quote:

---

I'm still not convinced that the term "progressive" is a useful or needed term.
I supposed I'm coloured by the Canadian and US parties of the early 20th century. Why has the term "the Left" been eschewed in favour of "progressive"?

---

I agree in disliking the term, not so much because of association with the antiquated progressive movement of the early 20th century but because of the association with "progress" which has often referred to processes (colonialism, industrialism, etc.) that I would not personally consider desirable to promote for the future...

That said I also don't like the term left, in this case because of the appeal to the ancient history of France.

I read those terms on babble as very wide, very broad. Just because someone's on the left I don't assume someone is progressive in all areas that I am, for example, identifying with feminism, and I know that I'm less progressive/not at all progressive in certain areas compared with other people.

When someone tells me that they support the invasion of Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, or the war against Afghanistan because the Taliban are mean to women, I don't think: "Aha, this is a progressive leftist anti-tyranny anti-sexist person who is just a tad confused." I think they're just a tad confused, period, or they're western supremacists looking for self-justification, or they were born yesterday, or whatever.

I once met a professor who told me that we should never talk about "progressives", but only the "Left". When I asked why, he said that "progressives" was a concept made up by Stalinists in the 1930s (I may have got the decade wrong).

I didn't know what to say to that. I'm afraid someday someone will tell me that "Left" was a concept made up by the Spanish Inquisition or something.

I think that around places like babble, "progressive" means good-guy/person white hat and not much else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
What lagatta said.

I think that around places like babble, "progressive" means good-guy/person white hat and not much else.

Now what about that other horrific term, "left-liberal?"

---

I don't consider all babblers to be "left", although Stephen Harper might well do so. Apart from the odd troll "resident contrarian" I assume babblers are "progressive" in the sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo, and I usually use that term when I am scolding a babbler for being too conservative or anti-communist about something.

It's vague, but therein lies much of its usefulness.

[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I once met a professor who told me that we should never talk about "progressives", but only the "Left". When I asked why, he said that "progressives" was a concept made up by Stalinists in the 1930s (I may have got the decade wrong).

---

quote:

---

If progressives are like Sid Green then they're all over the map.

---

Well according to Wikipedia John D. Rockefeller, Jr. was a "notable progressive" too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
...I'm not sure about the decade either and I probably wouldn't call them "Stalinists".

---

Something tells me I should have followed RosaL's mailing list advice.

quote:

---

michelle wrote: it annoys me when people on babble assume that they (of course!) are progressive

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Paul's Progressive:
I think "progressive" basically means left of centre - i.e. social democrats and small-"l" liberals.

---

What exactly is the point of quibbling about "progressive" or "left" if both are undefined?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
If you're talking about the CPUSA in the 1930s (or 40s or 50s) why wouldn't you call them Stalinists?

---

I know people use "stalinist" to refer to things like a popular front strategy (though in some form, this is also Leninist) and "socialism in one country", etc. but of course the term has other connotations.

I wasn't there but I think most of these people were genuinely shocked by Khruschev's letter. Whether they "should have known", I don't know. But calling them "stalinists" seems to me to imply that they approved - or would have done themselves, given the opportunity - the truly awful things Stalin did and I think that might be unfair to a lot of people I respect, even if I don't know their names.

But I think "don't mention Stalin" is probably a good approach. I may cross-stitch it and hang it on my wall

[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
I think I use the terms "progressive" and "left" interchangeably. I also think aiming for agreeing on what those terms mean is not going to get us anywhere.

I read those terms on babble as very wide, very broad.

---

Successful left parties throughout history have taken a "broad front" approach. Sometimes that makes them a bit centrist, sometimes quite leftist, but never sectarian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
. . . sometimes big tent terms are needed.

It sure as hell beats the repulsive import of the USian term "liberal", which means free-marketer anywhere else in the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

For more info, please click here (high-speed users only).

---

To me, "left-progressives" connotes people who:

Are anti-war
Are against US imperialism
Are against internnational organizations and agreements such as NAFTA, the SPP, the WTO, ect.
Are against neo-liberalism, P3s, security states, ect.
Are pro-choice
Are pro same sex marriage
Are pro unions
Are against racism, sexism, homophobia ect.
Recognize the need for extraparliamentary action to affect political change
Are against the Tar Sands
Recognize the need to at least drastically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels
Support indiginous struggles, and the right of national self-determination
Oppose the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
Recognize and oppose the bias in the mainstream media, and seek out alternative news sources

The term "progressives", on it's own, does not have the same meaning to me, due to many (though not all) of the groups that have used the term in the past, as well as it's current broad usage across the political specturm.

[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

Don't say I didn't warn you!

Although I agree in principle with the list, and I'm sure you know this, LT, many more items could be added. In fact, I think if everyone on this thread added one or two important issues that aren't there (for example, being against poverty and homelessness) and THEN we said that's the list, then probably nobody would qualify. This is why I wanted to avoid lists, ya see.

I also have a huge problem with the simple position of "being against" various systems of oppression. What does this mean? One is philosophically against such systems? One writes letters to the editor denouncing such systems? One argues with one's friends and family? Goes on marches? Writes articles? Rants in a blog? Signs/creates petitions?

I ask these questions not facetiously but sincerely, since all of the above that I listed as "actions" are in fact the "safe" actions that the traditional left has done. These are all moderate actions, that don't implicate the person, and as such, leave the systems of society intact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
In fact, I think if everyone on this thread added one or two important issues that aren't there (for example, being against poverty and homelessness) and THEN we said that's the list, then probably nobody would qualify.

---

Darn. I support poverty and homelessness. I was doing well with LT's list.

On the more serious side, I agree with you (bcg) about action, not just state of mind and speech. But the latter are a hugely important component. If a political party (for example) says that they favour same-sex marriage, it would be pretty hard for them to carry on that fraud if they voted against it. Likewise with the Canadian occupation of Afghanistan - which, by the way, merits a separate entry on LT's list. Being "anti-war" is meaningless.

quote:

---

When Babblers become exclusive, does the site cease to be progressive?

---

[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

What is the limit of inclusiveness as a political criterion?

---

A potentially good question. Babble excludes people on the basis that they do not adhere to the conduct rules of the forum. It does not, for example, exclude people on the basis of race, language, ability to pay, sexuality, etc. Many organizations do though, such as the LPGA discussion currently ongoing in the Anti-racism Forum or the notorious exclusion of homosexuals from the Scouts, to pick a couple of examples. No one would argue that those forms of exclusivity are progressive, however I do not feel babble's practice of excluding people who do not adhere to its rules of conduct limits its role as a "progressive" forum.

[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

One could, if one chose, participate only in language / terminology arguments and thoughts and think of oneself as progressive/lefty/etc. I won't say that's wrong, but I can't stop at only language, as important as it is. For me, this must be pushed into action.

As for inclusivity, any community by definition is exclusive, otherwise it would just be "everyone". Exclusivity is not a bad thing necessarily. And what It's Me D said:

quote:

---

I do not feel babble's practice of excluding people who do not adhere to its rules of conduct limits its role as a "progressive" forum.

---

If I'm going to be brutally honest, I may not trust a person's or an organization's work with, let's say, having a feminist perspective or getting ARAO. But it may be strategic to be allies over some issue or other, short- or long-term. And I have, personally, as well as a part of a larger group, made such decisions.

Openness and transparency as to why and how exclusions happen goes a long way. When a thread is started here, let's say, for women only, for POC/FN people only, yes these threads are excluding certain people from posting. But this level of exclusion is infinitesimal. We could even call it symbolic and virtually meaningless (pun intended), yet holding great meaning for the participants in the particular thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
I know people use "stalinist" to refer to things like a popular front strategy (though in some form, this is also Leninist)...

---

quote:

---

The policy of Popular Frontism was based upon alliances between workers' parties and bourgeois parties. This was entirely alien to the method of Lenin and Marx, who always insisted on a policy of class independence. The notion that it is possible to arrive at an agreement between the working class and the so-called democratic wing of the bourgeoisie is false to the core.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:

No. Of course there are forms of exclusion that would; none are practiced on babble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Darn. I support poverty and homelessness. I was doing well with LT's list.

---

Sort of reminds me of a line from Tom Lehrer's song "We Are The Folk Song Army"

An aside, do we have to be "for" same-sex marriage? I'm not particularly for any kind of marriage (though I'd be willing to go through with it to be with a beloved with another citizenship), but I'm most certainly against discrimination against gay or lesbian couples who do want to tie the knot, or adopt, or whatever.

Québec has one of the lowest MARRIAGE (not coupling or cohabitation) rates in the world...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
... Stalin invented the term "Leninist"...

---

Here's what I think:

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
And what problem is that?

---

Progressive means you stay silent about corporate ownership of media and the left-right theatre of foolishness that passes for democracy
- stay silent about elite families that control corporations, and the gov't they prop up
- stay silent about GMO foods, toxic chemicals, and water additives that poison people
- stay silent about fraudulent pharmacutical claims, and cost in dollars and blood that the FDA would have every Canadian pay (thanks SPP!)
- stay silent about FIAT CURRENCY and the fact that the 'dollar' economy is 46 times the size of the 'real' economy (hello, inflation!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Still free in Sask:
DO keep working for a one world gov't, where scientists will be able to cure you of your freedom and free will

---

Here's an explanation of what those people are about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche

[ 02 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
"Still Free" is a Lyndon Larouche follower.

Here's an explanation of what those people are about:

---

What do you think about George Soros, Ken? Did he simply do what he needed to do to survive and eventually become an anti-communist crusader and symbol of capitalism himself?

[ 02 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Here's a link on the Larouche Movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement

[ 02 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]