Is the horseshoe theory accurate?

Is the horseshoe theory accurate?

Yes pretty much

Anyone that disagrees is probably an extremist

just like evolution it's just a theory and should be dismissed offhand

Only because poltical extremists are usually basketcases. "Radical for the sake of being radical". Compare stormnigger forums and far left forums there is a lot of overlap complete with purity spiralling and reductionist worldviews.

As a radical centrist, I'm offended that you imply that centrism is right leaning on the horseshoe. I agree with horseshoe theory, but you're retarded.

...

It's a one-dimensional bullshit interpretation that only seems to make sense, until you add in a second axis of authoritarian/libertarian. Then you realize the only thing Fascists and Communists truly have in common is their authoritarian tendencies over their host population.

One key problem: the "center" is never fixed. It moves.

For the past 200 years or so, it's been moving left. Yesterday's left becomes today's "center", and today's "center" becomes tomorrow's retrograde-right.

The Horshoe theory is what you get when you're a neoliberal and see politics as merely a left-right spectrum; "left" is clockwise from you and "right" is counter-clockwise, but extreme variants of both, and the entire blue quadrant, is so foreign to your perspective you see it as out in the air

People with inflexible beliefs are fucking stupid though

6000 IQ centrist that just finished rewatching the entire sargon of akkad playlist for the 10th time: wow fascism and communism are like the same thing because uhh authoritarianism

And if you're a "centrist" whose "centrist" perspective has been informed by 200 solid years of left-progressive Power: that kind of makes you a rube, doesn't it?

>Images not made by a person with an IQ above 105

...

The left-right spectrum isn't even accurate, so the horseshoe theory is a non-starter.

These strawmen images are fucking retarded because half the time the point they're trying to convey doesn't even make sense in the context of what they're replying to. Like the "haha I replied to everyone. What now?" one.

>Implying I wouldn't pay $25 to facefuck a drug dealer's mentally handicapped sister

It's not like she's getting the d anyway.

You'd be surprised how many retards get the d

...

It's an obtuse attempt to point out that far-right and far-left governments rely on similar means to justify and maintain power. In truth, these are always the ways Man has tried to justify and maintain power, industrialized for the modern era. The scale of brutality was thus industrialized as well.

How do you think OP was conceived

No its retarded just like the left right dichotomy

No because you reduce ideologies to their fundamental values, that's why you need height to differentiate between anarchists and communists on the right, then libertarians and laissez faire imperialists

google what scientific theory means retard

a theory is proven

>No because you reduce ideologies to their fundamental values

Reducing something to it's most important values is bad?

I am not a racist i just act talk and think like a stormfag I am special.
^ you

No. It only exists to make communists butthurt.

>I, a faggot on the internet, am more intelligent than every polemicist who ever defended a particular ideology.
read a book
Smarter people, imo, tend to lean to a particular ideological group, and liberalism, which is what we call the center, seems it has been devoid of any very high-end thought since the 1800's.

Who are the 20th century liberals of any worth? Fukuyama? The 20th century fascists, socialists and communists all seem much more worthwhile.

Furthermore, to directly address OP, I think a circular or triangular theory is more apt than a horseshoe. This sort of thing is more of a spectrum than a line, curved or otherwise. Horseshoe implies they move toward each other but never quite meet, yet between communism and fascism we can find those leftists who held onto nationalism well into the 1930's, and perhaps the Strasserites who sought to overturn the old order in Germany and not merely to rid the country of such groups as ethnic, political and sexual minorities. The horseshoe is only really right insofar as it implies there are three ends to the political spectrum, but wrong in that it seems to imply liberalism to be some standout ideology, and not just one of the three.

Essentially, the horseshoe is a liberal's view of what is really a triangle. A communist might instead see an ultra-oppressive liberalism, fascism and social-democracy which exists in the middle and attempts to placate workers, and on the left communism where all of the oppression has been solved. Alternatively he may put liberalism in the middle and fascism far to the right for the apparent level of "freedom" in each ideology.

>National Socialism and Nation of Islam are the same thing because they're both racist

Yes.

Just look at the crossover of policy/techniques/rhetoric between Sanders and Trump in the 2016 US election, for example; despite one being characterized as far left and the other as far right.

Or the antisemitism that permeates both the far left and the far right.

Pretty much

In my experience the only people who vehemently deny it are assmad leftists who don't want to admit they're anything like their evil counterparts or extremist rightists.

At the end, a centrist:
>Getting on their soapbox....
>The Russians!
>"Un-American"/"Scary"/"Academic"
>"uhhhhhhh... ummmmmmm...... like, uhhh, just like,..... y'know, everyone should be chill..."
>Memes with falsely attributed quotes ending in "a special kind of stupid" imposed over pictures of celebrities or the minions

Ok, but according to you the groups of people leaning toward a particular ideological group are equal in intelligence therefore either neither side is right or its purely a matter of philosophy.

If neither of those are true then the most rational stance to take is the center.

No, it's really stupid and the only one who fall for it are americans in their first year of college.
It's as stupid an idea as the dark ages.

Yes, but the opposite center: the one directly between Communism and Fascism: NazBolism.

>I AM SILLY

how are communism and fascism the same, justify that

>I can dish it but not take it
Classic centrist

They are both not progressive liberalism. Which means they're obviously wrong because progressive liberalism is the best. Now, the fact that I believe the dominant ideology of my age is the best is a total coincidence.

For a more serious answer, I'd say no. Liberalism is no real "rational center" between Nationalism and communism, it's a third ideology.

If there's a rational center between these three polls, it may be some variety of Christian Theocracy or Monarchy.

Alternatively, as I said liberals are just dumb after the 19th century, you may go with NazBolism.

But in the end, I'd say it's more just going with whatever you tend to believe in. Smart people are smart people, ideas are ideas. Smart people can believe anything they want, just like dumb people.

>Who are the 20th century liberals of any worth?
Rawls shaped modern political philosophical by separating political philosophy from ethics and the majority of professional work in contemporary philosophy is made in relation to him. Did you get your philosophical schooling from blogs and wikipedia?

>the philosopher who best defended the status quo is the most appreciated philosopher in the era of that status quo
You don't say?
I love how this board is call his but posters on average have zero historical perspective on anything.

No, people only think this because they spend too much time on the Internet and see the worst extremists both sides have to offer. Yes, both sides have crazy extremists that are hypercritical pieces of shit and use the same tactics they accuse each other of, however calling out both and acting like you're morally superior does nothing. Centrists don't actually take a stand on any issue whatsoever, being lukewarm is being a pussy

In what country do you live in where his proposed government would be considered the status quo?

To a certain point.
It completely ignores nationalists who want less government, and communists who want to exterminate gays.

I'm not talking about his specific version of government with a ministry of the veil of ignorance who determine everything, I'm talking about him working well within the framework of progressive liberalism, I'm talking about the fact that if say the fascists had won, if America had turned nazi or whatever, nobody would give half a fuck about Rawls. The success of political theories is inevitably interlinked with political practice.

I suppose you are also modeled by internet and Veeky Forums discussion. Centrism isn't the lack of opinion, but the belief that both sides of the argument can have things that are wrong and right. What does that mean? I may be for legalization of drugs, but not for abortion without feeling dissonance because I can understand how massively different the two things are. I suppose saying it's centrism it's ridiculous when it's just having an opinion that goes beyond some painted ideology, but many people prefer the feeling of belonging. It al comes down to the mess of calling something right wing or leftwing and accepting such a reductionist and retarded view and buying into one them as if they were this sort of rival clubs.

I'm a modernism guy, I literally know about nothing that happened after 1939, and even less about what came after the civil rights movement

>It completely ignores nationalists who want less government, and communists who want to exterminate gays.
it completely ignores every central tenet of the two ideologies in favor of their similarities.
imagine thinking fascism and communism have the same economics.

you seem to be attributing a lot of separate ideas that you dislike to one group with no basis whatsoever

I'd argue that fascism has no economic program, and the communism has only an economic program. You can have communism without gays, and you can have fascism without capitalism.

At least I tend to think so.

>one group with no basis whatsoever
That would be the centrists, yes.

Centrism isn't a thing. What constitutes centrism shifts continuously, the centrist idea about fags 20 years ago was "we shouldn't treat them badly but come on gay marriage is absurd".

No, because what it's calling communism is actually Soviet fascism.

surely you can be more clever than quoting out of context

>DDDUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>t. socdem Rosa Luxembourg-killer

No, I'm retarded

You mean miss Canal 1919? Tbh she deserved it.

sorry to hear that

I wasn't saying centrism is a set of beliefs per se, but nowdays, because we have butchered the political language with this juvenile sports team bullshit, that today you could be a centrist jusy because you can accept shit from both sides. Obviously there is nothing like the tenants of centrism, but it comes naturally when we divide into black or white.

And yet social democrats claim to be members of the left.

I'm not a social democrat, I'm just saying she deserved it. I hope in case commies ever get uppity again in the west (really doubt it, they're larpers and they're politically castrated by neoliberals) we can have Freikorps 2.0.

if it's comparing the USSR w/ NatSoc Germany than it has some basis (it's still too simple but that's the comparison it works best with).
if it's comparing the ideologies as described in the Communist Manifesto and the Doctrine of Fascism then it isn't correct at all.

You can't accept things from both sides equally, you inevitably fall in under one umbrella. Centrists nowadays are all progressives, for example, they're just not pedal to the metal progressives.

You can't fucking til me what to do, child fucker

>For the past 200 years or so, it's been moving left.
Except economically. Where it matters most.

>economically
>matters most
no

Economically we've moved left lol, not in the marxist sense but the welfare state is enormous compared to 200 years ago, or even 100 or 50.

Him not being relevant in your historical fanfiction have no bearing on him being a political philosopher of any worth. You can make the same claim for literally any position that no one would bother with them in an alternative timeline because of reasons.

You're right that most centrists fall under the categories of "center-right" or center-left" yet they are still labeled centrists because of pure practicality.

personal experience I believe

No. It's just that neoliberalism has been going on for so long that most people under 30 have forgotten about the existence of populism.

>>/an/