Why does progressivism have a relatively perfect historical track record?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Why does progressivism have a relatively perfect historical track record?
elaborate
Compared to every other political system, it's pretty clear that they are the good guys of history. This isn't due to >muh revisionism, but because they are willing to change for the future
Good culture is a burden to civilization. You do things because they work. Not because your great great grandmother's small town of illiterate schizos did them.
Nice cope but that works too. "Globohomo" has objectively lifted millions out of poverty worldwide.
No genocide
because stagnation is death and decay, interesting how rightoids all love capitalism but moving forward as a society is devils incarnate
>>leftypol.org
is that way
>moving forward
Because homosexuals fricking each other is such a novel concept, not like it was perfectly acceptable during thousands of years in the past. I'm completely sure kids in the future will be anti homosexuals, and then their granchildren will be pro homosexuals, and on and on. But morons will always believe they are "progressing".
Because it's capitalism but sustainable.
>destroys every culture it touches
Some track record
Progressivism today doesn't mean what it used to. Today Progressivism is just globohomosexual liberalism colloquially supposed by naive leftists.
The only valid complaint about progressivism is that "progressive" governments aren't always progressive enough.
>true progressivism hasn't been tried yet
but it has
>post-war period
>progressivism
How exactly are you defining the term? Your picture is an obvious meme anyways; the separation of productivity and wages began most strikingly in the early 1970s, not 1980. And the reason the divergence began was in large part because post-war policies (see: Bretton-Woods and simultaneous heavy deficit spending) were unsustainable.
I think it would be extremely dishonest to ignore the fact that the 70s and 80s were also the end of the New Deal era in American public policy, and this led to policy changes ranging from the almost complete destruction of unions to abandoning full employment as an economic goal, to legalizing lobbying, to turning the health care and education sectors into for-profit money farms and allowing massive housing shortages.
It's a fundamentally political problem. Presenting it in sterile macroeconomic terms as if there was no human agency is simply historically false.
Unions had been in a downward slide since the 1950s, and themselves do not exist in a vacuum (see: the rebuilding of Europe and rise of Japanese manufacturing, followed by China and others). Full employment was very nearly attained prior to Hoover/FDR but outside of WW2 and parts of the 1950s has never been seen again. The pre-WW2 New Deal was an obvious failure in attempting full employment. Lobbying has always been a thing, as has for-profit medical care. All you're doing is listing off a bunch of contemporary political concerns and trying to hamfist them into some vague political era which never existed in practice to begin with.
>omitting the obvious Nixon shock point
>the point where every dips, then starts fraying
Hmmm
>it wasn't actually Reagan who ruined America
>it was Nixon
>liberals BTFO
Tbf Keynesianism only lasts about 40 or so years until it starts falling apart, Australia's an exception for a variety of unique reasons (they let both the US and China pay them to loot their country of resources, so Keynesianism can last longer there). The problem isn't Neoliberalism since Keynesianism isn't a viable, long term alternative; the problem is capitalism itself. The perpetual profit motive can't be sustained forever, you can't convert one dollar into two indefinitely, forever - eventually you'll hit a wall. Whether we like capitalism or not (we shouldn't, it harms almost everyone but the opulent elite) it will inevitably end by the 2030s since perpetual economic growth can no longer be carried out on a planet where we've ravaged the very real ecosystem we depend on for survival.
The reason for the sudden obsession with human colonization of space is because the rich know capitalism can't continue indefinitely on this planet, and they hope the infinite resources of space will allows perpetual growth to continue. We may've been able to colonize space before the climate apocalypse, but that possibility closed 50 years ago when there was a sudden rush to cut space programs during the stagflation era of the '70s; colonizing space before we face the climate catastrophe is too late now. Humanity will survive the next few centuries, although much weaker than we are now, but we're not going to escape to space within the next 10 years and keep business as usual going while avoiding the harm it's doing to the planet (which will soon start to harm us).
If we're lucky we'll get back on our feet within a few centuries, but if society gets knocked over this century space programs (which depend on resources from this planet) will collapse with the fall of the state system.
All of this rhetoric about historical inevitability ignores the fact that social democratic systems in Europe existed and still exist.
What happened in America wasn't an inevitable failure, it was a successful push by the ruling class to reassert dominance over the rest of society. You can see this most obviously in the measurable collapse of American democracy in the 80s and 90s, but it extends to every aspect of macroeconomic and social policy in America.
>All of this rhetoric about historical inevitability ignores the fact that social democratic systems in Europe existed and still exist.
Systems where cost of living and unemployment are frequently far higher than America.
>inb4 income equality meme
A 50th percentile American has more disposable income than an 80th percentile Scandi/Germ.
>inb4 life expectancy meme/public healthcare
The reversal of life expectancy in America is overwhelmingly driven by whites and blacks, due to drug overdoses/suicide in the former and homicide in the latter. Hispanic Americans see the exact same life expectancy increases observed throughout Europe.
And none of this has anything to do with OP's false premise of American progressivism having a "relatively perfect historical track record".
FDR put the Japanese in internment camps. That was a big mistake.
Europeans give up more of their income in taxes (on average) and a few things like gasoline and food are costlier there, but Americans don't have the same extensive social safety net. France and the United Kingdom have a somewhat higher poverty rate than America, but a poor person in the former two countries isn't as likely to have to worry about bankruptcy for health expenses, and new mothers don't have to worry about insufficient maternity leave as much.
you do run into these issues though: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained
Europe has far stronger labor movements, despite being far poorer countries with fewer advantages (as compared with the US). The US is the wealthiest and most advantaged nation in human history, and yet is an almost entirely business-run society where labor unions have been almost entirely crushed since at least 1981. The US is one of the most violent and militaristic countries in human history, hardly a year has passed in American history where the country wasn't involved in some sort of war somewhere in the world. Warfare is a huge boon to the ruling class since it almost always redistributes wealth from the populace to the rich; the first half of the 20th century being an aberration, where the wealth of the rich decreased despite two world wars, an economic depression, and a global pandemic. Labor unions are basically the only weapon the populace has to defend itself from the rich and preserve its liberty.
That being said Europe still hasn't broken free of the profit-motive economy, no one has. This is grave news going into the climate emergency which will hurt everyone everywhere (except the ultra-rich).
you don't make a profit, you have no money.
The vast majority of human history didn't have economic systems aimed at perpetual profit and 3%+ annual growth, it only started within the past 500 years or so. We won't be able to play that game much longer, the planet simply won't allow it.
The economy likewise has always been a zero-sum game (even in the age of capitalism), something the rich are always acutely aware of and aim to leverage. For instance capitalism increased the power of Europe but it wasn't until the 19th century that economic gains began being experienced by the majority of the European populace, before then most of the gains of empire were reserved for the ruling class (first the aristocracy, then they were replaced/consumed by the rising bourgeoisie). The populace pays for empire and makes the sacrifices in money and with their blood, the ruling class reaps the rewards.
The rise of Europe also brought about the extermination of two continents and the subjugation (and outright robbery) of another three, there have always been losers in the era of profit-motive.
Gross income isn't the measure of a people's wellbeing, the US still has an incredibly regressive tax system aimed to redistribute wealth from the populace to the rich; the tax system of the US is aimed at making the populace poorer while increasing nanny state help for the rich and for business. The US in many ways also has higher cost of living expenses than much of Europe and far fewer services.
Labor is indeed weak in Europe but it's far stronger there than in America where it's simply been crushed for 40 years. Labor unions are the only safeguard the populace has to defend their interests; the rich aren't going to concede a better life for people, it's not in their interests to do so since it decreases their hold over the populace. The more desperate people are and the less money they have the more power the rich have over them.
they did. if farmers didn't make a profit, they had no money to buy any supplies. if they didn't make a profit, they couldn't grow their farm.
That's not what capitalism is, there was no serious profit motive in something like the middle ages or first century North Africa, children could expect to live at the same level their parents did even though they worked their whole lives. Work to pay off your debts and survive off of, but farmers aren't going to build off that wealth in any serious means. Capitalism didn't exist before the 16th century. The rising standard of living working people expected to always see in the 19th-20th centuries will mostly be a historical outlier, we're returning to a world where everyone works but most people have the same experience as their parents.
I mean the whole debate about when capitalism began is mostly theoretical. The important thing to understand is that the economy has always been a zero-sum game even in the age of global conquest, the rich seek to be subsidized by everyone else, and the rich seek to increase their wealth and power both over the population (which is their primary enemy) and (to a lesser extent) against their rivals. That is something which preceded capitalism.
Even the debate about capitalism itself is mostly theoretical. For example the US has always strongly opposed free markets and free trade, aiming to use the government to protect US business from foreign competition through a combination of tariffs and public subsidy. There's still a profit motive in a sense, but the rich want one guaranteed for them by a nanny state which protects them from all competition or possibility of failure. The rich are strongly opposed to capitalist competition, unless the field is tilted in their favor.
We're not talking about individuals buying tools from money they earn.
well no, the king owned everything. the monarchy was the closet thing to your communist utopia with everything centralized within the monarchy.
i'm assuming your solution is communism?
Both terms have become more or less meaningless. The US calls itself the champion of capitalism, democracy, and rule of law but in reality strongly opposes all three, and aims to crush all of them in the third world. The Soviets called themselves the champions of communism and worker's rights but spent much of the '70s and '80s crushing labor movements within the Soviet Union, not to mention the brutal subjugation it carried out of its own satellite states in the second world. The only serious difference between the two is that the ruling class of the US (which concentrates itself in private investment) runs the government, the ruling class of the USSR was the government itself.
The only justifiable system is one where the economic and state systems are entirely democratically run, not run by and for a private elite or by some vanguard party. The problem is that democracy is easy to crush through violence, and it's hard to preserve democracy in the face of violence. Total democracy of all society is the only serious system which can be morally defended, wherever that leads.
For example during the allied occupation of Italy workers co-ops overthrew many fascists and private landholders who cooperated with the fascist government. The US and UK simply suppressed the Italian resistance who helped them and reinstalled fascist collaborators to "stabilize Italy." It's hard to resist something like that.
there isn't. i tell always tell people this and i always get told its the black pill but its truth. there is no perfect solution. humans are imperfect beings. you cannot expect humans to make a perfect solution when we ourselves are imperfect. rather, its the best of bad solutions. things that are in the marxist camp are the worst because they are the most flawed. the system we have now is clearly flawed, but its lasted us the longest. its not perfect, but its been good enough but the problem is, nothing lasts forever. our system has check and balances but those check and balances cannot prevent corruption. only slow it down, and after X amount of time the corruption has grown to a point the systems cannot keep up.
no empire lasts forever. rome fail. even our founding fathers like jefferon new this. he himself thought our system would only last 50 years before revolt was needed again. granted he was wrong about the time frame, its been 200+ years. but he was right in the fact, all systems will fall.
and the issue isn't rich people. its not people having wealth. its people being corrupted. its people being flawed. money gives power. someone who is filthy rich doesn't need to care about others because they have the power to do what they want. just like governments. a politician doesn't need to care about you unless there is an incentive to. and even then, they will only do the bare minimum to keep you happy. which is exactly what majority of politicians do for you keep voting for them. either a handout, or partisan politics where people will just vote for them because they have a D or an R in front of their name because the climate has made both sides hate each others guts.
>state being the defacto monopoly. all the buttholes being split between two systems (private and public) are now centralized in one monolithic system having full power to do anything they want. commies always rage at monopolies but so eager to make the state the monopoly. removal of profit motive doesn't fix shit because there's more to profit. people just want money because money gives them power. people just want power. the USSR was the defacto proof of this. state communism working has the same odds as a monarchy. its only as good as the people who run it. no one complained about their king when the king was benevolent. they only complained when the king was evil. and the amount of damage a king can do if they are bad was to great. making the state the defacto monopoly is the same problem. in a perfect world, with the right people being truly good of heart it could work but in reality it never will. there are way to many variables for abuse.
>anarchist communism the grand delusional of everyone magically working together in communes / collectives. humans are hierarchy creatures and capable of self thought. you cannot abolish that behavior. all communes / collectives recreate authority (governments), communes and collectives always recreate a state, and one thing marxist always point out as they shill $15 an hour or why people don't do shit jobs, for shit pay, is the fact people want to profit off their labor. a guy working installing roofs are not going to want to make as much as a guy putting cereal boxes on the shelf. you cannot bet on the kindness of strangers. you cannot bet on everyone willing to put in their full effort. especially if you remove incentives.
>Gross income isn't the measure of a people's wellbeing
I said disposable income in the previous post, I never said gross income
>the US still has an incredibly regressive tax system aimed to redistribute wealth from the populace to the rich; the tax system of the US is aimed at making the populace poorer while increasing nanny state help for the rich and for business.
True, yet much of Europe's is even worse. People meme about income mobility in Europe, but the change from 25th to 90th percentile in Europe is minuscule compared to the same percentile change in America. Many of Europe's corporations have histories which go back hundreds of years, not to mention literal nobility/titles like the English Royal Family and the Rothschilds who enjoy all sorts of tax-exempt estates.
>The US in many ways also has higher cost of living expenses than much of Europe and far fewer services.
False unless you're doing extreme cherry-picking (e.g. trying to compare homeless people in NYC to residents of Lichtenstein).
the US has areas with high income disparity yes. lets use silicon valley here. all you have is rich and poor, there is no middle class. its working at safeway for 28k tops a year or working at facebook for six figures. this wasn't always the case. when silicon valley was created it had a big middle class but starting in the 70's with opening up china, middle class jobs started to move overseas. all those manufacturing jobs gone. silicon valley was started to not only design, but manufacturer as well. but now its nearly only designing with manufacturing overseas. so you have a high skill work force with low skill. no in between anymore. even companies like compaq in the 80's use to build the computers in silicon valley but towards the end of the 80's, followed the rest of the industry, like apple, with moving assembly overseas. there's an old video of this controversy on the news on youtube.
but not all of the united states is like that. here in phoenix, its hugely middle class. its one of the reasons why the state is booming because housing is affordable and plenty of middle skill level jobs. but then you get areas like NY which is just ultra upper class and dirt, bottom of the barrel poor.
And despite all of those alleged advantages of strong unions, most European workers still have low incomes compared to American workers, and none of them see the strong increases in purchasing power witnessed in China
The left is right about everything and the political right is wrong about everything, the only serious divide of human society is between the ruling class and everyone else. Sedentary society was implemented in the first place in order to force everyone to work in order to subsidize the ruling class with a surplus of whatever they needed, which they would then use to expand their interests. It was originally believed that class and governments existed before warfare but in recent years it appears the inverse is true; the original purpose of states was to get everyone indebted so they'd be forced to work off their existence through providing the ruling (warrior) class with whatever surplus it needed to wage war and expand its interests. The ruling class of one society may wage war against that of another, but the primary enemy of all ruling classes is its own population; the populace needs to be kept in line through a combination of debt, intimidation, coercion, and violence to ensure they won't start demanding equality or that the surplus they build be spent on improving their own lives rather than always on their rulers.
There is no benefit to the ruling class, they're nothing more than parasites who use the state system to enslave everyone else. No self-respecting people who love freedom should tolerate the existence of their ruling class, they should demand nothing short of total freedom and total equality or offer the ruling class the alternative of being destroyed.
Holy shit a based leftist
>failed anti-trust efforts
>keeping weekly work hours artificially long
>mass global war and death
>ponzi pension schemes that rob the young
>total domination of private banking
Yeah worked out real well that one did
Because progressives just label away any branch of their movement that isn't successful. Communism and Nazism were both profoundly "progressive" ideologies.
Because you have no understanding of how the system you lionize works and choose to gloss over the nasty aspects of it. Progressives were always ruthless proponents of imperial expansion and paved the way for the sorry pseudo-America we live in now. They just wanted to bust the trusts that weren't personally beneficial to them.
remember prohibition?
>progressivism
Because that term doesn't mean anything and it's just used by people who want to change a society in some way. People "progress" in all sorts of directions. In the early 1900's progressivism meant eugenics, state run institutions and anti-trust laws.
Nowadays progressivism means combating perceived racial injustice, allowing children to chose to chop off their genitals before they can get their driver's license, and bringing in endless streams of "refugees" that never end up going home.
Obviously progressivism works, because it's the direction society is moving in and anyone who suggests a different direction is labeled a reactionary even if they don't necessarily wish to return to any sort of tradition.
In essence, the world progressivism is a type of memetic propaganda that is constantly changing its meaning to suit the wishes of the powers that be.
I can't think of anywhere where it's legal for 15 year olds to get SRS. They can get hormone replacement or suppressed puberty, which has its own ethical questions, but SRS comes later.
who the frick is typing so much, stop it