What's a progressive anyway?

chlamor
08-02-2008, 03:18 PM

I know of not a single black from the hood that claims to be such a thing.

I know of mostly white middle to upper middle class whites who smugly claim to be such a thing.

What exactly is this creature?

Is this beast anti-war?TM- with no details on exactly what that means?

Is this the critter that oh so happily refers to the local CSA as "our farm" and feels oh so fuzzy pickin' up the food from the barn with their lily-white well-manicured fingers?

Is this critter for equal pay in the savage days of green consumer capital exploitation?

Is this the critter in the well wrinkled power shirt and khaki shorts reading Paul Hawken's latest tract on making Capital work for the planet?

So many questions, so little time.

Hey progressive you know who you are. You are the status quo. Quit lying.

eattherich
08-18-2008, 10:11 PM

"Progressive" is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history,sorry but that's too great a metaphor not to steal,by the alleged "left" in this country because the Limbaughs,Kristols,et al had so demonized the word "liberal".That's basically it,plain and simple.The problem is,that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers,the original Progressives (http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS122/T ... ssive.html),were a bunch of Bolsheviks,compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the "progressive" mantle today.

While all of us here know that modern-day liberalism,was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism,and conservatism,most people do not.If they did,and truly understood this history,they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make "liberals",and The Democratic Party in particular,into the socialists they might want them to be.

All too often "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what.It's all bullshit.

chlamor
08-19-2008, 08:50 PM

"Progressive" is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history,sorry but that's too great a metaphor not to steal,by the alleged "left" in this country because the Limbaughs,Kristols,et al had so demonized the word "liberal".That's basically it,plain and simple.The problem is,that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers,the original Progressives (http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS122/T ... ssive.html),were a bunch of Bolsheviks,compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the "progressive" mantle today.

While all of us here know that modern-day liberalism,was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism,and conservatism,most people do not.If they did,and truly understood this history,they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make "liberals",and The Democratic Party in particular,into the socialists they might want them to be.

All too often "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what.It's all bullshit.

I'm liking that one.

How ya' been eats? How's your health?

eattherich
08-20-2008, 03:18 AM

"Progressive" is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history,sorry but that's too great a metaphor not to steal,by the alleged "left" in this country because the Limbaughs,Kristols,et al had so demonized the word "liberal".That's basically it,plain and simple.The problem is,that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers,the original Progressives (http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS122/T ... ssive.html),were a bunch of Bolsheviks,compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the "progressive" mantle today.

While all of us here know that modern-day liberalism,was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism,and conservatism,most people do not.If they did,and truly understood this history,they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make "liberals",and The Democratic Party in particular,into the socialists they might want them to be.

All too often "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what.It's all bullshit.

I'm liking that one.

How ya' been eats? How's your health?

Well,2007 was my year for meningitis.2008 is the year another of my other acute childhood infections came bubbling back to the surface.When I was seven,I had rheumatic fever.As a child,I had an elderly family doctor,who said he hadn't seen a case in years.I developed arthritis at eleven,and heart failure a few years later.I have come very close to dying from heart failure more than once.

The bacterial buildup from my meningitis,which was Strep B,just as the one I had as a baby was,led to a severe septic blood infection.This caused my RF to come back.So I spent the month of December, with reactivated RF,complete with rash.Most unusual for an adult.RF is Strep A.I have had both many times.Since then,I have had both repeated bouts of Rheumatic fever,of varying severity,and worsening rheumatic heart disease,with mitral valve prolapse,and regurgitation,both symptomatically,and by echocardiogram.As far as I know,all I can do is wait for my heart condition to worsen to the point where I am sick enough to have valve replacement surgery.I had a nasty close call recently,and spent a week in the hospital.

I'd really be SOL,if I didn't have SSI,and Medicaid.I have seen how my mother has suffered recently, from an accident,and may be permanently damaged.She had no money to go to the hospital,and no insurance.

As I said earlier,I have also been having my diagnosis of autism,which was never really official,anyway reassessed.I am very close to a proper Dx of Pervasive Development Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. Ever since the discovery of PANDAS ten years ago,researchers have been both trying to link PANDAS with autism,and prove it has been around longer than 1998.I may be that proof.

It has finally dawned upon one of my doctors,that in spite of having testosterone levels at the bottom of the normal range,I did not complete puberty,and have not aged a day since I was about fifteen or sixteen,and that this is not normal.There is the initial stirring of interest on the part of at least one of my doctors to find out why.

In short,things are getting interesting.

Kid of the Black Hole
08-20-2008, 09:52 AM

"Progressive" is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history,sorry but that's too great a metaphor not to steal,by the alleged "left" in this country because the Limbaughs,Kristols,et al had so demonized the word "liberal".That's basically it,plain and simple.The problem is,that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers,the original Progressives (http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS122/T ... ssive.html),were a bunch of Bolsheviks,compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the "progressive" mantle today.

While all of us here know that modern-day liberalism,was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism,and conservatism,most people do not.If they did,and truly understood this history,they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make "liberals",and The Democratic Party in particular,into the socialists they might want them to be.

All too often "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what.It's all bullshit.

I'm liking that one.

How ya' been eats? How's your health?

Well,2007 was my year for meningitis.2008 is the year another of my other acute childhood infections came bubbling back to the surface.When I was seven,I had rheumatic fever.As a child,I had an elderly family doctor,who said he hadn't seen a case in years.I developed arthritis at eleven,and heart failure a few years later.I have come very close to dying from heart failure more than once.

The bacterial buildup from my meningitis,which was Strep B,just as the one I had as a baby was,led to a severe septic blood infection.This caused my RF to come back.So I spent the month of December, with reactivated RF,complete with rash.Most unusual for an adult.RF is Strep A.I have had both many times.Since then,I have had both repeated bouts of Rheumatic fever,of varying severity,and worsening rheumatic heart disease,with mitral valve prolapse,and regurgitation,both symptomatically,and by echocardiogram.As far as I know,all I can do is wait for my heart condition to worsen to the point where I am sick enough to have valve replacement surgery.I had a nasty close call recently,and spent a week in the hospital.

I'd really be SOL,if I didn't have SSI,and Medicaid.I have seen how my mother has suffered recently, from an accident,and may be permanently damaged.She had no money to go to the hospital,and no insurance.

As I said earlier,I have also been having my diagnosis of autism,which was never really official,anyway reassessed.I am very close to a proper Dx of Pervasive Development Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. Ever since the discovery of PANDAS ten years ago,researchers have been both trying to link PANDAS with autism,and prove it has been around longer than 1998.I may be that proof.

It has finally dawned upon one of my doctors,that in spite of having testosterone levels at the bottom of the normal range,I did not complete puberty,and have not aged a day since I was about fifteen or sixteen,and that this is not normal.There is the initial stirring of interest on the part of at least one of my doctors to find out why.

In short,things are getting interesting.

shit, I'm sorry to hear you're having so much trouble eats. I don't even think I can imagine

I hope you and your Mom get some good news soon

anaxarchos
09-17-2008, 10:54 AM

A progressive is someone who believes in the system.

eattherich
09-24-2008, 11:51 PM

A progressive is someone who believes in the system.That about sums it up,be it in 1908,or 2008.Some of you might find this thread (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/24-0) after this article interesting.Here's a sampling:


staying_sane_in... September 24th, 2008 1:24 pm
CORPORATIONS HAVE WON!

Take this site. CommonDreams hid the comment section because thousands of readers, apparently, complained that our comments were an embarrassment. There's no unity anymore, no one is serious, people just want to be entertained or to be successful or to be happy without regard to other people's happiness - CommonDreams is merely entertainment to many.

IT'S OVER! THE CORPORATIONS HAVE WON!

Take care of yourself now, because things will only get worse, and no one will do anything about it.

The American and British people are worthless.

If there is all this hidden anger, as the article suggests at the end, everyone would be voting in a third party out of frustration, not still supporting a two-party system.



actually September 24th, 2008 8:16 pm
Yeah, I think there's a story to that.

As with most things, there's a balance to be found. Blogs are great for the info wars, but I think that's part of the reason MoveOn is pretty ineffective, and at worst does more harm than good: e-mail petitions make people think they're doing SOMETHING, viral videos make people think they're doing SOMETHING, and the culture of solidarity is lost. The culture of showing up is lost. The computer paper petition with 40,000 e-mail address signatures is just thrown out.

I think that's part of what internet is BAD for- you see it on CommonDreams all the time- people with very very similar viewpoints lose track of points of solidarity and end up disagreeing over very small points. God knows I've been guilty of that. But at least I try to find points of agreement, many posters just project some preconceived notion onto others and attack straw-men.

Another thing that's bad about blogging culture is that people lose track of real world results. There's a whole lot of laptop revolutionaries who don't get that the lives of actual human beings are effected by who is in power. As Chomsky said, "despite the limited differences [between Bush and Kerry, but he could have been talking about McCain and Obama] both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

anaxarchos
10-05-2008, 07:10 PM

A "progressive" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole. The solution to the "anti-democratic" turn in American politics is not to question its foundations but to proscribe "more democracy" or "real democracy", without evaluating for a minute whether the ""turn" is really an aberration. In economics, a "progressive" is one who blames an excess of greed, a deficiency of regulation, or the corruption of the state rather than the normal operation of capitalism. In this way, "progressives" are identical to Libertarians who, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continue to insist that it is "too little" and not too much "free enterprise" which is the problem. They also both share with Nazis, their predisposition to conspiracies. It is secret societies, international bankers, "Jews", who pull the strings and undermine the New Jerusalem. We need a capitalism based on good intentions says the, one based on a strengthening of the "individual" claims the next, and one purged of racial corruption declares the last. Fixing capitalism is the highest and in fact the only slogan of all of the above, and this in the most trivial and unhistorical way possible. Those are the last and the only words of this brand of "radical" criticism which is actually a radical support for the society as it exists... if only that society could be "allowed" to achieve its "true" nature.

Progressives are fuckin' pigs.

http://top-secret-at.blogspot.com/2008/ ... nefit.html (http://top-secret-at.blogspot.com/2008/ ... nefit.html)


On Thursday's edition of The Colbert Report, bestselling author Naomi Klein argued that the Bush Administration creates crises in order to "enrich themselves and their friends," drawing parallels between the torture of prisoners and the economic bailout being provided to Wall St. by US leaders.

Previously, Klein called out the sprawling economic crisis as just another example of the Bush 'shock doctrine,' a key component to the ruling regime's corporate agenda.

"Now, the name of your book is 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,'" said host Stephen Colbert. "Okay now, what is the 'shock doctrine'? 'Cause, that sounds like a great way to get information out of a prisoner."

Amused, Klein responded, "Well, there really is a parallel. If you really want to get information out of a prisoner, you have to put them into a state of shock, and when they're in that state, they'll kinda do whatever you want."

"Exactly!" exclaimed Colbert. "So, you agree that we should be torturing prisoners. You just said that. Those are your words, madam."

Laughing, his guest played off the satirical remark.

"Whole societies also go into states of shock when there's a crisis, like when there's a terrorist attack, or a huge natural disaster, or a huge economic crisis," said Klein. "Something happens, people don't know what's going on, and they'll kinda do whatever people in authority want them to do."

Klein continued: "They use shocks to enrich themselves and their friends... People are becoming shock resistant, which is wonderful because they remember the way this administration used the shock of Sept. 11 to build the Homeland Security industry; How Rudy Giuliani went into that industry himself as soon as he left office. They remember how the war in Iraq was used to privatize the government."

Kid of the Black Hole
10-05-2008, 07:29 PM

A "progressive" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole. The solution to the "anti-democratic" turn in American politics is not to question its foundations but to proscribe "more democracy" or "real democracy", without evaluating for a minute whether the ""turn" is really an aberration. In economics, a "progressive" is one who blames an excess of greed, a deficiency of regulation, or the corruption of the state rather than the normal operation of capitalism. In this way, "progressives" are identical to Libertarians who, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continue to insist that it is "too little" and not too much "free enterprise" which is the problem. They also both share with Nazis, their predisposition to conspiracies. It is secret societies, international bankers, "Jews", who pull the strings and undermine the New Jerusalem. We need a capitalism based on good intentions says the, one based on a strengthening of the "individual" claims the next, and one purged of racial corruption declares the last. Fixing capitalism is the highest and in fact the only slogan of all of the above, and this in the most trivial and unhistorical way possible. Those are the last and the only words of this brand of "radical" criticism which is actually a radical support for the society as it exists... if only that society could be "allowed" to achieve its "true" nature.

Progressives are fuckin' pigs.

http://top-secret-at.blogspot.com/2008/ ... nefit.html (http://top-secret-at.blogspot.com/2008/ ... nefit.html)


On Thursday's edition of The Colbert Report, bestselling author Naomi Klein argued that the Bush Administration creates crises in order to "enrich themselves and their friends," drawing parallels between the torture of prisoners and the economic bailout being provided to Wall St. by US leaders.

Previously, Klein called out the sprawling economic crisis as just another example of the Bush 'shock doctrine,' a key component to the ruling regime's corporate agenda.

"Now, the name of your book is 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,'" said host Stephen Colbert. "Okay now, what is the 'shock doctrine'? 'Cause, that sounds like a great way to get information out of a prisoner."

Amused, Klein responded, "Well, there really is a parallel. If you really want to get information out of a prisoner, you have to put them into a state of shock, and when they're in that state, they'll kinda do whatever you want."

"Exactly!" exclaimed Colbert. "So, you agree that we should be torturing prisoners. You just said that. Those are your words, madam."

Laughing, his guest played off the satirical remark.

"Whole societies also go into states of shock when there's a crisis, like when there's a terrorist attack, or a huge natural disaster, or a huge economic crisis," said Klein. "Something happens, people don't know what's going on, and they'll kinda do whatever people in authority want them to do."

Klein continued: "They use shocks to enrich themselves and their friends... People are becoming shock resistant, which is wonderful because they remember the way this administration used the shock of Sept. 11 to build the Homeland Security industry; How Rudy Giuliani went into that industry himself as soon as he left office. They remember how the war in Iraq was used to privatize the government."

If there is a labor aristocracy, progressives are it in the de facto sense that they fulfill all the criteria of the definition. I like how, as an example, we're supposed to cringe at the stupidity of Palin but ignore all of the reprehensible shit that Biden stands for and espouses. On many issues he couldn't even distance himself from Palin: he's for "equality" for gays but not really, he's for alternative energy but also supports more drilling (Ie big oil giveaway), he's against rewarding big fiance but supports giving them 700B (oops, upwards of 2T sorry). He's against Iraq sorta kinda but wants to up the military budget and invade Pakistan, in addition to fighting in Afghanistan AND he probably will "do something" in Sudan.

If Naomi Klein is a radical anti-capitalist crusader, I'm the Pope. Bless you, my son.

chlamor
10-05-2008, 08:35 PM

A "progressive" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole. The solution to the "anti-democratic" turn in American politics is not to question its foundations but to proscribe "more democracy" or "real democracy", without evaluating for a minute whether the ""turn" is really an aberration. In economics, a "progressive" is one who blames an excess of greed, a deficiency of regulation, or the corruption of the state rather than the normal operation of capitalism. In this way, "progressives" are identical to Libertarians who, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continue to insist that it is "too little" and not too much "free enterprise" which is the problem. They also both share with Nazis, their predisposition to conspiracies. It is secret societies, international bankers, "Jews", who pull the strings and undermine the New Jerusalem. We need a capitalism based on good intentions says the, one based on a strengthening of the "individual" claims the next, and one purged of racial corruption declares the last. Fixing capitalism is the highest and in fact the only slogan of all of the above, and this in the most trivial and unhistorical way possible. Those are the last and the only words of this brand of "radical" criticism which is actually a radical support for the society as it exists... if only that society could be "allowed" to achieve its "true" nature.

Progressives are fuckin' pigs.

http://top-secret-at.blogspot.com/2008/ ... nefit.html (http://top-secret-at.blogspot.com/2008/ ... nefit.html)


On Thursday's edition of The Colbert Report, bestselling author Naomi Klein argued that the Bush Administration creates crises in order to "enrich themselves and their friends," drawing parallels between the torture of prisoners and the economic bailout being provided to Wall St. by US leaders.

Previously, Klein called out the sprawling economic crisis as just another example of the Bush 'shock doctrine,' a key component to the ruling regime's corporate agenda.

"Now, the name of your book is 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,'" said host Stephen Colbert. "Okay now, what is the 'shock doctrine'? 'Cause, that sounds like a great way to get information out of a prisoner."

Amused, Klein responded, "Well, there really is a parallel. If you really want to get information out of a prisoner, you have to put them into a state of shock, and when they're in that state, they'll kinda do whatever you want."

"Exactly!" exclaimed Colbert. "So, you agree that we should be torturing prisoners. You just said that. Those are your words, madam."

Laughing, his guest played off the satirical remark.

"Whole societies also go into states of shock when there's a crisis, like when there's a terrorist attack, or a huge natural disaster, or a huge economic crisis," said Klein. "Something happens, people don't know what's going on, and they'll kinda do whatever people in authority want them to do."

Klein continued: "They use shocks to enrich themselves and their friends... People are becoming shock resistant, which is wonderful because they remember the way this administration used the shock of Sept. 11 to build the Homeland Security industry; How Rudy Giuliani went into that industry himself as soon as he left office. They remember how the war in Iraq was used to privatize the government."

Progressives are not Leftists, they are softer Capitalists.
1- Certainly progressives are on the left of the right-wingers and they seem to care about the poor.

2- Leftists, last time I checked, are people who believe in socialism, at least.

3- Progressives, as far as I can tell, don't believe in socialism.

4- While people believe Progressives are the top-left-radicals in America, this is not true, not even close. And because the media portray them this way, we are given the impression that the weak and slow change they advocate is extreme and almost intolerable.

So not only are Progressives are NOT Leftists, I also submit this to you : by calling them leftists, which is a very charged term in America, we are limiting the terms of the debates, we are giving a helping hand to the right-wingers.

No, Progressives are not Leftists, they are softer Capitalists.