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

Post Reply New Topic

Disclaimer. These are only a few thoughts. I am not that good at politics so I have edited this several times, but here goes...

We know that too far left and we end up with either extreme Comunism or Nazi-ism styles of government, and if the left are not kept in check it is only a couple of steps to reach these extremes. (Look at Hitler who was seen as the ideal political leader as he not only saved Germanys economy, but he started war on Europe as the only way Germany had back then of freeing themselves from the heavy burden of the restrictions that the allies had imposed on Germany after WW1. To the average German he was a hero and the German people were with him all the way in his attempt to free their country of the sanctions held against them at that time. (It is why sanctions do not work. Sanctions only serve to harm the people and do not harm the ones in charge; and in Germanys case back then, it was Hitler who represented the peoples feelings when they realized they had to go to war to change things so they could live without these restrictions.
Unfortunately, we all know that when Hitler realized how much power he had, he went far beyond that in his zeal and came out with some pretty awful stuff and why? Because there were very few people in opposition who could stand against him).

The reason why I write this is because here in the UK in times in the past we could have actually come close to this had it not been for the far right keeping things in check.

But what about tbe far right? The far right have always in theory stood for what I call freedom (The Communistic opposite) but they also have major issues when taken too far.
While the communistic approach of the far left seeks to give everyone a level playing field (Everyone they "Accept". In Hitlers mind this would be his "Perfect race". Those outside his "Perfect race ideology were lucky to survive if they did survive and Communism has often taken a similar approach), the issue with the far right is that the gap between the rich and poor widens and widens where the few rich become ultra rich and the poor are only viewed as people to exploit to keep the ultra rich ultra rich, and finally when all the poor have no wealth left, they seek to eliminate the majority whilst keeping a minority of survivors to serve them as the majority they plan to eliminate are people they view as surplus and they claim they waste "Their" earths resources. This is the extreme of the far right if allowed to go too far.
The funny thing is, that the extreme right taken too far become like the extreme left who have gone too far in that the extremes can end up being very much like a master and slave type of role, except that the extreme right will likely seek to eliminate the majority of those they may deem as slaves (The poor), whilst the extreme left taken too far will not neccessarily have poor (If they are successful in their methods), but seek to keep a perfect race and use them as a unified army to conquor more territory as they go along enlarging their empire as they grow.

Now what about the middle? Here in Britain we have Labour on one side and the Conservitives on the other. In the middle we have the Liberal Democrats. Now my personal views are (And I am not dissrespecting the politicians who work so hard) that they are a bit "Wishy washy" in what they stand for.

But going back to the the point of what I am trying to write is that in politics, we need both the far right and the far left in the system to keep a balance and to keep each other in check. It does not work to stay in the middle ground as we would be soo wishy washy we would get nothing done! We need BOTH the extremes of the left and the right to ensure that each of the far extremes does not go too far (Which when we see examples of this happening from the past we realize just how easily it CAN take place)... So if you stand towards the left or stand towards the right, DO NOT dissrespect the opposing views. Those views are necessary to keep your viesw in "Check", and often when new ideas are proposed, they need to be scrutinized by the not so rosey eyed within politics to find flaws in those ideas before they are tried out, as some ideas that seem so sensible in theory can be a complete disaster when tried and may ruin many peoples lives.

So please, please, please respect each others viewpoints even if we do not agree with them as they might just save us from disaster!

Let me say that both extreme left and extreme right are bad for wealth and income inequality, in practice.

Nobody in Nazi Germany would have called Hitler “extreme left”. He was a far-right politician, obsessed with order and purity and nationalism. The German centre-right parties supported his seizure of power. There’s no coherent way to call Hitler left-wing that doesn’t also put the modern right on the left wing.

Similarly defining “right wing” as “supporting freedom” is all well and good, as long as you don’t put the Conservative Party on the right. The Conservative Party has engaged in a bonfire of freedoms.

Do we need the far right? In a word, no. Ethnic nationalists serve no useful purpose in society and their views do not deserve respect.

Do we need the far left? Again, no. They serve no useful purpose in society. The subset of far-left ideologies which propagate hate do not deserve respect. Even those who subscribe to far-left ideologies which are not hateful largely have a poor track record of generating good ideas.

Diversity of views is useful, and sometimes our preconceptions blind us to a good idea. That’s why we need lots of people to be wrong a lot, so that occasionally some of them will be right. But fascists and tankies do not have good ideas. If you look at the UK, the fresh new ideas are usually generated by the Lib Dems or the Greens. Say what you will about the Greens, they’re certainly occasionally within the far-left ballpark but they aren’t a hateful or dangerous group.

A final point on Hitler - you’ve significantly overstated his popular support. In the November 1932 elections the Nazis won only 33% of the vote and were unable to form a coalition government. Before the next elections, they seized power through Hindenburg’s complacency. They then set fire to the Reichstag and stepped up their violent persecution of their political enemies on the left and centre and their propaganda machine. They won the March 1933 election with around 44% of the vote but only after basically rigging the election. Then one of their first acts was to turn Germany into a dictatorship using the Enabling Act and banning all other political parties. Hitler didn’t “go power mad”, he never cared for public opinion and wasn’t going to let anything come between him and his goals.

I didn't read anything,i must say.

But,trinity,exerts the middle sword of justice.

To me I have always found nationalists to be on the left. The nationalization schemes have always been proposed from the left and the privitization schemes tend to be proposed from the right. (Is only recently I knew which were which between left or right).
Are nationalism and nationalization similar things? I know nationalization as that is what happened to the railways and I know a bit about the railways because I have always been interested in the railways. Actually I don't remember when I was not interested in the railways! Haha.
I do not know if Labour nationalized the railways but I know that they have always had nationalization policies.

I always thought that the middle never really exists because that is where the world is at now. Policys are either left or right-wing depending on what your view of it is. For example, the UK is considered left-wing compared to the US, but here a lot of people see us as very conservative.

Not the same thing at all.

The word "nationalism" has come to mean things like asserting the interests of one's own nation in ways harmful to other nations, or desiring to isolate own nation from the rest of the world.

"Ethnic nationalism" means wanting to limit citizenship to people of particular ethnic descent. This is an extreme right wing position.

"Nationalization" means the national government acquiring ownership of some resource, e.g. railroads. Very different from "nationalism."

Nationalisation = having the nation run things rather than the private sector. (Left wing)

Nationalism in a colonised country = wanting freedom from the colonising government. (Left wing)

Nationalism in a free country = wanting to only have one race in the nation. (Right wing. And no need for it, just leads to the Third Reich & race isn't real anyway)

Nationalization and nationalism both have the same "Nation" word. Nation... Where one lives?

You have reminded me of meanings. Isn't nationalism something to do with being proud or happy with ones own country? Patriotic? (I did not know it was the act of violence against other countries. What is a patriot? Someone who dies for a country?)
Why is nationalism a negative term? It can be a negative term. But thinking.... What if no one liked their own country. Why they defend it if another country tries to take it over? Would the act of defending ones country be a bad thing?

Nationalization and nationalism sound like the same word. Just a few letters different. Haha! Funny thing is a language.

Because nationalists in things like the BNP think immigrants are 'taking over Britain'. They're not. There's no active reason to believe that for eg the Pakistani government wants to take over the UK or the Mexican government wants to take over the USA government. It comes from a right wing, conservative desire to only be around people like yourself.

There's a difference between an immigrant and an invader.

I see nothing wrong with nationalism in terms of being against your own country being invaded. Esp while it's taking place - that's just a case of fighting back. Or in terms of fighting for freedom, although ideally it's achieved peacefully and not via violence. Violence would be seen as terrorism if the country was already colonised.

Yeah, nation = a country. Although in terms of nationalisation it means nation = state. Having the state run things rather than having businesses/individuals run them. Think for eg, NHS.

From what I've seen on Tumblr with announcements of "Don't follow me or comment on my posts if you ...", people who lean liberal left have the same desire.

And I'm guessing the thing is universal human nature.

In fact, via a university in the next state west, https://news.ku.edu/2016/02/19/new-stud ... nd-partner

That is a great idea-- however, difficult to put into practice when respect of viewpoints is defined by both sides as automatically agreeing with those viewpoints.

One does not need to agree. That would spoil the fun!

I'm a Social Conservative. I'm to the right on some issues and to the left on other issues.

Interesting. Not sure what that is as it will need me to go into thought to comprehend it... (May delay that for now as I am not ready for deep thinking).

There's a difference between being like minded and for eg having the same colour of skin.

There's idiots on the tumblr/ SJW left who only want to be around other POC. I'd criticise them too. And say that they too have a fundamentally conservative outlook on things.

The idea that a nation is full of like minded individuals is basically a new concept only coming about with the French and American revolutions. I'm not sure it's particularly correct, although it's a nice desire to have. I don't like the idea that a nation should solely consist of people of similar bloodlines especially when pseudoscientific beliefs such as 'race' crop up because of it.