For right-wing extremists, anyone who disagrees with them on any issue automatically becomes a "communist". "whitey" or "Russian agent" and for the extreme leftists, every opponent becomes a "fascist" , "nazist" or "white supremacist." And where is the place for ordinary common sense in politics and society instead of a stupid and senseless look at one's own ideology?
The problem with politics nowadays is that way too many are too caught up and overzealous about their ideologies. All the context and nuance are taken away from political issues that the issues become polarized by ideologues that we can’t have the pursuit of the common good.
I mean there's your answer. Almost all people of radical ideologies will tend to act this way, it's not surprising at all.
That's because we're witnessing the breakdown of the liberal-bourgeois hegemony in the West that has existed more or less uninterrupted since 1945. When hegemony is active (i.e. when the majority of the population is provided with enough prosperity and influence to keep them passive) then its extremely easy for various political groupings to find common ground, since they all broadly agree that the system is working. However hegemony is inherently unstable because capitalism is unstable, and the crash of 2008 necessarily brought with it a weakening of the hegemony. Once this happens, and people's needs are no longer being met by the dominant system and ideology to an adequate degree, there is no longer a significant consensus around which politics evolves. When that happens polarization is inevitable.
You do you it, invent gradients, that bridge the divides. Consider that the Divide and Conquer efforts of the ruling class is going to work against you.
- We could for example start with actually naming things according to strategy territorial socialism, localist socialism, extra territorial socialism, … - describe the allocation of surplus so we don't have to deal with the imposter-problem were someone can mimic progressive language while arguing on behalf of porky interests with rhetorical tricks - no more vampiry-castling, strict enforcement against which-hunting and turning left-spaces into emotional drain-pits of dread.
you need to distinguish between serious intellectual discussion and online drama.
This was painful to read. I hope you are doing a bit. Common sense is absolute garbage. To solve societal problems you have to actually put in the work to understand them. The solutions offered by politicians and the rich are actually far closer to common sense than serious thinking.
Braindead take. Polarisation isn't the problem. It's that a lot of people simply don't understand each other's ideology.
Are you talking about Republicans? Because they are moving towards fascism nowadays. It's undeniable. I'm not sure if I've ever seen anyone call liberals fascists though.
False equivalency. And anyway it sounds like you are referring to liberals when you say "extreme leftists", even though liberals are right-wing.
There's nothing nuanced about 99% of right-wing opinions. It's literally "muh nature" and oceans of spooks you should believe in because "muh nation."
TPUSA/PragerU types do
People with Down's syndrome call glue food too.
By the way, when it comes to discussion on the given topic, it seems to present a much better level of argumentation, culture of posters than discussion on the Zig Forums board than on Zig Forums board. Compare the level of discussion here:
Are you doing a bit or should you shut the fuck up, liberal?
No Marxist calls liberals nazis. Liberalism does give birth to fascism and nazism though, even though it's not the same. What most Marxists will do is call out liberals on being right wing, which they are. You are either left wing, aka against capitalism, or right wing, aka pro-capitalism. That's the fundamental split, and no amount of republicans calling biden voters "communists" can change that
shut the fuck up liberal
Read Anatomy of Fascism my nig.
They are. So are the Democrats.
Yeah but different kinds. The Republicans are flirting with a genuine organic fascism, one with a proper mass movement and everything, much closer to the Nazis or Italians. The right wing Dems are moving towards a technocratic dictatorship imposed artificially from above, not based in any mass movement, more like Pinochet.
Eh, not really. The are ultimately collaborators heading for the same goal. Any differences are only for show.
"Ordinary common sense" is merely the current hegemony. A state of affairs that is held together by state violence, whether you are aware of it or not.
Also your left/right wing extremists are Americans, and therefore liberals, who are fighting over a tiny piece of political territory.
Only actual left wing people want to transform the underlying material basis of society, which is challenging to understand because it exists only conceptually until realized, like any new piece of technology or art.
Plenty of right authoritarian liberals wanted to collaborate with fascism but they weren't fascists in themselves such as Salandra in Italy or Schleicher in Germany
a big part of the (serious) discussions we have here rely on being able to distinguish between different types of ideologies. of course, retards like yourself and >>2951946 exist and need to lurk more or gtfo
why bump a shit thread??? seriously mentally ill. this thread should be anchored IMO
I think you are approaching this problem from a "rationalist" point of view when you talk about the need for good ol' fashioned "common sense" where we all basically agree with what we see in front of our own eyes. But this presents a problem when large numbers of people start behaving very irrationally; IMO you need a big rethink. – Isaac Deutscher (1955)
We're taught by the media throughout our lives about the myth of "balance"–that every issue has two sides. The media fails constantly at being balanced and fair on issues partly because of corporate agenda, but also partly because the presumption of balance rests on entirely arbitrary extremes even if an issue truly has only one simply binary spectrum to analyze it by.