist. Didn't see progressive....
What is there to fear about it?

To me, top down approaches to managing the wrongs of the world seem intuitive and catchy.
That is why it persists, in my opinion.

 

[Barbbtx]

Good one.

Pretend you're a cog in the XYZ Corporation. You want to strike out on your own, open your own business.

If you're a cog living in the USA, you have a choice of risking everything you own and your health as well by leaving the great mothership and its employer provided health care, or laying out a grand or so a month for high deductible coverage. If you're Canadian, then you don't have that hurdle to jump. Again, more liberty due to collectivism. Collectivism is not always a bad thing.

Some things are a collective good, and so should be paid for collectively: Parks, libraries, schools, highways, hospitals, all are good for everyone and so need to be funded by everyone.

If that's what you want, let the states do it. Don't involve the federal government and make the entire country pay. Except for maybe highways that benefit the country.

 

[Deuce]

If that's what you want, let the states do it. Don't involve the federal government and make the entire country pay. Except for maybe highways that benefit the country.

Aha. So you're ok with collectivism/socialism, but only in certain areas. Some vague definition of "benefits the country." Highways. Military, I presume.

Wouldn't that make your opinion and that of a so-called socialist not actually all that different? You and I both believe in socialism, the only difference is I have one extra area in which I think we should apply it. So why does the rhetoric always treat this as a black and white issue? Why is "socialism" seen as a yes or no question?

 

[Renae]

To me, top down approaches to managing the wrongs of the world seem intuitive and catchy.
That is why it persists, in my opinion.

It's easier to look to others to solve problems then to solve them on your own. That's what made America Unique, in that the onus was on the individual, not the "Government" to get it done. Progressive want to regress to Government solving problems. Which is amusing to say the least.

 

[Andalublue]

I seem to recall Margaret Thatcher once describing her politics as 'progressive conservatism', i.e. she was employing an analysis of a deficient state and polity and proposed measures for changing it into a, for her, better system. Her better system was one that preserved traditions and social order, hence the conservative bit, but that was radically different from the Keynesian mixed economy that had been pursued in Britain from 1945 to 1979.

Now, this wasn't so long ago, hence to confuse 'progressivism' with socialism may lead to all sorts of illogical assumptions. The same with the term liberal. Don't forget that in the Netherlands, Australia, Denmark and Austria, the 'Liberal' parties are really quite unashamedly right-wing.

Perhaps you are only interested in what these terms mean in the context of US domestic politics.

 

[Ben K.]

I seem to recall Margaret Thatcher once describing her politics as 'progressive conservatism', i.e. she was employing an analysis of a deficient state and polity and proposed measures for changing it into a, for her, better system. Her better system was one that preserved traditions and social order, hence the conservative bit, but that was radically different from the Keynesian mixed economy that had been pursued in Britain from 1945 to 1979.

Now, this wasn't so long ago, hence to confuse 'progressivism' with socialism may lead to all sorts of illogical assumptions. The same with the term liberal. Don't forget that in the Netherlands, Australia, Denmark and Austria, the 'Liberal' parties are really quite unashamedly right-wing.

Perhaps you are only interested in what these terms mean in the context of US domestic politics.

As in:

Conservative liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the Irish context, the label progressive was most recently used to represent an American style libertarian stance. As mentioned, it depends on what type of society you're progressing from.

 

[TurtleDude]

true progress is allowing people to reach their maximum state of competence and independence. American liberalism is anathema to that

 

[ThePlayDrive]

true progress is allowing people to reach their maximum state of competence and independence. American liberalism is anathema to that

progress is subjective.

 

[TurtleDude]

progress is subjective.

TRUE but the left has no monopoly on this pleasant sounding term and is often the farthest away from supporting an objectively supportable definition of progress.

making people wards of the state and addicted to the current opiate of the masses-welfare socialism is hardly progressive

its reactionary statist and parasitic

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Your definition of the left isnt objective.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your definition of the left isnt objective.

true in some ancillary issues. some would claim that guy rights activists who want gay marriage legalized are Left and i would agree though many of us on the right-those of us who are not bible thumpers but more objective would agree with that. but the crowning characteristic of the left-as far as most are concerned-is more government control and more government redistribution of income

the difference is those who support that claim that government is trying to make things "fairer" or better for the downtrodden even if it means more control while others (such as me) see it as a power grab

 

[ThePlayDrive]

TRUE but the left has no monopoly on this pleasant sounding term and is often the farthest away from supporting an objectively supportable definition of progress.

making people wards of the state and addicted to the current opiate of the masses-welfare socialism is hardly progressive

its reactionary statist and parasitic

I agree. People from the left and right can be progressive. Nonetheless, I don't think progressive refers to results, it refers to ideals and intentions. In other words, one can be progressive without accomplishing one's goals.

I think currently religious conservatives and their allegiance to social tradition make "conservative" seem like an antonym to "progressive". The actual ideal of smaller government (like actually small, not selectively small) is something I would consider progressive. I would also consider the ideals of equality and secularism prominent in liberalism to be progressive as well. I don't think progressivism has to point in any particular direction.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

You can't define politics by it's extremists.

 

[TurtleDude]

You can't define politics by it's extremists.

true-yet many on the left define the rich by extremes like Paris Hilton or Warren Buffett or the GOP by idiotic pastors who bash gays while buggering boys and having mistresses

 

[MKULTRABOY]

WHy would it be people on the left defining them as such and not merely people who arent rich?

 

[Andalublue]

but the crowning characteristic of the left-as far as most are concerned-is more government control and more government redistribution of income

That is the problem of statist approaches to socialism. Many believe that by improving democratic systems and institutions you achieve a government that is then necessarily better-equipped and more legitimate and thereby may be given greater power to control and plan society. It is this approach that drove the development of Leninism and which spawned Leninism's bastard baby, Stalinism.

Many socialists do not see the role of central government as being the repository of hope for a fairer and more egalitarian society. In fact, amongst those actively theorising, analysing and agitating for change, I'd say that most of them recognise the blind alley that a strongly statist approach to socialism actually is. There are many non-statist approaches to social and economic organisation that deserve investigation. The one I have found recently very interesting is the idea of Participatory Economics. I just posted this in another thread, but I think that it is relevant and might be interesting for those on this one too.

Can a socialist government operating a capitalist system also be a small government? I doubt it, but then, if it accepts the primacy of market economics, it's difficult to call it a socialist government. For all their undeniable success, the Scandinavian social-democratic model of mixed-market economics butts heads with this paradox all the time.

 

[Deuce]

true-yet many on the left define the rich by extremes like Paris Hilton or Warren Buffett or the GOP by idiotic pastors who bash gays while buggering boys and having mistresses

Actually it was you guys who defined it that way. Remember how $250k/year isn't rich?

 

[UtahBill]

You can't define politics by it's extremists.

you can define extremists by thier politics.....the crazy extreme left is almost as annoying as the insane extreme right.
Then there are the extreme libertarians who live in some other world but post here thinking they might convert others to their political religion.