When do we cross the finish line?

[Unrepresented]

The right to murder someone is sometimes determined by who wins the revolution against those who would control the means of production. Military people are only murders if they lose.

Might ultimately will always make "right."

 

[DVSentinel]

Yawn, I could say the same thing about Capitalism.

Incorrect. Socialist can exist and function inside of Capitalism, but Capitalism cannot exist or function in a Socialist System.

 

[DVSentinel]

Might ultimately will always make "right."

Not true. Might does not make right, but right cannot not exist without the might to do so. No amount of "might" can ever make socialism right. History proves the results of socialism (abject poverty, murder, totalitarianism, lack of technological achievement, etc) are always wrong.

 

[Unrepresented]

Not true. Might does not make right, but right cannot not exist without the might to do so. No amount of "might" can ever make socialism right. History proves the results of socialism (abject poverty, murder, totalitarianism, lack of technological achievement, etc) are always wrong.

Our views on the origins of morality are in conflict.

 

[DVSentinel]

Our views on the origins of morality are in conflict.

Thats ok. My profession was "conflict resolution". I was in the military.

 

[Thoreau72]

When someone works to "progress" the cause of socialism, that is in fact regression.

Obviously, a lot of people are afraid of progress because they feel it is not progress. What is or is not progress is often a matter of point of view or opinion.

I completely agree with your last sentence, but your first is fairly well pure nonsense. Are you suggesting that the 'socialism' we applied to TARP and its beneficiaries was regression?

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no doubt.

 

[blaxshep]

There has never been a society that has completed the goals of Socialism. However, any that have attempted it are indeed socialist. A socialist acts towards achieving socialism, whether they actually achieve it or not. Believing and acting to work for socialism makes a socialist, not their success.

There has never been a country that has even attempted to assume public ownership of the means of production, so no, not true.

I wonder if you even know what socialism is. Don't confuse a Nanny State with Socialism. Two entirely different things.

 

[Mr. Blackwell]

If the root word of 'progressive' is 'progress', why are so many afraid of progress?

No one is afraid of progress, generally speaking. Capitalists love progress, for them, progress means growth. People who are "progressive" in the political sense have a completely different understanding of what progress means compared to most capitalists. To the environmentally progressive types, shutting down coal mines is progress. Sometimes it seems to me that they want to shut down the coal industry and the oil industry NOW....before we even have infrastructure in place to replace the resources those industries provide. Gas for your car isn't the only thing we get from oil. The people who make a living in those two industries are scared to death of the type of progress the environmentalists are calling for because, for them, it means losing their job, their livelihood. However, one of the methods of progressive-ism is not to come to a full stop or a full start when it comes to changing the system. Change is implemented incrementally. Instead of just saying "coal mining is now illegal", the leaders of the politically progressive movement simply create regulations which make the cost of mining coal more and more regulated, restricted and therefore more and more cost prohibitive. The coal companies that can afford to stay in business pass on the extra cost of progressive policies to their customers. Which leads to higher and higher energy costs for us...the end users until those of us on the lower end of the income spectrum have to start making hard choices even though we are not directly involved with any of this process. We are stuck in the middle of this tug of war between two ideologies. I walk on the razors edge when it comes to money, even the slightest increase of the cost of anything forces me to weigh my options, which are already very slim. As an example, when the cost of gas was over $3 a gallon for 87 I only visited my parents once every three months because I could not afford the extra gas to visit them more often. They only live 60 miles away. So I do get a little anxious when people like President Obama tells me that it is necessary to increase the cost of energy in order to force people to demand a change.

It seems to me that progressives tend to put the cart before the horse. They (normal members of these types of forums anyway) tout solar energy as a good alternative to oil and coal but don't seem to address the issue of just how toxic solar panels are and how big the carbon footprint is for producing a substandard form of creating electricity. The mining involved in getting the rare earth metals necessary to create solar cells is just as damaging to the environment as mining coal and drilling for oil and it still doesn't produce as much electricity but that is unimportant to the environmentally progressive. It also hasn't occurred to most of them that you can't make plastic out of solar energy. When scientists and engineers discovered how to make plastic out of petroleum, that was progress. Plastic has changed our lives in so many positive ways I can't put them all here. That's progress, progressive might share a root word with progress but progressive policies are, by design, regressive to the average Joe who has to choose between having internet access or being able to afford to drive to work or visit relatives.

 

[Riveroaks]

Is there an end to the progressive movement? Is there an ultimate goal? At what point will the progressive's be satisfied? Change is good, but is constant change good? At some point in the future we must arrive at the "perfect" balance of governance. At that point, won't the progressives just keep pushing for change? Or will they become conservatives trying to maintain what they think is the best way to do things?

No one is safe as long as the legislature is in session. Mark Twain.

 

[Bram Vulk]

Progressives will only progress when they realize leftism was co-opted by the same corporate chiefs they claim to hate. Their entire belief system is there to make someone else a dollar. Social media has enabled them to become unpaid lobbyists who pounce on talking points given to them by their corporate masters. They are complete tools for the "capitalist" ruling class...and they kiss rich ass at all times...while idolizing employees of media conglomerates like john stewart and Colbert. Just total delusion on a mass scale.

 

[Thoreau72]

No one is afraid of progress, generally speaking. Capitalists love progress, for them, progress means growth. People who are "progressive" in the political sense have a completely different understanding of what progress means compared to most capitalists. To the environmentally progressive types, shutting down coal mines is progress. Sometimes it seems to me that they want to shut down the coal industry and the oil industry NOW....before we even have infrastructure in place to replace the resources those industries provide. Gas for your car isn't the only thing we get from oil. The people who make a living in those two industries are scared to death of the type of progress the environmentalists are calling for because, for them, it means losing their job, their livelihood. However, one of the methods of progressive-ism is not to come to a full stop or a full start when it comes to changing the system. Change is implemented incrementally. Instead of just saying "coal mining is now illegal", the leaders of the politically progressive movement simply create regulations which make the cost of mining coal more and more regulated, restricted and therefore more and more cost prohibitive. The coal companies that can afford to stay in business pass on the extra cost of progressive policies to their customers. Which leads to higher and higher energy costs for us...the end users until those of us on the lower end of the income spectrum have to start making hard choices even though we are not directly involved with any of this process. We are stuck in the middle of this tug of war between two ideologies. I walk on the razors edge when it comes to money, even the slightest increase of the cost of anything forces me to weigh my options, which are already very slim. As an example, when the cost of gas was over $3 a gallon for 87 I only visited my parents once every three months because I could not afford the extra gas to visit them more often. They only live 60 miles away. So I do get a little anxious when people like President Obama tells me that it is necessary to increase the cost of energy in order to force people to demand a change.

It seems to me that progressives tend to put the cart before the horse. They (normal members of these types of forums anyway) tout solar energy as a good alternative to oil and coal but don't seem to address the issue of just how toxic solar panels are and how big the carbon footprint is for producing a substandard form of creating electricity. The mining involved in getting the rare earth metals necessary to create solar cells is just as damaging to the environment as mining coal and drilling for oil and it still doesn't produce as much electricity but that is unimportant to the environmentally progressive. It also hasn't occurred to most of them that you can't make plastic out of solar energy. When scientists and engineers discovered how to make plastic out of petroleum, that was progress. Plastic has changed our lives in so many positive ways I can't put them all here. That's progress, progressive might share a root word with progress but progressive policies are, by design, regressive to the average Joe who has to choose between having internet access or being able to afford to drive to work or visit relatives.

I understand your points. I guess what we have here is a disagreement as to semantics and labels? Labels can be useful, for sure, but are usually an incomplete and misleading description of any person's views.

 

[Mithrae]

Is there an end to the progressive movement? Is there an ultimate goal? At what point will the progressive's be satisfied? Change is good, but is constant change good? At some point in the future we must arrive at the "perfect" balance of governance. At that point, won't the progressives just keep pushing for change? Or will they become conservatives trying to maintain what they think is the best way to do things?

I don't really understand why anyone would call themselves progressive in the 21st century unless their concerns are primarily global. As you note, the term implies a focus on the future, and overwhelmingly the most important issues of this century are global in scope. Climate change is an obvious example; the need for better global stability mechanisms, both in economic and military terms, is another.

 

[Mr. Blackwell]

Progressives will only progress when they realize leftism was co-opted by the same corporate chiefs they claim to hate. Their entire belief system is there to make someone else a dollar. Social media has enabled them to become unpaid lobbyists who pounce on talking points given to them by their corporate masters. They are complete tools for the "capitalist" ruling class...and they kiss rich ass at all times...while idolizing employees of media conglomerates like john stewart and Colbert. Just total delusion on a mass scale.

That....is an interesting point of view. Can you expand on that thought a little more?

 

[Mr. Blackwell]

I don't really understand why anyone would call themselves progressive in the 21st century unless their concerns are primarily global. As you note, the term implies a focus on the future, and overwhelmingly the most important issues of this century are global in scope. Climate change is an obvious example; the need for better global stability mechanisms, both in economic and military terms, is another.

Thank you. The world is getting smaller. The older I get, everything seems to be more and more chaotic and unstable. Sometimes I think it seems that way just because I am paying more attention. Everything seemed calmer when all I did was listen to music and smoke pot.

 

[blaxshep]

Thank you. The world is getting smaller. The older I get, everything seems to be more and more chaotic and unstable. Sometimes I think it seems that way just because I am paying more attention. Everything seemed calmer when all I did was listen to music and smoke pot.

We were better off then.

 

[Mithrae]

We were better off then.

When we were smoking pot and jiving to the BeeGees? Fo sho!