-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Let's Put an End to 'Horseshoe Thoery' Once & For All
- Thread starter Caz
- Start date
Horseshoe theory is certainly being misused as a rhetorical weapon by the alt right, but that doesn't invalidate the original idea any more than Trump's use of "fake news" means that Russian twitter bots aren't real.
It's more of an issue that the ends of the Overton Window are being misrepresented as the far sides of the Horseshoe theory as the window slides towards the right.
It's more of an issue that the ends of the Overton Window are being misrepresented as the far sides of the Horseshoe theory as the window slides towards the right.
Last edited:
What aspects of Stalinism were left wing? Or if we're looking at the extremes of the spectrum Marxist?
The mistake is always considering that every opinion should fit on an axis.
Don't know about other countries, but in France there are leftists with absolutely nothing in common with the far-right, and also "leftists" who want a strong state and believe every other conspiracy theory about Israel and jewish billionnaires who control the world.
Overall it's more a strawman argument than an actual theory, like trickle down economics.
Don't know about other countries, but in France there are leftists with absolutely nothing in common with the far-right, and also "leftists" who want a strong state and believe every other conspiracy theory about Israel and jewish billionnaires who control the world.
Overall it's more a strawman argument than an actual theory, like trickle down economics.
Last edited:
There is no such thing in reality as left, right, center etc. It's just a convenient way for people to categorize themselves because as humans we like things to fit in neat little boxes.
Rhetoric mostly, but not praxis. Stalin's USSR was a negation of the ideals of Marxism. Just about the only thing you could say they attempted to do was figure out a way to produce and distribute goods while circumventing the profit motive with their material balancing scheme.
Rhetoric mostly, but not praxis. Stalin's USSR was a negation of the ideals of Marxism. Just about the only thing you could say they attempted to do was figure out a way to produce and distribute goods while circumventing the profit motive with their material balancing scheme.
Stuff doesn't fit on an axis but far leftists gotta understand that horseshoe is going to be brought up in every discussion where they are peddling falsehoods like during the election. When you try to use the same tactics as the right people will take issue with it and call out that it sounds the same. Also don't give me that fishhook shit.
Yep. The idea that "the more extreme left/right a political movement is, the more they have similarities in their use of force and extremism" should really not be a controversial statement to anyone who's studied history. Misapplying that to current political landscapes is the problem, not the theory itself; the theory of evolution is a Thing That Exists regardless of people using it to justify Social Darwinism.
Dat first post. Because yeah, at the far ends both sides promote violence and hate. So what? Extremists are shitty no matter what.
But is the extreme left as big of a problem today as the extreme right to be constantly brought up when the extreme right does something bad and the left is nowhere around to actually get brought up?
Horseshoe may not be that applicable in the US much due to its 2 party system but there was an overlap between antiglobalists, anti-freetrade from a small pocket of Sanders supporters spilling into Trump.
In Europe though, it is a thing:
anti-establishment.
anti-globalists
anti-EU
anti-NATO
antisemitism.
anti-West.
Look at the parties inside Europe that get directly and inderictly backed by Russia:
UKIP, Front National, Podemos, AfP, Syriza, Golden Dawn, Portuguese Communist Party + The Left Bloc, Netherlands PVV. etc.
not all the above parties are Far-Right, others are Far-Left.
the common theme is ant-west, anti-EU, anti-NATO and anti-globalsits. All traits that are found in the Fascist Far-Right and the Anarcho-Far-Left.
*the exception is Immigration: the main issue where they do not agree on. The Far-Left is in favor but the Far-Right is against.
---
I live in Montreal and I have bumped into many radical Far-Left youngsters who came out of UQAM who hold radical Far-Left extreme views: the shocking part was the Pro-Russia bullshit that came out of their mouths and their anti-West rhetoric: It matches that extreme Far-Rights'.
In Europe though, it is a thing:
anti-establishment.
anti-globalists
anti-EU
anti-NATO
antisemitism.
anti-West.
Look at the parties inside Europe that get directly and inderictly backed by Russia:
UKIP, Front National, Podemos, AfP, Syriza, Golden Dawn, Portuguese Communist Party + The Left Bloc, Netherlands PVV. etc.
not all the above parties are Far-Right, others are Far-Left.
the common theme is ant-west, anti-EU, anti-NATO and anti-globalsits. All traits that are found in the Fascist Far-Right and the Anarcho-Far-Left.
*the exception is Immigration: the main issue where they do not agree on. The Far-Left is in favor but the Far-Right is against.
---
I live in Montreal and I have bumped into many radical Far-Left youngsters who came out of UQAM who hold radical Far-Left extreme views: the shocking part was the Pro-Russia bullshit that came out of their mouths and their anti-West rhetoric: It matches that extreme Far-Rights'.
I don't see any actual informed people using horshoe theory, only people who learned it from school or some wiki page. It is used to inspire fear for radical leftwing movements.
Edit: to clarify and be it less of a shitpost, the horshoe theory actually says that centrists are the most unique. Which is weird when centrists actually share stuff from the right part and the left part. Think of the liberal idea of equality, very much alive in the center but not in the left. The left sees equality as more than just equality according to the law, they seek equivalency.
Sure compared to today's standards that might sound weird, I get that.
Edit: to clarify and be it less of a shitpost, the horshoe theory actually says that centrists are the most unique. Which is weird when centrists actually share stuff from the right part and the left part. Think of the liberal idea of equality, very much alive in the center but not in the left. The left sees equality as more than just equality according to the law, they seek equivalency.
Eh almost anything? You can disagree with his methods or with certain periods of crackdown but it was definitely someone that benefited the USSR working class by industrializing the union and leftwing in any sense of the word.
Sure compared to today's standards that might sound weird, I get that.
Last edited:
Horseshoe theory is valid in general.
Problem is that the US does not have an extreme left party of any significance and has not for nearly a century now, so the attempts by Republicans here to flock to the theory reeks of pathetic "BOTH SIDES!" excuses when right now only one side has murdered innocents during protests.
I always find it amazing how the right is the USA has turned something as simple as blacks/gays/atheists/women, and well, anyone who isn't a straight WASP demanding to be treated as human beings into "extremism."
Problem is that the US does not have an extreme left party of any significance and has not for nearly a century now, so the attempts by Republicans here to flock to the theory reeks of pathetic "BOTH SIDES!" excuses when right now only one side has murdered innocents during protests.
I always find it amazing how the right is the USA has turned something as simple as blacks/gays/atheists/women, and well, anyone who isn't a straight WASP demanding to be treated as human beings into "extremism."
yep, as the conservatives got more extreme, the left stayed the same, infact they've slowly moved to the right.
the only way to combat this is for the left to go to the same extremes as the right, that way the theoretical mean is a moderate, and decent laws get passed.
lots of people are using USA goggles in this thread.
The Left doesn't exist in the US and has no representation, so let alone the Far-Left.
The US is a through and through a Right WIng country
The Left doesn't exist in the US and has no representation, so let alone the Far-Left.
The US is a through and through a Right WIng country
It's completely valid. The people this applies to are socially conservative, economically liberal. This chart, taken from https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond lets you pick out exactly who these people are, it's those in the upper left 4 blocks.
This just means extreme laws getting passed any time any party's in power. (This would be bad.)
This. This right here.
I'm politically center-right by any rational measure. That makes me an ultra liberal progressive by the current standard of US politics, which has largely been defined by right wing extremists.
Sure, there are insane leftists who basically slip over into fascism. They don't have any power, standing, or significant representation in US politics. On the other hand, the fucking NeoNazis are in bed with the largest right wing political party and control the presidency, the Congress, law enforcement, and a large part of the judiciary.
Edit: despite the catchy headline, I think the article makes a generally reasonable assessment, that the situation is more complex than a thoughtless application of horse shoe theory would indicate. That being said, it is mostly down to the theory being misapplied.
Last edited:
Exactly, this whole conversation only makes sense in America, where there is no concept of mainstream left wing politics.
The Democrats are well to the right of any left wing party in Europe and the Republicans would probably be illegal in many countries, considering how much hate speech their representatives spew.
Economics I suppose. Trying to implement a command economy. And there was a lot of leftist rhetoric, though like all authoritarian regimes, the wealth got concentrated at the top with a corrupt ruling class.
Given stuff like the UKIP and the "totally not Nazis, but #1 with Nazis" German party, that's not true at all.
That compass isn't really accurate to how the parties are divided, at least in the US. The compass used in the article I linked earlier (Social/Identity issues on one axis, Economic ones on the other) is a way better measure of how groups sort out. The shift from a Left/Right (economic) political divide to a Top/Bottom (Social) political divide happened because the GOP literally cannot get a majority otherwise.
Last edited:
Pretty much- Horeshoe theory is still completely true in that the extremes of both sides tend to utilize/justify violence and otherwise fall into authoritarian tactics, it's just that in the US the left-wing extremists only really have power/presence in some college campuses and dark corners of the internet while the right-wing extremists work in the goddamn White House. It's a real thing but largely not relevant to modern American political discourse at the moment.
That said, I do think it's pretty shitty when people on the left disingenuously paint horseshoe theory and centrists in general as equating extreme right-wing ideologies and relatively moderate/mainstream left-wing ideologies.
That the GOP would be illegal. There are plenty of political parties out there that make the GOP look like care bears.
Horseshoe theory is both true and false. As a false idea there are stark and significant differences between Capitalism and Socialism.
However in regards to the statement above, there's not much of a difference between Stalinism and Fascism. Both are movements that seek to liquidate perceived "nonessential" or otherwise sectors of an economy to achieve a specific economic and cultural goal. Both operated on the idea that a specific set of constituents were the legitimate power holders of society and that this electorate's political opposition were fully expendable through violence and liquidation for political crimes. In both societies the State was was used as the ultimate mediator between labor and private life to ensure that economic and cultural goals were reached and maintained, that authoritarian and totalitarian hegemony were a necessary tool to discipline society that was no on board with these political ideals. Both were managerial Capitalist reform movements.
As far as the modern day bourgeois democratic state, what are the "supposed" "Left" and "Right" parties but both capitalist oriented managerial political cliques that aim to use the organs of the State for their own ideal end? Both require the State to prop up their preferred constituent and are willing to use State violence as a disciplinary action. Both parties are politically unwilling to use the totality of the State, but then again, we're not in a period of extreme societal collapse that prompts it.
Regardless, both wings of society operate the same, use the same tactics, the same Capitalist economic policies and envision the same political and economic outcome.
At the end of the day, Horseshoe Theory is a problematic statement because it is also used to show contrast between entities that significantly more alike than not, it is often used when comparing "Apples to Apples" instead of actual contradictions or concepts that are the negation of each other.
Horseshoe Theory is wrong when applied to Socialism v Capitalism. It exists in the subset of Capitalist Political Movements and their extremism and how these relate to the non radical sectors of Capitalist society.
edit
Added some additional comments later:
There isn't a difference between the "Far Right" and the "Far Left" in anything other than who their political constituent is. Calling one "Left" and the other "Right" is misnomer.
Last edited:
I don't really get the point you're trying to make with this chart. Within top left, the upper right half is a lot more red than the lower left half which is a lot more blue. All this shows to me is that economic liberals who leaned socially right but not too right mostly voted Clinton, but as they got more and more socially right (read: racist/sexist/homophobic) they were more and more likely to vote Trump. I don't see what that has to do with the horseshoe theory.
Also, this is the only horseshoe theory that makes sense:
Nice memeHorse shoe theory has been refuted soundly and constantly.
Constant liberal collaboration with capitalism and with narratives that help right wing propaganda to thrive has debunked horse shoe theory, which has been substituted by fish hook theory.
Resist radical centrism!
which is exactly whats happening now. it is horrible but theres been no response to one side hyperization that is skuing everything to the right.
What happened the feudalism on the horseshoe seems so arbitrary, the farthest right horseshoe part should be whatever the politics of the homo erectus were. And the farthest left multiversal gay luxury automated anarcho-communism?
French law, for example, allows for the prosecution of public insults based on religion, race, ethnicity or national origin. How many GOP politicians would run foul of that?
And like Care Bears? That's clearly an exaggeration if you're talking about mainstream politics, especially for a party currently in power.
As reprehensible as UKIP is they are still less outwardly right wing than the GOP, in the sense that they're usually too cowardly to be outright racist or homophobic (or they feel they'd be at risk of legal reprisal). Their monetary polices are essentially the same as the center-right Tories and there is also no religious dimension to UK - or most other European - politics.
anime was a mistakeI don't really get the point you're trying to make with this chart. Within top left, the upper right half is a lot more red than the lower left half which is a lot more blue. All this shows to me is that economic liberals who leaned socially right but not too right mostly voted Clinton, but as they got more and more socially right (read: racist/sexist/homophobic) they were more and more likely to vote Trump. I don't see what that has to do with the horseshoe theory.
Also, this is the only horseshoe theory that makes sense:
horsehoe applies to the following:
protectionism
anti-globalism
antisemitism
anti-western
anti-trade
anti-EU
anti-NATO
anti-Schengen
anti-establishment
Pro-Putin LOL
http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_putins_friends_in_europe7153
https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21643222-who-backs-putin-and-why-kremlins-pocket
protectionism
anti-globalism
antisemitism
anti-western
anti-trade
anti-EU
anti-NATO
anti-Schengen
anti-establishment
Pro-Putin LOL
http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_putins_friends_in_europe7153
https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21643222-who-backs-putin-and-why-kremlins-pocket
Horse shoe theory has been refuted soundly and constantly.
Constant liberal collaboration with capitalism and with narratives that help right wing propaganda to thrive has debunked horse shoe theory, which has been substituted by fish hook theory.
Resist radical centrism!
This is specifically dealt with in the article linked in the OP, so...
Are you just being extra ironic?
Should probably throw anti-science and anti-facts somewhere in there.
The article specifically calls out fishhook theory as bullshit as well. The idea that the far left is somehow clean and pure of fascist inclinations is just as naive. This shit works its way in everywhereHorse shoe theory has been refuted soundly and constantly.
Constant liberal collaboration with capitalism and with narratives that help right wing propaganda to thrive has debunked horse shoe theory, which has been substituted by fish hook theory.
Resist radical centrism!
+1 for fish hook theory
horseshit theory proponents are liberals who are madly trying to reconcile two things: that they think the left/right political spectrum is a material thing and not just an outdated metaphor, and that by their own use of the spectrum, they are "closer" to the far-right than groups like the DSA are
of course to make far left policy as unappealing as possible to voters, lest they lose their title as the "de facto good guy opposition", or to lose a grip on power themselves, they have to slander those they see as far left as being "also-racists" or "also-fascistic"
horseshit theory proponents are liberals who are madly trying to reconcile two things: that they think the left/right political spectrum is a material thing and not just an outdated metaphor, and that by their own use of the spectrum, they are "closer" to the far-right than groups like the DSA are
of course to make far left policy as unappealing as possible to voters, lest they lose their title as the "de facto good guy opposition", or to lose a grip on power themselves, they have to slander those they see as far left as being "also-racists" or "also-fascistic"
yup,
and labeling Centrism as "bad" is ridiculous considering Canada's relative success.
Basically.
The theory only works if you have to describe things in a left-right axis.
The point is that the people who make up the end of the horseshoe that cross over have extremely left-wing economic beliefs while also have extreme right-wing social beliefs.
Many people on the left presume incorrectly that *everyone* in their group shares their commitment to social justice, and it results in them feeling attacked when this is brought up even though it's not really applicable to them. It' only that specific (mostly white, mostly rural in the US) subset that is being referred to here.
how is being a secularist considered to be "Right Wing"?
why should secular Liberals defend ultra-conservative religion?
Liberals fought the last 200 years separating the Church from State, why should they reverse course and embrace conservative religion again?
I think it's valid. The far right and far left resort to authoritarianism and suppress individual liberties for their goals, albeit different goals.