Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
—Frank Wilhoit
Okay, but “includes many progressives” is a better phrasing than “includes much of progressivism” … albeit in a subtle way.
Like, for example I have Muslim friends and Christian friends, and if you said, “the majority of Christian/Muslim ideology is genocidal.” I’d scoff because that’s obviously untrue.
The majority of Islam, as a religion, as it impacts my Muslim friends’ life? They pray several times a day. They fast on particular days on particular months for particular hours.
None of that is Jihad. None of that is what goes on in Iran. That’s just plain old boring old riituals.
The same with the Christians I know. They pray. They attend worship gatherings. They read the Bible and try to find wisdom in it that will help them become kinder, more righteous people.
Again, none are pushed toward another Spanish Inquisition by these rituals.
And this is literally coming from an anti-theist. I think religions are inherently harmful to their practitioners on an emotional and psychological level. I think Jihads and Inquisitions and Crusades and American Indian genocides are unusually common when embracing these philosophies.
But even I, an anti-theist, would still be annoyed – on behalf of those people (whose religion I find deeply problematic) – if someone said, “the majority of this religious philosophy is about subtly driving people to genocide.”
Because that’s insulting everything valuable and precious to these people and disregarding everything positive they get from their church.
The dynamic of “oppressed” and “privileged” groups contains elements of this, where the “oppressed” groups are protected and not bound, while the “privileged” groups are bound and not protected. Scare quotes are used primarily because some groups that I would say are oppressed are sometimes deemed privileged.
When you bring up the “dynamic of oppressed and privileged groups” are you referring to Marxism, and Marx’s idea that all of history is the history of class struggles between oppressors and oppressed?
I can understand deciding that such a belief would compel Marx’s followers (though not necessarily progressives) to be constantly on the lookout for oppressors and oppressed. But firstly, I’m not convinced that the above action – identifying an oppressor – is sufficient for a group marked as oppressors to face discrimination. And secondly, I’m not convinced that progressivism requires a class conscious (aka Marxist) lens. So, if you don’t mind elaborating on your beliefs, I would appreciate if you answered these questions.
My Questions
Regarding Marxists: must Marxists discriminate? Once a Marxist has identified an oppressed group and an oppressor group, must the Marxist thereafter be compelled to attempt discrimination against the “oppressors” ?
Regarding Marxists again: can Marxists see an entire race as an oppressor class? Marx reiterated numerous times that ever since capitalism overthrew feudalism, there have been only two classes – capitalists and workers. If one went about adding more oppressor classes and oppressed classes, wouldn’t that contradict one of Marxism’s core beliefs? How can one believe entire races are oppressor classes without abandoning the entire basis for class theory?
Regarding progressives this time: must progressives believe in class conflict in the first place? After reading or skimming the Wikipedia page for progressivism do you believe that the progressivism described therein absolutely must require a Marxist lens? I’m including an excerpt from the page below, along with why I find the connection hard to see.
Excerpts from the Wikipedia page in question:
Excerpt 1:
As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization…
Excerpt 2:
In the 21st century, progressives continue to favor public policy that they theorize will reduce or lessen the harmful effects of economic inequality as well as systemic discrimination such as institutional racism; to advocate for social safety nets and workers’ rights; and to oppose corporate influence on the democratic process. The unifying theme is to call attention to the negative impacts of current institutions or ways of doing things and to advocate for social progress, i.e., for positive change as defined by any of several standards such as the expansion of democracy, increased egalitarianism in the form of economic and social equality as well as improved well being of a population. Proponents of social democracy have identified themselves as promoting the progressive cause.
As you can see, there is scant mention of oppressor or oppressed. Nor does the Encyclopedia Britannica fill the void – it doesn’t even mention the words “class”, “oppressor”, “oppression”, or “oppressed” . In fact, the only mention of class conflict in either Wikipedia or Britannica is when the Wikipedia page mentions that early progressives (around the time of Teddy Roosevelt) believed a “good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace” were sufficient in stemming – or even circumventing – class conflict.
Given the above, one could argue that progressivism is equally as compatible with Marxist theory as it is with anti-Marxism. It’s even feasible that progressives could outright reject the idea of classes and still retain every aspect of progressivism laid out in this definition.
Am I missing something? Am I not reading Wikipedia or Britannica closely enough?
Can you give a specific example? Christians, homosexuals, gun owners? I think the article deals with white male hierarchy, are they oppressed AND privileged?
Wait are you talking the center right leftist in the United States or actual left leftists. Because the former isn’t really a thing. And even the latter is a pretty specious claim. I mean I could definitely see a few communists etc being upset with bankers and capitalists in general. But that =!= Jews/antisemitism.
Well, nazbols exist but I can’t say that there’s enough of them to really qualify. Maybe in eastern Europe? I’ve heard its a more common ideology there. I wouldn’t really call them leftists though
Are you referring to Ilhan Omar here? (as I see it, her remarks are possible to interpret however the listener pleases. And that includes antisemitism but it also includes anti-what-Omar-sees-as-oppression.)
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. —Frank Wilhoit
Then much of progressivism is actually conservative, or at least very similar (social norms often replace law here).
deleted by creator
Not sure progressives want to conserve the existing system. Like capitalism, identity politics?
The person above was being sarcastic, because of course progressives are not trying to conserve the existing system.
Ah sarcasm, my eternal enemy!
I’m not saying progressives are conservatives in general, I’m saying that that definition of conservatism includes many progressives.
Okay, but “includes many progressives” is a better phrasing than “includes much of progressivism” … albeit in a subtle way.
Like, for example I have Muslim friends and Christian friends, and if you said, “the majority of Christian/Muslim ideology is genocidal.” I’d scoff because that’s obviously untrue.
The majority of Islam, as a religion, as it impacts my Muslim friends’ life? They pray several times a day. They fast on particular days on particular months for particular hours.
None of that is Jihad. None of that is what goes on in Iran. That’s just plain old boring old riituals.
The same with the Christians I know. They pray. They attend worship gatherings. They read the Bible and try to find wisdom in it that will help them become kinder, more righteous people.
Again, none are pushed toward another Spanish Inquisition by these rituals.
And this is literally coming from an anti-theist. I think religions are inherently harmful to their practitioners on an emotional and psychological level. I think Jihads and Inquisitions and Crusades and American Indian genocides are unusually common when embracing these philosophies.
But even I, an anti-theist, would still be annoyed – on behalf of those people (whose religion I find deeply problematic) – if someone said, “the majority of this religious philosophy is about subtly driving people to genocide.”
Because that’s insulting everything valuable and precious to these people and disregarding everything positive they get from their church.
In other words, phrasing is important.
No, because I explicitly mean to blame aspects of the ideology of progressivism for this.
I absolutely get the difference, and agree with you on your examples, but I do mean progressivism.
Removed by mod
The word “progressive” is the wrong word choice here, but you are definitely following the bread trail toward the right conclusion. ;-)
Can you explain more? I think I get what you mean, but I can’t think of examples.
The dynamic of “oppressed” and “privileged” groups contains elements of this, where the “oppressed” groups are protected and not bound, while the “privileged” groups are bound and not protected. Scare quotes are used primarily because some groups that I would say are oppressed are sometimes deemed privileged.
When you bring up the “dynamic of oppressed and privileged groups” are you referring to Marxism, and Marx’s idea that all of history is the history of class struggles between oppressors and oppressed?
I can understand deciding that such a belief would compel Marx’s followers (though not necessarily progressives) to be constantly on the lookout for oppressors and oppressed. But firstly, I’m not convinced that the above action – identifying an oppressor – is sufficient for a group marked as oppressors to face discrimination. And secondly, I’m not convinced that progressivism requires a class conscious (aka Marxist) lens. So, if you don’t mind elaborating on your beliefs, I would appreciate if you answered these questions.
My Questions
Excerpts from the Wikipedia page in question:
Excerpt 1:
Excerpt 2:
As you can see, there is scant mention of oppressor or oppressed. Nor does the Encyclopedia Britannica fill the void – it doesn’t even mention the words “class”, “oppressor”, “oppression”, or “oppressed” . In fact, the only mention of class conflict in either Wikipedia or Britannica is when the Wikipedia page mentions that early progressives (around the time of Teddy Roosevelt) believed a “good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace” were sufficient in stemming – or even circumventing – class conflict.
Given the above, one could argue that progressivism is equally as compatible with Marxist theory as it is with anti-Marxism. It’s even feasible that progressives could outright reject the idea of classes and still retain every aspect of progressivism laid out in this definition.
Am I missing something? Am I not reading Wikipedia or Britannica closely enough?
Can you give a specific example? Christians, homosexuals, gun owners? I think the article deals with white male hierarchy, are they oppressed AND privileged?
Jews are the group I was thinking of. A lot of left-wing anti-Zionism leans into antisemitism, justified by a false sense that Jews are privileged.
Wait are you talking the center right leftist in the United States or actual left leftists. Because the former isn’t really a thing. And even the latter is a pretty specious claim. I mean I could definitely see a few communists etc being upset with bankers and capitalists in general. But that =!= Jews/antisemitism.
Well, nazbols exist but I can’t say that there’s enough of them to really qualify. Maybe in eastern Europe? I’ve heard its a more common ideology there. I wouldn’t really call them leftists though
Are you referring to Ilhan Omar here? (as I see it, her remarks are possible to interpret however the listener pleases. And that includes antisemitism but it also includes anti-what-Omar-sees-as-oppression.)
More Jeremy Corbyn here, but yeah. her as well.
Wouldn’t that make them intrinsically conservative and not actual leftist/progressives? There are pro-life homosexuals.