There have been between the centrist parties and the extreme ones many oppositions, but it can also include rivalries. It is not always the case but it may happen. For instance Plato and Aristotle were rivals to build the best city possible. Later the liberals and the fascists were, beyond being adversaries, rivals because both of them target a kind of power and progress of mankind. On the other side of the political spectrum, socialist and communists have often been the same. An extreme example of this opposition and rivalry is between reformists and communists : Lenin considered social democrats are his worst enemies, more than liberals, because they make lose a lot of time to communist revolution ; on the other side great politicians like Clemenceau have been very hard towards the extreme left. At the same time, reformists and communist both target social progress, more solidarity and share common engagement for the environment for instance. But they will often compete to be the best solution for these engagements, even if the means are extremely different.
An example of this opposition and rivalry was between Hugo and Marx. Hugo is seen as a great socialist and Marx a great communist. Hugo was a writer (novelist, poet and theatre writer) and Marx a thinker (philosopher and economist). Hugo was from the bourgeoisie, Marx as well. Hugo lived in great properties during all his life and Marx lived in misery a large part of his life. Last Hugo had millions of workers to follow his grave when he died, Marx had only ten people following his grave, most of them from his family. It is possible to say, given the fact both of them were famous in the end of their lives, who was more appreciated than the other.
Hugo became recognized as a great writer after his play Hernani which renowned the romantic movement. While he was conservative when he was young, he became more “leftist” when he became adult. However he never disliked money. When he became successful and famous, he lived in great places like Guernesey and had a great lifestyle. At the same time, in his novels, his political engagements and his great generosity, he was seen as a great socialist politician “in the noble sense”. First in his novels like les Misérables, he denounced the misery of a large part of the population in the XIXth century. As a politician he engaged a lot for more education for the whole population (for instance he said “open schools and you will close prisons”). He succeeded to shake a lot of people with his novels and it contributed to the creation of the first social laws in the new era of the reign of liberal capitalism, which was in the absolute a progress compared to the society of before but was cruel as well, more than today. His extraordinary style gave even more strength to his message.
Marx criticized Hugo and didn’t see him as a really serious man of progress. Only his scientific system would be able to give happiness to mankind. As a great intellectual, he succeeded to elaborate a reality for the first time alternative to what existed from the hunter-collector time. However was he a great humanist and gauchist? Both are very doubtful. In the first case he was authoritarian and his scientific vision, which was criticized by Camus in the revolted man, is contrary to contradiction. As a gauchist everywhere communism was in power it led to misery and persecution for the opponents and all the “impur bloods” (the bourgeois…). Marx had the paradox to be, beyond an adversary, a rival to Hugo, because they had the same goals of social progress and more solidarity. These two figures had a legacy that will go far beyond their death. The opposition between Clemenceau and the extreme left, or the SFIO congress in 1921 are examples of this rivalry. Marxism was very dominant in the intellectual stage until the revelation of the Stalinian horrors in the 1950’s. But figures like Hugo, who would have been quite social democrat today to the extend he was not against money, are seen as real opponents. These two adversaries, who are great intellectual figures, will remain facing each other a lot of more time.
The observer 