You're viewing a single thread.
In my view, horseshoe theory is pretty accurate
For example, people in the middle recognise that Ukraine was the victim of an invasion, but people on the far-right and far-left both insist that Russia is the real victim for some reason
Maybe it's because both the far-right and far-left envy the state power that Putin has?
Horseshoe theory is just a holdout from the liberal notion of "3 pillars," Fascism, Communism, and Liberalism, as a way to justify Liberalism within the West. It doesn't actually make any sense and just leads to obfuscation of critical differences.
Sure there will be more political positions than just three. I just think that some people (not all) on the far-left seem to have authoritarian and/or intolerant views, which some people on the far-right also have.
What counts as "authoritarian?" I'd argue Liberals are quicker to support systems I would consider authoritarian than Leftists are. What views are they intolerant of? I think taking a firmer stance against fascism than Liberals do historically is a good thing, so I want to know an example you think is bad to be intolerant of that makes that an issue towards Leftists for you.
I'm pretty far left, but i think ukraine was the victim of an invasion. Putin is a POS.
Fair enough. I'm definitely not saying everyone on the left is the same as the far-right, I don't believe that at all.
It just seems to me there's a segment of people who consider themselves on the far-left (posters from Lemmy.ml and Hexbear sometimes) who hold positions which can be quite similar to the far-right. Another position that both segments sometimes hold is that Israel shouldn't exist. I definitely disagree a lot with the current Israeli government but if someone says Israel shouldn't exist then you may as well say that no country should exist.
but if someone says Israel shouldn’t exist then you may as well say that no country should exist.
You're so close.
Also, would you have said the same of people saying Nazi Germany shouldn't exist during WW2?
You’re so close.
So no countries should exist? Sometimes I wonder how a single world government would work. But maybe it's not worth thinking about too much since it's not a realistic prospect currently.
would you have said the same of people saying Nazi Germany shouldn’t exist during WW2?
Perhaps it's reasonable to say that a peaceful and non-genocidal Germany can exist (today's Germany I think fits into that description). So maybe the same applies to Israel.
When the ICC issued arrest warrants for the leaders of Israel and Hamas, I thought that made sense, because both sides killed civilians. Both sets of leaders should probably face trials. Maybe in the future Israel and Palestine can both be led by peaceful governments.
Not who you were replying to, but I think this is a good point to jump in. A world Socialist government is necessary as production advances, it's a process and not a decision someone can make.
Either way, Israel only exists through Settler-Colonialism and genocide of Palestinians. Hamas is a reaction to Israel's genocide of Palestinians, condemning both the oppressor and the oppressed due to both "using violence" just serves to preserve the status quo. I think you'd benefit greatly from reading Frantz Fanon. The "two-state" solution isn't a solution, it just entrenches the genocide of Palestinians. A single, secular state (the solution commonly supported by Palestinian experts) is the only way to stop the genocide.
Nearly everyone outside of the enlightened rational centrists has soured on this whole idea of "benevolent interventionism," with very good reason. We've seen how our leaders used lies and deception time and time again to get involved in pointless, destructive wars for their own interests. People look back at Iraq and Afghanistan, and Vietnam, etc, and say they were obviously unjustified, but at the time people supported them, and everyone was immersed in propaganda. Of course, in every war, those who push back for any reason are always accused of treason and supporting the other side, whether the specific term is pinko, terrorist sympathizer, or tankie.
It's really no mystery why a bunch of disparate political groups oppose a conflict halfway around the world under the same leadership and media that led us into Iraq and Afghanistan, the mystery is why liberals are so willing to trust them again.
I'm not saying I support western intervention in Ukraine necessarily. I wish there was no war at all over there. I'm just saying that between Ukraine and Russia, Russia has been the aggressor. Also I've definitely seen some Lemmy leftists (but definitely not all leftists out there) who are in favour of Putin's regime, for unknown reasons.
It’s really no mystery why a bunch of disparate political groups oppose a conflict halfway around the world
You're basically proving my point by admitting that you do have a very similar view to the far-right.
who are in favour of Putin’s regime, for unknown reasons
Have you tried asking? Or do you not believe the reasons they tell you?
You’re basically proving my point by admitting that you do have a very similar view to the far-right.
"Wow, both the far-right and the far-left distrust the US government, therefore they must be exactly the same." This is such a childish analysis. I could just as easily say that both liberals and fascists dislike communism, therefore liberals and fascists are the same. Or fascists could say that both liberals and communists dislike fascism and are therefore the same. It's such a nonsense point that it's hardly worth a response.
Have you tried asking? Or do you not believe the reasons they tell you?
So you are you in favour of Putin's regime? In which case I don't see how you can think of yourself as a leftist. If you actually do support Putin's regime then you have a lot in common with the far-right who also do.
If Putin's regime was in the US then many people would call such a regime fascism.
So you are you in favour of Putin’s regime?
Not particularly, no, but I suppose it depends on what it means to "support" a foreign leader. No matter what I say I support or oppose, it's not going to change the material world unless I take actions with the aim of achieving specific results. And it seems to me that my primary mechanism for affecting foreign politics is through the actions of my own government. Do I want my government to undermine Putin's government? No. Do I see Putin's government as worthy of emulation? Also no.
My position as a leftist is to focus on class interests. Both Ukraine and Russia are capitalist governments that do very little for the people, and who controls what will make little material difference to lives of ordinary people. What does make a difference is the war, in which people are being drafted and thrown into a meat grinder to fight over rubble. What's the point in dying to maintain a shitty system? Even if there was a point, it was probably inevitable that Ukraine would be unable to reclaim all it's territory, so the choice was always, "Accept territorial concessions now, or accept territorial concessions after a bunch of people have died." Of course, I don't support Russia's involvement either, but my government isn't funding Russia.
Meanwhile, of course, the US is massively overextended. Decades long conflicts in the Middle East, supporting genocide in Palestine, sabre rattling with China, and now fighting a proxy war with China. Had we been more cautious and restrained in the past, perhaps we would have enough diplomatic leverage to diplomatically isolate Russia and enforce sanctions effectively. Or, perhaps if we gave up on Ukraine, the government could've more effectively isolated China. But by taking on both simultaneously, they've been pushed together, and the US has thrown away the key asset that allowed it to win the Cold War: the Sino-Soviet split.
Even if the war was completely justified and black-and-white, we would still need to consider the practical and realistic questions about whether maintaining the territorial integrity of a country on the other side of the world that most people can't find on a map is really worth it, or even achievable. But liberals seem to really, really hate this kind of analysis, as if the world was a Saturday morning cartoon where the good guy always wins. The US is not Superman. We are dealing with all sorts of domestic issues which have given rise to the far-right, and that poses a much greater existential threat than control over Donbass.
How on earth can you accuse me of not being a leftist and being similar to the far-right for saying that we should spend more money on schools and hospitals and less money on bombs? What do left and right even mean to you?
Decent points to be honest. Maybe the US could have helped Ukraine negotiate something where they very reluctantly give up some land to Russia in return for proper security (with western backing) for the rest of Ukraine. Obviously not an ideal situation, but yes it could have prevented a lot of deaths. And maybe western countries would have realised that more investment in defence would be needed to properly protect the rest of Ukraine, and the rest of Europe, and other countries.
How on earth can you accuse me of not being a leftist and being similar to the far-right for saying that we should spend more money on schools and hospitals and less money on bombs?
It's just where you said "do you not believe the reasons they tell you?". I thought you were meaning that there are genuine reasons to support or like Putin's regime, and that I just wasn't believing those reasons.
Being anti-war is definitely a good position. Perhaps I shouldn't have generalised across all of Lemmy.ml and Hexbear to assume that everyone on those instances believes the same things. My perspective has just been based on intolerance I have seen from those instances in the past, e.g. Lemmy.ml mods labelling posts as US propaganda because those posts mentioned that Russia was the aggressor in the Ukraine war.
It just that with one dimension all you can measure is linear distance. Everything is a point on a line. Politics is a higher dimensional surface.
Basically it's Flatland.
It actually looks more like this
Worth noting that neither axis is labeled, and that the graph itself doesn't make an effort to understand anything "tankies" support or denounce. It's just vibes-based analysis.
It's not a horseshoe, it's merely authoritarianism
I just think it's interesting that the people who get referred to as "tankies" claim to be on the left, but they often support the regime of Putin, a regime which is arguably fascist. I guess that's one reason why I think the far-left and far-right are pretty similar.
I think it's interesting that people who get referred to as "terrorist sympathizers" claim to be on the left, but they often support the regime of the Taliban.
I think it's interesting that people who get referred to as "terrorist sympathizers" claim to be on the left, but they often support the regime of Saddam Hussein.
I think it's interesting that people who get referred to as "terrorist sympathizers" claim to be on the left, but they often support the regime of Momar Gaddafi.
I think it's interesting that people who get referred to as "tankies" claim to be on the left, but they often support the regime of Bashir Al Assad.
Liberals oppose every war except the current one.
I wouldn't necessarily call myself a liberal, I guess I'm just somewhere in the middle, I dunno. And I definitely don't support wars. That's why I think Russia should never have invaded Ukraine.
We heard the same logic with "Assad shouldn't have attacked his people" or "Gaddafi shouldn't have attacked his people" or "Saddam shouldn't have attacked Kuwait".
Even if it's true in a vacuum, it's only being used to justify imperialism.
The only lever we have is the one that sends more bombs to Ukraine, each of which is a bad day for someone, statistically mostly civilians. The US's objective isn't to help the people of Ukraine, it's to create the biggest blood bath possible and acquire cheap resources and labor from Ukraine. This happens every single time.
Russia also being bad doesn't change this.
But are we engaging with political ideas in good faith if we evaluate them based on the behaviour of specific people whose actions don't really line up with those ideas?
I'm not dismissing all of leftism, I'm just referring to so-called "tankies": e.g. people from Hexbear who themselves absolutely do not engage with political ideas "in good faith".
themselves absolutely do not engage with political ideas “in good faith”.
It's not like you engaged with their political ideas in good faith though.
I think I have in the past. Then I had people from Hexbear just being total cunts in their replies. They were very intolerant of different views, rather than engaging with those views in good faith.
Maybe I shouldn't generalise across Lemmy.ml and Hexbear though - maybe some people on those instances are decent.
Have you considered that they may also have a past experience of people being total cunts as well? Why should they engage with your views in good faith if you don't engage with theirs?
I had a conversation with someone, I think they were from Hexbear, and I was trying to be polite while they were just being insulting for no reason.
Maybe I should just conclude that the particular person I was talking to was rude, and hopefully other people from leftist instances are not as rude.
You're right about that, I just think the idea of horseshoe theory only works in practice if hypocrisy is a valid political idea.
IMO the conspiracy theory culture is to the point where some folks will believe anything but what is presented as mainstream truth. It's the "I'm smarter than that" mentality that started with right wing AM radio in the 80's. It's reached into all parts of the political spectrum
Maybe reality is just too depressing so people invent narratives that they prefer.