Jump to content

Progressivism: Difference between revisions

From Wikiquote, the free quote compendium
Content deleted Content added
C.J. Griffin (talk | contribs)
Quotes: Adding quote
Quotes: Javier Milei
Line 1: Line 1:
'''[[w:Progressivism|Progressivism]]''' is a political philosophy for improvement of society, based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
'''[[w:Progressivism|Progressivism]]''' is a political philosophy for improvement of society, based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in [[science]], [[technology]], [[economic development]] and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
{{stub}}
{{stub}}


==Quotes==
==Quotes==


* At this moment, when the foundational values that defined the [[20th century]] are under stress and the [[social contract]] is undergoing unprecedented revisions, as [[ideas]] and [[ideals]] of [[citizenship]], [[nations]], democracy, justice, and [[freedom]] are being redefined; [[civil society]] cannot sit on the side lines and remain [[neutral]]. It needs to reengage with communities and politics to play a central role in defending, deepening, and promoting the progressiv] ideals of [[liberty]], [[equality]], [[fraternity]], justice, and democracy.
* At this moment, when the foundational values that defined the [[20th century]] are under stress and the [[social contract]] is undergoing unprecedented revisions, as [[ideas]] and [[ideals]] of [[citizenship]], [[nations]], [[democracy]], [[justice]], and [[freedom]] are being redefined; [[civil society]] cannot sit on the side lines and remain [[neutral]]. It needs to reengage with communities and politics to play a central role in defending, deepening, and promoting the progressiv] ideals of [[liberty]], [[equality]], [[fraternity]], justice, and democracy.
** [[Amitabh Behar]], ''[https://scroll.in/article/963408/why-indias-development-sector-no-longer-questions-politics-and-power Why India’s NGOs don’t question politics and power any more]'' (June 01, 2020), ''{{w|Scroll.in}}''
** [[Amitabh Behar]], ''[https://scroll.in/article/963408/why-indias-development-sector-no-longer-questions-politics-and-power Why India’s NGOs don’t question politics and power any more]'' (June 01, 2020), ''{{w|Scroll.in}}''


Line 22: Line 22:
** [[Alexander Dubček]], in a speech to a meeting of the {{w|Communist Party of Czechoslovakia}}'s {{w|Central Committee}} outlining the reforms known as {{w|Socialism with a human face}}, April 1, 1968, during the {{w|Prague Spring}}. Quoted in ''[https://english.radio.cz/alexander-dubcek-hope-and-despair-1968-8588161 Alexander Dubček: hope and despair in 1968]'' (January 22, 2009) by David Vaughan, ''{{w|Radio Prague}}''
** [[Alexander Dubček]], in a speech to a meeting of the {{w|Communist Party of Czechoslovakia}}'s {{w|Central Committee}} outlining the reforms known as {{w|Socialism with a human face}}, April 1, 1968, during the {{w|Prague Spring}}. Quoted in ''[https://english.radio.cz/alexander-dubcek-hope-and-despair-1968-8588161 Alexander Dubček: hope and despair in 1968]'' (January 22, 2009) by David Vaughan, ''{{w|Radio Prague}}''


* It [National Socialism] was a progressive cause, embraced at the time by the progressives’ progressive, [[W:H. G. Wells|H. G. Wells]]. [[W:Marie Stopes|Marie Stopes]], the great apostle of contraception in interwar Britain, was also—like many among the progressives of the time—a keen eugenicist. In 1935, she attended a Congress for Population Science in [[Nazi]] Berlin. In August 1939, she even sent [[Hitler]] a volume of her dreadful poems, accompanied by a treacly epistle about love. Yet all this has been forgotten amid continuing progressive admiration for Marie Stopes’s embrace of what are nowadays known as “reproductive rights.” Marie Stopes International, a powerful and flourishing modern organization, still bears her name as it campaigns for and defends those “reproductive rights.”
* It [National Socialism] was a progressive cause, embraced at the time by the progressives’ progressive, [[H. G. Wells]]. [[W:Marie Stopes|Marie Stopes]], the great apostle of [[contraception]] in interwar [[United Kingdom|Britain]], was also—like many among the progressives of the time—a keen [[Eugenics|eugenicist]]. In 1935, she attended a Congress for Population Science in [[Nazi]] [[Berlin]]. In August 1939, she even sent [[Hitler]] a volume of her dreadful poems, accompanied by a treacly epistle about love. Yet all this has been forgotten amid continuing progressive admiration for Marie Stopes’s embrace of what are nowadays known as “reproductive rights.” Marie Stopes International, a powerful and flourishing modern organization, still bears her name as it campaigns for and defends those “reproductive rights.”
** [[Peter Hitchens]], [https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/09/hitler-the-progressive Hitler The Progressive], ''First Things'', 16 September 2019
** [[Peter Hitchens]], [https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/09/hitler-the-progressive Hitler The Progressive], ''First Things'', 16 September 2019


Line 31: Line 31:
**Louis Menand, "[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/07/24/the-rise-and-fall-of-neoliberalism The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism]". ''{{w|The New Yorker}}''. 17 July 2023.
**Louis Menand, "[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/07/24/the-rise-and-fall-of-neoliberalism The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism]". ''{{w|The New Yorker}}''. 17 July 2023.


* The West has unfortunately already started to go along this path. I know, to many it may sound ridiculous to suggest that the West has turned to [[socialism]], but it's only ridiculous if you only limit yourself to the traditional economic definition of socialism, which says that it's an [[economic system]] where the state owns the [[means of production]]. This definition in my view, should be updated in the light of current circumstances. Today, [[State|states]] don't need to directly control the means of production to control every aspect of the lives of individuals. With tools such as printing [[money]], [[Government debt|debt]], subsidies, controlling the [[interest]] rate, [[price controls]], and [[Regulation|regulations]] to correct so-called [[Market failure|market failures]], they can control the lives and fates of millions of individuals. This is how we come to the point where, by using different names or guises, a good deal of the generally accepted [[Ideology|ideologies]] in most Western countries are [[Collectivism|collectivist]] variants, whether they proclaim to be openly [[Communism|communist]], [[Fascism|fascist]], socialist, [[Social democracy|social democrats]], [[National Socialist|national socialists]], [[wikipedia:Christian_democracy|Christian democrats]], [[Neo-Keynesian economics|neo-Keynesians]], [[Progressivism|progressives]], [[Populism|populists]], [[Nationalism|nationalists]] or [[Globalism|globalists]]. Ultimately, there are no major differences. They all say that the state should steer all aspects of the lives of individuals. They all defend a model contrary to the one that led humanity to the most spectacular progress in its history.
*The hatred that often passed for 'progressivism' in 'activist' circles was truly astounding, and I fell lock-stock-and-barrel for it. One was trained only to look for the negative in every nook and corner, and, if it didn't exist where one looked, to imagine and fervently believe that it did. One's whole life became one great protest. Protesting against real or imaginary injustice was almost the only respectable thing to do. It was as if there was nothing at all good in the world to celebrate, and even as if celebration and joy were themselves an 'unnecessary diversion' or a 'unaffordable luxury' that truly committed 'activists' had to carefully shun. That explained why many 'progressives' and 'radicals' were horrifically negative as human beings, many of them being irritatingly obnoxious, judgemental, cantankerous, dour and sullen. Their penchant for protest made them only more so. Believing themselves to be somehow morally superior to others because they had, so they thought, devoted themselves to the 'oppressed' made many of them painfully sanctimonious and proud. Of course, I need not clarify that this was not always the case, and I did have the good fortune of meeting a number of other activists, truly sincere in their commitment, who were among the most loving and compassionate souls I've ever come across. But these were rare exceptions, I have to admit.<br>Negativism, then, was a defining feature of being 'progressive', and that's what I began to revel in. But such negativism was almost entirely one-sided in 'activist' circles, for to be counted as a 'real' 'social activist' it was simply unthinkable that the 'oppressed' could be faulted for almost anything at all. For a 'social activist' to even mention, leave alone condemn, the foibles of the 'oppressed communities'--gender injustice or caste rivalries among Dalits or the obscurantism and misogyny preached in many Muslim madrasas or the terror attacks and killings of innocents by Naxalites and radical Islamists--was tantamount to nothing less than treason.
** [[Javier Milei]], [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/special-address-by-javier-milei-president-of-argentina/ Special Address to the World Economic Forum], 18 January 2024

*The hatred that often passed for 'progressivism' in 'activist' circles was truly astounding, and I fell lock-stock-and-barrel for it. One was trained only to look for the negative in every nook and corner, and, if it didn't exist where one looked, to imagine and fervently believe that it did. One's whole life became one great protest. Protesting against real or imaginary injustice was almost the only respectable thing to do. It was as if there was nothing at all good in the world to celebrate, and even as if celebration and joy were themselves an 'unnecessary diversion' or a 'unaffordable luxury' that truly committed 'activists' had to carefully shun. That explained why many 'progressives' and 'radicals' were horrifically negative as human beings, many of them being irritatingly obnoxious, judgemental, cantankerous, dour and sullen. Their penchant for protest made them only more so. Believing themselves to be somehow morally superior to others because they had, so they thought, devoted themselves to the 'oppressed' made many of them painfully sanctimonious and proud. Of course, I need not clarify that this was not always the case, and I did have the good fortune of meeting a number of other activists, truly sincere in their commitment, who were among the most loving and compassionate souls I've ever come across. But these were rare exceptions, I have to admit.<br>Negativism, then, was a defining feature of being 'progressive', and that's what I began to revel in. But such negativism was almost entirely one-sided in 'activist' circles, for to be counted as a 'real' 'social activist' it was simply unthinkable that the 'oppressed' could be faulted for almost anything at all. For a 'social activist' to even mention, leave alone condemn, the foibles of the 'oppressed communities'--gender injustice or [[Caste system in India|caste]] rivalries among Dalits or the obscurantism and [[misogyny]] preached in many [[Muslim]] madrasas or the [[Terrorism in India|terror attacks]] and [[Civilian casualties|killings of innocents]] by [[Naxalite|Naxalites]] and radical [[Islamism|Islamists]]--was tantamount to nothing less than [[treason]].
**Yoginder Sikand [https://www.countercurrents.org/sikand190412.htm Why I Gave Up On 'Social Activism' By Yoginder Sikand 19 April, 2012] Counter Currents
**Yoginder Sikand [https://www.countercurrents.org/sikand190412.htm Why I Gave Up On 'Social Activism' By Yoginder Sikand 19 April, 2012] Counter Currents



Revision as of 16:00, 22 January 2024

Progressivism is a political philosophy for improvement of society, based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.

Quotes

  • It's hard to define "progressive" but it seems to me you shouldn't label yourself as such if you don't think that decent housing and healthcare and food etc are human rights.
  • When progressives remain silent and don’t talk about why the war in Syria is illegal, then into the void step in neocons like Lindsey Graham. Any wonder that our nation remains mired in endless war. Let’s have the guts to stand for responsible withdrawal.
  • Wherever they govern, progressives repeat the same kinds of patterns: (1) Violate the very laws of economics and, as Rothbard says, nature itself; (2) Observe the consequences of their behavior; and (3) Double down on their original declarations and blame capitalism, religious believers, or anyone else serving as a scapegoat.
  • Progressivism is not a blueprint for governing. It is a blueprint for disaster. We have seen the wreckage in many places, but there is one thing progressives apparently need not fear: paying a political price for their misdeeds. As long as these electoral and governance patterns exist, progressives will expand their power bases — and continue to govern badly.
  • It [National Socialism] was a progressive cause, embraced at the time by the progressives’ progressive, H. G. Wells. Marie Stopes, the great apostle of contraception in interwar Britain, was also—like many among the progressives of the time—a keen eugenicist. In 1935, she attended a Congress for Population Science in Nazi Berlin. In August 1939, she even sent Hitler a volume of her dreadful poems, accompanied by a treacly epistle about love. Yet all this has been forgotten amid continuing progressive admiration for Marie Stopes’s embrace of what are nowadays known as “reproductive rights.” Marie Stopes International, a powerful and flourishing modern organization, still bears her name as it campaigns for and defends those “reproductive rights.”
  • Neither are the progressivists, in present-day America, revolutionaries or enemies of the order. Being "radical" or "progressive" they merely want to continue with greater speed and determination along the established, wrong trail.
  • Those mid-century liberals were not opposed to capitalism and private enterprise. On the contrary, they thought that government programs and strong labor unions made capitalist economies more productive and more equitable. They wanted to save capitalism from its own failures and excesses. Today, we call these people progressives. (Those on the right call them Communists.)
  • The hatred that often passed for 'progressivism' in 'activist' circles was truly astounding, and I fell lock-stock-and-barrel for it. One was trained only to look for the negative in every nook and corner, and, if it didn't exist where one looked, to imagine and fervently believe that it did. One's whole life became one great protest. Protesting against real or imaginary injustice was almost the only respectable thing to do. It was as if there was nothing at all good in the world to celebrate, and even as if celebration and joy were themselves an 'unnecessary diversion' or a 'unaffordable luxury' that truly committed 'activists' had to carefully shun. That explained why many 'progressives' and 'radicals' were horrifically negative as human beings, many of them being irritatingly obnoxious, judgemental, cantankerous, dour and sullen. Their penchant for protest made them only more so. Believing themselves to be somehow morally superior to others because they had, so they thought, devoted themselves to the 'oppressed' made many of them painfully sanctimonious and proud. Of course, I need not clarify that this was not always the case, and I did have the good fortune of meeting a number of other activists, truly sincere in their commitment, who were among the most loving and compassionate souls I've ever come across. But these were rare exceptions, I have to admit.
    Negativism, then, was a defining feature of being 'progressive', and that's what I began to revel in. But such negativism was almost entirely one-sided in 'activist' circles, for to be counted as a 'real' 'social activist' it was simply unthinkable that the 'oppressed' could be faulted for almost anything at all. For a 'social activist' to even mention, leave alone condemn, the foibles of the 'oppressed communities'--gender injustice or caste rivalries among Dalits or the obscurantism and misogyny preached in many Muslim madrasas or the terror attacks and killings of innocents by Naxalites and radical Islamists--was tantamount to nothing less than treason.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia has an article about: