Progressive Party

[Orinsul]

the comparison in vague and general terms to fascism for a thrid way movement works. you prove your own modern mindset though that accusation. As i said before because of the vague nature of victorias ideologies, any thrid way part is probably fascist, the medieval guilds would be fascist but they might as well be reactionary it all just depends on the way the man in charge of setting up the parties was feeling at the time.

What if there was a new strictly thridparty ideology, thrid way which was the centre and fascism made the far. as socialist is to communist and conservative to reactionary. wouldnt have many parties to it. and mostly they'd all be in the same country.

And the link to the wiki page on traditionalist conservative names GK's Distrubitism as conservative and well, thats pretty much the same thing as well. so who knows. but then it is wikipedia so it probably doesnt mean anything at all.

 

[YossarianLives]

the comparison in vague and general terms to fascism for a thrid way movement works. you prove your own modern mindset though that accusation. As i said before because of the vague nature of victorias ideologies, any thrid way part is probably fascist, the medieval guilds would be fascist but they might as well be reactionary it all just depends on the way the man in charge of setting up the parties was feeling at the time.

What if there was a new strictly thridparty ideology, thrid way which was the centre and fascism made the far. as socialist is to communist and conservative to reactionary. wouldnt have many parties to it. and mostly they'd all be in the same country.

And the link to the wiki page on traditionalist conservative names GK's Distrubitism as conservative and well, thats pretty much the same thing as well. so who knows. but then it is wikipedia so it probably doesnt mean anything at all.

I could see something like this as well, especially in light of the artisan pull to Fascism and Rural Progressive support, being as how rural POP's tend conservative. It's a potential compromise. The problem is there is so much Fascist "baggage"* the association is a little uncomfortable.

*not that the Progressives didn't have some of there own. Many were noted supporters of eugenics, correlating with there belief in "science".

 

[Weijun]

Certainly, as I've already admitted they weren't Classically Liberal, but you have to remember: they saw themselves defending economic liberty, just not necessarily the old ideas of it. I would still say that even in light of this, they fall into the umbrella of greater liberalism. I see where you’re coming from, and I think the issue here is just different definitions of “liberal” ideas. In the end, though, the most important thing to consider would by any other ideology would still be way more wrong, so liberalism wins by simple process of elimination.

You are giving a good description of the Left, but this is not liberalism, in any meaningful sense. "Greater liberalism" is a political claim that those on the Left are part of the political tradition which they rejected. In that liberal values were revolutionary in the 18th century, liberalism is part of the tradition of the political Left. However, Liberal (i.e. Classical Liberal") values have remained constant, even as the Left changes.

I concede this point but it not sure what it proves. Could you elaborate?

One of the core tenets of Liberalism is that man is entitled to the fruits of his labor (and to dispose of it as he pleases). If not, then he is a slave. Because Progressives seek to undermine property rights and take away economic liberty, they are not Liberal.

This is the approach I would advocate as well. It simply makes the most sense in the context of modern definitions of liberal and the game itself, which is the most important part.

It would be even simpler, and more accurate, to call the American fascist party Progressive.

 

[Orinsul]

Eugenics in politics is under the title of Liberalism, in english speaking places anyway. hopefully its an issue in the game this time round as it was very important.
I would love to see Distributism as a posibility in the game but i guess youd need alot of divergence to get there, probably the jacobites would have to overthrow the girl with a games title for a name or at the very least bring her into the faith


And not being liaze-faire doesnt make you not liberal, its a big title, it makes you not anarcho-liberal, but centre-liberal can be pretty much anything that thinks itself to be liberal and chooses that colour hat

And what was the Huey Long party? surely thatd be the american fascist party, did he even have one or was he just in a distant branch of one of the two parties.

 

[Weijun]

I could see something like this as well, especially in light of the artisan pull to Fascism and Rural Progressive support, being as how rural POP's tend conservative. It's a potential compromise. The problem is there is so much Fascist "baggage"* the association is a little uncomfortable.

*not that the Progressives didn't have some of there own. Many were noted supporters of eugenics, correlating with there belief in "science".

German fascism has tainted the entire ideology, so since World War II, anyone who supports such policies has had to call himself something else. Applying this taboo to earlier periods, however, is ahistorical. Besides, American Progressives had a strong affinity to Mussolini.

 

[YossarianLives]

You are giving a good description of the Left, but this is not liberalism, in any meaningful sense. "Greater liberalism" is a political claim that those on the Left are part of the political tradition which they rejected. In that liberal values were revolutionary in the 18th century, liberalism is part of the tradition of the political Left. However, Liberal (i.e. Classical Liberal") values have remained constant, even as the Left changes.

At this point we’ve boiled things down to semantics, and I don’t see anywhere else for things to go. It’s best here to agree to disagree.

One of the core tenets of Liberalism is that man is entitled to the fruits of his labor (and to dispose of it as he pleases). If not, then he is a slave. Because Progressives seek to undermine property rights and take away economic liberty, they are not Liberal.

Well… I wouldn’t agree. But this is an ideological battle I’m not properly armed for, and I’d be utterly incinerated, so I’ll leave it at that. I'm doing a lot of conceding here, aren't I?

German fascism has tainted the entire ideology, so since World War II, anyone who supports such policies has had to call himself something else. Applying this taboo to earlier periods, however, is ahistorical. Besides, American Progressives had a strong affinity to Mussolini.

The more radical, yes. But even then they were looking at him though rose colored glasses and ignorance. I don’t think it’s fair to equate them even then. Especially taking into account the fact there were more fascists then the Germans and Italians: I have a lot of trouble grouping the progressives with, say, the Iron Guard. That just doesn’t jive.

 

[Orinsul]

german fascism didnt taint anything except the ground when the nazis had them shot, german nazis and their classification as fascists although they never were or even anything close to it has tainted it.
And what affinity and association doesnt change political position, President Roosevelt funded the British Union of Fascists but that doesnt make him a fascist or the B.U.F.s policies like that of his party, it just means he was a friend of the family. But once again i know next to nothing about the progressives, their american and not my area of interest in the least.

But this has raised a serious issue, SHOULD it be called Fascism if it doesnt just represent Fascism but also all other Thrid-Way ideological politics? Should it not be sundered into two ideologies? so that those parties that were economically thrid way but politically opposed to fascism simply because of its name or modernity although their policies were more or less the same, and also balance out the political model at the same time. Should it either be renamed to Thrid Way or should there be two ideologies to represent that direction of politics, thrid-way for the centre, and fascist for the far

 

[Weijun]

I had suspected before, but now you confirm it- you don't want a historical or gameplay based discussion- you want to make a modern political point based on your association of modern day social liberalism with fascism.

This is discussion is both historical and about gameplay.

Please try to bear in mind that this is discussion of fascism as a form of government, not an epithet. Nazism was not the only form of fascism, and despite contemporary associations, fascism is not synonymous with genocide or evil.

In 1946, George Orwell wrote, "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’."

Bear in mind, however, that there was a real international movement that rejected both Liberalism and Socialism. Progressives and fascists alike were inspired by William James' "Moral Equivalent of War." Both offered an alternative to Marxism for dealing with the alienation wrought by industrialization and urbanization. Both used corporatism and state power as an means to focus industrial production towards nationalist ends.

The gameplay issue is whether Progressives should be considered fascist, liberal, or whether they need a new ideology.

Contemporary politics is a different issue. YossarianLives made a fair point that there is baggage associated with the term fascist. However, that goes with the territory when covering historical periods.

 

[Weijun]

But this has raised a serious issue, SHOULD it be called Fascism if it doesnt just represent Fascism but also all other Thrid-Way ideological politics? Should it not be sundered into two ideologies? so that those parties that were economically thrid way but politically opposed to fascism simply because of its name or modernity although their policies were more or less the same, and also balance out the political model at the same time. Should it either be renamed to Thrid Way or should there be two ideologies to represent that direction of politics, thrid-way for the centre, and fascist for the far

You raise a very good point. Perhaps the best solution is to follow the Victoria I model of regular and radical politics. For Third Way parties, what if we call the regular ideology Progressive and the radical form Fascist?

 

[Orinsul]

i wouldnt accept progressive, its only true in one case. And it implies the liberal idea of progress for progress sake, something new as being good, im think thrid war might work, it wouldnt be perfect cos it doesnt sound right though. its not a people term, an ist or a ive or al
thridwayist ak, it bites the tongue and refuses to even try and roll
an ideology for low militancy artisans and high consciousness clergy, whereas fascism is for high militancy artisans.

 

[Weijun]

The more radical, yes. But even then they were looking at him though rose colored glasses and ignorance. I don’t think it’s fair to equate them even then. Especially taking into account the fact there were more fascists then the Germans and Italians: I have a lot of trouble grouping the progressives with, say, the Iron Guard. That just doesn’t jive.

I agree there is a decided difference. Third-Way politics varied substantially from country to country. America has always been an exception. American politics has never strayed as far from Classical Liberalism as any European counterpart. Consider that the closest Americans got to period-appropriate conservatives were the likes of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.

That American Third-Way politics were less authoritarian speaks more to American exceptionalism than anything else.

 

[YossarianLives]

Frankly, as fascinating as the conversation has been, I think the solution is more then a little impractical, and, almost more importantly, we’ve still only considered the tiniest percentage of the angles, and only in the most abstract way. I’m sure such a move would upset a lot of people, and if it was to be put forward it would have to have an iron-clad defense, one too that would be comprehensible even to people who just bought the game and didn’t read hundreds of pages of debate on the forum. (And not even I’m quite ready to buy it yet, although I’ll admit I’m curious and will do more research. It still seems a little chancy and reductionism--equating third-way politics to Facisim--especially in light of how messy modern ideology is, and the fact I've seen very similar things used as a liberals = Nazi's attack, but I'm curious nonetheless.)
That’s where things really fall apart.

 

[Orinsul]

Were not saying third way is fascism, but that fascism is thrid way
all conservatism isnt reactionary, but reactionaries are usually conservative. fascism is the extreme of the thrid way position, its not just amalgamate third way social and economics into the current system as most third-way [in the 1920,30s definition not the 1990s one] but the re-write the entire system on those principles

 

[YossarianLives]

Were not saying third way is fascism, but that fascism is thrid way
all conservatism isnt reactionary, but reactionaries are usually conservative. fascism is the extreme of the thrid way position, its not just amalgamate third way social and economics into the current system as most third-way [in the 1920,30s definition not the 1990s one] but the re-write the entire system on those principles

Well, I wasn't trying to insinuate that exactly, merely that I didn't think my hard facts about this are a little to hazy to make a value judgement at this time. I guess I just wasn't clear enough.

That American Third-Way politics were less authoritarian speaks more to American exceptionalism than anything else.

Sir, are you attributing this to some sort of quasi-mystical "American national character"? Because if thats the case I belie we've once again entered into treacherous waters.

 

[Weijun]

I’m sure such a move would upset a lot of people....
third-way politics to Facisim--especially in light of how messy modern ideology is, and the fact I've seen very similar things used as a liberals = Nazi's attack, but I'm curious nonetheless.)

You make a very good point. Comparing anyone to Nazis is not good. I still think the best bet is to elaborate on Paradox's regular/radical politics:

[B]Regular		Radical[/B]
Conservative	Reactionary
Liberal		Anarchist
??????		Fascist
Socialist	Communist

The only question is what do we call non-radical Third-Way politics. Orinsul did not like "Progressive" and "Third-Way" means too little out of context.

 

[Orinsul]

maybe progressive would do, or alternative, or lord knows. something that sounds good would be good

 

[YossarianLives]

You make a very good point. Comparing anyone to Nazis is not good. I still think the best bet is to elaborate on Paradox's regular/radical politics:

[B]Regular		Radical[/B]
Conservative	Reactionary
Liberal		Anarchist
??????		Fascist
Socialist	Communist

The only question is what do we call non-radical Third-Way politics. Orinsul did not like "Progressive" and "Third-Way" means too little out of context.

Frankly, I still think that no matter the similarities, putting moderate third-way politics on the same axis with Facisim is the wrong way to go. Facisim is just too charged an idea, and that's really where my objection stems from. Even if intellectually we can consider Facisim independently from it's "baggage", there are a lot of sense's where that that baggage vastly overshadows all the other aspects. On top of that I don't really see most people who ascribe third way politics to be the kind that would fit into that category, more sort "liberalism/conservatism with progressive characteristics" or in more cases then not, even non-idealogical (sometimes we get so caught up in these sort of debates we forget most beliefs in the world fall outside of such rigid ideology). This just brings us back to square one though.

I would be very inserted in an answer to the American exceptionalism question, though.

 

[Orinsul]

a compromise between the right and the left, between capitalism and communism, between the employer and the employee, thats what fascists called themselves. and in policy and thats also how thrid way sees itself. and how distributism saw itself.
Would you call the first Labour government Communist? no it was socialist, and in many regards entirelly liberal just socially so. Would you say conservatism cant share the same direction as reactionary because it is not as radical? thats kind of the whole point.
Why stand against a centre for fear of the extreme? Something is needed to fill that gap.

 

[YossarianLives]

a compromise between the right and the left, between capitalism and communism, between the employer and the employee, thats what fascists called themselves. and in policy and thats also how thrid way sees itself. and how distributism saw itself.
Would you call the first Labour government Communist? no it was socialist, and in many regards entirelly liberal just socially so. Would you say conservatism cant share the same direction as reactionary because it is not as radical? thats kind of the whole point.
Why stand against a centre for fear of the extreme? Something is needed to fill that gap.

Once again, I'm not really sure thats how Facists did see themselves, but I'm not too proud to admit that may just be the Fascist boogey-man image and the facts may be different. But even then I still don't think that was a really the crux of Facist ideals. I will reexamine things with an open mind and draw my own conclusions, and I'll let things close with that.

Although I still am interested in an answer to my American exceptionalisim question.

On a lighter note: I think we might have at least set some sort of record for "longest discussion of Facisim on the internet without major Godwins law shitsorm" or something to that effect.

 

[Weijun]

Frankly, I still think that no matter the similarities, putting moderate third-way politics on the same axis with Facisim is the wrong way to go. Facisim is just too charged an idea, and that's really where my objection stems from. Even if intellectually we can consider Facisim independently from it's "baggage", there are a lot of sense's where that that baggage vastly overshadows all the other aspects. On top of that I don't really see most people who ascribe third way politics to be the kind that would fit into that category, more sort "liberalism/conservatism with progressive characteristics" or in more cases then not, even non-idealogical (sometimes we get so caught up in these sort of debates we forget most beliefs in the world fall outside of such rigid ideology). This just brings us back to square one though.

If you mean that the rank-and-file could be relatively non-ideological, then that applies equally well to progressives and fascists. Aside from irredentism, what do you see as the key difference? What were the key differences between Woodrow Wilson's policies and Benito Mussolini's that fundamentally separate them as different ideologies?

I would be very inserted in an answer to the American exceptionalism question, though.

There is nothing mystical about it. The U.S. was founded on a set of principles, enshrined in the constitution. Despite Virginian claims of sacred soil, to be an American is a matter of creed, rather than an ancient heritage of blood and soil. This creed acts as an ideological anchor, so all but the most marginal extremists have to pay lip service at minimum. The two-party system also encourages politicians to appeal to the center, if they want to build any lasting coalition. Finally, the system of checks and balances makes it extremely difficult to implement radical policies without first persuading a very large majority of the people.

As for the people themselves, America has enjoyed tremendous prosperity, so only the most dire of crises gets people to give any serious consideration to altering the political model that has served the people so well.