Centrism

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
Explain this then.

You're a radical moronic nigger.

Radical revisionism.

Could you be any more radically wrong?

commie pls

Revolutionary conservatives.

OP here. I agree "radical" is somewhat ambiguous.

To conserve there must be a threat, conservatives are reacting to attempted change.

What if the change occurs. Then would the conservatives fight to preserve it?

Example: women allowed to vote despite conservatives. Conservatives now protect female voting.
Example 2: free abortions allowed for all women. Once it happens, next generation of conservatives fight to defend that right.

>protect
>defend
Reactionary, the only thing that has changed is what is being reacted to.

I guess both "conservative" and "centrist" are malleable depending on the status quo.

The term 'radical' is derived from the Latin for 'root', as in the desire to pull society out 'by the roots'. That is an inherently anti-conservative attitude.

when will the left-right meme end

...

now kiss

It already has for me. When I talk politics, I ask about opinion on policies.

>do you want more taxes and more social benefits, or less taxes and less social benefits?
>do you want foreign immigrants for cheap labor or to pay more for services
>do you want a stronger military or less taxes
>do you want subsidies or for local producers to fail
>do you want less people being educated or to lower standards

Etc, etc.

t. centrist.

When people can consider themselves and others as parts in a system and not members of a group.

>>do you want subsidies or for local producers to fail
Sink or swim bruh. Coining it as "fail" is a subtle bias.

Never, people need to break down complex realities into simple models for easier digestion. Because the left-right dichotomy is so reductive, almost everyone "gets it". There are models that are far more descriptive, but those are harder to grasp and thus aren't used to communicate outside certain circles.

>Why are most self-professed centrist between right-liberlism and left-liberalism
Because current cultural hegemon is USA, "liberalism the country".

Sink or swim indeed. So when X sinks, a lot of people become unemployed, and if you have a welfare state this is an issue.
So the sink or swim doesn't work well with the high tax, high benefit situation.

On the other side, in a low tax, low benefit situation, a sinking X means that all the now unemployed people are literally on the street, and will riot and form gangs and such.

It isn't easy to let a big X fail.

The ironic thing is people really don't get it. Leftist swear to Marx liberals are "right-wing" despite them being the original leftist. Traditionalist view liberals as the antithesis of their beliefs, who's beliefs themselves are commonly mixed up with conservativism by those who don't know any better. Conservatism has traditional variants (For example Pat Buchanan's paleoconservtism) and variants based on Trotskyism (neoconservatism).

If we take "left" as meaning the government spends your money for you (high tax, high benefits), and "right" as meaning you spend your own money (low tax, low benefits), most of it makes sense.
Can be applied to collectivism (left) vs individualism (right). Also equal outcome (left) vs equal opportunity (right).

What about issues like religious integration into public life?

Left-right dichotomy works well when applied to a single country or somewhat homogenous political systems. When you can pick the most popular worldview, the worldview opposing it and you'll get an effective one dimensional scale.

When you start with the irrelevant flavour-ideogies like Trotskyism, neoconservatism, Paleoconservatism etc. there is no purpose for the dichotomy.

Yes, that is one reason why having people with very disparate positions argue is such a train wreck - it's like different factions are using different languages to communicate but everyone thinks everyone else speaks the same language as them.

>Can be applied to collectivism (left) vs individualism (right).
What of matters like abortion, euthanasia, sexual practices and gender roles, scientific education, religion, etc. In many matters, American "conservatives" seem to take put social order ahead of individual liberty, while in many others American "liberals" seem to value individual liberties ahead of social order. I don't see a hard rule.

>Also equal outcome (left) vs equal opportunity (right).
The fact people are born with in different states with different competencies makes it so opportunity cannot be equal in reality. I believe most people, regardless of where in the spectrum they place themselves, think "reward should be proportional to the work you put in" is a good maxim, they just disagree on how to bring reality closer to it.

>Left-right dichotomy works well when applied to a single country or somewhat homogenous political systems. When you can pick the most popular worldview, the worldview opposing it and you'll get an effective one dimensional scale.
By that logic, republicans would have been the "left wing party" once Obama and the democrats took over the houses and Obama and the democrats would have been the "right wing party."

A better way to look to at it would Stuart Mill's division between the "parties of order" which represents conservatism and traditionalism and the "parties of progress" which represent liberalism and new ideas. This would be more applicable in countries such as Japan, the USA, the UK, etc. where two or 3 major parties dominate with the rest being outliers.

>muh isms
just make up your mind issue by issue

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if X falls and you have Y amount of unemployment, wouldn't instead the market now be flooded with smaller Xs do to a big competitor being out of market now? And wouldn't these smaller Xs cover Y unemployment?

>The fact people are born with in different states with different competencies makes it so opportunity cannot be equal in reality.

The system gives equal opportunity.
So the smart beat the stupid, and the crippled are fucked.
Promote excellence, punish lack of it.

Its cruel, which is why the equal outcome seems a good idea - from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Those who have more, and can produce more, take care of those who have less, and can produce less.

This is why its an issue still, because there is no right or wrong. Those are sliders that we move left or right depending on the situation.

The truth is no ideology will save you. Reality is based on natural resources and educated guesses as to economic decisions.

Meme politics, such as degeneracy and homosexuality, don't matter.

Depends on the X. If your X is General Motors, a company that more or less works at a loss, because the USA can't afford to have a quarter million people made unemployed in Detroit, then no new business would show up.
Instead Detroit would become a "free zone" of anarchy, where anything goes, once those people rebel. And the state would have to throw food and drugs at the problem, since its the cheapest way of containing it.

>real politik

No morals in politics = totalitarian regimes.

Associated with.

Modern real politik uses worthless politics to get into power and throws them bones; then focuses on the real issues.

It's pointless arguing as long as you leave left and right undefined.

Depends on the X. If your X is General Motors, a company that more or less works at a loss, because the USA can't afford to have a quarter million people made unemployed in Detroit, then no new business would show up.
I don't understand, why would no business show up? It seems like to me if you had a place that has 250k former car factory workers, that I, car company Z, would want to move my factory there to save time on retraining and therefore cutting employee start up cost. Can you explain further on why business would not take the opportunity of this massive saturation of semiskilled labor?

>Instead Detroit would become a "free zone" of anarchy, where anything goes, once those people rebel. And the state would have to throw food and drugs at the problem, since its the cheapest way of containing it.
Isn't some parts already like that?

Greater good (left) and individual good (right).

>Isn't some parts already like that?

Yes, and GM hasn't even failed yet, it debts were paid with tax money.
Imagine it it fell. The anarchy would be complete.

That's stupid. Just say social capital and private capital.

Same thing. You can call it collectivism vs individualism as well.

Wait. You didn't answer this.

Depends on the X. If your X is General Motors, a company that more or less works at a loss, because the USA can't afford to have a quarter million people made unemployed in Detroit, then no new business would show up.
I don't understand, why would no business show up? It seems like to me if you had a place that has 250k former car factory workers, that I, car company Z, would want to move my factory there to save time on retraining and therefore cutting employee start up cost. Can you explain further on why business would not take the opportunity of this massive saturation of semiskilled labor?

I didn't notice a question, I thought you misquoted a bulk of my post there.

>why won't a new car maker show up
Because the city is no longer good for it.
Because the laws no longer allow it.
Car maker Z would open office in Mexico or Turkey for example.

The reason that GM is dying is the reason that GM2 won't show up to take its place.
Its not a death of stacking debts, those were cleared by the government (twice). Its the company just not being market competitive. Asian and European cars do better. Cars are a global market.

>Because the city is no longer good for it.
Explain further.
>Because the laws no longer allow it.
Are you saying that regulations are too high or?
>Car maker Z would open office in Mexico or Turkey for example.
Due to cheaper labor. For this, either Detroit would need lower its labor value or America use protectionist policies.

>The reason that GM is dying is the reason that GM2 won't show up to take its place.
Its not a death of stacking debts, those were cleared by the government (twice). Its the company just not being market competitive. Asian and European cars do better. Cars are a global market.
This leads me to another question, actually - then hasn't anyother market showed up to take advantage of these semiskilled workers - for example, an American made boot company?

But the authentic right is all about collectivism over indivulaism.

muh horseshoe

Perhaps. But where they differ is social issues. I think the positions of anarchism, classical liberalism, and libertarianism can really swing in any direction.

But it all comes from natural capital, or just nature(earth)
Ownership is a delusion