What is the difference between liberal and "progressive"?

[Ban my account ffs!]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

Nyet.

I was being sarcastic.  As if this guy has any idea what socialism or even "leftism" really is.  He's just throwing out labels that are supposed to be "bad" as a cheap (but effective) way to demean the other side.

No I know what socialism is and that it is basically statism in one form or another it can be "democratic" or can be more "authoritarian".   And it has many different synonyms for it .  I sorry if you find it offensive. 

mutters bullsh**t under my breath

"No I know what socialism is and that it is (insert completely wrong definition here)"

Statism is an extreme form of socialism that also places the government in control of your personal life, something many conservatives don't seem to have a problem with. 

Socialism is placing the means of production into the hands of the community, rather than profit seeking individuals.  Profits are shared, but personal freedoms are hardly a part of the definition of socialism.

For example, here, electric and telephone service are provided by cooperatives, which is a limited form of socialism, in that the ventures, rather than being owned by the whole community, are owned by the individuals that take part in the program.  Profits are shared among members.  Food and agricultural cooperatives are also very common here.

[Хahar 🤔]

The socialist is very amused.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

No since fascism is simply a nationalist socialism. That is why most historical fascists were socialists before having differences about the role of one's national origin in their political identity.

Utter, Utter, Utter Horse manure. Most fascists were aristocrats or neo-feudalists. Very few were ever socialists, who they identified with as 'the enemy'.

Or to quote https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=75370.msg1555523#msg1555523 again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I should have also pointed out in most countries, the fascists greatest supporters came from the traditional elite. Hell, in Germany they were the reason they took power in the first place - preferring to deal with them rather than the even the palest pink Social Democrat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marxist Traditionalism states that that is Communism. Socialism is when the means of production is left in the hands of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" - an over dramatic phrase invented by Auguste Blanqui to describe, I suppose, a military workers democracy. Not too dissimiliar to the Sancullottes of the French Revolution. The USSR was called the Union of Soviet Socialist republics - believing that it was in the transitional path between Capitalism and pure communism where the state would eventually 'wither away' (this being 'official' ideology o/c) after a certain period of time.

However Theory and reality are two very different things. It is worth pointing out however that pre-1917 the Leninist view was very much a minority among socialists (ie. that an intellectual elite is needed to lead the workers to revolution).

[afleitch]

Richard Nixon was a progressive

(runs)

[Storebought]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

No since fascism is simply a nationalist socialism. That is why most historical fascists were socialists before having differences about the role of one's national origin in their political identity.

Utter, Utter, Utter Horse manure. Most fascists were aristocrats or neo-feudalists. Very few were ever socialists, who they identified with as 'the enemy'.

Or to quote https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=75370.msg1555523#msg1555523 again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I should have also pointed out in most countries, the fascists greatest supporters came from the traditional elite. Hell, in Germany they were the reason they took power in the first place - preferring to deal with them rather than the even the palest pink Social Democrat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marxist Traditionalism states that that is Communism. Socialism is when the means of production is left in the hands of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" - an over dramatic phrase invented by Auguste Blanqui to describe, I suppose, a military workers democracy. Not too dissimiliar to the Sancullottes of the French Revolution. The USSR was called the Union of Soviet Socialist republics - believing that it was in the transitional path between Capitalism and pure communism where the state would eventually 'wither away' (this being 'official' ideology o/c) after a certain period of time.

However Theory and reality are two very different things. It is worth pointing out however that pre-1917 the Leninist view was very much a minority among socialists (ie. that an intellectual elite is needed to lead the workers to revolution).

That is demonstrably wrong.

Mussolini, the man who inspired every other fascist since, was most assuredly a Socialist before WWI. Don't try to whitewash that fact by using his later 1920s concoction of imperial motifs and insignia (the fasces, the heraldic eagle) to disguise the fact that his movement was just as anti-liberal (in the 19th century since) in its conception as the Bolsheviks.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

One is more electable than the other?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ummmm... I never did. Mussolini may have been a socialist, though he very much later disclaimed that ideology and most of his supporters were very firm anti-socialist before WWI and this was true for nearly all fascist movements (with the possible exception of Romania where the Iron Guard supporters tended to be working class and to lesser extent, the Hungarian Arrow Cross but that might be due to all anti-Horthyist parties being outlawed or put into mild mannered acceptance) After Mussolini every other fascist movement saw socialists of all varieties as their number one enemy.

I have never once claimed that Socialist nor Fascism could not be linked, indeed proto-ideologies linking the two existed before WWI (The Eugenics of HG Wells' and others comes to mind) and both ideologies fundamentally against the arbitrary liberal capitalism that existed prior to 1914 and which has seen to have been responsible for the war post-1918 (this view acclerated after the Great Depression). And there is no doubt that fascism borrowed alot for communism in its rhetoric and in its messianic nature (IIRC Hitler made 1st May a bank Holiday when arriving into power). However both ideologies were different in their intellectual origins and their ideological purpose, as seen above*. I am merely disputing the fascism=left because it meant a big government hypothesis.

* - (Though of course when talking about the USSR, et al you have a point. But in most of Western Europe and the rest of the 1st world pro-soviets tended to make up a minority of socialists, only in Germany did they really have a shot at actual power. Not even in Italy, unless you count an increase in street fighting as a revolutionary concern.)

[dead0man]

For example, here, electric and telephone service are provided by cooperatives, which is a limited form of socialism, in that the ventures, rather than being owned by the whole community, are owned by the individuals that take part in the program.  Profits are shared among members.  Food and agricultural cooperatives are also very common here.

Which is one of the great points for a more liberal (in a traditional sense) society and against a socialist one.  You can be socialist and do socialistic things in a liberal society, the reverse is certainly not true.

[Ban my account ffs!]

For example, here, electric and telephone service are provided by cooperatives, which is a limited form of socialism, in that the ventures, rather than being owned by the whole community, are owned by the individuals that take part in the program.  Profits are shared among members.  Food and agricultural cooperatives are also very common here.

Which is one of the great points for a more liberal (in a traditional sense) society and against a socialist one.  You can be socialist and do socialistic things in a liberal society, the reverse is certainly not true.

One thing that may surprise you, Dead0man, is that I believe government functions best when local governments and communities have the most power.  Ideally, the federal government would serve the purpose of protecting our rights and freedoms and occasionally re-distributing wealth, especially during disasters.  I also see the federal government as becoming more important in filling roles traditionally left to the states because we are becoming a nation where travel and mobility between states is common and having a myriad of 50 different ways of doing things will only hurt the economy.

So, I've adopted the "local issues should be up to the locals, state issues up to the state" and so on.  Funding a picnic area at the local park is not something your congressman should be worried about.. but it is okay for your city council to be concerned about terrorism. 

[Beet]

There is no difference.

Democrats are forced to call themselves "progressive" because liberal has negative connotations.

^^^ Ding, ding.

You can try to be academic about it, but there's no point.

[J. J.]

Today the word "progressive" means a liberal that is ashamed to admit it.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

There is no difference.

Democrats are forced to call themselves "progressive" because liberal has negative connotations.

^^^

A more diplomatic way of saying what I said.

[Franzl]

Today the word "progressive" means a liberal that is ashamed to admit it.

No, it means "liberals" aren't electable, although "progressives", that think and act the exact same way, somehow are.

[Хahar 🤔]

As usual, Gully is very right.