Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Liberal or progressive? [View all]Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)24. I don't think you have a firm grasp of the concepts you're talking about.
So i stand behind capitalism, lord knows at the very least in numbers we have never slaughtered people in the numbers of the other beliefs.
No, in fact capitalism has vastly more dead people. The difference is that there is no "Army of the Invisible Hand" running around butchering people for the word of Adam Smith. Nothing so flashy or loud. Oh, there were cases where that was effectively the case, in the US's proxy wars during the cold war, and the US / West Europe's support for anti-left genocides in the southern nations during that whole period... But most of the carnage is simply a result of things that capitalists don't regard as anything the least bit unusual. For-profit medical systems and pharmaceuticals, patent protecting on agriculture, rampant pollution, austerity measures, "Structural Adjustment programs," Wage / benefit / labor cuts, embargos and military / covert actions against states that are non-compliant with the wishes of Wall Street.
Hell, all this piles together in Africa; we supported the armed juntas of anti-soviet regimes and turned a blind eye to their bloodshed so long as they agreed to not talk to Russia. We sold them military machinery and resources that they mostly used against their own people, and sometimes their neighboring juntas (also armed by us.) Actually it's more like we gave these weapons to them, as it was all done on credit.
When they dropped from power we decided the people they abused and robbed still had to pay the debts. Debt relief came from the IMF and World Bank, and was paired with structural readjustments; the privatization of state companies, upper limits to employment, the cessation of domestic manufacture, union-busting, an end to public education and health programmes, and "opening the markets" to established international corporations, who faced no domestic competition in these emergent markets and so pillaged and polluted to their heart's content. Even the debt relief was treated as loans however and had interest payments; when an African nation falls short, well, it's back to the negotiations with the IMF, to figure out what other structural adjustments could be made.
The slashes to employment, education, and health care leads to spiraling poverty, drug use, and prostitution, which all in turn turns into the world's worst HIV epidemic; an epidemic so bad that the leaders of African nations are speaking in terms of apocalypse for their people's suffering. But because of patent protection for Pfizer and other companies, retrovirals and treatments that could save the lives of millions and prevent infection of millions more, remain hopelessly out of reach for the majority of Africa. That's just HIV. Want to talk polio? Malaria? Tuberculosis? Plain ol' staph infections?
Africa's a fucking rich place, and the nations there could, almost one and all be self-sufficient, if they had the infrastructure and fund to tap those resources. But instead we've shackled them down to the debts of their oppressors, and force economic experiments on them seemingly designed ot keep them in this subjected state in perpetuity. meanwhile our fat asses just love all those diamonds and rare earth menerals and lumber and aluminum and gold and other raw resources being sucked out of the continent, with the money we pay for those resources going right back to our own corporations rather than the people digging the shit out of the middle of a war zone.
That's Africa under capitalism, and that's without even touching on the slave trade, another awesome capitalist venture in "The Dark continent." Would you like to talk about Latin America or Southeast Asia, the Middle East, perhaps? Are you familiar with the Pahlavi Shah? or Suharto?
Don't give me this "capitalism has less blood on its hands" garbage. The US, richest nation on earth, has a infant mortality rate on par with fucking Bosnia because of a capitalist, for-profit medical system that, by design, is less functional for the proles than the elites. Same for our HIV cases; again, if you're Magic Johnson, you're well-treated, but if you're just Tom Johnson, well, hope you already have the hole dug, Tom.
As for your question? I call myself a leftist. Leaves the Birchers gaping like landed carp and I so enjoy their sputterings.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
124 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Capitalism has never slaughtered large numbers of people...".....BAHAHAHAAWWAW...clueless.
Katashi_itto
May 2013
#124
both are nebulous, ill-defined labels. Neither has an agreed-upon objective meaning at this point.
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#3
Locke argued for the dispossession of the Native Americans because they weren't being "productive"
LooseWilly
May 2013
#20
Social Democrat. Here are the wiki definitions of liberal, progressive and social democrat, FWIW.
pampango
May 2013
#120
Liberal makes me think of classical liberalism... which is called Libertarianism today.
LooseWilly
May 2013
#4
Too bad your wasted time, and now mine, can't be summed up with the word "cogent"
LooseWilly
May 2013
#15
Agreed. Also let me add-A Harry Chapin liberal.Allard Lowenstein liberal.A Bob Graham liberal.
graham4anything
May 2013
#19
You are trying to make Progressive sound as radical and opposite of the right wing
liberal N proud
May 2013
#27
Never thought I'd see such a divisive prejudging Original Pos as this one.
Bernardo de La Paz
May 2013
#34
I think it's more a matter of focus. Liberals focus on people, progressives are more about policy?
reformist2
May 2013
#37
Righties (and some centrists) like to say liberals are "LIBERAL with other people's money".
progree
May 2013
#42
You want me to participate in a poll that begins with a diatribe? No thankyou.
pinboy3niner
May 2013
#49
I always identified as liberal, never labeled my self as progressive but in present context neither
TheKentuckian
May 2013
#64
Another liberal vs progressive thread and it's just as illuminating as the 100s that came before it.
Gidney N Cloyd
May 2013
#68
+1 and look at the choices made available to us. We have a binary system of 0/0. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
May 2013
#89
I'm actually a liberal progressive other, but I like to call myself a liberal because
Zorra
May 2013
#109
That other thread had some amazing responses. Lots of really thought provoking comments
Number23
May 2013
#112
Other; I am left-wing. In the UK, 'liberal' means centrist, and 'progressive' doesn't have any
LeftishBrit
May 2013
#114
Different people will interpret the two terms in such a way as to better validate their own opinions
LanternWaste
May 2013
#121