As first post here, i was reflecting especially on the role of the State in a progressive/socialist society.
We can start from some axiom that, I think, cannot be disputed:
In a state, in order to pursue policy, you need state capacity, the capacity of the state of "doing things"
State capacity varies for a lot of reasons, but generally good states with a lot of capacity are the ones with an high trust society, small internal friction, a not polarized political system, and all these things, together with a smooth system that permit the state to actually control things and move them.
Now, the theoretical goals of progressivism, as said by the ideological granparents of them (the French group, the german one, David and the antiracism american group, you know what I am talking about) are still about the destruction or the surpassing of Capitalism as an economic system.
But the point is; in order to do it you need the state, as Lenin correctly theorized! You cannot destroy the capitalistic system in a country if you do not have the men, the tanks, the followers and in general the power to impose things with will and force, and also this is state capacity.
This is outside the capacity of the single individual or the group or whatever, you need the State.
The problem is, I see progressivism as a continuous tentative of - degrading - state capacity (less thrust and less homogenity, polarized systems, destruction of meritocracy)
How in the hell are they supposed to destroy capitalism if the states that are supposedly created by liberal progressivism are weaker every day? In the West we begin to have difficulties in enforcing Basic law or fixing bridges!
My answer, at the end, bring always to the same point, and is that we need to understand if progressivism is bolschevism under the cloat of liberal capitalism or viceversa.
Because if they are the first category, they are terrible at doing their political project.
p
As first post here, i was reflecting especially on the role of the State in a progressive/socialist society.
We can start from some axiom that, I think, cannot be disputed:
In a state, in order to pursue policy, you need state capacity, the capacity of the state of "doing things"
State capacity varies for a lot of reasons, but generally good states with a lot of capacity are the ones with an high trust society, small internal friction, a not polarized political system, and all these things, together with a smooth system that permit the state to actually control things and move them.
Now, the theoretical goals of progressivism, as said by the ideological granparents of them (the French group, the german one, David and the antiracism american group, you know what I am talking about) are still about the destruction or the surpassing of Capitalism as an economic system.
But the point is; in order to do it you need the state, as Lenin correctly theorized! You cannot destroy the capitalistic system in a country if you do not have the men, the tanks, the followers and in general the power to impose things with will and force, and also this is state capacity.
This is outside the capacity of the single individual or the group or whatever, you need the State.
The problem is, I see progressivism as a continuous tentative of - degrading - state capacity (less thrust and less homogenity, polarized systems, destruction of meritocracy)
How in the hell are they supposed to destroy capitalism if the states that are supposedly created by liberal progressivism are weaker every day? In the West we begin to have difficulties in enforcing Basic law or fixing bridges!
My answer, at the end, bring always to the same point, and is that we need to understand if progressivism is bolschevism under the cloat of liberal capitalism or viceversa.
Because if they are the first category, they are terrible at doing their political project.
More options
Context Copy link