Is centrism possible/a good ideology?

[I6MTW]

We always talk about liberal and seculars who adhere to the left and then radical left wing such as communists, etc. Then there are the conservatives who lean towards the right and then there is the radical far right such as fascists. Most of the successful parties adhere to one ideology, either Left or right. 

 

But what about Centrism? Is it a practical or possible ideology in today's world? Centrism refers to balanced views who don't adhere to a particular ideology.

But , they say centrists are actually just non conformist bystanders who don't really care about anything. So, is centrism, where one may follow and accept ideals from both wings actually possible? Would it be a good solution?

Edited February 22, 2020 by I6MTW

[Muloghonto]

This sounds like someone who’s failed to understand the core ethos of eastern ideologies 

[Muloghonto]

Indian cultural thesis- that has impacted the core ideologies of every land east of it ( though some had parallel development), is that of balance. Heck, taken as a whole, the entire point of the Ramayana is the rule of law reigning supreme over justice and Mahabharata is the exact opposite: the placements of justice over law.  Everything is about balance, about codependency and harmony. This cannot be possible via any form of extremism.

 

as such, all these ideologies either flat out reject extremism in any form ( madhyamika or Mahayana Buddhism) or prescribe ‘ extremism for extreme circumstances’( Hinduism) 

[I6MTW]

13 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

This sounds like someone who’s failed to understand the core ethos of eastern ideologies 

No you've misunderstood. I am not talking about India alone. While the esoteric religious ideologies indicate about balance.

 

I am talking about centrism at a world level. 

 

Everyone is turning right because of the lack of balancing done by the left liberals. Eg. Trump, etc. 

[Alam_dar]

Being on Left/Liberal side demands a lot of sacrifice for the fellow human beings, irrespective of their race, nationality, religion, language. 

 

While Right is more concentrated upon "We First" (like America First, therefore no immigration, no benefits for others). The right ruled the world for thousands of years and it was unable to end the slavery. 

 

Abolishing of slavery needed "sacrifice", which only left was able to bring. 

 

While approach of right was to make so much benefit for "our-self" by using the slave force. Thus they promoted the slavery. 

 

Where was Buddha standing? 

 

I think Buddha was standing on the very much Left side. Humanity itself stands on the left side of the equilibrium.

 

The PEAK of human race:

 

We will achieve our peak when we overcome all types of "nationalism", "religions", "race", "colour", "language" bias. 

 

When we decide that UN will get lot more powers than today, and we could solve all of our problems through UN, instead of going to wars. 

 

When we agree upon controlling the population bomb and reduce it to such level, where world resources become sustainable. 

 

 

The Centrist Approach:

 

For me, the centrist approach is only a temporary solution, while our ultimate goal should be to move to the left. 

 

World is yet not ready for full left approach. Religions are yet problem, nationalism is yet a problem. race and colour have not been eradicated fully yet. But the biggest hurdle is economy. Too big population demands lot of world resources, which are not sustainable. Therefore, in order to protect the resources for oneself, it leads to tribalism and nationalism. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

10 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Being on Left/Liberal side demands a lot of sacrifice for the fellow human beings, irrespective of their race, nationality, religion, language. 

 

While Right is more concentrated upon "We First" (like America First, therefore no immigration, no benefits for others). The right ruled the world for thousands of years and it was unable to end the slavery. 

There was no slavery east of the Indus River - ever- and all the civilizations leaned right by today’s standards.

10 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Abolishing of slavery needed "sacrifice", which only left was able to bring. 

Abolition of slavery wasn’t done by the left, it was done by people who were all right wing by today’s standards- god fearing free enterprise people.

10 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

While approach of right was to make so much benefit for "our-self" by using the slave force. Thus they promoted the slavery. 

 

Where was Buddha standing? 

 

I think Buddha was standing on the very much Left side. Humanity itself stands on the left side of the equilibrium.

All Eastern ideologies espouse left leaning ideology in PERSONAL community life, right leaning ideology in COLLECTIVE group life. We believe in balance. Not extremism of the left or the right that is the desert ideology dogma.

10 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

The PEAK of human race:

 

We will achieve our peak when we overcome all types of "nationalism", "religions", "race", "colour", "language" bias. 

 

When we decide that UN will get lot more powers than today, and we could solve all of our problems through UN, instead of going to wars. 

 

When we agree upon controlling the population bomb and reduce it to such level, where world resources become sustainable. 

One world government is the quickest and easiest way for all the elites in the world to permanently enslave all the non elites in the world. Since we don’t have politicians who are in it for betterment of society and 99% of politicians everywhere exist for betterment of self and acquiring power, one world government is the personification of elitist evil. Hence all the ultra rich like it.

10 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

The Centrist Approach:

 

For me, the centrist approach is only a temporary solution, while our ultimate goal should be to move to the left. 

No, our ultimate goal is to find balance. Empirical existence in this universe is all about balance- too much of anything is bad. The left and right both exist for a reason: the left exists to push boundaries of the feasible, the right exist to provide stability of precedence. The former is a darling of single unattached people, the latter is the rock all parents rely on to raise children. Both exist for a reason and both reasons are valid, hence balance aka centrism is the only long term solution.

 

[Param Mastishk Pheeka]

14 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

There was no slavery east of the Indus River - ever- and all the civilizations leaned right by today’s standards.

Abolition of slavery wasn’t done by the left, it was done by people who were all right wing by today’s standards- god fearing free enterprise people.

All Eastern ideologies espouse left leaning ideology in PERSONAL community life, right leaning ideology in COLLECTIVE group life. We believe in balance. Not extremism of the left or the right that is the desert ideology dogma.

One world government is the quickest and easiest way for all the elites in the world to permanently enslave all the non elites in the world. Since we don’t have politicians who are in it for betterment of society and 99% of politicians everywhere exist for betterment of self and acquiring power, one world government is the personification of elitist evil. Hence all the ultra rich like it.

No, our ultimate goal is to find balance. Empirical existence in this universe is all about balance- too much of anything is bad. The left and right both exist for a reason: the left exists to push boundaries of the feasible, the right exist to provide stability of precedence. The former is a darling of single unattached people, the latter is the rock all parents rely on to raise children. Both exist for a reason and both reasons are valid, hence balance aka centrism is the only long term solution.

 

In theory, yes.  Unfortunately, rational, centrist thought doesn't get people excited.  It does not play into our natural "us" vs "them" mentality.  It doesn't help one find a group with whom one can **emotionally** identify.  It does not help identify a clear enemy in people's minds.  It is not persuasive and hence will not appeal to most people. 

 

The the biggest lesson I have learned in my years of science communication is that, generally, people make up their minds based on emotional appeal and then cherry-pick facts to support the choice they made in the first place.  And as much as I am reviling this approach, I do it too.  It is instinctive.  It takes deliberate effort to step back, reflect, look at data objectively, fight gut feelings and come up with centrist positions.  And you risk offending people who matter to you and think it's better to stay quiet than lose your emotional relationships.

[Alam_dar]

@Param Mastishk Pheeka , Muloghonto is on my ignore list, but I could see his post as you quoted him. 

 

(1) I don't agree with this claim  that slavery didn't exist in ancient India. There is no sound proof for that. Actually, all proofs are negating this claim. 
It is only after Buddha/Ashoka that slave markets ended in India. 

And Buddha/Ashoka was on the left side of the equilibrium personally and as well as collectively. They didn't follow any god given religious teachings, but all their teachings came by following humanity in themselves. 

 

(2) And the God Fearing people of Europe/US were themselves getting rid of religious systems in Europe/US and they were introducing the non-religious systems. Despite being religious, they got the courage to challenge the religion on many fronts. Their approach individually, and as well as collectively, represented the Left approach according to the standards of their time, while the other side (the so called Right) was in favour of "We First" and wanted to make progress by using the free slave labour. 

 

Otherwise religions existed for thousands of years, and NO religion ever called for ending the slavery. 

 

(3) And there exist no "balance" if colour and race bias exists. 

There is no "balance" when the evils like slavery exists. 

There is no "balance" when in name of "We First", you conquer other nations. 

 

(4) The formation of UNO is itself a step in the Left direction. And all this is a "collective" contribution, and not the individual thing. 

It is needed that UNO is made more and more powerful. 

All these boundaries of countries are stupidity and man made. In future, we have to get rid of the evil of nationalism too. 

 

(5) 

Quote

One world government is the quickest and easiest way for all the elites in the world to permanently enslave all the non elites in the world.

Only Elites with Right Wing were doing it for thousands of years. 

But as the Left Wing got the power in Europe, then they were not after enslaving others, but they brought real "Equal Human Rights" for their people for the first time. 
Therefore, UNO in the hands of left is not as ugly as the right wing elites of the past. 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

@Param Mastishk Pheeka , Muloghonto is on my ignore list, but I could see his post as you quoted him. 

 

(1) I don't agree with this claim  that slavery didn't exist in ancient India. There is no sound proof for that. Actually, all proofs are negating this claim. 
It is only after Buddha/Ashoka that slave markets ended in India. 

Stop making up nonsense. Megasthenes visited India during the reign of Ashoka’s grandfather, when Buddhism was a minor sect. He specifically noted that there is no slavery in India. No mention of slave markets exist in a single piece of Indian literature.

Quote

And Buddha/Ashoka was on the left side of the equilibrium personally and as well as collectively. They didn't follow any god given religious teachings, but all their teachings came by following humanity in themselves. 

Ashoka’s edicts specifically called him ‘ beloved of the Gods, one who is the favourite minion of the Gods’ in every single edict: Devanampriya Priyadassi. Only one edict mentions him by name

Quote

(2) And the God Fearing people of Europe/US were themselves getting rid of religious systems in Europe/US and they were introducing the non-religious systems. Despite being religious, they got the courage to challenge the religion on many fronts. Their approach individually, and as well as collectively, represented the Left approach according to the standards of their time, while the other side (the so called Right) was in favour of "We First" and wanted to make progress by using the free slave labour. 

Every single author and signatory senator to the US constitution or the declaration of charter against slavery by the Lincoln government or the Tory govt of the Brits was a self declared Christian or Deist. Stop inventing fiction.

Quote

Otherwise religions existed for thousands of years, and NO religion ever called for ending the slavery. 

Hinduism Buddhism Jainism Sikhism daoism Shintoism never called for slavery or sanctioned it anywhere in the first place. Coz these come from civilized lands, not desert barbarians.

Quote

(3) And there exist no "balance" if colour and race bias exists. 

There is no "balance" when the evils like slavery exists. 

There is no "balance" when in name of "We First", you conquer other nations. 

Indeed. Hence superior morality of the East never sanctioned slavery ethically in the first place.

Quote

(4) The formation of UNO is itself a step in the Left direction. And all this is a "collective" contribution, and not the individual thing. 

It is needed that UNO is made more and more powerful. 

All these boundaries of countries are stupidity and man made. In future, we have to get rid of the evil of nationalism too. 

Yes, in future as in thousands or millions of years of evolution later. Right now countries existing is a far superior outcome than being a corporate slave to one world government 

Quote

(5) 

Only Elites with Right Wing were doing it for thousands of years. 

But as the Left Wing got the power in Europe, then they were not after enslaving others, but they brought real "Equal Human Rights" for their people for the first time. 
Therefore, UNO in the hands of left is not as ugly as the right wing elites of the past. 

The left has killed 100 million of its own citizens directly in the last 100 years. The right has done the same for less than 10 million. You won’t get far espousing leftism to indians who have far more knowledge and experience of leftism than wannabe western liberal leftists

[Vilander]

People who stand for nothing fall for anything. 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

People who stand for nothing fall for anything. 

Standing for balance is standing for harmony and medium level at things, not nothing. 

[Vilander]

On 2/22/2020 at 6:36 AM, Alam_dar said:

like America First, therefore no immigration, no benefits for others

wtf does this even mean ?

 

lol muzzies, they will hate US, they will say death to americans, they will behead them and then also expect to be warmly welcomed to their shores and receive 72 american hoors ?

[Vilander]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Standing for balance is standing for harmony and medium level at things, not nothing. 

once you stand for medium level, then there would be discourse 

 

medium is just left of center, vs medium is just right of center. 

 

then center is actually here ( just inclined to what people might call left vs no center is actually here ( just inclined to what people might call right).

 

basically right vs left but with a little less disagreement. 

[Alam_dar]

Quote

Ashoka’s edicts specifically called him ‘ beloved of the Gods, one who is the favourite minion of the Gods’ in every single edict: Devanampriya Priyadassi. Only one edict mentions him by name

Even if Buddha/Ashoka believed in any god, still they will not be considered the "follower" of any "Religion".  It would make them Deist at maximum, For sure they would be counted as "irreligious" and rebels against the Hindu religion and it caste system and slavery system and all other non-humanity based teachings. 

[coffee_rules]

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Even if Buddha/Ashoka believed in any god, still they will not be considered the "follower" of any "Religion".  It would make them Deist at maximum, For sure they would be counted as "irreligious" and rebels against the Hindu religion and it caste system and slavery system and all other non-humanity based teachings. 

Buddhism is supposed to have rebelled against rituals. Go look at any Tibetan Monestry or in Srilankai, Thailand, east asia, they live and die by rituals. They have gods, worship and rituals. It is western academia that has called for Buddha being against religion. They misinterpreted his teachings to be against religion. Atheists fighting for egalitarian society and hate differences. Buddha was an upper caste elite, wrote a few noble things and his followers glorified him to god status and Hindus coopted him as an avatar of Vishnu. When he died, his wish as per his disciples was to be mmersed in Ganga. Go figure!

Edited February 24, 2020 by coffee_rules

[Vilander]

22 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Hinduism Buddhism Jainism Sikhism daoism Shintoism never called for slavery or sanctioned it anywhere in the first place. Coz these come from civilized lands, not desert barbarians.

this. 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Even if Buddha/Ashoka believed in any god, still they will not be considered the "follower" of any "Religion".  It would make them Deist at maximum, For sure they would be counted as "irreligious" and rebels against the Hindu religion and it caste system and slavery system and all other non-humanity based teachings. 

There is no mention of slavery in Hinduism in any literature or Edicts of Ashoka.