Where In Lies The Center...

[Behind The Mask]

Previously I have studied (lightly) Marx, Lenin and the lot, and more recently I have begun reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Now, I am not wholly sure of my political status but I am nearly sure it lies in the middle somewhere... I cannot really identify as either right or left (don't mind the avatar, I just like the symbol and nostalga of a more naive time) but it seems when dealing with others in this lovely country; the questions make me wonder.

More and more often it seems loyalty does not lie with the country, but rather parties; partisianship seems on the rise, or at least the most vocal.

I can understand and agree with concepts from either party but ultimately I am turned off by the hypocrisy of the system as a whole... For example I have always loved the concept of industry, and one thing I never agreed with was class warfare amongst communist systems... I agree with some social ideals of the more leftist thought... I find it hard to really decide.

But I believe one of the big problems is the lack of an actual center amongst the two... perhaps this is stemmed from the media or as mentioned early the more vocal idiots of the group, but I am beginning to wonder if moderates are amongst the minority.

I don't really know what else to say... I cant really ask opinions on which you think I am more (left or right) however if you'd give them I'd listen and if you need more info I'll give what I can...

But besides that, I would like to know the state of moderation in America these days.

[Elfdude]

If we use Aristotle(?) as a guide the ideal lays on a thin 'golden line' between two extreme perspectives.

In this case communism is the extreme of sharing. Capitalism is the extreme of greed. Socialism pulls together both concepts nicely by allowing a competitive market and development but at the same time offering regulation and social programs that make communism good. IMO anyways.

Similarly the golden line between patriotism and traitorism would be some hybrid of the two allowing for questioning of your country if it's appropriate but also support for what it gets right or what it should get right.

Statistically, America sits in the moderate right moderate authoritarian. The degree of separation between political candidates is ridiculous (simply a few key issues). Ideally though we would be somewhere closer to the left and somewhere closer to libertarianism if we wanted to find the golden line.

[SigniferOne]

Socialism pulls together both concepts nicely by allowing a competitive market and development but at the same time offering regulation and social programs that make communism good. IMO anyways.

That isn't correct at all. Socialism is defined as communism lite, and the old USSR was socialist in fact, not communist, for several reasons which Marx outlined a century before. It was Marx who defined what communism and socialism mean, and neither of them allows a 'competitive market'.

In this case communism is the extreme of sharing. Capitalism is the extreme of greed.

As seen in the previous paragraph, the essence of Marxist philosophy is totalitarianism, and not caring. The ideology sees market, humans freely competing and offering contrasting services, as an evil, and therefore forbids unfiltered human interaction altogether. That is the true demarcation between the two systems: the amount of liberty of the individual. Greed, on the other hand, is not possible to eliminate and thus was present in the USSR to exactly same degree as in the West. By being present everywhere it therefore cannot be a useful line of demarcation between systems. Thus capitalism is not the 'extreme of greed', when Russians were greedy in many ways that were alien and barbaric to the West. Capitalism is the extreme of individual liberty. Communism, on the other hand, is not the extreme of 'caring', or 'sharing', because the titans of the West have shared more, and have enriched more poor people than the greatest Marxist proletarian ever could imagine doing himself. Communists did not 'share' or 'care' when they destroyed homes and businesses which people honestly built with their own effort and their own two hands. Communism, therefore, as having no claim to 'sharing', but being opposite to capitalism nonetheless, is defined as the extreme lack of individual liberty. It's defined by Marx as public ownership of the means of production.

[Maron]

I would be willing to bet that when you actully get down to it, most people don't give a flip about the "golden line." Everyone has their opinions and their beliefs abot how governments should be run, and any talk of being "moderate" is simply a bunch of window dressing. For what may seem moderate to one person could be viewed as extreme in either direction by someone inclined to a differing ideology.

Simply put: where you fall on the political spectrum is entirely opinion. Be it yours or someone attempting to classify you. You are what you are.

[Phier]

There are two types of moderates.

Those who's views really DO equal moderate.
And those who feel they should be moderate because moderate is well moderate and no one dislikes a moderate.

The line always shifts a bit, so whats radical today can be conservative in the future. So just be who you are and if thats radical, so be it.

[Elfdude]

I would be willing to bet that when you actully get down to it, most people don't give a flip about the "golden line." Everyone has their opinions and their beliefs abot how governments should be run, and any talk of being "moderate" is simply a bunch of window dressing. For what may seem moderate to one person could be viewed as extreme in either direction by someone inclined to a differing ideology.

True enough. His concept of virtues hinges upon the idea of two or more objective extremes.

However there's quite a few people that do their best to maintain an as objective and unbiased as possible stance on things.