• Unruffled [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    173 months ago

    It seems to me that academics who study horseshoe theory routinely miss the point. For example, the Wikipedia article on this topic uses this to try to refute the theory:

    Simon Choat, a senior lecturer in political theory at Kingston University, has criticized the horseshoe theory. In a 2017 article for The Conversation, “‘Horseshoe theory’ is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common”, he argues that far-left and far-right ideologies only share similarities in the vaguest sense, in that they both oppose the liberal democratic status quo, but that the two sides have very different reasons and very different aims for doing so.[29] Choat uses the issue of globalization as an example;[30] both the far-left and the far-right attack neoliberal globalization and its “elites”, but identify different elites and have conflicting reasons for attacking them.[31]

    But it’s a total strawman. Nobody is arguing that tankies oppose or support the same things as Nazis, or that they share the same goals. What they have in common is an embrace of authoritarianism. Of course the tankies like different authoritarians, like Maduro or Putin instead of Hitler or Mussolini. But the love, or at least tolerance, for authoritarianism is the one thing they have in common - that the ends justify the means.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      203 months ago

      But not all of the far left is authoritarian. That’s where horseshoe theory fails. The fact that tankies and fascists share some common traits isn’t enough to save it.

      Also, while tankies grew out of the left in some sense, it’s pretty debatable whether it’s still a left movement at this point. The philosophical differences with the rest of the left are enormous.

      • @marcos
        link
        63 months ago

        Not all of the far right is authoritarian either. And those non-authoritarian sects support basically the same kind of means for decentralizing power.

        Some means that actually centralize power every time somebody tries… But yeah, honesty is not a common trait on either extreme.

        • @PugJesusOP
          link
          English
          15
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Not all of the far right is authoritarian either.

          I struggle to think of any far-right ideology, theoretical or practical, that isn’t enamored with hierarchy.

          • @gedaliyah
            link
            03 months ago

            A lot of right wing militias are anti-government, radical individualist, bordering on anarchist. They care about hierarchy, but mostly in-group. I wouldn’t call them authoritarian.

            The need for either total autonomy from - or total control of - the evil mainstream society is an example of the theory, not an exception.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            03 months ago

            The right is less authoritarian regarding business and environmental regulations than the left, as one example.

            • @PugJesusOP
              link
              English
              73 months ago

              Businesses are just a different kind of hierarchy than government.

              • @disguy_ovahea
                link
                -1
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                The point is the right doesn’t want the government regulating businesses, whereas the left does. Therefore the left is more authoritarian regarding regulation of business, just as the right is more authoritarian in regulating personal rights.

                • @PugJesusOP
                  link
                  English
                  63 months ago

                  I don’t really find that a meaningful distinction in the context of discussing whether far-right ideologies are capable of being anti-hierarchy.

                  • @disguy_ovahea
                    link
                    0
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Governmental hierarchy vs private sector hierarchy is the distinction. The existence of hierarchy does not define authoritarianism in government. Do you consider a head of the household an authoritarian government?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  5
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Preferring one authority over another isn’t the same as being anti-authoritarian. People who want complete capitalist dominance over society are not that different from people who want complete state control over society. Different organizational and legal structure, but same type of backwards moral reasoning.

          • @marcos
            link
            -33 months ago

            Anarchist ideology is not a monopoly of the left.

            • @PugJesusOP
              link
              English
              123 months ago

              Ancaps believe in hierarchy, just not government hierarchy. Though the distinction is dubious.

              • @marcos
                link
                -33 months ago

                Markets are not hierarchies.

                Though, yeah, the distinction between market oppression, government oppression, organizational oppression, racial-minority oppression, and cultural oppression is clear, but they are all oppression.

                • @PugJesusOP
                  link
                  English
                  113 months ago

                  Markets aren’t hierarchies. Private property, on the other hand, does impose a hierarchy; and markets without regulation inevitably are destroyed by capture by powerful firms.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      03 months ago

      Political Compass Memes is the most accurate model humanity has ever invented to effectively categorize politics.

    • @TokenBoomer
      link
      -123 months ago

      How would socialism organize and maintain order among millions of people without authority?

      • @PugJesusOP
        link
        English
        153 months ago

        How would socialism organize and maintain order among millions of people without authority?

        Average tankie fellow-traveler pretending to not know what authoritarianism means.

        • @TokenBoomer
          link
          -11
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That doesn’t answer my question. I know what authoritarianism is. How would a socialist society maintain order without authority? And how do you prevent that maintenance from becoming authoritarian?

          • @PugJesusOP
            link
            English
            143 months ago

            That doesn’t answer my question.

            Your question was “How would a socialist society operate without authority???” in response to a comment about authoritarianism being bad.

            Do you really think you’re fooling anyone with this disingenuous bullshit? I suppose you must think so, to continue trying it.

            • @TokenBoomer
              link
              -63 months ago

              It’s a genuine question that informs my opinion on this topic.

      • @Eldritch
        link
        English
        33 months ago

        Authority != Authoritarianism. The fact that you’re purposefully conflating the two. Doesn’t say anything good about you.

        • @TokenBoomer
          link
          -23 months ago

          Sorry. Didn’t communicate effectively. I understand the difference. I just don’t see how societies can be organized without a form of authority. And if authority exists, at what point does it become authoritarianism, especially in larger communities and regions.

          • @Eldritch
            link
            English
            23 months ago

            Again a non genuine response. Being anti-authoritarian does not mean rejecting authority completely.

            Anarchists still recognize and vest authority in people. But their structures are very flat localized, and based in consent. Leninists and fascists concentrate authority and power in singular leaders and parties at a state level, who rule by fiat without consent.

            • @TokenBoomer
              link
              -33 months ago

              It’s difficult to contemplate the valid points you raised after condemning my response as non genuine. I am not opposed to anarchism, in fact ( although I could be mistaken), I imagine communism is anarchism realized. It’s the transition from capitalism to socialism that derails this vision. How do we get there from here. We can’t just abolish the money, classes and hierarchies without chaos and suffering. There will have to be an authority during this transition. This authority will be considered authoritarian to the many millions of people it organizes. If you have a framework for how anarchism can maintain order and organize millions of people I’d like to read and understand it.

              • @Eldritch
                link
                English
                2
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Non genuine was simply the kindest most nice way I had to put it. Whether I’m wrong or right in my perception of you as being someone more intelligent than the arguments you’re making. The fact is you are equating two different things. Authoritarianism has a relation to Authority absolutely. However you can have authority without authoritarianism. But not the other way around.

                Communism absolutely would be and realization of some of anarchism’s ideals. But what does that have to do with portraying Authority and authoritarianism as being the same? And does it need to be pointed out that Marcus leninists are not communists. And never have been.

                • @TokenBoomer
                  link
                  03 months ago

                  Maybe I’m not more intelligent than the arguments I’m making, but that shouldn’t invalidate my query. I was trying to elucidate how investment in authority could be perceived as authoritarian. Anarchism is a viable ideology and should not be dismissed. It is effective with groups and regions. But can it maintain and organize a society of millions in a country? That remains to be seen. There is a reason burgeoning socialist societies gravitate to Marxist-Leninist-Maoism. Because it has been done. There is a framework. Anarchism needs to show that it can organize a country to offer an alternative. I suspect, maybe capriciously, that if Anarchism was to govern a nation that it might defer to authoritarianism to maintain efficiency. I would like to find out.

      • @problematicPanther
        link
        23 months ago

        trotsky had some ideas about that. and because of those ideas, he had to be killed.