Jonathan Freedland article on progressives and eugenics in the past

[claig]

'Progressives face a particular challenge, to cast off a mentality that can too easily regard people as means rather than ends. For in this respect a movement is just like a person: it never entirely escapes its roots.'

'What was missing was any value placed on individual freedom'

'Man now had the ability to intervene in his own evolution. Instead of natural selection and the law of the jungle, there would be planned selection. And what could be more socialist than planning, the Fabian faith that the gentlemen in Whitehall really did know best?'

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left

Is this one of the major differences between conservatives and progressives -freedom and planning, being allowed to make your own decisions and being told what is best for you?

Had a lot of social darwinism in my family. Horrible. Still very common strand of thought IMO.

Progressive thought in my view should be about making it possible for people to make their own decisions and exercise their freedom. But I'd agree that that can segue very quickly into forming the decisions people 'should' make for them.

Yes, it's almost as if the effect of social Darwinism is to supplant God and place the progressive planner in His position, to then make plans that affect mere mortals.

Hardly as though the left were alone in regarding "people as means rather than ends".

You appear to have selectively read the article to miss the conclusion, that we ought to now focus "on the kind of loose talk about the "underclass" that recently enabled the prime minister to speak of "neighbours from hell" and the poor as if the two groups were synonymous". Ie the right is now just as guilty of this atttude now.

You also missed the fact that whole article is just a puff for Jonathan Freedland's new book.

have no idea what the ideas of 'the left' of the 1940s have to do with modern 'progressive' vs 'conservative' politics

as far as i know, 'progressive' policies generally re-distribute wealth, whereas 'conservative' policies maintain the status quo or increase inequality.

don't see how trying to ensure the poor are less poor stops them from having children or impacts on their individual freedom or human rights?

Do "progressives" belong to a particular political party? I think there are plenty of "progressives" in the ranks of the Conservative party.

All good points and yes you are right rabbitstew, there are progressives in the Conservative party too.

But I thought that Freedland's article was thought provoking and
'For in this respect a movement is just like a person: it never entirely escapes its roots.'
brought to mind the question
"can a progressive change his spots?"

Is the 'Optimum Population Trust' progresive?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169707/Sir-David-Attenborough-calls-UK-baby-limit-stop-frightening-population-growth.html

I never knew that Freedland wrote novels and thrillers. But they sound quite interesting. Here is a review of his new thriller dealing with some of these issues

www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/12/pantheon-sam-bourne-review

Claig just liked the article because it features the word 'Progressive'.

Is this one of the major differences between conservatives and progressives -freedom and planning, being allowed to make your own decisions and being told what is best for you?

No.

And idea of social Darwninism isn't a particularly leftist ideal. In fact, it's often cited as a justification for Capitalism and the abolishment of the welfare state. These are right-wing ideals, not left wing.

It is the left which generally seeks to protect the weak, the infirm, the poor, the downtrodden. It is the right which generally bleats on about 'competition' and 'only the strongest survive' and individuals 'taking responsibility' for their lives with outside help.

So you're very much on the wrong track here, Claig, as usual. You are confused and incoherent.

George Orwell wrote
"Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to."

www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

I think 'progressive' is a great comedic word and a possible example of newspeak and doublespeak.

Yes, dear.

Do you think the world's population will spontaneously stabilise, then, claig, without wars, disease and famine?

I don't think it needs to "stabilise". I am not a doom and gloom progressive who thinks that the planet is heading for destruction under "climate catastrophe". These type of millenial scares have existed since the time of the Romans when the patricians tried to control the plebeians and the elite warned of a growing underclass. Now the progressives are the elite patricians, plus ca change plus c'est progressif.

I am an optimist, I believe that humanity will create inventions and find ways to solve future problems. I don't believe that the world needs to starve, there are enough resources to go around. It is just that patricians don't want to share, they do not believe in what is fair, they don't believe in equality, they are like the progressives that Freedland writes about in his article, they think that other people are of less worth. They don't value freedom, they think they know best.

'What was missing was any value placed on individual freedom'

They want to limit freedom and limit individuals, because individuality and freedom challenge the global groupthink of the progressive elite.

George Orwell was a socialist, btw, Claig. (and not a social-democrat socialist either, but a people-should-own-the-means-of-production socialist).

Yes, a 'progressive'.

You're right, he was a socialist and progressive, but as far as I know, not the type in Freedland's article.

There are progressives and progressives, some are more progressively mistaken than others. Orwell was not one of those.