Types Of Progressives And Their End Games

 

 Progressivism Defined

Progressivism, as I see it, is the cultural, social, and populist arm of the reformist-Marxist agenda today in postmodern America. To put it simply, Marxist socialism is the political and economic ideology and system, and progressivism is the sociocultural apparatus which promotes it—also known as cultural-Marxism (a term which progressives hate). Essentially, Marxist theory states that all mainstream cultural values and virtues within a society are intentionally instituted by the ruling class (bourgeois), in order to instill the values and order necessary for the power elites to maintain their dominance—a term dubbed cultural hegemony by the Marxists. Notable early 20th century Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci turned this notion on its head by theorizing that Marxist activists and radicals could use these same cultural hegemony tactics—i.e. cultural-Marxism—in order to infiltrate and alter a mainstream culture, through indoctrination, propaganda, and subterfuge, in order to make said culture more susceptible and conducive to political Marxist and socialist policies.

As such, progressivism can be used as an umbrella term to encompass these cultural-Marxist tactics, as well as the myriad of liberal and left leaning sociocultural sub-movements and causes and the people who support them. The leftist causes which advocate for various forms of social, cultural, and policy changes, while at the same time infiltrating the popular culture and consciousness, all in the name of furthering the Marxist socialist political agenda.

These sociocultural progressive sub-movements may include various leftist causes, cliques, and institutions such as: the socialist Democrat Party, feminism, environmentalism, animal rights activism, new age activism, “hipster” culture, social justice activism, affirmative action activism, racial liberation activism, LGBT activism, multicultural activism, the “occupy” movement and other anti-capitalist activism, anti-police activism, academia and education, and finally, the mass media, news, and pop-culture—just to name a few. As we will soon see, those individuals involved in or supporting of these progressive movements and causes may have varying degrees of knowledge, understanding, and complicity—ranging from completely oblivious to knowingly and willingly complicit—about how deeply entwined and aligned these movements are with the totalitarian ideology of Marxist socialism, or about the underlying ultimate political agendas of these causes and movements. Many of those involved, even those with knowledge and power within a given movement, are still usually blind to the fact that they are nothing more than manipulated and expendable pawns in a larger political agenda. Most, however, remain utterly oblivious.

A final way of defining progressivism may simply be in reference to the overall success and cumulative cultural effect and influence that these leftist movements have had on altering the cultural hegemony and zeitgeist over time. Essentially, the term progressivism can also mean the totality of insidious sociocultural effects that vocal leftist activism has inflicted, and continues to inflict, upon a culture and society. These effects may range from subtle or subliminal to blatant forms of social and cultural indoctrination, all the way to successful changes in various public perceptions, opinions, social norms, and both public and private policy over time. All in the name of promoting the furtherance and acceptance of political Marxism and socialism.

Marxist Socialism

If liberal leftist progressivism is the sociocultural movement and apparatus of reformist-Marxist socialism, then what is it that progressivism is advocating for—both knowingly and unknowingly—and what is the ultimate end goal of Marxism? Without going into too much detail here—as I have covered this topic in detail elsewhere—the ultimate goal, or inevitable result of, Marxism is an authoritarian-communist system. This is a system, as envisioned and advocated by Karl Marx, is one in which an organized proletariat, led by a vanguard communist party of the proletariat, rises up in bloody revolution against the bourgeois capitalist system and power structure, thereby overthrowing the old system, and replacing it with a new socialist/communist centrally planned system.

This new “transitional” system—I say that with the utmost sarcasm—was to be governed by the single-party communist vanguard, with complete totalitarian rule and authority.  The goal of this new system was the seizure of all private property, industry, agriculture, and wealth, with the intention of destroying all remnants of the prior bourgeois system, and instituting a centrally-planned “egalitarian” state in its place. According to Marx, this new totalitarian system should, and would, require a certain level of authoritarian control and oppression over the people in order to achieve these ends, but he envisioned this authoritarian-communist system as merely a temporary transitional one. Marx believed—either naively or disingenuously—that this authoritarian-communist system would last only until such time when class distinctions and the need for political power were no longer necessary, and then this authoritarian system would just simply melt away into a government-less “true-communist” utopia. This is of course a completely ridiculous notion, because those who achieve total power never willingly relinquish it, they only consolidate it.

Over the course of the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century, a schism developed among Marxist socialist theorists—Marxism having become the undisputed dominant socialist ideology. The schism resulted in two primary schools of Marxist thought: the revisionist/reformist Marxists and the revolutionary Marxists. The revolutionaries believed that the only way to achieve communism was through the violent revolution which Marx initially advocated for—some later writings suggest that Marx may have mellowed a bit on this. While the reformists believed that communism could ultimately be achieved through progressive reforms within an existing democratic system, and without a violent revolution.

This schism also tended to mirror the divide between eastern and western socialism/communism. The eastern Marxists—The Soviet Union, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, China, Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, North Korea—achieved authoritarian-communism through revolution, civil war, or the instatement of “puppet states”, and were far more militant, nationalistic, and oppressive in their administration and implementations of these systems (hard tyrannies). While the western Marxists—Western Europe, Britain, Scandinavia, The US, Canada—have taken the reformist approach, and have been relentlessly working to achieving the authoritarian-communist state through the liberal progressive means of reform, wealth redistribution, entitlements, welfare, social justice, and other forms of leftist radical activism (soft tyrannies).

Progressive End Games

True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits, and infiltrate the system from within”—Saul Alinsky

Make no mistake, the ultimate end goal of the progressive reformist-Marxist “power-elites” is the same as the revolutionaries. They still have the insatiable desire to create and rule over an authoritarian-communist state, and many are radical and revolutionary at heart, the only difference is that they have made the pragmatic decision of the reformist approach, and have acknowledged and embraced the benefits of the slow, incremental, progressive means of achieving it. As I stated above, progressivism is the cultural, social, and populist arm of the reformist-Marxist agenda.

The western social democracies—to include the US—that have been thoroughly infiltrated—both culturally and politically—by these reformist-Marxists over the years, and have embraced the reformist approach, are currently in transitional stages, or what Alexis de Tocqueville, as well as conservative author Mark Levin, refers to as “soft tyrannies”. Soft Tyrannies are generally states where the rights, liberty, property, and opportunities of the individual are slowly being eroded by socialist reformists, while the intrusive and authoritarian powers of the state keep growing. This is achieved through a combination of progressive sociocultural indoctrination and political reform, and always under the guise of “good intentions”, “fairness”, and “helping people”. The system may not yet be oppressive enough to the point where people really start to take notice, live in fear, or even to where it directly affects their day-to-day lives, but it is the old adage of the frog slowly being boiled alive. It is the slow and incremental approach to authoritarian-communism or a “hard tyranny”. I think the definition of a “hard tyranny” goes without saying, suffice it to say that it makes good old King George III look like a saint.

It is also important to note that even a “republic”, with a “duly elected” government, can still be considered authoritarian and statist. This is because even an elected government, through laws, regulations, policies, taxation, wealth redistribution, and bureaucracy, can still continue to grant itself more and more power and control at the expense of individual liberty. It does not really matter who the ever changing elected officials are, if the system is set up to allow the government to have more and more power, control, and authority, then those in power will inevitably use and abuse it. This then continues to move a nation further down the path towards authoritarian-communism.

Eventually, a tipping point threshold is reached, in which those in power are finally able to eliminate any remaining political opposition, thereby allowing for single-party rule—the ultimate goal of Marxism—and allowing for the party to begin consolidating total power and authority. At this point, there are really only two likely outcomes. “Elections” may still be held, but the ever changing faces of party approved leaders are irrelevant because “the party” ultimately pulls the strings behind the scenes. The second likely option is that one party leader is able to attain total power, eliminating any opposition and becoming a dictator. Both scenarios—including combinations of the two—have been observed countless times throughout history.

Now obviously not every progressive liberal is yearning to live in under a North Korean style authoritarian system–which I use as an example of the extreme end of the spectrum–but the problem is that through a combination of dependence, idealism, emotion, guilt, self-righteousness, ignorance, complicity, and manipulation, they are contributing to a slow march in that general direction.

For my purposes, and for simplicity sake, I am dividing progressives into 3 generalized groups in order to further discuss their motivations and end games. Does everyone always fit into a nice neat box, of course not, but generalizations help us to organize and make sense of the world around us.

The Dependents

A large segment of the liberal progressive voting bloc is what I like to call the perpetually dependent, or underclass. This large segment of the progressive base is almost entirely dependent on the redistributive welfare benefits, entitlements, social programs, and other social justice policies of the social democratic progressive state. Due to the fact that their very survival and sustenance is almost totally reliant upon the benefits of the welfare state, the overwhelming majority of them will generally always vote in lock-step with the socialists in order to maintain and increase it. This bloc also tends to be extremely ignorant and uninformed on political matters, and therefore due to this combination of dependence, self-interest, and ignorance, they are often easily manipulated by demagogues and the “power elite”.

The “dependents” also contribute very little in the way of economic production and capital to society and government, yet they consume the bulk of services (welfare, medical, housing, food stamps, subsidized utilities, police services etc.) and resources (almost 66% of the US Federal budget goes to supporting the welfare state). The “dependents” are therefore the very definition of generational poverty, lack of upward mobility, and governmental dependence, and that is exactly how the socialist “power elites” want it.

Yet, for every one person that truly needs these services, hundreds more abuse, game, and exploit the system for “free money”, knowing full well that the inefficient bureaucracy can’t audit everyone. This exploitation comes in many forms, including social security fraud, disability fraud, food stamp fraud, unemployment fraud, tax fraud, Medicaid fraud, and local government services fraud, just to name a few. This is not to say that those who abuse the system are not still totally dependent on it, but they also have developed an extreme sense of entitlement towards the government handouts and benefits that they rely on.

Many have become so generationally dependent on the government, that they have come to expect—and feel that they are entitled to—free handouts. Many of them intentionally choose to live off the system, rather than attempt to meaningfully provide for themselves. Many of them also believe that it is the government’s—i.e. taxpayers—sole responsibility to support and subsidize them, because that is what they were taught to believe by the “social justice warriors”. Most have been so indoctrinated and conditioned—purposefully—by progressive propaganda and identity politics to believe that they are nothing more than helpless victims of the system, and are therefore owed and entitled to government support. This in turn leaves most with absolutely no concern for defrauding or abusing the system, and even less concern for the tax payers who must fund it, because they have embraced an extreme sense of entitlement towards these government handouts and benefits.

The end game of the “dependents” is simply to continue voting for the people, party, and policies which will continue to give them free benefits. They have little concern for the well-being of the state as a whole, or for those who are forced to subsidize them through taxation, so long as their government benefits and services continue. The “dependents” do not understand, nor do they care, that these redistributive policies bring a nation closer towards authoritarianism. They also have absolutely no concern for the fiscal viability of such a system, and will continue to demand their handouts regardless of budgetary issues. Even when the entire system becomes unsustainable and insolvent, these people will still continue to demand their benefits and services. The European austerity protests in 2012 highlight this perfectly.

This group will never vote conservative in mass, so long as there are progressive socialist demagogues pandering, and vowing to keep the gravy train rolling. I intend to write a very detailed essay on the failure of the welfare state at a later time, so I am not going into a ton of detail here. I will however say that some idealistic progressives have naïve good intentions for continuing to institute these failed policies that perpetuate the cycle of poverty and corruption, and ultimately bankrupt nations. Other progressives–such as the “complicit activists” and the “power elites”–however have far more nefarious intentions, knowing full well that increasing and perpetuating the cycle of poverty creates governmental dependence, and solidifies socialist authoritarian power.

The “power elites” know that the “dependents” are a practically guaranteed voting bloc, and therefore will do everything in their power to continue to maintain and expand the numbers of the underclasses, simply as a means of furthering their own power. This dependency grants the “power elites” a huge leverage over the “dependents”, and leaves many totally subservient and at the mercy of the centralized government. The “power elites” know that anyone who depends on the government for their very survival will behave and do as they are told…they will not bite the hand that feeds them. More well behaved slaves for the government plantation.

The Reformists, Activists, Social Warriors, And Useful Idiots

Another large group within the progressive base, are the liberals, reformists, activists, social justice warriors, and the fairness crowd. This group can be further sub-divided into two subsections: The “Useful Idiots” and the “Complicit Activists”.

A) The Useful Idiots

I would like to believe that the majority of the liberal “reformist activist” types of progressives fall into this category. These people are the idealistic, emotional, naïve, misinformed, “touchy-feely”, politically correct, well-intentioned social justice warriors and activists. These are your true “bleeding heart liberals”. Most of these people are “useful idiots” in the traditional sense of the term, in that they are truly too ignorant to fully understand what they are doing, as well as the scope of the consequences of their actions.

I refer to this group as the “social justice warriors”. These people see themselves as reformers, activists, and social justice warriors, who must fix and reform the “evils” of the capitalist system. They feel that they must punish the greedy capitalists and “robber barons” in the name of fairness and equality. Fueled by self-loathing, “privilege”, and often times “white guilt”, these “useful idiots” feel that they must atone and disseminate restitution for the crimes of Imperialist Europeans and evil white male racists. Motivated by good intentions, self-righteousness, emotion, and a misunderstanding of “equality”, they feel that they must spread mandated fairness and equality, “help” people, promote governmental programs and benefits, and basically toe the line of progressivism. They believe in equal outcomes through redistribution and government mandates, at the dire cost of equal opportunity and individual liberty.

These liberal activists are fully on board with the progressive agenda, yet often with little real understanding of the ulterior Marxist motives or consequences. They completely buy into and regurgitate the progressive propaganda and indoctrination, yet are generally unsuspecting pawns and foot soldiers within the larger progressive movement. Although they may have a slight understanding of the Marxist agenda, they generally fail to see the “big picture”, and often do not think about the consequences of their actions. If by chance they do consider them, then they will usually attempt to justify them with their self-righteousness, platitudes, and good intentions. Most of them don’t even conceive of the possible oppression and authoritarianism that they can cause, because their “hearts were in the right place”. Again, if by chance they do understand the damage that they are doing to individual liberty, it is often justified and rationalized by their good intentions, or with a naive understanding of what true authoritarian-socialism/communism looks like. In their warped minds they can convince themselves to accept it, because it is “their” version of it, and it is “right” and “fair”.

They will support a fascist promotion and acceptance of progressive ideology, and are completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them because they “feel” that they are right. For example, these progressive “social justice warriors” generally see no problem with limiting the free speech of their enemies, or intimidating and silencing their opposition altogether, because in their fascist minds they believe that they are right in their beliefs and methods. Any belief different or opposing of their own is therefore wrong and dangerous, and as such must be silenced. They also generally see nothing wrong with the forcing of their views and policies upon other people against their will, because once again they are right. They never once conceive that these same tactics may someday be used against them when the “power elites” have no more use for them. These “social justice warriors” often fail to see that their own progressive policies are eroding their own individual liberties along with those of their enemies. They are unwittingly cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

These reformist activists also fully support the continued expansion of the welfare state and the centralized control of the economy. To them, there is no limit to the ever increasing amount of money or government regulation needed to “fix” any social problem, or to fund any government program. The never-ending arbitrary cries of “more money” and “more government” constantly spew from their mouths, yet no amount is ever enough, and no budget is ever sufficient. To them, every social problem or program can be solved simply by throwing “more” government money at it. “More” government control is the only answer to them, and they naively believe that government control can fix, fund, or socially engineer away any problem. Actual facts, budgets, fiscal realities, and solvency matter not to them, the only thing that matters is the cries of “more”, “fair”, and “fair share”. All the while, the state gladly continues to become more empowered, and the individual becomes weaker and less economically independent. The “power elites” love this, because once again, more people become dependent on the state as the centralized state continues to grow.

These activists would also welcome and celebrate a single-party ruled state, but of course only if it was their party that reflected their own views. They would openly welcome and celebrate the elimination or marginalization of any opposition parties and competition, citing how much more “efficiently” the government can now be run. Many would also be willing to grant limitless power to the leaders they adore and worship.
These “idiots” fail to see that once power is concentrated, monopolized, and un-checked, authoritarian oppression is sure to follow. As history has shown us time and again–with the Soviet “purges” and the Nazi’s “night of the long knives”–when these “useful idiots” are no longer needed, or when they become a threat to the state, the authoritarian state will eliminate them. Be careful what ye wish for.

B) Complicit Activists

These people within the reformist “social justice warrior” crowd are much more radical and nefarious, and are slightly less naive than their “useful idiot” brothers. These people are not motivated solely by the naive idealistic “good intentions”, “fairness”, “political correctness”, and emotionalism like their “useful idiot” friends are, instead they are motivated by pure Marxist ideology itself. These “complicit activists” believe and support all of the things that I have discussed above, but rather than being motivated by “good intentions”, these people are pure ideological reformist-Marxists. They desire and work towards the establishment of an authoritarian Marxist state. They usually know full well what their reformist policies are doing, and they are familiar and supportive of the end goals…an authoritarian-communist state. They naively believe that because of their help, they will have a seat at the table with the “power elite”. They academically worship radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che, and foolishly believe that this new authoritarian system will somehow be better than the one we have now. Most of them of course have never actually lived under a real authoritarian state, like the former Soviet Union, Cuba, or China, but in their warped minds they still find it desirable to what we have now.

The Power Elite

No one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power”—George Orwell

The final, and most nefarious group of all, are what I call the “puppet masters” or “power elite”. These are the academic, bureaucratic, financial, business, oligarch, military, and political power elites. They are the hard liners, the fascists, and those who seek power only for the sake of pure power. Countless ideologies have been used and manipulated by “power elites” throughout history in their quests for absolute power, but in the context of progressivism, these are the Marxist “power elites”. These are the people who truly buy into the tyranny, authoritarian control, oppression, and the state monopoly of power found under an authoritarian-communist system, because they imagine themselves as the ones wielding it. Inside of their own hubris, they expect to be the rulers, oligarchs, and leaders of the new system, and therefore have embraced reformist-Marxism as a pragmatic means of achieving it.

These are the bureaucratic central planners, the single-party vanguards, the politburo, and the tops of the power hierarchy. They firmly believe that they are the ones who deserve to wield power, and envision themselves running the schools, academia, social institutions, media, bureaucracy, military, and government. It will be they who rule with an “enlightened” iron fist against any dissent or opposition. Some may have good intentions—although evilly misguided in their fascist totalitarian approach—to create a fair utopian society. However, most are just plain psychopathic megalomaniacs, hell bent on the power and control over others and the attainment of pure power for the sake of power. This group personifies the Leninist/Machiavellian mantra “the ends justify the means”.

The “power elites” will manipulate and use the perpetually “dependent”, the “useful idiots”, the “social justice warriors”, and the “complicit activists and radicals” within the progressive movement as pawns in order to attain and solidify their own power. Those people, and the progressive movement as a whole, are nothing more than disposable and expendable tools to them. As I stated above, the progressive movement is simply a means to an end for the reformist-Marxist “power elites” in establishing authoritarian-communism, consolidating their power, and eliminating any and all political rivals. If and when the rabble rousing progressives become a nuisance or threat to state power, they would be dealt with harshly.

 

Revised 3-5-2015

© 2014 by AB Frank, All Rights Reserved

Read More: Socialism Part 1: The Dangers Of Populism 

This entry was posted in Culture, Society, And Political Theory. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.