Serendipper
True, progressivism does seem an entity. Although, that's what the progressives say about the white men. And that's what the nazis say about the jews. Men say it about the feminists.
The Jews are an entity.
The Nazis are an entity.
The white men are an entity.
The progressives are an entity.
So ideologies are personified into entities and there is probably some evolutionary advantage for doing that since it's better to assume the rustling leaves is a lion stalking us rather than just the wind.
We sometimes see things as entities because they are entities.
An ant isn't just an ant, it's part of a colony.
Sometimes a wolf is lone, sometimes it's part of a pack.
Species aren't just species, they're part of an ecosystem, with both competitive, and symbiotic relationships with that ecosystem, known or unbeknownst to themselves.
Well, progressivism is a natural consequence of prosperity because when the desperate struggle for food and shelter is behind us, we can focus on other sources of pain and truth. So when life becomes too easy, people find new ways to complain: before, it was starving in the street, but now it's having hurt feelings that's the big deal.
Progressivism is as old as prosperity and generally precedes the fall of empires. Check out feminism and the fall of rome
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/12 ... l-of-rome/ Look into the Weimar Republic (discounting WWI effects) and see the condition that enabled the rise of Hitler. Or just accept it as sensible if you need no convincing since strong values build strong societies which engender prosperity which causes people to question the continuing need for those strong values and that precedes the erosion of prosperity until it falls apart and someone rises from the debris once again with strong values to restart the cycle.
If one species, race, sex, culture, class and so on (or if you prefer, some individuals, families) manages to thoroughly dominate the competition, making itself extraordinarily wealthy (decadence), it may go on dominating them, until there's nothing left, or alternatively, it may feel a little sympathy for the weak/unwilling, or, it may realize it's necessary for its own existence in the long run to give something back (symbiosis), or, the weak/unwilling may ban together and organize a resistance, a campaign to its reign.
egoism, corporatism and conservatism, where individuals and groups primarily care about themselves, is the Right approach, whereas altruism, socialism and progressivism is the Left approach.
Capitalism with the four monopolies (see Benjamin Tucker) is somewhere in between, but more on the Right, whereas a free market without the four monopolies is more on the Left.
I say neither approach is absolutely right/wrong, good/bad, but only relatively.
If a civilization, or an individual is to survive, it has to find the right balance of these two approaches, and the right balance varies.
There is a time to take, and a time to give back.
Giving back can be the right thing to do, or necessary, but also leaves one vulnerable to being taken advantage of.
If the victor voluntarily gives back, or is made to give back too much, if we bite the hand that feeds, we stand to lose everything, but on the other hand, if the victor never gives anything back, he will consume and consume until he's either too fat to consume anymore, and bursts/festers, or he will consume all of the resources on which he depends, ultimately leading to his starvation.
Civilizations have to find the right balance of growth, and sustainability/recession, or they perish.
It can be a tightrope walk, there are many variables and it's difficult to manage them all, in addition to greed, not just on behalf of the haves, but on behalf of the have nots as well.
And our genes, memes and environment, as individuals and as societies, incline us more to the right hand path in some ways, and the left hand path in others.
Yes, I see what you mean. If they can't control the gov, then fine, they'll control private industry and that's even better because who can question Dick's right to choose not to sell the AR15? Hey, private industry can do what it wants and not only are the conservatives forced to support their own disarming despite the cognitive dissonance of on one hand supporting freedom of their disarmers and on the other desiring to own guns, but they couldn't do anything about it anyway since since private industry isn't put up to a vote. Try arguing with a capitalist about declaring google a public utility and suddenly the "deplorables" are totally defending their enemy; it's hilarious!
Actually what I meant was progressives have become less preoccupied with class politics, and more preoccupied with race, sex and religious politics, turning progressivism into what I see as a tool of the economic elite, but in misunderstanding me, you made an interesting point yourself.
Progressives are allying themselves with the private sector, much to the dismay of conservatives who wedded themselves to the private sector and noninterventionism so much, they can't back out now without giving up a lot face, credibility.