If you agree there is a left and right of politics. And that left of the left and right of the right we have the extreme doctrines, you will get some idea of where the line should be drawn. This isn’t rocket science. Conservatives, for example, are right wing, but not “extremely” so. The recent move by the US right to distance themselves from the alt-right is an example of where the line should be drawn on the right. But there is no attempt to draw the line on the left. I find it hard to imagine that you can’t understand this. Don’ ask me where I think the line should be drawn. Look at history. If you can’t figure it out, then there is no point us even having this conversation, is there? I’ve already explained the questions you ask, I fail to see why you need to go back over old ground.
In your second post you make a number of wild unsubstantiated allegations about insidious neo-liberalism and how I should take some time to look at it. What do you mean by “insidious?” How do you define neo-liberalism? I’m interested in a metamodernist understanding and interpretation. You have also, you say, take time to reflect on Marxism. What do you mean exactly? What you “believe” proves nothing.
Your referencing about banks and corporations demonstrate that you have a natural aversion to corporate capitalism, which I share to an extent. But your Marxist fleeting analysis belongs back in the 19th century. Gare’s conclusions are juvenile at best, “The quest for truth,” “false models of reality” Nonsense. Stenger’s quoted statements cannot be understood without context What do you expect me to say?
I don’t know if you read an article I posted here about a week ago entitled “A Critique of a Metamodernist Manifesto,” if you haven’t read it I suggest you do. Then at least we will have some point of reference at which to begin. We could then enter into a “real discussion” in relation to the issues you raised.
All things considered, I thank you for taking the time to reply and look forward to continuing our conversations.