The War on Everyone

You're actually falling into the trap of American political vocabulary again. There was a Progressive Party in the US in the early 20th century, who had a program of free trade (or at least somewhat freer), breaking up monopolies, giving women the vote, minimum wage, limitations on child labour, introduced factory safety regulations, and similar "progressive" policies. Roosevelt (the first one) ran under their banner after losing the Republican Party nomination (he lost the election though). The Progressive Party in the US eventually merged with - wait for it - the Republican Party.

Roosevelt introduced his "progressive" policies prior to WWI while under the Republican banner, under the label of "the Square Deal". None of them were "socialist" or "Marxist" nor was Roosevelt (the first one) considered to be some sort of leftist, at least so far as I am aware.

However, some time after the demise of the Progressive Party (I'm not sure just when though) the label "progressive" was appropriated by people with a more socialist frame of mind. Today when you see someone in the US described as a "progressive" he or she is usually in the Democratic Party and what might otherwise be called a "soft socialist" (although Americans can't say "socialist").

There was also a Progressive Party in Canada at around the same time, although they had somewhat different policies and origins. They eventually split three ways, but one of their legacies was that the official name of the Conservative party in Canada was the "Progressive Conservative Party of Canada", and in most of the provinces they are still known as the Progressive Conservatives.

So "progressive" means what then? I would say it means different things to different people at different times. It's not a useful element of vocabulary in the context of this discussion.

Here's a reference for discussion on what "liberalism" means.


Liberalism and neoliberalism are basically the same thing.


But to Guardian readers, the neoliberal world order is the root of all of society's ills. And the reason for that is that to a Guardian writer it represents free market capitalism.


Note that here is the Guardian tying the term "neoliberal" to Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. The mises.org link above is to a web site that promotes von Mises's ideas, so that isn't just some random web site.


And to the Guardian, Thatcher and Pinochet were liberals.



It's best to stick to names that have clear and universal meanings. If you are talking about Marxists, say Marxists.
Noted but, genuinely, I am not talking about Marxists. I don't associate Marxism with the kind of UK 'do gooder' mentality that enables the criticism of common phrases as 'isms' of various types.
There are in the UK for example, those on the right who, without being a Marxist, would agree that we need to create a society which is permissive of all types of behaviours/belief, and which is intolerant of real public opinion.
 
@terminal Indeed i did miss out the quite a few factions. as it is just a quick list to make the point that while the extremes of the right have grown somewhat, I still rate them as a lesser practical threat at this time.

I do think that you identify an important point when you say.



Its a trap that 'Robert Evans' seems to do, in his book.

This is something, that is stymieing in some part decent debate. Together with poor categorisation of who and what we are talking about, in the tradition media, the alternative media and even in casual discussion such as this thread.


As to term "Liberal" indeed it is a term used differently across many nations, I have not used it in this thread other to note that ANTIFA and some others street protest movements have used it as a threat, yet there actions are excused or played down and in some cases supported in some media reporting.



I do not shy away from using such terms. However that ideology is splintered and multi faceted. In other posts I try to follow rightly or wrongly the definitions that the original poster has identified or I ask for some clarification as to it use.

While the written word should be as clear as the spoken one, and some posts could benefit from appendices or definition, most posters do try to make clear what they are saying, or clarify there positions and thoughts as a thread develops.

As imperfect as public discussion forums are they at least free discussion, I hope that such should provoke and encourage thinking and for some to further study a subject.

Sadly though they also do have a element of wanting to win an argument for oneself or ones team, I try not to fall into that trap.

edited format and diction
This is where when talking about extremists of any sort we have to go back to strategy versus tactics and recruitment messages. We've thrashed that one over thoroughly already on this thread so I won't repeat it except to point out once again that extremist groups will participate in campaigns and activities which are not a core part of their beliefs, but which can be used to appeal to other people and act as the initial recruitment messages.

Go back a bit in the thread to where I linked to a Speigel article on how the Nazi Party got themselves established in Berlin. A big part of what they did was to march through working class districts and get into big street brawls with the communists. This fired up the membership, gave them a sense of purpose, attracted people who might not otherwise have got involved with them, and got them a lot of newspaper headlines.

I get the distinct impression that antifa in the US are actually wobblies, or at least their core membership are. They are about as far from being liberals as you can get. They and the far right in the US get into fights with one another for the same reason the Nazis and the Communists got into fights in Berlin. It's part of their "brand", and being visibly against neo-Nazis is part of their recruitment toolbox. So, they'll show up at anti neo-Nazi protests and high-jack them for their own purposes. They're trying to look "heroic" in a comic-book way, hence the costumes. In reality though, they're even more politically marginal than the far right.

Of course both sides would absolutely love to channel the discussion along the lines of which one of the two is the less bad. Getting you to pick sides in a mong fight is exactly their goal, as it's the first step in their recruitment message, the first layer of the onion. Even if only 5% of people seeing one of their street brawls feels some sort of sympathy towards or attachment to them, that is a massive increase in their potential support base.

So it turns out that what we are talking about once again is extremist recruitment and radicalisation methods.
 
This is where when talking about extremists of any sort we have to go back to strategy versus tactics and recruitment messages. .....

Of course both sides would absolutely love to channel the discussion along the lines of which one of the two is the less bad. Getting you to pick sides in a mong fight is exactly their goal, as it's the first step in their recruitment message, the first layer of the onion. Even if only 5% of people seeing one of their street brawls feels some sort of sympathy towards or attachment to them, that is a massive increase in their potential support base.

So it turns out that what we are talking about once again is extremist recruitment and radicalisation methods.
Entirely agree; all extremists oppose liberalism. They have a simplistic answer which they are going to enforce by strong arm tactics so they need to encourage a confrontation scenario. Sadly that scenario is often attractive to ex military personnel, hence the threads on this board promoting discrimination against an assortment of groups, including immigrants, muslims, travelers and women.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top