There’s a grain of truth in “progressiveness is just a fad that one grows out of”, & that is that naive-communism is something that people who’ve HAD TO find-out just how different people are, ought be all treated the same.
What’s required is a level-playing-field, hard-walls for limiting corruption/criminality, AND the ability to earn one’s own success, but not disproportionately ( at the expense of the ones doing the majority of the work that the success is made-of ).
That differentiation isn’t something that the instinct of the young groks.
It’s like the fact that neurotypical-children younger than 4-yo simply don’t understand that some people you have to give-up-on: it doesn’t compute.
Identically, the communist “nobody-ever-contributes-more-than-any-other” braindeadness only owns the young/immature, not the people who’ve had to fight-for their own mental-potential.
The old saw about "in a ham & eggs dinner, the hen’s involved but the pig’s committed … " holds true.
“skin in the game” is another way of saying the same thing.
People have to be able to work-for the unique-potential that G-D/karma/Universe put in them, XOR that potential starts atrophying at whole-society-level ( part of what sunk the Soviet Union ).
Communism puts a lid on individual-validity, individual-contribution, individual-accomplishment, for sake of homogenousness.
& that is delusion.
But that is delusion that the young often believe-in, because they’ve not-yet experienced having their unique-potential systematically-snuffed by “the party”, for sake of homogenousness.
I was “lucky”, & lived in Ottawa, Canada’s equivalent to Washington D.C., so I got to have the condescention, the gaslighting, the machiavellianism of committee “help” snuffing my potential without living within any communist country.
A … Dutch? shelled-moluscs scientist, eye-blind, he “sees” through his fingers … identified that in communism, nobody takes care of anything, because nobody owns anything.
& then, decades after reading his book, discovered that Marx’s delusion was that in communism, everybody would be owning everything, together, in wholistic & happy fraternity.
IOW the opposite of what the evidence actually proved to be true: the essence of communism is brutalism.
So, all this to say that yes, there is a fundamental-difference between young-naive-wokeness & old-objective-wokeness, so there is a grain of truth in that saying, but to pretend that that statement is “true” is defective.
& many reject the naive-left/progressive position & go instead to fascism, of course, with its simplistic “thinking” & its “alphaness” proving its “validity” ( according to its simplistic-standards )…
That doesn’t prove that it’s “more mature” than naive-progressivism: it’s only a reaction against the original naiveness, is all…
It’s when one outgrows the whole category of ideology, then one truly is getting somewhere.
That makes things difficult, of course, as now EVERYTHING requires considered-reasoning, & NOBODY wants some asshole who holds that the entire-category of ideology, including their ideology need be tested with rigorous-thinking…
but integrity’s worth more than belonging, for some of us.
Oh no, someone has a nuanced take! Downvotes incoming.
The issue here is the catch-all terms being used. „Progressive“ is a bit of a mushy term in the first place.
Young people tend to be more idealistic and radical, regardless of the specific political ideology. The young know little, have little experience, and don’t own a lot. That tends to change with age.
Real life experience changes this over time. You notice when ideology and reality don’t align. You notice how implementing an ideology disadvantages you compared to others in some contexts. The cost can become quite high, if you’re deeply ideologically invested.
They are being downvoted because they are confidently misrepresenting almost every topic they talk about. There is nothing nuanced about it. It unironically reads like one my grandkids telling me a story about the fairies that live in their rose bush, but with none of the adorableness.
Not quite:
There’s a grain of truth in “progressiveness is just a fad that one grows out of”, & that is that naive-communism is something that people who’ve HAD TO find-out just how different people are, ought be all treated the same.
What’s required is a level-playing-field, hard-walls for limiting corruption/criminality, AND the ability to earn one’s own success, but not disproportionately ( at the expense of the ones doing the majority of the work that the success is made-of ).
That differentiation isn’t something that the instinct of the young groks.
It’s like the fact that neurotypical-children younger than 4-yo simply don’t understand that some people you have to give-up-on: it doesn’t compute.
Identically, the communist “nobody-ever-contributes-more-than-any-other” braindeadness only owns the young/immature, not the people who’ve had to fight-for their own mental-potential.
The old saw about "in a ham & eggs dinner, the hen’s involved but the pig’s committed … " holds true.
“skin in the game” is another way of saying the same thing.
People have to be able to work-for the unique-potential that G-D/karma/Universe put in them, XOR that potential starts atrophying at whole-society-level ( part of what sunk the Soviet Union ).
Communism puts a lid on individual-validity, individual-contribution, individual-accomplishment, for sake of homogenousness.
& that is delusion.
But that is delusion that the young often believe-in, because they’ve not-yet experienced having their unique-potential systematically-snuffed by “the party”, for sake of homogenousness.
I was “lucky”, & lived in Ottawa, Canada’s equivalent to Washington D.C., so I got to have the condescention, the gaslighting, the machiavellianism of committee “help” snuffing my potential without living within any communist country.
A … Dutch? shelled-moluscs scientist, eye-blind, he “sees” through his fingers … identified that in communism, nobody takes care of anything, because nobody owns anything.
& then, decades after reading his book, discovered that Marx’s delusion was that in communism, everybody would be owning everything, together, in wholistic & happy fraternity.
IOW the opposite of what the evidence actually proved to be true: the essence of communism is brutalism.
So, all this to say that yes, there is a fundamental-difference between young-naive-wokeness & old-objective-wokeness, so there is a grain of truth in that saying, but to pretend that that statement is “true” is defective.
& many reject the naive-left/progressive position & go instead to fascism, of course, with its simplistic “thinking” & its “alphaness” proving its “validity” ( according to its simplistic-standards )…
That doesn’t prove that it’s “more mature” than naive-progressivism: it’s only a reaction against the original naiveness, is all…
It’s when one outgrows the whole category of ideology, then one truly is getting somewhere.
That makes things difficult, of course, as now EVERYTHING requires considered-reasoning, & NOBODY wants some asshole who holds that the entire-category of ideology, including their ideology need be tested with rigorous-thinking…
but integrity’s worth more than belonging, for some of us.
_ /\ _
Writing so poor it offends the eyes.
Oh no, someone has a nuanced take! Downvotes incoming.
The issue here is the catch-all terms being used. „Progressive“ is a bit of a mushy term in the first place.
Young people tend to be more idealistic and radical, regardless of the specific political ideology. The young know little, have little experience, and don’t own a lot. That tends to change with age.
Real life experience changes this over time. You notice when ideology and reality don’t align. You notice how implementing an ideology disadvantages you compared to others in some contexts. The cost can become quite high, if you’re deeply ideologically invested.
They are being downvoted because they are confidently misrepresenting almost every topic they talk about. There is nothing nuanced about it. It unironically reads like one my grandkids telling me a story about the fairies that live in their rose bush, but with none of the adorableness.