(Don’t know why it’s sideways.)
We all know American intro to politics textbooks are garbage, but this graph was really funny to me. This is obviously just a rebranded horseshoe theory, but the author makes it very clear that this graph is special because it’s about relative political attitudes, NOT ideology (don’t worry he’s got a bespoke ideology cumpiss too). As if you can remove ideology and still maintain any representation of real world politics.
Basically, this dude legitimizes his theory by arguing that radicals and reactionaries are similar because they both use violence, despite having different goals. Liberals and conservatives, on the other hand, are notorious for never using violence, and have never supported the police or started wars that have killed millions of people. That violence isn’t real because the state says it’s good.
The creme de la creme comes on the next page though, where he shoehorns his horseshoe theory onto other countries. According to him, Xi Jinping is a conservative, Maoists are reactionary rather than Ultras (arguably true but that’s from our perspective), liberals want more capitalist reform (objectively correct, but for the wrong reason), and the real radicals are the ones that want Taiwan to invade.
Overall, 3/10. I feel like I need to learn Chinese to read a good textbook.
Random thought: It would be really cool if there were a youth movement based around posting cringe material from educational curricula. Kinda like a the_dunk_tank for the kids.
The author defines reactionary as wanting to revert to some historic ideal, in this case Maoist China without market reforms
It’s supposed to be for comparing different ideologies within different countries, but in order to do so you remove all ideology. This means that Maoist’s in China can be reactionary while maoists in the Philippines can be radical, despite having the same ideology.
I mean if you want to get really technical China’s biggest study of socialism is Mao Zedong Thought, which includes everyone up to Mao, as well as many other Chinese revolutionaries and philosophers.
According to him, Xi Jinping is a conservative, Maoists are reactionary rather than Ultras (arguably true but that’s from our perspective), liberals want more capitalist reform (objectively correct, but for the wrong reason), and the real radicals are the ones that want the Taiwan to invade.
It's all true, from a certain point of view.
But it just amounts to playing with language. "Concervative Maoist" is only a thing from the perspective of someone who believes Chinese history started in 1950. "Liberal Reformist" is only a thing from the perspective of folks who believe history ended in 1980.
Taiwan trying to invade China would be extreme. I imagine that's what this guy thinks "radical" means. Obviously, we'd see it as Highly Reactionary, but we'd also see it as Absurdly Suicidal in every way imaginable.
All this just amounts to the author's distorted perspective.
All this just amounts to the author’s distorted perspective.
Which is ironic because he’s pitching this as an objective analysis free from ideology. I get where he’s trying to go, but personally I’ve never been a fan of these relative systems that share words with actual ideologies, like big L and little l liberalism. Surely there’s another word we could use
Which is ironic because he’s pitching this as an objective analysis free from ideology
Oh sure. Nothing more ideological than claiming to be an Objectivist.
I’ve never been a fan of these relative systems that share words with actual ideologies, like big L and little l liberalism.
It's useful in distinguishing an active movement from a prevailing ideological framework. The Big L Libertarians are pretty far removed from little l libertarians, for instance. Chinese Communists are significantly different than Western Marxist-Leninists and Latin American native leftists (ie, little c communists).
But this split goes farther, as it really does lose the forest for the trees. Implying that Xi is conservative because he's reversing course on Deng's economic policies in favor of a more Maoist political philosophy really leans hard on the nostalgic aspect of the conservative philosophy while implicitly ignoring the possibility one might be nostalgic for a time predating the solidification of communist party rule. It's just such a myopically selective understanding of history.
It's less a split between lower-case ideological theories and upper-case organizational practice than it is carving out slivers of history and declaring that they anchor the entire ideological framework.
It's like claiming that Leftism is a form of Reformist Monarchism because that's what the French Parliamentarians on the left side of the aisle espoused.
objective analysis free from ideology
How does a person pontificate about ideology this much without realizing it can't be escaped?
This is a significant step down even from the absurdity that is horseshoe theory. Horseshoe theory says people too far from the enlightened center are basically the same, but at least it has the sense to not imply that if you keep going right you eventually end up on the left.
Basically, this dude legitimizes his theory by arguing that radicals and reactionaries are similar because they both use violence, despite having different goals.
What's that you like PIZZA!?!?! Do you know who ELSE likes pizza?
:porky-scared-flipped:
HITLER
they point at you screaming RREEEEEEEEE!!!
What’s that you like PIZZA!?!?! Do you know who ELSE likes pizza?
HITLER
they point at you screaming RREEEEEEEEE!!!
Literally Animal Farm (if they could read a different book)
The only thing that American intro to politics textbooks are good for is explaining the various political processes. Once they start talking about political ideology in general, or about other countries' politics, you'd be more knowledgeable not having read the textbook
(Don’t know why it’s sideways.)
image rotation is sometimes stored in exif which is removed by the site
the ones that want the Taiwan to invade
President Guaidó, my people yearn for freedom! Please invade the United Stated of America!
Looking forward to the KMT army under President General Chiang Guai-Do.
After the revolution libs are not allowed to have diagrams. No diagrams, figures, illustrations, charts, or, schematics. One of the key components of liberal intellectualism is that something makes sense if you can turn it into a diagram. If it wasn't correct, how could it become this convenient illustration? It's got to be right, you couldn't draw it otherwise.
something makes sense if you can turn it into a diagram
Category theorists in crisis
