In 2007, Alex Jones had Noam Chomsky on his program, and of course at the end it went sour and Jones ended up accusing Chomsky of being part of the New World Order in the last ten minutes or so because of a dispute about English handguns...but for the first 40 or so minutes, Chomsky and Jones talked about all the common ground they have, as far as beliefs in media manipulation, ties to government, propaganda, etc. The main idea of Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is something that I feel both a left libertarian and a right libertarian could find common ground in. We all agree that the major media moguls like FOX, CNN, etc. end up not being very different from each other at the end of the day. At the same time, it seems like someone like Noam Chomsky and someone like Alex Jones would be the polar opposite of Chomsky...Jones a far right, small government, Ron Paul style individual mixed combined with discussions about the New World Order and other associated things, and Chomsky a far left anarcho-syndicalist/socialist libertarian. People like Rush Limbaugh have cited Jones for facts, people like Michael Moore have praised Chomsky. But certain things, like bankers receiving bonuses from government issued bail outs and ending up more powerful than they began, distrust of both mainstream Republicans and Democrats, etc. are things both Alex Jones/Ron Paul/Ayn Rand style Libertarians, and Socialist Libertarians agree upon. They also agree as it pertains to military non-interventionism, and in many ways social issues, though there are differences as far as states' rights when it comes to that. So what do you think...should the far left and far right explore more common ground? Can a unification happen for common, reasonable complaints? And not only can it be done...will it be done?
Alex Jones and Ayn Rand are nowhere near far right. Alex Jones is as anti-war-on-drugs, anti-war-on-terror as they come.
Exactly, and I see what you are saying; when I say right I mean "small government," though of course many use it so as to refer to the Neo-Con mindset of being socially conservative and pro-military. I did not mean it in that way.
It seems there are many interpretations to the political spectrum, and they change over time. It's interesting though to observe how opposite points political spectrum often meet, something I've observed the past few years. Now, I'm only 17 and don't have the knowledge of history and political science as many people do, but this is where I see opposite points meeting on different spectra. 1. Historically, far-right is considered fascism and far-left is considered communism (in the sense as practiced by the Soviet Union). Both obviously focus heavy on government control of production, which as a younger teenager always confused me as to why fascism is considered far-right. Both have an end goal of a perfect world. Communists wanted us all to live collectively, fascists pretty much wanted a perfect Aryan utopia. I believe Hitler even said that he would agree with the Soviet Union's position if not for his strong emphasis on race. 2. Often times in modern day, far-right implies libertarianism and far-left implies non-mainstream liberalism, or I guess a democratic socialism of sorts. Both of these have MANY similarities, in an odd way. Both are strongly anti-war, anti-war on drugs, and focus on protecting civil liberties. Both have strong anti-government views, believing the government isn't out for the "common man", albeit in different manners. Libertarians believe welfare programs hurt the poor and some libertarians believe the government has it in with the rich, while the liberals believe there aren't enough programs to help the poor but they agree with libertarians on ending the relationship between big corporations and government. I believe both have essentially the same goal of peace and unity, they just have different ways of going about it.
In the USA, "far left" is exemplified by the Green Party and "far right" is exemplified by the Constitution Party. Libertarianism is neither left nor right, but in a third direction altogether. Fascism and Communism are on the exact opposite end from Libertarianism, with Fascism being slightly to the right and Communism being slightly to the left.
All debates have specific issues, being that this one is about a specific topic it can work. But if you have the same individuals debating other topics there will be different views un-common to the status quo of their designated political labels That is why sometimes a party of each needs to represent when you try to discuss/debate many different topics. It is difficult to simplify complex views with simple structure, it just does not work. Same can be said for simple people who try to solve complex issues with simple solutions, it just does not happen, and the problems ten become more complex and compounded.
They're not polar opposites. One is right libertarian one is left libertarian so of course they're going to agree on some things. I'd say Chomsky is farther left than Jones is right, just because Jones doesn't really represent the far right.
depends what you mean by "far" if you go as far as nazis and anarchists there is no common ground , if you only go to state communism and fascism they are both looking to preserve the social stratification through autocracy, if you only chip right and left of the center socialdemocracy and conservatism have no differences.
How different Cameron is from Blair , Zapatero from Rahoy or Sarkozy from Hollandre ? and please leave populism outside.
Blair and Cameron are both Christian democrats. They may be in different parties but the are pretty identical in outlook. I think Sarkozy is very different from Hollande. Hollandes disasterous 75% tax is driving France's most talented people to the UK and Belgium (good for us!)
Exactly what i am saying, both of your choices were the same Hollander's policy is no different at all, after bringing the middle class in their knees they are start leeching petit bourgeoisie and eventually the rich . My point stands socialdemocracy and liberals are one and the same thing .
To be honest I don't really care what the extremists of any "wing" do - they tend to be trouble even if they're nominally agreeing with you. I think we should ignore these guys and focus on the majority of middle ground moderates across the political spectrum as it is they who are much more likely to find sensible common ground and reach workable compromises. The mains sticking point is that they're too boring to sell newspapers or TV spots.
A common ground would be beneficial for both sides but, unfortunately, there is too much division in 2015.
Its a common myth that Nazi or Fascism is a Right wing ideology. Far from it its actually a racist or nationalist far left wing ideology. I would say fascism is where you get some blending of Ultra left wing and Ultra right wing ideology. The word fascism is from the root word in facses which means a bundle of wood. The idea was that the collective people were strong there the individual. Conservatism above all values the individual over the collective good. The collective good is a Socialist idea not a conservative one. Our good buddy Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento Or the Fasci of Revolutionary action. The Fasci Italiani di Combattimento denounced Marxism but supported socialism. So that really shows how fascism is obviously not a liberty leaning individual type of ideological thinking. Then you have the Nazis. The Racial Fascist. Basically the Nazi party denied Marxism and free market capitalism. They favored a "Peoples community" of Racially correct citizens. The Nazi name stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP which translates into English means National Socialist German workers party. Among other common grounds would be the Nationalization of Industry. Basically no support of free religion. At the far far end of the right wing you would have your crazy extremist religious cults and racist skin head types. Now these people might call themselves conservatives but they are anything but. That is where I think the left and right gets blurred.
I've always thought of it as more of a circle than a linear line; if you go far enough in either direction you begin to end up at a similar place on the political spectrum.
I think there is a lot of truth to that. For example, left wing and right wing totalitarian governments have much in common. Extremism often evolves into totalitarianism at some point, simply because forcing everyone to do what you want is the logical conclusion of extremism regardless of whether it's left wing or right wing. Unless of course you're an anti-authoritarian extremist, but even those come in left and right wing flavors.
