Fonz wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 9:39 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 9:15 pm
Fonz wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 8:39 pm
While I generally find debates about definitions to be rather pointless, I am curious as to how you'd define "progressive" as opposed to "far left"
(Which I always found to be a somewhat obnoxious and self-congratulatory term tbh, even when I was one)
Progressives are people who campaign for societal reform for the betterment of the "ordinary" person as the primary focus. The far left are extremists who would seek to completely replace or tear down our existing mode of society - the existing democratic process (we're not talking the difference between FPTP and PR here), capitalism itself - and replace it with something like anarchy or communism. You'd also probably have to acknowledge that, being extremists who are on the fringe, they are also likely to be violent and be seen to be fighting against everything that represents the status quo, which in their eyes is... everyone else. Which is why their favourite target is centrists, and their second favourite target is leftists who fail the purity test.
Like, you can be socialists in the UK Labour party, seek to improve society for the working class etc, try and counter the effects of unfettered late-stage capitalism, and campaign for a fairer system for all (as opposed to individualism and libertarianism) while working under the confines of neoliberalism - all comfortably left wing and progressive aims - and still be a mile away from the far left. In the same way that there's many obviously deeply conservative people who are not far right.
It's doubly weird when it comes to American politics, seeing as how the dominant "progressive" party is still at best majority centrist in approach and leadership, and beholden to corporate America in many ways, which just makes it even more ridiculous when people like Biden and Actual Cop Harris are accused of being far left.
Very nice, thank you.
Also wanted to add that it can be difficult in democracies that are essentially a two horse race every time to recognise and differentiate clearly between these groups. In the UK and the US, our political systems mean that the "left" party by default has to make concessions to the process in order to actually get any power at all and enact change (something that quite a few don't seem to understand) while at the same time basically ensuring that those who support the party from a more left wing / socialist perspective are pretty much doomed to disappointment unless that power can be gained, held on to, and then reinforced by popular left wing policies. The history of both countries suggests otherwise.
Actual left wing parties and genuine leftists, along with genuine far left groups, are far more politically visible (and viable) in other societies because of the difference in the political system. Same is true for the right, which is why it's always been a little bit disingenuous to point to the existence of far right groups in stable European countries having some seats in a different political system, because that's just how it works.
I can't remember us ever having a Melenchon, let alone a Maduro. Jeremy Corbyn was regularly called a communist and slated as being far left, but he's a largely bog standard left winger with some curious/damaging positions on certain topics who spent a career opposing his own party and never quite coming to terms with the reality of the British electoral system. His policies certainly weren't anything particularly hair raising, it's just that no one trusted him to deliver them and some of them were just dumb ideas.
I think both the US and the UK are badly served by their respective political systems, though aside from the two horse race side off things they're really quite different. Anyway that's another thread entirely...
