this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
766 points (98.9% liked)

Wikipedia

5425 readers
137 users here now

A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.

Rules:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
766
Centre Party (media.piefed.zip)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by inari@piefed.zip to c/wikipedia@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 87 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Note that there is no such theory outside of Internet slang. There is no merit in it. Just as horseshoe theory is without merit. There are complex, underlying causes for it making so much sense, but do not be baited by comfort.

[–] cowfodder@lemmy.zip 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The only part of horseshoe theory that tracks is that if you go far enough left you get your guns back.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 29 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The part that tracks is that authoritarians exist orthogonal to left/right.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And that those unwilling to compromise on anything with anyone tend to get authoritarians

[–] inari@piefed.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Funny, it's usually the centrists who partner with and allow authoritarians into power

[–] mrbutterscotch@feddit.org 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In a german state election the BSW, a left wing splinter party, just just gave their support to the afd, an extreme right-wing party, getting fascists in to power within germany for the first time since WW2.

[–] kettuli@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Oh, the party of the Kreml-bankrolled ”leftist” backed up the far-right party. Oh my.

[–] mrbutterscotch@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

The point being they splintered from a true leftist party and were not from the centre.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

Moving the goal post. They arose from the SED. They are of leftist origin.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

"authoritarianism" is a concept made up by an anti-semetic CIA stooge in order to be able to equivocate between Nazis and communists. Its a completely meaningless term where every definition is either so broad that it describes all states (and almost just all social structures organised for any purpose) or so narrow it is just a synonym for whatever designated enemy you are being told is evil. It's about as cogent as "badguyism".

[–] LongLive@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

links please, this is certainly unfamiliar

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

Sure, what would you like links for? The stuff about Hannah Arendt or the critique of the theory of "authoritarianism"? The first I can provide, but let me know more specifically what so I dont overwhelm.

The latter I cannot since the link is just Hannah Arendt and successors works'. I'd encourage you to actually read it with a critical eye and notice how vague it is. It is a theory that only cares about whether a state does stuff, not why or how or for whom or with what support. This is completely silly. Every state is authoritarian, every hierarchical organisation is authoritarian. Its a word used to make you think negatively of a group - Like how enemy states do not have governments, they have regimes and their VPs aren't VPs they're "hand picked successors".

What I would really recommend is that you read "Blackshirts and Reds", "Inventing Reality" and Engels' "On Authority"

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago
[–] martti@suppo.fi 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Tankie tears is music for my ears

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

"Horseshoe theory" is the idea that I don't really care if I'm being killed by Hitler or Mao if I'm being killed.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago

Death by centrist is impersonal. It's your fault for not hustling hard enough for AC.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

I personally care a lot more about what the state suppresses, how it does it, for whom it does it, against whom it does it, why it does it, with how much public support it does it and what the effect of it is, rather than some simplistic black-and-white view that merely cares about whether a state does things or not.