The only notable thing to be said about these two terms is that they're exactly the same one thing.
Specifically : progress is an English word that denoted throughout Medieval times the travels of royalty or nobilityi, and became obsolete just around the apparition of the steam engine. It was then picked up by the French Revolution faction active in the colonies, much like an expired domain name would be picked up by an eager MFAii
spammer marketeer. Meanwhile revolution itself is a Latin import (into French), originally referring to the cyclical movements of celestial bodies, or earlier simply meaning to turn, to roll back. Obviously this is quite distant from its current usage, which convincingly paints the picture of another hijacked term.iii
Both "progress" and "revolution", devoid of actual meaning as they find themselves, are neverthelessiv in wide use among the socialist party to denote respectively the inconveniences their followers must follow while the party is governing or aiming to govern. So, while Stalin is but a dangerous criminal throwing bombs and robbing banks in the Tsar's Russia, the poor unfortunate bystanders coming into contact with his antics are invited to excuse the damage to their life, limbs and property because "revolution". Twenty years later in Stalin's Russia, the same unfortunate bystanders coming into contact with the same antics are invited to excuse the very similar damage to their life, limbs and property - this time because "progress". Nothing substantial has changed, the socialists are still taking other people's things and causing a wake of desperation and misery wherever they go. However, the name for it is no longer revolution - but progress now!v
That's pretty much all of it. When the socialist steals from you without having control of the government, he's doing it for "revolution". When the socialist steals from you while also having control of the government, he's doing it for "progress".
Both terms, faces of the same coin, were born to support the needs and to mask the effects of the first socialist party, active in the late XVIIIth century in France but very eager and at times successful in exporting its brand of insanity, most notably : to the Eastern outskirts of Europe and to the fertile plains of North America. The terms survive to this day in common parlance for no reason other than the survival of the party in question, with its immutable malignant effects on human society, life, property and the quiet enjoyment thereof. They are not meaningful (nor, indeed, actually used) outside of the very specific context of the socialist mindset, but they are very useful there - where vast numbers of victims require some manner to refer to their wounds while ignoring both their cause and their substance.
For this reason, it is quite improper to call what Bitcoin is doing to the socialist world "a revolution". No, Bitcoin is not revolutionary, not in any way, not to any degree. Bitcoin is reactionary, and at long last - three centuries later - it actually seems there's enough on the table for the reaction to be both effectual and efficient. What the socialist world is attempting to do to Bitcoin is quite progressive in a few spheres, but by and large simply revolutionaryvi, and to this date also wholly unsuccessful.
Let's keep it that way. It starts by challenging the erroneous terms that the socialist tries to use, and by disallowing the specific manners of discourse the socialist needs in order to thrive. It starts there, and it goes all the way.
All the way, everywhere.———
- But only inasmuch as the nobility in question was sovereign, so a margrave could progress through the swamps he was the lord and master of, but a viscount could not progress through the capital castle of his liege. [↩]
- Made For Adsense, the sort of spamsite half to ninety percent of all adsense clicks originate from. [↩]
- The reason socialism steals words is really the same reason it steals everything else it uses : its fundamental inability to produce anything of any value or import. [↩]
- This nevertheless is likely misplaced. In point of fact, socialist discourse can not really use words with actual meanings, its nature and structure relegating it to an idle... revolution of empty vessels. [↩]
- And you thought the typically socialist practice of renaming the category of people without a home so as to fix the unpleasant statistics of is some sort of recent innovation. Guess what : not only is it not at all recent (the French socialists did it, also in the XVIIIth century) but it is certainly no innovation. Unless you count the rabbit's hop innovative every time a rabbit hops, you've no grounds to think this renaming game is anything other than the party at work. [↩]
- Fortunately the sovereignty of Bitcoin over the current socialist arrangements of the old world is quite manifestly evident. [↩]