Where the political extremes meet
This is a post which I have intended to write for a long time, but given the work involved, this was always going to be a hard one to finish off. Though I am still young, as I get older my beliefs in opposites diminishes. I no longer believe that the extreme left and the extreme right are completely different. I know I may not be the first to formulate the Horseshoe Theory, but allow me to introduce my take on the theory and the many similarities between the two political extremes. Horseshoe theorists such as myself argue that the extreme left and the extreme right are a lot more similar than members of either group would admit. Some would perhaps say it’s a variant of Blair's law.
INTRODUCTION
The Horseshoe Theory is a theory about political ideology which contradicts the conventional left-right continuum and the political compass. It asserts that rather than the extreme left and the extreme right being at opposite and opposing ends of the political spectrum, they in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe. Horseshoe theorists therefore draw attention to the similarities between the extreme left and the extreme right (see below).
The relationship between Socialism or Communism, usually taken to be paradigms of the extreme left, and Nazism or Fascism, which are both closely associated with the extreme right, therefore appears more complex than conventional political analysis would allow with its emphasis on the historical and modern hostilities between activists of the two extremes. According to the Horseshoe Theory, the two can be analogized or compared with the often hostile relationship between siblings: whilst the two may frequently dislike each other and not concede any similarities between them. In truth, they have much more in common than either would like to admit.
History of the term
The earliest use of the term in political theory appears to be from Jean-Pierre Faye's book Le Siècle des idéologies. Others have attributed the theory as having come from Lipset,
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE EXTREME LEFT AND THE EXTREME RIGHT
Totalitarianism
Horseshoe Theorists emphasise the fact that both the extreme left and the extreme right have been responsible for brutal dictatorships. The extreme right produced Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy whilst the extreme left produced Soviet Russia, Communist China, Communist North Korea and a number of other regimes which oppressed people.
Horseshoe theorists maintain that the existence of a one party state which rules with an iron fist, gagging dissidents and causing numerous human rights abuses has been an important and notable commonality between all these products of extremism.
Since the emergence of the ‘new left’, many on the extreme left have been claiming that their ideals do not represent totalitarianism, that instead their brand of Socialism is a form of Democratic Socialism. Horseshoe theorists tend to be skeptical of these claims. Firstly, drawing from Friedrich von Hayek, they claim that Socialism, by its very nature of coercion and its concentration of economic power into the hands of bureaucrats, inevitably leads further down the road to serfdom.
Horseshoe theorists also maintain that human beings are essentially hierarchical, and that an egalitarian form of Socialism is impossible because power under such a system tends to become concentrated into the hands of a few. Finally, Horseshoe theorists point to the brutal and/or totalitarian tendencies of many writers in the new left. They claim that such passages show that that the intentions of many within the new left are not directed towards any form of individual liberty or freedom. For example, Noam Chomsky, a prominent new left intellectual, has turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in Communist countries, an irony since he has continually accused the Unites States of such abuses. On Communist China, Chomsky has even written that:
China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting and positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.
On the National Liberation Front in
The entire New Left idolised and tried to glorify Ho Chi Minh and the Vietkong, presenting them as romantic heroes. As for Chomsky, he has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has consistently defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. Likewise, the Democratic Socialist Party has expressed its support for the ‘Cuban revolution’, in spite of numerous Cuban human rights abuses and mass murders. Both the extreme left and the extreme right are against liberalism, and the individualism it promotes. Horseshoe theorists argue that in effect they also promote and support wholesale slaughter of their own citizens, political dictatorships and totalitarianism.
Suppression of the individual
Horseshoe theorists point out that regardless of whether the ideology is Fascism, Socialism or Communism, the denial of the rights and integrity of the individual has been central to the agenda of the Totalitarians from both sides of politics. Such beliefs consistently inevitably emphasise the supremacy of the state or collective over the individual. In both Fascist and Socialist propaganda, an emphasis on the unimportance of the individual and his or her needs and desires has always been extremely prominent. As a result of this belief, uniformity and personal sacrifice have been promoted as virtues within collectivist society, and often brutally enforced as well.
Pretence of democracy and equality
Both forms of totalitarianism claim that their system represents the will and needs of its people best. The rhetoric in all Socialist and Communist dictatorships have emphasized equality among citizens, as well as the assumption that the Government is acting in its interests of, and for and behalf of the people. It is well known that Socialists consider Socialism to be the only truly democratic system. Similarly, Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of
Hitlerism proclaims itself as both true democracy and true socialism, and the terrible truth is that there is a grain of truth for such claims – an infinitesimal grain, to be sure, but at any rate enough to serve as a basis for such fantastic distortions.
As Mussolini once wrote: “Fascism… has been a revolt of the people”. The extreme left and the extreme right pretend to be democratic, but but Horseshoe theorists claim that their support for the people is only very superficial, and that in actuality neither form of extremism is democratic.
Emphasis on altruism
As mentioned before, both members of the extreme left and the extreme right strongly support collectivism at the expense of individualism. As a result, altruism, or personal sacrifice are high among both Socialist and Fascist virtues. This was imposed in an extreme form in Soviet Russia, where up to 60 million people were executed under Stalin’s regime, supposedly for the good of others. Such emphasis being placed on self-sacrifice can be contrasted with most free societies which operate under capitalism, and where self interest (subject to some restraints) is allowed to flourish without interference from others.
Planned economy
Both Fascists and Socialists support a planned economy, where the state owns and controls the means of production, and where trade is strongly restricted. Indeed, the fascists were often called the National Socialists and originally formed as the German Worker’s Party. Meanwhile, Fidel Castro in his earlier years was a keen Nazi. The Nazi party started off as left wing, but its evolution has been interpreted as being a sudden extreme shift to the right, with no intermediate stage in which they supported liberalism. They are therefore at one in their support for a command economy, where it is authorities rather than private individuals who decide how resources are to be allocated, used and distributed.
Bigotry and lack of tolerance of others
Both Fascist and Socialist regimes have been extremely intolerant of dissent, often using secret police or the military to round up dissents, and imprison, torture or execute them, usually without trial. Even today most members of the new left are extremely bigoted people who express hatred towards those who disagree with them, often labeling them ‘right-wing’ (as though this were an evidently bad thing in itself), ‘capitalist scum’ and ‘fascist’. The irony in the last insult is that it is often they, rather than the person to whom they have directed the insult, are the ones who are fascist. Of the recent case of Brisbane Indymedia shows, Andrew Landeryou has written that:
Indeed, many people have complained about the extreme left being extremely intolerant of homosexuals or blacks who identify with the right. Fascists on the other hand are more open about their bigotry, often refusing to pretend otherwise. Horseshoe theorists claim that bigotry belongs equally to both extremes.
Racism and Anti-Semitism
The far right are often known for their hostility against Jews, particularly since Jews were a persecuted race in Nazi Germany. This culminated in the Holocaust, which resulted in the death of six million Jews. The extreme left similarly often show a hatred of Jewish peoples. For example, they often take the side of the Palestinian terrorists and radical Islam above
Socialists have also gloated in claiming that Hezbollah had scored a ‘victory’ over Israel in 2006.One member of a Socialist group in Australia called Socialist Alternative caused controversy by claiming that Israel was a racist state that was no better than apartheid South Africa. In 2006, hard left groups also attacked Jewish students at
Indeed, some extreme left groups draw a distinction between Jewish peoples and Zionism, the difference being that the latter represents the Jewish ruling class. Critics claim that distinction is merely an attempt to try and hide their anti-Semitism, even to themselves. As Martin Luther King Jr once said: “When people criticise Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism”.
An irony of the hatred of Jews of both political extremes is the fact that the sources of their beliefs usually come from a Jewish person. Nazi Germany for example was a Christian nation which embraced the Catholic Church. Many Germans at the time were Christians, and hence followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Jew who later became known as the Son of God. The Socialists and Communists on the other hand, often draw inspiration of Karl Marx, the Jewish philosopher who wrote Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. Leon Trotsky and Lenin were also Jews and in fact, there were many Jews behind the Communist movement in
The Nazis openly and officially considered black people and other non-Caucasians to be inferior. Whilst the extreme left does not officially endorse such a position, racism has been shown to exist within the left. For example while they are sympathetic to migrants and Indigenous peoples, it has often being claimed that this sympathy is conditional upon such peoples not disagreeing with them. As explained above, they are often hostile to Jewish groups and peoples.
Militancy of Organisation
Consistent with their beliefs in collectivism and individual self-sacrifice, both Fascists and Socialist organizations believe in full commitment from their members. Indeed, organisations from both sides have often been described as militant. As shown below, their acts are as extreme as their beliefs. Members of Socialist Alternative have also been known to control their members completely both through subtle and overt methods. The organization “assumes that its members will support the organisation by means of paying regular dues, attending meetings, selling the paper, and participating in the organisation's external activities. These requirements are a general objective, but maybe subject to political circumstances” and “fight(s) for militant trade unionism”. Calling them a cult would not be altogether inaccurate. Like the Nazis, they also openly employ propaganda.
Very poor reasoning
Activists from both sides suffer from very poor reasoning. This reasoning often involves slippery-slope arguments and other logical errors. They also rely on false factual assumptions. Returning to the claims of
The strange relationship between the pro-women and pro-queer extreme left and radical Islam is also an extraordinary irony which reveals very low levels of reasoning (see below).
Some activists from the New Left have even claimed that what Socialism stands for is a society without the state, and that the Socialist regimes of
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
On how Socialism would work in practice, The Socialist Party of Canada even writes that:
Horseshoe theorists regard such ramblings as being beneath contempt. Further, they allege that when it is realized that such a system is unworkable, it is inevitable that coercive measures will be implemented in order ensure production continues. This in turn results in the concentration of economic power into the hands of bureaucrats who determine who is to work where, how many hours people are to work, how people are allowed to work and how much they are entitled to consume (because production is finite, a fact which the above quote seems to ignore). By this time, such a society would have already traveled down The Road to Serfdom.
Contempt for Religion
Adolf Hitler once described religion as “weak and stupid”. Indeed the Nazis claimed inspiration from anti-religious philosophers Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche. Similarly, Socialists also have contempt for religion, often quoting Karl Marx’s claim that “religion is the opiate of the people”. Both ideologies are on the whole opposed to and have contempt for religion. On the other hand, extremists of either tendency also have a capacity for exploiting religion. For example, the Nazis in
Violent and extreme methods
In 1923, Adolf Hitler orchestrated a failed coup which led to his imprisonment. Likewise the extreme left are known for their own violent and extreme methods. For example, in May 1977, Michael Danby, then a Jewish student, was severely assaulted by extreme left activists in
Also, members of Socialist Alternative have been known to invade and destroy the offices of university Vice-Chancellors. The protesting radicals caused much vandalism and violence in what amounted to an orgy of destruction and mayhem. One activist, who has been involved in multiple crimes of violence even used an axe to smash down doors at the University of the
Differences superficial
It is further argued by Horseshoe theorists that the differences which exist between the extreme left and the extreme right tend to be very superficial. Whilst the extreme left claim to not be racist, in practice their behaviour is often just as racist as that of the extreme right. Whilst the extreme left pretend to be open-minded and tolerant, in reality they are as intolerant as Nazis towards those who do not share their opinions. Whilst the extreme left is officially for non-white immigration, in practice Socialist regimes have resisted all forms of migration. Whilst the extreme left believes in women’s rights and equality, their sects are often patriarchal, as honest former insiders will confess.
From a practical viewpoint, it seems the only differences between Socialism and Fascism are that the former is less likely to initiate war, and introduces communal kitchens, whilst the latter affirms the family and some property rights, and preserves and works with big business.
Support for Fascism
The unhealthy relationship between the extreme left and radical Islam has been well documented. Meanwhile, the differences between radical Islam and Nazism are very few, if at all. This has resulted in Christopher Hitchens and others using the term ‘Islamofascism’ to describe the ideology and beliefs of radical Muslims. Radical Islam and Fascists both hate Jews, support totalitarianism and believe that women are inferior. This helps explain the leftist reluctance to fight the War on Terror and their support for Extreme Islam. Indeed, conservative writer David Horowitz has written a book documenting the close and unhealthy relationship between radical Islam and the left. Radical Islamists are also both pro-war with anyone who opposes their extreme ideals. Similarly, Benito Mussolini once said that: “War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and imposes the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to make it”. With their support of radical Islam then, the extreme left are in effect supporting Fascism and war-mongering.
FAMOUS HORSESHOE THEORISTS
Friedrich von Hayek
In The Road To Serfdom, Friedrich von Hayek argued that by its very nature, all forms of the planned economy lead down the path of totalitarianism because such a system takes the power of individuals to determine and control their own lives and places it into the hands of the state. This results in people becoming more docile, and economic (and hence political) power becoming concentrated into the hands of a few. Writing on the subject of the relationship between Fascism and Communism, Hayek points out that:
No less significant is the intellectual history of many of the Nazi and Fascist leaders. Everyone who has watched the growth of these movements in Italy or in Germany has been struck by the number of leading men, from Mussolini downward (and not excluding Laval and Quisling), who began as Socialists and ended up as Fascists or Nazis. And what is true of the leaders is even more true of the rank and file of the movement. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi and vice-versa was generally known in Germany, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. Many a university teacher during the 1930’s has seen English and American students return from the Continent uncertain whether they were communists or Nazis and certain only that they hated Western liberal civilization.
It is true, of course, that in
Ayn Rand
According to Ayn Rand, Communism and Fascism are not opposites, but rather variants of one another. The true opposition in politics involves the conflict between freedom (political) individual freedom and dictatorship. In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand wrote in an essay called ‘Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing that:
In general usage, the terms ‘rightists’ and ‘leftists’ designate advocates of capitalism and socialism. But observe the abnormal, artificial stress of the attempt to associate racism and violence with ‘the extreme right’… The purpose is to revive that old saw of Pre-World War II vintage, the notion that the two political opposites confronting us, the two ‘extremes’ are: fascism versus communism.
The political notion of that origin is more shameful than ‘the moderates’ would care to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that there was only once choice confronting
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of ‘Freedom or dictatorship?’ into ‘Which kind of dictatorship?’ – thus establishing dictatorship as in inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice – according to the proponents of that fraud – is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).
Similarly, in an earlier novel called The Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey, a Socialist who tries to destroy the main character, says the following to a friend in what is a sinister yet revealing conversation:
It’s only a matter of discovering the lever. If you learn how to rule one man’s soul, you can get the rest of mankind. It’s the soul, Peter, the soul. Not whips or swords or fire or guns. That’s why the Caesars, the Attilas, the Napoleons were fools and did not last. We will. The soul, Peter is that which can’t be ruled. It must be broken. Drive a wedge in, get your fingers on it – and the man is yours. You won’t need a whip – he’s bring it to you and ask to be whipped. Set him in reverse – and his own mechanism will do your work for you. Use him against yourself. Want to know how it’s done? See if I ever lied to you. See if you haven’t heard all this for years, but didn’t want to hear, and the fault is yours, not mine. There are many ways…
Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men. Of course, you must dress it up. You must tell people they’ll achieve a superior kind of happiness by giving up everything that makes them happy. You don’t have to be too clear about it. Use big vague words. ‘Universal harmony’ – Eternal Spirit’ – ‘Divine Purpose’ – ‘Nirvana’ – ‘Paradise’ – ‘Racial Supremacy’ – ‘The Dictatorship of the Proletariat’. The farce has been going on for centuries and men still fall for it.’
Francis Parker Yockey
Francis Parker Yockey was a little-known American anti-Semite fervently opposed to American liberalism. It was his hope that American liberalism could be destroyed through the unification of
From these trials there is now no going back. They are a war-declaration by Russia on the Jewish-American leadership no matter whether or not the Russian press still wraps its explanations in wooly words disclaiming "anti-semitism"…
It is obvious that events which were strong enough to force Stalin to reorient his entire world-policy and to become openly anti-Jewish will have the same effect on the elite of
The American hegemony is doomed because all Europe realizes with a start -- what Imperium, The Proclamation of London and the Frontfighter have preached for years -- that the power on whose behalf Europe is asked to fight, "Bolshevism" is none other than the Jewish State-Nation-People-Race, that entity which itself is the historical creator and leader of political Bolshevism
Gregory Melleuish
In 2005, Gregory Melleuish, associate professor of history and politics at the University of Wollongong wrote Fascist label a cheap shot against liberalism, an article which defended Workchoices, the Howard government’s industrial relations reforms. In this article he wrote:
The Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini began as a socialist, as did many other fascist leaders, such as former French communist Jacques Doriot. In bringing together nationalism and socialism, it is unclear whether fascism was a left-wing or a right-wing movement. What can be said is that, like communism, it saw itself in opposition to liberalism as well as parliamentary democracy.
Fascists, like socialists, did not support the idea that individuals were the best judges of their own interest. Rather, individuals needed the state to organise them and to tell them what to do. Moreover the fascist state, what Mussolini called the ethical state, sought to bring every member of society under its control...
Industrial relations can be considered the final frontier in the quest for a more liberal society. The new legislation does not intend to create corporatism or some sort of state-controlled body to exercise power over the workers of
Others
Many observers of Soviet Russia were appalled and horrified at the events occurring under that regime and denounced them (having a lot more intellectual honesty than many leftists at the time, including Jean-Paul Sartre.Max Eastmen, an old friend of Lenin once conceded that “instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple… (and) better described as superfascist”, and that “Stalinism is Socialism, in the sense of being an inevitable although unforeseen political accomplishment of the nationalization and collectivisation which he had relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless society”.
Similarly, F.A Voigt observed that “Marxism has led to Fascism and National Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is fascism and National Socialism”. Walter Lippmann wrote “the generation to which we belong is now learning from experience what happens when men retreat from freedom to a coercive organisation of their affairs. Though they promise to themselves a more abundant life, they must in practice renounce it; as the organized direction increases the variety of ends must give way to uniformity. That is the nemesis of the planned society and the authoritarian principle in human affairs.”
In Peter Drucker’s The End of Economic Man, it was written that:
The Complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced
References
Aubin, T (1999) Peter Costello: A Biography HarperCollins Publishing
Forster, Arnold and Epstein, Benjamin R. (1964) Danger on the Right
Random House, 295 pages online edition.
Lipset S.M. & Raab E, (1970), The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America 1790-1970.
MacDonald, K (1998) ‘The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances’ in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger Press
Hayek, F (1975) The Road to Serfdom Chicago:
Yockey, F.P (1948) Imperium: The Philosophy Of History And Politics
Yockey F.P (1952) What Is Behind The Hanging Of The Eleven Jews In Prague?
|