It’s interesting that in your idea of the core progressive narrative the word corporation and democracy doesn’t appear.
It’s probably my own idiosyncrasy that these are less salient for me, but it’s not hard to see where they fit in. Corporations are, to most progressives, the primary modern incarnation of exploitative strength. Democracy was a powerful blow against the old political exploitation system; most progressives I encounter will tell you how many problems still remain but nevertheless prefer democracy to any alternative.
Homesexuality got outlawed after the enlightment in the 19th century by progressives who wanted to improve the morality of society.
I think it’s fair to say this fact doesn’t fit well with the core progressive narrative. I don’t know the history of that movement, but to explain it I think you’d have to either contest the premise that progressives were really the ones behind it, or temper the narrative by acknowledging at least some downsides to the progressive memeplex.
Corporations are, to most progressives, the primary modern incarnation of exploitative strength.
I don’t know if that’s a very coherent position: corporations are a way for “little people” to be small-time capitalists, to put their savings to productive use.
I think progressives dislike corporations because they don’t want anyone to be powerful—except for the government they are running.
I think progressives dislike corporations because they don’t want anyone to be powerful—except for the government they are running.
Somewhat true, but it’s not like this is a terminal value. Progressives believe that most entities will use power for selfish ends, and that government is less likely to do so (excessive faith in this proposition is indeed a failure mode of less thoughtful progressives).
corporations are a way for “little people” to be small-time capitalists, to put their savings to productive use.
There are a number of ways to square the fact that “little people” can own small parts of corporations with the belief that corporations are exploitative. You could argue that corporations are run by and for their executives and shareholders aren’t coordinated enough to do anything about it; you could also argue that the exploitative power of the corporation benefits its shareholders but in a negative-sum way, so that shareholders are better off than they would be if the company didn’t exploit but worse off than if no companies exploited.
Also, it’s worth noting that progressives tend to oppose ‘big business’ rather than corporations per se—they wouldn’t be any happier with a giant multinational proprietorship.
Maybe the general anti-reactionary narrative is more or less my narrative above;
the left-progressive addendum is
“But the memetic defenses that largely shut down open kleptocracy have a harder time grappling with plutocracy, by which one can use a sequence exchanges which all appear voluntary to exploit as unjustly as the kings of old”;
and the libertarian addendum is
“But the memetic defenses that largely shut down open kleptocracy have a harder time grappling with kleptocracy disguised as public good, by which a government can continually increase its plunder as long as it can invent more pretexts”.
Corporations are very much children of the enlightenment.
I think the idea that there hasn’t been any gain in wealth for the lowest of society in the last three decades is part of the progressive narrative.
Various progressives do complain about a loss of civil rights.
When it comes to minorities, languages of majorities are still dying. A lot of minority culture gets lost. Various progressives do complain about globalisation and don’t see it as a force that brings justice everywhere.
It’s probably my own idiosyncrasy that these are less salient for me, but it’s not hard to see where they fit in. Corporations are, to most progressives, the primary modern incarnation of exploitative strength. Democracy was a powerful blow against the old political exploitation system; most progressives I encounter will tell you how many problems still remain but nevertheless prefer democracy to any alternative.
I think it’s fair to say this fact doesn’t fit well with the core progressive narrative. I don’t know the history of that movement, but to explain it I think you’d have to either contest the premise that progressives were really the ones behind it, or temper the narrative by acknowledging at least some downsides to the progressive memeplex.
I don’t know if that’s a very coherent position: corporations are a way for “little people” to be small-time capitalists, to put their savings to productive use.
I think progressives dislike corporations because they don’t want anyone to be powerful—except for the government they are running.
Somewhat true, but it’s not like this is a terminal value. Progressives believe that most entities will use power for selfish ends, and that government is less likely to do so (excessive faith in this proposition is indeed a failure mode of less thoughtful progressives).
There are a number of ways to square the fact that “little people” can own small parts of corporations with the belief that corporations are exploitative. You could argue that corporations are run by and for their executives and shareholders aren’t coordinated enough to do anything about it; you could also argue that the exploitative power of the corporation benefits its shareholders but in a negative-sum way, so that shareholders are better off than they would be if the company didn’t exploit but worse off than if no companies exploited.
Also, it’s worth noting that progressives tend to oppose ‘big business’ rather than corporations per se—they wouldn’t be any happier with a giant multinational proprietorship.
It is for certain people. Who, not quite coincidentally, end up in power on occasion.
Which, of course, flies in the face of the entire human history… X-)
Yes, that’s true, though many use the words interchangeably.
Maybe the general anti-reactionary narrative is more or less my narrative above; the left-progressive addendum is
and the libertarian addendum is
I actually agree with both addenda.
Corporations are very much children of the enlightenment.
I think the idea that there hasn’t been any gain in wealth for the lowest of society in the last three decades is part of the progressive narrative. Various progressives do complain about a loss of civil rights.
When it comes to minorities, languages of majorities are still dying. A lot of minority culture gets lost. Various progressives do complain about globalisation and don’t see it as a force that brings justice everywhere.