politics

When you bring up the "dynamic of oppressed and privileged groups" are you referring to Marxism, and Marx's idea that all of history is the history of class struggles between oppressors and oppressed?

I can understand deciding that such a belief would compel Marx's followers (though not necessarily progressives) to be constantly on the lookout for oppressors and oppressed. But firstly, I'm not convinced that the above action -- identifying an oppressor -- is sufficient for a group marked as oppressors to face discrimination. And secondly, I'm not convinced that progressivism requires a class conscious (aka Marxist) lens. So, if you don't mind elaborating on your beliefs, I would appreciate if you answered these questions.

My Questions

1. Regarding Marxists: must Marxists discriminate? Once a Marxist has identified an oppressed group and an oppressor group, must the Marxist thereafter be compelled to attempt discrimination against the "oppressors" ?
2. Regarding Marxists again: can Marxists see an entire race as an oppressor class? Marx reiterated numerous times that ever since capitalism overthrew feudalism, there have been only two classes -- capitalists and workers. If one went about adding more oppressor classes and oppressed classes, wouldn't that contradict one of Marxism's core beliefs? How can one believe entire races are oppressor classes without abandoning the entire basis for class theory?
3. Regarding progressives this time: must progressives believe in class conflict in the first place? After reading or skimming the Wikipedia page for progressivism do you believe that the progressivism described therein absolutely must require a Marxist lens? I'm including an excerpt from the page below, along with why I find the connection hard to see.

Excerpts from the Wikipedia page in question:

Excerpt 1:

As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization...

Excerpt 2:

In the 21st century, progressives continue to favor public policy that they theorize will reduce or lessen the harmful effects of economic inequality as well as systemic discrimination such as institutional racism; to advocate for social safety nets and workers' rights; and to oppose corporate influence on the democratic process. The unifying theme is to call attention to the negative impacts of current institutions or ways of doing things and to advocate for social progress, i.e., for positive change as defined by any of several standards such as the expansion of democracy, increased egalitarianism in the form of economic and social equality as well as improved well being of a population. Proponents of social democracy have identified themselves as promoting the progressive cause.

As you can see, there is scant mention of oppressor or oppressed. Nor does the Encyclopedia Britannica fill the void -- it doesn't even mention the words "class", "oppressor", "oppression", or "oppressed" . In fact, the only mention of class conflict in either Wikipedia or Britannica is when the Wikipedia page mentions that early progressives (around the time of Teddy Roosevelt) believed a "good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace" were sufficient in stemming -- or even circumventing -- class conflict.

Given the above, one could argue that progressivism is equally as compatible with Marxist theory as it is with anti-Marxism. It's even feasible that progressives could outright reject the idea of classes and still retain every aspect of progressivism laid out in this definition.

Am I missing something? Am I not reading Wikipedia or Britannica closely enough?

Can you give a specific example? Christians, homosexuals, gun owners? I think the article deals with white male hierarchy, are they oppressed AND privileged?