I try to avoid mentioning politics on my own feeds, unless I've got something that I think is new or insightful to say, but this might qualify so I am posting it.
Proposition 1a: Liberal or progressive politics are ideally the activism of Enlightenment values - which are roughly, "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" or "Liberty and Justice for All", "...all men are created equal...with certain unalienable Rights...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Proposition 1b: Enlightenment values are distinct from Authoritarian values of the Pre-Enlightenment type (Authority belongs to monarchs, nobility, agents of the church, etc) and/or the Anti-Enlightenment type (Some people are intrinsically inferior to others and are not entitled to life, liberty, or happiness).
Proposition 2: The rapid spread of Enlightenment values has occurred concurrently with the spread of mercantilism/capitalism, science, technology, and industry, which have had enormous benefits and costs that have been unevenly distributed to different people around the world.
There are good reasons for considering this concurrent relationship of P2 as a cause-effect relationship. There are also good reasons to consider it to be coincidental, or the other way around - with historical improvements in living conditions in Europe leading to Enlightenment values as reflections of, or justifications for the material benefits that were already growing (as a result of the end of the Bubonic Plague and the rise of military power to colonize less well armed societies, for example).
Because of the historical coincidence of P2, Liberal or Progressive ideas are associated with luxury, and because of the cause-effect ambiguity of P2, it is possible to think of having "Left wing" or Progressive philosophy as an effect rather than a cause of growing up in relative privilege.
Further, because many people have grown up in Liberal Democracies while at the same time being deprived of luxuries or even basic comfort and safety, it is easy to conflate the hypocrisy of those individuals who enjoy material privilege in Liberal Democracies at the expense of others less privileged with a hypocrisy of Liberal or Progressive views themselves.
One of the goals of Conservative media (especially the Right Wing neo-media) is to try to reinforce that identification of Liberal values with the hypocrisy of spoiled, decadent people. Conservative-Republican politicians frame Liberalism that way - as a decadent luxury of the past that we (urgently) no longer can afford.
The movie "The White Tiger" presents a main character who becomes a hero by turning against the wealthy elites that he was born by caste to serve, becoming a free man as a capitalist gangster. His narration includes the assertion that goodness, or being good is itself a luxury. Is this true, or do we make it seem true by polluting Enlightenment values with financialisation values that are ultimately anti-Enlightenment? Who and what does it serve to make a virtue of opposing anti-fascism?
gummygunk
stormborns
izzy806
romaincrisis
origamiaround