Love this <3 reminds me of the liberal teleology you speak of in If We Burn. I've noticed in person that people who advocate "horseshoe theory" also tend to believe the spread of liberal democracy is just the natural fate that should occur in the world. Of the people I've spoken to who advocate this theory, they don't really understand that the far-right would use their means (lets say violence) for very different political ends than the far-left. Like you said, its like one big "blur" to some. Hope all is well!
That was fun, thanks Vincent. I’m not convinced that North Atlantic liberals are seduced by horseshoe theory because they’re unwittingly ignorant of the facts and that if they took an honest look at opposing ideologies and praxis, they’d see horseshoe’s incoherence and stop citing it.
A few of them might fall into that category, but isn’t the reality more that most liberals don’t really care about horseshoe’s internal coherence? Instead, they see it as a useful tool for maintaining power: a piece of pseudo-science used to cynically conflate opposing ideological extremes, especially an ascendant left, and a smug mantra for signalling affiliation with other realpolitiking, sensible, centrist “grown-ups”?
I haven’t borne political consciousness for very long, so I’d be happy to be called stupid, defeatist and paranoid for this take.
I think it's a perfectly sensible take, personally. At a more basic level, most people want to be on the winning team, or at least the team that makes them feel superior to their perceived opponents.
Yes, exactly. But going deeper on this, I took VB’s essential point to be that liberalism’s broad hegemony stifles its advocates from accurately understanding viewpoints that deviate too far from the centre, especially when they veer towards either ideological pole. The idea being that liberalism is just so immensely successful that it’s all they’ve seen for so long, thus they tend to simplify political differences into two categories: “myself” and “extremists.” Caught in self-obsession and mutual backslapping, liberals view political differences through this narrow lens, and, as a result, horseshoe theory fits neatly into their worldview.
However, seeing how horseshoe theory is invoked by liberals today (such as commentators suggesting Corbyn supporters will eventually back Farage; the Five Star Movement supporters will drift toward Lega; Mélenchon’s followers will turn to Le Pen, or Sanders’ base will support Trump, etc.), I’m increasingly sceptical that these liberals are merely unaware of the broader context.
Yes, both the far-left and far-right critique neoliberal globalisation and elite control, but it’s difficult to believe that many North Atlantic liberals truly think there's more ideological overlap than that. The more likely explanation seems to be that horseshoe theory serves a strategic purpose: it allows liberals to delegitimize the left. They would rather see a fascist in power than a socialist because, for them, the fascist represents an extreme, but manageable, other, whereas socialism represents a direct challenge to their own comfortable position within the status quo.
(Or maybe this is what self-obsession by a left-winger looks like?
Love this <3 reminds me of the liberal teleology you speak of in If We Burn. I've noticed in person that people who advocate "horseshoe theory" also tend to believe the spread of liberal democracy is just the natural fate that should occur in the world. Of the people I've spoken to who advocate this theory, they don't really understand that the far-right would use their means (lets say violence) for very different political ends than the far-left. Like you said, its like one big "blur" to some. Hope all is well!
The extreme right and l ft might sometimes agree on the problem, they almost never agree on the solution.
this mf just recreated the Phenomenology of Spirit
It's mostly just a shorter and more annoying version of the legendary Emporio Celestial de Conocimientos Benévolos
We all bow down to Borges.
O yea, you are a real hegel fan? Name 5 dialectic 🖐
That was fun, thanks Vincent. I’m not convinced that North Atlantic liberals are seduced by horseshoe theory because they’re unwittingly ignorant of the facts and that if they took an honest look at opposing ideologies and praxis, they’d see horseshoe’s incoherence and stop citing it.
A few of them might fall into that category, but isn’t the reality more that most liberals don’t really care about horseshoe’s internal coherence? Instead, they see it as a useful tool for maintaining power: a piece of pseudo-science used to cynically conflate opposing ideological extremes, especially an ascendant left, and a smug mantra for signalling affiliation with other realpolitiking, sensible, centrist “grown-ups”?
I haven’t borne political consciousness for very long, so I’d be happy to be called stupid, defeatist and paranoid for this take.
I think it's a perfectly sensible take, personally. At a more basic level, most people want to be on the winning team, or at least the team that makes them feel superior to their perceived opponents.
Yes, exactly. But going deeper on this, I took VB’s essential point to be that liberalism’s broad hegemony stifles its advocates from accurately understanding viewpoints that deviate too far from the centre, especially when they veer towards either ideological pole. The idea being that liberalism is just so immensely successful that it’s all they’ve seen for so long, thus they tend to simplify political differences into two categories: “myself” and “extremists.” Caught in self-obsession and mutual backslapping, liberals view political differences through this narrow lens, and, as a result, horseshoe theory fits neatly into their worldview.
However, seeing how horseshoe theory is invoked by liberals today (such as commentators suggesting Corbyn supporters will eventually back Farage; the Five Star Movement supporters will drift toward Lega; Mélenchon’s followers will turn to Le Pen, or Sanders’ base will support Trump, etc.), I’m increasingly sceptical that these liberals are merely unaware of the broader context.
Yes, both the far-left and far-right critique neoliberal globalisation and elite control, but it’s difficult to believe that many North Atlantic liberals truly think there's more ideological overlap than that. The more likely explanation seems to be that horseshoe theory serves a strategic purpose: it allows liberals to delegitimize the left. They would rather see a fascist in power than a socialist because, for them, the fascist represents an extreme, but manageable, other, whereas socialism represents a direct challenge to their own comfortable position within the status quo.
(Or maybe this is what self-obsession by a left-winger looks like?
"Everybody is working to demonize me!")
didn't expect to see a gilgamesh reference. i'm expecting ea-nasir in a future piece 😂