No.
I’m sorry, you’re just wrong. You’re saying a thing and that thing isn’t true.
The phrase originates with the black panthers who used it to talk about the exact same thing Ochs is talking about, how quickly everyday liberals would embrace fascism (Manifested through supporting racist policies as soon as it in any way affected their own social milieu) the moment it became convenient to maintain the status quo even though they may have previously espoused opposition to fascism.
Progressives and neo-Progressives are pretty much 100% responsible for any kind of left wing policy in the U.S. and while you can argue they are liberals, ultimately their ideology stems more as a liberalizing of communist ideas, than a communizing of liberal ideas, usually cribbing from the socialist movements in the Midwest.
The lady in that picture is a “Progressive” who supported genocide and is now openly embracing a nazi. AOC could not bring herself to oppose genocide. “Progressives” are liberals, there is no actual divide. All “Left wing” policies embraced by the US have been embraced by liberals as a reaction to internal and external pressure resulting in the need for concession by capital.
My bad. I wasn’t aware it came from the black panthers. I learned it as a part of an epistemology of liberalism lecture from a Marxist activist way back in like 2016. At the time I didn’t actually get it, as I considered myself liberal, but I will recalibrate what it is supposed to mean, since I just thought it was a general phrase.
AOC is neo-progressive at best, with the OG progressives being the ones in the 1890s-1920s who were into eugenics and public sanitariums, but also women’s sufferage and public libraries (which is why I kinda understood the want to rehabilitate the label), but she hasn’t even done basic shit so she might as well be a liberal at this point, no matter what she calls herself. There are neo-progressives who do oppose the genocide, but they don’t really constitute a real defined political movement or ideology. So I guess that is just liberalism too.
No. I’m sorry, you’re just wrong. You’re saying a thing and that thing isn’t true. The phrase originates with the black panthers who used it to talk about the exact same thing Ochs is talking about, how quickly everyday liberals would embrace fascism (Manifested through supporting racist policies as soon as it in any way affected their own social milieu) the moment it became convenient to maintain the status quo even though they may have previously espoused opposition to fascism.
The lady in that picture is a “Progressive” who supported genocide and is now openly embracing a nazi. AOC could not bring herself to oppose genocide. “Progressives” are liberals, there is no actual divide. All “Left wing” policies embraced by the US have been embraced by liberals as a reaction to internal and external pressure resulting in the need for concession by capital.
My bad. I wasn’t aware it came from the black panthers. I learned it as a part of an epistemology of liberalism lecture from a Marxist activist way back in like 2016. At the time I didn’t actually get it, as I considered myself liberal, but I will recalibrate what it is supposed to mean, since I just thought it was a general phrase.
AOC is neo-progressive at best, with the OG progressives being the ones in the 1890s-1920s who were into eugenics and public sanitariums, but also women’s sufferage and public libraries (which is why I kinda understood the want to rehabilitate the label), but she hasn’t even done basic shit so she might as well be a liberal at this point, no matter what she calls herself. There are neo-progressives who do oppose the genocide, but they don’t really constitute a real defined political movement or ideology. So I guess that is just liberalism too.
Thanks!