Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm not sure if it is the 4T that is extending, but the 3T. To me, the heart of the 4T doesn't happen until the final Trigger Event (think Pearl Harbor) produces a Regeneracy. We aren't really 4T while the compromisers and stagnation enablers are preventing serious experimentation with radically new solutions.

As I see it, we had the beginnings of a security focused crisis with September 11th and Bush 43's wars. Radically new approaches were tried, preemptive unilateral serial nation building at gunpoint. Unfortunately, these radically new approaches were poor, failed, so the new approaches didn't lead to a gloriously transformed culture. We rewound to 3T mode and might or might not wind up coming around to try 4T mode again.

Long 4Ts? China was a mess from the Opium Wars through the Cultural Revolution. One might not think the English Civil Wars complete until Charles II was crowned, or perhaps even the Glorious Revolution. The French Revolution led into an awful lot of turmoil that didn't really end until Napoleon was exiled the second time. The longer times of grave crisis, though, generally have times of relative peace that might be interpreted as distinct turnings. I'm not sure the turnings are firmly defined enough for a definitive record setting answer, but times of trouble can certainly linger.

The three examples I gave above, though, were critical transformation periods where various nations were transitioning from the Agricultural Age tyrannical pattern towards Industrial Age democracy. That makes for unusually painful transition crises. We've got something different right now, perhaps an Industrial Age to Information Age transition. Different beast.

This is where the secular cycle concept is useful. Like the saeculum it has four phases (see page 33-34). For example in the English case the secular (cycle) Crisis was 1640-1660 and the depression phase was 1640-1730. I am in the process of responding to reviewers on a paper in which I argue for a 1660-1690 depression phase. In my (S&H-influenced) thinking, I see the Glorious Revolution as the event that "solved" the problem of the time (the tussle between monarch and Parliament) and so ended the cycle, allowing a new expansion phase to begin. I see this as analogous to the Wars of the Roses, which ended the previous cycle's depression phase, by resolving the problem of excess elites (by killing a lot of them) allowing a resurgence of state power under Henry VII (that is, a new expansion phase).

Turchin has extended this concept to America, but his book is not out until May. I have read the first half in manuscript (no longer available online). He has a cycle from 1780-1930 and the current cycle beginning in 1930. I don't think he gives phases, I don't know what he has to say about the present era; will have to wait until May.

My take is that a secular (cycle) crisis began with the Panic of 1907. Economic inequality was very high (like today) and it showed up in indices of social unrest which grew worse with time and peaked in a large outburst of instability in the years around 1920. The mood of the country then was what Kinser would call revolutionary. Although it was a revolutionary moment, revolution didn't happen. At the same time we had just fought and won a Great Power war that occurred at the proper time for a Modelski and Thompson Global War. Such a war permits a new hegemonic power to assert itself. The obvious choice was the US, by far the strongest power in economic and financial terms, which are easily converted into military power. But the US did not start acting like a hegemon after WW I.

So we had no revolution and no new hegemon in 1920. Yet just 25 years later we would have both, a political revolution in the New Deal from which emerged the Third Republic and another world war after which the US emerged as the hegemonic power. So why didn't it happen the first time? My answer is to invoke S&H, the secular (cycle) crisis came during a 3T, so it didn't happen. Instead, the secular (cycle) crisis ended, a depression phase began, during which and we got another event, less (internally) violent, but more politically significant, during which all the things that should have happened before did happen. Why? Because it was a 4T.

The concept I am considering is these two processes, the secular cycle and the saeculum run in parallel. The first is defined by social variables, population, class structure, prices, economic inequality, internal instability etc. The second is defined by generations (as I have posted in another thread). When a secular cycle crisis shows up, if it happens to be a 4T, it gets resolved right away. If it happens during another turning, then you get a longer depression phase.

A test of this model is how do you characterize the Russian 1917 revolution in S&H terms? Turchin has done secular cycles for Russia. He gives a crisis over 1905-1922 and NO depression phase. According to my model, this would happen only if the revolution happened in a 4T, because then it would get resolved in a hurry shortening the depression phase (or in this case apparently eliminating it).

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

High probability is not the same as certainty.

Sure, but why continue to give validity to a theory that fails the first time it is used?

That said, I have not given up on S&H (see my post above). I see 1907=2006 in secular cycle terms. So the "crisis of 2020" ought to be a secular (cycle) crisis. Turchin hints at this. So if there is anything to Turhcin's cycles and S&H we should see a pretty obvious resolution over the next two electoral cycles.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I was more amused by a Marxist quoting anything the AEI hand a hand in creating.

It may be amusing but it is hardly irony. I study the capitalist factions as a matter of course. Should they happen to produce something that backs up an argument of mine I am not afraid to use it. Just like I wouldn't be afraid to use statistics from the various bourgeois governments to back up an argument. My strength is in theory, not theatrics. I leave that to agitprop.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I call him a reactionary all the time, and yes, I do know what it means. He lives in an idyllic past. That meets my threshold.

FWIW, my brother has similar if not virtually identical opinions.

Personally, I could care less why people call Classic Xer a reactionary. From his posts I've determined that his views seem to be informed by as you put it--an idyllic past. That being said I typically refrain from calling people who aren't openly reactionaries and a threat reactionaries. Much like I don't call people who aren't actually fascists fascist. I simply don't have enough information on him to make the determination that he is a political threat.

On the left though, I know clearly who is a threat. Neo-Progressives fall into that category. They are of the same ilk as the Trotskites. Indeed their ideology itself is derived from Trotskism as the New Left from which it is derived was overwhelmingly Trotskite in nature. Interestingly the same roots for Neo-Progressivism are found in Neo-Conservatism. Neo-Liberalism is little more than the worst elements of Capitalist Liberalism distilled into a particularly toxic poison.

Much like Neo-Conservatism has little to do with actual conservatism, and Neo-Liberalism has little to do with actual liberalism, Neo-Progressivism has little to do with actual progressivism.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You harken back to an idyllic time similar to the 1950s-as-advertised, but with better technology. Judging by your posts, I doubt you're happy with things as they are. That makes you a reactionary, albeit a common variety in modern OECD countries.

The historical pattern says that we exit the Crisis by a very different means from our entry. The next 1T will have much in common with the previous ones. The dominant Civic generation will divide on one mainstream collectivism against others, with something more exotic (Jacobinism in the 1790s, Communism in the 1950s, maybe some form of political Islam in the 2030s?) being seen as a threat. I'm going to predict that the 2030s will be another heyday of small business, that a good work ethic and honest toil will again be enough for enjoying some Good Life, that the pop culture will be more whimsical than rebellious, and that personal lives will be more conventional and less daring. Culture will be stale and commercial. But there will be practically no nostalgia for the preceding 3T, a time condemned for bringing about what will be seen as an avoidable Crisis Era. Technology will impress people with few qualifications.

But that is how the generational cycle works. While one part of the wheel goes forward, some of the wheel is going backward -- even if the vehicle on which the wheel moves is going forward. Only if the wheel is stopped is no part of the wheel going backward.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Much like Neo-Conservatism has little to do with actual conservatism, and Neo-Liberalism has little to do with actual liberalism, Neo-Progressivism has little to do with actual progressivism.

I am familar with the first two, but not neo-Progressivism. What's that?

I did a search read a few articles and got as many implied definitions of the world. Went to the urban dictionary to get a definition and it came up with, don't have one, be the first to post one. OK so I am not the only one in the dark.

So which of the three flavors do you mean, or is there a fourth?

JANUARY 2, 2016
PRESIDENT BERNIE SANDERS? NEW POLL TIPS SANDERS TO DEFEAT CLINTON AND PREVAIL OVER TRUMP

MOHIT PRIYADARSHI

Will Bernie Sanders be America’s next President? A new poll appears to suggest so.

A national poll carried out by Quinnipiac University predicts that not only will Bernie Sanders defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination come June, but will beat Donald Trump by a landslide to become America’s next President in November, 2016. A report published in The Hill showed that Sanders will defeat the Republican candidate in a general election by 13 percentage points, with the former leading with 51 percent to Trump’s 38 percent.

If this indeed turns out to be the margin that Bernie Sanders wins by, Democrats would almost certainly regain control of the United States Senate and very possibly the House of Representatives.

Moreover, the Quinnipiac University poll also appeared to give Republicans no chance of setting their eyes on the White House, predicting that even Hillary Clinton would defeat Trump by a landslide margin — by 7 percentage points, to be exact — while Bernie Sanders will unequivocally defeat Trump in what would definitely be a victory of epic proportions for Sanders, if and when that comes to fruition.

According to the poll, 51 percent of registered voters have an unfavorable view of Clinton, while Bernie Sanders has a positive net favorability of 9 points.

image: http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/...nt-670x445.jpg

Bernie Sanders tipped to be America's next president.

President Bernie Sanders? The Democratic Party candidate is tipped to win the general election by a landslide later this year, according to a new national poll carried out by Quinnipiac University. (Photo: Alberto E. Rodriguez)

The report went on to suggest that America’s major news networks — including CNN — have been prejudiced against Bernie Sanders, alleging that the mainstream media has had field days with virtual news blackouts of the Sanders campaign when discussing presidential campaign polling. And while that might be up for debate, it is something Sanders has already cast his eyes on, once remarking in an interview on how ABC Evening News had only given his campaign a meager 20 seconds of airtime compared to Donald Trump’s 81 minutes.

Unsurprisingly, it had elicited a strong response from Trump.


Nevertheless, the Quinnipiac University poll will give Bernie Sanders a lot of confidence, especially with him now also holding a commanding lead over Hillary Clinton in the key state of New Hampshire and Iowa.

There have been other hints along the way, tipping Bernie Sanders to become the next President of the United States.

According to The Huffington Post, Sanders emerged as the undisputed winner in the recently concluded readers’ poll for TIME Person of the Year and scored major endorsements by UFC fighter Ronda Rousey and rapper-activist Killer Mike. Even more remarkable — and what is perhaps his biggest victory till date — Sanders has now become the first presidential candidate in the history of the United States to hit more than two million individual, small-dollar contributions.

image: http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/...on-670x487.jpg

Google, which keeps a track of trending topics and persons all year around, had previously stated that Bernie Sanders had generated the most interest among all the candidates ever since announcing his candidature for presidency, leaving both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to trail him by considerable margins. And while that might not be seen as definitive proof of Sanders’ increasing influence in the presidential race per se, it is certainly tangible evidence that Sanders is indeed getting people on his side.

And when his influence is backed up with data, there could be little arguing that no matter what happens, Bernie Sanders appears set to be a major force in the General Election this year.


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2674549/pre...jC2V74BdyWz.99

George Pataki is out.

George Pataki Never Had a Chance
By Patrick T. Fallon
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/...r-had-a-chance

George Pataki’s quiet exit Tuesday from the Republican presidential race has not yet set off an obvious scramble for his base of support, which, after briefly peaking last May at 3 percent, soon settled down to a more sustainable zero, with occasional forays up to one. But he did make Section A of The New York Times on Wednesday, earning a brief write-up on page 15, so at least someone noticed. Now it is up to us to make sense of Pataki’s departure, just as it was up to us to make sense of why he was running to begin with.

Pataki, the former three-term governor of New York, never had an overarching idea to hold together his grab bag of policy positions. He spoke in dire terms, of threats to American liberty, but most were clichés. In practice, “intrusive government” of the sort that troubled Pataki seemed mainly to take the form of cumbersome regulations on business. He did not object to the Patriot Act. He had no interest in Rand Paul–style constitutional reforms or Mike Huckabee’s moral crusade. At best, he offered up a barely detectable variant on the Republican establishment model, like the Malibu LT with the heated front seats instead of the Malibu LT with the Chevrolet MyLink touch screen. When he spoke of being “very passionate” about an issue, he seemed to be trying to rally his soul and body into commensurate feeling and action.

He no doubt appealed to voters on the market for moderation and general respectability, and, if he were still in office, he might be enjoying the poll numbers of John Kasich, currently soaring at 1.8 percent. But if you asked how he differed from Kasich or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush on policy, I wonder if he’d have much of an answer. For a while he hoped to be the anti-Trump, taking the lead in condemning Trump’s early statements and challenging him to a debate on immigration. But anti-Trump soon turned out to be the entire G.O.P. establishment. So what did that leave? Since Pataki never attached distinctive stakes to his run, no one could ever say what hung in the balance with his victory or defeat. His exit from the race seems about as important as his entrance, although more explicable....................

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You harken back to an idyllic time similar to the 1950s-as-advertised, but with better technology. Judging by your posts, I doubt you're happy with things as they are. That makes you a reactionary, albeit a common variety in modern OECD countries.

Actually, I'm pretty content with things as they are and have been since the 1980's. I'm not at all interested in a return to the 1950's era. I prefer the broader freedoms and the broader range of opportunities of today. I'm not exactly thrilled with the obvious lack of discipline and spine or PC and minority coddling and silly idolizing of specific people that has become more and more prevalent as your group has taken over the education system and the old mainstream media. However, I do consider it as more of an unfortunate trend with a relatively short shelf life as the world moves forward. Today, what we experienced as kids and considered normal as kids is something new that's called free range parenting.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Personally, I could care less why people call Classic Xer a reactionary. From his posts I've determined that his views seem to be informed by as you put it--an idyllic past. That being said I typically refrain from calling people who aren't openly reactionaries and a threat reactionaries. Much like I don't call people who aren't actually fascists fascist. I simply don't have enough information on him to make the determination that he is a political threat...

You give the word 'reactionary' far too much weight. It's descriptive and useful. On the other hand, I also avoid Fascist, Nazi and all the variants of Commie and Marxist. They can be descriptive too, but they have gained an historical burden that taints them. If you need insults, they get the job done. Otherwise, no.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Personally, I could care less why people call Classic Xer a reactionary. From his posts I've determined that his views seem to be informed by as you put it--an idyllic past. That being said I typically refrain from calling people who aren't openly reactionaries and a threat reactionaries. Much like I don't call people who aren't actually fascists fascist. I simply don't have enough information on him to make the determination that he is a political threat.

On the left though, I know clearly who is a threat. Neo-Progressives fall into that category. They are of the same ilk as the Trotskites. Indeed their ideology itself is derived from Trotskism as the New Left from which it is derived was overwhelmingly Trotskite in nature. Interestingly the same roots for Neo-Progressivism are found in Neo-Conservatism. Neo-Liberalism is little more than the worst elements of Capitalist Liberalism distilled into a particularly toxic poison.

Much like Neo-Conservatism has little to do with actual conservatism, and Neo-Liberalism has little to do with actual liberalism, Neo-Progressivism has little to do with actual progressivism.

The chances are likely, I'm a political threat. How big of a threat depends upon how big of a political threat that you and others here become. The liberal's/progressive's have a nose into other people's lives and business and sense of being entitled issue. An issue that is either a short term hindrance that will decrease with natural die off or a permanent issue that becomes more prevalent that will have to be addressed one way (politically) or the other (violently). I'm one of the few regular folk type posters who has the time to directly respond to liberal's here. I speak for millions of Americans. Millions who have the power to turn the liberal's world upside down at anytime or the moment that they TRULY feel threatened by them. The millions that liberals tend to right off, ignore, talk as if they no longer exist or matter, consider stupid, treat as if they're somehow below them and label as fascists, racists or whatever term they believe will apply effectively. I'm a simple reminder and a simple glimpse of a regular person who has the natural ability to pick them apart and unravel them.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The chances are likely, I'm a political threat. How big of a threat depends upon how big of a political threat that you and others here become. The liberal's/progressive's have a nose into other people's lives and business and sense of being entitled issue. An issue that is either a short term hindrance that will decrease with natural die off or a permanent issue that becomes more prevalent that will have to be addressed one way (politically) or the other (violently). I'm one of the few regular folk type posters who has the time to directly respond to liberal's here. I speak for millions of Americans. Millions who have the power to turn the liberal's world upside down at anytime or the moment that they TRULY feel threatened by them. The millions that liberals tend to right off, ignore, talk as if they no longer exist or matter, consider stupid, treat as if they're somehow below them and label as fascists, racists or whatever term they believe will apply effectively. I'm a simple reminder and a simple glimpse of a regular person who has the natural ability to pick them apart and unravel them.

Good luck with that. I for one do not mind if there are some here who represent the current conservatives of the USA.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I am familar with the first two, but not neo-Progressivism. What's that?

I did a search read a few articles and got as many implied definitions of the world. Went to the urban dictionary to get a definition and it came up with, don't have one, be the first to post one. OK so I am not the only one in the dark.

So which of the three flavors do you mean, or is there a fourth?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You give the word 'reactionary' far too much weight. It's descriptive and useful. On the other hand, I also avoid Fascist, Nazi and all the variants of Commie and Marxist. They can be descriptive too, but they have gained an historical burden that taints them. If you need insults, they get the job done. Otherwise, no.

I disagree. The term is a political pejorative, and like a pejorative it should be used sparingly.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good luck with that. I for one do not mind if there are some here who represent the current conservatives of the USA.

Already did it. Liberal's are no longer the size and the type of a threat that they once were here.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The chances are likely, I'm a political threat. How big of a threat depends upon how big of a political threat that you and others here become.

This may actually sound strange but a great deal of my Marxism would follow a libertarian format in so far as personal issues are concerned. Economic matters are where I differ with them. That being said, the evil communist you see (me) is no where near as dangerous to you as the Left-Wing Fascist you don't see (the neo-progressives on this board).

The liberal's/progressive's have a nose into other people's lives and business and sense of being entitled issue.

Good thing I'm neither a liberal nor a neo-progressive. Those who call themselves progressives these days would be actively shunned by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt.

As for the rest of your post, you may be surprised that many of us on the old-left feel the same way about the New Left. That being said, I think that natural die off will handle the problem (boomers seem to be driving the campus noise--this time from the prof's chair though). Most of the Campus Activists making noise now come from the most privileged classes. The students on scholarship, working through school are simply too busy studying to have time to worry about swastikas drawn in feces and all the other nonsense that is either made up or just stupid.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is where the secular cycle concept is useful. Like the saeculum it has four phases (see page 33-34). For example in the English case the secular (cycle) Crisis was 1640-1660 and the depression phase was 1640-1730. I am in the process of responding to reviewers on a paper in which I argue for a 1660-1690 depression phase. In my (S&H-influenced) thinking, I see the Glorious Revolution as the event that "solved" the problem of the time (the tussle between monarch and Parliament) and so ended the cycle, allowing a new expansion phase to begin. I see this as analogous to the Wars of the Roses, which ended the previous cycle's depression phase, by resolving the problem of excess elites (by killing a lot of them) allowing a resurgence of state power under Henry VII (that is, a new expansion phase).

Turchin has extended this concept to America, but his book is not out until May. I have read the first half in manuscript (no longer available online). He has a cycle from 1780-1930 and the current cycle beginning in 1930. I don't think he gives phases, I don't know what he has to say about the present era; will have to wait until May.

My take is that a secular (cycle) crisis began with the Panic of 1907. Economic inequality was very high (like today) and it showed up in indices of social unrest which grew worse with time and peaked in a large outburst of instability in the years around 1920. The mood of the country then was what Kinser would call revolutionary. Although it was a revolutionary moment, revolution didn't happen. At the same time we had just fought and won a Great Power war that occurred at the proper time for a Modelski and Thompson Global War. Such a war permits a new hegemonic power to assert itself. The obvious choice was the US, by far the strongest power in economic and financial terms, which are easily converted into military power. But the US did not start acting like a hegemon after WW I.

So we had no revolution and no new hegemon in 1920. Yet just 25 years later we would have both, a political revolution in the New Deal from which emerged the Third Republic and another world war after which the US emerged as the hegemonic power. So why didn't it happen the first time? My answer is to invoke S&H, the secular (cycle) crisis came during a 3T, so it didn't happen. Instead, the secular (cycle) crisis ended, a depression phase began, during which and we got another event, less (internally) violent, but more politically significant, during which all the things that should have happened before did happen. Why? Because it was a 4T.

The concept I am considering is these two processes, the secular cycle and the saeculum run in parallel. The first is defined by social variables, population, class structure, prices, economic inequality, internal instability etc. The second is defined by generations (as I have posted in another thread). When a secular cycle crisis shows up, if it happens to be a 4T, it gets resolved right away. If it happens during another turning, then you get a longer depression phase.

A test of this model is how do you characterize the Russian 1917 revolution in S&H terms? Turchin has done secular cycles for Russia. He gives a crisis over 1905-1922 and NO depression phase. According to my model, this would happen only if the revolution happened in a 4T, because then it would get resolved in a hurry shortening the depression phase (or in this case apparently eliminating it).

Are you familiar with Emmanuel Wallerstein's concept of a Secular Cycle in World Systems Theory?http://iwallerstein.com/ http://iwallerstein.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Wallerstein See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory . http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/f...allerstein.pdf
Wallerstein, while taking a Marxist perspective that divides the world into Core, Semi-Peripehery and Periphery, treats the world system as going through secular cycles that correspond to our Turnings based on the fortunes of the dominant actor for that cycle.
1T is Consolidation of Hegemony of the Dominant Actor following victory in the 4th T of the last cycle.
2T, corresponding to an Awakening is Challenge and Delegitimation of the ideological underpinnings of the Dominant Actor's hegemony, both at home and abroad. Adjusting Wars are fought which the Dominant Actor wins, but at a higher price than expected.
This is followed by Disruptive Competition corresponding to a 3T Unravelling. Initially, this period is one in which the Dominant Actor is dominant, but only through pre-eminent military power, lacking ideological legitimacy. This sub-period is called Indian Summer.
Indian Summer shades into Autumn (think the Chinese "Spring and Autumn Annals"), a period in which new actors rise to challenge the dominant actor's dominance while the dominant actor's position at home decays with scandals laying bare the workings of power that were previously concealed. Financialisation---growing importance of financial sectors of the economy are also a hallmark of this period. Investments and business models become increasingly brittle and we see "mummification of technology" and social models. All of these factors have been present, according to Wallerstein in the previous Saecula, which he calls, the Spanish System (the "Long" 16th Century"), the Dutch System (the Short 17th Century) and the First British System (18th Century) and Second British System (19th Century).
These Unravelings are followed by the 4T, a set of general wars that establish the next Dominant Actor and the next System.
I suspect that Wallerstein's theories have not been popular for several reasons. Firstly, Wallerstein does take a Marxist perspective and as a Marxist, is inclined to look for a final crisis of capitalism despite evidence that Kondriatev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave has shown of capitalism renewing itself (which ultimately got Kondriatev executed in the USSR). The second reason, I suspect is that Wallerstein's works are published academically rather than by the popular press and thus rarely find themselves in public libraries. And Wallerstein has at least 4 books detailing each Saecula. Amazon has them used, but to borrow them probably will require lending privileges at a university library. I think that if we can ignore Wallerstein's yearning for a "final solution to the capitalisim problem", his theories make a valuable addition to Saecula Theory.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Already did it. Liberal's are no longer the size and the type of a threat that they once were here.

LMAO, you are truly delusional (or, more likely, live in the Fox News bubble and/or in Bachmann's district) if you believe this, especially given that you are a Minnesotan. People like you are NOT the vast majority, that is a statistical fact. The majority of Americans favor progressive positions on an issue by issue basis.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Left-Wing Fascist

This is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by Odin

LMAO, you are truly delusional (or, more likely, live in the Fox News bubble and/or in Bachmann's district) if you believe this, especially given that you are a Minnesotan. People like you are NOT the vast majority, that is a statistical fact. The majority of Americans favor progressive positions on an issue by issue basis.

It's pretty clear to me that progressives control the Democratic party and now represent the majority of the party. I have friends who are traditional Democrats who vote Democratic regardless of the issues or who their party represents. They're values and views of progressives and their policies are very similar to mine. For whatever reason, they just don't associate themselves with the progressives or their policies. I don't expect the Democrats to change their voting habits. BTW, my friends are a healthy mixture of upper end professionals, business owners, construction workers, electricians, delivery men and managers.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Are you familiar with Emmanuel Wallerstein's concept of a Secular Cycle in World Systems Theory?http://iwallerstein.com/ http://iwallerstein.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Wallerstein See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory . http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/f...allerstein.pdf
Wallerstein, while taking a Marxist perspective that divides the world into Core, Semi-Peripehery and Periphery, treats the world system as going through secular cycles that correspond to our Turnings based on the fortunes of the dominant actor for that cycle.
1T is Consolidation of Hegemony of the Dominant Actor following victory in the 4th T of the last cycle.
2T, corresponding to an Awakening is Challenge and Delegitimation of the ideological underpinnings of the Dominant Actor's hegemony, both at home and abroad. Adjusting Wars are fought which the Dominant Actor wins, but at a higher price than expected.
This is followed by Disruptive Competition corresponding to a 3T Unravelling. Initially, this period is one in which the Dominant Actor is dominant, but only through pre-eminent military power, lacking ideological legitimacy. This sub-period is called Indian Summer.
Indian Summer shades into Autumn (think the Chinese "Spring and Autumn Annals"), a period in which new actors rise to challenge the dominant actor's dominance while the dominant actor's position at home decays with scandals laying bare the workings of power that were previously concealed. Financialisation---growing importance of financial sectors of the economy are also a hallmark of this period. Investments and business models become increasingly brittle and we see "mummification of technology" and social models. All of these factors have been present, according to Wallerstein in the previous Saecula, which he calls, the Spanish System (the "Long" 16th Century"), the Dutch System (the Short 17th Century) and the First British System (18th Century) and Second British System (19th Century).
These Unravelings are followed by the 4T, a set of general wars that establish the next Dominant Actor and the next System.
I suspect that Wallerstein's theories have not been popular for several reasons. Firstly, Wallerstein does take a Marxist perspective and as a Marxist, is inclined to look for a final crisis of capitalism despite evidence that Kondriatev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave has shown of capitalism renewing itself (which ultimately got Kondriatev executed in the USSR). The second reason, I suspect is that Wallerstein's works are published academically rather than by the popular press and thus rarely find themselves in public libraries. And Wallerstein has at least 4 books detailing each Saecula. Amazon has them used, but to borrow them probably will require lending privileges at a university library. I think that if we can ignore Wallerstein's yearning for a "final solution to the capitalisim problem", his theories make a valuable addition to Saecula Theory.

I am somewhat familiar with Wallerstein and the World Systems approach. About 10-15 years ago I was of the opinion that the saeculum operated at the world systems level. Wallerstein's saeculum has parallels with Modelski and Thompson's Leadership cycle, The big difference between the two is Wallerstein has the thirty years war as a saeculum boundary while M&T use the Armada war. Thus, M&T's cycles match up closer to S&H.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

This was one of the three definitions I saw. It basically the same as SJW. I would suggest using this term, because one of the others was what might be called social entrepreneurism. This fits in better with the meaning of neo when applied to liberals, and it is VERY different from this SJW concept.

Personally I see both senses of neo-progressivism as movements on the right. But then I agree with Kolko's interpretation of the original progressive movement as essentially conservative in nature.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This was one of the three definitions I saw. It basically the same as SJW. I would suggest using this term, because one of the others was what might be called social entrepreneurism. This fits in better with the meaning of neo when applied to liberals, and it is VERY different from this SJW concept.

Personally I see both senses of neo-progressivism as movements on the right. But then I agree with Kolko's interpretation of the original progressive movement as essentially conservative in nature.

The original Progressivism sought to alleviate the social pathology that made a pre-revolutionary situation possible. It sought to get children out of the mines and factories and into schools, removing nostrums that simply numbed the pain of mostly-treatable diseases, promoted some conservation, and got adulterated food out of the marketplace. It opposed machine (usually then Democratic) politics in the giant cities. It was not fully liberal, but it was certainly more liberal than the unadulterated ideology of Gilded-Age politicians.

Any copy-cat ideology of something 100 years old is likely to have gone obsolete. But living ideologies undergo adaptations to ever-evolving reality.

OK -- so I quit making gay jokes after I got gay-bashed. I wanted to do nothing to support a vile way of thought that sees homosexuals or even 'sissies' as fair game for assaults and insults. I recognized that any cause that promotes the dignity of homosexuals makes the world safer.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is an oxymoron.

It is not I assure you. Just ask Gregor Strasser about it. He was a Left-Wing Nazi of all things.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This was one of the three definitions I saw. It basically the same as SJW.

I would argue that the so-called SJWs are in fact political activists who have an ideology. This ideology is neo-progressivism because it has little to do with the progressive movement of the turn of the last century.

I would suggest using this term, because one of the others was what might be called social entrepreneurism. This fits in better with the meaning of neo when applied to liberals, and it is VERY different from this SJW concept.

Which term are you suggesting that I use exactly? This portion of your post is not clear. If it is SJW, I probably won't. I would argue that just about anyone who can at some level say that their political advocacy is in favor of some class could call themselves a social justice warrior. Indeed the concept of what is and is not socially just is incredibly fluid.

What I seek to dismantle is the ideology behind much of the new-left thinking as it is destructive to the broader left. It is an infantile and initializing disorder. Some have even called it "the cancer of the left".

Personally I see both senses of neo-progressivism as movements on the right. But then I agree with Kolko's interpretation of the original progressive movement as essentially conservative in nature.

Mike, I would argue that the New Deal itself was conservative (with a small c). It saught to conserve capitalism even if that meant regulations, and state control over some aspects of the economy such as minimum prices for labor.