There's no such thing as left and right anymore...

[Casually Red]

Imagine if, instead of "is s/he right- or left-wing," the first question we asked about politicians, journalists etc was: "is sh/e pro-or anti-capitalist?"

I imagine Hitler and the NSDAP would qualify for membership of your proposed camp, along with most of their followers today.

 

[dilberto]

Ah I see - you're using your own personal definition of 'progressive' - one that bears no similarities whatsoever to any of the generally accepted definitions of that concept - and a bizarre yet simplistic understanding of modern politics. With that in mind your post makes perfect sense.

What is the generally accepted definition of progressive?

 

[butchersapron]

I think thread would be more up your path dilberto.

 

[SpineyNorman]

What is the generally accepted definition of progressive?

In short, egalitarian.

 

[dilberto]

In short, egalitarian.

I don't think everyone would agree with your definition which seems little more than a characteristic which some people associate with progressive societies rather than a proper analysis of the mechanism which underpins the process of social progress.

Social progress in my view is a product of improving material conditions and the subsequent neglect of the traditional surviving social model made possible by an economic model which operates on the basis of credit which allows a society to live beyond its means but which necessitates further cumulative change to produce economic growth in order to service its debt and to maintain that enhanced standard of living.

Such social progress produces changes in the population and subsequently the predominant values of that society through their adaptation to that changing environment and a resultant conditioning of the population to see that constant change as necessary, natural and inevitable, those values being what would be described as progressive values.

 

[yield]

Social progress in my view is a product of improving material conditions and the subsequent neglect of the traditional surviving social model made possible by an economic model which operates on the basis of credit which allows a society to live beyond its means but which necessitates further cumulative change to produce economic growth in order to service its debt and to maintain that enhanced standard of living.

Such social progress produces changes in the population and subsequently the predominant values of that society through their adaptation to that changing environment and a resultant conditioning of the population to see that constant change as necessary, natural and inevitable, those values being what would be described as progressive values.

Social progress is about human relationships. This statistical recovery is a human recession.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes.

Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify.

All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

- Communist Manifesto

People are increasingly in debt because of the fall in wages.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't think everyone would agree with your definition which seems little more than a characteristic which some people associate with progressive societies rather than a proper analysis of the mechanism which underpins the process of social progress.

Social progress in my view is a product of improving material conditions and the subsequent neglect of the traditional surviving social model made possible by an economic model which operates on the basis of credit which allows a society to live beyond its means but which necessitates further cumulative change to produce economic growth in order to service its debt and to maintain that enhanced standard of living.

Such social progress produces changes in the population and subsequently the predominant values of that society through their adaptation to that changing environment and a resultant conditioning of the population to see that constant change as necessary, natural and inevitable, those values being what would be described as progressive values.

No, in common parlance 'progressive' is simply a by-word for left wing, which brings us back to the topic of the thread. What you describe here is closer to what is generally thought of as 'development' or 'capitalism' but I can see it's pointless discussing it with you because you're a stone bonker.

 

[dilberto]

No, in common parlance 'progressive' is simply a by-word for left wing, which brings us back to the topic of the thread. What you describe here is closer to what is generally thought of as 'development' or 'capitalism' but I can see it's pointless discussing it with you because you're a stone bonker.

I agree that what I am describing is capitalism, but what I am saying is that progress is intimately related to capitalism indeed it is a product of capitalism, the left's misconception is that progress happens naturally and that capitalism is optional, that society can enjoy the fruits of progress and that there are no costs and that is the danger inherent in a progressive consensus.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I agree that what I am describing is capitalism, but what I am saying is that progress is intimately related to capitalism indeed it is a product of capitalism, the left's misconception is that progress happens naturally and that capitalism is optional, that society can enjoy the fruits of progress and that there are no costs.

Do you have an argument (facts, logic etc.) for that or are you just asserting it?

 

[andysays]

I agree that what I am describing is capitalism, but what I am saying is that progress is intimately related to capitalism indeed it is a product of capitalism, the left's misconception is that progress happens naturally and that capitalism is optional, that society can enjoy the fruits of progress and that there are no costs.

No, that's your misconception of "the left", I'm afraid.

The marxist left, for instance, recognises that capitalism has led to huge technological progress, but also that the benefits and costs are unequally distributed, and that the only way to remedy this is to overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with something else.

This is one of the problems of over-simplifying things as if "the left" (and indeed "the right") is one homogenous set of ideas, which is, of course, not to say that the terms "left" and "right" are no longer useful and there's no such thing anymore.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Tories like all the mainstream political parties support economic growth which arguably is what underpins social progress and accept the economic costs of that growth on the lower social groups but deny the cultural costs which is reflected in their social policies, Labour deny the economic costs of economic growth and accept the cultural costs.

The interests favoured by progressive change if it is seen as a product of economic growth and development are mercantile interests.

Ahhh I see. You conflate 'progress' with economic growth?

 

[dilberto]

Do you have an argument (facts, logic etc.) for that or are you just asserting it?

See post 275

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Circular argument. You've in effect defined 'progress' as 'what capitalism produces' i.e. GDP or something closely related.

 

[Nylock]

I agree that what I am describing is capitalism, but what I am saying is that progress is intimately related to capitalism indeed it is a product of capitalism, the left's misconception is that progress happens naturally and that capitalism is optional, that society can enjoy the fruits of progress and that there are no costs and that is the danger inherent in a progressive consensus.

Asserting that capitalism is the driver of progress is as facile as asserting that warfare does the same -and in particular total war. Also, 'the left' ffs

 

[yield]

I agree that what I am describing is capitalism, but what I am saying is that progress is intimately related to capitalism indeed it is a product of capitalism, the left's misconception is that progress happens naturally and that capitalism is optional, that society can enjoy the fruits of progress and that there are no costs and that is the danger inherent in a progressive consensus.

I assume I'm being overly generous in assuming you're talking about the inherent logical contradictions of capitalism leading to communist utopia?

 

[butchersapron]

Just in case no one has realised yet, you're talking to a brevik mini-me here. Check his record.

 

[Nylock]

D'oh!

 

[dilberto]

Circular argument. You've in effect defined 'progress' as 'what capitalism produces' i.e. GDP or something closely related.

What I am saying is that social progress and economic development are not unconnected, the exceptional economic conditions of a developed capitalist economy is selective in its effects on the population not least because of its detrimental effects on the interests of the lower social groups and this is reflected in the social values of that society.

 

[phildwyer]

What I am saying is that social progress and economic development are not unconnected, the exceptional economic conditions of a developed capitalist economy is selective in its effects on the population not least because of its detrimental effects on the interests of the lower social groups and this is reflected in the social values of that society.

The very concept of economic "development" is called into question by the history of the C20th. But the "Left" has been as guilty of this as the "Right," notably by designating itself and its causes as "progressive." If we've learned nothing else from the last 100 years, it should be that history is emphatically not progress.

 

[phildwyer]

Right, I'm going to take this in good faith and treat your posts on this thread seriously. I suspect this will turn out to be a mistake but at least I'm trying.

The thing is Phil, when it's put under any kind of scrutiny it turns out that your pro- and anti- capitalist categorisations turn out to map almost exactly onto what I expect most on here would think of as left or right.

Your claim that people who are racist, etc cannot be anticapitalist is an example of this - it's perfectly possible to rightly hold capitalist social relations responsible for the problems we face and to believe white people are inherently superior to black people, that homosexuality is a crime against good which should be punishable by death and a whole host of other bigoted views. Obviously the fact that you don't want these people to be considered on the same side of the divide as you isn't a bad thing at all but it seems to me that, if we're defining politics solely in terms of pro- or anti- capitalist, their exclusion from the anti-capitalist group is purely arbitrary and their inclusion in the pro-capitalist group plain wrong.

Seems to me that you're just trying to make pro- and anti- capitalist fit what others would see as left and right, albeit maybe with a more exclusive definition of left (or anti-capitalist).

I don't think there's any value in this exercise to be honest and it strikes me that if you really wanted to replace them the terms pro- and anti- working class would be better - since you can credibly exclude racists etc since their views would divide and weaken the working class. In fact I'd probably have a fair bit of sympathy for that kind of argument.

Yes, with two reservations, I agree.

My first reservation is that capitalism is an all-encompassing system that transcends economics, so that anti-capitalism involves every aspect of life, not merely the "economic" elements.

My second is that forcing politicians and commentators to identify themselves as pro- or anti-capitalist above all else would concentrate our attention on the central issue, and allow us to escape the identity politics cul-de-sac.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yes, with two reservations, I agree.

My first reservation is that capitalism is an all-encompassing system that transcends economics, so that anti-capitalism involves every aspect of life, not merely the "economic" elements.

Could you expand on this part please? How, for example, does seeing capitalism as an all-encompassing system* prevent us from including racists, homophobes, etc in the anti-capitalist category?

*Something I agree with, though it is a system defined by a set of economic relations and these relations, broadly speaking, are the most important factor in shaping other areas of social life

 

[JimW]

Could you expand on this part please? How, for example, does seeing capitalism as an all-encompassing system* prevent us from including racists, homophobes, etc in the anti-capitalist category?

*Something I agree with, though it is a system defined by a set of economic relations and these relations, broadly speaking, are the most important factor in shaping other areas of social life

Isn't part of the trick of capitalism peddling the notion that there's any hard-and-fast meaningful dividing line between "economic" and "social" relations? Presume Phil means in some sense like that.

 

[phildwyer]

Could you expand on this part please? How, for example, does seeing capitalism as an all-encompassing system* prevent us from including racists, homophobes, etc in the anti-capitalist category?

Because they blame racial or sexual minorities for problems that are actually caused by capitalism.

 

[phildwyer]

Isn't part of the trick of capitalism peddling the notion that there's any hard-and-fast meaningful dividing line between "economic" and "social" relations? Presume Phil means in some sense like that.

Yes. But the mistake that there is a sphere of life called "the economy," and that "economic" factors determine the rest of our lives is made by the Marxist Left as well as by the neoliberal Right. Which is another factor they have in common.

 

[phildwyer]

Could you expand on this part please? How, for example, does seeing capitalism as an all-encompassing system* prevent us from including racists, homophobes, etc in the anti-capitalist category?

*Something I agree with, though it is a system defined by a set of economic relations and these relations, broadly speaking, are the most important factor in shaping other areas of social life

If capitalism is truly all-encompassing (as I believe it is) then it can't be a specifically "economic" phenomenon.

 

[SpineyNorman]

If capitalism is truly all-encompassing (as I believe it is) then it can't be a specifically "economic" phenomenon.

I agree.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yes. But the mistake that there is a sphere of life called "the economy," and that "economic" factors determine the rest of our lives is made by the Marxist Left as well as by the neoliberal Right. Which is another factor they have in common.

No it isn't.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Because they blame racial or sexual minorities for problems that are actually caused by capitalism.

We seem to be going round in circles. I have personally met an anticapitalist who most definitely did not hold gays responsible for the problems caused by capitalism but most definitely did hate gays and would no doubt seek to oppress them given half the chance. Does he count as anticapitalist? If not, why not?

 

[phildwyer]

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

The idea that human beings are primarily driven by economic motives is shared by the Marxist Left and the neoliberal Right. In fact this similarity is another reason to abandon the terms. By understanding the basic dichotomy as "Left/Right" we lose sight of what they have in common.

 

[phildwyer]

We seem to be going round in circles. I have personally met an anticapitalist who most definitely did not hold gays responsible for the problems caused by capitalism but most definitely did hate gays and would no doubt seek to oppress them given half the chance. Does he count as anticapitalist? If not, why not?

I wouldn't dignify such neuroses with political terminology at all.