Finding the equilibrium of the two primary political forces between the left and the right

[Mac-7]

It's true that most, if not all, communist countries are authoritarian, but in theory, they don't have to be, but, given the opportunity communism provides, those who lust for power can't resisting using communism to achieve totalitarianism. This is where I disagree with Noam Chomsky and Professor Wolff, both of whom advocate 'anarcho-syndicalism', where that's what Chomksy calls it, and Prof Wolff just calls it what it is, communism. They assert that it should be democratic, but in practice, given the opportunities for demagogues to abuse the system, it always winds up as a totalitarian regime.

AS for China, I'd like to see some scholarly analysis of just want the public/private sector balance actually is.

Its zero for the private sector

Individuals have no rights in china

The government is the final authority over every detail in people’s lives

 

[Rumpole]

That's nice.

It would be a lot nicer if you explain to me about all this 'evidence' you claim is 'all around us like air' that proves Joe stole the election.

 

[Rumpole]

Its zero for the private sector

Individuals have no rights in china

The government is the final authority over every detail in people’s lives

Authoritarianism is a separable component of any left to right regime. You could have a libertarian socialist society (in theory) or an authoritarian socialist society (which is usually the case). Authoritarian/libertarian are components of any political system and they are not systems, unto themselves. There is the 'libertarian party' but they are just pretty much radical conservatives who are culturally liberal, more liberal than modern liberals, So, the communism in China doesn't have to be authoritarian, Marxism isn't inherently authoritarian, it's just that the party in control wants it that way. The big problem with communism is that it is a ripe vehicle for the power hungry to impose authoritarianism, which is what usually manifests.

 

[Mac-7]

Authoritarianism is a separable component of any left to right regime. You could have a libertarian socialist society (in theory) or an authoritarian socialist society (which is usually the case). Authoritarian/libertarian are components of any political system and they are not systems, unto themselves. There is the 'libertarian party' but they are just pretty much radical conservatives who are culturally liberal, more liberal than modern liberals, So, the communism in China doesn't have to be authoritarian, Marxism isn't inherently authoritarian, it's just that the party in control wants it that way. The big problem with communism is that it is a ripe vehicle for the power hungry to impose authoritarianism, which is what usually manifests.

So, the communism in China doesn't have to be authoritarian, Marxism isn't inherently authoritarian,

You’re correct

And if pigs could fly I have no doubt that communism could be non-authoritarian

But no one has managed it so far

Communist/marxists are godless and have no respect for human rights

In china everyone exists to serve the state, which makes them expendable

 

[JGalt]

No evidence, to date, has been put forth to prove Trump's allegation that Democrats stole the election.

Biden is a move to the left, but I stated that we should be careful not to swing to far to the left.

Given your moniker, I take it you are a fan of Ayn Rand?

No, I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand and have never read anything she wrote. It's just an internet handle that pisses off leftists.

 

[Rumpole]

You’re correct

And if pigs could fly I have no doubt that communism could be non-authoritarian

But no one has managed it so far

Communist/marxists are godless and have no respect for human rights

In china everyone exists to serve the state, which makes them expendable

Did you read my comment, the last line?

The big problem with communism is that it is a ripe vehicle for the power hungry to impose authoritarianism, which is what usually manifests.

In short, you are just reiterating the point I made.

 

[Independent thinker]

There's a pendulum in politics. Swing too far to the left, it rebounds, and swings too far to the right. and vice versa, in a never ending going from one extreme to the other, and back again only to repeat.

But where does the pendulum rest? Well, an actual pendulum, it rests upon arrival at dead center. I feel this is a great metaphor for the political forces of the right and the left.

But, to reach the center, once we figure out where that center is, I believe we must do it deliberately, as, without deliberation, the pendulum will continue to swing. There is disharmony and disfunction when the pendulum never rests, but that is true more so if it is moving too quickly. The trick is to put it to rest, in the center. It seems that in Russia and China it has swung too far to the right. With Trump, in my view, it was swinging far to the right, but the electorate said NO, and chose Biden. But, we have to be wary of swinging too far to the left, as well. So, let's first define things.

So, the place where the equilibrium of both forces are achieved is in the center, it might be leaning left, it might be leaning right, but the point is, it will be the point of equilibrium, the most inert, and thus the most balanced, harmonious and peaceful point. But is this possible? Or is this just idealistic fantasy? It's worth exploring, I say, in the never ending struggle to find the best path for America, if there is such a thing, it's a worthwhile effort.

Now, this is not to be confused with 'centrism' as a political ideology. I don't really consider myself as a 'centrist'.

America, and all of the western developed nations, aka "western democracies' aka 'liberal democracies' (which doesn't mean liberal in terms of politics, it means liberal in terms of a free society with all that implies as opposed to a closed society, like the USSR or N. Korea), the western world are 'mixed economics' or what might also be called a blend of socialism and capitalism. So what it is is the right balance of socialism and capitalism?

So let me define what I mean by these things. I have no intention in going off into a philosophical tangent about these things, of which many books have been written. Heck, if you printed a PDF of the Wikipedia Entry on 'Socialism' and 'Democratic Socialism', it would occupy 150 or so pages. Clearly, no one liner in a dictionary will convey the scope of what these terms mean. But, I'm not going there, i'm keeping things real simple in this thread--I mean a government run enterprise is a socialistic enterprise, and a privately run enterprise is a capitalistic enterprise. Call them what you want, but for the sake of argument, that is how I'm labeling them here. Most western nations ( if not all of them ) are mixed economies, various ratios of both. You can all them anything, but for the sake of simplicity, I find it easier to call them that.

That's how I am defining them here. Many on the right accuse democrats of being 'socialist' in the hope people will associate this with the totalitarian countries, and thus reject it and vote for Republicans, This is not being truthful, of course, because no Democrat I know favors anything to do with totalitarianism, contrary to what many on the right are asserting (not saying all of you are saying that, but some of you are). But, that's another argument. Debating that aspect is not the intent here.

Now then. I'm going to make some opinionated declarations, based on my empirical observation of history.

Socialism, without capitalism, will collapse.

Capitalism, without socialism, will devour itself.

So the trick is to understand what each does the best, and let each do just that.

Now, if you are a 'neoliberal' (conservative/libertarian) you are going to have a hard time going along with me on this, but suspend your belief, temporarily, until you finish this post, that's all I ask. (Neoliberalism = total unregulated free marketism, where most of the government is privatized, in a nutshell)

It's a public enterprise versus private enterprise thing. I am arbitrarily labeling them as socialism versus capitalism.

A public enterprise works better for what I will call, 'the negative markets'.

What do I mean by that?

These are things we need, and needs are things we absolutely must have, though we may, or may not want them.

Okay, you don't want your house to be on fire, so we need a fire department to deal with it

You don't want someone to steal or rob you or murder you, so we need to have police, sheriff, and FBI to deal with such things.

We don't want foreign countries to attack us, so we need a military to deal with it.

Now, there are a few areas that can be done by both government and private, such as education.

Public education is the guarantee that everyone will be educated, poor or affluent. Private education is not denied for anyone who can pay for it. (Caveat: debating how well these are functioning is not the purpose of this thread)

So, it's mostly things we do not want, but need someone to deal with it, or public service for those who cannot afford the service, but which service is needed for everyone in order to achieve a literate, educated, nourished and healthy citizenry. This could include health care, food and housing, though all of these will have a large private counterpart. This is the 'socialism for needs' (negative markets) aspect.

And, on the other side of the equation, we have what I will call 'the positive markets' these are things we want, such as shoes, clothes, cars, cars washed, carpets cleaned, lawns mowed, toys, goodies, food, boats, jewelry stuff we want and desire for our happiness, etc. Now, please note that if you never have heard of these markets labeled this way, it is because I made it up.

So, public enterprise, negative markets ( mostly), things we need (socialism)
private enterprise, positive markets ( mostly ) things we want. (capitalism)


In short:

Socialism for needs,
Capitalism for wants.

Note that there are shades of grey, and options for one or the other. The concept of 'socialism for needs, and capitalism for wants' is not a rigid concept, adjustments can be made, depending on the wants of the electorate. It is a starting point, a guiding principle, a point of reference for clarity when things get foggy.

One country might favor government run critical and strategic services, such as post, railroad, and banking, healthcare, and another country these privately run, noting that in the vast majority of the 50 or so western countries, the health care model is some variant of universal health care.

And the dynamics of public enterprises are quite different than a private enterprise.

With a private enterprise, you must reward productivity and penalize non-productivity, and you must do this or go out of business.

But, with a nation, a public enterprise, the dynamics are different. If you penalize the poor, and overly reward the rich too much, and penalize the poor too much for too log, whereupon the government becomes oppressive and caters to the rich, you could wind up with masses of people with pitchforks marching on the governing class, you could wind up with revolutions, and the outcomes of revolutions are never good. We demand, much more so, accountability and transparency of our public servants much more so than of our private entrepreneurs. Try doing a FOIA request on a corporation! Now, nothing is perfect, as it is written, the Declaration of Independence did not declare America to be a perfect union, only that we try and be a more perfect union. And yes, there is corruption, but it knows no borders between the public and private, and this is a subject for another thread, I'm dealing with philosophical concepts here.

( Note: there is the grey area of the non -profit corporation, which is a hybrid, but I will not get into this here )

You've never heard these terms (negative and positive markets ) because I just made them up, to illustrate a concept. So, don't hark back and say you've never heard of them. Of course you haven't, I've coined the ideas to illustrate my political philosophy.

So, the idea is, socialism for individual needs and needs of society, and capitalism for individual wants, and wants of society.

So, the idea isn't a centrist philosophy, the idea is the right balance of socialism
( government run enterprises ) and capitalism, ( privately run enterprises, and this includes corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, independent contractors), i.e., the idea is NOT to do away with either side of the pendulum, but achieve an equilibrium of both political forces. Finding the sweet spot, is what it is all about ( for me, anyway ) and that is the eternal struggle between the right and left, and there yes yet to be one leader who understands it fully, let alone explain it well to the electorate, so that everyone can agree on it -- if that is all possible.

And for those of you, right or left, who fantasizing about being in a place where the other doesn't exist, forget it, it doesn't exist, it's not reality. The political landscape is a spectrum, and most political parties fall somewhere on the right or left side of the spectrum.

That is the general idea of my political philosophy, and, as such, it is not really a socialist philosophy, because true socialism is the pendulum too far to the left, where it will ultimately fail. All the way to the right is theoretically total anarchy which will, practically speaking, never be anarchy, it will be an plutocracy/oligarchy with a nationalist dictator at it's head (aka 'Fascism or something similar ) because, in a libertarian world, capital flows to fewer and fewer hands, and power controlled by fewer and fewer people. So, this is why I don't agree with conservatives and libertarians who are anti-regulation of any kind. there is such a thing as sensible regulation (true, one could argue that we have to much regulation that isn't sensible, and probably not enough that is, but that is another subject --though I'm certain we can find a lot of agreement there).

This can be true, (authoritarianism/totalitarianism) in a different way, in terms of central control, with communism/socialism and too far to the left, as evidenced by Soviet Russia, Cuba, N Korea, etc. So, when the pendulum swings too far to the left, or right, you have totalitarianism. If conservatives want to argue that right wing totalitarianism isn't as total as left wing totalitarianism, fine, but that is a rather silly argument as both extremes are bad, no matter how you slice it, and I would assume no sensible person on the right advocates it and, as a left of center person, myself, Democrats, liberals (and 'democratic socialists) certainly are not advocating for totalitarian socialism/communism, as many on the right would have us believe. No, I'm not saying everyone on the right accuses liberals and dems as being 'commies' but some are. I also criticize those on the left who accuse those on the right as being fascists. I think we need to calm down, stop shouting and talking past each other, stop telling lies about our opponents, and have a realistic conversation about the subject, which is the point of this thread.

However, in my view, the farthest and safest place away from both extremes is the most inert point, and that is the center, or rather, that point where an equilibrium of both forces can be achieved. Because that is the ONLY place the pendulum can rest.

The trick is, where, exactly, is the center? That is where the real debate is. Where is the sweet spot that both sides can live with? That is the eternal struggle on both sides. This, I'm still trying to figure out.

We are in a perpetual motion machine that can keep on going on forever.

 

[Anomalism]

We are in a perpetual motion machine that can keep on going on forever.

Well, not forever, but we know what you mean.

 

[Rumpole]

We are in a perpetual motion machine that can keep on going on forever.

Nice thought, but, unfortunately, nothing in this universe will last forever, it will perish and remerge somewhere else, perhaps in a different form of who knows what?

 

[Mac-7]

Did you read my comment, the last line?

The big problem with communism is that it is a ripe vehicle for the power hungry to impose authoritarianism, which is what usually manifests.

In short, you are just reiterating the point I made.

You were telling us how wonderful communism would be if only it were not communism

The system is inherently flawed with no redeeming qualities

If you can agree to that then we have reached an understanding

 

[Rumpole]

You were telling us how wonderful communism would be if only it were not communism

If you believe that, you have completely misread my OP.

The system is inherently flawed with no redeeming qualities

I was explicit in revealing it's flaws.

If you can agree to that then we have reached an understanding

We agree, on that point, though I'm not certain we have a meeting of mind on the details of why.

 

[80zephyr]

You posted:
Socialism for needs,
Capitalism for wants.

What is a need? Housing? OK, what type? How much are we willing to spend to obtain it? Health? What is health? Is it cosmetic dental work?

I think you can see where I'm headed with this. What obligations does a society have to fill these "needs"?

 

[Rumpole]

You posted:
Socialism for needs,
Capitalism for wants.

What is a need? Housing? OK, what type? How much are we willing to spend to obtain it? Health? What is health? Is it cosmetic dental work?

I think you can see where I'm headed with this. What obligations does a society have to fill these "needs"?

I stated in the OP that the principles outline were 'guidelines', because obviously, there are grey areas.

Needs would be those areas in commerce or services that are more successfully served by the government.
Needs are unaffordable desires, where society (democracy) rules that it is just to provide them by the government,
Needs are desires in which government providers cannot function with competition, such as police, military, and fire dept.

wants are affordable desires. Shoes, Cars, and a gazillion other things.

The needs v wants will vary according to ability to pay. The poor will partake in more government provided services than the affluent will, but it is fair that the affluent will purchase finer things.

Most housing would fall under wants. The needs aspect would be housing & rent subsides for those who can't afford normal rates, which, under HUD, falls under 'Section 8'.

Most education is needs, as most people send their kids to a public school and cannot afford a private school. Wants would be those who can afford private schools.

Mail is established in the Constitution. Some argue it's private, but not really. It's a de facto government run enterprize. Per the constitution, those it doesn't explicitly state it in these terms, is a need.

Health also has public and private components. That is the status quo.

Cosmetic surgery is a want.

Fire department is a need.

Police, FBI, etc., is a need.

LIbraries are a need (but not so much, any more, it seems).

Golf courses are a want. Municipal courses are a need, for those who can't afford normal rates. There are other municipal facilities, such as 'plunges' (olympic sized swimming pools) , tennis courts/parks and recreation, etc. Lifeguards at beaches, etc.

As for 'society's obligation'. That is a matter settled by democracy, and democracy only.

And the list goes on.

As for how to pay for it, and how much. How to pay for it -- Given that the upper 50% own 97% of the nation's wealth, they should pay, in a progressive scale, 97% of the taxes, the lower 50%, progressively above 130% of the poverty rate, the remaining 3%. Below that, a negative tax to bring them to 130% of poverty rate.

How much? That's a matter for congressional/presidential budgets. Too complicated to tackle here.

Naturally, in struggling with the right over these values in order to find that 'sweet spot' that equilibrium between the values of the right and left, I'd have to make compromises, as the right would, as well, where we can find that place where we both can live with. But that will only be possible if people quit being uncompromising radicals, and come to their senses.

 

[Rumpole]

No, I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand and have never read anything she wrote. It's just an internet handle that pisses off leftists.

Well, if you were a fan of Ayn Rand, you'd be pissed off to know she is a hypocrite.

 

[JGalt]

Well, if you were a fan of Ayn Rand, you'd be pissed off to know she is a hypocrite.

Ok. I'll file that under "Useless things I don't give a fuck about."

 

[Rumpole]

Ok. I'll file that under "Useless things I don't give a fuck about."

I'd expect nothing less. You could read 'Atlas Shrugged', but you'd probably have to flog yourself to read it. I know I would.

And, by the way, your comment begs the question: Are there any useless things you do give a fuck about?

 

[Mac1958]

The trick is, where, exactly, is the center? That is where the real debate is. Where is the sweet spot that both sides can live with? That is the eternal struggle on both sides. This, I'm still trying to figure out.

That's a really solid effort, thanks. I've thought about this a lot over the last few years, and I think we're asking the wrong question. Trying to identify and reach a "center" doesn't mean that that's where the best answers are.

First, I'll bring up the (currently) impenetrable brick wall that is stopping progress in its tracks: The absolutely critical and essential communication and collaboration that this would require is simply not allowed right now. That is a result of a political "system" that incentivizes and rewards the most divisive impulses of each end of our spectrum. How do we penetrate that wall? Right now, I just don't know.

Second, there is a wide spectrum in between the two ideological ends. If we take each issue individually and approach each one with open minds, intellectual curiosity and collaboration, without ego, we may find that the best answers may lean left or right for each individual issue. One end has more input on this issue, the other end has more input on that issue. So trying to find an absolute center doesn't need to be a rigid requirement.

Third, a word that I use all the time, and a word that I never see any more is innovation. Creating something new. America USED to be good at that. That's simply a byproduct of communication and collaboration. Like, say, our Constitution. When we communicate, collaborate and innovate, it means that we ALL have skin in the game, we ALL want an idea to work. Right now, all we want to do is point the finger. We want to sabotage. When we innovate together, we ALL want an idea to work.

We're so far away from this now, and it's been so long since we worked together, that we literally may have lost that capacity. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There's a pendulum in politics. Swing too far to the left, it rebounds, and swings too far to the right. and vice versa, in a never ending going from one extreme to the other, and back again only to repeat.

But where does the pendulum rest? Well, an actual pendulum, it rests upon arrival at dead center. I feel this is a great metaphor for the political forces of the right and the left.

But, to reach the center, once we figure out where that center is, I believe we must do it deliberately, as, without deliberation, the pendulum will continue to swing. There is disharmony and disfunction when the pendulum never rests, but that is true more so if it is moving too quickly. The trick is to put it to rest, in the center. It seems that in Russia and China it has swung too far to the right. With Trump, in my view, it was swinging far to the right, but the electorate said NO, and chose Biden. But, we have to be wary of swinging too far to the left, as well. So, let's first define things.

So, the place where the equilibrium of both forces are achieved is in the center, it might be leaning left, it might be leaning right, but the point is, it will be the point of equilibrium, the most inert, and thus the most balanced, harmonious and peaceful point. But is this possible? Or is this just idealistic fantasy? It's worth exploring, I say, in the never ending struggle to find the best path for America, if there is such a thing, it's a worthwhile effort.

Now, this is not to be confused with 'centrism' as a political ideology. I don't really consider myself as a 'centrist'.

America, and all of the western developed nations, aka "western democracies' aka 'liberal democracies' (which doesn't mean liberal in terms of politics, it means liberal in terms of a free society with all that implies as opposed to a closed society, like the USSR or N. Korea), the western world are 'mixed economics' or what might also be called a blend of socialism and capitalism. So what it is is the right balance of socialism and capitalism?

So let me define what I mean by these things. I have no intention in going off into a philosophical tangent about these things, of which many books have been written. Heck, if you printed a PDF of the Wikipedia Entry on 'Socialism' and 'Democratic Socialism', it would occupy 150 or so pages. Clearly, no one liner in a dictionary will convey the scope of what these terms mean. But, I'm not going there, i'm keeping things real simple in this thread--I mean a government run enterprise is a socialistic enterprise, and a privately run enterprise is a capitalistic enterprise. Call them what you want, but for the sake of argument, that is how I'm labeling them here. Most western nations ( if not all of them ) are mixed economies, various ratios of both. You can all them anything, but for the sake of simplicity, I find it easier to call them that.

That's how I am defining them here. Many on the right accuse democrats of being 'socialist' in the hope people will associate this with the totalitarian countries, and thus reject it and vote for Republicans, This is not being truthful, of course, because no Democrat I know favors anything to do with totalitarianism, contrary to what many on the right are asserting (not saying all of you are saying that, but some of you are). But, that's another argument. Debating that aspect is not the intent here.

Now then. I'm going to make some opinionated declarations, based on my empirical observation of history.

Socialism, without capitalism, will collapse.

Capitalism, without socialism, will devour itself.

So the trick is to understand what each does the best, and let each do just that.

Now, if you are a 'neoliberal' (conservative/libertarian) you are going to have a hard time going along with me on this, but suspend your belief, temporarily, until you finish this post, that's all I ask. (Neoliberalism = total unregulated free marketism, where most of the government is privatized, in a nutshell)

It's a public enterprise versus private enterprise thing. I am arbitrarily labeling them as socialism versus capitalism.

A public enterprise works better for what I will call, 'the negative markets'.

What do I mean by that?

These are things we need, and needs are things we absolutely must have, though we may, or may not want them.

Okay, you don't want your house to be on fire, so we need a fire department to deal with it

You don't want someone to steal or rob you or murder you, so we need to have police, sheriff, and FBI to deal with such things.

We don't want foreign countries to attack us, so we need a military to deal with it.

Now, there are a few areas that can be done by both government and private, such as education.

Public education is the guarantee that everyone will be educated, poor or affluent. Private education is not denied for anyone who can pay for it. (Caveat: debating how well these are functioning is not the purpose of this thread)

So, it's mostly things we do not want, but need someone to deal with it, or public service for those who cannot afford the service, but which service is needed for everyone in order to achieve a literate, educated, nourished and healthy citizenry. This could include health care, food and housing, though all of these will have a large private counterpart. This is the 'socialism for needs' (negative markets) aspect.

And, on the other side of the equation, we have what I will call 'the positive markets' these are things we want, such as shoes, clothes, cars, cars washed, carpets cleaned, lawns mowed, toys, goodies, food, boats, jewelry stuff we want and desire for our happiness, etc. Now, please note that if you never have heard of these markets labeled this way, it is because I made it up.

So, public enterprise, negative markets ( mostly), things we need (socialism)
private enterprise, positive markets ( mostly ) things we want. (capitalism)


In short:

Socialism for needs,
Capitalism for wants.

Note that there are shades of grey, and options for one or the other. The concept of 'socialism for needs, and capitalism for wants' is not a rigid concept, adjustments can be made, depending on the wants of the electorate. It is a starting point, a guiding principle, a point of reference for clarity when things get foggy.

One country might favor government run critical and strategic services, such as post, railroad, and banking, healthcare, and another country these privately run, noting that in the vast majority of the 50 or so western countries, the health care model is some variant of universal health care.

And the dynamics of public enterprises are quite different than a private enterprise.

With a private enterprise, you must reward productivity and penalize non-productivity, and you must do this or go out of business.

But, with a nation, a public enterprise, the dynamics are different. If you penalize the poor, and overly reward the rich too much, and penalize the poor too much for too log, whereupon the government becomes oppressive and caters to the rich, you could wind up with masses of people with pitchforks marching on the governing class, you could wind up with revolutions, and the outcomes of revolutions are never good. We demand, much more so, accountability and transparency of our public servants much more so than of our private entrepreneurs. Try doing a FOIA request on a corporation! Now, nothing is perfect, as it is written, the Declaration of Independence did not declare America to be a perfect union, only that we try and be a more perfect union. And yes, there is corruption, but it knows no borders between the public and private, and this is a subject for another thread, I'm dealing with philosophical concepts here.

( Note: there is the grey area of the non -profit corporation, which is a hybrid, but I will not get into this here )

You've never heard these terms (negative and positive markets ) because I just made them up, to illustrate a concept. So, don't hark back and say you've never heard of them. Of course you haven't, I've coined the ideas to illustrate my political philosophy.

So, the idea is, socialism for individual needs and needs of society, and capitalism for individual wants, and wants of society.

So, the idea isn't a centrist philosophy, the idea is the right balance of socialism
( government run enterprises ) and capitalism, ( privately run enterprises, and this includes corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, independent contractors), i.e., the idea is NOT to do away with either side of the pendulum, but achieve an equilibrium of both political forces. Finding the sweet spot, is what it is all about ( for me, anyway ) and that is the eternal struggle between the right and left, and there yes yet to be one leader who understands it fully, let alone explain it well to the electorate, so that everyone can agree on it -- if that is all possible.

And for those of you, right or left, who fantasizing about being in a place where the other doesn't exist, forget it, it doesn't exist, it's not reality. The political landscape is a spectrum, and most political parties fall somewhere on the right or left side of the spectrum.

That is the general idea of my political philosophy, and, as such, it is not really a socialist philosophy, because true socialism is the pendulum too far to the left, where it will ultimately fail. All the way to the right is theoretically total anarchy which will, practically speaking, never be anarchy, it will be an plutocracy/oligarchy with a nationalist dictator at it's head (aka 'Fascism or something similar ) because, in a libertarian world, capital flows to fewer and fewer hands, and power controlled by fewer and fewer people. So, this is why I don't agree with conservatives and libertarians who are anti-regulation of any kind. there is such a thing as sensible regulation (true, one could argue that we have to much regulation that isn't sensible, and probably not enough that is, but that is another subject --though I'm certain we can find a lot of agreement there).

This can be true, (authoritarianism/totalitarianism) in a different way, in terms of central control, with communism/socialism and too far to the left, as evidenced by Soviet Russia, Cuba, N Korea, etc. So, when the pendulum swings too far to the left, or right, you have totalitarianism. If conservatives want to argue that right wing totalitarianism isn't as total as left wing totalitarianism, fine, but that is a rather silly argument as both extremes are bad, no matter how you slice it, and I would assume no sensible person on the right advocates it and, as a left of center person, myself, Democrats, liberals (and 'democratic socialists) certainly are not advocating for totalitarian socialism/communism, as many on the right would have us believe. No, I'm not saying everyone on the right accuses liberals and dems as being 'commies' but some are. I also criticize those on the left who accuse those on the right as being fascists. I think we need to calm down, stop shouting and talking past each other, stop telling lies about our opponents, and have a realistic conversation about the subject, which is the point of this thread.

However, in my view, the farthest and safest place away from both extremes is the most inert point, and that is the center, or rather, that point where an equilibrium of both forces can be achieved. Because that is the ONLY place the pendulum can rest.

The trick is, where, exactly, is the center? That is where the real debate is. Where is the sweet spot that both sides can live with? That is the eternal struggle on both sides. This, I'm still trying to figure out.

To have more sensible politics, you need more choice.

If a person has only two options to choose from, they'll choose the more sensible option (sometimes). If they have six choices, then the chances are there'll be an even more sensible option.
Often people feel they only have one choice in the US. People decide they hate the other party, there's no one else to choose from, and the Reps and Dems feed off of that, they don't need to get better, they just need to attract the swing voters and usually do so by painting the other side as more crazy.
Doesn't happen so much in Germany or other countries with Proportional Representation.

 

[Rumpole]

That's a really solid effort, thanks. I've thought about this a lot over the last few years, and I think we're asking the wrong question. Trying to identify and reach a "center" doesn't mean that that's where the best answers are.

First, I'll bring up the (currently) impenetrable brick wall that is stopping progress in its tracks: The absolutely critical and essential communication and collaboration that this would require is simply not allowed right now. That is a result of a political "system" that incentivizes and rewards the most divisive impulses of each end of our spectrum. How do we penetrate that wall? Right now, I just don't know.

Second, there is a wide spectrum in between the two ideological ends. If we take each issue individually and approach each one with open minds, intellectual curiosity and collaboration, without ego, we may find that the best answers may lean left or right for each individual issue. One end has more input on this issue, the other end has more input on that issue. So trying to find an absolute center doesn't need to be a rigid requirement.

Third, a word that I use all the time, and a word that I never see any more is innovation. Creating something new. America USED to be good at that. That's simply a byproduct of communication and collaboration. Like, say, our Constitution. When we communicate, collaborate and innovate, it means that we ALL have skin in the game, we ALL want an idea to work. Right now, all we want to do is point the finger. We want to sabotage. When we innovate together, we ALL want an idea to work.

We're so far away from this now, and it's been so long since we worked together, that we literally may have lost that capacity. I hope I'm wrong.

Thank you for your most thoughtful comments. All valid points. But, I'd like to clarify one point. I wasn't implying the center, as in dead center equidistant between two points, I mean that place where there is such an equilibrium achieved between the two forces, such that each side can live with the arrangement both have negotiated on. I call this the 'sweet spot'. It might be the center, it might be right of center, it might be left of center, but it won't be too far from the center, I suspect. All your points are aspects useful in pursuit of this objective, I guess we just have to get the word out. Write a book, or something. I'm considering it.

 

[Mac1958]

Thank you for your most thoughtful comments. All valid points. But, I'd like to clarify one point. I wasn't implying the center, as in dead center equidistant between two points, I mean that place where there is such an equilibrium achieved between the two forces, such that each side can live with the arrangement both have negotiated on. I call this the 'sweet spot'. It might be the center, it might be right of center, it might be left of center, but it won't be too far from the center, I suspect. All your points are aspects useful in pursuit of this objective, I guess we just have to get the word out. Write a book, or something. I'm considering it.

Good point. I was thinking of the way "the center" is perceived by those on the ends of the spectrum -- this perfectly positioned spot in which utopia lies. They know that's just not possible, so they use that fact an excuse to not even try.

Any momentum that can be created towards collaboration and innovation is a worthy effort, that's for sure.