18 ms·
> because progressive values don't promote strength. Venice in the 1400s, London in the 1685-1700 Paris 1875-1914 vienna 1890-1914 London in the 1960s All
by KaiserPro 6y ago
> because progressive values don't promote strength.
Venice in the 1400s,
London in the 1685-1700
Paris 1875-1914
vienna 1890-1914
London in the 1960s
All of these cities flourished because they were progressive.
- gher-shyu3i 6y agoCounter point: Islamic empires until the Ottoman empire collapse post WWI. They flourished, yet were not "progressive" in the modern Western sense of the word.
- xboxnolifes 6y agoThat's not a counter-point. It only points out that there is more than 1 way to promote strength. (Or that progressiveness has nothing to do with the strength at all).
- KaiserPro 6y agoI don't think thats a counter point! Depending on which time frame you are talking about, the ottoman empire was a cosmopolitan fairly free empire. There was freedom of religion (of sorts, there was a tithe.) and a civil law system that appeared to have some semblance of working for the lay man. If you compare the treatment of jews in venice, parts of the ottoman empire were a haven. Spain's loss was the ottoman's gain.
- gher-shyu3i 6y agoThat's why I said they were not "progressive" in the modern Western sense. Islam is able to perfectly accommodate different cultures, and lead the host society to prosperity.
- KaiserPro 6y agobut they were progressive, comparative to the western world at the time. Hence why they were a mecca (excuse the pun) for creative and scientific types.
- felle_realist 6y agoThe problem here is the definition of the term "progressive". If you take it to mean "forward-looking" then yes, being progressive is a sure strategy for success in the long run, even if such success may come at a price in the short term. This, however, is not what most current "progressive" ideologies do, instead of looking forward they often look backward in time in search for grievances in need of redress. This, in combination with the rise of identity politics which drives people apart into groups vying for current or historical claims of being oppressed does the opposite of the original progressivism. This modern interpretation of progressivism - adherents of which are often called "regressive left" - does not lead to flourishing societies, the opposite is true.
- vict7 6y agoIdentify politics has been on the rise for a long time. The right heavily contribute to identity politics. See: openly racist GQP leaders, transgender bathroom ban, mexican "caravans" conveniently appearing in the news around election time, satanic panic, homophobia, muslim ban, "Kung flu". In no way can you place the blame for the rise of identity politics squarely on progressives. I get the feeling that most people opposed to a more fair and equitable society are the ones currently benefitting the most from inequity.
- felle_realist 6y agoI do not "blame" the rise of identity politics on anyone, I merely point out that it has been taken up by many people who consider themselves to be "progressive" and that it, in combination with the adoption of critical theory - specifically the practice of "deconstruction" - leads to a witches brew of regressive and destructive ideologies.
- pasquinelli 6y agoyeah, but do material realities factor in at all, or do empires rise on fall on attitude alone?
- 6y ago
- tmnvix 6y agoI agree. Though these are examples of progressive 'class politics'. That doesn't exist in the west like it once did. Thanks to neoliberalism and its promotion of individualism, progressives now focus on identity. Worthy yes, but an ineffective replacement in terms of promoting unity amongst those with legitimate grievances.