Morning Comrades.
We are going to start this week with one my absolute rare ventures into culture war commentary. As you all know, I refuse to get into that foray of ego, a battlefield determined and planed out by the ruling class and one that exist solely to keep us occupied and the self-styled “centre” frothing at the mouth while they’re maxing out their credit cards on whatever is being sold today.
Nevertheless, we are going to chat about the so-called Horseshoe Theory today - just writing those words gets me angry already, as it is anything but a damn theory and nothing but a non-sensical, pseudo-academic attempt to legitimize the so-called “radical center”.
To start, let me be utterly clear, this “theory” is utter nonsense and exists solely to criminalize anything “left” of the political centre, predominately here in the NATO “west”. The entire counter argument can and should always be summed up as follows:
The political “left” gave us labour rights, the weekend and holiday pay, the political “right”, the holocaust.
That, truly, should be the end of it but reality as we know, is a little different and since this nonsense is making the rounds within th narrative determining circles once again, I figured a little background to it all would be helpful to anyone faced with this argument.
The “Theory”
The Horseshoe Theory is a political theory that suggests that the far-left and the far-right of the political spectrum are closer to each other than they are to the moderate center. According to this theory, extreme political positions tend to converge, creating a horseshoe shape, with the two extremes closer to each other at the ends of the curve than they are to the political center.
The Horseshoe Theory has its roots in the idea of the "radical centre," which emerged in the 1990s as a way to describe a political movement that claimed to transcend the traditional left-right divide. The theory posited that the radical centre represented a new political paradigm that rejected the ideological battles of the past, seeking to combine elements of both left and right politics to create a new synthesis. However, the radical centre was quickly dismissed as an empty concept, and its adherents were accused of being mere centrists who lacked a clear ideological position.
The Horseshoe Theory emerged in the wake of this criticism as a way to rehabilitate the radical center's claims. Its proponents argued that the extreme left and the extreme right were closer to each other than they were to the moderate center, and that this convergence of extremes represented a dangerous tendency towards totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
What is the “Radical Center”?
The term "radical center" is a political ideology that is characterized by a rejection of traditional left-right political divides and a focus on pragmatic, evidence-based policymaking - as with all definitions, this is the one that the players within this field gave themselves. As we all know by this point, any perceived “center” in the political area is nothing but the projected bourgeoise self-image of Victorian-era respectability that hides the violence used to increase profits.
The radical center is of course often associated with figures such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who advocated for a "third way" that sought to reconcile liberal democratic values with free-market economics. The radical center emphasizes the importance of market-based solutions to economic problems.
I’d argue that the radical center is solely beholden to corporate interests and decides not to address structural inequalities in society.
Origins
The origin of the Horseshoe Theory is somewhat contested, as there are different accounts of where the theory first emerged. However, it is generally agreed that the concept can be traced back to the early 20th century, when political scientists and social theorists began to develop new frameworks for understanding political ideology.
One early proponent of the Horseshoe Theory was the French philosopher and political theorist Georges Sorel, who argued that there was a fundamental similarity between revolutionary socialists and far-right nationalists. Sorel believed that both groups shared a commitment to anti-liberalism, anti-democracy, and anti-bourgeois sentiment, and that this convergence of interests represented a dangerous tendency towards totalitarianism.
Another influential figure in the development of the Horseshoe Theory was the German sociologist Max Horkheimer, who was a key member of the Frankfurt School. Horkheimer argued that there was a convergence of the extreme left and the extreme right in the form of a new authoritarianism that was distinct from traditional forms of totalitarianism. This new authoritarianism was characterized by a rejection of traditional values and institutions, and a focus on mass mobilization and propaganda.
Theory, My Ass.
The Horseshoe Theory is obviously deeply flawed for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores the fundamental differences between the “left” and the “right”, such as their respective attitudes towards social justice, economic inequality, and individual liberties. The left seeks to promote equality, protect individual rights, and advance social justice, while the right prioritizes capitalism with hidden and public fascism if and when it needs it.
Secondly, the Horseshoe Theory fails to account for the fact that the far-right and the far-left are not symmetrical. While the far-left is often associated with progressive and democratic movements, the far-right is often associated with authoritarian and fascist movements. The far-left advocates for radical change through democratic means, such as electoral politics, grassroots activism, or social movements ( for legal reasons I have to refrain from listing the more effective, 4th ,method ), while the far-right seeks to undermine democratic institutions and promote authoritarian rule.
Finally, the Horseshoe Theory misrepresents political reality by oversimplifying complex political ideologies. It assumes that political ideology can be reduced to a single dimension, where the left and the right are opposed on a linear scale, and that extreme positions on this scale converge. However, political ideology is far more complex than this, and cannot be reduced to a simple linear scale. Political ideologies are multifaceted, with different dimensions such as economic policy, social values, foreign policy, and many others.
The End
To conclude, this so called theory is Horseshit. It’s a tool used by the Radical Centrists to obscure their involvement with the Radical “Right” to guarantee the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and continue to cement Capitalism as the ruling economic ideology. At the core of our ideology is democratic equity and equality, inclusion and progression. This “theory”, more than an explanatory framework for understanding other political dynamics, is a political perspective in itself, one intended to affirm and valorise centrist moderation as the ideal position, against “extremism”, which is indicted merely for being “extreme” and in opposition to capitalism.
Just in case you need some ammunition in times of need.
Thank you for your time, attention and support.
Yours,
V.