Is Progressivism Just Communism Under a Different Name?
I posed this question to a group of open, unapologetic, self-proclaimed communists at the Kasama Project, emphasizing that I am referring to the “ends”, not necessarily the “means” of the ideological goals.
Glenn Beck was a topic of discussion on the communist group’s website after the following segment, highlighting Jed Brandt, aired on Beck’s program this week:
My Question: Is Glenn Beck right in his “Progressivism is basically Communism with a different name” lectures (if I can call them lectures, lol)?
The Answer I Received:
My Response:
If progressives aren’t de facto communists, they’re certainly “something” that ideologically falls under “the collectivist” umbrella. I did listen to Jed’s talk and it sounds as if he is upset because the Obama government is not communist enough, perhaps it’s “communist light”, but it’s certainly not capitalist. For example, government run (or Free) health care is what Obama wants… there is no doubt on that, now based on the content & emotion expressed by Jed, he seems to be upset because Obama can’t make it happen (or if he can, he’s not willing to risk the potential political ramifications of trying to “make it happen”). This suggests only that Obama isn’t communist enough for Jed, not that he’s capitalist.
To say that “Liberals are really Progressives, which are basically Communists” is perhaps skipping some analysis, but Beck’s program is only one hour (minus commercials) in duration; then couple that with the task of keeping the attention of millions of Americans for more than a few minutes… These constraints allow for only so much “detail”. The bottom line is that whether it’s “Stalin defined communism”, socialism, or progressivism… it’s all “Collectivism”.
As someone who has investigated & read the history, not only can I say it is true… but I offer clear evidence that Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressivism did not favor big business. Take a look at his speech “Who is a Progressive?”, and then please tell me if you still believe his definition of Progressivism is closer to Big Business Republicanism or Left Wing Socialism. Unless you’re blinded by ideology, you will find that the answer is the latter. You can find the text here: “Who is a Progressive?” Speech by Theodore Roosevelt given on April 1912 in Louisville.
Finally, is there such a distinct difference as to the “utopia of progressivism” versus that of communism? My understanding is that the end product(s) of both are almost mirror images of one another. You mentioned that there are differences in politics… but the fundamental differences in politics are not dispositive of the utopian goal… the goal is the same regardless of the shade of the particular collectivist ideology.
Based on this response & Mr. Jed Brandt’s comments, I will concede that Progressives are not Communists ONLY in that Communism doesn’t have the patience that Progressivism has demonstrated in the last Century. Listening to Brandt’s talk, it’s clear that he is upset not because of the Obama government’s ideology but because he feels they are wasting away & not willing to forcefully impose “progress”. However if Progressivism continues to prevail as successfully as it has over the 20th Century, is there any doubt that, over time, slowly but surely, Government will take over health care?
Progressivism vs. Communism – The difference between the two is that Progressivism is not swift, like Communism. Whether the means to the ends are similar or not, the point of the debate is that the ends are the same. Whether one enjoys Beck’ program or not, even communists cannot deny the case he makes on this is quite strong.
Regarding the “Van Jones” issue, Brandt says that Jones “was” but is “no longer” a communist… Perhaps the case was made to Van that Communism’s methods weren’t possible in America and utopia could only be achieved “progressively”. That still doesn’t make Jones a capitalist, whatever the “degrees” of communism (progressivism, socialism, maoism, etc) he hasn’t left the collectivist camp completely.
Jason Bradley
ExcellenceInAmerica.com
Other Links:
F.A. Hayek. “Nazi-Socialism” 1933. (scroll down to the essay when you get there)
“The Real Progressives” HotAir.com
“In Response to ‘Progressivism Does Not Equal Cancer’” LoyolaPhoenix.com
“Here Comes The Reconciliation ‘Nobody’ is Talking About” MichelleMalkin.com
I find the proposition that communism and progressivism are virtually the same to be absurd; the most fundamental difference being that communism rejects the legitimacy of private property while progressives do not. If I may presume to speak for all progressives, we simply seek a system of free market competition that is a reasonably fair one, and one more conducive to the success of many than just that of a few. Stated another way (and here departing from any pretence of speaking for all progressives), I envision a society in which there are a great many wealthy people instead of just a few, and one in which that wealth tends to be earned, not inherited.
1. "communism rejects the legitimacy of private property while progressives do not."
Progressivism respects private property rights so long as "the state" doesn't see, what it believes to be, a "better use" of the private individual's land & resources therein (higher tax revenue, a new shopping center for "economic development", etc.). Taking property for the convenience & in the interest of government (but of course under the headline "for the common good") is also a rejection of the legitimacy of private property. This attitude, that one may own property so long as its convenient for or in the best interest for the community/the state, is a progressive one expressed by Teddy Roosevelt.
2. "a society in which there are a great many wealthy people instead of just a few"
I think we live in that society.
3. "[society] in which that wealth tends to be earned, not inherited."
Why shouldn't an individual be able to take the wealth that she has accumulated over a lifetime, by her own labor, and direct it to whom she chooses to inherit it?
4. "a system of free market competition that is a reasonably fair one, and one more conducive to the success of many than just that of a few"
Central planning for the organization of resources & activities necessary to realize a distributive outcome or consciously constructed ideal would have to be consciously adverse & aim to substitute competition. This is essentially the "Collectivism" described in F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom".
Jason Bradley
1. As progressive minded I've never even come to the conclusion of taking someones land "for the greater good". Never even heard that, unless you're referring to the National Parks Roosevelt set up(which are a good thing)
I think we live in that society.
2. We do not live that society, 1% of this country has more wealth than the rest of the 95% of it combined. Let that really sink in for a moment… 1% > 95%. That's that's even including into the discussion all the predatory activity of business since Reagan…even Nixon actually.
Why shouldn't an individual be able to take the wealth that she has accumulated over a lifetime, by her own labor, and direct it to whom she chooses to inherit it?
3. He should, you're missing his original point(I think) which is a reference to something called "old money", which are old families that have been in power for a very, very long time and have a lot of influence. The 1% over 95% also effects what he means however, with only that 1% really passing on their wealth.
4. I disagree, this system was in place for the most part after WW2 with unions, a strong middle-class, good wages, etc. Sure it wasn't perfect, but it was a lot closer to what things should be today. Tearing down the regulations that were in place has completely destroyed that. At least that's what I mean by a fair market, every person varies in their own ideology though.
Those such as Glenn Beck apparently divide the world into only two camps: (1) laissez faire free market capitalists and (2) communists. Stated another way, "If you don't believe in laissez faire, then you must be a communist." That is just not true. The notion that the government has a role to play, both in regulating the economy and moderating the swings of the business cycle, is taught in such bastions of communist thought (if one adopts the logic of Glenn Beck) as the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania (where it was taught to me), one of the most renowned business schools in America, if not the world.
1. "The notion that 'If you don't believe in laissez faire, then you must be a communist.' … is just not true… the government has a role to play, both in regulating the economy and moderating the swings of the business cycle".
The government does have a role to play and I think that even those who eat, breath, & sleep laissez faire would acknowledge that. Governments role in the marketplace, it's "economic planning", is policy creation to make competition as effective & beneficial as possible.
The problem is when the planning becomes a substitute for competition… or policies designed to "level the playing field". This is the type of government intervention that leads to disaster in the long run and even in terms of immediate effects, these are counter-productive to economic growth.
Competition is not only the most efficient, but it is the only method by which the activities of hundred of millions of individuals "can be adjusted to each other without coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority." [F.A. Hayek. "Road to Serfdom"]
Jason Bradley
Beck approaches economic theory purely as a matter of ideology, rather than from a standpoint that permits any sort of critical examination of whether, and to what extent, the free market actually accomplishes the objective of producing greater prosperity for all. If he were capable of undertaking thought along the latter lines, perhaps he would be troubled to realize that since the advent of Ronald Reagan era deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, the American middle class has actually lost ground in economic terms, and that wealth has tended to become more and more concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. . . . But then again, perhaps not because when it is a matter of ideology, the facts don't matter.
Your remarks concerning Teddy Roosevelt are what compelled me to respond. He was no Marxist. To the contrary, he was a great believer in the value of individual initiative and the benefits of competition. He simply recognized, among other things, the actual impediments to the efficient functioning of the free market that can ensue from the concentration of great wealth and power into the hands of a few. His belief that big business is prone to greed and excesses that actually undermine the true promise of American capitalism doesn't mean he was a socialist. It simply means that he dug his head out of his rear end long enough to look around and actually observe how American capitalism was functioning, rather than blindly embracing the results of the unregulated free market as a matter of ideology.
F.A. Hayek Essay "Nazi Socialism" from 1933… You know where he's from right?
Here's proof that the Nazis were just as socialist as the communists and just as socialist as the progressives: http://laiglesforum.com/2009/10/08/hayek-hitler-w...
Is Progressivism Just Communism Under a Different Name … http://bit.ly/aiXjbx
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Is Progressivism Just Communism Under a Different Name … http://bit.ly/aiXjbx
This comment was originally posted on Twitter