also notice the confusing “centre party” means they are “both sides”, its to trick would be voters into voting for them who dont care enough to read past thier party name.
Note that there is no such theory outside of Internet slang. There is no merit in it. Just as horseshoe theory is without merit. There are complex, underlying causes for it making so much sense, but do not be baited by comfort.
In a german state election the BSW, a left wing splinter party, just just gave their support to the afd, an extreme right-wing party, getting fascists in to power within germany for the first time since WW2.
“authoritarianism” is a concept made up by an anti-semetic CIA stooge in order to be able to equivocate between Nazis and communists. Its a completely meaningless term where every definition is either so broad that it describes all states (and almost just all social structures organised for any purpose) or so narrow it is just a synonym for whatever designated enemy you are being told is evil. It’s about as cogent as “badguyism”.
Sure, what would you like links for? The stuff about Hannah Arendt or the critique of the theory of “authoritarianism”? The first I can provide, but let me know more specifically what so I dont overwhelm.
The latter I cannot since the link is just Hannah Arendt and successors works’. I’d encourage you to actually read it with a critical eye and notice how vague it is. It is a theory that only cares about whether a state does stuff, not why or how or for whom or with what support. This is completely silly. Every state is authoritarian, every hierarchical organisation is authoritarian. Its a word used to make you think negatively of a group - Like how enemy states do not have governments, they have regimes and their VPs aren’t VPs they’re “hand picked successors”.
What I would really recommend is that you read “Blackshirts and Reds”, “Inventing Reality” and Engels’ “On Authority”
I personally care a lot more about what the state suppresses, how it does it, for whom it does it, against whom it does it, why it does it, with how much public support it does it and what the effect of it is, rather than some simplistic black-and-white view that merely cares about whether a state does things or not.
Some green parties tried the same nonsense for a while, though I think they all admit to being left by now. The argument was that they’d work independently of party blocks with climate as the only issue.
Of course right wing politics are always an environmental disaster, but sometimes you would see unusual constellations in local politics.
Reminder that the Nazis literally called themselves National Socialists. They were the opposite of course and swiftly destroyed any trace of socialism once they were in power. That’s what far-rights do.
Wasn’t fascism originally about being neither right nor left, but then it got sort of absorbed (or bought out) by the right to combat the left? Thats atleast how I’ve understood it, and of course there is so much more to fascism than that but thats just how i’d summarize it
“I’m neither right not left” = far-right. Always.
also notice the confusing “centre party” means they are “both sides”, its to trick would be voters into voting for them who dont care enough to read past thier party name.
Yep, it’s called Fish Hook Theory:
Nah it’s not that complicated. Nazis are just lying manipulative fucks. That’s their main thing.
Note that there is no such theory outside of Internet slang. There is no merit in it. Just as horseshoe theory is without merit. There are complex, underlying causes for it making so much sense, but do not be baited by comfort.
The only part of horseshoe theory that tracks is that if you go far enough left you get your guns back.
The part that tracks is that authoritarians exist orthogonal to left/right.
And that those unwilling to compromise on anything with anyone tend to get authoritarians
Funny, it’s usually the centrists who partner with and allow authoritarians into power
In a german state election the BSW, a left wing splinter party, just just gave their support to the afd, an extreme right-wing party, getting fascists in to power within germany for the first time since WW2.
Oh, the party of the Kreml-bankrolled ”leftist” backed up the far-right party. Oh my.
“authoritarianism” is a concept made up by an anti-semetic CIA stooge in order to be able to equivocate between Nazis and communists. Its a completely meaningless term where every definition is either so broad that it describes all states (and almost just all social structures organised for any purpose) or so narrow it is just a synonym for whatever designated enemy you are being told is evil. It’s about as cogent as “badguyism”.
Tankie tears is music for my ears
?
links please, this is certainly unfamiliar
Sure, what would you like links for? The stuff about Hannah Arendt or the critique of the theory of “authoritarianism”? The first I can provide, but let me know more specifically what so I dont overwhelm.
The latter I cannot since the link is just Hannah Arendt and successors works’. I’d encourage you to actually read it with a critical eye and notice how vague it is. It is a theory that only cares about whether a state does stuff, not why or how or for whom or with what support. This is completely silly. Every state is authoritarian, every hierarchical organisation is authoritarian. Its a word used to make you think negatively of a group - Like how enemy states do not have governments, they have regimes and their VPs aren’t VPs they’re “hand picked successors”.
What I would really recommend is that you read “Blackshirts and Reds”, “Inventing Reality” and Engels’ “On Authority”
Stalinism.ml
“Horseshoe theory” is the idea that I don’t really care if I’m being killed by Hitler or Mao if I’m being killed.
Death by centrist is impersonal. It’s your fault for not hustling hard enough for AC.
I personally care a lot more about what the state suppresses, how it does it, for whom it does it, against whom it does it, why it does it, with how much public support it does it and what the effect of it is, rather than some simplistic black-and-white view that merely cares about whether a state does things or not.
The main difference between “neither left nor right” and far-right is hypocrisy.
Or sometimes denial
Don’t forget idiocy.
Some green parties tried the same nonsense for a while, though I think they all admit to being left by now. The argument was that they’d work independently of party blocks with climate as the only issue.
Of course right wing politics are always an environmental disaster, but sometimes you would see unusual constellations in local politics.
Reminder that the Nazis literally called themselves National Socialists. They were the opposite of course and swiftly destroyed any trace of socialism once they were in power. That’s what far-rights do.
Wasn’t fascism originally about being neither right nor left, but then it got sort of absorbed (or bought out) by the right to combat the left? Thats atleast how I’ve understood it, and of course there is so much more to fascism than that but thats just how i’d summarize it
I only know that the Nazis presented themselves as the “third way” between communism and capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Röhm
That didn’t last long.
Just like the AfD in Germany today.