• Gsus4@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, but that’s what I’m saying. Positional closeness sometimes hides a lot of foundational differences and creates the illusion that there is a continuous path between any two points. Eg between tankies and nazis :)

    • napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Tankies and Nazis would be both on the outer end of the authoritarian axis, but on completely different ends of the economic axis. If you take 3, 4 or even more dimensions there will barely be any positional closeness left. You can visualize every form of difference in the form of an additional dimension.

      I am not advocating specifically for a 2 axis political spectrum. My original comment was just pointing out that the horseshoe theory is bullshit.

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They are not on opposite ends. Nazis were not laissez-faire, protectionist actually: On the economic axis they were close to the middle.

        Plus I’m not saying they are that close, I’m saying that the line you can draw between them can not be followed continuously, you probably need to take a few loops around other systems like Weimar liberalism, Italian Socialism and feudal Czarism or Marxism to go from one to the other.

        I just gave that example because it looks like convergent evolution shaped by similar circumstances despite completely opposite origins.

        • napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think that is where our differences in thinking are:

          I was thinking about modern nazis, which are way more laissez-faire than the “original” (at least where I live). At the same time I would argue it is not very important how a belief evolved if you are talking e.g. current party programs or policy. Sure it can be important for research, but it is only of secondary importance for “applied politics” if the result at the end is the same.