Horseshoe theory

Horseshoe theory is an IDEOLOGICAL theory. If in reality a government does not adhere to an ideology, then they can't be considered that ideology.

Horseshoe theory is so obviously accurate that only brainlets and people who misunderstand what the claim of the horseshoe theory is dispute it.

They were similar, but not because of le horseshit theory, but because Stalinism is literally Strasserism (real national socialism) just without the antisemitic/racist element.

Fair enough, I actually wasn't aware that horseshoe theory applied only to ideology before making this thread, so maybe I'm just a brainlet.

The thing that the types of government you're talking about share in common is that they're all tyrannical. Things are made illegal when they're deemed a threat to the state and they are encouraged when they are believed to promote the status of the state. Drugs of certain varieties can free the user of inhibitions causing them to think more freely about subjects considered taboo by their culture. Homosexuality, while not necessarily freeing, serves no benefit to the welfare of the state. We want the largest population because that means more workers and more soldiers. If people are engaging in same sex intercourse, they aren't making more people, they're just having fun and there's no room for fun in an efficiency based system. You are allowed to have heterosexual relationships only because that is how children are made. In the USSR, religion was also illegal, as it was viewed as a distraction and a gateway to discourse.

A second thing to analyze is that fascism being considered a right wing ideology is a very recent idea. First of all, fascism itself is a form of socialism. The very term "NAZI" is an acronym of the German words for "National Socialist Worker's Party". Secondly, if we are to accept the historically recognized systems of politics ideologies, rather than the modern/western ones, we can classify governmental structures implementing excessive use of power to be left wing and structures using limited power to be right wing. In this line of thinking, the absolute farthest left would be fascism and the absolute farthest right would be complete and total anarchy.

>That's true of North Korea and the eastern bloc nations but definitely not the USSR.
What is multiculturalism? It is a policy that is about state holding no cultural preference, and being hands off about all things.

The USSR (and all communist states in general) was radically monocultural state. Monocultural doesn't mean ethnocentric. Sure, you could speak your language, wear funny national hat or play a national instrument, it would only be a bonus. You still could not step out of state culture one bit in a meaningful way. If you, say, advocated or practiced Sharia, you'd be in jail before you could utter Allah Acbar.

USSR was eradicating multiculturalism for wast majority of its existence.

In the Western world, we have a very warped view of the political spectrum because most of our larger and more influential countries operate under a single system and claim that we are choosing between representatives varying on both extreme sides of the spectrum. That isn't the case. America, for instance, is Presidential Representative Republic. Now, though this style of government lies very close to the middle, it is still a left wing ideology, so whether there's a Republican or a Democrat in office is outrageously inconsequential to the governmental impact and involvement Americans experience in our everyday lives in terms of "right wing/left wing". It's not like when all three branches are primarily Democrat, we get free healthcare and centralize all of our private businesses; likewise, when Republicans are in control, we don't privatize the police and tell people they'll have to home school their kids from now on.

Our illusion of choice has distorted our entire vision of politics at large because it's placed a massively complex group of ideas in a tiny, little box. I hope this has answered some questions.

Well i mean, you're comparing apples to oranges when you have 2 oranges.

>First of all, fascism itself is a form of socialism.
Not necessarily. Nazi Germany employed something like Keynesian economics, which isn't the Austrian school or the Chicago school, but is essentially capitalism with deficit-spending by the government and some socialist elements like government work programs.
>The very term "NAZI" is an acronym of the German words for "National Socialist Worker's Party".
The "Socialist" part was used to garner support from the working class.
>Secondly, if we are to accept the historically recognized systems of politics ideologies, rather than the modern/western ones, we can classify governmental structures implementing excessive use of power to be left wing and structures using limited power to be right wing.
Which historically-recognized systems? The terms originated with the Parliament of France, because the monarchists sat on the right side of the building, while those on the left were republicans and Jacobins, many of whom wanted a more laissez-faire system than that of the old regime. So from the very beginning, right-wing meant conservative, not supportive of greater freedom, while left-wing meant progressive.
If anything, the Nazis were basically radical centrists. Social policies that were both very traditional and very forward-thinking at once, and economic policies in between libertarian and socialist.

"Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–1799).[1] According to the simplest left–right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, whereas conservatism and capitalism are on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, sometimes on the left (social liberalism), sometimes within libertarianism (classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are classified as centrists or moderates. Politics that rejects the conventional left–right spectrum is known as syncretic politics."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

The right has always been associated with conservatism which associated with elite rule and monarchies and distance from democracy and even more to the left, socialism. Traditionalist values are conservative, enforced by a strict society and government.

what does this prove?

The difference between the right and the left is very simple:
What is wrong with society?
- We have strayed from light.
- We still have to enlighten ourselves.

More so society than government. In a right wing government, the chicken follows after the egg. Governments enforece regulations, but the regulations are generally based on the views held by the majority of that society.

I shared that because it seems like you are under the impression that left-wing governments are "liberal" governments, though the terms are not interchangeable.

No, horseshoe theory is attempting to fix a multi-axis plot on a single axis.

Horseshoe theory is the idea that you place your idea society in the middle, then take diametrically opposed alternatives, then point out how both of them differ from your chosen center of the horse shoe.

The further the alternatives are from your middle, the less likely they are to share things in common with your center. The less things they have in common with your center, the more likely both will share some ways they differ from your center.

When you are unable to categorize certain ideologies based on this criteria you get things like "third way" which really isn't a third way. It's only third because in your head you only have two extremes.

The USSR was anti-culture (anti-humanity).

The similarities are not due to horseshoe theory in left-right distinction, but due to Fascism and Socialism being collectivist ideas and Democracy an individualist one.

>democracy
>literally "the more popular candidate wins"
>individualism

If A is your chosen origin point, and points can only be plotted within the triangle, in order to move to the right or the left on the X axis, the point must also be higher up on the Y axis. As the point approaches the limit of B or C, the Y axis that measures "difference from A" approaches maximum. Therefore the conclusion is that while B and C are at opposite ends of the X left/right axis, they share the Y axis value, difference from A, in common.

However it is also possible to be neither left nor right of A, but different from A, point (0, 100) which is considered "third way" because it does not match the correlation dictated by the edges of the triangle.

Horseshoe theory is the idea that at a certain point, you stop caring whether or not a point is left or right of you on the X axis, but care predominantly about the Y axis and the fact that it is different from A. Arguments made by people who argue horse shoe theory ignore how A and C are different, but focus how they are both different from A in the same way, because A has certain unique characteristics. Comparing points (-30,100) and (30,100) the conclusion is that both of them, despite being different on the X axis, are very far away on the Y axis, which they share in common.

It is also how they plot points that might be in the middle of the triangle and do not clearly correlate to the left or right edge of the triangle, which is perceived as a single left/right axis. The points (-5,50) and (5,50) become difficult to visualize on a simple X left/right axis, and the assumption is that the X axis wraps around in a horse shoe shape.

Further more, the point of origin might not be the extreme A, but above A, so it is measured in reference of point (0,10), allowing room to the left and right with no increase in Y before hitting an edge.

The issue with the horse shoe theory is that is acknowledges at least a 2 dimensional plot instead of a single axis, which is why the X axis has to curve to pass through the points. but the fact that it must curve already acknowledges the fact that it is actually a multi-axis plot. It just imagines that all ideologies must fall on the horseshoe and attempts to fit all points on a single arc when in fact it may not be confined to a single line.

When a ideology does not fall neatly on this line, it is called "third way" which essentially disproves the 2-way horse shoe model.

Lastly, the X,Y comparison is purely referential and relative to your point of origin. If you rotated the image 120 degrees, you could measure the difference from B as the Y axis, and towards A/C as the X axis.

It doesn't matter that the ideologies are different if the practical aspects are the same. That's what the whole theory is about

It's a meme, but it's pretty ebin and only really exists to get commietards mega buttflustered.
Then again, right-wing collectivism (fascism) and left-wing collectivism (communism) shared a great deal of ideas. I believe Musollini saw Stalin as subversively trying to create a Russian nationalist state, while Italy itself had the second most nationalised economy behind the USSR at the time. Germany was also up there.

Market capitalism exists under the pretense that obeying the law and respecting property rights and using fiat currency is collectively good for society.

The only ideologies that aren't collectivist in some sense are the anti-social ones like being a mountain man hermit.

Ideologically there are differences but in practice the two manifest similarly enough. I think the horseshoe theory is just a symptom of the painfully simplistic political spectrum. I stumbled across pic related theory a while ago and it's significantly more retarded that the horseshoe theory.

Semi-oldfag here, spent most of middle school watching cable public access TV with friends as a sort of underground entertainment.

Tom Metzger, a noted white supremacist who had this show called "Race and Reason" (basically /pol/ but as a TV show), once praised the USSR as a "white workers' state" on air much to my surprise. Unfortunately, the episode's name escapes me.

Here's a half-hour shouting match he had with conservative radio host George Wally. His son even got into a fistfight with Geraldo Rivera on live TV.

youtube.com/watch?v=YamnBBIlaIg

>tfw underground TV shows will never be entertaining again

I'm certain there's a timeline somewhere out there where pregnant Anne Frank and her husband Charles II appear as guests on Metzger's show and Charles punches him in the face after he calls Anne a kike one too many times.

Horseshoe theory is a simplistic normie garbage which only a unironic brainlet would understand and claim it to be a fact.
Politics and Ideologies are extremely diverse and complicated, you can't just divide them into left and right extremes like a Amerimutts love to do.
The entire concept of left and right was already retarted when it was first time ever quoted durring French Revolution... Left ment people who despised the monarchy while Right ment people who were ok with Monarchy, the reason why it was retarted because each group was already diverse in what they wanted...
>Some on the Right side wanted return to original form of Monarchy that existed before the Revolution, some wanted English parliamentary style of government, some wanted Monarch to be enlightened autocrat etc.
>Some on the Left side there were people who wanted egalitarian society, some wanted a republic similar to days of Roman Republic, some wanted a group of enlightened philosopher kings, some just wanted a Dictator etc.
And each group of ideologies were already questioning what they wanted and what they represented. Just like fascists in early 20th century.
There is no one type of Fascists or one type of Communist or one type of Democracy... They are always different in each environment they are tried in.