Beyond the fact that you obviously don’t know what progressive or regressive means in terms of leftist politics and are apparently unaware that it has meaning beyond its use by Democrats
Claims I don't the meaning of the words yet fails to provide the actually apparent meaning, subtly revealing that you yourself are fully aware that these words are fluid in meaning and based on definitions that shift depending on the person using it
First of all, do you know what country Keynes came from?
Keynes was famously ignored in his own country by Parliament in favor the infamous 'Treasury View' this state of affairs continued all the way into the post-war era and is a contributing reason for Churchills loss, I know my history bruh :)
since apparently you seem to think social democracy and keynesianism have been one and the same throughout all history, wanna know what party he belonged to?
lol WTF is this gibberish, there is no social democracy without Keynesian general theory, it was the foundational organizing principle of the post-war consensus and provided the social liberals with the necessary academic clout needed to shift certain factions of industrial capital toward state-broker capitalism
Post war, the US went through a period of keynesianism but again it was still the preeminent proponent of limited concessions and limited intervention compared to everyone else
Limited social democracy is still social democracy, you're undermining your own point, all social democracies had differing regimes of capital accumulation which necessitated differing manifestations of Keynesian economic theory and practice
and allowed much less labour power, which is evidenced by how hard they tried to sabotage or antagonize not just communists but even some socdems in Europe
Competition and power plays between different national factions of global capital is perfectly in line with the nation-state ethos at the heart of the social democratic vision of society
Meanwhile the US had installed a bunch of puppet regimes the intelligence services of which they DIRECTLY controlled and which they used to prevent the rise not just of communists
We're talking about the manifestation of social democracy in Europe and the United States not the oppression of communist in Europe by US empire, you're deliberately trying to conflate socdem political movements in Europe with communist movement in Europe,
Throughout the 20th century and especially post WWII the US and to a lesser extent the UK were considered the preeminent bulwarks of conservatism, and I don’t mean social, but especially economic
I'm sorry you can repeat this horseshit all day long, it isn't true, the US literally underwrote the economies of the European social democracies, that fact alone made it the preeminent broker of the post-war era, along with massive public works projects, unprecedented expansion of the industrial sector and creation of the housing and education programs that dwarfed anything attempt by both cost and population, US conservatisism were only bulwarks in the realm of culture and social relations not economic management
but especially economic. Does the fact that unlike pretty much every place in Europe, the US never had a socdem party or a particularly powerful communist party not sound any alarm bells for you?
That's not simply an expression of economic conservatism, that is the result of POLITICAL institutional structures centered around the electoral systems of those specific countries, and let's not pretend the so-called communist and socdem parties were a universal expression of proletariat organizing, many of these parties were explicitly liberal in outlook, theory and structure. Most of their members wouldn't have been seen as out of place among the country clubs of the American New Dealers, you simultaneously over-sell the radicalism of European socdem movements and under-sell the radicalism of the American New Deal, you have a poor grasp of American labor history
Excluding a brief period around the New Deal
The New Deal lasted thirty years, the Bretton Woods system lasted thirty years, the subsidized expansion of the American middle class lasted THIRTY YEARS, what are you talking about, the US was a social democracy, a racist, imperial, blood soaked social democracy that collapsed in the 70s
and the white population was more content because they could expect wages to grow just by virtue of the ridiculous growth.
This was literally every social democracy, you are describing a feature of the socdem ideology, not some American particularity
Claims I don't the meaning of the words yet fails to provide the actually apparent meaning, subtly revealing that you yourself are fully aware that these words are fluid in meaning and based on definitions that shift depending on the person using it
Keynes was famously ignored in his own country by Parliament in favor the infamous 'Treasury View' this state of affairs continued all the way into the post-war era and is a contributing reason for Churchills loss, I know my history bruh :)
lol WTF is this gibberish, there is no social democracy without Keynesian general theory, it was the foundational organizing principle of the post-war consensus and provided the social liberals with the necessary academic clout needed to shift certain factions of industrial capital toward state-broker capitalism
Limited social democracy is still social democracy, you're undermining your own point, all social democracies had differing regimes of capital accumulation which necessitated differing manifestations of Keynesian economic theory and practice
Competition and power plays between different national factions of global capital is perfectly in line with the nation-state ethos at the heart of the social democratic vision of society
We're talking about the manifestation of social democracy in Europe and the United States not the oppression of communist in Europe by US empire, you're deliberately trying to conflate socdem political movements in Europe with communist movement in Europe,
I'm sorry you can repeat this horseshit all day long, it isn't true, the US literally underwrote the economies of the European social democracies, that fact alone made it the preeminent broker of the post-war era, along with massive public works projects, unprecedented expansion of the industrial sector and creation of the housing and education programs that dwarfed anything attempt by both cost and population, US conservatisism were only bulwarks in the realm of culture and social relations not economic management
That's not simply an expression of economic conservatism, that is the result of POLITICAL institutional structures centered around the electoral systems of those specific countries, and let's not pretend the so-called communist and socdem parties were a universal expression of proletariat organizing, many of these parties were explicitly liberal in outlook, theory and structure. Most of their members wouldn't have been seen as out of place among the country clubs of the American New Dealers, you simultaneously over-sell the radicalism of European socdem movements and under-sell the radicalism of the American New Deal, you have a poor grasp of American labor history
The New Deal lasted thirty years, the Bretton Woods system lasted thirty years, the subsidized expansion of the American middle class lasted THIRTY YEARS, what are you talking about, the US was a social democracy, a racist, imperial, blood soaked social democracy that collapsed in the 70s
This was literally every social democracy, you are describing a feature of the socdem ideology, not some American particularity