Horseshoe Theory

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What do you guys think of the horseshoe theory?  I used to be skeptical when I first read about it, but when I consider the history of authoritarian regimes, the 'far-left' and the 'far-right' don't look that very different from each other.  Even the contrasts that were drawn between the spread of 'Godless Communism' and Christian fundamentalism are rather miniscule in concept.  The only significant area of disagreement seems to be of who's fighting for the 'right people,' and people who disagree with this theory generally base their objections solely on that type of populist rhetoric.

This RationalWiki article (yes, I occasionally browse their pages for political insight) has a nice list of areas of common ground between the two sides.

[DC Al Fine]

In a general populism vs technocracy sense the idea works. However, most of the examples that Rational Wiki cites are pretty dubious or just pretentious as hell.

[Link]

Scott, the only thing fanatics really care about is control.  Left or right ideology is just a costume for an underlying power grab.  So it is not surprising when you scrape below the surface trappings they look similar.  Or indeed are similar.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Scott, the only thing fanatics really care about is control.  Left or right ideology is just a costume for an underlying power grab.  So it is not surprising when you scrape below the surface trappings they look similar.  Or indeed are similar.

I agree.  Additionally, you could flip that and say the only thing libertarians/anarchists care about is, well, reducing/getting rid of the government.  Of course, anarchy tends to be more popular among conservatives, but there is a number of left-anarchists as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Tempting as a piece of Cold War propaganda, but ultimately bunkum.

[barfbag]

This is interesting, but I prefer the spectrum from ontheissues.org.

[barfbag]

This is interesting, but I prefer the spectrum from ontheissues.org.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is true on some very narrow levels (specifically, the political attitudes and rhetorical tendencies of extremist parties of both sides have similarities). At the policy level, it's pretty blatantly false.

[Beet]

Tempting as a piece of Cold War propaganda, but ultimately bunkum.

[angus]

What do you guys think of the horseshoe theory? 

We have had this thread before.  Many years ago.  I said then and I'll say again that it's pretty lame.  I get that authoritarians are authoritarians, whether they raise a red flag or a black one, and I have said for a long time that the far left and the far right are more similar than they are different, but this horseshoe theory is mental masturbation.  The need for reductionism isn't particularly helpful when it comes to understanding human nature.  Also, I guess I'm a Kantian at heart.  I don't try to be, it's just who I am, and I can't see this horseshoe crap as anything other than someone's minor epiphany as a way to simplify political philosophy for disinterested students that has managed to take the place of original thought.  Better to call it horseshit theory and be done with it.

[Oak Hills]

This is one of the most annoying bits of political philosophy I have ever encountered.

I think the real issue is that various authoritarians aren't even "right" or "left" in any meaningful sense of the terms. I have long believed that the Soviet Union was never in any way truly Marxist. It was the epitome of "(fill in the blank) in name only". Similarly, I think the classification of fascism as a right-wing ideology is perhaps erroneous. It is an entirely different beast than anything we have in our society today. Also, I'm sure you can find strongly anti-capitalist and strongly nationalist elements that believe in democracy. Similarly, I know you can find moderate dictatorships. Right vs. Left and Democratic vs. Authoritarian truly are totally different spectra.

[Person Man]

Or could it simply be what one sees when a Government with ambitious policies come to power? The further you are from the rate of change and the status quo, the more "work" that has to be done to implement your policies.

For example, if you wanted to repeal the NLRA and privatize Social Security, even though those things would make it easier for one to become rich by investing their money or starting a substantial business, the process would require mass disenfranchisement (How else do you get 60 senators AND 218 congresspersons to agree to such a thing). And after the law is implemented, a large portion of the remaining 10,000,000 union members would be fired and I imagine a situation where thousands of them might be jailed, injured or worse in the process (just like what happened with Occupy).

To the outside, it would look like an authoritarian regime even though the Government would be effectively disbanding a part of itself.  

[Oakvale]

Nonsense like all grand theories of politics.

[opebo]

What the heck is 'rationalwiki'?  some libertarian nonsense?

[TNF]

Nonsense, of course.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Obviously bunk.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What the heck is 'rationalwiki'?  some libertarian nonsense?

It's a liberal/atheist wiki that mainly deals with religion, but also politics.  Obviously I don't agree with their religion articles.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Fascism as a series of related historical phenomena in several different European countries developed as a reaction to the threat of Communism, and it was basically a middle class movement in terms of its social base of support (though to be fair, many working class people joined the fascist parties, but they didn't direct the movement). Additionally, a segment of big business and finance capital supported fascism, as they saw it as a stabilizing force in a time of chaos and desperation.

Basically, fascism was a European phenomenon in the 1920s and 1930s (though there are revivalist parties like Golden Dawn these days-the movement didnt die out completely after WWII), arising out of dire conditions, yet had vastly different philosophical and historical roots than Marxism.

In short, the horseshoe theory is nonsense.

[PJ]

This is only assuming that all socialists are socially conservative, which is not true, obviously.

[Mechaman]

Horseshoe Theory in action.

[compson III]

We have had this thread before.  Many years ago.  I said then and I'll say again that it's pretty lame.  I get that authoritarians are authoritarians, whether they raise a red flag or a black one, and I have said for a long time that the far left and the far right are more similar than they are different, but this horseshoe theory is mental masturbation.  The need for reductionism isn't particularly helpful when it comes to understanding human nature.  Also, I guess I'm a Kantian at heart.  I don't try to be, it's just who I am, and I can't see this horseshoe crap as anything other than someone's minor epiphany as a way to simplify political philosophy for disinterested students that has managed to take the place of original thought.  Better to call it horsesh**t theory and be done with it.

I tend to agree Angus...it is always preferable to study the particular...especially considering the major case studies examined regarding the last century of political ideologies.  We could better understand Maoism by understanding the Legalism of Qin.  We could better understand Leninism by looking at the aspirations of Peter the Great.

[compson III]

On the other hand, I think the vapidness of the non-liberal political programs attempted in the last century has led  them to all eventually resort to utilizing pure, naked power.  That is responsible for the ugliness of these regimes.

Yet I think a third line should draw liberalism towards the ends of the horseshoe, to develop the structure accurately.  There is an implicit monism even at the core of liberalism (any "ism" in the Western sense is sort of a religious creed with mandates to proselytize).  Liberalism cannot coexist with multiculturalism.  Either the tyranny of the majority must grind the people in to a homogeneity (the dominant process in America) or liberalism turns into something else.

[Cory]

As far as my experience the "horseshoe theory" is just an attempt by libertarians to say that Communism and Fascism are the same, a patently absurd idea.

[Person Man]

As far as my experience the "horseshoe theory" is just an attempt by libertarians to say that Communism and Fascism are the same, a patently absurd idea.

I just stuck to it because I had no way of understanding how Bush can claim he was so "pro-freedom" yet created new social programs, opened the door to new ideas in Social Engineering, further subsidized allied cartels and lead the nation into a war that eventually became an ends to itself.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

In 20th century practice it certainly looked that way at times, no?  Ultimately though, true far leftism, IMO anyway, resembles a very extreme Netherlands... Whereas the far right looks like a more (effectively) restrictive Saudi Arabia. 

These places would not be similar.