- This topic has 108 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
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
-
>white people don’t count Amirite 😉
-
-
-
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-
>NOOOOO YOU CAN’T POINT OUT MY SELF-FLAGELLATING MENTALITY
>YOU’RE LE LEFTYPOL
Cope. You scrotes worship unchecked capitalism and then wonder why you have scrotes making millions off of degenerate music and chud children being sold estrogen pills by the lowest bidder.-
>Capitalism
>Unchecked
>Bad
Anymore buzzwords, chud?-
>no argument
Do you think about trannies often?
-
-
-
-
>moving forward
Because scrotes freaking 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 scrotes, and then their granchildren will be pro scrotes, and on and on. But scrotebrains 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 globohomo 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
-
It looks like this wasn’t because of anything inherent to the UK’s single payer system. The UK has laws that allow courts to overrule the wishes of parents in some cases involving children’s welfare, of which healthcare is just a subset. Even if the parents had taken him to a private clinic, those laws would probably apply to this case.
-
>It looks like this wasn’t because of anything inherent to the UK’s single payer system
yes, it does. the state owns the means of healthcare and the state has the power to dictate medical decisions. the family couldn’t do anything, even if they wanted to pay out of their own pocket. the state denied them completely because the state has full control of it. -
Under the situations covered by those laws, it doesn’t matter whether the case occurs in a public hospital, private hospital (which do exist in the UK), or anywhere in the many cases not related to medical decisions. Those laws were passed in the first place because of some high-profile cases in which children were returned from state custody to abusive homes at the request of the parents.
-
you are ignoring the point i’m trying to get at. the state has full control. those laws they passed give them that control. this is what happens when you just let the state start gaining all the power it wants and stand handing over things to them.
giving the state to manage your healthcare ended up being no different than living in the US under private healthcare because that same issue, of the state denying treatment, is what people here demand why they want the state to take control of healthcare. to not deny people coverage. private here denying treatment, causing people to die. the same here the UK did.
-
This is why I did my autistic rants above because this post goes with my rantings. Monopolies in anything is bad. You need bill of rights with everything, a constitution that limits both private and public power. A ton of separations of power.
Even then it won’t stop corruption but it will slow it down. Then every few hundred years you have another revolt once the corruption gets to bad and start over again.
-
Why are you acting like the UK is some sort of soft totalitarian state? It’s a country that generally respects the human rights of its citizens, and the relevant law in that case was actually passed under the watch of Margaret Thatcher, a conservative hardliner by European standards. The other conservatives also supported the NHS, for the most part.
-
the state with 1984 cameras on every corner isn’t a totalitarian state.
-
Not as bad as free market darlings Singapore and Hong Kong.
-
they are city states, aberrations
-
You’re missing the point. The UK isn’t an authoritarian or totalitarian state. Most Western countries are liberal and/or social democratic and have protections for civil liberties.
-
-
-
>inb4 income equality meme
A 50th percentile American has more disposable income than an 80th percentile Scandi/Germ.
who gives a shit, it’s virtually impossible for them to end up homeless unlike the USAian-
>who gives a shit, it’s virtually impossible for them to end up homeless unlike the USAian
Only the mentally ill/druggies are involuntarily homeless
-
-
-
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.
-
The solution is obvious, aiming for as egalitarian and democratic a society as possible. Not in a narrow neoliberal definition where the economy is in the hands of private power while the functions of government are reduced to formality bound by certain economic priorities they’re expected to meet which benefit concentrations of private capital. The current system has not lasted the longest since it emerged very recently in history and may lead us to terminal disaster. Say what you will about Marx but he was far more correct than his opponents, economics cannot be separated from class or state policy. Debates over communism and capitalism have become meaningless, especially in America where every political term takes on an opposite meaning where nothing means anything anymore, hence libertarianism is a term applied to the defense of limited private power in the hands of a few. "Free trade" means a system of state protection for the movement of goods within a fully corporate controlled system unencumbered by the state system or even the trading of goods itself. The point of debating capitalism and communism is to prevent people from thinking about these things, it has nothing to do with the real world.
The reason people are poor is because the rich are rich, the economy is a zero-sum game and always has been. The rich know this acutely and zealously guard their interests. You eliminate poverty through eliminating economic inequality. The problem is the wealth and power of the rich, anything else is discussing basically a fantasy world.
Also like I said before empires (and the state system in general) is simply a way to get everyone to subsidize the rich and defend their interests.
-
>democratic
>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.
democracy doesn’t fix anything as most people in a democracy don’t care. -
>he reason people are poor is because the rich are rich
nah, that’s not why. there’s a hundred reasons why and some rich porky the pig at the top is just one of a hundred. -
>limited
*unlimited private powerAnd by unencumbered by the state system it means government protection of corporate supply and assembly chains to allow goods to move across borders without being inconvenienced by other (often weaker, often third world) governments. So resources are mined in South Africa for a car, assembled in the Philippines, assembled further in Mexico, and then sold in the US – all while a company has possession of the car the whole process without being inconvenienced by a tariff or labor protections as the car is moved back and forth across borders for cheapest assembly in whichever third world country is best at suppressing labor. This is called "free trade" in the west despite no exchange of goods.
-
Some people call it globalism
-
>state being the defacto monopoly. all the poopyholes 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. -
autistic rant cont’d
so right now you have a lot of people screaming socialism because of that shrinking middle class. they find it appealing for the same reason why farmers during the russian revolution found communism with lenin appealing. they saw the king as the poopyhole telling them how to run their own farms, entitled to the crops they grew, etc. they bought into lenin’s communist bullshit of seizing back the means of their production. but at the end, after winning, lenin turned around and shot the farmers that fought along side him for not giving up their farms.
its the same problem right now. you have globalist elite crap going on with these giant monoplies just owning everything, you have the little people getting desperate, and they buy into anything that remotely sounds like it benefits them. not realizing its just a new overlord same as the old overlord.that begs the question, what can be done about it. well, number one, look into why the middle class is shrinking. it started shrinking by the end of the 70’s. what happened during the 70’s? opening china. the bulk of businesses that picked up and moved to china where middle class manufacturing jobs. places like detroit died because nearly all the industry moved overseas. no longer building car parts in detroit. all these supply chains just moving out. leaving poor and rich. same thing with san fransico and silicon valley. those areas became famous because of the manufacturing there. all throughout the 80’s those manufacturing jobs left. leaving poor, and rich. average middle class jobs gone. one way is bringing back middle class jobs.
>automation
thing is, automation for these factories actually cost a lot of up front investment. the return has to be big. that’s why a lot of manufacturing jobs in china is still human done. and facilities that have become automated are not easy to retrofit / retool for new things. automation for manufacturing depends on long term production. -
autistic rant cont’d
government doing its job of breaking up monopolies. but that’s hard because you get corrupt poopyholes. thats why you really need a law that just bans any company from reaching a certain status. monopolies truly don’t benefit society at all. there’s never been a monopoly in human history that was good in the end. there’s no reason for it. every time we broke up a monopoly, it benefited us and the industry that was stranglehold by the monopoly.also something jordan peterson brings up a lot. you can’t have a bottom of poor people that live in object poverty. a society with massive wealth gaps doesn’t benefit anyone in the end. you need a robust welfare system for the bottom. and a system that allows the bottom to rise up. you don’t need to give them middle class standard of living. but they need enough to live on their own. a living wage is needed and if the market can’t provide it, that’s where the welfare system comes into play. and a burden on the middle class needs to be relieved because the only way people can move from poor to middle class is by removing burdens.
-
and the reason those burdens need to be removed is because they act as road blocks. you want easy flow from the bottom to the middle class. so anything that makes it easier. such as subsided healthcare by the state, etc. you can’t guarantee anything to people, but removing artificial barriers allows for the guarantee for opportunity. and for those that don’t move up, at least the life they have in the class they are in is comfortable.
-
>The only justifiable system is one where the economic and state systems are entirely democratically run,
No, callicles and thrasymachus already solved this problem. There is no social combination that will sastifiy everyone, so, there is no reason to pursue one that will. Humans are going always be an endless war of agall against, and the only solution is to make your strong enough to survive. The democrat rabble will always whine, and have something to complain about, because they are using morality to run from the fact that our biological attributes are the immoral drives of this world. Simply put, people are destined to be slaves, weak, exploited and some people are not because they have the biological traits that allow them dominate and to create a world that suits them. -
>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). -
Disposable income is eaten up by regressive taxation and high cost of living to afford essentials. Europe may have higher taxes to pay for things like universal healthcare, Americans have to pay for criminally inefficient private healthcare which is the most expensive and least effective in the first world (unless you’re rich). First you have to pay taxes to subsidize it, then you have to pay through your salary, then you have to pay again as a consumer.
There is no economic mobility in the US for the vast majority. There once was in the 19th and 20th centuries, but that era’s coming to an end. Most will have the same or worse lives than their parents no matter how much they work.
Rural America for example has been being destroyed for over 50 years now, outside major metropolitan areas much of the US is ruins. None of this destruction was ever necessary. I hate Donald Trump but he was right when he ranted about tombstones dotting the American landscape (or whatever the quote was).
-
yeah it has, because all the jobs moved overseas. no one cares about those areas anymore. look at detroit. once china opened up, the entire supply chain to make automotive parts when overseas. killing off the entire city. that’s why you had white flight there. it wasn’t so much better they didn’t want to be around black people, it was because the entire industry was gone. you still had assembly plants, but the supply chain for those parts vanished. killing off massive amount of middle class jobs.
-
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.
-
>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.
This is your state on Republicans.
>but then you get areas like NY which is just ultra upper class and dirt, bottom of the barrel poor.
This is your state on Democrats.
-
-
-
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
-
-
-
-
That graph has been debunked multiple times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdA9ZK0Hpho
Compensation is not correaled with productivity – the specific industry of the worker is you dumbass. Market saturation is what determines compensation. Learn basic economics, please.-
Oh nice, the Heritage Foundation, such a trustworthy source of good-faith studies!
-
The freaking productivity graph you linked isliterally comes from the EPI – a left leaning policy insitute. You’re being a sophist because you ultimately trying to conceal your political aims. You are not interested in "truth" or "being in good faith." – you are interested in manipulation. Nor did the video I linked is from the Heritage Foundation, so, we already know you don’t have a counter argument.
-
The source of your graph on productivity:
>The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit American, left-leaning think tank woke af in Washington, D.C., that carries out economic research and analyzes the economic impact of policies and proposals. The EPI describes itself as a non-partisan think tank that "seeks to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions".[2] It is affiliated with the labor movement[3][4][5] and is usually described as presenting a left-leaning and pro-union viewpoint on public policy issues.[6][7] The EPI has a sister organization, the EPI Policy Center, which is a 501(c)(4) organization for advocacy and education.
You can’t honestly believe that graph is in good faith, and not propaganda by trade union establishment bosses and leftist politicians. You can’t criticize me for something you freaking idots are literally doing .
-
-
-
-
-
-
Because that’s a way to hide from the masses what Marx or bakunin really said. Yes, of course it’s an authoritarian regime where we all will starve for not being leftist enough, it has nothing to do about taking control over business by creating cooperatives or making strikes or by force. Let’s just make some woke statements and let’s hope the sheeple still don’t realise. Yes, communism was tried and it failed, aren’t you better buying our China produced shit?
-
This, progressivism used to be about eugenics, manifest destiny and white supremacy(woke af)
-
The problem is they were "literally hitler" and wiped their ass with the constitution. They were a bunch of larping scrotes that wanted to be like big daddy England with a bunch of scrote colonies for no other reason than to say we had them. Expenditure on colonies on the other side of the world gave them a raging hard-on even though we actually never made any sort of profit on it
-
-
-
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 woke af leftist
-
Wait, then what about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948?
-
he’s just a leftypol.org guy
-
-
as a "rightwinger", you are on the right train of thought but you should keep digging.
-
every revolution leftoids attempted ended with a ruling class scrotebrain
-
-
>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 fuck is typing so much, stop it
-
The guy’s presidency was literally 12 years of Great Depression and war. Commies and their symphatisers are out of their minds.
-
Wasn’t much better under Truman.
>economic chaos following the end of WWII
>led to a momentary Republican resurgence in Congress to try and correct some of this mess
>and then another war and McCarthyism
>things only recover and stabilize when we had a Republican president again who ended the war, told Joe McCarthy to fuck off, and allowed the country to have a break and some prosperity after all the crap it had been through in the preceding 25 years
-
-
[…]
new zealand mate but close enough.
-
It doesn’t. 1900-style Progressivism only partly succeeded and 2020-style Progressivism bears only the faintest resemblance to the earlier version. Somehow I can’t picture Ida Tarbell screaming for chud rights.
-
It doesn’t
-
Because a society must forever progress and reinvent itself in order to thrive.
The Progressive Era and Post-War Era progressives vied to harmonize with progress with tradition and culture; for if you radically change the demographics, values, founding myth, etc. of a civilization, it will become unrecognizable to what it was before.
Civil Rights Era to Modern Day progressives are post-modern nihilists who crusade for abominations and degenerates against their customs and their forefathers. They are constantly at war with their own existence and heritage, and in this struggle attempt to weaponize various minorities against themselves in an indelible act of masochistic thanatos.
-
Because they haven’t been around that long. The progressive movement and the optimism it carried was crushed with the world wars.
-
Then why did Republicans start becoming progressive?
-
Is this whole thread bait or are you actually scrotebrained?
-
Anything political on his is bait bud.
-
-
>Communism=/=progressivism
Wrong
-
-
-
-
-
There is NO progressists because there is NO progress, all politician mentioned in this thread is a)cherrypicted examples, because we have litteraly failed examples of progressivism, USSR, Mao’s China etc. b)most of the there technocrats
-
Because progressivism is about embracing social change, and change is inevitable no matter how much conservatives bitch about it.
-
>every socio-political defeat by an incumbent is progressivism
-
-
>post picture of a guy who’s plan kept the country under high unemployment until turning into a war economy
-
neolib cope
-
You American "progressive" monkeys don’t even talk human anymore.
Leftists in your country are being called "liberals" (for some unfathomable reason) so Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ etc. were "liberals" for you. Now, your boogeyman (conservative) ideology which is supposedly behind the current mess is neo-liberalism (for you). So – liberalism good, neoliberalism bad. You don’t have the slightest freaking clue what you are talking about. We would gladly let you just babble happily among yourselves like underdeveloped children if it wasn’t for the sad fact that the monkeys which happen to be chosen by you to be in charge of your continent have proved to have too much of an impact on the whole World.
-
-
-
Everything good is real progressivism
Everything bad is not real progressivism -
Because the people writing history are progressives who portray themselves as perfect
-
>Why does progressivism have a relatively perfect historical track record?
It doesn’t. Bernie Sanders lost embarrassingly two times. -
Because most of the history you’ve read has been written by progressives
-
hey hey! ho ho! /leftypol/ has got to go!
-
Yeah, two world wars, world domination leading to a global civil war, the abolition of basic freedom for its people for government control. Progressivism really doesn’t have a good track record
-
https://i.imgur.com/nUhIdrm.gif
>turns your child into a chud and makes you a minority in your own homeland
>heh..no need to thank me worlddelusions of grandeur
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.