Progressivism seems to be used in more or less the same sense that it would be in mainstream (at least US) political discourse, albeit perhaps somewhat broader.
There are plenty of people who call themselves progressive but they usually don’t speak of progressivism.
Progressivism is a term about a political battle at the beginning of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson was practicing progressivism. Neoreacon tend to argue as if the positions of the left in the 21th century are the same as those of Wilson.
Investor state dispute settlement is a very new policy tool. The whole idea of corporations as people is very new. We engaged in deregulation. You find few people on the left who see that change as progress that’s to be celebrated because history moves forward.
In Germany Agenda 2010 came out of the third way. Cutting pensions isn’t what progressivism envisions. It not the kind of history moving forward that’s to be celebrated.
While neoliberal think tanks build a worldview that allowed the financial sectors to get deregulated, the left lacks a real counterproposal and a vision at the moment. Quite frequently people on the left want to defend the status quo these days.
There are plenty of people who call themselves progressive but they usually don’t speak of progressivism. Progressivism is a term about a political battle at the beginning of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson was practicing progressivism. Neoreacon tend to argue as if the positions of the left in the 21th century are the same as those of Wilson.
I know about the Progressive Era. However, the term’s stayed alive (or been revived) in the US as a loose synonym for “leftist” or “liberal” (in the American sense), which have pejorative connotations in some quarters over here; consider for example the Congressional Progressive Caucus, founded in 1991 to represent the Democratic Party’s leftist wing. Since most prominent neoreactionaries are American, that’s probably the sense in which they mean it. It is not a sense unique to neoreaction.
American leftists are aware of the novelty of the policy tools you mentioned, but they’re likely to see them as novel means to regressive ends. Since neoreaction essentially assumes the American Left’s future-historical schema (as a default, and with different emotional valance), it’s likely to agree.
As to neoreaction lumping Woodrow Wilson’s policy goals with those of, say, Ralph Nader, that is a potential weakness. It’s not one I was trying to explore in the grandparent, though, and I don’t think the terminology is very revealing given what I’ve already discussed.
Plenty of people call themselves progressive. That doesn’t mean that they see themselves as adhering to something called progressivism. Otherwise link to a few American politicians who use the term progressivism to describe their own policies.
Since most prominent neoreactionaries are American, that’s probably the sense in which they mean it.
From what I read of neocon thought, I don’t think that’s the case.
American leftists are aware of the novel policy tools you mentioned, but they’re likely to see them as means to regressive ends.
There were no multinational corporations a hundred years ago. You can’t regress to a state of multinational corporations as they are in their nature a new phenomenon.
To quote Moldbug Cthulhu always swims left. That was part of the Marxist idea of history. Sooner or later the left wins, because it’s the right side and we know it’s the right side because sooner or later it wins. We know this because when we look at the past the left always won.
Somehow it’s not the freedom of the individual worker that rises as time goes on but corporation have became people that also claim their freedom. Those corporations seem even better at claiming freedom than workers.
Neoliberalism also destroys traditional values of nation states but not in the way socialism does. To Molburg it might be both Cthulhu but the difference matters a big deal in the modern political discourse.
Plenty of people call themselves progressive. That doesn’t mean that they see themselves as adhering to something called progressivism. Otherwise link to a few American politicians who use the term progressivism to describe their own policies.
Don’t make too much of the “-ism” suffix. Neoreactionaries generally don’t believe the overwhelming majority of modern politics to be dictated by members of a capital-P Progressivist sect, vivid cathedral analogy notwithstanding; instead, they see said politics as conforming if unchecked to a vaguely Marxian notion of progress ever leftward (because Cthulhu), which is roughly unitary since the late Enlightenment (also because Cthulhu), and which they sometimes call progressive (because that’s the neutral word for a leftward tendency in American politics). “Progressivism” then is merely how you form the word for the corresponding ideology.
Lately Cthulhu brought deregulation of the financial sector, corporate personhood, reduced maximum tax rate and Investor State Dispute Settlement.
Of course neoliberalism that produces those policies and with lately drives much of Cthulhu’s direction can be thought of as an extension of left liberalism of the 19th century but today’s left doesn’t like it. Of course the cathedral produces corporate personhood and the cathedral deregulated the financial sector but if that’s what you call “progressivism” people that call themselves progressive aren’t in favor of that.
they see said politics as conforming if unchecked to a vaguely Marxian notion of progress ever leftward
Today’s left doesn’t. It doesn’t like that corporations gain more and more powerful as things progress. It’s afraid of technology. Just look at GMO. Do you see today’s left celebrating GMO’s as valuable progress that moves society forward, the way the left did celebrate nuclear power in the 1950′s and 1960′s?
Of course the cathedral produces GMO’s but if you label that position that supports GMO’s as progressivism than people who self label as progressives don’t really hold that position strongly.
The East India Company (EIC), originally chartered as the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, and more properly called the Honourable East India Company, was an English, and later (from 1707)[1] British joint-stock company,
Let’s take any contemporary multinational, say Sony. Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
Sony Corporation (ソニー株式会社 Sonī Kabushiki Gaisha?), commonly referred to as Sony, is a Japanese multinational conglomerate corporation headquartered in Kōnan Minato, Tokyo, Japan.
Actually the sentence you cite does contain the word “multinational’ while the above sentence I cited doesn’t.
There a trend that modern multinational corporations don’t feel like they belong to any single country. Of cause they tend to comply as much with local laws as necessary to avoid getting into trouble but they don’t they themselves as belonging to any single nation.
The East India Company had its own currency, military vessels, and colonial governors. It effectively functioned like an independent state, much like our modern corporations seem to want to one day.
There are plenty of people who call themselves progressive but they usually don’t speak of progressivism. Progressivism is a term about a political battle at the beginning of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson was practicing progressivism. Neoreacon tend to argue as if the positions of the left in the 21th century are the same as those of Wilson.
Investor state dispute settlement is a very new policy tool. The whole idea of corporations as people is very new. We engaged in deregulation. You find few people on the left who see that change as progress that’s to be celebrated because history moves forward.
In Germany Agenda 2010 came out of the third way. Cutting pensions isn’t what progressivism envisions. It not the kind of history moving forward that’s to be celebrated.
While neoliberal think tanks build a worldview that allowed the financial sectors to get deregulated, the left lacks a real counterproposal and a vision at the moment. Quite frequently people on the left want to defend the status quo these days.
I know about the Progressive Era. However, the term’s stayed alive (or been revived) in the US as a loose synonym for “leftist” or “liberal” (in the American sense), which have pejorative connotations in some quarters over here; consider for example the Congressional Progressive Caucus, founded in 1991 to represent the Democratic Party’s leftist wing. Since most prominent neoreactionaries are American, that’s probably the sense in which they mean it. It is not a sense unique to neoreaction.
American leftists are aware of the novelty of the policy tools you mentioned, but they’re likely to see them as novel means to regressive ends. Since neoreaction essentially assumes the American Left’s future-historical schema (as a default, and with different emotional valance), it’s likely to agree.
As to neoreaction lumping Woodrow Wilson’s policy goals with those of, say, Ralph Nader, that is a potential weakness. It’s not one I was trying to explore in the grandparent, though, and I don’t think the terminology is very revealing given what I’ve already discussed.
Plenty of people call themselves progressive. That doesn’t mean that they see themselves as adhering to something called progressivism. Otherwise link to a few American politicians who use the term progressivism to describe their own policies.
From what I read of neocon thought, I don’t think that’s the case.
There were no multinational corporations a hundred years ago. You can’t regress to a state of multinational corporations as they are in their nature a new phenomenon.
To quote Moldbug Cthulhu always swims left. That was part of the Marxist idea of history. Sooner or later the left wins, because it’s the right side and we know it’s the right side because sooner or later it wins. We know this because when we look at the past the left always won. Somehow it’s not the freedom of the individual worker that rises as time goes on but corporation have became people that also claim their freedom. Those corporations seem even better at claiming freedom than workers.
Neoliberalism also destroys traditional values of nation states but not in the way socialism does. To Molburg it might be both Cthulhu but the difference matters a big deal in the modern political discourse.
Don’t make too much of the “-ism” suffix. Neoreactionaries generally don’t believe the overwhelming majority of modern politics to be dictated by members of a capital-P Progressivist sect, vivid cathedral analogy notwithstanding; instead, they see said politics as conforming if unchecked to a vaguely Marxian notion of progress ever leftward (because Cthulhu), which is roughly unitary since the late Enlightenment (also because Cthulhu), and which they sometimes call progressive (because that’s the neutral word for a leftward tendency in American politics). “Progressivism” then is merely how you form the word for the corresponding ideology.
But since you asked...
Lately Cthulhu brought deregulation of the financial sector, corporate personhood, reduced maximum tax rate and Investor State Dispute Settlement.
Of course neoliberalism that produces those policies and with lately drives much of Cthulhu’s direction can be thought of as an extension of left liberalism of the 19th century but today’s left doesn’t like it. Of course the cathedral produces corporate personhood and the cathedral deregulated the financial sector but if that’s what you call “progressivism” people that call themselves progressive aren’t in favor of that.
Today’s left doesn’t. It doesn’t like that corporations gain more and more powerful as things progress. It’s afraid of technology. Just look at GMO. Do you see today’s left celebrating GMO’s as valuable progress that moves society forward, the way the left did celebrate nuclear power in the 1950′s and 1960′s?
Of course the cathedral produces GMO’s but if you label that position that supports GMO’s as progressivism than people who self label as progressives don’t really hold that position strongly.
Ahem
The first sentence of the article:
...and?
Let’s take any contemporary multinational, say Sony. Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
Actually the sentence you cite does contain the word “multinational’ while the above sentence I cited doesn’t.
There a trend that modern multinational corporations don’t feel like they belong to any single country. Of cause they tend to comply as much with local laws as necessary to avoid getting into trouble but they don’t they themselves as belonging to any single nation.
The East India Company had its own currency, military vessels, and colonial governors. It effectively functioned like an independent state, much like our modern corporations seem to want to one day.