[D-Fens]

The third position is a political ideology characterized by 1) nationalism, 2) an opposition to communism and capitalism, and 3) social stability. Advocates of third position vews, are neither "left" nor "right". Advocates of third position views therefore present themselves as neither left nor right. Religion may sometimes have a prominent place within third positionism, as a part of cultural identity, but third positionism does not advocate religious warfare. Economically, the Third Position takes the position of class cooperation and draws upon the theories of distributism, and Social Credit.

The Third Position attempts to transcend the left-wing and right-wing scale by balancing "rightist" and "leftist" policies according to what benefits a nation the most, where it is clear that the "right" and the "left" have already failed in implementation. The Third Position is not as, certain extremists claim. It does not necessarily involve "racial supremacism".

[Figlio di Moros]

We already have a forum for fascists.

[Cartertonian]

Y'know, I'm slow on the uptake when I've been at work all day.

WTF are you two on about?

I was kinda hoping you would be talking my brand of common-sense centrism...

...but apparently not.

[HoniSoit]

Well, you can practically come up dozens of 'third' position by randomly choosing a few elements from different ideologies and piecing them together. The difficult part is to make a coherent ideology and more importantly to have a following who can identify their own interests and aspiration with your ideology.

[Aido86]

The third position to me sounds a lot like the postwar consensus between the working class and other classes in society to form the Keynesian Welfare State.

[Fasces]

It certainly does. The modern British Labour Party under Blair hijacked the term "Third Way", popularized by Mosley in the Anglosphere, but which has historically been used to refer to fascism - which is neither right nor left, but a Third Way between liberalism and Marxism.

To be perfectly honest, the version put forward for Blair is slightly to the right of the Third Way envisioned by most fascists, but essentially the same ideology - that of the "hard centre".

[telluro]

Yeah, but there are two "third positions", so it's not exactly a hijack.

The fascist "third position", which is a third way between capitalism and communism.

And the social-democrat "third way", which is a third way between democracy and socialism, theorized by Anthony Giddens, and practised by Blair's Labour.

Both had/have the aim of reconciling somewhat the different strata of society; the fascist TP by appealing to a higher identity than class, and the social-democrat TW by incorporating the worker into the consumerist middle-class. This last I think is a natural evolution of capitalism, and has taken and will take place everywhere in capitalist societies.

[Figlio di Moros]

Yeah, but there are two "third positions", so it's not exactly a hijack.

The fascist "third position", which is a third way between capitalism and communism.

And the social-democrat "third way", which is a third way between democracy and socialism, theorized by Anthony Giddens, and practised by Blair's Labour.

Both had/have the aim of reconciling somewhat the different strata of society; the fascist TP by appealing to a higher identity than class, and the social-democrat TW by incorporating the worker into the consumerist middle-class. This last I think is a natural evolution of capitalism, and has taken and will take place everywhere in capitalist societies.

I wouldn't be so sure; the Asian tigers have a much different economy than the West, atleast as far as I can see. It would seem Blair's "Third way" isn't much more than run-of-the-mill progressivism.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

the Asian tigers have a much different economy than the West

Neo-mercantilism. The economic choice of winners!

Third way is gay. Either call yourself a conservative or a liberal, there is no need to bog yourself down by using shitty modern rhetorical terms. Really you're either a progressive, a waffler, or a reactionary, there is no need to obfuscate what you mean by making up new terms for your own ideology. In my opinion you should just make choices on positions based on the facts presented to you instead of attempting to construct an ideology and then figuring out where you stand on issues. For one thing it makes for a much more consistent ideology in the end and it also helps you figure out what the logical or moral basis is for your ideology.

[ninurta]

Neo-mercantilism. The economic choice of winners!

Third way is gay. Either call yourself a conservative or a liberal, there is no need to bog yourself down by using shitty modern rhetorical terms. Really you're either a progressive, a waffler, or a reactionary, there is no need to obfuscate what you mean by making up new terms for your own ideology. In my opinion you should just make choices on positions based on the facts presented to you instead of attempting to construct an ideology and then figuring out where you stand on issues. For one thing it makes for a much more consistent ideology in the end and it also helps you figure out what the logical or moral basis is for your ideology.

they aren't buying the truth. Its just too simple, it is too nonfluffy for them.

[telluro]

There are no facts in politics, only dominant ideologies which pose as facts and revolutionary ideologies which seek to supplant them.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

they aren't buying the truth. Its just too simple, it is too nonfluffy for them.

No matter what anyone thinks, you're not starting a movement, you're developing a life ethic. Your life ethic can't be based on rhetoric, that's retarded.

[ninurta]

[]they aren't buying the truth. Its just too simple, it is too nonfluffy for them.[]
No matter what anyone thinks, you're not starting a movement, you're developing a life ethic. Your life ethic can't be based on rhetoric, that's retarded.

It's not based on rhetoric, but a system neither capitalist nor communist called The Third Position seems to be. Libertarianism seems to be full of the smart people who use less rhetoric, I am the exception not the rule.

I play with words.

Anyway, as a libertarian, my views are purely capitalist simply because its better.

[J_D]

Anyway, as a libertarian, my views are purely capitalist simply because its better.

Really? How far removed do you think you are from Libertarian Communism?

I have found only one fundamental difference: ownership.

[ninurta]

Really? How far removed do you think you are from Libertarian Communism?

I have found only one fundamental difference: ownership.

I believe in the ownership of land. I know next to nothing of Libertarian communism

[Tribbles]

I prefer to call my self a corporatvist, using the corporative system of decision-making as the foundation. (See my suggestion for a evolved form of corporativism below my signature-image)

I realize that the political solution such a system cooks up most probably will be center-oriented, but if everyone wants something else - it can drift to the left or the right, depending on the mood-swings of the corporations and the "new parliament" - which is basically the same as Mussolini`s grand council, just with more formal rules applied.

As a comparison to other systems - one cant put political systems such as "monarchy" or "parliamentarism" into a right-left box, because the system itself says little about the political program that the monarch or the parliament lands on.

But there are perhaps, some trends - I think that a pure monarchy will lean rightwards in economic questions, while a parliament will end up in center-oriented compromises.

The people as a whole, however, will become frustrated and confused by parliamentarism, due to the nature of the system - competing parties, free media, and other destructive elements.

[William van Nostrand]

I must say that the title is not accurate. To say that it is "neither communist nor capitalist" as the OP writes, is a bit misleading, because it would imply that it is mainly an economic policy, when in reality, it is an all-encompassing ideology.

The Third Position tends to focus more on Class Cooperation in the tradition of Strasser, and is hostile to the idea of finance-capitalism, although not capitalism in general. That said, while some of their economic policies resemble socialism, they are usually not Marxist-Leninist with regards to worldview, and do not promote internationalism. Rather they promote "organic nationalism" in which the State is based on race, culture, language and shared history; also they tend more often than not to be socially conservative.

[Wolfman]

To say that it is "neither communist nor capitalist" as the OP writes, is a bit misleading, because it would imply that it is mainly an economic policy, when in reality, it is an all-encompassing ideology.

To most people capitalism is an all-encompassing ideology, and Communism actually is.

The Third Position tends to focus more on Class Cooperation in the tradition of Strasser, and is hostile to the idea of finance-capitalism, although not capitalism in general. That said, while some of their economic policies resemble socialism, they are usually not Marxist-Leninist with regards to worldview, and do not promote internationalism. Rather they promote "organic nationalism" in which the State is based on race, culture, language and shared history; also they tend more often than not to be socially conservative.

The Socialism that Fascism tends to draw from is Utopian Socialism (what was around before Marx) and other non-Marxian varieties of Socialism. I actually read an article a few days ago that talked about how Corporatism and Social Democracy have the basic roots, when Socialists were given an opportunity to take some political power and had to adapt their ideology to get it to work. They split along lines of social conservatism and liberalism. And considering the actual history of successful Fascist movements, I don't think that they're really too interested in Class Cooperation.

[William van Nostrand]

To most people capitalism is an all-encompassing ideology, and Communism actually is.

I would argue that Communism in practice is not all-encompassing. There is Left-Communism, which split off from Trotskyism, and which, in today's modern incarnation is basically anarchistic and socially leftist. Meanwhile, the American writer Francis Parker Yockey somewhat accurately pointed out that in the post-war period, that American universalism, so-called democracy, consumer culture, and post-war liberalism, was more culturally decadent than the influence of the Soviet Union.

[Wolfman]

I would argue that Communism in practice is not all-encompassing.

Well it is.