Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Can someone explain progressivism?

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:58:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, I noticed that on the poll about "which political ideology are you" there were some people that asserted themselves as progressivists. Having no clue what that is, I looked on Wikipedia, only to find the very vague definition of: "...advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition."

While advances in science and technology are pretty straightforward, what is an advancement in economic development? Reading that immediately made me thing of socialism and communism, whereby Marx asserted that capitalism would (over simplifying) turn to socialism, which would turn to communism. That implies that it's an advancement, but we aren't even sure if even mild socialist concepts are a good thing (cue all of the controversy surrounding the ACA), let alone a whole country. Also, what is "social organization", and how do you advance that?

Secondly, while again I can see how advances in science in technology can lead to "improvements" in the human condition (I would like to point to things like Asimo that have attempted to artificially recreate human movement as a way to advance our understanding of, if not question the complexity of bipedalism, which us humans take for granted), I don't really see how economic advancements can lead to such improvements.

Any progressives, or political experts want to help me out here?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 10:54:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:58:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I don't really see how economic advancements can lead to such improvements.

How much of an idiot are you?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 9:10:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 10:54:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:58:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I don't really see how economic advancements can lead to such improvements.

How much of an idiot are you?

Gee, how many insults can I accrue in one day on this site. For f*cks sake people.

Communism much? That was supposed to be an economic advancement, and I don't see it improving Russia at all! Did you read that part of my post?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 10:18:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 9:10:53 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:54:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:58:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I don't really see how economic advancements can lead to such improvements.

How much of an idiot are you?

Gee, how many insults can I accrue in one day on this site. For f*cks sake people.

Communism much? That was supposed to be an economic advancement, and I don't see it improving Russia at all! Did you read that part of my post?

I would argue that virtually all scientific and societal progress is a direct manifestation of capitalism, an economic idea.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 10:21:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 10:18:04 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/14/2013 9:10:53 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:54:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:58:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I don't really see how economic advancements can lead to such improvements.

How much of an idiot are you?

Gee, how many insults can I accrue in one day on this site. For f*cks sake people.

Communism much? That was supposed to be an economic advancement, and I don't see it improving Russia at all! Did you read that part of my post?

I would argue that virtually all scientific and societal progress is a direct manifestation of capitalism, an economic idea.

So then does one not need to have economic advancements once you get to capitalism?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 10:24:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 10:21:01 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/14/2013 10:18:04 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/14/2013 9:10:53 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:54:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:58:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I don't really see how economic advancements can lead to such improvements.

How much of an idiot are you?

Gee, how many insults can I accrue in one day on this site. For f*cks sake people.

Communism much? That was supposed to be an economic advancement, and I don't see it improving Russia at all! Did you read that part of my post?

I would argue that virtually all scientific and societal progress is a direct manifestation of capitalism, an economic idea.

So then does one not need to have economic advancements once you get to capitalism?

Depends how you semantically define "economic advancement." If you define it as the "changing of theories," then no. If you define it as an "increase in GDP or some other measurement," then you still clearly need it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 10:27:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 10:24:12 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/14/2013 10:21:01 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/14/2013 10:18:04 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/14/2013 9:10:53 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:54:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:58:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I don't really see how economic advancements can lead to such improvements.

How much of an idiot are you?

Gee, how many insults can I accrue in one day on this site. For f*cks sake people.

Communism much? That was supposed to be an economic advancement, and I don't see it improving Russia at all! Did you read that part of my post?

I would argue that virtually all scientific and societal progress is a direct manifestation of capitalism, an economic idea.

So then does one not need to have economic advancements once you get to capitalism?

Depends how you semantically define "economic advancement." If you define it as the "changing of theories," then no. If you define it as an "increase in GDP or some other measurement," then you still clearly need it.

Now you see where my confusion is, as the definition is so vague.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 10:46:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I will. I used to be a progressive liberal until recently. Progressive liberals swupport socialism or communism ( prefered socialism), most support progressive taxation (the rich pay a higher percentage of their assets for taxes than the middle class as opposed to flat taxation where everyone pays an equal percentage of their income and whatnot. Here is my crude example: John has 100 dollars total. The flat tax is limited to 20% of a person's total assets, so he pays 20 dollars total. Lisa has 200 dollars total, so she pays 40 dollars. With progressive taxation, it is different. The rich pay a higher percentage based on income and assets. Also another thing I have noticed is that progressive liberals tend to tax more stuff, like 20 oz soda, gas, retail and so on. Liberals tend to be antiwar. Basically, I will sum it up like this: progressive liberals are lax on social policy while being strict on economic policy, and conservatives are the opposite. I am a libertarian, so I have the best of both worlds.
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 11:38:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:58:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
While advances in science and technology are pretty straightforward, what is an advancement in economic development? Reading that immediately made me thing of socialism and communism, whereby Marx asserted that capitalism would (over simplifying) turn to socialism, which would turn to communism. That implies that it's an advancement, but we aren't even sure if even mild socialist concepts are a good thing (cue all of the controversy surrounding the ACA), let alone a whole country. Also, what is "social organization", and how do you advance that?

The stage communism was Lenin's contribution, not Marx's; Marx referred to both stages as socialism. Anyway, those who identify as "progressives" aren't Marxists of any kind, which is to say their view of progress differs from that of Marxists'. They're certainly not communists, and they could only be considered socialists by an extremely broad, outdated definition of socialism. They do however support "mild socialist" (perhaps social democratic is the term you're looking for) concepts like socialized medicine (which the ACA is in fact milder than), which is not controversial outside of the US. If you disagree that such advancements in social organization improve the human condition, then you're simply not a social democrat; what's the confusion?

Secondly, while again I can see how advances in science in technology can lead to "improvements" in the human condition (I would like to point to things like Asimo that have attempted to artificially recreate human movement as a way to advance our understanding of, if not question the complexity of bipedalism, which us humans take for granted), I don't really see how economic advancements can lead to such improvements.

Presumably, ASIMO didn't fall from the sky. The economic situation includes both the available resources and what proportion of them go to things like ASIMO instead of the comparatively useless.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 7:49:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:58:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
So, I noticed that on the poll about "which political ideology are you" there were some people that asserted themselves as progressivists. Having no clue what that is, I looked on Wikipedia, only to find the very vague definition of: "...advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition."

While advances in science and technology are pretty straightforward, what is an advancement in economic development? Reading that immediately made me thing of socialism and communism, whereby Marx asserted that capitalism would (over simplifying) turn to socialism, which would turn to communism. That implies that it's an advancement, but we aren't even sure if even mild socialist concepts are a good thing (cue all of the controversy surrounding the ACA), let alone a whole country. Also, what is "social organization", and how do you advance that?

Secondly, while again I can see how advances in science in technology can lead to "improvements" in the human condition (I would like to point to things like Asimo that have attempted to artificially recreate human movement as a way to advance our understanding of, if not question the complexity of bipedalism, which us humans take for granted), I don't really see how economic advancements can lead to such improvements.

Any progressives, or political experts want to help me out here?

"Progressive" is now what "liberal" should mean. In America, we are all "liberals", even "conservatives" are "liberals". "Liberalism" originated from the concept of opposition against autocracy, i.e. against monarchy, whereas "conservatism" implies keeping the monarchy as a legitimate institution out of "tradition".

In America, "traditional" American values are actually (classical) liberal concepts. Nearly every portion of our constitution and declaration of independence is archetypal of classical liberalism. So is the Statue of Liberty.

Nowadays, "liberal" has been demonized by the conservative right, because "liberal" has become synonymous with socialistic policies, which are ironically an anathema to classical liberalism. Therefore, what you have going on is politicians like Hillary Clinton going on about how they consider themselves "progressives" and not "liberal". (http://articles.chicagotribune.com...) "Libertarians" are actually classical liberals reborn. Conservatives are also liberals (except maybe in their insistence upon religion being incorporated into governance), as they generally uphold "traditional" American values, which are all liberal values.

Confusing, I know. I made a debate about this topic.
http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 1:30:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 7:49:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:58:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
So, I noticed that on the poll about "which political ideology are you" there were some people that asserted themselves as progressivists. Having no clue what that is, I looked on Wikipedia, only to find the very vague definition of: "...advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition."

While advances in science and technology are pretty straightforward, what is an advancement in economic development? Reading that immediately made me thing of socialism and communism, whereby Marx asserted that capitalism would (over simplifying) turn to socialism, which would turn to communism. That implies that it's an advancement, but we aren't even sure if even mild socialist concepts are a good thing (cue all of the controversy surrounding the ACA), let alone a whole country. Also, what is "social organization", and how do you advance that?

Secondly, while again I can see how advances in science in technology can lead to "improvements" in the human condition (I would like to point to things like Asimo that have attempted to artificially recreate human movement as a way to advance our understanding of, if not question the complexity of bipedalism, which us humans take for granted), I don't really see how economic advancements can lead to such improvements.

Any progressives, or political experts want to help me out here?

"Progressive" is now what "liberal" should mean. In America, we are all "liberals", even "conservatives" are "liberals". "Liberalism" originated from the concept of opposition against autocracy, i.e. against monarchy, whereas "conservatism" implies keeping the monarchy as a legitimate institution out of "tradition".

In America, "traditional" American values are actually (classical) liberal concepts. Nearly every portion of our constitution and declaration of independence is archetypal of classical liberalism. So is the Statue of Liberty.

Nowadays, "liberal" has been demonized by the conservative right, because "liberal" has become synonymous with socialistic policies, which are ironically an anathema to classical liberalism. Therefore, what you have going on is politicians like Hillary Clinton going on about how they consider themselves "progressives" and not "liberal". (http://articles.chicagotribune.com...) "Libertarians" are actually classical liberals reborn. Conservatives are also liberals (except maybe in their insistence upon religion being incorporated into governance), as they generally uphold "traditional" American values, which are all liberal values.

Confusing, I know. I made a debate about this topic.
http://www.debate.org...

This. Can't really improve upon it, other than say that progressive is rather vague, and is best characterised as a branch of social liberalism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...