|back to main board||collapse thread|
|Reactionaries (23/06/22 16:27:03)||Reply|
The Wikipedia article seems up-to-date with canonical
reactionary movements and policies. But I'd say the Wikipedia article, for the practical purposes of today, is too narrow. I think we might come closer to a practically useful definition by looking at what I consider the opposite:
"In the 21st century, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions"."
I don't agree with that one either.
I think we need a new set of definitions - useful as guiding principles of future policies and politics.
I'll elaborate in another post - for fear that some edit glitch will take away all of the above - the foundation.
|Re: Reactionaries (23/06/22 16:56:23)||Reply|
When this is the case, they cannot be progressives. When this is the case, they are against sharing money and power, or against decentralising money and power.
In my definition they are reactionaries.
|So - progressiveness (23/06/22 17:15:40)||Reply|
- limiting or abolishing the man-made elements of the present global temperature rise
- limiting or abolishing the destruction of animal and plant habitats in order to preserve and consolidate biodiversity
-limiting or abolishing the opportunities for the rich of hoarding even more riches to the detriment of the many
- stopping and reversing the growth of the human population by extended mass-application of family planning methods in countries that now have banned them or made them unaffordable
For a start.
|Being progressive is having a solid set of ideas for ... (correction) (n/t) (23/06/22 18:56:49)||Reply|
|Once more: the original sin (27/06/22 18:26:37)||Reply|
So: why is it so expensive to have an education in the USA or UK? Because keeping it expensive is a sure way of keeping social mobility down, and securing the power of those already in power.
This has been analysed in a thorough scholarly way with plentiful examples. American university publishing at its best.
|Re: Reactionaries (26/06/22 17:06:17)||Reply|
Can the USians save the US? If not, then nobody can,
The pope gave his congratulations. I had almost forgotten, but he reminded me: The pope and the catholic church are enemies of progress and have been for centuries. If they wish to join in on progressive matters, then there might be arguments in support of letting them. Joining them in their projects, on the other hand: No way. Their agenda is purely reactionary.
|Progressives: Solidarity (of Poland) (27/06/22 19:24:58)||Reply|
To this there are some relevant extra information not shown in the Wikipedia article.
One is that Poland is special.
"The Constitution of 3 May 1791 combined a monarchic republic with a clear division of executive, legislative, and judiciary powers. It is generally considered Europe's first and the world's second, modern written national constitution, after the United States Constitution that had come into force in 1789.[d]"
"As the Sejm failed to implement sufficient reforms, the state machinery became increasingly dysfunctional. A significant cause of the Commonwealth's downfall was the liberum veto ("free veto"), which, since 1652, had allowed any Sejm deputy to nullify all the legislation enacted by that Sejm. As a result, deputies bribed by magnates or foreign powers—primarily from the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia and France, which had an ongoing revolution—or deputies who believed they were living in an unprecedented "Golden Age" paralysed the Commonwealth's government for over a century. The threat of the liberum veto could only be overridden by the establishment of a "confederated sejm", which was immune to the liberum veto. Declaring that a sejm either constituted a "confederation" or belonged to one was a contrivance prominently used by foreign interests in the 18th century to force a legislative outcome.
By the early 18th century, the magnates of Poland and Lithuania controlled the state, ensuring that no reforms that might weaken their privileged status (the "Golden Freedoms") would be enacted. The ineffective monarchs who were elected to the Commonwealth throne in the early 18th century,"
This reminds me somewhat of the situaton on the western side of the Atlantic ocean.
Early on - say late 1970s or early 1980s there were repeated conflicts at the Lenin shipyard in Gdansk. At the time - IIRC - it was said that more than 50 percent of all consumed alcohol in Poland was consumed in workplaces. So when there was conflict, and the workers occupied the shipyard, there was a ban on alcohol consumption there.
I think Russians, Belarusians and others may learn something from the Polish struggle around 1980.
All this because I looked up caipirinha. According to the web page
only one place in the world can caipirinhas of Brazil quality be had: Lisboa. And I've been to that bar.
But I'm too old for drinking. That's for the young folks.
|This board has been visited 216221 times||Current time is 05/07/22 19:42:56|