🇳🇱
This pretty much describes the extreme left and right perfectly.
@freemo Mysterious stuff, the definitions of extreme left and right... won't find two people on this planet agreeing there
@admitsWrongIfProven Its usually only the people existing at these extreme ends who struggle to see the line where the extreme begins. Moderates on the left, right, and center are much better at it.
@freemo I find left and right to be hard enough as they are, without the "extreme".
It may have all started out with royalists sitting on the right, but from there a lot has happened.
@freemo Care to try defining it together or would that be too stressful for the evening?
@admitsWrongIfProven i can define it with a simple drawi g, give me a minute.
@freemo Sure. And i interpret this as "yeah, now is a good time".
So i started out with the historical meaning. I would guess Aristocracy is not your fancy, so let's go on to the concept of "conservative", which means "change things slowly and pay attention to not make anything worse", which is something claimed to be on the right. This, i would say, is a good concept most of the time.
I do not see it currently in any politics.
Left, that would be against the royalists, pretty indistinct. Generally associated with peoples rights, contrary to first the royals, then the rich.
I do not see that either in the current political landscape.
Now, before diving in any deeper, do you actually see any effective measures to either side in politics? Family values, peoples rights, any of the topics claimed by either side?
So, provided you don't say "but they do have values, everything's great", we would have to determine what we actually mean - political parties? What people on masto toot? It's not like it was all aligned in set groups.
@admitsWrongIfProven tha ks to horshoe theory we dont even need to define right or left to define if your in the extreme of either.
@freemo Well, this sounds very american, more focussed on positions than actual contents... horseshit theory i would say, or is there anything relevant to this theory? Pertaining to contents, not positions?
@admitsWrongIfProven you are the one who came in exerting extremism was hard to define, not me. We can debate left vs right too, its just making thwt distinction is not relevant to my post.
@freemo Sorry, i don't understand. Maybe i should back off and let you define what you mean.
@admitsWrongIfProven for the record i find that the extreme left and right are almost nonexistant in most coubtries outside the usa, so there is less need to define it.
@freemo So you are not interested in defining left and right? Totally ok if it is so, just asking, will back off if requested. Would love to see that graphic in any case.
@admitsWrongIfProven I am fine with defining left and right as a fun exercise. I just want to point out it is a tangent not particularly relevant or neccesary to frame the original post.
@freemo I can see that, but if we would devolve to horseshoe theory level, i don't see any meaning to it - position fights are just senseless occupation therapy imo.
@admitsWrongIfProven the original post is about political extremismand how it is at odds with objective consensus... any form of ideological political extremism is inevitably going to take this form, tbats just common sense. It also forms the core of horse shoe theory since when you become that radicalized it your ideals really dont matter since they are so absurd you wont ever approach them in the first place and instead devolve into contrarianism as the core.
@freemo Just my point, if people go to that length... sorry, had to flake out for a moment there.
I see now you had a thing about extremism and didn't actually talk about left an right - and i was infatuated with the idea of defining left and right, which would be a hard thing to do, and as such interesting.
The point you made stands - if anyone is extremist and stops to listen to reason, that is very bad. Never wanted to contradict that!
If you would be interested in trying to define those difficult words, the offer stands, but no bad feelings if you want to leave it at "your point was correct".
So extremism side in terms of politics is easy to Identify... If someone has a set of ideologies where anything that is even slightly different, introducing nuance, is "the enemy" then you are dealing with someone on the extreme end.
If you are on the left and see centrists as evil as the right, and even the moderate left as evil, then you are probably an extremist.
Basically you just need to look at how well defined the walls of the silo is.
So yea extremism is easy to identify... now right vs left I think that is harder because you can be right and left in different categories its not an all or nothing thing.
For example communists, socialists.anarchists, progressives. are all generally agreed to as "left" though having quite a bit of ideological difference. Generally I'd say the common denominator of the left vs right is the left focuses on ensuring individuals power is mitigated (to some extent) and that the power and resources need to be spread out and not allow the natural processes of of concentration of power in a small group of individuals.
Therefore common themes among the left are redistreibution of power and wealth and/or the prevention of centralized power (as is the case of anarchism, which even sees the government as bad).
the right on the other hand seems to see a strong centralized power as ok, so long as it comes about through natural power-dynamics. Generally prefering free-markets and seeing accumlated power in a central place as both natural and good.
@freemo I see, and i think you added a lot here. We should not argue about left or right, we should discuss goals!
I hold dear to get down to what is actually what humans want. Not ideals far removed, but practical concerns.
So with the basic needs, i guess we agree that food and shelter should be available for everyone existing. You exist as an individual being, you should have food and shelter. So far, so uncontroversial?
The question would be, how can that be achieved? Would a central power ensure it, or rather skim resources for themselves until supply is scarce?
On a further note, i think having a task worthy of doing (not to be confused with a job, which is often enough not worthy) is integral to happiness. Would a central organization or market actually select for useful tasks or just keep people busy so the peace is kept? Or would a prevention of central power help here, discarding meaningless busywork?
I will hold back and not just spout utopian wishes, i want to hear your thoughts before i say more. And did i skip any human needs you deem important?
@freemo Oh, i messed up on the word "centralized", i mixed up the centralized power with the question of regulated vs. unregulated markets.
Of course, unregulated markets are just the right of the strongest, aka no societal structure at all - if no one regulates, anyone strong enough can take what they want.
unregulated market is not hte same as free-market... an unregulated market has no government-manipulation but is free for civil-manipulation and gaming.. a free market is a market which operates freely according to market pressures and is not manipulated by indivviduals and minimally regulated by government (enough to ensure the market stays free, but no more).
@freemo You conveniently overlook that with no regulation, there is no guarantee for your deal. Maybe the other side takes it, maybe they just kill you and take what you have. A true unregulated market... is unregulated. No central power to ensure that what is yours stays yours - the same problem that anarchists have! No central power makes it hard to stop the bad guys.
@admitsWrongIfProven Which is why i said an unregulated market is not a free market.
@freemo We are back at the beginning... no control means anyone could do anything. Will people at large do more harm than a central power?
This is interesting, and i hope you enjoy it as much as i do!
@admitsWrongIfProven Which is why I have never supported "no control". And yes I think with absolutely no control at all it would do more harm than the correct amount of control. Sadly what we have now are governments exerting excessive control which also isnt good.
@freemo Well, looking into it, there are more modes of control than state power.
We have social control. Don't get me wrong, that is also often bad, sometimes people don't like what they see and shut out others - harm is done.
But we cannot just dismiss it just because social control has done bad things - in the same vein of thinking, we would have to dismiss central control because of what the nazis did!
What would actually further our goals, how much power should we cede and, more importantly, to whom?
I think there should be some more nuanced structure, people actually talking about their needs, organizing life in a group small enough to know each other, and, as long as we have nations and wars, bigger things on a more central level. Can't repel the invading nation on a level of "100 people here are talking about it", but those above need to be accountable in the long run. I would see a problem there, and the structures that are black and white (all centralization is what we have, all anarchy might be a problem too in theory) are not good enough.
We are, once again, at the beginning. Extremes are not helpful.
@admitsWrongIfProven
> So with the basic needs, i guess we agree that food and shelter should be available for everyone existing. You exist as an individual being, you should have food and shelter. So far, so uncontroversial?
While I would certainly agree with you on this point im not sure you can say its uncontroversial. I know many people, at least in the USA, who think some people should be left to fend for themselves, even if that means death.
Its achieved by following my exact set of opinions as a left-leaning centrist of course :) If that werent the case then I wouldnt believe in it :)
> Would a central organization or market actually select for useful tasks or just keep people busy so the peace is kept?
Im not sure what a central market is... you mean like a regulated market, the opposite of a free market?