Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
it might lead to socialism, if you assume that everything ends up
at one extreme or
the other. I see just
about everything, ending up between the two extremes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Why do you say that socialism is an extreme? For many worldwide, more and more so, probably more than those who believe in a free market, socialism is the norm.
A linear scale of ideologies with a middle and extremes on both sides is a fiction. Ideologies are not mathematically nor spatially quantifiable. They are defined by a distinct ideological foundation. Any change in the foundation creates a new ideology. That there may be partial similarities does not create a middle ground. The entirety, the whole, is unique.
In a Democrat/Republican political realm, for instance, There is no Blue Dog Democrat party to vote for. There is only the choice between the lesser of two evils, or between the greater of two goods. But there is no actual middle ground, there is just a preference, a choice, that Blue Dogs have to make because of some distinct and preferred difference in each platform or candidate--not because there is a middle ground. All the parties that do exist are foundationally different. They are not middle grounds between each other.
When we refer to a fictional "middle," we are actually speaking of policies and principles that we consider to be the best. Middle, a word that connotes consensus, agreeable coming together, is used as a metaphor for good or the best "place" in a realm that is not spatial or mathematical. It is meant to have the solid characteristic of something that exists on a measurable, therefor verifiable, scale of right and wrong or good and evil. But, unlike verifiable middles in mathematical or geographic models, right and wrong, or good and evil, have no verifiable "middle" between the extremes. They have only preference or belief based on emotional desires or logical conclusions derived form philosophical, moral, or religious principles.
So if "middle" is the good "place," the right "place," then all parties and groups would consider themselves to be "the middle." So your seeing everything ending up between two extremes is a meaningless statement based on a fictional notion of what are the extremes. And that there is a good "place" between them.
Either your "middle" is an ideological, political, philosophical, moral, or religious foundation that isn't transfigured by constantly shifting arguments and policies swirling around it, and from which all those others diverge, or it's just a temporary preference for some current ideas. But, in any case, it is not actually "the middle" of anything.