As far as i can see a 'far left' position is the best one to take, and here's why:
If we take a 'far right' position we are accepting a way of thinking about human nature and potential that is horrible and mean. We are saying that we are all greedy, violent stupid and must be controlled by an authoritarian power. We are accepting racism, sexism and a dislike of gay people and the disabled, etc. An awful position to take.
If we take a 'moderate right' position then we are accepting that gay people and black people etc are alright - how nice of us! But that a tight hierarchy of economic power needs to be there and minorities can only climb the ladder by working within that system (which, in reality, means most can not). It means accepting the hugely contradictory believe that we run a meritocracy when the evidence very clearly indicates we do not. It means accepting the very weak argument that the free market trickles down benefits to all, when we have extensive evidence that it does not, and that the benefits stay very largely at the top. Or, a 'trickle' down only is about right!
It also means believing that the right is protective of religion and in tandem with the tenants of religion, and therefore throwing out a vast number of those actual religious beliefs, and ignoring deep contradictions. How often have conservatives turned the other cheek rather than use military power on distant fellow humans (who are presumably also created by the same god they say they love)? Not often.
To be a centrist, a 'liberal' is also to live with a hugely contradictory force: you fight for and actually believe in political freedom and the rights of all to be respected and take part in society. Yet you support a capitalist economic system which is directly at odds with that. An economic system of tyranny and of a great lack of freedom that holds back individual development.
To be on the 'moderate left' is better than the other 3 places as its basic philosophy is a positive one, but has some serious problems with it. The key characteristic of this position is that we need to make slow, piecemeal changes towards a better society. The main reason being that people on the center and those who slightly right will not support anything more radical and their support is needed to win elections. I admit that is probably true, so i can see the sense in that.
But what that means is being caught in a see-saw of changes that goes on for decades and even centuries....as we have seen several times those moderate changes are then rolled back again 20 or 30 years later when the right gets back into power. And then the moderate left spends another 20 or 30 years tying to claw back to what the position was before...only to see the next right wing government push them back yet again. It starts to look a bit pointless. At best we can say that a small improvement in society is achieved, over a very long period, overall.
So, to hold a so called 'far left' radical position is to have a philosophical bedrock that is consistent, positive and forward looking, that thinks we humans are clever, cooperative, decent and capable of doing much better than now. ALL of us, white, black, men, women, transgender, disabled, older people - everyone of value and taking part in how things are organised, democratically.
It's by far the most positive of the positions and the the one with the least contradictions. It does not have the contradictions of having political freedom but economic near slavery, because the radical left says that genuine democracy in the workplace too is an absolute basic thing. It rejects all racism and sexism and all types of discrimination. It says that reason and analysis and debate and having a wide knowledge of things are important. It says that we should not damage people or the environment in the economic process, or to reduce that as much as possible. It says, basically, we should organise society by ourselves, for ourselves, for the benefit of all. Sounds good to me.
Though, of course, the radical left has two common problems: the tendency to fall out within the left, and the authoritarian tendencies of some within the left. These are serious difficulties which need to be overcome, reduced, held in check. Some think we can not do that, but I think we can.
If we take a 'far right' position we are accepting a way of thinking about human nature and potential that is horrible and mean. We are saying that we are all greedy, violent stupid and must be controlled by an authoritarian power. We are accepting racism, sexism and a dislike of gay people and the disabled, etc. An awful position to take.
If we take a 'moderate right' position then we are accepting that gay people and black people etc are alright - how nice of us! But that a tight hierarchy of economic power needs to be there and minorities can only climb the ladder by working within that system (which, in reality, means most can not). It means accepting the hugely contradictory believe that we run a meritocracy when the evidence very clearly indicates we do not. It means accepting the very weak argument that the free market trickles down benefits to all, when we have extensive evidence that it does not, and that the benefits stay very largely at the top. Or, a 'trickle' down only is about right!
It also means believing that the right is protective of religion and in tandem with the tenants of religion, and therefore throwing out a vast number of those actual religious beliefs, and ignoring deep contradictions. How often have conservatives turned the other cheek rather than use military power on distant fellow humans (who are presumably also created by the same god they say they love)? Not often.
To be a centrist, a 'liberal' is also to live with a hugely contradictory force: you fight for and actually believe in political freedom and the rights of all to be respected and take part in society. Yet you support a capitalist economic system which is directly at odds with that. An economic system of tyranny and of a great lack of freedom that holds back individual development.
To be on the 'moderate left' is better than the other 3 places as its basic philosophy is a positive one, but has some serious problems with it. The key characteristic of this position is that we need to make slow, piecemeal changes towards a better society. The main reason being that people on the center and those who slightly right will not support anything more radical and their support is needed to win elections. I admit that is probably true, so i can see the sense in that.
But what that means is being caught in a see-saw of changes that goes on for decades and even centuries....as we have seen several times those moderate changes are then rolled back again 20 or 30 years later when the right gets back into power. And then the moderate left spends another 20 or 30 years tying to claw back to what the position was before...only to see the next right wing government push them back yet again. It starts to look a bit pointless. At best we can say that a small improvement in society is achieved, over a very long period, overall.
So, to hold a so called 'far left' radical position is to have a philosophical bedrock that is consistent, positive and forward looking, that thinks we humans are clever, cooperative, decent and capable of doing much better than now. ALL of us, white, black, men, women, transgender, disabled, older people - everyone of value and taking part in how things are organised, democratically.
It's by far the most positive of the positions and the the one with the least contradictions. It does not have the contradictions of having political freedom but economic near slavery, because the radical left says that genuine democracy in the workplace too is an absolute basic thing. It rejects all racism and sexism and all types of discrimination. It says that reason and analysis and debate and having a wide knowledge of things are important. It says that we should not damage people or the environment in the economic process, or to reduce that as much as possible. It says, basically, we should organise society by ourselves, for ourselves, for the benefit of all. Sounds good to me.
Though, of course, the radical left has two common problems: the tendency to fall out within the left, and the authoritarian tendencies of some within the left. These are serious difficulties which need to be overcome, reduced, held in check. Some think we can not do that, but I think we can.