☭proletarian☭;1998372 said:
Progressivism is, specifically, social progressivism. You know, progressism past slavery (which the FF supported), social injustice, economic exploitation of the poor- everything that Bourgeoisie Liberalism embraces. Bourgeois Liberalism is based on the Right to Exploit, the idea that a man has a right to do unto others what he can and that if a man is poor is is just because he was unable to compete. that is, for instance, why they oppose market and business regulation and oppose social safety nets to protect the elderly, ill, and injured.
Social Progressivism is the natural evolution of Liberalism, embracing the true spirit of compassionate liberalism and seeking to reform and guide society towards a more egalitarian and just future, using the machinations of the State as a means to protect the weakest among us.
When it is the state who is most likely to aggress against the weakest among us, all in the name of the greater good of course. That is why progressivism fails.
The State exists in the first place specifically because individuals cannot be trusted to not act against eachother. That is why societies form to ensure mutual protection through law and the military. It was the State that acted to finally end slavery and enforce its abolition. The Civil Rights movements could not have been successful without the machinations of the State to enforce just law aimed at ending one groups aggressions against another.
While the State can act against, the People it can only do so if the State is not comprised of those governed. In that case, the State is not a State of the governed- it is not their nation- rather, it becomes one class or group ruling over and exploiting another. in this regard, it is analogous to one country dominating another or a corporation acting against the proletariat to exploit the lower classes. This, of course, is not self-governance, but domination by an authoritarian overclass- an oligarchy which does not represent the masses. IN this case, it become not a problem of governance itself, but of exploitation and the lack of a proper and just form of governance.
Nice evasion, btw, but you've yet to address the point made.
