‘regressive’

The right has a variety of insults to throw at their opponents, many of which would be insulting if they came their way, but generally not very damaging to progressives. These can range from misogynist slurs (devastating for misogynists, but not in general), ableist ones (ditto), insults implying weakness or specifically lacklustre bedroom skills (I guess as opposed to being intimidating, and the second either exalts sex or perhaps confusingly favours women’s pleasure), insults about intellect (whatever intelligence means), and perhaps the most confusing (or laughworthy), implications of regression.

Traditionally, ‘regressive’ has been a descriptor for the right, as many of them would prefer to undo any societal modifications that were either directly or indirectly created by the lower classes. For example, Nathan Larson would like to abolish welfare, which is essentially a concession to the working class to keep them from becoming more militant then they already are. This would be a partial regression to the periods of recorded history when the very concept of welfare was inconceivable.

At which point in history do far‐leftists desire to regress? Our recorded history traces back to class‐based, hierarchal, or statist societies, not the opposite, and such features aren’t easily compatible with an equal world. Paleoanthropologists will deny that humans were consistently hierarchal. To quote Chris Harman:

A cumulation of scientific evidence shows that their societies were not characterised by competition, inequality and oppression. These things are, rather, the product of history, and of rather recent history. The evidence comes from archaeological findings about patterns of human behaviour worldwide until only about 5,000 years ago, and from anthropological studies of societies in different parts of the world which remained organised along similar lines until the 19th and earlier part of the 20th century. (More information; highly recommended.)

So far‐leftists are regressive to an extent, but this information clearly contradicts rightist dogma that Sapiens, if not humans as a whole, were in an almost constant state of hierarchy or inequality. (Remember that leftists have no interest in ‘equality of endowment.’) If rightists admitted this, the mythology that they constructed around prehistory would crumble; it would be utterly incoherent.

Therefore, it is probably more helpful to think of regressive in terms of ‘undoing progress’ rather than ‘going back to some point in the past.’ It is perfectly normal for people to be fascinated with the past; remembrance is how we avoid repeating mistakes. Even so, there is a common, unaddressed tendency in the right to romanticize the past, saying that it was better than the present, & therefore regressing there is desirable. Whilst this mindset is obviously not exclusive to any political thinker, rightists seem especially unaware of the limitations & disadvantages of a bygone era, & do not typically bother to mention them, nor how they could be avoided.

In any case, applying ‘regressive’ to leftists is a somewhat recent trend, & can be confusing for any who do not romanticize the past. This is why the interpretation of ‘undoing progress’ is more useful, but what ‘progress’ are we undoing?

Segregation: white moderates think that voluntarily getting away from bothersome or untrustworthy people is comparable to state‐enforced segregation, specifically that type known in the U.S.A. during the 1950s–1960s. Why black students prefer to avoid white students is a question that I don’t see them ask, but my answer would be that too many of us are either unaware or uninterested in our possible racism, not because most or all black students couldn’t possibly want unity with us. This directs me to another point…

Discussing race: rather than acknowledging prevalent issues, white moderates think that they don’t exist anymore, or at least can be eliminated by ignoring them. Why would this succeed, and what should be done if it fails? I do not know, but I know that pretending that you do not have a problem will not make said problem vanish.

Excessive tolerance for immigrants: perhaps the most important is the (alleged) tendency to tolerate all Islamites unconditionally, such as mutilating infants’ vulvae. I actually have a refutation still sitting on my harddrive that responds to an elaboration for this, but as I continued I noticed that I kept repeating myself & was not in complete disagreement with the author, but she seems to have exaggerated ‘our’ influence & possibly misinterpreted what some leftists have been saying. (If she or anybody else would like to see its completion, I’ll get on it.) Here is an excerpt:

‘I really like that last sentence. Let me repeat: “…any cause that contravenes the ugly history of colonialism becomes appealing, regardless of the implications.”’

No it does not, and I don’t think that anybody believes this, because the idea of somebody excusing any atrocity in the name of anticolonialism is so absurd that it merits adequate evidence. Howard Zinn, for example, admired the origial Americans, but he did not gloss over the human sacrifice that the Aztecs conducted. They were fallible hominids just like the rest of us. A few soundbites from two ‘celebrities’ and a statement commenting on college youths is inadequate evidence to prove that your regressive left exists, let alone that it requires immediate suppression.

Whilst some of these tolerators may exist, there is simply no evidence to suggest that there’s an overwhelming number of them, let alone evidence that they’re a menace to society.

Putting the bottom rail on top: this is kind of a cheat, because it’s basically about the principle, not the content. Saying ‘I don’t like white men’ is supposed to be just as dangerous as saying ‘I don’t like Jews,’ even though a Eurofascist would never say the former, but you can still see the similarities, right‽ What about history? What about the present power dynamics? I don’t think that free speech lovers are going to directly respond to either of those (though they might claim that we’re all equal now). To them, the statement makes all the difference, not the context around it, or whatever provoked it.

Actually, the earliest citation that I can find of the locution ‘regresisve left’ is in a 2002 book written by Chuck Morse called The Gramsci Factor: 59 Socialists in Congress (yeah, right). The relevant passage is:

The leftist agenda is to preserve a judiciary stacked with left‐wing judges willing to use their appointed positions to unflinchingly, and by fiat, enact unpopular and undemocratic laws. The Constitution clearly calls for an elected Congress to make law while the appointed judiciary is supposed to ensure that the laws, enacted by the people’s representatives in Congress, conform to the Constition. The regressive left wants judges to act like monarchs by wielding fiat power in violation of the letter and spirit of their oath of office.

Here he seems to be referring to reformists rather than revolutionary leftists. It also looks like he’s consecrating liberal democracy (not direct democracy) by stating that it’s preferable that the people, regardless of their education or prescience, should make decisions, even if the effects will harm a significant portion of the population. That is not to say that monarchy would be preferable, but what’s the point in voting on matters that don’t affect you? We would be well justified in condeming an individual for repealing Amendment XIII (the slavery amendment), but would it suddenly become acceptable if 51% (or more!) of the population did it? (Unfortunately, I can’t access the next page, but in the end I’m hardly interested in apologizing for any legal system, especially one as incoherent or corrupt as that in the U.S.A. My preference would be that we coöperate to create a new system and not attempt to temporarily fix a broken one.)

‘Regressive’ is a loaded term, in part because history is filled with millions of differences depending on the time & region, some of which are quite generously compared to features in the present. We are regressive in that we desire to eliminate the political & economic hierarchies that the upper classes have imposed on us. Because this concession would endanger the justifications for the present structures, rightists & white moderates are caught between the hammer & the anvil.