Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What is progressivism? Well, what is progress? Roger Baldwin explains
PGA Weblog ^

Posted on 07/29/2012 10:51:07 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica

In his book "Civil liberties and industrial conflict"(1938), Roger Nash Baldwin, one of the founders of the ACLU has the following to say: (page 3) (Alt. Link)

For while civil liberties to speak, publish, and assemble may justly be regarded as desirable ends in themselves, they are also the means for non-violent progress.

While I have for almost twenty years been associated with a movement which defends without discrimination the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights, I cannot escape a personal interpretation of the relation of liberty to economics. Many defenders of civil rights on principle are content to accept them without defining progress. I am not. My frame of reference requires a concept of progress. In general terms, it is the extension of the control of social institutions by progressively larger classes, until human society ultimately abolishes the violence of class conflict. The test of that progress lies in increasing freedom for the enrichment of individual life. Democracy and civil liberty are means to that end. So, too, is the organization of labor.

Wow. Anybody who's read Rules for Radicals can't help but observe the inner Alinsky that's on display here.

In order to understand what's written here, it's important to understand the code words used. When progressives talk about "democracy", they don't simply mean taking it to the voting booth, and the majority wins. It's a purely governmental thing. They do to a small degree, to be sure. But what they mean by "democracy" is socialism.

Woodrow Wilson, one of the most important figures in progressivism made this clear in an essay he wrote titled "Socialism and Democracy":

it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.

As bad as that sounds, read the whole essay in the above link. It gets worse.

W.D.P. Bliss, who founded the Fabian Society here in America, also made it clear that democracy = socialism with his essay "Where Socialism was Tried". There's a nuance here to understand. Bliss is elaborating on where "socialism was tried", and note that he points to the very birthplace of democracy proper: Athens, Greece.

Baldwin himself made it clear what he meant by democracy:

To him this means "strong trade unions, government regulation of business, ownership by the people of industries that serve the public .... and the free organization of cooperatives of producers and consumers

He further explained his definition of "progressive" here:

And by "progressive" I mean the forces working for the democratization of industry by extending public ownership and control, which alone will abolish the power of the comparative few who own the wealth of the United States

See what I mean about the total bastardization of the word "democracy"? He(and most other progressives) doesn't mean it in the common/dictionary definition way that we understand it. The phrase "democratization of industry" is a key phrase. What does a ballot box, where you vote for your representatives, have to do with private industry? Well, nothing. Quite literally, it's a completely distinct concept, as separate as the fish in the sea. But not for progressives, who seek to put government in control of every aspect of your life.

Notice how he says it's about "extending public ownership and control", and it means "government regulation of business". Ok. So we've defined what he means by the code word "progress", and the code word "democracy".

What is progressivism then? I can sum it up in three words:

Progressivism is "Regulation, not socialism". (Richard Van Hise's words)

Here's a description from the great Ronaldus Magnus:

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property?

Now, I'm pretty sure everybody will agree with me that this paragraph can be summed up in one solitary word: regulation. They think they know how to regulate our lives better than we do.

In modern America, there are countless administrative entities which help formulate a myriad of regulations every day, completely invisible to the average voter. Congress passes laws, and the executive executes them. Why is Obamacare 2800 pages long? Because of all the regulation and all the expert boards and panels that will need to be set up in order to accomodate the law. So let's bring back the original quote and go through it:

For while civil liberties to speak, publish, and assemble may justly be regarded as desirable ends in themselves, they are also the means for non-violent progress.

Civil liberties are merely a means to an end. And what is the end? At every turn, watch the progressives. They continually push for bigger government. It never ends, bigger, and bigger, and no matter how big it's never big enough. Baldwin continues:

While I have for almost twenty years been associated with a movement which defends without discrimination the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights, I cannot escape a personal interpretation of the relation of liberty to economics.

While it's not within the full scope of this posting, "the relation of liberty to economics" is profound, given that for so much of what the progressives say and do, "economics" is so often used as an excuse or a vehicle in order to enable the achievement of the goal. (again, recall Obamacare, and the {false}promises of money savings that were made during the push for it) Baldwin continues:

Many defenders of civil rights on principle are content to accept them without defining progress. I am not. My frame of reference requires a concept of progress. In general terms, it is the extension of the control of social institutions by progressively larger classes, until human society ultimately abolishes the violence of class conflict.

This is really the important part. Extending control of social institutions by larger classes. What he means is the working class. Those of you who have familiarized yourselves with marxist class ideology for a long time would've spotted this one from the outset. But this is bigger than that. He's saying "the democratization of industry" without actually using those words, control of industry is "passed on" from a smaller class(the bourgeois) to a larger class(the proletariat). The "democratization of industry" really gets at a whole host of progressive causes from redistribution of wealth, to the regulation of industry, and even to the unionization of it.(to a degree. Baldwin's explanations above which I quoted should make this clear)

When it comes to "the democratization of industry", it's hard not to hear the words of Theodore Roosevelt, when he says that "Our aim is to control business, not to strangle it". How would you control business without strangling it? Administrators. Passing regulations that dictate this way and that way as the "correct" ways to run the business. Keep in mind, Hise(quoted above) was an advisor to Theodore Roosevelt.

Even moreso, the "democratization of industry" can be found amongst the list of descriptors for "Political System X", where Stuart Chase(an FDR advisor) wrote this:

17. not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership. it is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the management of great corporations in depriving stockholders of power.

Control without ownership. How would you do that? Administrators. Passing regulations that dictate this way and that way as the "correct" ways to run the business. Paging Ronald Reagan here, paging President Reagan.

If when you go to vote, and your vote counts not just as a way to choose your representative, but it also counts as a way for you to decide how your local industry should function, then industry has been democratized. This is of course a completely alien concept to the Founding Fathers of America.(1776)

I should note the distinction between general regulations that actually serve a purpose, vs social regulations which are there for the purpose of advancing the cause of progressives. John Dewey made this clear. Baldwin continues:

The test of that progress lies in increasing freedom for the enrichment of individual life. Democracy and civil liberty are means to that end. So, too, is the organization of labor.

This would be easier to understand with the code word eliminated and replaced:

The test of that progress lies in increasing freedom for the enrichment of individual life. Democracy Socialism and civil liberty are means to that end. So, too, is the organization of labor.

Makes more sense now, doesn't it? It stands out to me that he says "individual life", as opposed to individuals in a more absolute sense. They're collectivists, they don't like individuals. These are the masterminds of the collective, and masterminds of all stripes(be they progressives, socialists, or any other) believe they know best how to run our lives, how best to centrally plan it all.

That's progressivism. It's administration. It's a form of centralized planning that seeks to remain invisible. How would you do that? Not with direct confiscation or appropriation, people would see that, that wouldn't be invisible.

Social regulations is how you would do it. Being as regulations are passed by administrative boards and panels of experts instead of by congress, rarely are they in the news. And when they are, they're almost never specifically enumerated point by point or as a list so that the voter is informed. Think you could name a social regulation in the Dodd-Frank bill? Think you could name ten regulations from it? Thirty? One hundred? How about Sarbanes-Oxley? Could you name a social regulation from it? Ten? Thirty? One hundred? Think you could name social regulations from the Department of Education? Ten? Thirty? One hundred? How about the EPA? The Department of Energy? The Department of Housing and Urban Development? The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Here's a big one: Do you think you could name five social regulations that Cass Sunstein has directly changed? Just five? He wrote the book on nudging people, so how has the state nudged you today?

If you're now typing into google to find the answer, you've already swerved into the answer before you even get your first result. "I don't know". You're not supposed to know, that's the point. You can find regulations, to be sure, but it's not always easy. Besides, I didn't ask the question to get any specific answers(in the form of x regulation, y regulation, etc), I asked it to initiate a thought process of the degree to which we're being ruled over. And, it's all "invisible", in the sense that it's total control without appearing to be controlling. It's social regulation, for purposes of moral prophylaxis. Prophylaxis? That word means "disease prevention. But what's the disease? Free will. Hey, did you hear that Nanny Bloomberg wants to ban sugary drinks? See, after everything I just wrote, I can apply it to the real world and test it to see if it's accurate. Here's a news story about it. Here's another story. Notice the contrast between these two stories - from the first story:

Mr. Bloomberg has made public health one of the top priorities of his lengthy tenure, and has championed a series of aggressive regulations, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.

Regulation? What are those regulations? They don't tell us, specifically and in detail. It's glossed over. From the second story:

Mayor Bloomberg, flexing the government’s regulatory muscle, has proposed legislation banning sugary beverages over 16 ounces in New York city’s restaurants, sports venues, movie theatres, deli’s, and street carts.

See. Bloomberg's mistake was proposing the legislation. This would've remained invisible if it would've remained within the realm of regulation.

This tale repeats, when you think about Cap and Trade. The legislation failed, so they're just regulating it via the EPA. Either way, energy prices need to "necessarily skyrocket".(Obama's words)

Obamacare, Cap and Trade EPA regulations, and Nanny Bloomberg. Step by step, inch by inch, they are making progress. This is how progressives are progressingamerica: It's social regulation, nameless faceless bureaucrats and administrators.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: progressingamerica

1 posted on 07/29/2012 10:51:21 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes; TheCause; 1forall; foundedonpurpose; Silentgypsy; skinkinthegrass; RichardMoore; ...
If anybody wants on/off the revolutionary progressivism ping list, send me a message

Progressives do not want to discuss their own history. I want to discuss their history.

Summary: All the answers are in their own words. The hard part is knowing where to look.

2 posted on 07/29/2012 10:54:02 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (What's the best way to reach a you tube generation? Put it on you tube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
While I have for almost twenty years been associated with a movement which defends without discrimination the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights,

You only have to look at the way the aCLU tramples the FIRST Amendment to know this guy was a flippin' liar. Lying is something that the commie libs do very well.

3 posted on 07/29/2012 10:58:41 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (The NRA did not create James "The Joker" Holmes. Harvey Weinstein's Hollywood did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Please include me on your ping list, please.


4 posted on 07/29/2012 12:41:19 PM PDT by SatinDoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson