“I’m neither right not left” = far-right. Always.
Yep, it’s called Fish Hook Theory:
Nah it’s not that complicated. Nazis are just lying manipulative fucks. That’s their main thing.
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.
“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.
The only part of horseshoe theory that tracks is that if you go far enough left you get your guns back.
The part that tracks is that authoritarians exist orthogonal to left/right.
And that those unwilling to compromise on anything with anyone tend to get authoritarians
Funny, it’s usually the centrists who partner with and allow authoritarians into power
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.
“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”.
Tankie tears is music for my ears
?
links please, this is certainly unfamiliar
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”
The main difference between “neither left nor right” and far-right is hypocrisy.
Or sometimes denial
Don’t forget idiocy.
also notice the confusing “centre party” means they are “both sides”, its to trick would be voters into voting for them who dont care enough to read past thier party name.
Wasn’t fascism originally about being neither right nor left, but then it got sort of absorbed (or bought out) by the right to combat the left? Thats atleast how I’ve understood it, and of course there is so much more to fascism than that but thats just how i’d summarize it
I only know that the Nazis presented themselves as the “third way” between communism and capitalism.
Just like the AfD in Germany today.
No, they’re 100 % Nazis.
Centrists find value in conservative politics and entertain them. We have known for a very long time now, including having had access to the fucking book it’s from, that it is designed to screw over poor people and benefit the owner class. You don’t need to be a full-blown communist but all centrist politics have ever amounted to has been “I won’t directly attack gay people but I won’t stop anyone, either, and I will shake hands and laugh with the people that want them dead.”
Fuck centrists. Buncha spineless losers.
Like the DEMOCRATIC people’s republic of Korea.
or the democratic republic of congo.
In a similar vein: Denmark has the “Radical Left” party, which is centrist (liberal). It is an offshoot of that “Left” party which is also liberal - Or was supposed to be, its really just a front for agriculture lobbies.
The naming comes from when the left/right was about support for the king and since these parties represent the interests of the bourgoisie they did not support the king. It is funny these days though since the left/right is about support for capitalism, so bit of a misnomer to have a “radical left” party with a social-liberal ideology lol.
Centrists are just closeted right wingers that don’t want to be criticized for their right wing views.
or outright cowards too afraid to have a stance on anything for fear of being wrong or unliked
Huh. Now moderates are literally Nazis.
It’s best to be an Epicurean and stay away from politics. It’s just miserable. People say, “But the ship is going to crash! You don’t care?” Sure, but when there’s a mob fisting fighting over the controls, the best thing to do is just vibe.
What a pathetic way to look at the world.
“Boy that looks hard, best just let those people die. Doesn’t affect me, I guess.”
Like I said. Of course I care, but when there’s a mob fisting fighting over the controls, it’s not just hard. It’s impossible. You guys are going to have to learn how to get along with people. When you do, I’ll quit dancing and come look at the wheel and see what I can do.
You just gave to have a dialog with the rabid pack of dogs gnawing on your legs!! Stop hitting it and talk to it!
Seriously, do you expect us to compromise with just a little genocide, as a treat? If you want the fist fight over the controls to end, and you have any preference one way or the other, then get involved. Start throwing punches.
If you don’t do that, you don’t care. You’re content to sit back in your privilege and let the chips fall where they may, safe in your knowledge that as a cis straight white male (I can only assume from the disdain dripping off your post about anyone trying to change things for the better), you will be unaffected by the goings on.
I don’t have disdain for anyone trying to change things for the better. I have an aversion to people throwing punches.
Great so you can understand that the people throwing punches are the ones TRYING TO DO A GENOCIDE THE WORLD OVER. if you think you can talk your way out of that, you’re just dumb.
I genuinely don’t believe you actually care like you say you do. It is incongruent with you decision to let the cards fall where they may.
You’re the second person I’ve seen who agrees with Ghandi that the Jews should have just committed suicide during the Holocaust.
Fascists often hate being called right wing. It comes from a lack of self-awareness and general lack of emotional intelligence. If you can’t understand other people and their views, you are inclined to see your own position as the reasonable center. There are also, of course, some fascists who cynically portray themselves as the center, knowing full well what they really are. The leaders of AfD and the Reform UK are examples.
Analogously, people on the right often use the word “political” as a derogation. They hate the idea of their beliefs being political, preferring to call them “common sense”.
In a nutshell, there is a commonality across many people on the right of being unable to empathize and understand perspectives outside their own. This is why they always view their own use of government benefits as justified while others are thieves or criminals, and why anyone different from them is a threat.
Meeting of the Centrist-Moderate Coalition (2026)
I mean, the joke of the 1930s was that National Socialism absolutely was a centrist position between Monarchism and Communism. They struck a chord with central Europeans by advocating a broad ethnic sovereignty that expanded the “in-group” of would-be aristocrats while still flattering the egos of chauvinists and religious bigots. Fascism takes the founding myths of the aristocracy and extends it to a subset of the proletariat as a means of mobilizing them as a large populist unit.
The end result is a militant faction far larger and more industrial than the royalist elites, but one that still has scapegoats and class enemies among the various minorities and small neighbors on the periphery. It really is a philosophy that lives at the “center” of the historical political discourse.
You just have to come at it recognizing politics (particularly in Europe) as even more narrow and reactionary than what Fascists advocated for publicly. You also have to recognize Fascism as fundamentally unstable and quick to collapse, either into a more egalitarian socialism or a more hierarchical aristocracy, once it exhausts itself of minorities and neighbors to plunder.
I’m curious, what does the center look like?
Like the center has to be somewhere right? I’m solidly left, but certainly not as left as your average person on Lemmy.
IMO ideally the center should be fine with government provided socialized services and regulation to fully support society, offer everyone the same advantages to change their economic status to middle-class, and prevent wild disparity and capture of the system by wealth yet still allow for people to achieve wealth that, does indeed, allow for some excess but not at the expense of society.
Wouldn’t most just call that Left?
What’s missing that would then move that to be Left?
Left is the workers owning the means of production.
IDK what exactly that would entail, but I at the very least feel the government should pay for healthcare, education, housing all “basic” needs and more.
Also cap wealth at ~100mil sounds like a good idea if possible
The workers own and operate the businesses and organizations they work for.
Also cap wealth at ~100mil sounds like a good idea if possible
Glass steagall was a great way to regulate capitalism. Eventually the 1% purchased the removal of these regulations and protections through
bipartisan legislation
Two Republicans and four Democrats did not vote.[11] Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S. Carolina) voted in favor, Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Illinois) voted “present” and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) did not vote. A table with members’ full names, sortable by vote, state, region and party, may be found at S.900 as amended: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, roll call 105, 106th Congress, 1st session. Votes Database at The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2008-10-09 from “S 900 | U.S. Congress Votes Database - the Washington PostThe Washington Post”. Archived from the original on 2011-06-13. Retrieved 2008-10-09… Independent Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted yes; 33 Republicans and 28 Democrats did not vote.[15] 52 Republicans and 38 Democrats voted for the bill. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama (Republican, formerly a Democrat) voted against it, as did 7 Democratic Senators: Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Richard Bryan (Nevada), Byron Dorgan (N. Dakota), Russell Feingold (Wisc.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Barbara Mikulski (Maryland) and Paul Wellstone (Minn.) Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Illinois) again voted “present”, while Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) did not vote. Republicans voted 207–5 in favor, with 10 not voting. Democrats voted 155–51 in favor, with 5 not voting. Independent Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted no.
This will happen to your proposal given a long enough timeline.
Capitalism is not a stable foundation to build civilization on.
