/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17317714]

Given that it's the dominant ideology of young Americans what are the philosophical roots of progressivism? Is it just slave morality?

[Anonymous No.17317734]

The Protestant notion of atonement.

[Anonymous No.17317744]

>>17317714
>what are the philosophical roots of progressivism
The post industrial middle class, which seeks to better society not by material means but idealist ones. (capitalism is bad)

also seeing that image really confirms for me that this is a decadent civilization bound to collapse, and the the US is and always has been an empire of filth.

[Anonymous No.17317748]

>>17317714
Protestantism and early modern philosophy. Could be traced back even further to Duns Scotus and William of Ockham (voluntarism&nominalism). But the key turning point in thought is protestantism and early modern philosophy. French Revolution is the material/political victory of this same strand.

[Anonymous No.17317754]

>>17317714
Almost any philosophy after 1980

[Anonymous No.17317765]

judaism

[Anonymous No.17317851]

>>17317714
Modern progressivism has no roots besides neoliberalism, it’s economic incentive is capital and its social incentive is political control, its values are a simulacrum, and only serve those two incentives, and they work as they are viewed as meaningful by those who are in any form in support of the neoliberal party, and they create useful counter-reaction from the neoconservative party (who’s values work in the same way, just targeting another group). There’s also an economic nuance, the neoliberal party appeals to economic leftism, but besides the appeal, all seemingly “economically progressive” aspects of the neoliberal party are actually just strengthening private capital through public means, and mere cooperation rather than actual “regulation”. On the other hand, the neoconservative party appeals to economically right wing positions, strengthening private capital while appealing to values like liberty, individualism and economic growth. Though they never go fully libertarian, as private capital doesn’t want to split with its business partner, the government. They are also hollow with social values as well, they just appeal and hold hollow signs of their values to tradition, family and older generations.

[Anonymous No.17317877]

>>17317851
Swing and a miss. The reduction of progressivism to neoliberalism and capitalism misses the boat completely. All three are inescapable derivations of humanism, protestantism and early modern philosophy. So is Marxism, although Marxism while humanist was not individualist. Progressivism is just the synthesis of marxism and individualism. Just as China is the synthesis of communism and capitalism. The opposition between these forces is only superficial, they all spring from the same sources and can synthesize with ease.

[Anonymous No.17317889]

>>17317714
Read de Maistre's Réflexions sur le Protestantisme.

[Anonymous No.17317890]

>>17317877
>Progressivism is just the synthesis of marxism and individualism.
History (better know as reality) disproves this

[Anonymous No.17317901]

>>17317877
There’s really not much Marxist about progressivism. They’re radical individualists and use liberal terminology to justify everything under the guise of progress, human rights, freedom, etc. If it was genuinely Marxian then it wouldn’t be institutionalized in America and fully intertwined with the political economy. It really is just the next evolution in liberalism and likely it’s downfall

[Anonymous No.17317930]

I think when you look at American progressives and their ideas on equality there's a very clear link to J.S. Mill etc. The idea that it comes from marxism is pretty spurious

[Anonymous No.17317940]

marxism is just doing the revolution again, not against the Christians, but against the atheists, ie it's atheists analyzing themselves.

Atheists have no opponents currently, and since atheism only lives thru the eternal vaginal fantasy of oppression, harassment and doing the revolution, the atheists can only delve into navel gazing neuroticism and make up spooks like the resurrection of nazism and the end of history, the end of democracy, and some big threat to their lifestyle, while trying hard to build a safe space hiding the historical fact that world wars are a creation of the humanists themselves.

[Anonymous No.17317947]

>>17317901
progressivism essentially takes up marxist class-struggle. progressivists think they are struggling as a class against oppressive forces. it is essentially marxist in nature.

[Anonymous No.17317949]

It all started with the reformation of the catholic church
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified/

[Anonymous No.17317964]

>>17317901
>If it was genuinely Marxian then it wouldn’t be institutionalized in America
America is a thoroughly Marxist nation today institutionally speaking.

>>17317901
>and fully intertwined with the political economy.
it is intertwined because corporatism and marxism all tend towards globalism and internationalism. the opposition between marxism and capitalism is superficial, marxism simply subsumes capitalism as a passing era in the progress of history, while capitalism is merely an unhinged profit motive tending towards concentration and globalization. they both have the same final end.

[Anonymous No.17317981]

>>17317940
>marxism is just doing the revolution again, not against the Christians, but against the atheists, ie it's atheists analyzing themselves.
progressivism is exactly the same but they try to change their audience.
For the humanists hyping non-classical liberalism, it was the workers, but they lost this fight.
In 2021, people are
-employees
-citizens
-consumers

employees are no longer trendy, and the unions are dead. The humanist meme about citizens never took off even after the french revolution.

Their only option left is to hype the consumerism side of the daily life of a humanist, which is all this scam about going green and so on. It failed in 70s and 90s and it's only now that it barely takes off.

They try to build the option of oppression and this is only valid when the oppressed have economic powers, and or with the popularization of mass entertainment, which is what happens now.

[Anonymous No.17317994]

>>17317734
Yeah, it's really just this. Progressivism is just the natural progression of Protestantism, which is the natural progression of Christianity.

It's the same way a corpse is a natural progression of a man.

[Anonymous No.17318006]

I see sjws get compared to puritans a lot. and america was started by them insane puritnaical fuck heads

[Anonymous No.17318011]

>>17317994
protestantism is not a natural progression of christianity, given that christianity exists outside of protestantism. protestantism is an inherently irrational, unnatural secession away from christianity.

[Anonymous No.17318019]

>>17318006
There's nothing Marxist about Social Justice because Social Justice isn't Marxism. Americans have never been interested in Marxism as a radical economic-egalitarianism rooted in 19th century industrial labor. Rather, they see it solely as a utopian mystical doctrine. The end state of Marxism for an American is not a world run by works councils hashing out economic policy on the factory floor as it is for, say, the French. Rather, it is a world of telepathy, post-scarcity, immortality, human flight, and endless sensual pleasures, as Capitalism is the cause of things like gravity and gender.

[Anonymous No.17318021]

>>17317877
>>17317949
I'd say that these enabled, justified and allowed neoliberalism to take place. But modern progressives do not actually use them as anything more than symbols and justifications. Reformation of the catholic church and the french revolution, along with their philosophical exponents helped to build the road to modern progressivism and neoliberalism, through the gradual opening of democracy and capital, which gave way for the oligarchic synthesis of popular power, capital and politicisation in democracies, which currently dominates neoliberalism. But the road itself was just a road, and does not define an honest lineage of progressivism. As those aforementioned philosophical exponents of democracy and individualism, mostly held their positions in sincerity, not solely ends in themselves. Modern progressivism subverts that nuance and grounding, and is hollow, with progress being an end in itself. Prior, progressivism was justified with values, modern progressivism holds progress as its own dogmatic justification.

[Anonymous No.17318024]

>>17317947
They don’t care for classism in a Marxist sense. Their idea of historical progress is literally a neoliberal utopia where there’s no straight white men and everyone is a gay transsexual consumer. People like Jordan Peterson claim that this is “neo-Marxist” because they replaced class with identity groups but they can only ever define these identity groups based on liberal individualism. When it comes to the core of their views on gender, sexuality, race etc, they’re absurdly ambiguous and mostly a weak projection of their narcissism, essentially just making new identitarian movements to cope with the fact that liberalism has destroyed most continuities with actual identities. Notice the correlation between progressives and consumerism.

[Anonymous No.17318025]

>>17318011
Is that supposed to be a logical coup de grâce?

[Anonymous No.17318031]

>>17318011
>protestantism is an inherently irrational
This is where you're wrong. Protestantism is taking the rationalism endemic to Christianity and letting it run wild. It's MORE rational that it's predecessors. That's what's so fucking terrible about it. Reason, when left to run wild, will cut away everything, including itself. This is why Protestantism is a logical stage of Christianity: it's when the structures in place to keep this wild-eyed rationalism at bay are no longer capable of doing so.

[Anonymous No.17318053]

the development of mass media is crucial to get marxism living a few more decades : with mass media the average atheist can play like the journalist.
And Journalism is essentially humanistic since only secular humanists have created this job and they love the idea of a journalist as the gatekeeper of the truth of secular humanism by denouncing some Human rights violations, political scandals and enlightening the plebs, because journalists like any coackroach humanist cling to their idea that they are the gatekeepers of the truths.

All the journalists 100 years ago were already self righteous assholes addicted to their brain poops.
Journalists has always been pathetic.

Now they just have to turn this endless delusion towards the endless source of people feeling abused and its the perpetual movement assuring big powers for the middle-man (between the audience and the oppressed), ie the guy hiring the journalists.

[Anonymous No.17318064]

>>17317714
its not an ideology but an expression of basic human decency and empathy for the plight of the marginaliezed. the discomfort 'political correctness gone mad' makes you feel is not even one billionth of the humilliation queer people or people of color go through every instant of their existence in a cisheteropatriarchal white supremacist society. Yes i am a SJW, i am an antifascist, a feminist killjoy and the postmodern neomarxist jordan peterson warned you about, I would burn every last page of the western cannon if it meant ending racism and sexism, and no this is not radical, but the least that should be expected of a decent empathetic human being.

[Anonymous No.17318065]

>>17317949
>moldbug
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.17318073]

>>17318053
This is word salad

[Anonymous No.17318079]

>>17317851
wouldn't it feel great if we could just make these people 'go away somehow', load them into trucks, drive them out to the countryside, help them dig a nice big trench? wouldn't the very air we breathe feel much cleaner?

[Anonymous No.17318096]

>>17318031
No, this is where you're wrong. Protestantism is not rational. It suffers from the same humanist, early modern philosophical notion that thought begins with "I" not with what is the case about the world. This undue stress is irrational and leads to irrational individualism. Protestantism fell away from tradition and succession of thought on the basis of this irrationality. It's irrationally gave rise to a multitude of confused denominations. The entire history of protestantism is nothing but individualistic irrationality.

[Anonymous No.17318113]

>>17318011
protestantism is the largest splintering with divergent ideas as a progression to reactionary catholicism. I don't see how protestantism cannot be the natural progression of christianity, this however doesn't mean that all non-protestant elements just stop existing. One thing however you can see is that other christian movements become more protestant with time. Look at what the pope is doing, look at catholic churches, look at the non latin rites, look at the openess and accepting etc. etc. etc.
This is not the medieval church, this is the protestant movement of which catholicism is a part.

[Anonymous No.17318114]

The civil rights is their main source of inspiration I assume. The things they care about are still around but theyre obviously not nearly as egregious as they were in that era so they come off pretty psychotic in many cases

[Anonymous No.17318123]

>>17318096
That said modernity always thinks of itself that it is deeply rational, that the stress on "I", epistemology and radical skepticism is the true basis of rationality. Which is why the modern mind does not experience any cognitive dissonance from seeing deeply irrational cultural artefacts of modernity (in art, philosophy and politics) and at the same time thinking of itself that it is the most rational age yet.

[Anonymous No.17318132]

Late 20th century post-modernists. Peterson was fucking right lmao.

[Anonymous No.17318134]

>>17318113
protestantism is an irrational reaction and a suture not a progression. protestantism has more continuity with humanism and renaissance not with catholicism as such. it is a violent humanistic, individualistic reaction against tradition and order.

[Anonymous No.17318139]

>>17317714
>what are the philosophical roots of progressivism?
The big one is the thought of 19th century aristocratic Prussians, aka proto-fascism.

[Anonymous No.17318146]

>>17318139
I just can’t even imagine how brainwashed you have to be to actually believe that social progressivism was started by “19th century Prussian proto-fascism”.

[Anonymous No.17318147]

>>17317877
>Marxism while humanist was not individualist. Progressivism is just the synthesis of marxism and individualism.
Very American post

[Anonymous No.17318150]

>>17318147
He’s right. Marxism and Progressive Liberalism are just two sides of the same coin. They are both progressive ideologies of liberation and power - one for the class, one for the individual.

[Anonymous No.17318157]

>>17318134
NOT REAL CHRISTKEKERY!

[Anonymous No.17318159]

>>17318134
In fact ironically protestantism is even a reaction AGAINST progression. Catholic Church was always moderately progressive in that it upheld scripture and tradition as sources of dogma. Protestantism is a reaction against interpretation that is unveiled in tradition and is simply sola scriptura. Catholicism progressed from platonism to aristotelianism to scholasticism even in the natural sphere, in philosophy. Protestantism was precisely a reaction against progression in that it claimed to "go back to the sources". It is difficult to imagine how protestantism could in any event be viewed as anything but an irrational reaction to an institution which subscribed to gradual progression and reason.

[Anonymous No.17318167]

>>17317714
I am not sure if I should proffer a historical or a semantic explanation, this is not my area of expertise but I have some grounding.
>What is progressivizm
The term generally used for the people you identify is "social Marxism", but you might hear "cultural marxism" ,"international socialism" or "globohomo" on /pol/.
It is a very well defined group of intellectuals around whom other groups are gravitating
>Who are they?
Nothing fanciful, they are a new philosophical movement who have applied the teachings of Karl Marx in only social issues, and seek to apply it globally, they have heavy foreign backing and are very active in universities around the world and are funded by Jewish billionaires.
>Where does the idea come from?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
>The School's sociologic works derived from syntheses of the thematically pertinent works of Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx, of Sigmund Freud and Max Weber, and of Georg Simmel and Georg Lukács.

In short they are a revolution machine, created and sustained with the intent of causing social upheaval, which they see as a projection of their own psyche (in the freudian sense, freud is huge with these guys).
>pic related, what you find if you google "cultural marxism"

[Anonymous No.17318173]

>>17318146
The whole thing was more or less engineered by Frederick the Great through Bismarck, intermingling with fellow travelers from the MPS as the 20th century came around.

[Anonymous No.17318174]

>>17318157
It’s not. The entire premise is a separation from the church.

[Anonymous No.17318183]

>>17318159
>Catholicism progressed from platonism
Lol. TWO MORE WEEKS! GOD JUST ARRESTED HILLARY OVER MY HOUSE!

[Anonymous No.17318185]

>>17318183
Are you illiterate?

[Anonymous No.17318189]

>>17318150
>Marxism
>ideology
Lmao
>he thinks liberalism has anything to do with liberation of individuals
LMAO

[Anonymous No.17318190]

>>17318174
Where does the Bible say Church is God? Sounds a bit like secularism.

[Anonymous No.17318197]

>>17318113
Water flows down hill. Given enough time, it will erode any barrier, and seep through any crack.

>>17318123
I'd say that Modernity only makes sense under a Protestant framework.

>>17318113
>>17318159
Well, firstly, that would be because the Catholic church does not claim to have
>progressed from platonism to aristotelianism to scholasticismprogressed from platonism to aristotelianism to scholasticism
Catholicism claims to have always agreed on the same thing, and that Catholicism today has always been Catholicism, and it's always been right since Jesus gave it to Peter.

You are right, however, that the idea of Progress is inherent to Christian doctrine. Sola Scriptura just opens that up even wider by allowing everyone to partake in it. More bodies making more progress towards Progress.

[Anonymous No.17318214]

>>17318190
That’s the point, genius. Catholics and Orthodox don’t rely on the Bible as a truth and how-to manual. It’s a liturgical document and value is also placed on the body of the church and the history of the church.

>>17318197
I don’t agree at all that Catholicism or Orthodoxy as progressive. It’s God inserted into history but not a constant revolution of history. It’s almost the opposite.

[Anonymous No.17318220]

>>17318189
> liberalism has nothing to do with liberation
> is in the fucking name

[Anonymous No.17318224]

>>17318147
>>17318150
Social marxism is what happens when a perspective does freudian introspection, and tries to impose the outcome on their environment.

When you see them paint their hair and get tatoos and wear flags and things like this what you are seeing is straight out of freud- they are trying to sure-up their self image by projecting it onto their environment "this is the real me dad"
>how is this a philosophy
Don't be tempted to laugh them off, the frankfurt school developed a fairly comprehensive philosophical position.
After seeing Marxists fail to take over Germany in the 18-19 revolution (things Jews don't want mentioned) the Frankfurt school was tasked in the Weimar period of re-framing Marxism to have more revolutionary appeal.
Yes, social Marxism was designed to be a viral revolutionary movement from the outset.
Hitler threw the Frankfurt school out of Germany, and they moved to New York- which is unsurprisingly the center of international Jewry and Social Marxism today.

[Anonymous No.17318236]

>>17318214
>the bible was not meant to be an instruction manual
>protestants bad because they didn't follow the second edition

[Anonymous No.17318244]

>>17318197
Catholicism always did agree on the same things theologically, but there was never any shyness about using different philosophical traditions to develop thought, though this was mostly always careful and gradual. You correctly note that Protestantism simply abandoned tradition and progression and simply irrationaly decided that anybody can be a philosopher and that anything goes. The fruits of that idea can be seen in Protestantism itself with the amount of confusion, denominations and variations it has generated. A natural consequence of falling away from St. Peter's succession. You do have a wrong conception of progress in that you think it is some Hegelian unveiling, when it is not. Progress entails errors and protestantism simply judged by its fruits is full of errors and confusion.

>I'd say that Modernity only makes sense under a Protestant framework.

Yes, they are one and the same thing. They are both irrational.

[Anonymous No.17318251]

>>17318190
Where is sola scriptura in the Bible? The Bible isn't a constitutional document.

[Anonymous No.17318255]

>>17317877
>>17317851
>>17317877

use of propaganda to mobilize the atomized lonely crowd for consumer electoral purposes, keeping them in a constant state of agitation. humilliation, rage and sexual trauma, being the obvious buttons to push, whether you are dealing with transgender activists or manipulating yokels with the blatantly freudian qanon mythos. some have traced protestant individualism and the liberal notion of the public sphere to the environment created by the gutenberg print technology. this environment has been effectively phased out over the last 100 years. the form of power that consolidated in the US after WWII goes beyond liberalism, it enframes the human nervous system as a technical object. think scientology, the mkultra programme, twitter, a system which leaves no room for the detached literate or liberal observer.

[Anonymous No.17318260]

>>17318251
Retard

[Anonymous No.17318261]

The philosophical roots of proggressivism are proggressivism--i.e. liberalism, which goes back to at least the 18th century, with a heavy dose of secularised Christianity and Cultural Marxism. Obviously the latter has come to predominate. But the fundamental premises are liberal. Even Marxism has to make its case in terms of what they say will bring about the happiness (conceived only in the most base materialistic way) of individuals. Its is why all Commie talking points start with how Liberalism doesn't really live up to its ideals of freedom and equality for x marginal group of poors, shitskins, womens, faggots, etc. Which is why no useful or serious thinking can be done about politics or philosophy until one rejects these premises outright.

[Anonymous No.17318264]

>>17318236
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about honestly. Protestant heresy isn’t only heresy because they depart from the New Testament. You’re being either blatantly disingenuous or ignorant.

[Anonymous No.17318275]

>>17318224
In no way have you illustrated here how marxism and progressive liberalism aren’t two sides of the same coin, subscribing to what is ultimately the same liberation theology though. It’s fundamentally the same worldview.

[Anonymous No.17318283]

>>17318264
>can't follow basic logic
>NOOOOO IT'S HERESY TO NOT FOLLOW THE CORRUPTED VERSION OF THE BIBILE WHICH IS NOT A BIBILE BUT WE TREAT IT LIKE A BIBILE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.17318285]

>>17318167
Frankfurt school was also heavily involved with Jewish mysticism. Especially Sabbatean Frankist ideas.

[Anonymous No.17318286]

>>17318283
Alright either you’re just a retard or a troll trying to bait people.

[Anonymous No.17318293]

>>17318285
Here is a scholarly paper on that by the way:
https://bamidbar-journal.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2fagenblat.pdf

[Anonymous No.17318354]

>>17317714
I weep for the truly intelligent black individuals whose dignities suffer by their race's propagation of such a self degrading platitude.

[Anonymous No.17318366]

>>17318189
Marxism is best viewed as a secular religion.

[Anonymous No.17318457]

>>17318354
They are pretty much fucked. They’ve gotten hammered this year by COVID, poverty, inner city violence and austerity, but they only define themselves based on oppression. Class is literally the last thing they will ever talk about, it’s just lectures on everything being racist and needing reparations from working class white people. I can’t see long-term stability for a demographic increasingly declining in assets and structure but never addressing their issues to begin with. It will be 2050 where most black people are starving and they’ll still be protesting for more black transgenders in Netflix movies

[Anonymous No.17318477]

>>17318255
>>17318261

the frankfurt school were bourgeoisie european jews nostalgic for the belle epoque they grew up in. like the postmodernists, they don't figure much in the black and white world of contemporary progressivism because any idea too complicated to fit into a tweet becomes an obstacle to mass mobilization. Rather thanbeing relativist, progressivism is characterized by a cartoonishly naive notions of 'science' 'truth', the authority of the media rests not on any merits of its own but on the unbearable menace of a 'post truth' world. criticism of militarism or corporate rule , the dehumanizing effects of mass society is out of the picture, the 60s left criticised psychiatry as an instrument of power, while in the 00s it opposed the war on terror, today it speaks the language of the war on terror and the psychiatric state, though now its the majority who are stigmatized as psychiatric deviants and potential terrorist threats.

[Anonymous No.17318559]

>>17317714
History in the Middle Ages was conceptualized as the line drawn in the earth by the "wheel of fortune" a cartwheel being pushed along by the Roman goddess Fortuna. On the wheel, all the accidents of history happen as the goddess pleases; some mortals are crushed, others are exalted, but overall the idea is that the world is imperfect, it is Augustine's city of men, rather than the city of God. Time and chance happens to us all as the Preacher says (Ecclesiastes 9:11). This metaphor about the goddess and her wheel was developed by Boethius, and the basic idea is that there is nothing new under the sun (Eccleisastes 1:9). Even though time is always going forward, history repeats as if there were a finite set of possibilities. (pic related)

All progressivism really is, is a rejection of the wheel part of the Medieval cosmology of time, in favour of the idea of time as nothing more than a vector, a forward arrow with infinite potential. Ultimately, it's a very unbalanced view of the way things work. You would have to be born in the last 90 years to truly think that the trajectory of humanity is just ever higher, and there are a number of systemic issues with our economy that we should observe are bound to cause collapse without a steady pace of innovation that is by no means guaranteed. Not only could innovation be crushed by a single law, it could also be that we are a lot closer than we think to understanding the universe. With no new physics and no additional space in which to expand, then we will have a short run of increasing technical competence before reaching an effectively eternal period of marginal growth, somewhat similar to feudal Europe.

[Anonymous No.17318644]

>>17317851
of course they don't think, the alphabet people are a single indistinct mass, purpose engineered biopolitical clientele for neoliberalism, the last man has nothing left but 'identity', that is consuming product and proudly getting fucked up the arse. I mean have you tried bringing up nietzsche or any western philosopher for that matter around your local lgbtsjwtfnpc marxist cattle? In no time you will see their little stupid cowlike eyes light up in panic. Soon enough they will start with the usual subhuman bleating "wasnt he sexist? Arent you being dangerously eurocentric? Why read books by dead white men when you could have been streaming the latest diverse and inclusive workplace comedies at netflix hulu and disneygo? Have you been taking your SSRIs and HRT? a it is very important that you take the medication dr goldstein prescribed otherwise we will have to report you to corporate for mandatory sensitivity training"

[Anonymous No.17318711]

>>17318559
What is this based on?

[Anonymous No.17318779]

>>17318064
Trying too hard, 2/10

[Anonymous No.17318804]

>>17318079
I suspect this is coming in our lifetime. Either that or it's us in the trucks.

[Anonymous No.17318815]

>>17318711
Fact my friend

[Anonymous No.17318880]

>>17317714
Broken families, weak fathers, spinster cunts teaching, online groomers, the porn industry, not being cool in middleschool
t. fash zoomer

[Anonymous No.17318908]

>>17318064
In reality you are the moral coward, placating to the masses as a survival tactic, you stand for nothing

[Anonymous No.17318949]

>>17317877
>thesis antithesis synthesis
:(

[Anonymous No.17319076]

Read this
>>/lit/thread/S17294026#p17301601
>>/lit/thread/S17268778#p17273749
And Tocqueville is always the most helpful:
"The ideal toward which democratic principles tend will be perfectly free, because they will all be entirely equal, and they will all be perfectly equal because they will be entirely free. They want equality in liberty, and if they cannot have it, they want it still in slavery."

[Anonymous No.17319083]

Read Kaczynski's Industrial Society and its Future and his points on "leftists" -- of which he defines specifically.

[Anonymous No.17319120]

>>17317877
>The reduction of progressivism to neoliberalism and capitalism misses the boat completely.

It really doesn't. Progressivism has become the towboat for Neoliberalism and the consumer ethos.

[Anonymous No.17319161]

>>17319120
Swing and a miss #2

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17319199]

>>17317714
Liberals sampling bits of the socialist program, but just enough to keep capitalism going. They’re ultimately rightwing scammers

[Anonymous No.17319205]

>>17317981
consumerism is intended to solve the crisis of overproduction and as such is a class war tactic

[Anonymous No.17319207]

>Marx was a humanist
>Marx was an egalitarian
>Marx plus individualism equals progressive ideology
When will a right winger read Marx? I don't think a single one in human history has. This shit is like saying Nietzsche was a orthodox Christian slave moralist.

[Anonymous No.17319216]

>>17319076
More Tocqueville:
"The same person who is quite willing to leave the government of the entire nation in the hands of an autocrat balks at the idea of not having a voice in the administration of his village - such is the residual weight of the hollowest of political forms."

The demands of centralisation and democratising power increase in equal measure. Subjectified revolution does not take over simply out of pessimism and the failures of the past movements, it is the very character of a being who is enslaved to a greater territory but must also administrate that territory. The individual becomes the history of his own neutralisation. This is where he begins to appear as an abstract being, he is not unrelated to the figure of the Unknown Soldier. To be freed of identity is to ensure that the species moves on, no matter who is killed.
The great paradox is that the subjectified being comes to renounce all subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.17319226]

>>17319161
gotem

[Anonymous No.17319233]

Your criticisms of capitalism, neoliberalism etc. are total failures because you criticise it within the framework of modenity of which capitalism is the most effective vehicle. All of your critiques are already accounted for before you even think of them inside the very capitalism itself. They've gone through capitalization before you can even express them. And Marxism is simply the most elaborate such critique. Marxism itself is a part of capitalism and capitalism is a part of Marxism, they are like a hydra with growing heads out of modernity. They are like a square and a circle transmuting into eachother. You're losing your precious time and mind criticizing either, because they serve the same purpose. If you think capitalism and marxism are hostile to eachother you've completely missed the fact that they already both operate with and on the same assumptions and conditions. That communist-capitalist China was a possibility should have always been obvious to all that understood modernity, but by all means keep playing this stupid game in a dying age.

[Anonymous No.17319237]

>>17319207
Nietzsche is Christian through and through, he only inverts Augustine.

[Anonymous No.17319240]

>>17319226
Love how fashoids are muh freethinkers and yet such obvious ploys a child could point out somehow outdo their mental capacity.

[Anonymous No.17319246]

>>17319233
>You're losing your precious time and mind criticizing either, because they serve the same purpose.
What purpose is that?

[Anonymous No.17319249]

>>17319246
International collectivization

[Anonymous No.17319258]

>>17319237
Do you mean literally or morally? I think you're absolutely wrong either way but the latter isn't outstandingly retarded.

[Anonymous No.17319265]

>>17319216
Even if the species is killed it may be said to live on in the substratum. This is the ultimate effect of pantheism, and secularisation: to create an eternal being is to triumph over the death of the gods, the sacred, even fate. It is the final act of profanation to give the most insignificant eternal life. And yet this is not at all against the laws of Christianity/monotheism, which are necessary forces within the transitional territory, the void of nihilism.

[Anonymous No.17319267]

>>17319249
I don’t quite follow, they are traditionally opposites. Are you implying they’re is some sort of americanized contemporary amalgamation of the two states of thought?

[Anonymous No.17319276]

>>17319249
Yeah that's why after the second world war everyone came together to support the Soviet block and Stalin and Eisenhower got married to sign the bloodpact of globohomo. Or some cinematic shit like that. Right wing thought is capeshit for fucks sake.

[Anonymous No.17319288]

>>17319240
>Love how fashoids are muh freethinkers
What are you on about? Talk like a human being you fucking automaton

[Anonymous No.17319301]

>>17319207
Marx is definitely a humanist in that his entire project revolves around the analysis of human/societal structure.

>Marx was an egalitarian
Nobody said this.

>Marx plus individualism equals progressive ideology

It absolutely does. Progressive ideology is just a Marxist project, it is Marxist in its historical sense, in the way it reads history. It is Marxist in the revolutionairy themes. The only difference is progressive ideology makes up oppressed classes on the whim depending on almost daily needs, that is the only difference, but the functionality is entirely the same.

[Anonymous No.17319306]

>>17319288
When you start you scripted being.

[Anonymous No.17319310]

>>17319240
fascist: anyone who questions the corporate agenda, is for free speech and against the normalization of pedophilia

[Anonymous No.17319317]

>>17319276
Superficial oppositions in practical politics (that don't even last a century) do not imply that the ideology behind them is not the same in its goals. I wish I could be as reductively naive as left wing thinkers.

[Anonymous No.17319322]

>>17319258
Nietzsche's entire philosophy is simply an inversion of Augustine.

[Anonymous No.17319335]

>>17319306
"No u" eh? Classic. Ask me how I know you're a sheltered middle class turbo twat with the street smarts of a toadstool

[Anonymous No.17319340]

We need more SJWs on this board, the circlejerking in these threads is unbearably gay

[Anonymous No.17319343]

>>17318559
based

[Anonymous No.17319344]

>>17319301
>Marx is definitely a humanist in that his entire project revolves around the analysis of human/societal structure
Then literally every thinker has been humanist? Name a philosopher that in no way considers humanity.
>Nobody said this.
I'll give you that but it's a common point I hear so I thought I'd throw it in there.
>It absolutely does. Progressive ideology is just a Marxist project, it is Marxist in its historical sense, in the way it reads history. It is Marxist in the revolutionairy themes. The only difference is progressive ideology makes up oppressed classes on the whim depending on almost daily needs, that is the only difference, but the functionality is entirely the same.
>oppressed classes
>Marxist in its historical sense
How is an idealist movement and a materialist movement similar? Marx's understanding of revolution and history is diametrically opposed to the liberal notion of linear progression, you wpuld understand this having read even a little bit of Marx.

[Anonymous No.17319355]

>>17319265
Tocqueville on pantheism:
"Upon discovering in the world but one creation and one Creator, it finds even that primary division of things troubling and deliberately seeks to enlarge and simplify its thought by subsuming God and the universe in a single whole. If I encounter a philosophical system which holds that everything in the world, material or immaterial, visible or invisible, is merely part of one immense being, which alone remains eternal amid constant change and continuous transformation of all its component parts, I may conclude straightaway that even though such a system destroys human individuality - or, rather, because it does - it will hold a secret charm for men who live in democracy."

[Anonymous No.17319359]

>>17319310
Against? Nah they're the vanguard of cunnyfags lol.
>>17319317
>Superficial
Good Lord.
>>17319335
You said nothing of substance either though?
>heh ask me how I KNOW
Pseud shit.

[Anonymous No.17319392]

>>17319344
>Then literally every thinker has been humanist? Name a philosopher that in no way considers humanity.

Leftoids missing nuance again. I said his ENTIRE project revolves around the analysis of human/societal structure. Something you will not see in almost any philosopher before Descartes, in fact probably even before the advent of sociology. It is a very late development.

>>17319344
>How is an idealist movement and a materialist movement similar? Marx's understanding of revolution and history is diametrically opposed to the liberal notion of linear progression, you wpuld understand this having read even a little bit of Marx.
Progressive ideology isn't an idealist movement. It's a materialist movement, the progressive movement has not a single transcendental thought, it is (as you note) a linear progression towards self-exultation of man in the ideal utopia of the future. Marx's historical materialism and the mechanism of Hegelian history (but materialized) are precisely the bedworks on which progressives build this linear progression. Only they think of themselves as revolutionary forces that bring it about, "the good side" or even the necessary side in this development.

[Anonymous No.17319412]

>>17319359
>Good Lord.

Classic leftoid problem #2: Inability to extract themselves from the present age and view history with the big-picture view and the sentimentalization of the present age. For leftoids, fascism, holocaust, communism, marxism etc. all things which happened in an infinitely small space of time are literally the hinges on which everything else develops. Everything is super-abundantly important from this age.

[Anonymous No.17319424]

>>17319412
>b-b-but Stalin and Eisenhower!!!! Cold War!!! Such tension!!! Such suffering!!!! Never before in history!!! Never!!! Everything is critical now!!! We and we alone are the super-abundantly important critical factors in history, everything important happens in MY lifetime, there is NO WAY I could be just a small fragment in a larger mosaic that takes centuries to develop, we had WORLD WAR 2 GOD DAMMIT!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.17319433]

the fantasy of the hedonists is that hedonists will hug each other once all their desires are met.
This is why marxism is materialism, ie reducing everything to material conditions and money, and why they push for more and more cheap goods.

hedonists get acclimated to their current situation, but they need more and more pleasures and less and less hardship to feel happy, otherwise they get depressed.

This is why atheists (who are hedonists) confuse happiness with having free stuff, free goods and services.
According to marxists, people are happy only they have the material conditions for it.

Liberals define freedom and happiness with an opulence of goods, an orgy of sense pleasures and they call this progress.

Okay, but since hedonists need bigger and bigger breakthrough to ease their life, they get depressed when those breakthroughs do not happen, like it has been the case since the 80s.
They freak out when there is a recession and they whine that progress stagnates.

For 2 centuries atheists could hype their human rights has progress and the right side of history, because human rights is just giving people more and more of an easy life.
However it is never enough.

[Anonymous No.17319458]

>>17319359
>You said nothing of substance either though?
Im no trying to. You've taken immoral cowardly stance on the world, so fuck you

[Anonymous No.17319463]

>>17319392
>Leftoids missing nuance again. I said his ENTIRE project revolves around the analysis of human/societal structure. Something you will not see in almost any philosopher before Descartes, in fact probably even before the advent of sociology. It is a very late development.
That's a definition of humanism that I would call ahistorical. Considering the fact that Marx didn't believe in some sort of inherent human potential to rationally change the world according to their wills, as this would be idealism, he doesn't fit the bill in any way. Material conditions take the center stage in Marxism, not some abstract notion of a human condition ot inherent ability.
>Progressive ideology isn't an idealist movement.
Does the movement concern itself with identity politics? Does it advocate anything beyond reformism? I'll give you a hint the answer is no. This is the primary issue, anyone who believes the primary method of change isn't material, and trust me no progressive believes this, is prone to idealism.
>Marx's historical materialism and the mechanism of Hegelian history (but materialized) are precisely the bedworks on which progressives build this linear progression
Marx's notion of progress wasn't the abstracted sociologists conception of the term like it is with progressives. It's specifically a movement towards a different mode of production, and as Marx was basing his analysis on the complete change in material conditions this entailed.

[Anonymous No.17319488]

>>17319463
you are philosophically illiterate

[Anonymous No.17319550]

Does the state of America over the past 50-150 years disprove the non-Democratic hypothesis? If power is, really, consolidated by a few special interests is this then not an example of a failed Oligopoly? I'd probably disagree with where this is prodding at but I'm curious what other anons think