Amos's River of Justice

Category: The Progressive International

  • Progressives Are Not the Democratic Establishment

    We call our movement progressive. Most progressives know what that means. It’s clear to the candidates and it’s clear to the voters. Unfortunately, the Right seems to think ‘progressive’ is a synonym for ‘woke,’ and they happily use it to malign everyone, from the Democratic establishment to socialists. Progressives are not the Democratic Establishment. In addition they don’t represent the Socialist Party. However, some progressives lean toward solutions that are more socialist than capitalist.

    We Are Not Twentieth Century Progressives

    In our most important policy positions, we don’t really resemble the progressive movement of the early twentieth century either. For example, progressive reformers of that period accepted the suppression of voting rights, as well as policies restricting immigration.  On those two issues alone, we are miles apart from them. Again, this doesn’t seem to be important to the progressive candidates in the trenches. They know who they are. The Right doesn’t appear to know it however. It insists on lumping today’s progressives with today’s political establishment as well as yesterday’s socialists and communists.

    Is The Right Just Pretending it Doesn’t Understand?

    Is the Right pretending that progressives and their policies are the problem, or do they really believe it? Maybe it is a mistake, after all. Or maybe both bourgeois parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, use each other as straw men so that they don’t have to respond to the common-sense demands of progressives.

    The Church of England Thinks Same-Sex Marriage is a Progressive Project

    The easiest way to demonstrate the resulting problem in the conversation is to return to Gavin Ashenden, who with many other members and clergy of the Church of England, has left the Church over its decision to bless same-sex marriage. I don’t necessarily disagree with him on this issue, but I disagree with his analysis of the problem. I also disagree with his assumption that same-sex marriage is a progressive project.

    Same-Sex Marriage is Blamed on Feminism

    Ashenden argues that feminism is the root of the problem, and that it was always going to lead to same-sex marriage, or at least to the acceptance of homosexuality. This is an obvious disconnect. Acceptance of homosexuality is not identical with same-sex marriage. And the legalization of same-sex marriage does not naturally imply that the Christian Church must bless these unions. However, he may have a point about feminism.

    Modern feminism is a product of the bourgeois Democratic establishment. Inconveniently for our right-wing critics, progressives disagree with most of the policies of the Democratic establishment. This includes CFR and CIA feminists. They are really just meritocratic, elite hawks. That is not who progressives are.

    The Issue of Gender Rights Did Not Originate with Progressives

    Ashenden follows his logic to also lay the issue of gender at our doorstep. However, many progressives disagree that this issue is progressive. It is true that some well-meaning progressives accept it as progressive, but whatever you think of this issue it didn’t originate with us. It sort of appeared out of nowhere. That should inspire more curiosity than it has.

    So, Who are Progressives?

    Progressives today are big-picture, internationalist progressives. Climate change, food and water insecurity, and class warfare are global problems, and it simply won’t work to save privileged islands of the global population and leave others to die. Aside from being cruel and self-centered, the world is too connected for that. We all need each other.

    Same-sex marriage and transgender acceptance, on the other hand, are not big-picture issues. Their function seems to be to annoy religious and conservative men. I think it also serves to distinguish the Democratic establishment from the Republicans.This is necessary because their policies are similar.

    The statements made in this article might decrease the confusion for progressives. Unfortunately, if the Right is purposely categorizing progressives with the bourgeois establishment, they will probably continue to do so. Nothing I have said will make any difference to them.

  • What is Necessary to American Democracy and What Can be Changed?

    It seems to me the American left has some housecleaning or path-clearing to do, historically speaking.  Important questions must be asked if we want to feel confident about our course of action. Hopefully, answering these questions will supply the energy the left is lacking.  These questions have to do with the basis of American democracy and what is required of American citizens. In other words, what is necessary to preserve American democracy and what can be changed? For example, is it logical to criticize the Enlightenment, as I have done in the past and at the same time defend American democracy, which is based on Enlightenment principles? If we question the Enlightenment, what philosophical basis do we have for defending democracy? This question is a matter of self-defense today.  A main focus of the Enlightenment was to defend the right of self-governance against the influence of organized religion and the regime it supported.

    Is the left on solid footing regarding the Enlightenment? I think it’s safe to say Marxism didn’t experience the Enlightenment in the same way the West experienced it. Does the Marxist left have a philosophical basis for defending American democracy? What is that basis and what would their democracy look like? We should talk about that.

    The claim that we owe American democracy to the Enlightenment has definite implications about organized religion as well. The institution of the Catholic Church was part of the ruling regime the Enlightenment helped to replace. The Church doesn’t have that role any more, but historically the rise of democracy was at odds with organized religion and especially with the Catholic Church. Luckily, we’re not talking today about religious allegiances or beliefs. Thanks in part to the Enlightenment, we’ve overcome that inflammatory epoch. I propose that we should be talking about what makes political sense in our nation’s past, and therefore what makes sense for American defenders of democracy moving forward.

    The basic problem remains–American religion doesn’t play nice with democratic politics.  The Trump regime is a case in point, not to mention the Supreme Court. The justices are not at all conflicted in their adversarial relationship  with American democracy. As we contemplate their blatant efforts to enslave the population, it must be understood that the civilization they have in mind has nothing in common with Christian civilizations of the past. And even if it did, the United States doesn’t share any of the history behind the European civilization they claim to love. When the left resists their efforts it is truly conservative in the American context.

    By contrast, a faction of America’s so-called “conservatives” wants to obliterate American democracy. It’s as if their ‘Church’ has become the United States.  Strangely, these Conservatives ignore their pope’s efforts to guide the Church on the path of Vatican II, and instead they spend all their time and energy strong-arming a democratic people into religious obedience. Considering they don’t hold themselves to an ethical Christian standard, they seem to be cementing in place an upside down world. How can we hope to have a coherent narrative if we fail to mention such incoherence?

    Maybe because of its history, the left resists religious sympathies in the progressive conversation. It seems to me this is a peculiar weakness on their part. And what about Marxism? Not only does America not share Europe’s feudal past, she doesn’t have a strong Marxist or atheist tradition. On the other hand, the Christianity they use to oppose Marxism is not quite Christian in many ways. Americans are products of the Enlightenment, whether they know it or not. They are also religious.

    I can’t end this post without talking about the Freemasons. The Freemasons were at the forefront of the Enlightenment. Furthermore, they had a lot to do with the formation of our government. Does that translate into authority on their part?  Is this nation tied to the mythical past of the Freemasons’ and their peculiar version of democracy and religion?  Can their mythical (and secretive) past lead to the future we need?

    The point of all of this is to sound the alarm. We don’t have a coherent notion of where we’ve been and where we’re going.  Worse, we on the left are not clear about the basic assumptions of our allies. The future has never been so hazy, and we can’t afford to remain unclear about our foundations. Hopefully the political right is not beyond our reach, but at the least we can try to shape our own faction. Together we must clear the path ahead.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Reactionary Politics in Brazil

    Problem:

    Solution:

    https://youtu.be/kOlbYyJWiGE

  • More on the Progressive International with Yanis Varoufakis and Jeremy Corbyn

    The world’s bankers are already united, and now Steve Bannon is busy building a neofascist international. In this conversation, Yanis Varoufakis invites Jeremy Corbyn to join Bernie Sanders in creating a Progressive International and sending a hopeful message to people all over the world.

error: Content is protected !!