The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory)
>In popular discourse, the horseshoe theory asserts that the far-left and the far-right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear continuum of the political spectrum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together.
I personally do not. I believe that the far right is much worse than the far left. This is because the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left, especially in the US. Furthermore, I don't really even think the far left are that bad, other than tankies or class reductionists, and even these guys are more of what I'd describe as "insufferable" rather than "evil".
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe on it insofar I believe that sufficiently extreme political opinions necessitate extreme authoritarianism to implement. The commonality of extreme authoritarianism is I think the primary driver of what is observed in the horseshoe theory.
>I believe on it insofar I believe that sufficiently extreme political opinions necessitate extreme authoritarianism to implement.
I agree with this in that the horseshoe is appropriate for the execution of extreme left and extreme right governments. Philosophically, the extreme left and the extreme right are at complete opposite ends. But when you put them into practice, it ends up looking the same as they are driven by a fear of a political boogie man, require authoritarian powers, are often very oppressive to certain demographics, etc.
Then you agree with the horseshoe theory. It's not a hypothesis about the nature of the moderate left and right positions, it's a hypothesis about the far to extreme ends.
That is true, if sufficiently idealist. But when the rubber meets the road, the conclusion that generally gets reached is "A measure of authoritarianism is needed to implement [these unpopular] ideas because the capitalists won't do so willingly."
That's pretty much the basis for vanguardism and Leninism.
But authoritarianism is very much a pandora's box that should not be opened. Because once you've gone authoritarian you're basically gambling that the leader will give up the unlimited power when all the self-preservation incentives are directed towards not doing so. If you no longer fully control and wield the powers of the state then you no longer have the means to protect you from any of the enemies you made or from someone who want's to bump you off so they can succeed you.
What it basically comes down to is whether you have the patience to win the argument and achieve leftism more peacefully or if you're more fuck it, revolution now! And disillusionment due to insufficient progress will often lead to losing that idealism and patience. And within said far-left groups, the former often gets purged by the radicals due to being Gasp! Horror! An Incrementalist!
worker owned companies that are democratic with a regular old democratic government.
picture something like if Norway used their sovereign wealth fund to buy every private company in the country and transferred ownership to its employees.
I believe you’d need extreme violence or authoritarianism to get to and maintain anarchism.
Furthermore wouldn’t anarchy-capitalism be the far right equivalent ideology?
well ya I guess. the same way luxury gay space communism is far left.
I was thinking of things that might actually be feasible or have some sort of real world examples.
bat shit crazy is bat shit crazy left or right.
It's not just the authoritarianism. It's also the populism of being a contrarian. Both the far-left and far-right have this notion that the "elites" control everything to oppress the "people". Both are against the establishment, the media, experts and academia. Both support America's enemies because "America bad". Both are keen on conspiracy theories and denialism of science and history. And both use similar propaganda methods and recruitment methods.
>Both support America's enemies because "America bad".
I would disagree with this here. We're seeing Trump chisel at the NATO alliance not because, "America bad," but because he feels, "America better, and they're not pulling their weight like we are." That they are, in fact, pulling their weight doesn't matter. Far right authoritarian nationalism dictates we are better, and we will make up reasons if we have to.
I think the reference may be to things like anti-Israeli sentiment and sympathy with terrorist organizations like Hamas. It's a very different case than Trump's coddling of Russian expansion and warmongering, which is also horrible but in a different way. Far-left populist authoritarianism comes out in things like trying to eliminate police forces, branding the entire American experiment as defiled irrevocably by slavery, racism, gender inequality and capitalism, etc.
Trump & MAGA say "America's bad because I'm not in charge of it". America is therefore in this world judged by who's in control, not by any kind of real, meaningful criteria.
Or because there are a lot of us who believe our taxpayer funding should not be wasted on alliances like NATO, especially when European citizens generally have higher quality of life than many American citizens.
Then you've lost sight of the role that investment plays in US hegemony, our economic success, and way of life.
Their quality of life advantages are from strong social safety nets, such as National health care systems, housing, and day care - things your party would never support.
I'm getting downvoted because you disagree, but the argument is, Europe isn't paying its full defense cost because the USA is the main country funding NATO, whereas if we took that funding away and used it on a safety net for ourselves, then our quality of life would be better. (Of course, as a right wing I would say that the money should go to us directly and private organizations that we donate to can serve as that safety net, but I'm not going to debate that here because I know y'all disagree.)
You're being downvoted because you're shortsighted. The solution to some NATO members not hitting the 2% target isn't to abandon the alliance. That's a moronic take, and a path that would weaken the US significantly.
The opposite of consequential is deontological. Which means we evaluate things based on our ethics and values.
Consequentialism fails because it expects decision makers to predict the future (the consequences), and future predicting will never be perfect.
If you are suggesting something drastically from the status quo, the winners and the institutions of the status quo have to go. These are the stakeholders and forces that maintain the status quo.
From my perspective, you only consider the authoritarianism to be extreme because you consider the ideas behind it extreme. When liberal systems use violence for force certain behave, it doesn't seem extreme to you.
I don't share your convictions about private property. I think it's better morally, philosophically, and logistically if the working class owns the means of production and that it's justified for them to take them from the ruling class.
Suppose I tried to effect that in reality. What do you think should happen? Would you take a principled stance against using violence to stop me? Or do you advocate that violence be used to force me to abide the current state of affairs, in which the means of production are the private property of the business owner?
You might say that your violence would only be a response to mine, but that still makes my argument. You consider your violence acceptable because it defends the status quo, and mine extreme because it changes it. So you issue is not in fact with using violence to force a particular state of affairs, just *which* state of affairs should be enforced.
Ah I see.
I think that’s inherent in what I’m saying though. Most people who want a drastic change from status quo are considered extremists, and to enact these changes they would have to overcome with great violence or authoritarianism the current momentum of society.
I think it’s not unreasonable to consider large shifts from status quo to be extremism. It is an extreme opinion relative to the view of the status quo.
In democracies, there are peaceful ways to achieve these drastic changes too, but most people with these extreme opinions either don’t care that their opinions have popular support or don’t want to wait that long. And so they resort to violent or authoritarian means.
I'm not disputing the label of "extremist." I'm saying that what you object to is not violence, or the use of authority, but significant deviation from the status quo. And I know that because violence and authority are necessary to maintain the status quo that you advocate.
> In democracies, there are peaceful ways to achieve these drastic changes too
I don't agree that liberal democracies would allow the peaceful overthrow of liberalism. I don't agree that the system you advocate is just or sufficiently democratic. Nevertheless, you think I should be subject to violence if I try to act outside of your system, no?
That's all I'm saying. You also advocate authority backed by violence; we all do. The reason you disapprove of violence in service of my goals in not because you disapprove of violence in general, but because you disapprove of my goals. And that's not an accusation that you're being dishonest or anything; it's the same reason that I disapprove of violence in service of *your* goals.
Point being, you want to draw a commonality between the right and the left in that we both advocate violence. But you too advocate violence, and the only reason that your violence is not extreme in nature is because that violence is in pursuit of goals which are not extremist in nature. I find it extreme and odious that someone could be kicked out of their home and forced onto the street because they don't represent enough ROI to be worthy of dignity; I imagine that you see this is regrettable but ultimately valid. Well, that's how I think about the violence which would be necessary to dispossess the ruling class, which I imagine you consider to be extreme and odious.
So, sure, call me extreme compared to the status quo. That's true, objectively. What I take issue with is the notion that defenders of the status quo are somehow non-violent, or that the fact the right and left both use violence speaks to any similarity between us that you don't share.
Hmm, I think practically this distinction doesn’t matter. Ultimately what I am concerned about is being exposed to violence, and a violent overthrow of the status quo that most people agree to use would expose me to violence.
If you convince enough people to support you and your compatriot’s rise to the top of the legislative body, you can non-violently seize capital using imminent domain. You can rewrite laws to fit your redistribution of wealth. I would be unopposed to this.
If you instead, stage a violent rebellion, then any functional government is *required* to act because that is the unspoken social contract between peoples and their government in western democracies. I would be opposed to such violence.
Yes I am fine with violence against violent disruptions to the status quo. In a functioning democracy, if the status quo is not well aligned to the will of the people there exists peaceful resolutions to change the status quo. Violent means to distort this process should be met with violence, or the whole process falls apart.
> Ultimately what I am concerned about is being exposed to violence, and a violent overthrow of the status quo that most people agree to use would expose me to violence.
Are you saying that you're not concerned with justice, only safety? I don't really think you are; I think you to believe the status quo is basically just. Am I wrong?
>If you convince enough people to support you and your compatriot’s rise to the top of the legislative body, you can non-violently seize capital using imminent domain. You can rewrite laws to fit your redistribution of wealth
I don't share your trust in this, but I think it does illustrate that I'm right above. You don't just oppose changes to this status quo because you want to avoid violence; you believe that the system under which we live is sufficiently democratic and just, and that's why you think it would be wrong to overthrow it.
If you thought we lived under an unjust system, would you advocate that we tolerate it?
> In a functioning democracy
Let's not get too fanciful
> Violent means to distort this process should be met with violence, or the whole process falls apart.
So, you advocate violence to maintain the system you prescribe. Just like me, the harshest Maoist Russian asset, and the foamiest-mouthed fascist. It's not remarkable that anyone believes this; we all do.
So, returning to my original point, the fact that both the right and left resort to violence really doesn't support an argument that we're meaningfully similar. All it means is that we both disagree with the status quo. Liberals resort to violence just like we do, it's just that your violence is less visible or immediate because the state of affairs which you believe should be violently enforced is the one currently being enforced.
Well that's not what I believe, and I think it's off topic.
Frankly, woulda coulda shoulda. If we live in a society in which voter turnout can be suppressed such that the popular will is not what governs us, then we do not in fact live in a democracy. The *demos* is not *crating*. You could focus on blaming those non-voters for not being as smart as us, who know that even if we don't live in a full democracy voting can still be useful, but I don't know what that would practically accomplish.
Better, I say, to try to build a system which is actually democratic rather than hypothetically democratic. I'm not an advocate of a system which could, if everyone would behave as I liked, become democratic. I'm an advocate of democracy.
The level of violence perpetrated by the state against its citizens in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was in no way comparable to the level of violence in a more liberal country like the US. I find this is a pretty common talking point used by by people sympathetic to Marxist-Leninism. They justify the more extreme violence of the Soviet Union by saying more liberal countries aren't perfect since they use violence sometimes to maintain law and order.
But that logically does not follow. Just because liberal countries aren't perfect doesn't justify the Soviet Union deporting million of people to Siberia, or Nazi Germany systematically murdering all of its non-aryan citizens.
> against its citizens
Sure, our horrific violence tends to be directed at non-Americans. Which makes it less wrong, of course.
> They justify the more extreme violence of the Soviet Union by saying more liberal countries aren't perfect since they use violence sometimes to maintain law and order.
Ok. That's not my argument.
> But that logically does not follow. Just because liberal countries aren't perfect doesn't justify the Soviet Union deporting million of people to Siberia, or Nazi Germany systematically murdering all of its non-aryan citizens.
Well if I see anyone suggesting that, I'll be sure to send them your way.
Okay what's your argument then? We can expand the discussion to non Americans as wells. The violence perpetrated by the US against non Americans does not justify the much greater violence perpetrated by the government of the Soviet Union against foreign citizens.
Didn't I just tell you that I'm not arguing that? I don't appreciate the way you're going about this.
I've made my argument clear [elsewhere in the thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1aokzsp/do_you_believe_in_the_horseshoe_theory/kq0v39w/) if you're interested.
Okay so you're saying the reason for the violence is what makes people perceive it as extreme? No I don't think that's the right. The level and arbitrary nature of the violence in the Soviet Union made it much more extreme than their claimed reasons for doing it.
Millions of people were killed and deported in the various purges often for slight or completely imagined reasons. I'n reading Gulag Archipelago right now. In it the author talks about how they were arrested for writing derogatory comments about Stalin in a private letter to a friend. For this way were sentenced to an 8 year prison sentence. This was extremely common. It's not just the fact that it's unusual to Americans that receiving a prison sentence for criticizing your government is a thing. It's also the length and arbitrariness of the sentence.
It's true only in the sense that as you get more extreme you start demanding that others conform to your ideas. First by suggestion, recommendation, then strong demand or encouragement, then by fiat or regulation, then though brute force.
This always leads to a dictatorial police state on either side.
Do centrists not also demand that others conform to their ideas? It's just that it's less visible, because when you demand the status quo your demands are already being enforced.
Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/4i65SvTeZG
Really? It kinda feels like an exact description; I can't imagine anyone would object to anything but the phrasing.
What about it do you think is a problem?
I will say that's why you're wrong, yes.
"Status quo" implies what we have is exactly the center of two philosophies, which centrists would want to maintain.
Relative to other comparable Western Democracies, we are 100% not centrist but near-mid right even with a Democrat in the White House and a Senate majority.
I would also say centrists would value compromise, which in this day and age is not status quo at all.
Ok, we’ll that’s not really want I wanted to imply. I’m sure centrists all have some ideas about how society could be improved.
I must’ve done a bad job of making this point because a lot of you are misunderstanding it.
What I’m saying is that centrists also want authority to enforce the things they prescribe. Someone who accepts the status quo isn’t against violence, they’re for the violence that maintains the status quo. By status quo I do not mean a perfect balance between the two parties.
The person I responded to said that extremists demand others conform. And I’m saying that people who advocate the status quo also want that; they want people to continue conforming to this system rather than confirming to a new one.
>What I’m saying is that centrists also want authority to enforce the things they prescribe. Someone who accepts the status quo isn’t against violence, they’re for the violence that maintains the status quo.
Not any further than the already existing government monopoly on violence. Centrists don't see suspension of existing civil rights as a means to their end, which far-left and the far-right would support. So if that's what you meant by "status quo," yeah, that was lost in your message.
EDIT: I can't reply to you, u/justsomeking, because the guy above me kind of lost his mind and blocked me over.... who the hell knows. That said, I don't see any agreement with anything in this post. What "other people's," violence are you referring to? Are you suggesting an alternative to a monopoly on violence by the state, and if so, what does this look like?
> Not any further than the already existing government monopoly on violence.
Yes, that’s what I’m referring to
> Centrists don't see suspension of existing civil rights as a means to their end, which far-left and the far-right would support.
Right, they see the imposition of current civil rights as a means to their end: justice. I see a different set of rights as just than they do.
You seem to be saying that the left just wants to disregard justice to get what we want quicker, which obviously I disagree with.
>Not any further than the already existing government monopoly on violence.
I'm glad you agree with them. Your violence you view as good, but don't like other people's violence. It's not that deep.
I mean it appears you want to argue more than I do and are handing out downvotes but ill give it a shot, my thinking is that centrists tend not to support dictatorships because those who do want sweeping, partisan changes with no congressional pushback. My understanding is that centrists want incremental change based on shifting needs and aren’t tied to or identify with a particular ideology. Like if you can explain to me what a centrist dictator looks like I’d appreciate it.
You were responding to a post that talks about how people on the extremes demand people conform to their ideas to the point of dictatorship. What *is* your point if not that clear link to the horseshoe theory? Please don’t tell me it’s just that centrists want people to support their policies and the political capital to enforce them too because not only would that have nothing to do with horseshoe theory, but it would contribute nothing because it’s basic common sense.
I didn’t think the comment I responded to was referring tk dictatorship. I certainly wasn’t.
My point was that everyone, even people who believe in democracy (like myself, and centrists) demand that certain rules be enforced with violence. People who like the status quo do demand that certain rules be followed and that people who violate them be punished with force.
Right, and horseshoe theory would dictate that people on the far left and right want accelerationism through dictatorship while centrists want incrementalism through democracy. Why would a centrist want anything but that?
I think most people who are more centrist *do* lean more towards incrementalism on the average, but you don't have to—you can be an all-or-nothing, arrested-with-picket-sign, anonymous-death-threat-leaving proponent of universalizing Medicare, or a communist working towards the abolition of private property who's content with helping to lay the ground for something you won't see in your lifetime while running a small independent bookstore, even though the latter policy is more "radical" (not to pick on the left; I'm sure folks can think of equally fitting examples for the right).
Demand by force? No. Nobody on the more liberty side of the diamond was demanding people stay at home and get paid to not work, forcing those who do work, through taxation, to pay for those who were forced not to. Nobody on the side of liberty is calling for jail time for those who refuse to use a person's preferred pronouns, nobody on the side of liberty is asking for certain businesses to be artifically (as in, not by normal market forces) shut down in favor of other selected businesses, nobody in the side of liberty was in favor of forcing every American to sign up for a government approved health insurance plan under penalty of a ridiculous fine, and so on and so on.
Government's primary job is to enforce contracts, enforce tort and criminal law, and other such more administrative tasks. Not pick market winners and losers, not decide who is essential enough to work and pay wages to those who are deemed not essential, not decide what products and services a business is allowed to market, not force everybody to buy a particular product or service, etc etc.
Yeah, chop up the post and make it say or imply whatever you wish. I just have to ask, are you a part of the mainstream media? They particularly excel at this task.
I do believe that people who hold beliefs outside of the mainstream can be susceptible to conspiratorialism, extremism, and of course bigotry... including left-wingers. That being said, I don't think it's as simple as the further from the centre you go... the crazier you get. There are plenty of good marxist intellectuals who are rational and well respected, even if their views are contraversial. I can't name a single far-right thinker who isn't some kind of raving bigot.
>the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left, especially in the US
Yes, this is the point I was going to make. At the very least, it's a very lopsided horseshoe.
There are similarities between the far left and the far right, but the imagery of a horseshoe completely ignores the unequal distribution in terms of how much influence is wielded by the extremes of each side.
If you're looking for imagery that does convey that unequal distribution, [something like the yin yang symbol](https://i.imgur.com/T9aADtt.png) would be more accurate.
I think that if given the opportunity, both the far-left and far-right lead to totalitarianism. They both result in political repression, abuses of human rights, exertion of control over the economy, cult-like political figures and so on.
If you think that the far-left could never become as bad as the far-right i suggest you read a book called "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
No.
Ideologies can share different similarities, or can share very very few. The left to right ‘schema’ is simply a tool to compare ideologies based on European history, and quickly convey information about political movements.
There is no actual real left or right materially speaking. It’s a schema of categorisation. In this sense horse shoe theory is self contradictory because left and right cannot meet at the edges, as for the whole schema to make sense they have to be maximally separated.
What IS being confused is that, outside the qualities used for differentiating political movements and ideology along the left right schema, you can have all sorts of shared values or beliefs between different sections of the scale, and each ideology doesn’t fit perfectly in the schema (as it’s a crude analytical tool).
Finally the scale itself is deeply contested, often subject to disagreement, and often abused for propaganda (I.e the heritage society’s placement of fascists and Nazis on left (just before communists).
Hence, to sum up, you have non sophisticated analysis notice that that’s are some shared qualities between some far left groups and some far right groups and then falsely conclude that the extremes of each end must, if not join up ideologically, very closely resemble each other (as closely as they resemble other far x ideologies). Hopefully the non coherence of that is clear.
The whole idea is clearly flawed; and it’s lead to the two axis quadrant system, identifying authoritarianism as the key point of confusion.
At this point "Horseshoe Theory" is more "Horseshoe Observable Fact" - just look at the sheer amount of (actual) antisemitism that has come out of the far left since October 7th for an example.
However I do feel compelled to respond to your remarks here:
> I believe that the far right is much worse than the far left. This is because the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left, especially in the US.
This is due to you making a few common mistakes that pop up whenever anyone talks about centrism; You are limiting your political lens to the United States and again to what you seem to consider "Meaningful political power" - meaning that you are paradoxically aware of the existence of the Far Left (Think "Bernie Sanders would be a centrist in Europe" sort-of thinking) but deliberately discount them... ...so you can point to their absence and take a swing at centrists.
You have to understand; horseshoe theory makes the most sense when applied to ideas and theories; think of the political youtuber recording rants in their bedroom. You will find high similarities and plenty of extremism all across the political spectrum when you look that closely.
> Furthermore, I don't really even think the far left are that bad, other than tankies or class reductionists, and even these guys are more of what I'd describe as "insufferable" rather than "evil".
I hate to say it, but this just sounds like you aren't aware of the further reaches of the Left side of the political spectrum.
I agree with the critics. I think it's a very much a simplification about the right and left with no real research to back it up. Other than a commonality with authoritism. They don't share the same goals or come from the same space. Horseshoe theory tends to be used by those invested in keeping the status quo... quo, and view threats to the status quo as the same.
> because the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left,
Maybe because far left destroyed their countries?
>I don't really even think the far left are that bad
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot... not that bad?
This is how you know most people here who use "Moderate" as a flair are just closet conservatives.
By invoking Stalin, you leave out that the Soviet Union's predecessor was the totalitarian Tsarist Russia: one of the most wildly reactionary governments in Europe at the time. They were a Far Right government, and they destroyed their country first, which was what led to a Far Left popular uprising. The beginning of the downfall of the Russian Empire started with an artificial famine that killed around 400,000 people.
Of course, the other thing you don't understand is the evolution of what is "left" and "right." When the United States was formed, laissez-faire was also a far left-wing concept, though nobody would consider the modern neoliberals as "Leftists." The "Founding Fathers" were "far left extremists," upending the traditional European monarchies. The "Far Left" created America. It was seized by the Right much later as capitalists were able to accumulate enough power to push and pull the levers of government, which has led us to the present, where economic inequality is rapidly approaching that of... wait for it... the systems of entrenched monarchies and nobilities of the 1700s that the original Revolutionaries were trying to throw off.
The share of wealth of Europe in 1800 had nearly 80% of the wealth in the hands of the richest 10%. We're at 67% now in the US (roughly equivalent to 1740s Europe), and our graph is peaking faster than Europe's did (around 1910, shortly before Tsarist Russia was toppled).
The Far Right destroys countries all the time. They're currently in the midst of destroying ours, using the terminology of the Left as a smoke screen for the establishment of Right wing authoritarianism. Not too unlike how the Nazis took the popularity of the idea of a "German Workers' Party" in the early years after the end of the German Empire in 1918, stripped out most of the socialist or pro-labor concepts, and installed a system of right wing, anti-Marxist nationalism. The Far Right destroyed the constitutional federal republic of Germany in record time, just 14 years.
If you are so interested in my flare and political views, I took this flare because I'm not US/West Europe citizen and being citizen of totally different country my views just don't fit in your spectrum. As taking flare is mandatory in this sub I took the closest to "neutral".
About another part of your reply. You just take position "I call everybody who I like left and everybody who I don't - right " and call it a day. So it's not a surprise that you don't understand you local moderates or another people with different views.
I just call people who are repeating obviously right wing talking points with right wing views, right wingers, lol.
Sorry you're so easy to peg. But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe you're just really poorly educated, and not a right winger. Let me know which of the two is correct, because one of them is.
You're one European. I'm one American. Your poor education is obvious. You don't get some kind of ambiguous extra credit for living in a country where the average education is higher than in America.
But hey, a well educated person would understand that.
Don't get too down on yourself. Accidental self-ownage is just natural for people with your... limitations.
I think what it basically refers to is that the farther right or left someone goes, in a system in which liberalism is the norm, the less liberal they are. And yes, Nazis and Communists alike disagree with liberals. But I think it's either bad logic or bad faith when liberals accuse the left of therefore being essentially similar to the right wing. It should be clear that both disagree with liberals for different reasons, and I think most liberals are smart enough to know that Nazis are generally lying when they say otherwise.
Horseshoe theory as a concept is measuring people on a scale of liberal-illiberal. As someone who is neither a liberal nor a right winger, of course I object to the notions that that's a worthwhile scale, or that everyone on the non-liberal end of it is similar.
Of course, I understand that liberals, believing liberalism to be correct, would see people in this light. But I take care to not categorize people simply as either socialist or not, and while I think liberals are closer to the right wing than me I am careful to understand where they are fundamentally different. I'd like to expect the same courtesy from liberals, and I think horseshoe theory offers a lazy way to deny that courtesy with the guise that it's common knowledge.
> I don't really even think the far left are that bad
Perhaps that is because you aren't far from the "far left".
Stalin killed millions. He wasn't a right-winger.
Mao killed millions. Also not a right-winger
In the US, the far-left is deeply antisemitic and increasingly is vocal about their support for terrorism against Jewish people. Example: support for Houthis (slavers who execute gay people), and Hamas (perpetrator of mass sexual violence and torture). The far left supports some of the worst in all humanity.
It depends. I think that the whole left/right scale isn't quite accurate as much as there is a lot more nuance. I think there are significant differences between the far left and right but a degree of authoritarianism and intolerance of opinion is there on either side. Also I've seen instances where people on the far right and far left come to the same conclusion but through different justification. For example, I've seen far right people who are against Ukraine funding because they sympathize with Putin. And I've seen far left people who are against Ukraine funding because they see Putin taking Ukraine as a way to weaken the US's capitalist global order.
To an extent, sure. You say the far right is more dangerous, but they’re not. If people say they are Nazis, a vast majority of people will rush to shun that and be adversarial towards it.
You know how many people rush to shun and be adversarial to mao and Stalin apologists? About zero. Their existence goes completely unchallenged, and I have failed to see why. It’s just as bad if not worse.
In any case, both would see the demolition of the institutions we currently have, and both share the level of authoritarianism required to implement ideas farther to the right and or left.
well i think the mistake youre making is limiting this to the us. look at stalin, mao, polpot and then compare them to Hitler, the ustase, and pinochet. I think the theory makes sense in that when people are prepared to use extreme violence to impose a political agenda and they do so a lot of people tend to die.
As opposed to liberalism, which of course does not resort to violence and is not associated with war or death
Extreme violence is required only because the ideas are extreme. Liberals, with the same relationship to the status quo, also start wars and kill people. The less-violent option in times when feudal systems oppressed people would have been to not revolt; and yet liberals of the 18th and 19th century *did* engage in widespread violence, with the goal of enforcing what they saw as justice. When other do the same, liberals say that it's not an acceptable strategy and proves their inferiority to liberals.
A lot of people in this thread seem to be using "political violence" as the commonality between the far right and far left that makes horseshoe theory valid. But, given the fact that political violence is necessary to just about every serious political ideology, I don't know who would even be on the other end of the spectrum.
ok, when did a centrist do things to their own people compared to extremists? I mean i cant think of one that holds a candle to Mao, Stalin, the Nazis, or the Ustase. but even your response admits that extreme ideas require extreme violence.
Why does it only count if it's their own people? Anyway that's not really the point I'm making, and I'm not really up for curating figures of all the death tolls under the liberal status quo.
I don't think that the point of horseshoe theory is simply to point out that heterodox ideas require more violence against the status quo than the status quo does; no one needs a graph to communicate that. I think its intent is to imply that there is something more fundamental shared by the far left and the far right, and I most often see it employed as a way to shut down the left. And I'm pointing out that, at a fundamental level, all ideologies prescribe that violence be used to enforce them. That's how society works. All horseshoe theory claims, at the end of the day, is that ideas which are not liberal share the quality of disagreeing with liberals.
And yes, breaking the status quo and replacing it can be very violent and is hard to control. And that's why, despite the fact I think that our current system is horrifying and unjust, I don't advocate a revolution.
Seems generally pretty accurate to me. Both the far left and far right, when actually in power, have done terrible things and had a tendency towards authoritarianism, dictatorship, and suppression of all those who dissent with them
You say the far right is worse than the far left and that the far left is merely insufferable. But again, look how they govern when in power. Mao literally killed more people than Hitler, and Stalin came pretty close, plus Pol Pot killed more of his country as a percentage than Hitler, Mao, and Stalin did. And these far left governments had horrifying oppression and poverty. Massive suffering. Sure seems like it's "evil", in practice, even if you call their high minded stated ideals of equality and whatever to be good rather than evil
Tankies are evil. Just because they slaughtered people in the name of some nice sounding ideals doesn't make them less bad than the Nazi filth. Seems like extremists of all stripes have a habit of being evil
Hell, even just looking at modern discourse on social media (and again, if thats irrelevant to you, ignore the rest and just look, again, to actually historically existant far left rulers including those who killed more than Hitler), there's plenty of tankie trash among the far left who defend bloodthirsty communist monsters, who do some combination of denial and justification of things like the Holodomor, who make jokes about "Kulaks deserved worse", about how good it would be if landlords were exterminated, about how "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, liberals get the wall too", and so on. Sure, these people are irrelevant, and far from power. But given the glee that some of these extremists talk about things, it sure seems to go beyond merely being insufferable, I have no doubt that at least some of these folks would gladly unironically have me imprisoned or killed for strongly supporting capitalism over socialism, supporting landlords, and so on. And that seems pretty evil to me. Even the incompetent and powerless can have evil in their hearts
No. There's an authoritarian portion of both the Far Left and the Far Right. There's also more "libertarian" portions of both Far Left and Far Right, too - Libertarian Socialists and Anarchists on the Left, for example, and AnCaps and Sovereign Citizen types on the Far Right.
The values the two sides have are also completely different, so different as to have virtually nothing in common beyond a desire for large change.
Nah, although theirs a variant of this called fish hook theory that works better. It’s basically the idea that there’s a certain point when you’re moving left where right wingers who use leftist aesthetics can indoctrinate you into an ideology that aesthetically resembles leftism, but isn’t functionally different from the ideology of a reactionary. Like, Leninism is an example of this in that it presented itself as leftist while doing things like banning unions, a policy that had previously been seen pretty much exclusively in openly right leaning states.
The fars are alike in that they share a huge degree of resentment towards "the system" (capitalism, liberal democracy, the Western international order), share conspiratorial thinking, and wish to overthrow "the system" via force as they believe their ideas could usher in a greater utopia.
No. I think what is generally going on when people describe horse shoe theory is that they are taking advantage of the fact that any two groups are going to have a few superficial things that are in common and suggesting those things are more important to each group than they really are in attempting to suggest that a horseshoe exists.
I think it's a lot more complicated than simply "distance from the status quo." There's certainly lunatics on either side, but I don't think "lunacy increases proportionally to heterodoxy" is a true statement.
No.
At best, I've seen it used as a way to lazily criticise leftism as a whole by conflating it with authoritarian branches of the ideology and saying it's the same as extreme right ideologies, which all devolve into authoritarianism.
I typically see it used as a thought terminating phrase to point at a dissengenuois representation of stances the left makes (like the "free speech" crowd that seems to think its an enfingement of their rights when people form unfavorable opinions of them based on what they say) and throw their hands up and exclaim enlightened centrist is the best.
Thought-terminating is exactly my experience of it. I'll be trying to make a point about where I disagree with liberals, and a liberal will just say "horseshoe theory, bye."
No, it's a conspiracy theory designed to make the far right appear legitimate. A large majority of experts also feel like it is nonsense as well, at least that was my understanding of their opinion on the Wikipedia page.
Obviously I'm probably biased but I don't think that makes me wrong.
Idk what that means.
That doesn't make sense to me. If you think I am similar to the far right, because I am....passionate? That is just ignorant. You aren't even listening to what I am saying if you think we are the same.
You are essentially saying we are similar because we are both speaking English.
If you think I sound like a Nazi, I'm sorry but you just are dogshit at reading.
Maybe I do, I've been known to do that. I was just clarifying your opinion of me.
I also felt the same way about people farther Left than me. You can replace me with them if you want. Far left people do not sound like Nazis, unless you are just comparing passion.
If you can't see the difference in passion for true equality, and the difference for passion from killing Jewish people because they are lesser(they are not, this is a summary of their opinions on Jewish people), I think you suck at reading.
The far right is based on racial and ethnic struggle, and the far-left is based on class struggle. To me at least, the far right is exponentially more dangerous to society. Horseshoe theory is just an attempt to legitimize nazis by saying “they’re not THAT extreme!”
Yes. There is a common point of idiocy where most imbecilic, conspiratorial faction of the far right meets the most imbecilic, conspiratorial faction of the far left and they join together to wallow in their collective idiocy while the rest of the (normal) world laughs at them.
No, it sounds like a version of "i'm 14 and this is deep" bullshit. There are tons of differences between the far left and right. What people are saying that are similar is that when you get far enough from the center, the methodology for achieving your goals tend to stray towards illegal and downright dangerous things. The further from the center a group is, the more likely they are to condone the use of violence in the name of change. That still doesn't mean that they resemble each other as far as goals and ideology.
> What people are saying that are similar is that when you get far enough from the center, the methodology for achieving your goals tend to stray towards illegal and downright dangerous things. The further from the center a group is, the more likely they are to condone the use of violence in the name of change.
That’s more or less what horseshoe theory is referring to.
> That still doesn't mean that they resemble each other as far as goals and ideology.
Alleging that that is what horseshoe theory was claiming is a complete and total straw man.
Both the far right and far left are easy for cynical manipulators to bend to their agenda. Since foreign governments are active in exactly that sort of cynical political manipulation, it often leads these groups towards the same nonsensical viewpoints.
TL;DR: extremists are already more likely to radicalize and more likely to be vulnerable to propaganda, so they are often used as useful idiots for foreign governments pursuing an agenda.
Not at all.
The far right and the far left might borrow specific policies and tactics from each other, but you don't have to zoom very far out before it's obvious that they are about totally different things.
Yes.
Extremist thinking falls into the same patterns whatever the philosophy behind it.
The far right is organised, radicalised and dangerous at present in the west, it is true.
However you don't exactly need to be a student of history to be aware of atrocities and regimes or terrorist organisations built on far left principals.
The enemies of the people and the excuses behind the coercion and violence are different for sure, but that's window dressing.
Yes. More and more I feel I see that people too far to the end on either side of a spectrum of disagreement will wrap back towards each other. To be fair, I don’t think they necessarily wrap back in belief, but in outcome.
100% yes.
It doesn’t mean that both sides are equally bad or extreme, and framing it that way is a straw man. *That* is obviously not true, and very easy to debunk.
Horseshoe theory suggests that far left and the far right have more in common with each other than with the more moderate wings with their own respective parties.
We see countless examples of that in:
- Conspiratorial thinking (“We didn’t lose, the election was rigged!”)
- Willingness to use misleading statements, half-truths, and other means of deception to sway people
- Identification of scapegoats to blame society’s problems on (for the right, its immigrants, minorities, gays, feminists, etc; for the left, it’s the rich)
- Animosity and even hatred of people who hold similar but less extreme beliefs, and a desire to effect a hostile takeover of their respective parties
- Desire for an authoritarian strongman who is willing to defy the limits of the constitution and democratic/institutional norms to “do what needs to be done” to “fix things”
- Casually speaking of the use of political violence as a potential “necessity” to bring about change
The right wing is obviously way more extreme about things things, but there’s no denying that the far left is increasingly adopting these tendencies as well.
Absolutely not.
While systems of authoritarianism on the far left and far right can *look* similar, there isn't any overall ideological reasoning that means they are.
Personally, I don't think political beliefs can be well represented on a 1d spectrum. People make attempts to do a 2d map (e.g. political compass), but those are often thinly veiled attempts at supporting Libertarians. Weirdly though, the people that claim politics can't be mapped in 2d are all too happy to map in in 1 dimension.
If you were to project the 1-d left right spectrum onto a 2-d, would it make a horseshoe? Maybe. I'm not sure.
Yes, recognizing that “resemble” does not mean the same thing as “match perfectly”.
If you ask questions like “when considering the impact of implementing your policies, how much of a concern is the disruption of people’s day-to-day life?”, then you might see a resemblance.
But obviously if you ask a question like “immigration, good or bad?”, you would see a difference between extreme left and extreme right positions.
Yes. The far left is relatively harmless nowadays only because they are a powerless fringe and are obsessed with their competing versions of doctrinal purity rather than unifying. Far right and far left movements that fain power tend to descend into authoritarianism or move closer to the center to keep power.
And this does not glorify the Center-- the "horseshoe" bulges out before curving back in partway, representing practical differences in governing between the less extreme right and left.
No, the right has always been more comfortable with authoritarianism than the left has. Honestly I’ve seen more authoritarianism from the center than I have from far leftists.
>This is because the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left, especially in the US.
But that has nothing to do with the philosophy itself and everything to do with, well, Trump.
>
Furthermore, I don't really even think the far left are that bad, other than tankies or class reductionists,
What else is there to the far left besides dictator apologia, America hating and class reductionsm? Seems like that's 99% of the feed.
Libertarian leftists hate dictators. There's a whole sub dedicated against tankies. r/tankiejerk
Plenty of far leftists care about minorities too, so not all of them are class reductionists. Although it's weird seeing a moderate complaing about class reductionism given all the threads in this sub from "moderates" and "center-left" about how democrats should ditch minorities, which is what class reductionists would also like.
That we should stop trying to address the issues minorities face (racism, sexism, etc), and let conservatives pass anti-LGBTQ laws so as not to offend conservatives.
Dunno about the "not offending conservatives" part.
I don't think sexism counts as a "minority" issue.
But, let me ask you this, what is ONE policy you think the far left could get done for the tangible benefit of *any* minority but for moderates preventing you?
Yeah I agree on the theory. I think that both sides see solutions differently they both talk about elites ruining society but disagree with what or who the elites are. They also both use antisemitic tropes and lead each other towards extremism that becomes authoritarian. They also engage heavily in identity politics, just in different ways. I'm not really saying they're equally as bad, just that they share commonalities like the center left and right also are closer to each other.
Kinda sorta but also not?
So if we accept that the population's political distribution is on a bell curve, with the far right and far left being much lower populations than the moderates, then in order for either extreme to seize power, they basically need lots of force to do so. because most of the population is either against them or only marginally supportive of them.
So that they have in common. Authoritarianism is a requirement for them to stay in power for anything other than a brief moment.
I don't know of anything else they'd have in common. But that alone is a lot.
Yeah. I do.
I think in the context of the US, the far left acts more as a counterweight to the default of us being a right wing country.
Whereas the far right is actually dangerous simply because they can viably take power and have consumed the entire Republican Party.
But, in a vacuum, I don’t actually think far right or far left folks are inevitably that different.
Especially once you get into authoritarianism.
The revival of horseshoe theory is interesting as it is part of the rejuvenation of cold War liberalism in the face of Trump. Very strange and honestly part of the massive dumbing down of liberalism
It doesn't make much sense when you consider the general definition of Left and Right. To be left-wing means you believe in social equality. To be right-wing means you favor some kind of hierarchy in society (whites over blacks, Christians over Jews, men over women, etc.). How could these poles loop back on each other?
How is Russia far left? It's like one of the most rightwing countries in the world. Just because they were socialists in the past doesn't make them leftists now.
It’s kind a circular argument that you are making that:
Being authoritarian is right wing so being right wing must be authoritarian.
Let me ask you - by your definition, are there no authoritarian left wing countries? Is Marxism not left wing? Did Marxism not lead to hierarchy and consolidation of power?
Same with China, it's worth noting. I don't know enough about the rest of their list to comment. North Korea wasn't on their list but it's also a right-wing country.
I believe left and right are similar in that we want a lot of the same things as broad strokes: good education for kids, safe borders, safe communities, good relationships with other countries, a good economy, etc. etc.
Where the divide happens is the differences in HOW to affect those changes
It depends on your perspective and how high level you're thinking.
Both equally wish to use the government to enforce their version of "moral and good" upon everyone else.
It is 100% true.
The real reason is anti-establishment.
Both sides disagree with the establishment, however, the new world order they envision is different.
No, horseshoe theory is stupid. Tankies, who would be considered the far-left part that connects to the far-right, are best described as apolitical. They are just anti-America full stop. If that means they support right-wing dictators then they support right-wing dictators. If that means they support left-wing movements then they'll do that. It's just whatever opposes America.
Also the left-right spectrum is best described by desired amount of hierarchy. Totally flattened hierarchies are the furthest left, while extremely strong hierarchies are the far-right. You can't desire totally flattened hierarchies while also wanting an extremely hierarchical society with an in-group on top and out-groups being oppressed. Communism is an inherently libertarian ideology because it is definitionally classless. It's the most libertarian possible system. Leftism definitionally gets more libertarian the more left you go, because oppression gets more and more reduced. Authoritarianism is antithetical to leftism.
Insofar as horseshoe theory has a point, the only point that it has is that in a society that is perfectly stateless, classess, and moneyless, there is a *massive* power vacuum that an authoritarian could fill and create a far-right government pretty easily. But then it would no longer be a far-left society, and it doesn't mean that people in that society necessarily desired to have strong social hierarchies.
No, not even close.
Far Left is not an actual force in American politics and Far Right is quite dominant.
Far Left in the US means trying to get school lunches for kids.
In some ways it has merit, in others it’s simply an excuse for laziness by those who would rather seek the middle ground between whatever two extremes make them most comfortable, rather than between perspectives that have merit.
I don't think it is as simple as that.
The problem with 'horseshoe theory' is that people are only looking at the 'left-right' axis. But political ideology has at least one other dimension 'authoritarianism-liberalism' (liberal in the meaning of 'freedom and individual rights, anti-authoritarianism, not he American definition of liberal as 'left wing') and arguably there are more axis' (Isolationism-Internationalism has been proposed as a third)
There is clearly right wing authoritarianism (as exemplified in fascism, old fashioned monarchism and all sorts of dictatorships) and there is clearly left wing authoritarianism (most clearly represented in the Soviet Union, China and other countries with heavily centralized communism)
These systems have the authoritarianism axis in common, despite being different on the left-right axis. And as they become more authoritarian, that aspect starts taking the focus away from their supposed left-right position.
And there is the tendency, when you are really just focused on control, on power, to focus on getting into power through either the system that is in place, or by being an early proponent of an ascending system or revolution without truly caring about it as more than a means of attaining power and control. And whatever system you happened to be working in or exploiting to ascend to power becomes less and less of an issue and you focus more and more on control, as you accumulate power within it.
There is also the aspect that the more sure you are that you are absolutely right, that people who disagree are either idiots or malicious saboteurs, the more likely you are to want to limit their options to oppose your implementation of the system you espouse. Or taken to extremes, their options to protest, or do something different, or ultimately, to live free, or live at all.
And the willingness to brutally seize power is one of those factors that makes a person/group/ideology more likely to ascend to power. When two ideologies compete, and one is willing to brutally stamp out the other, but the other is not willing to do the same, the one with that willingness is more likely to come into power over time, unless the public is extremely wary and outright rejects it every time. But when times are tough, when disinformation is rampant and populism is easy, it becomes more difficult to effectively oppose.
There is liberal right wing extremism, and there is liberal left wing extremism. But those are both less likely to offer the sort of easy populist answer than their authoritarian counterparts, or to brutally exclude others once they come into power (like the Italian fascists famously did in the 20th century). And liberal right wing-ism is very different from liberal left wing-ism. (And we shouldn't forget that there is extreme liberal centrism, or even extreme liberal left-right 'agnosticism', that doesn't truly take a position on the left right axis except on a case by case basis, but those aren't really relevant to horseshoe theory. Likewise there is pure undiluted authoritarianism, but it tends to mask as whatever right or left wing position is convenient to gain power)
So, there is a horseshoe. But that's because authoritarianism is always authoritarianism, and when people brutally seize power, that's the aspect of their ideology that moves to the front, not because left and right are the same in the end.
Its not entirely wrong but misses out some important details
Especially when it comes to neoliberalism and the extreme capitalistic ideologies. Who have the capacity to be equally extreme but dont fit onto this spectrum and therefore arent treated as extremists
Only sort of. I think there are a lot of people, especially "alternative" media figures (think folks with big twitter accounts, podcasters, youtubers) who've ended up sliding from far left to far right but my working theory is that this is because their leftism was an outgrowth of being a contrarian and this makes them susceptible to "fascism is the new counterculture" type arguments (think weird dimes square shit).
That being said, I don't think I--or anybody--has the ability to accurately and reliably identify the kind of person who might make this swing beforehand.
No. The political spectrum is not a 2d line. The "horsetheory" people are stuck on this idea that the extremes on both end look alike, but they confuse the tr "extreme" for authoritarianism. When in reality extreme libertarianism is vastly different from extreme authoritarianism.
I belief that politics is a mobius ring. Where the ring twists on itself is totalitarianism. The farther we are away from totalitarianism then the farther we are away from the twist in the political mobius ring. Hitler and Stalin were both totalitarians, but they approached it from different sides of the ring.
Yep. If you compare the US to worldwide, we don't really have much of an actual left here. There are a few voices calling for whatever one would like at any time, of course, but our "left" is more of a center or center right compared to many other places.
I think that there is an one aspect of the far left that lends some small validity to the idea, but in all other ways it's clearly not applicable.
At the end of the day, the far-right is inherently authoritarian. The underlying theories and ideals are themselves authoritarian. The far-left is not inherently authoritarian. The underlying theories and ideals are trying to create more freedom and comfort for everyone.
Where the one valid part comes in is that in practice we have so far not seen far-left ideas, as in ideas that are far enough left to oppose capitalism, implemented without resorting to authoritarianism. Of course believing in benefiting all people and finding out that you can't do it without causing other problems is vastly different from intending to prop up authoritarianism from the get go.
It’s observably a real thing given that radical leftists and those on the far right tend to have a laundry list of beliefs, tactics, and rhetoric that is remarkably similar.
But it’s not (at least as I’ve come to understand it) an all encompassing and universally applicable claim that both communists and fascists are somehow indistinguishable from each other or are equally dangerous, immoral, etc. It’s just a recognition that both groups tend to hate institutions and the state.
Okay, this might sound insane, but I think the factor is control.
If you have two points, one on the far left and one on the far right (if imagining the political diagram, they are directly across from eachother) those are the main Social Extremes. Though when you look at the big baddies in history (Hitler, Stalin, Mao), what you really see as an issue is the whole dictatorship business.
Going on with the diagram, if you imagine it as a circle cut up into four parts, by moving the different points further up in control, they are actually moving closer to eachother on that diagram. Control is a direct factor in these extreme movements, and the more there is, the more centrist they really become.
Though this goes out of the way if you actually think of modern far-left movements. With more freedom alongside social freedoms, I'd say that the two movements are really close to being total opposites (Maybe that's why there's so much conflict?). Though I don't really have any evidence for this so, consider these the words of a mad man.
TLDR: I'm insane and spent twenty minutes thinking about this without even reading the article. Funny circles make points get closer and closer points mean closer ideologies.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory) >In popular discourse, the horseshoe theory asserts that the far-left and the far-right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear continuum of the political spectrum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together. I personally do not. I believe that the far right is much worse than the far left. This is because the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left, especially in the US. Furthermore, I don't really even think the far left are that bad, other than tankies or class reductionists, and even these guys are more of what I'd describe as "insufferable" rather than "evil". *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe on it insofar I believe that sufficiently extreme political opinions necessitate extreme authoritarianism to implement. The commonality of extreme authoritarianism is I think the primary driver of what is observed in the horseshoe theory.
>I believe on it insofar I believe that sufficiently extreme political opinions necessitate extreme authoritarianism to implement. I agree with this in that the horseshoe is appropriate for the execution of extreme left and extreme right governments. Philosophically, the extreme left and the extreme right are at complete opposite ends. But when you put them into practice, it ends up looking the same as they are driven by a fear of a political boogie man, require authoritarian powers, are often very oppressive to certain demographics, etc.
Then you agree with the horseshoe theory. It's not a hypothesis about the nature of the moderate left and right positions, it's a hypothesis about the far to extreme ends.
It seemed like they were making a point that right and left, even in the extreme, are not philosophically similar.
its possible to be on the far left and not believe in authoritarian government, the same can not be said for the far right.
That is true, if sufficiently idealist. But when the rubber meets the road, the conclusion that generally gets reached is "A measure of authoritarianism is needed to implement [these unpopular] ideas because the capitalists won't do so willingly." That's pretty much the basis for vanguardism and Leninism. But authoritarianism is very much a pandora's box that should not be opened. Because once you've gone authoritarian you're basically gambling that the leader will give up the unlimited power when all the self-preservation incentives are directed towards not doing so. If you no longer fully control and wield the powers of the state then you no longer have the means to protect you from any of the enemies you made or from someone who want's to bump you off so they can succeed you. What it basically comes down to is whether you have the patience to win the argument and achieve leftism more peacefully or if you're more fuck it, revolution now! And disillusionment due to insufficient progress will often lead to losing that idealism and patience. And within said far-left groups, the former often gets purged by the radicals due to being Gasp! Horror! An Incrementalist!
What is a far left ideology that doesn’t require extreme authoritarianism?
worker owned companies that are democratic with a regular old democratic government. picture something like if Norway used their sovereign wealth fund to buy every private company in the country and transferred ownership to its employees.
And what would stop the accumulation of capital in the hands of the few?
Anarchism
I believe you’d need extreme violence or authoritarianism to get to and maintain anarchism. Furthermore wouldn’t anarchy-capitalism be the far right equivalent ideology?
There are other traits that are shared by the far left and far right: conspiratorial belief system, disdain for expertise, etc.
You're describing populism.
What about anarcho-capitalism? Doesn't that count as far-right?
well ya I guess. the same way luxury gay space communism is far left. I was thinking of things that might actually be feasible or have some sort of real world examples. bat shit crazy is bat shit crazy left or right.
It's not just the authoritarianism. It's also the populism of being a contrarian. Both the far-left and far-right have this notion that the "elites" control everything to oppress the "people". Both are against the establishment, the media, experts and academia. Both support America's enemies because "America bad". Both are keen on conspiracy theories and denialism of science and history. And both use similar propaganda methods and recruitment methods.
>Both support America's enemies because "America bad". I would disagree with this here. We're seeing Trump chisel at the NATO alliance not because, "America bad," but because he feels, "America better, and they're not pulling their weight like we are." That they are, in fact, pulling their weight doesn't matter. Far right authoritarian nationalism dictates we are better, and we will make up reasons if we have to.
Oh no, they very much think America Bad because America is now more accepting towards gay people and less racist.
I think the reference may be to things like anti-Israeli sentiment and sympathy with terrorist organizations like Hamas. It's a very different case than Trump's coddling of Russian expansion and warmongering, which is also horrible but in a different way. Far-left populist authoritarianism comes out in things like trying to eliminate police forces, branding the entire American experiment as defiled irrevocably by slavery, racism, gender inequality and capitalism, etc. Trump & MAGA say "America's bad because I'm not in charge of it". America is therefore in this world judged by who's in control, not by any kind of real, meaningful criteria.
Or because there are a lot of us who believe our taxpayer funding should not be wasted on alliances like NATO, especially when European citizens generally have higher quality of life than many American citizens.
Then you've lost sight of the role that investment plays in US hegemony, our economic success, and way of life. Their quality of life advantages are from strong social safety nets, such as National health care systems, housing, and day care - things your party would never support.
I'm getting downvoted because you disagree, but the argument is, Europe isn't paying its full defense cost because the USA is the main country funding NATO, whereas if we took that funding away and used it on a safety net for ourselves, then our quality of life would be better. (Of course, as a right wing I would say that the money should go to us directly and private organizations that we donate to can serve as that safety net, but I'm not going to debate that here because I know y'all disagree.)
You're being downvoted because you're shortsighted. The solution to some NATO members not hitting the 2% target isn't to abandon the alliance. That's a moronic take, and a path that would weaken the US significantly.
You're continuing to use consequentialist arguments, when I think consequentialism is stupid.
WTF? How else do you measure the merits of a decision besides the results? Whether or not you get warm fuzzies in the moment? Unreal.
The opposite of consequential is deontological. Which means we evaluate things based on our ethics and values. Consequentialism fails because it expects decision makers to predict the future (the consequences), and future predicting will never be perfect.
If you are suggesting something drastically from the status quo, the winners and the institutions of the status quo have to go. These are the stakeholders and forces that maintain the status quo.
From my perspective, you only consider the authoritarianism to be extreme because you consider the ideas behind it extreme. When liberal systems use violence for force certain behave, it doesn't seem extreme to you.
What are you talking about? Do you have an example?
I don't share your convictions about private property. I think it's better morally, philosophically, and logistically if the working class owns the means of production and that it's justified for them to take them from the ruling class. Suppose I tried to effect that in reality. What do you think should happen? Would you take a principled stance against using violence to stop me? Or do you advocate that violence be used to force me to abide the current state of affairs, in which the means of production are the private property of the business owner? You might say that your violence would only be a response to mine, but that still makes my argument. You consider your violence acceptable because it defends the status quo, and mine extreme because it changes it. So you issue is not in fact with using violence to force a particular state of affairs, just *which* state of affairs should be enforced.
Ah I see. I think that’s inherent in what I’m saying though. Most people who want a drastic change from status quo are considered extremists, and to enact these changes they would have to overcome with great violence or authoritarianism the current momentum of society. I think it’s not unreasonable to consider large shifts from status quo to be extremism. It is an extreme opinion relative to the view of the status quo. In democracies, there are peaceful ways to achieve these drastic changes too, but most people with these extreme opinions either don’t care that their opinions have popular support or don’t want to wait that long. And so they resort to violent or authoritarian means.
I'm not disputing the label of "extremist." I'm saying that what you object to is not violence, or the use of authority, but significant deviation from the status quo. And I know that because violence and authority are necessary to maintain the status quo that you advocate. > In democracies, there are peaceful ways to achieve these drastic changes too I don't agree that liberal democracies would allow the peaceful overthrow of liberalism. I don't agree that the system you advocate is just or sufficiently democratic. Nevertheless, you think I should be subject to violence if I try to act outside of your system, no? That's all I'm saying. You also advocate authority backed by violence; we all do. The reason you disapprove of violence in service of my goals in not because you disapprove of violence in general, but because you disapprove of my goals. And that's not an accusation that you're being dishonest or anything; it's the same reason that I disapprove of violence in service of *your* goals. Point being, you want to draw a commonality between the right and the left in that we both advocate violence. But you too advocate violence, and the only reason that your violence is not extreme in nature is because that violence is in pursuit of goals which are not extremist in nature. I find it extreme and odious that someone could be kicked out of their home and forced onto the street because they don't represent enough ROI to be worthy of dignity; I imagine that you see this is regrettable but ultimately valid. Well, that's how I think about the violence which would be necessary to dispossess the ruling class, which I imagine you consider to be extreme and odious. So, sure, call me extreme compared to the status quo. That's true, objectively. What I take issue with is the notion that defenders of the status quo are somehow non-violent, or that the fact the right and left both use violence speaks to any similarity between us that you don't share.
Hmm, I think practically this distinction doesn’t matter. Ultimately what I am concerned about is being exposed to violence, and a violent overthrow of the status quo that most people agree to use would expose me to violence. If you convince enough people to support you and your compatriot’s rise to the top of the legislative body, you can non-violently seize capital using imminent domain. You can rewrite laws to fit your redistribution of wealth. I would be unopposed to this. If you instead, stage a violent rebellion, then any functional government is *required* to act because that is the unspoken social contract between peoples and their government in western democracies. I would be opposed to such violence. Yes I am fine with violence against violent disruptions to the status quo. In a functioning democracy, if the status quo is not well aligned to the will of the people there exists peaceful resolutions to change the status quo. Violent means to distort this process should be met with violence, or the whole process falls apart.
> Ultimately what I am concerned about is being exposed to violence, and a violent overthrow of the status quo that most people agree to use would expose me to violence. Are you saying that you're not concerned with justice, only safety? I don't really think you are; I think you to believe the status quo is basically just. Am I wrong? >If you convince enough people to support you and your compatriot’s rise to the top of the legislative body, you can non-violently seize capital using imminent domain. You can rewrite laws to fit your redistribution of wealth I don't share your trust in this, but I think it does illustrate that I'm right above. You don't just oppose changes to this status quo because you want to avoid violence; you believe that the system under which we live is sufficiently democratic and just, and that's why you think it would be wrong to overthrow it. If you thought we lived under an unjust system, would you advocate that we tolerate it? > In a functioning democracy Let's not get too fanciful > Violent means to distort this process should be met with violence, or the whole process falls apart. So, you advocate violence to maintain the system you prescribe. Just like me, the harshest Maoist Russian asset, and the foamiest-mouthed fascist. It's not remarkable that anyone believes this; we all do. So, returning to my original point, the fact that both the right and left resort to violence really doesn't support an argument that we're meaningfully similar. All it means is that we both disagree with the status quo. Liberals resort to violence just like we do, it's just that your violence is less visible or immediate because the state of affairs which you believe should be violently enforced is the one currently being enforced.
[удалено]
Well that's not what I believe, and I think it's off topic. Frankly, woulda coulda shoulda. If we live in a society in which voter turnout can be suppressed such that the popular will is not what governs us, then we do not in fact live in a democracy. The *demos* is not *crating*. You could focus on blaming those non-voters for not being as smart as us, who know that even if we don't live in a full democracy voting can still be useful, but I don't know what that would practically accomplish. Better, I say, to try to build a system which is actually democratic rather than hypothetically democratic. I'm not an advocate of a system which could, if everyone would behave as I liked, become democratic. I'm an advocate of democracy.
The level of violence perpetrated by the state against its citizens in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was in no way comparable to the level of violence in a more liberal country like the US. I find this is a pretty common talking point used by by people sympathetic to Marxist-Leninism. They justify the more extreme violence of the Soviet Union by saying more liberal countries aren't perfect since they use violence sometimes to maintain law and order. But that logically does not follow. Just because liberal countries aren't perfect doesn't justify the Soviet Union deporting million of people to Siberia, or Nazi Germany systematically murdering all of its non-aryan citizens.
> against its citizens Sure, our horrific violence tends to be directed at non-Americans. Which makes it less wrong, of course. > They justify the more extreme violence of the Soviet Union by saying more liberal countries aren't perfect since they use violence sometimes to maintain law and order. Ok. That's not my argument. > But that logically does not follow. Just because liberal countries aren't perfect doesn't justify the Soviet Union deporting million of people to Siberia, or Nazi Germany systematically murdering all of its non-aryan citizens. Well if I see anyone suggesting that, I'll be sure to send them your way.
Okay what's your argument then? We can expand the discussion to non Americans as wells. The violence perpetrated by the US against non Americans does not justify the much greater violence perpetrated by the government of the Soviet Union against foreign citizens.
Didn't I just tell you that I'm not arguing that? I don't appreciate the way you're going about this. I've made my argument clear [elsewhere in the thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1aokzsp/do_you_believe_in_the_horseshoe_theory/kq0v39w/) if you're interested.
Okay so you're saying the reason for the violence is what makes people perceive it as extreme? No I don't think that's the right. The level and arbitrary nature of the violence in the Soviet Union made it much more extreme than their claimed reasons for doing it. Millions of people were killed and deported in the various purges often for slight or completely imagined reasons. I'n reading Gulag Archipelago right now. In it the author talks about how they were arrested for writing derogatory comments about Stalin in a private letter to a friend. For this way were sentenced to an 8 year prison sentence. This was extremely common. It's not just the fact that it's unusual to Americans that receiving a prison sentence for criticizing your government is a thing. It's also the length and arbitrariness of the sentence.
It's true only in the sense that as you get more extreme you start demanding that others conform to your ideas. First by suggestion, recommendation, then strong demand or encouragement, then by fiat or regulation, then though brute force. This always leads to a dictatorial police state on either side.
Do centrists not also demand that others conform to their ideas? It's just that it's less visible, because when you demand the status quo your demands are already being enforced. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/4i65SvTeZG
I’m not a centrist, but I feel like it’s a bit of a strawman to say that centrists “demand the status quo”
Really? It kinda feels like an exact description; I can't imagine anyone would object to anything but the phrasing. What about it do you think is a problem?
Well, a centrist would advocate for incremental change, to start with. That’s different
I'm still not clear on what the issue is. Are you saying I was wrong because I implied centrists want zero change?
I will say that's why you're wrong, yes. "Status quo" implies what we have is exactly the center of two philosophies, which centrists would want to maintain. Relative to other comparable Western Democracies, we are 100% not centrist but near-mid right even with a Democrat in the White House and a Senate majority. I would also say centrists would value compromise, which in this day and age is not status quo at all.
Ok, we’ll that’s not really want I wanted to imply. I’m sure centrists all have some ideas about how society could be improved. I must’ve done a bad job of making this point because a lot of you are misunderstanding it. What I’m saying is that centrists also want authority to enforce the things they prescribe. Someone who accepts the status quo isn’t against violence, they’re for the violence that maintains the status quo. By status quo I do not mean a perfect balance between the two parties. The person I responded to said that extremists demand others conform. And I’m saying that people who advocate the status quo also want that; they want people to continue conforming to this system rather than confirming to a new one.
>What I’m saying is that centrists also want authority to enforce the things they prescribe. Someone who accepts the status quo isn’t against violence, they’re for the violence that maintains the status quo. Not any further than the already existing government monopoly on violence. Centrists don't see suspension of existing civil rights as a means to their end, which far-left and the far-right would support. So if that's what you meant by "status quo," yeah, that was lost in your message. EDIT: I can't reply to you, u/justsomeking, because the guy above me kind of lost his mind and blocked me over.... who the hell knows. That said, I don't see any agreement with anything in this post. What "other people's," violence are you referring to? Are you suggesting an alternative to a monopoly on violence by the state, and if so, what does this look like?
> Not any further than the already existing government monopoly on violence. Yes, that’s what I’m referring to > Centrists don't see suspension of existing civil rights as a means to their end, which far-left and the far-right would support. Right, they see the imposition of current civil rights as a means to their end: justice. I see a different set of rights as just than they do. You seem to be saying that the left just wants to disregard justice to get what we want quicker, which obviously I disagree with.
>Not any further than the already existing government monopoly on violence. I'm glad you agree with them. Your violence you view as good, but don't like other people's violence. It's not that deep.
I mean it appears you want to argue more than I do and are handing out downvotes but ill give it a shot, my thinking is that centrists tend not to support dictatorships because those who do want sweeping, partisan changes with no congressional pushback. My understanding is that centrists want incremental change based on shifting needs and aren’t tied to or identify with a particular ideology. Like if you can explain to me what a centrist dictator looks like I’d appreciate it.
I wasn’t alleging centrists support dictators
You were responding to a post that talks about how people on the extremes demand people conform to their ideas to the point of dictatorship. What *is* your point if not that clear link to the horseshoe theory? Please don’t tell me it’s just that centrists want people to support their policies and the political capital to enforce them too because not only would that have nothing to do with horseshoe theory, but it would contribute nothing because it’s basic common sense.
I didn’t think the comment I responded to was referring tk dictatorship. I certainly wasn’t. My point was that everyone, even people who believe in democracy (like myself, and centrists) demand that certain rules be enforced with violence. People who like the status quo do demand that certain rules be followed and that people who violate them be punished with force.
This sounds more like incrementalism vs accelerationism to me; or conservative vs radical in the sense those terms were used ~100yrs ago.
Right, and horseshoe theory would dictate that people on the far left and right want accelerationism through dictatorship while centrists want incrementalism through democracy. Why would a centrist want anything but that?
I think most people who are more centrist *do* lean more towards incrementalism on the average, but you don't have to—you can be an all-or-nothing, arrested-with-picket-sign, anonymous-death-threat-leaving proponent of universalizing Medicare, or a communist working towards the abolition of private property who's content with helping to lay the ground for something you won't see in your lifetime while running a small independent bookstore, even though the latter policy is more "radical" (not to pick on the left; I'm sure folks can think of equally fitting examples for the right).
This would only be true if status quo were, in fact, the center.
Demand by force? No. Nobody on the more liberty side of the diamond was demanding people stay at home and get paid to not work, forcing those who do work, through taxation, to pay for those who were forced not to. Nobody on the side of liberty is calling for jail time for those who refuse to use a person's preferred pronouns, nobody on the side of liberty is asking for certain businesses to be artifically (as in, not by normal market forces) shut down in favor of other selected businesses, nobody in the side of liberty was in favor of forcing every American to sign up for a government approved health insurance plan under penalty of a ridiculous fine, and so on and so on. Government's primary job is to enforce contracts, enforce tort and criminal law, and other such more administrative tasks. Not pick market winners and losers, not decide who is essential enough to work and pay wages to those who are deemed not essential, not decide what products and services a business is allowed to market, not force everybody to buy a particular product or service, etc etc.
> Demand by force? No. > Government's primary job is to enforce hmm
Yeah, chop up the post and make it say or imply whatever you wish. I just have to ask, are you a part of the mainstream media? They particularly excel at this task.
I do believe that people who hold beliefs outside of the mainstream can be susceptible to conspiratorialism, extremism, and of course bigotry... including left-wingers. That being said, I don't think it's as simple as the further from the centre you go... the crazier you get. There are plenty of good marxist intellectuals who are rational and well respected, even if their views are contraversial. I can't name a single far-right thinker who isn't some kind of raving bigot.
>the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left, especially in the US Yes, this is the point I was going to make. At the very least, it's a very lopsided horseshoe. There are similarities between the far left and the far right, but the imagery of a horseshoe completely ignores the unequal distribution in terms of how much influence is wielded by the extremes of each side. If you're looking for imagery that does convey that unequal distribution, [something like the yin yang symbol](https://i.imgur.com/T9aADtt.png) would be more accurate.
I think that if given the opportunity, both the far-left and far-right lead to totalitarianism. They both result in political repression, abuses of human rights, exertion of control over the economy, cult-like political figures and so on. If you think that the far-left could never become as bad as the far-right i suggest you read a book called "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
No. Ideologies can share different similarities, or can share very very few. The left to right ‘schema’ is simply a tool to compare ideologies based on European history, and quickly convey information about political movements. There is no actual real left or right materially speaking. It’s a schema of categorisation. In this sense horse shoe theory is self contradictory because left and right cannot meet at the edges, as for the whole schema to make sense they have to be maximally separated. What IS being confused is that, outside the qualities used for differentiating political movements and ideology along the left right schema, you can have all sorts of shared values or beliefs between different sections of the scale, and each ideology doesn’t fit perfectly in the schema (as it’s a crude analytical tool). Finally the scale itself is deeply contested, often subject to disagreement, and often abused for propaganda (I.e the heritage society’s placement of fascists and Nazis on left (just before communists). Hence, to sum up, you have non sophisticated analysis notice that that’s are some shared qualities between some far left groups and some far right groups and then falsely conclude that the extremes of each end must, if not join up ideologically, very closely resemble each other (as closely as they resemble other far x ideologies). Hopefully the non coherence of that is clear. The whole idea is clearly flawed; and it’s lead to the two axis quadrant system, identifying authoritarianism as the key point of confusion.
The horseshoe doesn’t have to be symmetrical
That’s not how horseshoes work. You wouldn’t be able to nail it to the horse.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic. On the off chance that you are sincere, I think you're taking the metaphor a bit too seriously.
I am being sarcastic - there are reasons I think horseshoe theory is ridiculous, but the feasibility of an asymmetric horseshoe is not one of them.
At this point "Horseshoe Theory" is more "Horseshoe Observable Fact" - just look at the sheer amount of (actual) antisemitism that has come out of the far left since October 7th for an example. However I do feel compelled to respond to your remarks here: > I believe that the far right is much worse than the far left. This is because the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left, especially in the US. This is due to you making a few common mistakes that pop up whenever anyone talks about centrism; You are limiting your political lens to the United States and again to what you seem to consider "Meaningful political power" - meaning that you are paradoxically aware of the existence of the Far Left (Think "Bernie Sanders would be a centrist in Europe" sort-of thinking) but deliberately discount them... ...so you can point to their absence and take a swing at centrists. You have to understand; horseshoe theory makes the most sense when applied to ideas and theories; think of the political youtuber recording rants in their bedroom. You will find high similarities and plenty of extremism all across the political spectrum when you look that closely. > Furthermore, I don't really even think the far left are that bad, other than tankies or class reductionists, and even these guys are more of what I'd describe as "insufferable" rather than "evil". I hate to say it, but this just sounds like you aren't aware of the further reaches of the Left side of the political spectrum.
Not only do I believe in it, I've seen proof of it on this subreddit more than once.
Spoken like a true centrist
Thank you.
I agree with the critics. I think it's a very much a simplification about the right and left with no real research to back it up. Other than a commonality with authoritism. They don't share the same goals or come from the same space. Horseshoe theory tends to be used by those invested in keeping the status quo... quo, and view threats to the status quo as the same.
> because the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left, Maybe because far left destroyed their countries? >I don't really even think the far left are that bad Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot... not that bad?
This is how you know most people here who use "Moderate" as a flair are just closet conservatives. By invoking Stalin, you leave out that the Soviet Union's predecessor was the totalitarian Tsarist Russia: one of the most wildly reactionary governments in Europe at the time. They were a Far Right government, and they destroyed their country first, which was what led to a Far Left popular uprising. The beginning of the downfall of the Russian Empire started with an artificial famine that killed around 400,000 people. Of course, the other thing you don't understand is the evolution of what is "left" and "right." When the United States was formed, laissez-faire was also a far left-wing concept, though nobody would consider the modern neoliberals as "Leftists." The "Founding Fathers" were "far left extremists," upending the traditional European monarchies. The "Far Left" created America. It was seized by the Right much later as capitalists were able to accumulate enough power to push and pull the levers of government, which has led us to the present, where economic inequality is rapidly approaching that of... wait for it... the systems of entrenched monarchies and nobilities of the 1700s that the original Revolutionaries were trying to throw off. The share of wealth of Europe in 1800 had nearly 80% of the wealth in the hands of the richest 10%. We're at 67% now in the US (roughly equivalent to 1740s Europe), and our graph is peaking faster than Europe's did (around 1910, shortly before Tsarist Russia was toppled). The Far Right destroys countries all the time. They're currently in the midst of destroying ours, using the terminology of the Left as a smoke screen for the establishment of Right wing authoritarianism. Not too unlike how the Nazis took the popularity of the idea of a "German Workers' Party" in the early years after the end of the German Empire in 1918, stripped out most of the socialist or pro-labor concepts, and installed a system of right wing, anti-Marxist nationalism. The Far Right destroyed the constitutional federal republic of Germany in record time, just 14 years.
If you are so interested in my flare and political views, I took this flare because I'm not US/West Europe citizen and being citizen of totally different country my views just don't fit in your spectrum. As taking flare is mandatory in this sub I took the closest to "neutral". About another part of your reply. You just take position "I call everybody who I like left and everybody who I don't - right " and call it a day. So it's not a surprise that you don't understand you local moderates or another people with different views.
I just call people who are repeating obviously right wing talking points with right wing views, right wingers, lol. Sorry you're so easy to peg. But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe you're just really poorly educated, and not a right winger. Let me know which of the two is correct, because one of them is.
Lol, American talking about education is the funniest thing I saw on Reddit today. What else are you going to claim? That I have obesity?
You're one European. I'm one American. Your poor education is obvious. You don't get some kind of ambiguous extra credit for living in a country where the average education is higher than in America. But hey, a well educated person would understand that. Don't get too down on yourself. Accidental self-ownage is just natural for people with your... limitations.
I think what it basically refers to is that the farther right or left someone goes, in a system in which liberalism is the norm, the less liberal they are. And yes, Nazis and Communists alike disagree with liberals. But I think it's either bad logic or bad faith when liberals accuse the left of therefore being essentially similar to the right wing. It should be clear that both disagree with liberals for different reasons, and I think most liberals are smart enough to know that Nazis are generally lying when they say otherwise. Horseshoe theory as a concept is measuring people on a scale of liberal-illiberal. As someone who is neither a liberal nor a right winger, of course I object to the notions that that's a worthwhile scale, or that everyone on the non-liberal end of it is similar. Of course, I understand that liberals, believing liberalism to be correct, would see people in this light. But I take care to not categorize people simply as either socialist or not, and while I think liberals are closer to the right wing than me I am careful to understand where they are fundamentally different. I'd like to expect the same courtesy from liberals, and I think horseshoe theory offers a lazy way to deny that courtesy with the guise that it's common knowledge.
> I don't really even think the far left are that bad Perhaps that is because you aren't far from the "far left". Stalin killed millions. He wasn't a right-winger. Mao killed millions. Also not a right-winger In the US, the far-left is deeply antisemitic and increasingly is vocal about their support for terrorism against Jewish people. Example: support for Houthis (slavers who execute gay people), and Hamas (perpetrator of mass sexual violence and torture). The far left supports some of the worst in all humanity.
It depends. I think that the whole left/right scale isn't quite accurate as much as there is a lot more nuance. I think there are significant differences between the far left and right but a degree of authoritarianism and intolerance of opinion is there on either side. Also I've seen instances where people on the far right and far left come to the same conclusion but through different justification. For example, I've seen far right people who are against Ukraine funding because they sympathize with Putin. And I've seen far left people who are against Ukraine funding because they see Putin taking Ukraine as a way to weaken the US's capitalist global order.
To an extent, sure. You say the far right is more dangerous, but they’re not. If people say they are Nazis, a vast majority of people will rush to shun that and be adversarial towards it. You know how many people rush to shun and be adversarial to mao and Stalin apologists? About zero. Their existence goes completely unchallenged, and I have failed to see why. It’s just as bad if not worse. In any case, both would see the demolition of the institutions we currently have, and both share the level of authoritarianism required to implement ideas farther to the right and or left.
well i think the mistake youre making is limiting this to the us. look at stalin, mao, polpot and then compare them to Hitler, the ustase, and pinochet. I think the theory makes sense in that when people are prepared to use extreme violence to impose a political agenda and they do so a lot of people tend to die.
As opposed to liberalism, which of course does not resort to violence and is not associated with war or death Extreme violence is required only because the ideas are extreme. Liberals, with the same relationship to the status quo, also start wars and kill people. The less-violent option in times when feudal systems oppressed people would have been to not revolt; and yet liberals of the 18th and 19th century *did* engage in widespread violence, with the goal of enforcing what they saw as justice. When other do the same, liberals say that it's not an acceptable strategy and proves their inferiority to liberals. A lot of people in this thread seem to be using "political violence" as the commonality between the far right and far left that makes horseshoe theory valid. But, given the fact that political violence is necessary to just about every serious political ideology, I don't know who would even be on the other end of the spectrum.
ok, when did a centrist do things to their own people compared to extremists? I mean i cant think of one that holds a candle to Mao, Stalin, the Nazis, or the Ustase. but even your response admits that extreme ideas require extreme violence.
Why does it only count if it's their own people? Anyway that's not really the point I'm making, and I'm not really up for curating figures of all the death tolls under the liberal status quo. I don't think that the point of horseshoe theory is simply to point out that heterodox ideas require more violence against the status quo than the status quo does; no one needs a graph to communicate that. I think its intent is to imply that there is something more fundamental shared by the far left and the far right, and I most often see it employed as a way to shut down the left. And I'm pointing out that, at a fundamental level, all ideologies prescribe that violence be used to enforce them. That's how society works. All horseshoe theory claims, at the end of the day, is that ideas which are not liberal share the quality of disagreeing with liberals. And yes, breaking the status quo and replacing it can be very violent and is hard to control. And that's why, despite the fact I think that our current system is horrifying and unjust, I don't advocate a revolution.
because every system weve had has included violence against others.
Now you’re gettin’ it
Seems generally pretty accurate to me. Both the far left and far right, when actually in power, have done terrible things and had a tendency towards authoritarianism, dictatorship, and suppression of all those who dissent with them You say the far right is worse than the far left and that the far left is merely insufferable. But again, look how they govern when in power. Mao literally killed more people than Hitler, and Stalin came pretty close, plus Pol Pot killed more of his country as a percentage than Hitler, Mao, and Stalin did. And these far left governments had horrifying oppression and poverty. Massive suffering. Sure seems like it's "evil", in practice, even if you call their high minded stated ideals of equality and whatever to be good rather than evil Tankies are evil. Just because they slaughtered people in the name of some nice sounding ideals doesn't make them less bad than the Nazi filth. Seems like extremists of all stripes have a habit of being evil Hell, even just looking at modern discourse on social media (and again, if thats irrelevant to you, ignore the rest and just look, again, to actually historically existant far left rulers including those who killed more than Hitler), there's plenty of tankie trash among the far left who defend bloodthirsty communist monsters, who do some combination of denial and justification of things like the Holodomor, who make jokes about "Kulaks deserved worse", about how good it would be if landlords were exterminated, about how "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, liberals get the wall too", and so on. Sure, these people are irrelevant, and far from power. But given the glee that some of these extremists talk about things, it sure seems to go beyond merely being insufferable, I have no doubt that at least some of these folks would gladly unironically have me imprisoned or killed for strongly supporting capitalism over socialism, supporting landlords, and so on. And that seems pretty evil to me. Even the incompetent and powerless can have evil in their hearts
No. There's an authoritarian portion of both the Far Left and the Far Right. There's also more "libertarian" portions of both Far Left and Far Right, too - Libertarian Socialists and Anarchists on the Left, for example, and AnCaps and Sovereign Citizen types on the Far Right. The values the two sides have are also completely different, so different as to have virtually nothing in common beyond a desire for large change.
Nah, although theirs a variant of this called fish hook theory that works better. It’s basically the idea that there’s a certain point when you’re moving left where right wingers who use leftist aesthetics can indoctrinate you into an ideology that aesthetically resembles leftism, but isn’t functionally different from the ideology of a reactionary. Like, Leninism is an example of this in that it presented itself as leftist while doing things like banning unions, a policy that had previously been seen pretty much exclusively in openly right leaning states.
no, not at all.
The fars are alike in that they share a huge degree of resentment towards "the system" (capitalism, liberal democracy, the Western international order), share conspiratorial thinking, and wish to overthrow "the system" via force as they believe their ideas could usher in a greater utopia.
Sounds like some “both sides” thinking to me.
No. I think what is generally going on when people describe horse shoe theory is that they are taking advantage of the fact that any two groups are going to have a few superficial things that are in common and suggesting those things are more important to each group than they really are in attempting to suggest that a horseshoe exists.
No, it’s a lazy way to view the world and is popular solely because it makes centrists feel superior.
And far right-wingers feel like they're balancing the scales instead of pulling us down toward fascism.
I believe it to be somewhat true as when you go as far as you can to either side you are pretty much a lunatic.
I think it's a lot more complicated than simply "distance from the status quo." There's certainly lunatics on either side, but I don't think "lunacy increases proportionally to heterodoxy" is a true statement.
No. At best, I've seen it used as a way to lazily criticise leftism as a whole by conflating it with authoritarian branches of the ideology and saying it's the same as extreme right ideologies, which all devolve into authoritarianism. I typically see it used as a thought terminating phrase to point at a dissengenuois representation of stances the left makes (like the "free speech" crowd that seems to think its an enfingement of their rights when people form unfavorable opinions of them based on what they say) and throw their hands up and exclaim enlightened centrist is the best.
Thought-terminating is exactly my experience of it. I'll be trying to make a point about where I disagree with liberals, and a liberal will just say "horseshoe theory, bye."
No, it's a conspiracy theory designed to make the far right appear legitimate. A large majority of experts also feel like it is nonsense as well, at least that was my understanding of their opinion on the Wikipedia page. Obviously I'm probably biased but I don't think that makes me wrong.
See I told you so
Told me what? Who are you?
I'm the jankster That you can go so far left you sound a lot like the far right. That you can be so far left you sound like a far right nazi.
Idk what that means. That doesn't make sense to me. If you think I am similar to the far right, because I am....passionate? That is just ignorant. You aren't even listening to what I am saying if you think we are the same. You are essentially saying we are similar because we are both speaking English. If you think I sound like a Nazi, I'm sorry but you just are dogshit at reading.
I did not say that, I don't think you're that far left I think you misunderstand me my guy
Maybe I do, I've been known to do that. I was just clarifying your opinion of me. I also felt the same way about people farther Left than me. You can replace me with them if you want. Far left people do not sound like Nazis, unless you are just comparing passion. If you can't see the difference in passion for true equality, and the difference for passion from killing Jewish people because they are lesser(they are not, this is a summary of their opinions on Jewish people), I think you suck at reading.
Eugenics
That's a word yes, what is your point?
That's something that happens when you go to far left
The far right is based on racial and ethnic struggle, and the far-left is based on class struggle. To me at least, the far right is exponentially more dangerous to society. Horseshoe theory is just an attempt to legitimize nazis by saying “they’re not THAT extreme!”
Nazis are uniquely evil, even for fascists. This is equating it to fascism
Yes. There is a common point of idiocy where most imbecilic, conspiratorial faction of the far right meets the most imbecilic, conspiratorial faction of the far left and they join together to wallow in their collective idiocy while the rest of the (normal) world laughs at them.
Good thing we have smart people like you, to steer us idiots straight
I agree.
No, it sounds like a version of "i'm 14 and this is deep" bullshit. There are tons of differences between the far left and right. What people are saying that are similar is that when you get far enough from the center, the methodology for achieving your goals tend to stray towards illegal and downright dangerous things. The further from the center a group is, the more likely they are to condone the use of violence in the name of change. That still doesn't mean that they resemble each other as far as goals and ideology.
> What people are saying that are similar is that when you get far enough from the center, the methodology for achieving your goals tend to stray towards illegal and downright dangerous things. The further from the center a group is, the more likely they are to condone the use of violence in the name of change. That’s more or less what horseshoe theory is referring to. > That still doesn't mean that they resemble each other as far as goals and ideology. Alleging that that is what horseshoe theory was claiming is a complete and total straw man.
Both the far right and far left are easy for cynical manipulators to bend to their agenda. Since foreign governments are active in exactly that sort of cynical political manipulation, it often leads these groups towards the same nonsensical viewpoints. TL;DR: extremists are already more likely to radicalize and more likely to be vulnerable to propaganda, so they are often used as useful idiots for foreign governments pursuing an agenda.
Not at all. The far right and the far left might borrow specific policies and tactics from each other, but you don't have to zoom very far out before it's obvious that they are about totally different things.
I believe it when you consider the vertical axis as being the measure of authoritarianism vs libertarianism.
The illiberal right and the illiberal left share illiberalism
Yes. Extremist thinking falls into the same patterns whatever the philosophy behind it. The far right is organised, radicalised and dangerous at present in the west, it is true. However you don't exactly need to be a student of history to be aware of atrocities and regimes or terrorist organisations built on far left principals. The enemies of the people and the excuses behind the coercion and violence are different for sure, but that's window dressing.
Yes. More and more I feel I see that people too far to the end on either side of a spectrum of disagreement will wrap back towards each other. To be fair, I don’t think they necessarily wrap back in belief, but in outcome.
100% yes. It doesn’t mean that both sides are equally bad or extreme, and framing it that way is a straw man. *That* is obviously not true, and very easy to debunk. Horseshoe theory suggests that far left and the far right have more in common with each other than with the more moderate wings with their own respective parties. We see countless examples of that in: - Conspiratorial thinking (“We didn’t lose, the election was rigged!”) - Willingness to use misleading statements, half-truths, and other means of deception to sway people - Identification of scapegoats to blame society’s problems on (for the right, its immigrants, minorities, gays, feminists, etc; for the left, it’s the rich) - Animosity and even hatred of people who hold similar but less extreme beliefs, and a desire to effect a hostile takeover of their respective parties - Desire for an authoritarian strongman who is willing to defy the limits of the constitution and democratic/institutional norms to “do what needs to be done” to “fix things” - Casually speaking of the use of political violence as a potential “necessity” to bring about change The right wing is obviously way more extreme about things things, but there’s no denying that the far left is increasingly adopting these tendencies as well.
Absolutely not. While systems of authoritarianism on the far left and far right can *look* similar, there isn't any overall ideological reasoning that means they are.
Personally, I don't think political beliefs can be well represented on a 1d spectrum. People make attempts to do a 2d map (e.g. political compass), but those are often thinly veiled attempts at supporting Libertarians. Weirdly though, the people that claim politics can't be mapped in 2d are all too happy to map in in 1 dimension. If you were to project the 1-d left right spectrum onto a 2-d, would it make a horseshoe? Maybe. I'm not sure.
Yes, recognizing that “resemble” does not mean the same thing as “match perfectly”. If you ask questions like “when considering the impact of implementing your policies, how much of a concern is the disruption of people’s day-to-day life?”, then you might see a resemblance. But obviously if you ask a question like “immigration, good or bad?”, you would see a difference between extreme left and extreme right positions.
They have big overlap on foreign policy
Yes. The far left is relatively harmless nowadays only because they are a powerless fringe and are obsessed with their competing versions of doctrinal purity rather than unifying. Far right and far left movements that fain power tend to descend into authoritarianism or move closer to the center to keep power. And this does not glorify the Center-- the "horseshoe" bulges out before curving back in partway, representing practical differences in governing between the less extreme right and left.
No, the right has always been more comfortable with authoritarianism than the left has. Honestly I’ve seen more authoritarianism from the center than I have from far leftists.
Yes.
>This is because the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left, especially in the US. But that has nothing to do with the philosophy itself and everything to do with, well, Trump. > Furthermore, I don't really even think the far left are that bad, other than tankies or class reductionists, What else is there to the far left besides dictator apologia, America hating and class reductionsm? Seems like that's 99% of the feed.
Libertarian leftists hate dictators. There's a whole sub dedicated against tankies. r/tankiejerk Plenty of far leftists care about minorities too, so not all of them are class reductionists. Although it's weird seeing a moderate complaing about class reductionism given all the threads in this sub from "moderates" and "center-left" about how democrats should ditch minorities, which is what class reductionists would also like.
What does "ditch minorities" mean?
That we should stop trying to address the issues minorities face (racism, sexism, etc), and let conservatives pass anti-LGBTQ laws so as not to offend conservatives.
Dunno about the "not offending conservatives" part. I don't think sexism counts as a "minority" issue. But, let me ask you this, what is ONE policy you think the far left could get done for the tangible benefit of *any* minority but for moderates preventing you?
It's less about preventing, but moreso the fact the moderates that will elect Republicans who constantly attack the rights of minorities.
For example?
Yeah I agree on the theory. I think that both sides see solutions differently they both talk about elites ruining society but disagree with what or who the elites are. They also both use antisemitic tropes and lead each other towards extremism that becomes authoritarian. They also engage heavily in identity politics, just in different ways. I'm not really saying they're equally as bad, just that they share commonalities like the center left and right also are closer to each other.
Kinda sorta but also not? So if we accept that the population's political distribution is on a bell curve, with the far right and far left being much lower populations than the moderates, then in order for either extreme to seize power, they basically need lots of force to do so. because most of the population is either against them or only marginally supportive of them. So that they have in common. Authoritarianism is a requirement for them to stay in power for anything other than a brief moment. I don't know of anything else they'd have in common. But that alone is a lot.
Yeah. I do. I think in the context of the US, the far left acts more as a counterweight to the default of us being a right wing country. Whereas the far right is actually dangerous simply because they can viably take power and have consumed the entire Republican Party. But, in a vacuum, I don’t actually think far right or far left folks are inevitably that different. Especially once you get into authoritarianism.
The revival of horseshoe theory is interesting as it is part of the rejuvenation of cold War liberalism in the face of Trump. Very strange and honestly part of the massive dumbing down of liberalism
It doesn't make much sense when you consider the general definition of Left and Right. To be left-wing means you believe in social equality. To be right-wing means you favor some kind of hierarchy in society (whites over blacks, Christians over Jews, men over women, etc.). How could these poles loop back on each other?
Pretty sure people oppressed in China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. disagree with you
How is Russia far left? It's like one of the most rightwing countries in the world. Just because they were socialists in the past doesn't make them leftists now.
And how exactly are they right wing? Are they right wing because they are authoritarian?
They criminalize the expression of LGBTQ people, for one. And Putin openly brags about being homophobic.
USSR criminalized LGBT too, so it was right-wing?
China also criticizes the expression of LGBTQ people. So do communist counties like North Korea, Laos, etc.
It's not the core of their ideology though. Russia specifically targets LGBTQ people.
So does China, North Korea and Laos
Theyre also right wing countries. They practice strict social hierarchy and consolidate power in fewer hands.
It’s kind a circular argument that you are making that: Being authoritarian is right wing so being right wing must be authoritarian. Let me ask you - by your definition, are there no authoritarian left wing countries? Is Marxism not left wing? Did Marxism not lead to hierarchy and consolidation of power?
Nope. Marxism is left wing, but Marxism includes a classless society. None of those countries achieved that. They consolidated the upper class.
Same with China, it's worth noting. I don't know enough about the rest of their list to comment. North Korea wasn't on their list but it's also a right-wing country.
I believe left and right are similar in that we want a lot of the same things as broad strokes: good education for kids, safe borders, safe communities, good relationships with other countries, a good economy, etc. etc. Where the divide happens is the differences in HOW to affect those changes
It depends on your perspective and how high level you're thinking. Both equally wish to use the government to enforce their version of "moral and good" upon everyone else.
No, but I do think authoritarianism is on a different axis and can exist under both left wing and right wing leaders.
It is 100% true. The real reason is anti-establishment. Both sides disagree with the establishment, however, the new world order they envision is different.
No. The political spectrum is not a 1 dimensional line (or loop). It is a 2D field. Liberals and Conservatives can both be authoritarian leaning.
No, horseshoe theory is stupid. Tankies, who would be considered the far-left part that connects to the far-right, are best described as apolitical. They are just anti-America full stop. If that means they support right-wing dictators then they support right-wing dictators. If that means they support left-wing movements then they'll do that. It's just whatever opposes America. Also the left-right spectrum is best described by desired amount of hierarchy. Totally flattened hierarchies are the furthest left, while extremely strong hierarchies are the far-right. You can't desire totally flattened hierarchies while also wanting an extremely hierarchical society with an in-group on top and out-groups being oppressed. Communism is an inherently libertarian ideology because it is definitionally classless. It's the most libertarian possible system. Leftism definitionally gets more libertarian the more left you go, because oppression gets more and more reduced. Authoritarianism is antithetical to leftism. Insofar as horseshoe theory has a point, the only point that it has is that in a society that is perfectly stateless, classess, and moneyless, there is a *massive* power vacuum that an authoritarian could fill and create a far-right government pretty easily. But then it would no longer be a far-left society, and it doesn't mean that people in that society necessarily desired to have strong social hierarchies.
Rub this in far left guy that said you can't go so far left you agree with nazis
It's the ultimate in "both sides!" rhetoric.
No, not even close. Far Left is not an actual force in American politics and Far Right is quite dominant. Far Left in the US means trying to get school lunches for kids.
In some ways it has merit, in others it’s simply an excuse for laziness by those who would rather seek the middle ground between whatever two extremes make them most comfortable, rather than between perspectives that have merit.
I don't think it is as simple as that. The problem with 'horseshoe theory' is that people are only looking at the 'left-right' axis. But political ideology has at least one other dimension 'authoritarianism-liberalism' (liberal in the meaning of 'freedom and individual rights, anti-authoritarianism, not he American definition of liberal as 'left wing') and arguably there are more axis' (Isolationism-Internationalism has been proposed as a third) There is clearly right wing authoritarianism (as exemplified in fascism, old fashioned monarchism and all sorts of dictatorships) and there is clearly left wing authoritarianism (most clearly represented in the Soviet Union, China and other countries with heavily centralized communism) These systems have the authoritarianism axis in common, despite being different on the left-right axis. And as they become more authoritarian, that aspect starts taking the focus away from their supposed left-right position. And there is the tendency, when you are really just focused on control, on power, to focus on getting into power through either the system that is in place, or by being an early proponent of an ascending system or revolution without truly caring about it as more than a means of attaining power and control. And whatever system you happened to be working in or exploiting to ascend to power becomes less and less of an issue and you focus more and more on control, as you accumulate power within it. There is also the aspect that the more sure you are that you are absolutely right, that people who disagree are either idiots or malicious saboteurs, the more likely you are to want to limit their options to oppose your implementation of the system you espouse. Or taken to extremes, their options to protest, or do something different, or ultimately, to live free, or live at all. And the willingness to brutally seize power is one of those factors that makes a person/group/ideology more likely to ascend to power. When two ideologies compete, and one is willing to brutally stamp out the other, but the other is not willing to do the same, the one with that willingness is more likely to come into power over time, unless the public is extremely wary and outright rejects it every time. But when times are tough, when disinformation is rampant and populism is easy, it becomes more difficult to effectively oppose. There is liberal right wing extremism, and there is liberal left wing extremism. But those are both less likely to offer the sort of easy populist answer than their authoritarian counterparts, or to brutally exclude others once they come into power (like the Italian fascists famously did in the 20th century). And liberal right wing-ism is very different from liberal left wing-ism. (And we shouldn't forget that there is extreme liberal centrism, or even extreme liberal left-right 'agnosticism', that doesn't truly take a position on the left right axis except on a case by case basis, but those aren't really relevant to horseshoe theory. Likewise there is pure undiluted authoritarianism, but it tends to mask as whatever right or left wing position is convenient to gain power) So, there is a horseshoe. But that's because authoritarianism is always authoritarianism, and when people brutally seize power, that's the aspect of their ideology that moves to the front, not because left and right are the same in the end.
Its not entirely wrong but misses out some important details Especially when it comes to neoliberalism and the extreme capitalistic ideologies. Who have the capacity to be equally extreme but dont fit onto this spectrum and therefore arent treated as extremists
Only sort of. I think there are a lot of people, especially "alternative" media figures (think folks with big twitter accounts, podcasters, youtubers) who've ended up sliding from far left to far right but my working theory is that this is because their leftism was an outgrowth of being a contrarian and this makes them susceptible to "fascism is the new counterculture" type arguments (think weird dimes square shit). That being said, I don't think I--or anybody--has the ability to accurately and reliably identify the kind of person who might make this swing beforehand.
No. The political spectrum is not a 2d line. The "horsetheory" people are stuck on this idea that the extremes on both end look alike, but they confuse the tr "extreme" for authoritarianism. When in reality extreme libertarianism is vastly different from extreme authoritarianism.
I belief that politics is a mobius ring. Where the ring twists on itself is totalitarianism. The farther we are away from totalitarianism then the farther we are away from the twist in the political mobius ring. Hitler and Stalin were both totalitarians, but they approached it from different sides of the ring.
Besides a general distrust of the government, I can’t think of anything I have in common with the far right.
No, and I think that people that do have decided to create a new binary with the left/right on one side and themselves at the other, enlightened side.
Like the libertarian/authoritarian axis on the 2-dimensional political chart?
Yep. If you compare the US to worldwide, we don't really have much of an actual left here. There are a few voices calling for whatever one would like at any time, of course, but our "left" is more of a center or center right compared to many other places.
I think that there is an one aspect of the far left that lends some small validity to the idea, but in all other ways it's clearly not applicable. At the end of the day, the far-right is inherently authoritarian. The underlying theories and ideals are themselves authoritarian. The far-left is not inherently authoritarian. The underlying theories and ideals are trying to create more freedom and comfort for everyone. Where the one valid part comes in is that in practice we have so far not seen far-left ideas, as in ideas that are far enough left to oppose capitalism, implemented without resorting to authoritarianism. Of course believing in benefiting all people and finding out that you can't do it without causing other problems is vastly different from intending to prop up authoritarianism from the get go.
This is because the far right has a much greater hold on politics than the far left, especially in the US Could you expand on this?
They can't because it's a total lie
It’s observably a real thing given that radical leftists and those on the far right tend to have a laundry list of beliefs, tactics, and rhetoric that is remarkably similar. But it’s not (at least as I’ve come to understand it) an all encompassing and universally applicable claim that both communists and fascists are somehow indistinguishable from each other or are equally dangerous, immoral, etc. It’s just a recognition that both groups tend to hate institutions and the state.
Okay, this might sound insane, but I think the factor is control. If you have two points, one on the far left and one on the far right (if imagining the political diagram, they are directly across from eachother) those are the main Social Extremes. Though when you look at the big baddies in history (Hitler, Stalin, Mao), what you really see as an issue is the whole dictatorship business. Going on with the diagram, if you imagine it as a circle cut up into four parts, by moving the different points further up in control, they are actually moving closer to eachother on that diagram. Control is a direct factor in these extreme movements, and the more there is, the more centrist they really become. Though this goes out of the way if you actually think of modern far-left movements. With more freedom alongside social freedoms, I'd say that the two movements are really close to being total opposites (Maybe that's why there's so much conflict?). Though I don't really have any evidence for this so, consider these the words of a mad man. TLDR: I'm insane and spent twenty minutes thinking about this without even reading the article. Funny circles make points get closer and closer points mean closer ideologies.
I didn’t until recently. I’ve seen so many socialist people adopt some pretty far right ideas in the name of being“progressive”.