Posted on 02/08/2018 5:14:16 PM PST by ProgressingAmerica
In the past, I have speculated heavily (based on deeply rooted and provable cultural origins that the original progressives called themselves "progressive" based directly upon the title of Henry George's book Progress and Poverty. (see also 1, 2, and 3)
I speculate no longer. In the Quarterly Register for 1893, the following is written:
The discontent of the workingmen and the mercantile classes in London against the wealthy titled landlords, has been increasing for several years. The latter have always succeeded in the past in minimizing the taxes on their own property, throwing a large part of the burden upon their tenants. The landlord element style themselves "Moderates," and the tenant element are known as " Progressives." The latter claimed that public improvements should be paid for by the land-owners; and the issue was joined on that as well as other points. The triennial election for "the new London County Council on March 6, resulted in the triumph of the Progressives, who elected 83, while the Moderates elected only 35 . The Progressives had formed an alliance with the trades-unions, and nominated labor candidates, including John Burns, the great agitator. The believers in the Henry George theory, claim the election as a decided triumph for the underlying principles of the Single Tax.
I have long stated that I believe progressivism to be worse than communism, and just because I can now verify this direct root does not change that belief. Just because Marx was relatively bad and George was relatively not, does not change what the progressives themselves did with the information.
This timeline is so critical to get nailed down. Yes, the progressives became communists - in the 1960's. All of that is true and its crucial in the later parts of the timeline. But by not nailing down this timeline properly from front to back, we give them an easy escape route, a place to hide and come back later.
We need to eliminate all the shadows, like sunlight to a vampire.
These people are cockroaches. They were cockroaches in the 1890s and 1900s, they were cockroaches in the 1930s, and also in the 1960s. But if we cannot accurately call them out in 1905, then they win. If we cannot accurately call them out in 1924, they win. I'll state this conversely: If the only time we can accurately call them out is in the 1960's or beyond, they win. By not nailing down the beginning, we lose the end.
The onus of proof is on us. Just how bad do you want to save your country from the progressives?
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle - Sun Tzu (Art of War, Chapter 3)
Anybody who simply states that all progressives always = communism, they do not know/understand the enemy. They need to spend more time with Sun Tzu.
The godfather of IRR was William Simon U'Ren, who said: (link)
I read Progress and Poverty in 1882, and I went just as crazy over the Single Tax idea as any one else ever did. I knew I wanted the Single Tax, and that was about all I did know. I thought I could get it by agitation, and was often disgusted with a world that refused to be agitated for what I wanted. In 1882 (sic) I learned what the Initiative and Referendum is, and then I saw the way to the Single Tax. SO I QUIT TALKING SINGLE TAX, not because I was any the less in favor of it but because I saw that the first job was to get the Initiative and Referendum, so that the people independently of the Legislature, may get what they want rather than take what the Legislature will let them have.
It's all about Henry George. The ends justify the means.
Ping
Saying George wasn’t bad is an error. He just wanted a DIFFERENT level of bad than the others. His ideas were simply less stinky shit compared to the rest.
He was against everything this country was meant to be. So were the early so-called progressives. The modern ones are over the top Frankfurt School bad by comparison (they actually stink worse than Marx).
Communism was the leader of progressivism....not the other way around
Thank you very much for posting this.
Marxist, Communist, Progressive, Nazi, Leftist, Georgist, Socialist, Gramscian, etc...Dozens and dozens of Marxist-oriented authors wrote endlessly their version of what the ideal collective social order should look like...
A poisonous snake is a poisonous snake...Big deal...They all need extermination for (in this case) the same two reasons: Individual freedom & liberty!
Actually, you could argue that the name is simply satan.
The desires of these folks go back to the commandments - don’t steal, don’t covet...
If the alleged distinction between progressivism and communism can’t be articulated in a single sentence, then there is no real distinction.
And I’m talking about distinction in ideological content, not names of people.
That's fine by me.
Keep in mind, if you fall for an attempt to create many groups out of one, you’re making it more difficult to target the one group.
In other words, to pretend there’s a difference between progressives and progressives is to serve their interest.
Unless I hear a good, simple explanation here, then it’s the same as we always thought:
Progressivism = Communism.
All you have to do is have a conversation with a “progressive” and then have one with a “communist.”
They talk, act and think exactly the same. And their mind is always a couple notches lower than the brightest non-progressivecommunist.
However, I can make it quite simple in the following regard:
America's first progressive president appeared in 1900. That is not the same year America's first communist president appeared.
Slip of the keyboard there. Meant to type 1901. The first progressive president did not serve two full terms.
To understand a concept is to be able to articulate it.
If you understand how progressivism is allegedly different from communism, you will be able to state it in one sentence.
This is a really good point and fits very well here.
What if you receive the wrong anti-venom after a bite? I don't believe that hurts you, but you don't cure the original malady. I generally prefer to compare progressivism to cancer, but this fits very well.
We were bit by a rattlesnake. We had better make sure we get rattlesnake anti-venom, and not coral snake anti-venom.(Insert whatever incompatible anti-venom here.)
A communist will just steal your property. A progressive prefers to regulate it.
Phase two is that the communist kills you if you resist his schemes of nationalization. That's government property, not yours. A progressive, on the contrary, will harass you more, regulate you more, increase your taxes, more fees, increase bureaucracy, audit you with the IRS, show up at your brother/uncle/sister's small business and conduct "compliance reviews", smear you using their journalist friends, etc. This is exactly what they've done over the last 100 years.
That's primarily only regarding property though. But, I have a feeling you will not accept that single sentence answer. And yes I can back this up, see Stuart Chase's 18 points, most notably #17:
Not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense.
Stuart Chase was only an adviser to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and he was the guy who actually coined the phrase "New Deal".
That's 13 words in my single sentence answer above, if we are counting. Ironically enough, Chase's was also 13 words. How short of a sentence were you looking for and in what context?
Actually, you did quite well. I think you’ve presented an actual distinction.
But I don’t think it’s enough to be an ultimate distinction. It might just be the difference between a bear and an angry bear. Here’s why.
The progressive doesn’t refrain from killing you out of moral restraint. He sees you as an object without intrinsic value in the same way a communist sees you that way.
The communist is simply more impatient, or angry.
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.