Centrism isn’t a political position. It’s an attitude. It means you have a tendency to view dichotomies as false, and further that the truth, as you understand it, exists somewhere between two presented (false) dichotomies.
Centrism means different things depending on political context. It could mean you’re a socialist, a capitalist, a fascist, a bolshevik. It doesn’t present a political view in and of itself, and as such it’s usually an incredibly unprincipled stance.
Do you look at class through a socialist lens or a fascist one? As in, do you believe the classes are opposed in their interests or aligned?
Do you support the state’s monopoly on violence and subsequent declaration of private property rights?
Do you view allowing the interests of capital to steer the global economy via institutions like the IMF as a grave injustice or the invisible hand of the market doing what’s best for humanity?
The answer to these questions, if you look into things, will often align in a coherent way. It’s unlikely, for example, that you’ll take a socialist lens on classes in viewing them as conflicted while also supporting the declaration of property rights in direct opposition to the interests of the worker.
If you’re in the U.S and you’re a self-described centrist, you’re likely a capitalist who’s simply undecided on some social issues. If you were brought up religious but went to secular public school, that would cause some dissonance in analyzing social issues. However, this inability to form a coherent view shouldn’t be the main feature of your self-described political stance.
It’s better to just say you haven’t done enough research to come to any reasonable political position. It’s much better to accept that humans don’t know everything and know where your own knowledge falls short.
Centrism isn’t a political position. It’s an attitude. It means you have a tendency to view dichotomies as false, and further that the truth, as you understand it, exists somewhere between two presented (false) dichotomies.
Centrism means different things depending on political context. It could mean you’re a socialist, a capitalist, a fascist, a bolshevik. It doesn’t present a political view in and of itself, and as such it’s usually an incredibly unprincipled stance.
Do you look at class through a socialist lens or a fascist one? As in, do you believe the classes are opposed in their interests or aligned?
Do you support the state’s monopoly on violence and subsequent declaration of private property rights?
Do you view allowing the interests of capital to steer the global economy via institutions like the IMF as a grave injustice or the invisible hand of the market doing what’s best for humanity?
The answer to these questions, if you look into things, will often align in a coherent way. It’s unlikely, for example, that you’ll take a socialist lens on classes in viewing them as conflicted while also supporting the declaration of property rights in direct opposition to the interests of the worker.
If you’re in the U.S and you’re a self-described centrist, you’re likely a capitalist who’s simply undecided on some social issues. If you were brought up religious but went to secular public school, that would cause some dissonance in analyzing social issues. However, this inability to form a coherent view shouldn’t be the main feature of your self-described political stance.
It’s better to just say you haven’t done enough research to come to any reasonable political position. It’s much better to accept that humans don’t know everything and know where your own knowledge falls short.
You say all of this and practically not a word of it shakes out in reality