Progressive vs Fauxgressive - What's the difference?
Revolutionary vs reactionary
Left vs right
We tend to use a lot of terminology that tries to define who we are. We all live in a capitalist system in America and critics of it are on the left. Supporters go on the right. The problem soon arises when you think about who's on top versus who's on bottom.
Nancy Pelosi would NEVER be on the left. Her corruption to Big Pharma and other corporations points out that she's far more corporate than people let on. But Mitch McConnell can use her as a scapegoat in order to blame "the left" for wanting to get healthcare or whatever he doesn't like.
This same battle is going on with the progressive movement. You've probably seen me use the word fauxgressive because it's become necessary to define people that are faking an aspect of their support which undermines them.
But first, we should define a progressive. As far as it goes, these are mostly people who look at the system of capitalism systemically and want to reform it and give it the basics that every other country has (healthcare, college, living wage). In other words, labor oriented movements would be defined as progressive. Communists, socialists, unionists, and soc-dems are more than likely to want progressive change.
The rubber hits the road on the right wing. The supporters of capitalism happen to be liberals, libertarians, and conservatives.
We'll start with conservatives. Conservatives are supporters of the capitalist system and usually shy away from systemic critiques opting for individualized criticisms that ignore the gears that function. Libertarians, with very similar issues, can come to conclusions that conservatives also come to. If you want to learn more, understand that libertarians are essentially lazy Marxists.
But the biggest critique has to come with liberals. In all honesty, we have not talked about liberals because these right wing supporters are essentially the Chameleons of Capitalism, pretending they're left wing but supporting the corporate agenda of capitalism. It is for this reason that we have to focus so much of our time and effort on liberals and their fauxgressive methods over focusing too much on conservatives and libertarians who are honest about their beliefs.
This critique covers the current Progressive movement that spawned from Occupy as well as the Third Way Democrats who spawned from Reaganism (this is ordered from left wing to right if you haven't noticed, not historically).
The left began to grow under Obama and utilize the movements of the past to do it. Hoovervilles popped up in Occupy and spread around. For their efforts, they were crushed. But from that, we began to get a class conscious left wing. While I can talk about movements, Bernie Sanders began coalescing with those groups while others moved outside the two corporate parties.
What began to coalesce were the policies and ideas of a society deprived for so long, it was ridiculous. What happens when you're told to go into debt for college, you have no healthcare except through an employer and you're forced to labor in austerity, managed by bureaucrats that ignored their FDR moment to maintain Wall Street over Main Street?
A new left begins to form. Make no mistake that a new coalition of right wing forces has also happened, but this is about the left. As such, with that history defined, we can now get into what a progressive truly IS.
Internationalist
No matter what leader you look into, they find support internationally for their revolutionary stances at home. Paul Robeson, Malcolm X, and MLK Jr are people that helped out India, Japan, and Southeast Vietnam with taking a strong stance on American foreign policy. As can be shown now, Bernie Sanders, pointing out policy in Yemen and Afghanistan, garners support by exposing American hypocrisy for war and peace. Tulsi Gabbard does the same thing. Why do you think that the fauxgressive Warren is being propped up?
Capitalist Critic
At the very least, you are focused on the economic system that has put you in debt, taken your job, and given it to people that are exploited more. Can there be critics within liberals? Of course. But this next generation has decided to question the economic system at the very least.
Empathic
You care about others. You don't care about your own greed. You put others before yourself. Call it karma, call it the Golden Rule. Call it Human Nature. The injustice served to one individual is linked to others who are seeing the same abuses. The plight of Palestinians with regards to Israel, the plight of economic refugees in Europe and America from American Empire's foreign policy is felt by you and found in ways to alleviate those abuses. Calling out ICE agents is just as much as calling out Zionists and their fascism. Your morality is your weapon and it has to be attuned to the poor no matter where they are.
Of course, there are certainly mixes to these and people get better or worse over time, but with these three in mind, let's take a look at the Fauxgressive:
Unchecked Ambition
It's always a good thing to aim higher. But if you fight for yourself, you may forget the people and their plight. This weakness can be exploited. It's far easier for corrupt forces to exploit pride and ego than fight a person who is selfless. Think about how Truman became president over Henry Wallace. One was a pedant. The other understood foreign policy, especially in Russia. We see that same fight occurring now.
Hypocrisy
Actions and words don't match. If you say one thing but do another, your road to a fauxgressive is determined. People can think of you as an ally, but see the conflict within. As with ambition, this can be exploited. Andrew Gillum learned the hard way that people won't fight for a hypocrite. The DNC is realizing the same thing but trying to merely dismiss what the public wants for their own interests. This will soon come to a head. Because the final part of a fauxgressive is going to be:
Corruption
This will begin the process of creating a Corporate Democrat. The desire for personal comfort outweighs anything else. By beginning to cut corners, you can make mistakes. Those mistakes become a pattern and that pattern becomes a blindspot to the corruption similar to Macbeth's wife having a spot. Corruption is about an incentive for the growth of personal status and it's no coincidence that a growth of self worth can lead down that dark path. If you want more on this, read the foreword in Edward N Luttwak's book Coup D'Etat- A Practical Handbook and come to your own conclusions.
These are but three important aspects to help people understand what defines a progressive and figure out fauxgressives. On a reading format such as Reddit, you begin to figure out really quickly the positions of others based on the words they use.
When they lie for the establishment, you'll see them mock a topic. For example, Mike Gravel points out that 9/11 was an inside job and that took off. My argument is that the FBI preserves the lie. But for others, that's not capable of being discussed. So the fauxgressives work to change the topic while progressives point out how the official narrative makes no sense.
In closing, I don't find it the most difficult thing to maintain perspective and critical analysis as a left wing progressive. I use history as my weapon to realize the mistakes of the past and not repeating them while watching others repeat those mistakes. Such is the burden of a historian.
But for you, as you find your path, consider who it's for... Are you doing this for you, or doing this for others? If it's for you what do you gain and benefit? Are you flying dangerously close to a fauxgressive sun?
What do you think?
Posted Jun 24, 2019, 12:34 PM UTC