The loop theroy

[NykylaiHellray]

How true is this old theroy.

"the left and right ring are not actually that far apart, but are looped in a circle, and the extreme right and extreme left always meet"

What it is trying to say, both call for alot of deaths. As even the revlution you plan, if it happened, will mean death, unless you intend to wack them with flowers.

What is your opinion on this theroy

[LSD]

What is your opinion on this theroy

In a word? Crap.


"the left and right ring are not actually that far apart, but are looped in a circle, and the extreme right and extreme left always meet"

Entirely false. This is just more centrist bullshit that somehow anyone with a strong oppinion is wrong.

And can we please get rid of this notion that politics are "left and right". The world is more than one dimensional.


What it is trying to say, both call for alot of deaths. As even the revlution you plan, if it happened, will mean death, unless you intend to wack them with flowers.

Come on, tell me you're not really that naive.

Certainly you realize that the world is more complex than that. Sometimes killing is justified, sometimes it is not. The act of killing does not in and of itself lead to moral parity. Much more important than if youv'e killed is why you've killed.

Unless you feel that Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler are morally equivalent.

[NykylaiHellray]

So u have just proved the theroy <_<

u are saying u would kill 100&#39;s maybe thosands to make the communist dream true.

I have met communists on this board who think that if deaths take place then it is not true comunism, these people speak sense. U do not.

[LSD]

u are saying u would kill 100&#39;s maybe thosands to make the communist dream true.

I said no such thing, I merely pointed out that the act of killing is not an ipso facto determiner of moral culpibility. That motive is often more important.

Again, do you feel that Adolf Hitler and Abraham Lincoln are moral equivalents? After all, they both killed people.


I have met communists on this board who think that if deaths take place then it is not true comunism, these people speak sense. U do not.

Sorry, but they don&#39;t "speak sense", they speak naivite.

No great revolution occurs painlessly, a communist one will be no different.

Hundreds of thousands died in the French Revolution ...does that mean that France should have stuck with a king?

The point is that allowing a perpetuation of the status quo means permitting more deaths in the long term. Acting in the immediate will result in death, yes, but ultimately it will lead to less than refusing to fight and allowing the system to go on.

How many more millions can we allow capitalism to kill before we act?

[Maynard]

It is common for defenders of the status quo, to label anything threatening it as "extreme" to try and discredit it and its followers. Remember how the terms left and right came to be, it was from the French revolution, the right was monarchists and the left was Republicans, those same, republicans, however would easily fit into the right wing these days, because of the rise of Marxism and democratic socialism. What is the "middle" and "extreme" is always being redefined, so that once was the extreme, becomes the middle and so on.
So, ideas may well be extreme, in comparison to the status quo buy that virtue alone, doesn&#39;t make them wrong or any less credible.



As even the revlution you plan, if it happened, will mean death, unless you intend to wack them with flowers.

Yes, that is true, but so many of the progressive steps in human history have caused death. The French revolution caused death, as did the American Civil War but too me, while the deaths were unfortunate, leaving things as they are, would only mean a lot more deaths and injustice. That how a bloody revolution can be justified, because inaction would only mean more deaths.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:07 AM
How true is this old theroy.

"the left and right ring are not actually that far apart, but are looped in a circle, and the extreme right and extreme left always meet"

What it is trying to say, both call for alot of deaths. As even the revlution you plan, if it happened, will mean death, unless you intend to wack them with flowers.

What is your opinion on this theroy
It is exactly correct.

Leftist lunatics are the same as right-wing lunatics. They both demand that society be modled in their vision, and there are no individual exceptions (i.e. individual rights). People exist to serve their vision. They don&#39;t consider a couple hundred million deaths to be too high a price.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:07 AM
What it is trying to say, both call for alot of deaths. As even the revlution you plan, if it happened, will mean death, unless you intend to wack them with flowers.
Logically this would mean, not that far left and far right are alike, but that everyone but Gandhian pacifists are alike.

Since everyone but pacifists recognizes that killing people is sometimes necessary.

May I remind you that mainstream, centrist people in U.S. politics favor conducting wars and executions. A lot more wars and executions than "left-wing extremist" Cuba. And IMF-style economic policies that kill tens of thousands every day worldwide.

This argument has no merit whatsoever.

[LSD]

They both demand that society be modled in their vision

Any political thinker wants society to be "modeled in their vision". Usually they try to make it so by convincing others.

What&#39;s your point?


and there are no individual exceptions (i.e. individual rights). People exist to serve their vision.

That may be true about the right, but the foundation of the left is to serve the individuals. Capitalism sacrifices individual rights by enforcing a strict hierarchical structure in which a few control many. Furthermore, whereas the ultimate aim of communism is to establish complete equality and democracy, capitalism is predicated on maintaining inequality&#33; It needs it to work. Poverty is essential to capitalism and therefore you are, effectively, asking the poor to "sacrifice" themselves for the bennefit of your system.

But then, that&#39;s the way systems like capitalism work, isn&#39;t it? When companies fire thousands, or governments cut benneftits, it&#39;s always done "for the economy". Poverty and starvation is allowed because any fix would "hurt the economy". The individual rights of billions are sacrificed "for the economy"...

If any ideology is willing to sacrifice individuals for the sake of a nebulous theory ...it&#39;s yours&#33;

[Frederick_Engles]

I can&#39;t see why very many people need die for socialism....
Apart from those killed by the capitalists.

[NovelGentry]

How true is this old theroy.

"the left and right ring are not actually that far apart, but are looped in a circle, and the extreme right and extreme left always meet"

What it is trying to say, both call for alot of deaths. As even the revlution you plan, if it happened, will mean death, unless you intend to wack them with flowers.

What is your opinion on this theroy

I agree in a circular structure to politics, however, I do not agree the meeting point is simply "a lot of deaths." It&#39;s far more complex than that. Saying that Stalin was like Hitler is a stupid comparison, but one that is easily made if you follow what you&#39;re putting across. However, realizing how Mussolini went from socialist to fascist can support the very real connection.


So u have just proved the theroy dry.gif

u are saying u would kill 100&#39;s maybe thosands to make the communist dream true.

I have met communists on this board who think that if deaths take place then it is not true comunism, these people speak sense. U do not.

These people speak of a dream world. But as LAD already pointed out, how much you kill does not decide moral parity and as I have previously said you cannot simply base this loop on "a lot of deaths." It is an over simplification and an extremely stupid one at that.


And can we please get rid of this notion that politics are "left and right". The world is more than one dimensional.

This is precisely why a circular theory makes more sense... or better, a spherical one. There becomes infinite points on which someone can lie, and even a minor change can swing you from one end to another. A true centrist ideal would be completely in the middle of the sphere, equal distance to any of the outer extremes.

[DoomedOne]

I never called it a loop theory, but I do tend to preach, "There is little political difference between a radical. The opinions may change but the actions and the mannerisms are the same."

[LSD]

I never called it a loop theory, but I do tend to preach, "There is little political difference between a radical. The opinions may change but the actions and the mannerisms are the same."

Well, I can&#39;t imagine why you&#39;d "preach" that considering that it&#39;s so obviously wrong.

I&#39;m not sure what you mean by "mannerisms", but surely you must realize that the actions of radical leftist and the actions of radical rightists are radically different. If you&#39;re unclear on this point, allow me to explain further.

Radical rightists will take actions in support of radical rightist ideologies.
Radical leftists will take actions in support of radical leftist ideologies.

Obviously you realize that these actions will, by definition, be quite different&#33;

Yes, they both will attempt significant changes to the status quo, but in opposing directions.

You dismiss "oppinion" out of hand, but fail to understand that "oppinion" is the most important element here. Political ideology informs action, it is action, when dealing with radicals in either direction. Clearly anyone who wishes significant changes wishes their actions to lead to those changes. Period.

And back to this "mannerisms" thing. If you&#39;re talking about demagoguery and politics and such then, yes, often the same "tools of the trade" are used on both sides. But that&#39;s mostly superficial, secondary stuff.

Much more important than how something is said ...is what that something is&#33;

[encephalon]

I get it.. so absolutely no change should ever take place, at least any change that someone supports..

This truly is a dumb theory. Where the radical "left" and radical "right" meet are solely in the strength of their feelings; Hitler believed all Jews should be killed just as strongly as I believe that all Jews should rather not be killed. Does that make us alike? No.

Does this mean that those fighting against everything the Nazi&#39;s stood for within germany were just like the nazis? No.

The problem with your argument, aside from the above, is that "radical" is a relative term, as well as "moderate." Indeed, 400 years ago everything you believe--provided you&#39;ve a basic belief in freedom, democracy, etc.--was considered dangerous and radical. There were Republican Terrorists, who believed people had a right to self-determination (as opposed to the prevailing monarchy). Does that make you like Hitler? Of course not. It just makes your argument profoundly thoughtless.

[DoomedOne]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 4 2005, 05:08 AM

I never called it a loop theory, but I do tend to preach, "There is little political difference between a radical. The opinions may change but the actions and the mannerisms are the same."

Well, I can&#39;t imagine why you&#39;d "preach" that considering that it&#39;s so obviously wrong.

I&#39;m not sure what you mean by "mannerisms", but surely you must realize that the actions of radical leftist and the actions of radical rightists are radically different. If you&#39;re unclear on this point, allow me to explain further.

Radical rightists will take actions in support of radical rightist ideologies.
Radical leftists will take actions in support of radical leftist ideologies.

Obviously you realize that these actions will, by definition, be quite different&#33;

Yes, they both will attempt significant changes to the status quo, but in opposing directions.

You dismiss "oppinion" out of hand, but fail to understand that "oppinion" is the most important element here. Political ideology informs action, it is action, when dealing with radicals in either direction. Clearly anyone who wishes significant changes wishes their actions to lead to those changes. Period.

And back to this "mannerisms" thing. If you&#39;re talking about demagoguery and politics and such then, yes, often the same "tools of the trade" are used on both sides. But that&#39;s mostly superficial, secondary stuff.

Much more important than how something is said ...is what that something is&#33;
See, this is the funny thing. I don&#39;t consider anything peaceful to be radicalism. I consider radicalism to be trying to enforce your agenda by any means necessary. There are a lot of leftists and about as many rightists with that idea in their head. Because they&#39;re willing to throw their morals to the wind for an ideal, there it no difference. I disagree with the loop, though. because I believe the more left I got as I grew up (raised by a very conservative family) the more peaceful I got. Still, is the difference between right and left a way of life, or an opinion? The truth is, they&#39;re opinions. Real non-radical conservatives are no different from anybody else, just misled.

I also like to look at it this way, Stalin was a leftist. he was a leftist that had a leftist agenda that his own greed obscured into totalitarian might. None the less he was raised with leftist ideals and surounded by leftist people. Hitler was right-wing. Hitler believe in inequality, he believed in elitism, and his image of a utopia was one where he had absolute control. Their actions are the same.

[LSD]

See, this is the funny thing. I don&#39;t consider anything peaceful to be radicalism.

Then you&#39;re rewriting the dictionary.


Still, is the difference between right and left a way of life, or an opinion? The truth is, they&#39;re opinions.

The truth is all of politics is a matter of opinions. So what?

Opinions matter.


I also like to look at it this way, Stalin was a leftist. he was a leftist that had a leftist agenda that his own greed obscured into totalitarian might. None the less he was raised with leftist ideals and surounded by leftist people. Hitler was right-wing. Hitler believe in inequality, he believed in elitism, and his image of a utopia was one where he had absolute control.

Again this exposes the problem with Left - Right thinking.

Yes, Stalin was economically to the left and Hitler economically to the right. But both of them were politically authoritarian.

Therefore it is not surprising that they both made similar political moves. What is signigificant is that they made radically different economic moves which only highlights my, seemingly obvious, point that people&#39;s actions are primarily informed by their beliefs.


Their actions are the same.

That&#39;s the point, no they aren&#39;t.

There were political similarities, but that&#39;s because they were politically similar&#33;

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 4 2005, 06:32 AM



Their actions are the same.

That&#39;s the point, no they aren&#39;t.

There were political similarities, but that&#39;s because they were politically similar&#33;
You kind of make the point here.

Stalin&#39;s and Hitler&#39;s actions were the same - they had killed anyone who disagreed with them. They consolidated power and fostered a cult of personality.

Hitler nationalized several industries. If you want to talk economics, then just consider the circle: Go to the left down the circle and you get to Stalin, keep going a little farther past him and you get to Hitler.

Basically you make the argument for us by admitting their political actions were similar - it&#39;s a circle of political actions/philosophies, after all.

[LSD]

Stalin&#39;s and Hitler&#39;s actions were the same - they had killed anyone who disagreed with them. They consolidated power and fostered a cult of personality.

Yes.

Because, again, life isn&#39;t "left and right"&#33;

Economically, Hitler was to the right and Stalin was to the left, but politically, they were both to the right.


Basically you make the argument for us by admitting their political actions were similar - it&#39;s a circle of political actions/philosophies, after all.

Again, you&#39;re thinking unidimensionally.


Hitler nationalized several industries.

Not really.

Mainly he just set up some "guideline" bodies to indicate "nescessary" production, but he left control of that production in the hands of private capital.

Corporations in Germany never did as well as they did under Shacht or Goering&#33;


If you want to talk economics, then just consider the circle: Go to the left down the circle and you get to Stalin, keep going a little farther past him and you get to Hitler.

That&#39;s ludicrous.

Economically, Stalin is obviously further to the left than Hitler. Period. If you keep going past Stalin, you&#39;ll get to Bakunin, maybe. Keep going you&#39;ll get to Classical Anarchism... You won&#39;t get to Hitler&#33; If you want to see Hitler, you&#39;ll have to turn around and head due right.

Hitler&#39;s back the other way...you know, busting trade unions and lowering taxes.

[trotsky4ever]

they teach this theory in poli sci 101, it&#39;s a completley useless generalization justified by mediocre centrists who think anything extreme is inherently evil...as if social justice and economic equity are extreme :rolleyes:

[DoomedOne]

Opinions don&#39;t matter, actions amtter, and throughout history people who are too extreme, despite their opinions, share the same actions.

[LSD]

and throughout history people who are too extreme, despite their opinions, share the same actions.

Bullshit.

Throughout history, people who are at the same extreme, share the same actions.

Hitler and Stalin, for instance, while economically different, were politically similar ...so their political actions were similar.

It&#39;s really rather simple.


Opinions don&#39;t matter, actions amtter

Look, this is a very simple concept that you don&#39;t seem able to grasp.

Opinions determine actions.

Therefore opinions matter.

Get it?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:07 AM
How true is this old theroy.

"the left and right ring are not actually that far apart, but are looped in a circle, and the extreme right and extreme left always meet"

What it is trying to say, both call for alot of deaths. As even the revlution you plan, if it happened, will mean death, unless you intend to wack them with flowers.

What is your opinion on this theroy
100% bullshit, because it&#39;s based on a "linear" political spectrum, which is rubbish. It&#39;s heavily outdated. It ignores anarchism, libertarianism, and their&#39;s "subdivisions". It also ignores the existance of various other axis that can modify attitudes. It also upholds the idea that leftists are a bunch of murderers by assuming that somehow that&#39;s what they want, even if on most cases those leftists see that as a "necessary evil". It also assumes that an "extreme" position is that which is more authoritarian and bloodier. If a "centrist" decides to end a fascist dictatorship through a bloody coup since it&#39;s the only way, then he is an "extremist" too?

You&#39;re wrong.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

For the record, I&#39;m going to say there&#39;s a fuck of a lot more than OPINIONS going on in politics. Opinions don&#39;t spring magically from our mind-fountains, but arise out of material conditions which shape us - the power structures that surround and inform our understandings.
The absolutely fucking crucial difference between the two "extremes" of the political spectrum (though I think politics should be looked at in terms of relationships to questions of class, etc. rather than in the abstract, as though they exist in some sort of mythical vaccum) is in how they relate to the power structures which shape society and inform consciousness/dialogue/etc. An authentic "leftism" (in the modern sense, that is, a politics aligned with the interests of the international proletariat) seeks to smash existing structures absolutely, and destroy the grand stories/ideologies/myths/images which nulify the individual and deny the uniqueness of situations and circumstances. A "right" perspective (that is, aligned with existing power structures, and particularly the bourgeoisie) seeks to rebuild, strengthen, and sustain the grand fascades which conceal the realities of modern social interaction.
The tactics then, vary considerably when looked at objectively - certainly, any class may employ violence ("War is the continuation of politics by other . . . means"), but the character of the violence is distinct.
Perhaps looking at a microcosm of the violence would help. If you personally saw a police officer in the midst of a racially-motivated assault against, for example, a youth of colour, would you think it wrong to intervene? Would it be wrong for the youth to defend themself? If you would condemn victims as such, I should question yr commitment to ultimate non-violence.

[t_wolves_fan]

For the record, I&#39;m going to say there&#39;s a fuck of a lot more than OPINIONS going on in politics. Opinions don&#39;t spring magically from our mind-fountains, but arise out of material conditions which shape us - the power structures that surround and inform our understandings.

Very true.


An authentic "leftism" (in the modern sense, that is, a politics aligned with the interests of the international proletariat) seeks to smash existing structures absolutely, and destroy the grand stories/ideologies/myths/images which nulify the individual and deny the uniqueness of situations and circumstances. A "right" perspective (that is, aligned with existing power structures, and particularly the bourgeoisie) seeks to rebuild, strengthen, and sustain the grand fascades which conceal the realities of modern social interaction.

That&#39;s a nice theory, and perhaps you genuinely believe that real "leftism" promotes individuality, but I haven&#39;t seen much evidence of it.

In my experience, since college right up to arguing with the angry teens on this board, leftists like those on the hard right are hardly concerned about individuality and in fact reject it outright.

As far as this board goes, most of the whacko leftists simply presume that people are all going think the same - when it comes to economics ("if there&#39;s a shortage, everyone will just take less"; "everyone will work hard for society as its needed"); values ("our society will reject religious thought); and so on.

Every-day leftists further reject individuality in nearly everything they say and do. Those who think differently are labelled racists or sexists or worse. God forbid a minority dares to disagree with them, they&#39;re labelled "traitors" to their own race.

Now before you go calling me a right-wing whacko (though as far left as you are, I probably appear to be in deep right field. But in fact I&#39;m in center field, while you&#39;re in the parking lot behind the left-field bleachers), I dont&#39; see a whole lot of difference with the religious right either. They all want everyone to be Christians who lead a very vanilla lifestyle.

Libertarians are really the only group that can lay claim to promoting individual rights, in my opinion. Both you and the right-wing Christian whackos want to use government or societal pressure to enforce conformity with your beliefs. For that reason, I reject both sides&#39; arguments, though I won&#39;t go so far as to be a libertarian. Certianly some societal bonds are necessary - just not as many as you and the religious right try to push.

Let me make that clear: you people and the religious right are no different. You both shout about "individuality" yet your every word indicates you think society - and therefore all its members - should act a certain way and undoubdtedly would if we&#39;d just accept your oh-so enlightened vision of "how it ought to be". You&#39;re both reactionary, inflexible, intolerant, and have severe control-anger issues.


The tactics then, vary considerably when looked at objectively - certainly, any class may employ violence ("War is the continuation of politics by other . . . means"), but the character of the violence is distinct.
Perhaps looking at a microcosm of the violence would help. If you personally saw a police officer in the midst of a racially-motivated assault against, for example, a youth of colour, would you think it wrong to intervene? Would it be wrong for the youth to defend themself? If you would condemn victims as such, I should question yr commitment to ultimate non-violence.

This little scenario has nothing to do with the right-left divide. Many on the right abhor racism and police brutality - I know because I was one for a while. A WASP is just as likely to intervene as one of you dirty commies.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A WASP is just as likely to intervene as one of you dirty commies.

Which says more about the tendency of people in general to overcome ideology and act meaningfully in the reality of circumstances, than it does about right-ideology.

A proper-conservative, living his/her ideas to-the-letter wouldn&#39;t do shit, but, thankfully, people tend to be humans first, and "believers" second.


In my experience, since college right up to arguing with the angry teens on this board, leftists like those on the hard right are hardly concerned about individuality and in fact reject it outright.

Certainly, some self-proclaimed leftists, like most rightists, are unable to see the crucial disconnect between individuality (beautiful, creative, and brutal) and individualism (crass and unpleasant - expression through consumption and the reduction of the individual to role within various over-arching myth-frameworks which refuse to recognise the realities of direct experience). I think certainly, this confussion within the radical milieu is an issue which must be addressed. Not only, however, within the radical milieu but across society as a whole. Ideology must be smashed in favour of meaningful participation in ones&#39; own life. A rejection of private property? Of the notion that wo/man might exist in a vaccum? An affirmation that we are imposibly and inescapably bound up in society, and in one another? Certainly&#33; A rejection of meaningful individuality? Hellz no&#33;


Libertarians are really the only group that can lay claim to promoting individual rights, in my opinion.

. . . and I am indeed a libertarian. There was even a point where I held positions very akin to libertarianism in the American, uber-capitalizt, sense. However, as long as the great masses of people are held back from manifesting their creative potential by the despotism of a social system where priorities are dictated by the cold laws of the market, and the subsequent submission to grand superhuman myths which make banality of everyday life, then there can be no liberty.


. . . want to use government or societal pressure to enforce conformity with your beliefs.

That&#39;s an interesting take on things - but personally, I think there is a definate difference between systematic violence and enforced participation, and most of the methods I have typically propsed for social cohesion. I mean, if I seduce somebody, am I really coercing them?
Before the question of revolution comes up - certainly, if I convince the working class to leave her abusive husband, and he attempts to restrain her, she has every right to punch him in the jaw.
Amusingly, your centrism (for the record, a "centrist" in the US is a right-winger in the rest of the developed world, excluding perhaps Australia) seems to behave similarly in practice. While the rhetoric of moderation is very nice, does not the moderate state turn to army and police to enforce norms just as the theocracy might? It is simply a question of what specific things centrists and wing-nuts deem unnacceptable. A difference in fascade, rather than fundamental underlying operations (though make no mistakes, I&#39;d rather not live in a theocracy . . . but I&#39;d also rather cut of one finger than both arms).


You&#39;re [. . .] reactionary

Kneejerk. Constantly. At the slightist indication of progress, I demand stagnation. I&#39;m really terrified of change. ;)


inflexible

Aye, today&#39;s left looks exactly like the First International.
I&#39;m so glad we&#39;ve remained completely undynamic. I&#39;m so glad the left is still entirely old white Europeans that hate queers. Thank-god we haven&#39;t done anything to keep up with the times (see above - I hate change)&#33;


*Reflects breifly on the idea of leftists from the every decade - First International to present - locked in a room together. Laughs.*


intolerant

Of anyone in particular?
Assuming you mean "intolerant of other ideas" or something equally silly, I think it&#39;s worth noting that leftist ideas have formed, and hopefully will continue to develop, through open conflict of ideas. If I didn&#39;t hate Hegel so much, I&#39;d almost say it was dialectical. ;)


severe control-anger issues

A set of ideas can have anger-issues hardwired into it?

Well, whatever you say. I promise though, I&#39;m one of the more laidback folk you&#39;ll ever meet. If you&#39;re ever in Atlantic Canada, I&#39;d probably even go for a drink with you. I&#39;ll drink with a "reactionary, imperialist, lackey" (heck, I&#39;ve lived with them) if you&#39;re willing to split a pitcher* with a "freedom-hating commie".



*Praxis&#33;

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:58 AM
Opinions don&#39;t matter, actions amtter, and throughout history people who are too extreme, despite their opinions, share the same actions.
Your&#39;e too extreme in your rejections of extremes. To reject all extremes is itself extremist. A middle of the road position would accept some extremes but not others, which refutes the idea that the middle of the road is always best.

Some extremes I believe in:

all slavery is wrong and we should do the best we can to create a society with absolutely no slavery whatsoever. That&#39;s an extreme position. The opposite extreme would be to have lots and lots of slavery (with almost everyone a slave). The middle of the road position is to have some slavery, but not too much or too little.

Rape is always wrong and we should do the best we can to create a society without rape. The middle of the road position is to have a moderate amount of rape (not too much but not too little).

Genocide is also wrong and should be done away with. That&#39;s also an extreme position - you can&#39;t get any more extreme than that. There&#39;s nothing more anti-genocide than that position. The middle of the road position is to have a moderate amount of genocide.

So, if your&#39;e not an extremist you must advocate a moderate amount of slavery, rape and genocide. Calling for the complete abolition of these things is an extreme. Extremism in opposition to a bad thing or in support of a good thing is sometimes justified. Just because you have something in moderate amounts doesn&#39;t make it good. Would you like to have a moderate amount of cancer?

The farthest left you can go is anarchism. The farthest right you can go is Nazism. I don&#39;t see how they match up. In reality, you&#39;d need a lot more than just one dimension to accurately map political philosophies.


The Moderate as Extremist

Of all the extremists, the worst are the moderates. Moderate ideology is contradictory, irrational and just plain wrong. Ideas should not be judged on the basis of whether they are "extremist" or "moderate" but on the evidence and arguments used to support them. There is no reason to believe "middle of the road" positions are inherently better than "extremist" ones. In some cases the "extremist" position is vastly superior to the "moderate" one.

The usual argument in favor of the "moderate" position is to take a situation, argue that moderation is best in that situation and then pretend that this applies universally to all situations. For example, one old argument is the bravery argument. Supposedly, you don&#39;t want to be too brave because that would lead to you getting into dangerous situations where you could get yourself hurt. A little fear can be a good thing since it can help you avoid hurting yourself. On the other hand, you don&#39;t want to go too far in the other direction. A complete lack of bravery would lead to cowardice and running away when it would be a good idea not to, even from things that couldn&#39;t possibly hurt you. Thus, moderation is supposedly a good idea. This may be true in the case of bravery, but it is a non-sequitur to apply this universally. The moderate&#39;s logic implies support for slavery. The "middle of the road" position on slavery would be to have a moderate amount of slavery - not too much and not too little. The "extremist" positions would be to either have lots of slavery or no slavery at all. On this issue an "extremist" position is undoubtedly correct - we should have no slavery at all. Slavery is immoral; its abolition was a good thing despite what the moderates claimed.

Not everything should be in moderation. We should not have rape in moderation. We should not have genocide in moderation. We should not have slavery or concentration camps or war crimes or sexism or racism in moderation. These things should be completely abolished; to have them in moderation - as the "middle of the road" position would have it - is unethical.

Moderates are actually extremists, and far worse than many of the "extremists" they denounce. The idea that one should ALWAYS take the "middle of the road" position on ALL issues is itself quite extreme. One could alternatively always take the extremist position, which would be the opposite form of extremism as the moderate. The middle position would be to sometimes take a "middle of the road" position and sometimes take an "extremist" position. By demanding a "middle of the road" position on everything the "moderate" is actually practicing a form of extremism. Moderate ideology is thus is self-refuting. If everything should be practiced in moderation than moderation should also be practiced in moderation. If moderation is practiced in moderation than you are not practicing everything in moderation - a self-contradictory circle.

A further problem with moderate ideology is that with the proper manipulation of the political spectrum one can make almost any political position the moderate one. For example, define one end of the spectrum as being Democratic Socialism and the other being Anarchism. The "middle of the road" position in this spectrum would be Marxist-Leninism. This manipulation of the spectrum is implicit in "moderate ideology." For example, most contemporary moderates would denounce the belief that we should have a moderate amount of slavery as “extremist,” even though it was the position defended by moderates prior to the outlawing of slavery and is logically the middle of the road position. Most contemporary moderates position themselves between (left-)liberals and (neo)conservatives, which are viewed as the extremes. But a few centuries ago most of the things advocated by both liberals and conservatives would have been viewed as extreme leftist. The spectrum has shifted, most people today are somewhere on the liberal-conservative spectrum - there is almost no one advocating absolute monarchy or feudalism anymore. The positioning of the moderate between liberals and conservatives is arbitrary; they could just as easily position themselves between constitutional monarchists and absolute monarchists, which would be a position far to the right of most conservatives. In practice the moderate believes whatever happens to be the mainstream position(s) of the time. They simply sum the dominant philosophies together. Rational analysis is thrown aside and instead whatever is most popular is believed regardless of how wrong it may be. Anyone who does not go with the most popular ideas is denounced as "extremist." "Extremist" is essentially a derogatory term for any idea that is unpopular. Someone who believes in a moderate amount of slavery would be labeled an "extremist" even though his or her position is technically moderate because that idea is extremely unpopular in contemporary society.

Most moderates rely as much on stereotypes and anti-"extremist" prejudice as on rational arguments. This is not surprising, since their arguments in favor of "moderate" ideology are usually very weak. One common stereotype is that of the "violent extremist" who uses atrocities and terror to impose his/her way. While there have been "extremists" (people with unpopular views) who have used force, this stereotype is simply wrong. There are also "extremists" who are (theoretically) opposed to all use of violence under all circumstances. They are called pacifists. Moderates, on the other hand, have historically used extreme amounts of violence. Moderates have supported wars, terrorism and other uses of force when it was the "middle of the road" position. The "middle of the road" position moderates claim to advocate implies support for a moderate amount of violence, war, terrorism and atrocities. Moderates support the state, the most violent organization in human history. They are thus far more violent than two forms of "extremism" - (true) pacifism and anarchism. How "extremist" (popular or unpopular) a position is has little to do with how violent its&#39; adherents are.

Probably the most common stereotype is that of the "dogmatic extremist" who only reads and views things that agree with his/her position and either avoids or automatically rejects anything which does not agree with that position regardless of the merits of their argument. This is simply false; although there are individual "extremists" who are dogmatic it is not true of "extremists" as a whole. In fact, "extremists" are generally less dogmatic than "moderates." Dogmatic people are unlikely to change their views on anything, but almost all "extremists" start out believing a more mainstream ideology and later change to a different philosophy. You are far more likely to find dogmatic people among mainstream ideologies than "extremists" because dogmatic people will not change their philosophy and thus stay with the more popular mainstream ideologies. Moderate ideology is inherently dogmatic. Moderates automatically reject any idea that is not moderate and label it "extremist" SOLELY because it is not moderate, regardless of the merits of the argument. That is the definition of dogmatism. To reject an idea not on the basis of its merits (or lack thereof) but simply because it is not moderate is the height of dogmatism. When the moderate says "extremist" s/he means "heretic."

The validity of a philosophy has no automatic relationship to how "extremist" it is. Whether it is "middle of the road" or "extremist" is irrelevant, ideas should be judged on the basis of their merits NOT how "extremist" they are. Moderate ideology in practice amounts to a blind defense of the status quo and denouncing all dissent as "extremist." Such an ideology is more appropriate for a Borg drone than a thinking person.

[encephalon]

alright.. just ignore the fact that democracy and capitalism both were once very radical concepts, and treated as dangerous. That makes sense to ignore. Glad you don&#39;t have an agenda to push with supporting this theory.

[t_wolves_fan]

I like your response. I&#39;d take you up on that beer and offer you one if you&#39;re ever in D.C.

You said:



A WASP is just as likely to intervene as one of you dirty commies.

Which says more about the tendency of people in general to overcome ideology and act meaningfully in the reality of circumstances, than it does about right-ideology.

Yah, true.


A proper-conservative, living his/her ideas to-the-letter wouldn&#39;t do shit, but, thankfully, people tend to be humans first, and "believers" second.

I&#39;m not so sure I agree with that generalization, though your point is accurate. Fortunately.



Certainly, some self-proclaimed leftists, like most rightists, are unable to see the crucial disconnect between individuality (beautiful, creative, and brutal) and individualism (crass and unpleasant - expression through consumption and the reduction of the individual to role within various over-arching myth-frameworks which refuse to recognise the realities of direct experience).

I don&#39;t see as great a distinction between the two as you. The second one for any individual could be wrapped up in the first. If an individual chooses to accept one framework or style of living, that is his choice and his right as an individual, so long as it doesn&#39;t violate the rights of others. And I&#39;m sure we have a different take on what constitutes "rights".


Ideology must be smashed in favour of meaningful participation in ones&#39; own life.

I agree completely, but I do not see how most communists on this board could honestly state they agree. For instance, I got into an argument with one communist (was it you? I really don&#39;t remember) who said he favors a society where no ideology is pushed on children (and by ideology he meant religion), yet only a couple of posts later was saying how his great society will teach children how wonderful collectivism and atheism are so that society rejects religion. He saw no contradiction in his statements.


A rejection of private property? Of the notion that wo/man might exist in a vaccum? An affirmation that we are imposibly and inescapably bound up in society, and in one another? Certainly&#33; A rejection of meaningful individuality? Hellz no&#33;

Why must private property be rejected? I see no reason this has to be so. Private property is the very basis on which rights can be protected; without it the only refuge we have from society and from government authority is the inside of our skulls, ala Orwell&#39;s 1984. This may sound contradictory, but while we should have every right to private property so as to escape society, I agree we need an affirmation that we are bound together as a society. But that affirmation is an attitude that can coexist with property ownership, indeed it has to, in order to protect individuality, because individuality requires a physical and mental separation at times from society in order to manifest itself. We cannot prohibit people from separating themselves, to a degree, from society and expect them to maintain any semblance of individuality.


. . . and I am indeed a libertarian. There was even a point where I held positions very akin to libertarianism in the American, uber-capitalizt, sense. However, as long as the great masses of people are held back from manifesting their creative potential by the despotism of a social system where priorities are dictated by the cold laws of the market, and the subsequent submission to grand superhuman myths which make banality of everyday life, then there can be no liberty.

I disagree completely. The market allows for individuality to thrive more than socialism or communism would because it relies on individual talents. A socialized system would bind people more strictly to the needs of society. Indeed, in a socialist or communist system, a worker would not venture to follow through on an idea for a new product because society would dictate where his labor and the resources to make his product are needed (i.e. if his new idea required leather, but the socialist system had already voted that all leather go to making shoes, he&#39;d be SOL). In the market, he may use any number of means to aquire the necessary materials to create his idea and then sell it. Granted, people may not want it, in which case he&#39;d eventually have to stop trying to sell it, but at least he&#39;s given the chance.

As far as religion, it is a personal choice. Using governmental or societal pressure to end religion is no better nor no different than using the same means to push religion - it&#39;s the same action, just in the opposite direction.



That&#39;s an interesting take on things - but personally, I think there is a definate difference between systematic violence and enforced participation, and most of the methods I have typically propsed for social cohesion. I mean, if I seduce somebody, am I really coercing them?

No, but I don&#39;t see much difference. There is no system that uses violence to enforce participation in the market nor in religion. Atheists are not persecuted, nor are those who refuse to work, unless they break a law.


Before the question of revolution comes up - certainly, if I convince the working class to leave her abusive husband, and he attempts to restrain her, she has every right to punch him in the jaw.

I am not sure this is a valid metaphor. Frankly I don&#39;t see how even in the United States any group of communists would be persecuted if they wanted to put their beliefs into action on their own. People are free to start any business that operates according to their own principles. If you want to share all labor and all profit equally, then so be it. If you want to charge only at cost, then so be it. If you want to start your own commune that operates totally outside of capitalist bourgeois society, you are free to do so, so long as you pay your property taxes. Further, you are free to leave anytime - there are no border control agents forcing you to stay.


Amusingly, your centrism (for the record, a "centrist" in the US is a right-winger in the rest of the developed world, excluding perhaps Australia) seems to behave similarly in practice.

This isn&#39;t particularly my concern. The rest of the world should be free to do as it pleases, so long as it is not threatening (if you want to take this as an indictment of our foreign policy past and present, then you&#39;re right) to us. If it requires us to adjust, we can and will. But I see no reason why foreign opinion of a domestic social safety net has any bearing on our political beliefs. If we disagree, we disagree and they provide cradle-to-grave services while we do not. If we become envious, we&#39;ll adopt their system. That is the beauty of the nation-state system and of the federal system - it allows different groups of people to come up with new policy ideas. If the world we one big society run by one big government, such change and innovation would be next to impossible.


While the rhetoric of moderation is very nice, does not the moderate state turn to army and police to enforce norms just as the theocracy might?

Depends on what norms you&#39;re talking about. Murder? Sure. Atheism? No.


It is simply a question of what specific things centrists and wing-nuts deem unnacceptable. A difference in fascade, rather than fundamental underlying operations (though make no mistakes, I&#39;d rather not live in a theocracy . . . but I&#39;d also rather cut of one finger than both arms).

If I read you right then you are right, to a point. But the centrist allows for a greater variety of individual norms, within reason, than does the extremist, and that&#39;s why the centrist position is better.

My descriptions of leftists as intolerant, inflexible and so on are of course generalizations. I&#39;m not sure what this "First International" is.


(intolerant) Of anyone in particular?
Assuming you mean "intolerant of other ideas" or something equally silly, I think it&#39;s worth noting that leftist ideas have formed, and hopefully will continue to develop, through open conflict of ideas. If I didn&#39;t hate Hegel so much, I&#39;d almost say it was dialectical. ;)

Yes, generally the left is intolerant of other ideas. This is evidenced every day by ideas to reform government programs here in the U.S., for instance. Any attempt at reform is immediately rejected and attacked as a "stealth" plan to end it, regardless of the facts surrounding the program or the reform plan. See the current debate on Social Security, for instance. Democrats are vehemently opposed to any reforms, despite the fact that in 12 short years the program will be unaffordable. It has to be reformed. Yet the left&#39;s only answer is to raise taxes, which is an option of course but they cannot even be honest about how high taxes would need to be raised to maintain present benefits.

To be honest, I have not seen much evidence that the left&#39;s position is the result of an open conflict of ideas. I was a leftist and I witnessed pretty strong demands and pressure to conform to set positions. Granted this too is a generalization, based on my own experience.




Well, whatever you say. I promise though, I&#39;m one of the more laidback folk you&#39;ll ever meet. If you&#39;re ever in Atlantic Canada, I&#39;d probably even go for a drink with you. I&#39;ll drink with a "reactionary, imperialist, lackey" (heck, I&#39;ve lived with them) if you&#39;re willing to split a pitcher* with a "freedom-hating commie".

Sounds good. Beer is the universal language. That and tits-n-ass.

[Forward Union]

Presuming that a system like Anarcho-Fascism was theoretically workable, then you would have grounds on which to base the loop theory.

But Forcing Freedom on people is a paradox, and Anarcho-Fascism has yet to be properly defined.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:49 AM

Stalin&#39;s and Hitler&#39;s actions were the same - they had killed anyone who disagreed with them. They consolidated power and fostered a cult of personality.



And other actions were different. There&#39;s a "Bush=Hitler" thread elsewhere on the board, which has picked out certain actions they have in common while ignoring important respects in which they are different.

You&#39;re using essentially the same method to argue that "Stalin=Hitler." You might as well say Stalin = Tamurlane, they both killed a lot of people, that doesn&#39;t mean they represent the same kind of dominant class.



Hitler nationalized several industries. If you want to talk economics, then just consider the circle: Go to the left down the circle and you get to Stalin, keep going a little farther past him and you get to Hitler.

Most countries on earth have "nationalized several industries". Including the U.S., to break strikes or bail out bankrupt businesses.

There is nothing inherently socialist about nationalization. The nationalizations in the USSR were part of an anticapitalist revolution and were of such a scope as to end capitalist domination. Those in Nazi Germany had the function of shoring up capitalism as a whole.