Goalpost moving

 Recently I've heard again that sentence of "The extremes touch", referred to political movements. I've discovered that in English, this is referred as the Horseshoe Theory. 

I really hate this sentence, because it's usually used by "moderates" to justify not taking the side of the oppressed, and I wanted to address it. 

I've commented before and I'll comment again, that we're at war with strong forces that are aiming for a big regression of rights and the funnelling of all wealth towards a little few. Part of this war has been based strongly into a constant moving of the goalposts.

By that I mean that the right-wing parties have pushed and pushed and pushed their ideologies to the right. "Moderates" consider that in any situation, the average approach is the most reasonable, and by pushing the right-side, the "Moderate" becomes really just Right-Wing. 

I am baffled why people eat this up all the time, or why would you think that anything outside of a radical change in the situation may really improve our general lives. Or by the fact that a lot of people that believe that a radical change is needed tend to go to the extreme-right side when it's organized by the same people that created the problems and want to make them worse. 

Anyway, this goalpost moving makes people forget what is extreme left and what is just moderate left. Plus people confuse the point of extreme left, and compare them with extreme right. 

Basically, any time you criticise extreme right, you're presented with: "Left equals Communism! Also so bad, killed thousands! Therefore, your argument is invalid!".

So, let's start by saying that yeah, dictatorships as seen in communist countries are bad. But they're bad because of the "dictator" bit. Someone or some group of people with limitless power that can do whatever they want is bad, period. You need checks and balances. We said that before with the police, and the same applies to the government. If you can do whatever the hell you want because you make the rules, you execute them and you judge people as per your whims, yeah, that's always bad, no matter anything else. This is not a political spectrum of anything, this is what happens in any situation you give that much power without balance to someone or a group of people, and it's always bad because people tend to abuse this power like a lot.

The core idea of socialism/communism? Less bad: We all share resources and provide for everyone so we have equity, and we don't let people hoard wealth. I mean, this is nice. The opposite of this is unfettered capitalism, which basically says that if you can become the richest person in the world, you deserve it, even if this fucks indirectly or directly with 98% of the rest of the population. Then it's a matter about how to implement it efficiently, and please remember that in the world, any place that has tried to apply such things more strongly has seen USA and their allies fuck them so very hard that it polluted any results. Also have in mind China is not communist any more, they just kept the dictatorship part and are now ruling a capitalistic hell-scape with a brutal social control.  

But I digress. What I also wanted to say is that people don't even know what is an extreme leftist any more. Extreme leftist would be to, for example seize all factories, all service providers (like water or energy), seize all fields owned by companies and not particulars, dissolve all companies by law and enforce them to be publicly organized, or seize any house owned by a company or that is owned by a particular that doesn't live in there and already has two main residences.

That's just a few policies that are extreme leftist. And I have to say that I agree with several of those (for example, the house thing or the energy thing). However, it's true that some competitiveness can motivate sometimes to do better things. So I'm willing to compromise and accept more moderate approaches, like limiting company sizes but letting small companies work and try new things in a capitalistic approach to competitiveness. 

Anyway, my point is that NO ONE currently is even proposing that. What most "left" parties are proposing is just some more regulation of the markets, plus dedicating public money to reduce inequality and taxing the rich (and just fyi, you're only rich if you could have afforded to do nothing all your life without anyone paying for you and would never had any issues buying food or paying for a place to stay. Anything else is just poor or middle-class, and in denial about the situation). 

I'd be perfectly happy with just seizing the money of rich people and turning it public, videogame-style: after your first million you cannot gain more money, it all goes to public funding, as if you were missing bytes to write the money you have. But again, the "left" parties are not even proposing this. 

They're just asking for small reforms that would benefit everyone indeed, but they're not like radical reforms, most of them. 

And even that is seen as suspicious by people, because it seems everyone thinks they're rich but temporarily poor or something, and the idea that the money you earned goes to a few that don't deserve it is such a strong instinct that people are like wary of these ideas. 

But, guess what?

YOUR MONEY ALREADY GOES TO THE ONES THAT DO NOT DESERVE IT AT THIS TIME!!

Or what do you think is happening when the right-wing governments give funds to big companies that are failing, like banks, and they don't have to return that? Or when they let rich people avoid taxes? Or hell, just producing value for a company that goes to their net benefit while you,as employee, never participate in that net benefit is exactly giving your money to the ones that do not deserve it! Left-wing policies just try to redistribute it more, which means you will see more of a return, while right-wing is letting the same 10 families that always had money to just keep having more and more money, YOUR money!

And again, the little measures that left-wing parties tend to propose are just slightly moderate! They're just saying "maybe we should not let markets do whatever they want to the point that a global crisis can be nice for them and then they may want to keep an ongoing crisis forever?" "Maybe we should regulate things somewhat?". That's mild! And no one with a sane mind should propose dictatorships anyway, and no one in the left is proposing that any more!

You know what also touches the extremes? The fucking middle! So, please, start thinking a bit more and realize that one side is not like the other, and what all these excuses are defending: they're defending the same people as forever, the ones that have power and wealth and want to keep it from everyone else.