Not in all cases as I said between a radical left and a right-winger you might be better voting for the radical left but why I say to be wary is because of the Horseshoe Theory
If you were to say progressive leftists is where I’d be all for
The horseshoe theory is bullshit to discredit anti establishement leftists.
The idea of radical leftism is that the capitalist system needs and breeds inequality and the state is its assistant. There is no overlap of fascism and leftism. There is a lot of overlap between fascism and capitalism though.
Dont believe stuff like this. It has been disproven many times.
Radical leftism means in essence:
everyone is the same
everyone deserves the same satisfaction of their needs
a roof over your head, food and drink are inalienable rights
The only thing i would warn of is that just because someone says they are leftist, socialist, communist, anarchist, etc doesnt mean they really are. Examples: national socialists and anarcho capitalists. They’re both just using the term and perverting the idea. Then there are radical leftist parties that are lost (like russia apologists).
Of course you need to make an informed decision but yes, radical left all the way.
everyone deserves the same satisfaction of their needs
a roof over your head, food and drink are inalienable rights.
Any progressive leftist would agree with those things hence why I’d be all for them and as you said there are exceptions in radical left where they shouldn’t be taken seriously
Exactly. Its just important to understand that horseshoe is not a viable concept. Use specifics instead. No Gos are:
russia apologism
israel apologism
science denial/esotherics
selective exclusion from basic rights
One very helpful concept is the tolerance paradox. It states that tolerant treatment of intolerant parties will lead to them dismantling of the tolerant system.
No true progressive leftist would be in for either of the two, but in regards to the other two it can become tricky to know
One very helpful concept is the tolerance paradox
Or simply ignore the gaslightning that tolerance is a paradox and take it as a social contract where both ends must comply, if one won’t then you shouldn’t take for granted the other should
Horseshoe theory is bunk because, when you drill down, all it’s basically saying is that people who disagree with the tenets of liberal capitalism don’t respect the legitimacy of a system based on the tenets of liberal capitalism. It’s essentially a tautology, and not incitefull because liberal capitalists also don’t respect the legitimacy of systems that aren’t based on liberal capitalist tenets.
to be fair to them: “horseshoe theory” is in itself a bad faith argument designed specifically to derail and disrupt leftist discussions…soooo…why bother with much of an argument?
it IS bunk, it’s pretty obvious that it is bunk, and it takes up a tremendous amount of time and effort to constantly repeat just how bunk it is.
not saying you are wrong, at least in general.
it’s just that this particular topic takes up way more space in online discussions than it has any right to, so i get the frustration - and unwillingness to explain something faaaaairly obvious - of the previous user.
a bad faith argument doesn’t really deserve a proper answer: wasting time on it is exactly the point of bad faith arguments. that’s why they so successful in the first place; they create no-win scenarios. damned if you ignore them, damned if you don’t. that’s why the right constantly comes up with new ones.
Not in all cases as I said between a radical left and a right-winger you might be better voting for the radical left but why I say to be wary is because of the Horseshoe Theory
If you were to say progressive leftists is where I’d be all for
The horseshoe theory is bullshit to discredit anti establishement leftists.
The idea of radical leftism is that the capitalist system needs and breeds inequality and the state is its assistant. There is no overlap of fascism and leftism. There is a lot of overlap between fascism and capitalism though.
Dont believe stuff like this. It has been disproven many times.
Radical leftism means in essence:
The only thing i would warn of is that just because someone says they are leftist, socialist, communist, anarchist, etc doesnt mean they really are. Examples: national socialists and anarcho capitalists. They’re both just using the term and perverting the idea. Then there are radical leftist parties that are lost (like russia apologists).
Of course you need to make an informed decision but yes, radical left all the way.
Any progressive leftist would agree with those things hence why I’d be all for them and as you said there are exceptions in radical left where they shouldn’t be taken seriously
Exactly. Its just important to understand that horseshoe is not a viable concept. Use specifics instead. No Gos are:
One very helpful concept is the tolerance paradox. It states that tolerant treatment of intolerant parties will lead to them dismantling of the tolerant system.
No true progressive leftist would be in for either of the two, but in regards to the other two it can become tricky to know
Or simply ignore the gaslightning that tolerance is a paradox and take it as a social contract where both ends must comply, if one won’t then you shouldn’t take for granted the other should
Fair point. Its crazy that we have to mention this at all.
deleted by creator
Horseshoe theory is bunk because, when you drill down, all it’s basically saying is that people who disagree with the tenets of liberal capitalism don’t respect the legitimacy of a system based on the tenets of liberal capitalism. It’s essentially a tautology, and not incitefull because liberal capitalists also don’t respect the legitimacy of systems that aren’t based on liberal capitalist tenets.
fair enough
The horseshoe theory doesn’t apply to every leftist group. You need to gauge and research their backgrounds to see if they’re authoritarian first.
hence why I say to be wary and why I say I’d vote but not in every circumstances though BrainInABox makes fair points against it
Horseshoe theory is utter nonsense and not worth any kind of real consideration.
well you’re entitled to your opinions but you don’t seem to try to argue in good faith your points to favor your reasoning
to be fair to them: “horseshoe theory” is in itself a bad faith argument designed specifically to derail and disrupt leftist discussions…soooo…why bother with much of an argument?
it IS bunk, it’s pretty obvious that it is bunk, and it takes up a tremendous amount of time and effort to constantly repeat just how bunk it is.
not saying you are wrong, at least in general.
it’s just that this particular topic takes up way more space in online discussions than it has any right to, so i get the frustration - and unwillingness to explain something faaaaairly obvious - of the previous user.
a bad faith argument doesn’t really deserve a proper answer: wasting time on it is exactly the point of bad faith arguments. that’s why they so successful in the first place; they create no-win scenarios. damned if you ignore them, damned if you don’t. that’s why the right constantly comes up with new ones.
If it helps, i have a political science degree. No one takes Horseshoe Theory seriously. I’m not arguing because there is nothing to argue.