Too Far Left Or Too Far Right? How About The Middle?

Post Reply New Topic

Just a couple of comments.
Hitler and the national socialist party, during their rise to power included people from as many areas of society that had power that they could get to.

The brown shirts, who were the thugs that the nazi's used to bully their way to the top, mostly were murdered by the black shirts on the night of the long knives, as Hitler feared them taking his power but also to unify the control and direction of the nazi movement.

May I also say, that both the Nazi and Stalin's Communist government were totalitarian in nature.
So, for people who believe in democratic government, both were considered bad.

Has anyone suggested the NSDAP wasn't totalitarian? So far it's only been pointed out that they were a right-wing party.

Yay, semantics, right?

By the way I believe there's 2 kinds of nationalism in British politics today and the only mainstream one is left wing & not a bad thing.

The mainstream, left wing one is independence movements in Wales/parts of Ireland/Scotland. There's even a party which calls for the devolution of Yorkshire, England's largest county. None of these parties would want to get rid of people of a certain heritage from the country/county if their goals were achieved. It's simply about shifting the capital/source of power/government.

BNP, on the other hand, have the ambition to make Britain 'British again'. The only way to understand this is 'anglo Saxon again' or at least 'white again'. The only way to do that peacefully would be through repatriation of people, some of whom have been here generations. I do not believe this can be done peacefully or that it is a desirable outcome. This is what I mean by 'only liking people like themselves'.

This.

I have never seen anyone on the right admit that social conservatism is left-wing under the "left=big government, right=small government" definition. Not even the supposed libertarians who would still be right-wing under that definition. Although I once saw an ancap say monarchy was left-wing

Just because Nationalization and Nationalism both contain the same root word "nation" doesn't mean they have the same ideological roots.

Nationalization refers to the idea that a government runs an operation, as opposed to privatization, where an operation is privately controlled. Generally speaking, nationalized health care, for example, is a liberal idea, whereas privatized healthcare is generally a conservative idea.

In contrast, Nationalism refers to the idea that one's own nation takes priority, even at the exclusion or detriment of other nations in the process. The idea that America should come first, even if it negatively affects other nations, is generally a conservative talking point. Liberal ideologies tend to be more centered on cooperation with other nations.

If you remove political definitions and look at the strict meanings of the words, "conservative" just means "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values" - in other words, "let's keep doing it the way we've always done it" - while "liberal" just means "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas" - in other words "let's try something new or different".

The political rhetoric reflects this. Conservatives tend to say "we need to go BACK to how things USED to be" (traditionalism) while liberals tend to say "we need to try something NEW" (progressivism).

So, if you have a belief that things should be the way they've always been, that is by definition a conservative belief. If you have a belief that something new should be done, that is by definition a liberal belief.

So realistically, what would the middle ground be, between "don't change things" and "lets change things"? By definition, changing anything in any way is a "liberal" idea. So to not be a liberal idea, you have to keep things the same - but that IS by definition a conservative idea. Yet it gets portrayed as though "stay the same" is a "neutral" idea, and in order to be a "conservative idea" it has to be outright regressive. Which is deceptive and inaccurate, and only serves to create a false "center" by (inaccurately) calling the conservative idea of "stay the same" the "center".

As far as Democrat and Republican as terms, a lot of it comes down to which ideas are or aren't considered to be "conservative" or "liberal". The primary difference between the two parties would be, whether the government, or the people, have more authority.

This even holds consistent back when the parties had switched platforms. The Democrats of the era were democrats in that they believed in more power on behalf of the individual, but stood behind the conservative ideology of "don't change the way we do things" (end slavery) at the cost of my "freedom" (to own slaves) - while the Republicans of the era were republicans in that they believed in greater authority on behalf of the government to change things, in the name of greater collective freedom. Today's former democrats, now republicans, still have that personal-freedom ideology. "MY freedom". While today's former republicans, now democrats, still have that "greater good" mindset.

The issue with the terms "right" and "left" is that they make it sound like "left = liberal = democrat" and "right = conservative = republican", which is a massive and misleading oversimplification. For example, there are people who exist that think you shouldn't be able to fire someone for being gay, but still think gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. The first half is a liberal idea, but the second half is a conservative idea. So I guess that's what a "Middle" would look like - which may sound "fair" when you call it a "middle", but it still misses the mark of treating gay couples as EQUAL.

Lets not forget that the Three Fifths Compromise was a "fair middle ground" of the "differing opinions" that "blacks ARE people" and "blacks are NOT people". It might be "fair" between the two sides negotiating the deal, but it still leaves black people as being "less than one person", or "not actually a person".

So for example: Side A thinks all people named Bradward should be shot and killed on sight. Side B thinks people named Bradward should be treated the same as everyone else. The "middle ground" is what, shoot them but don't kill them? Only shoot half of them? You can only shoot them on alternate days of the week? You can't shoot them or kill them, but you can beat them up? While they may be literally "middle ground" compromises, they still let a lot of terrible things happen to Bradwards everywhere, in the name of "fairness".

It's often really hard to find a "middle ground" to some ideas without heading directly into "separate but equal" territory, or "compromising" at someone else's expense.

Thank you. I appreciate your reply. I did write a very long reply but deleted it as most of it was irrelevent.

But thanks anyway.

If you are not careful over centrist principles you end up dividing the difference between a globe Earth and flat Earth. It is like a unique myth of the centrist that both sides are inherently incorrect.

And there is a big difference between left nationalisation and right nationalism. For instance, it is a little ridiculous that a power company is private, you don't really have competition and you are just opening up for a private business to extort money from people over something they need. Left nationalisan says that some businesses should be under the control of the state, for a number of reasons like not conducive to competition, to there should be certain right for people regardless of how profitable it might be, such is the case for roads and basic postage services.

Right nationalism on the other hand is all about exceptionalism and pride in one's nation, ironically for many of the people who say that theirs is all about freedom, quite often it leads to authoritarianism in restricting people that might get labeled as dangerous, quite often some level of scapegoat made to create a common enemy for their party to rail against. You could see it with the Nazis that put Jewish people as scapegoats, and you could see a whole lot Trump where he had Mexicans, the Chinese, Antifa, and the press that he labeled "Fake News" that reported anything he does not like. You can see so many cases where people try to drum up national pride for what they want, and is only stable with an enemy.

People forget that nationalism still holds strong in places, especially in the likes of emergency services, the police. But it becomes something else when one turns to pride of something national against any possible criticism.

If Scottish nationalism was a simple matter of devolution then it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Unfortunately it is a nationalist movement, seeking independence. This is bad for the same reason that Brexit is bad - it’s throwing away co-operation (and the freedoms and opportunities we get from that co-operation) for identitarian reasons.

That said, while I think Scottish independence and Brexit are bad things, you’re right to say that they’re not as bad as ethnic nationalism.

I don't think it would necessarily be that way.

Scottish independence might look like an independent Scottish nation joining the EU.

There's a reason for the meme with the ex-Brit after Brexit.

I need to say something here so you can understand why many of us voted for Brexit and it had NOTHING to do with immigration or to do with a hate for other countries or a drive for independence for the sake of it, but it was how the EU has decimated the small businesses and given our taxes to the rich companies and their shareholders.
Every time this element started being talked about on TV, the newscasters cut them off and brought up immigration, so the real things which were going on were never exposed.

1. We did not vote to join the EU. We have never been full EU members. Somehow somewhere we find someone has signed us up to join without the peoples permission.

2. Ok. We have been part of the EU.

3. I have really noticed my area of the country significantly going downhill since we became part of the EU. Farming has never had it worse. Fishing has been decimated. Nearly all our retail jobs have been ruined.
I grew up and was trained in the retail sector because I had failed at a general engineering course, and I did not know which line to head for, and I sort of found myself working in a bicycle shop. But over the years while working, I have had some of the best training in retail that one can get. (At one point I ended up as a head of a bicycle department. Not good foe me because those two and a half years I could not "Switch off" when I got back home or the week holiday we had each year. I also did nearly twice the hours I was paid for and I was one of the highest paid in the store and that was just over half minimum wage that came in just after I left).

When I first started in the retail trade, nearly all retail related jobs were full time and due to this one could just about support a family if working in such a job.
When we joined the EU, we started having "Trade deals". These trade deals decimated the retail industry and here is why. They were grants given to any retail establishment which came out of the British tax payers purse.
To qualify the business had to have ovet 1500 employees.
This created a problem. Even stores like Halfords with over 100 stores did not have 1500 employees, so they (Like most of the chain stores in the retail trade) started only employing part time. They also found back then that they did not have to pay a penny when it came to their side of national insurance so most retail employees who were on low wages had no hope of getting their state pension stamps. There are thousands of people like me that due to the EU, we are not going to get our state pensions.
Now something else happened. In the past VAT was brought in and set at a level that ONLY the large companies who could buy in bulk would have to charge it. The concept was that it came in as an "Equalizer" so the small shops were on a fair playing field, as there were concerns that with the large retail chainstore companies able to buy in bulk and undercut the small shops, that the small shops would not survive.
But then came the EU and VAT threshold was lowered to include most small shops and the VAT amount zoomed up. Secondhand never used to be carged VAT and shoes, clothes etc were exempt. The reason for these exemptions were that VAT was supposed to be only for non essentials.
But anyway. Going back to how things changed, the big companies ALSO had grants if they set up new stores. So every so often they would cloose inner town stores and move to out if town places, and then move again. Not ONLY were their business rates cheap, but these grants paid for their business rates for so many years. Small shops were not eligable for these grants. The grants also pay for a full kit of uniform for staff which includes all safety wear like steel toe cap boots, coats, jackets etc... BUT rarely do the employees ever get them.

And as a MASSIVE tax dodge, the big retail chain stores are able to use their grants by sending them direct to the Far East manufacturers. How is this a massive tax dodge?
First lets take the bicycle industry. Practically everything is now made in the Far East despite stickers saying "Made in the USA" or "Made in Britain". (Made now can mean "Assembled" which is a totally different thing).
Now ok, the Far East are very good at aking bicycles and bicycle parts at very competitive prices so fair enough.
Now these grants destroyed the British manufacturing of bicycles but forget that for now. How are the companies managing to avoid paying tax?
Well. Look at a small independent bike shop. Lets say they buy in a bicycle. The difference between buying a bike in and the retail price used to be 30%. Now it is 20% for most bicycle suppliers they buy from. (Most bicycle makes are now suppliers and not manufacturers). The bikes have to be imported and they have to pay the full amount of import tax. Each time they are sold from one part of the chain to the other more tax is added.
Now look at the large retail chain stores. They buy direct so they avoid at least two lots of tax on the price of the bike.
But these grants.... Lets say for example, that a £240 bicycle in retail price cost around £40 to manufacture. (An equivalent bicycle in a small independent shop these days would be purchased for £250 and sold for £280 and it requires an hours work to assemble it and make sure it is safe for the road).
Now the grants are given directly to the Far East in trade agreements, so the cost to the company to buy each bicycle ends up being a small fraction of its real manufacturing cost.
I was really surprized when I found out about this and I was given a trade price price for a single bicycle as I had been in the bicycle trade for years so I had more then a rough idea what trade prices were. (I could almost tell you the trade price if I saw the retail price if it came via the traditional means).
But a certain bicycle which was one of the most popular sellers and it sold for £240 as a retail price was imported to the store including ALL import duties ad taxes and transport costs included into the price. Just £11.73p. That is thousands of percentage profit. And EU grants to pay for staff wages for so many years every time a store relocates... (5 years it was where I worked).

To add insult to injury, a certain company happened to approach the British government claiming it was struggling to compete with the small bike shops here in my area of Wales. They were given more EU grants to buy out the more profitable of these shops, so they now own these shops outright having not paid a penny. And the very small amount left (They were not allowed to own them all as it would be a monopoly), most have since gone bankrupt so I can only think of two shops (And one has turned into a cafe and only sells a very limited amount of high end bikes a year and the other mainly concentrates on high end bikes) in a 50 mile radius that remains independent and the 50 mile radius includes a city and many large towns which once had independent bicycle shops.

Now the same thing has been happening in nearly all retail sectors. You wonder where your small independent shops have gone? The EU has made it impossible for them to survive.

Do you think that post Brexit you won't have large corporations edging out the competition of smaller businesses? Especially with a conservative government.

Fair point: the EU is a neoliberal, undemocratic monstrosity.
How much of what you said is actually the EU, though, because with the whole fisheries situation, I read that it was basically the UK government handing the fishing rights to two giant corporations, and then told the small fisheries that the EU put such strict quotas on them. - i.e., it was the UK government that sold out small companies.

I live in Europe and have friends in the UK, a few of which voted Leave, and their argument about the EU being a neoliberal undemocratic monstrosity was valid, but in detail, they kept arguing that under the EU it wasn't possible to do certain things - and it was always things that I know do exist in EU countries (things like communally owned energy companies, i.e., villages running their own solar panels or such things).
And: the main advocate against banking regulations after 2008 was the UK.

Or in other words: the UK is still more neoliberal, more corporation-friendly than the EU ever was.

Brexit mainly showed it was also more democratic.

You're speaking about America here. Because in Europe, nationalized healthcare is mostly a socialdemocratic and conservative idea, and privatizing healthcare is considered liberal - but meaning: economically liberal.
The liberal party of Germany, when in coalition with the conservatives a decade ago, voted against gay marriage, because they aren't exactly socially liberal, but economically.

Liberalalism and Neoliberalism are specific sets of ideas about government and the economy, and they do not imply social liberalism.
The Republicans are very economically liberal.
So are the Democrats. I.e.,they are Liberalist.

It's also where "Liberal democracy" becomes a contradiction: is this Liberalism, or democracy now?
They're not totally exclusive, just: democracy is kinda pointless in a Liberalist state.
But thst makes something like a docial democracy "illiberal". It impinges on certain *economic* freedoms.
But who would ever want to be "illiberal" - even though, all itay mean is that you're for public healthcare.

Many elements of the Democratic Party are actually illiberal IMO.

I'd rather just sit back and watch both sided fight each other and show everybody just how much of a bunch of simpletons they really are. Republicans and the Democrats are just 2 sides of the same coin. The Stimulus bill has proven it. They don't care about the people, just doing what their corporate masters told them to do.