That may be the case in Denmark now and for the past 50 to 75 years, Crow Sister. I don't know anything about modern Denmark. I also don't know much about their more ancient history, but know enough to understand that during their expansionist period in the early part of the christian era they had a very unbalancing effect (at the time) on the peoples and cultures of the British Isles, France, and Germany. (The Roman Empire had the same effect a few hundred years before that.)

It is certainly true that many Americans have irrational and ignorant responses to the idea of "socialism." One of my favorite examples is a sign seen at a "town meeting" regarding health care reform, held by an individual opposed to health care reform on the grounds it is socialist, "Government, Leave My Medicare Alone." Medicare IS socialized insurance, entirely funded by payroll taxes and mandatory premiums deducted from monthly social security checks, also funded by payroll taxes.

My point, however, is not so much about that as it is about the the ineffectiveness and often (though not always) destructive results of dichotomous expression.   Social systems are very dynamic. Systems theory posits that systems are always seeking stasis, but all systems of life and creation are dynamic systems, not static systems. Order is necessary and so is chaos. They are the two ends of a continuum. Too much order, too static a system, and it dies via atrophy. To much chaos, and the system dies via violent destruction. (Maybe implosion vs explosion is a good analogy. The end result is the same.)

The quest for balance includes conflict. That is inevitable. The Buddha posited that suffering is part of life, and that resistance, (i.e., lack of acceptance of that reality) to pain increases suffering.

Huh? How did the Buddha get in this conversation? It is just that the observations and teachings of the Buddha are very consistent with systems theory, which includes, imo, conflict theory.

Conflict does not have to be destructive. It can be creative and adaptive. In fact, it is an essential ingredient of adaptation. Adaptation is necessary to survival and creation. I do not get irritated at differences of opinion. I do get irritated at the judgementalness and ready invalidation people whose views tend toward opposite ends of the spectrum impose on each other. I think that kind of emotional and irrational response to differences - the invalidation of that which is functional in the opposite pov, is a force of destruction and dampens -and often seriously impedes--the adaptive and creative aspects of conflict.

This forum is a microcosm of western culture and the ways that society thinks and interacts. Because we are somewhat small and somewhat intimate, we are a community in the real sense of the word. We have the opportunity here to learn to differ effectively, and to actually listen to one another and engage in real dialogue.    Sometimes that happens. Too often it does not. That is not surprising, but is still disappointing. There are many reasons why this is so, many of them having to do more with the modus operandi of people than with position or philosophy.

I think what I often have to say gets interpreted as milquetoast because I tend to focus more on process than on content.   Imho, however, dichotomous thinkers would do well to attend to process if they are more interested in being effective and influential than in being "right."

Or maybe I'm just "weird" and going off on a tangent that seems germaine to me but not to anyone else.