Okay so did you even read that? Your own link says it is a feature of “popular discourse” - ie not supported by actual evidence - and then says:
Several political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists have criticized the horseshoe theory. Proponents point to a number of perceived similarities between extremes and allege that both tend to support authoritarianism or totalitarianism; political scientists do not appear to support this notion, and instances of peer-reviewed research on the subject are scarce. Existing studies and comprehensive reviews often find only limited support and only under certain conditions; they generally contradict the theory’s central premises.
That’s about as close as an impartially worded style of article can come to saying “yeah this is obviously bullshit”.
“Tankie” is not synonymous with “socialist”. It was coined to describe a type of person who will side with the war crimes of anybody who waves a red flag regardless of whether they’ve fallen into statist counterrevolution.
“Nazi” is short for “national socialist”, because they fraudulently wore the name of socialism whilst doing horrific counterrevolutionary repression. Tankies are the left’s name for another type of person who does almost the same thing, although with more token adherence to the aesthetics and ideology of supposedly leftist thinkers and movements.
Some people call them “red fash” although there is a specific subgroup of tankies who I think that label fits better, the nazbols.
My impression is that their only consistent ideology is to oppose the US, so they support absolutely anyone who opposes the US. Also, they’re lost in a reverie of 60 years ago and think the current Russian and Chinese governments are communist or something.
Yes, that’s the horseshoe theory. More broadly they want the demise of the current political system so their system can arise from the ashes, like every extremist movement
I thought Horseshoe was basically an observation that extremists on both ends like authoritarianism, and thus roughly agree with each other. I suppose that could lead to admiring Putin and the CCCP.
Well then horseshoe theory isn’t about leftism and it’s basically just wrong, which was the point of me quoting that person’s own link back at them. If your point is that unhinged extremists with no coherent ideology tend towards a horrifying common denominator regardless of their starting point, then that’s true, but it says nothing about principled socialists.
There are plenty of revolutionary ideologies that do not fit within horseshoe theory, as political scientists have pointed out. If you want to say they’re wrong you’ll need something more than just what you reckon.
The horseshoe theory is not real theory, it’s an observation that people on the extremes will have contrarian views, so they agree with each other on accident
Right, so it’s basically just bullshit, and it doesn’t apply to anyone principled anyway. Although most people who talk about horseshoe theory try to use it to discredit people on the left in general, whatever your walked-back version of it may be.
If you’re a tankie or a Nazi can you really be principled? Even a principled racist would not be a Nazi because Jews contributed a huge amount to science and art. A principled racist would say Jews are good because they accomplish a lot and have higher IQs. A principled Socialist wouldn’t support Russia because Russia is a country owned by oligarchs and is in no way Socialist.
This entire conversation started because a centrist attacked anyone not in the centre with horseshoe “theory”. Either everyone who isn’t in the dead centre - another dubious term that is actually synonymous with conservatism - is either a tankie or a nazi, or we’re right to criticise the use of the term in this context.
If you use it to mean all extreme positions, you’re still wrong because tankies aren’t leftists. I was conceding a small kernel of truth to the idea, not that the idea itself is an acceptable way to analyse politics.
Also “higher IQ”? That’s pretty much just a racist position, and I don’t agree there’s such a thing as a “principled racist” since race itself is a bullshit concept.
Okay so did you even read that? Your own link says it is a feature of “popular discourse” - ie not supported by actual evidence - and then says:
That’s about as close as an impartially worded style of article can come to saying “yeah this is obviously bullshit”.
Explain why tankies and Nazis both support Russia in its war in Ukraine. It’s exactly horseshoe theory, when based centrists support Ukraine
“Tankie” is not synonymous with “socialist”. It was coined to describe a type of person who will side with the war crimes of anybody who waves a red flag regardless of whether they’ve fallen into statist counterrevolution.
“Nazi” is short for “national socialist”, because they fraudulently wore the name of socialism whilst doing horrific counterrevolutionary repression. Tankies are the left’s name for another type of person who does almost the same thing, although with more token adherence to the aesthetics and ideology of supposedly leftist thinkers and movements.
Some people call them “red fash” although there is a specific subgroup of tankies who I think that label fits better, the nazbols.
My impression is that their only consistent ideology is to oppose the US, so they support absolutely anyone who opposes the US. Also, they’re lost in a reverie of 60 years ago and think the current Russian and Chinese governments are communist or something.
Yes, that’s the horseshoe theory. More broadly they want the demise of the current political system so their system can arise from the ashes, like every extremist movement
I thought Horseshoe was basically an observation that extremists on both ends like authoritarianism, and thus roughly agree with each other. I suppose that could lead to admiring Putin and the CCCP.
Isn’t that accelerationism?
Well then horseshoe theory isn’t about leftism and it’s basically just wrong, which was the point of me quoting that person’s own link back at them. If your point is that unhinged extremists with no coherent ideology tend towards a horrifying common denominator regardless of their starting point, then that’s true, but it says nothing about principled socialists.
There are plenty of revolutionary ideologies that do not fit within horseshoe theory, as political scientists have pointed out. If you want to say they’re wrong you’ll need something more than just what you reckon.
The horseshoe theory is not real theory, it’s an observation that people on the extremes will have contrarian views, so they agree with each other on accident
Right, so it’s basically just bullshit, and it doesn’t apply to anyone principled anyway. Although most people who talk about horseshoe theory try to use it to discredit people on the left in general, whatever your walked-back version of it may be.
If you’re a tankie or a Nazi can you really be principled? Even a principled racist would not be a Nazi because Jews contributed a huge amount to science and art. A principled racist would say Jews are good because they accomplish a lot and have higher IQs. A principled Socialist wouldn’t support Russia because Russia is a country owned by oligarchs and is in no way Socialist.
This entire conversation started because a centrist attacked anyone not in the centre with horseshoe “theory”. Either everyone who isn’t in the dead centre - another dubious term that is actually synonymous with conservatism - is either a tankie or a nazi, or we’re right to criticise the use of the term in this context.
If you use it to mean all extreme positions, you’re still wrong because tankies aren’t leftists. I was conceding a small kernel of truth to the idea, not that the idea itself is an acceptable way to analyse politics.
Also “higher IQ”? That’s pretty much just a racist position, and I don’t agree there’s such a thing as a “principled racist” since race itself is a bullshit concept.