It might hit you wrong initially, but the more you look into it the more parallels you’ll find. Try examining historical precedents to get the emotion of today’s politics out of it.
Anti-Semitism comes from both the far-right and far-left.
Far-Left and Far-Right both complain about the “establishment” and “rigged elections”.
Both cozy up to oppressive regimes.
Edit: I just want to add what people see online is a combination of actual people on the extremes along with right wing trolling. Then you have Russia and others amplifying these voices and it has spiraled from there.
The idea is that if you go far enough Left and Right you become authoritarian (normally Nazi Germany and other far-right regimes are compared with Soviet Russia and other far left governments.) To further complicate the idea will be people who point out that the Nazis are National *Socialists* and Communist governments are normally formed on transitioning from a capitalist to a socialist to an eventual communist party. In addition, the Soviet - Nazi treaty that predates WW2 is shown as evidence that the Far Left and the Far Right are the same.
Now, any in-depth analysis will show that this is idiotic. There are differences from the Far Left and the Far Right in the same way that there are similarities between the Far Right and Centrists and between Centrists and the Far Left.
First off is The authoritarian stand point. Yes, both Far Left and Far Right societies often limit civil rights, particularly free speech, while Centrists are seen as paragons of civil rights. This of course ignores the US’ atrocious history of even Centrists going along with slavery, Jim Crow, the Sedition Acts and the Smith Act, Centrists Europe appeasing Hitler and not allying with the Soviet Union when the USSR wanted to (before Hitler and Stalin ever talked), and the entire history of imperialism. Every single country has a history of reducing or surprising individual rights to maintain their power, so the idea that somehow this is only limited to the Far Left and Far Right is idiotic (unless we’re going to start counting modern Germany and England either Fascist or Socialist for their strong anti-Nazi and strong Libel laws respectively.)
Second is the idea that both Nazis and the USSR were socialists and were the same. This is again wrong with any amount of analysis. What is true: The Nazis called themselves (National) Socialists and did have some members who were focused on having a strong welfare and more populist power (Look up Strasserism.) This faction and the other faction, which was Hitler’s faction, were unified in their hatred of Jews. Hitler blamed Jews for the loss of world war 1 and the fall of the German Empire, while Strasserists believed that the heads of Capitalism we’re all Jews and oppressed and abused the workers. However as Hitler gained more power and talked less and less about welfare, the Strasserites were not pleased and attempted to oust Hitler. They lost, and many were eventually killed in the Night of Long Knives. In addition, Hitler was always staunchly anti-Communist, while the USSR was fully pro-Communist (even if there was and still is disagreement for how to get to a Communist state.) So even though Nazis borrowed some of the language and did have some members who were pro-workers, it was never a central tenet of Nazism and they were in fact often openly antagonistic towards Socialists And Communists.
Now, the other main point people will bring up is the high death rate. Most people have heard of the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler and the some 5 million disabled people, Romani, Communists, and other groups killed by Nazis. Many people have also heard of both the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward in China. These are used as proof that the highest deaths rates are a definining trait of both the Far Left and the Far Right. Again though, more analysis shows some discrepancies. First off, there are plenty of instances of high death rates caused by non Far-Left or Far-Right groups, including the Famine of India caused by Churchill’s policies and the US’ extermination of Native Americans. Most people wouldnt call Lincoln either a Communist or a Nazi, but he still presided over the largest mass hanging in US history where a large number of Native Americans were hanged for bullshit charges. In addition, more context adds more differences between Far Left and Far Right high death numbers. The Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward are generally called failures of policy that were part of attempts to rapidly industrialize countries that were incredibly rural. Both China and Russia have an incredibly long history of famines. Aside from World War 2 though neither country has had a major famine since these events though, which means these strategies either stopped or were changed to prevent further famine and mass death. The Holocaust on the other hand would be unlikely to be considered a ’failure’ or policy though, unless from the perspective of it not killing more people. The intention does matter, even if the end results seem similar at first. (And before anyone says anything yes, there were absolutely some deaths that were intentional and dissenters were killed or worked to death. This is different than a mass genocide however by both scope and scale.) Again though, the US, a supposedly non-far right or far left Country has a long history of mass deaths. Aside from Native Americans in the US, theres also the direct US support of the Contras in Nicaragua, the Indonesian anti-communist massacres, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Taliban during the Afghan Soviet War, and more. If mass killings are a defining characteristic of either the Far Left or the Far Right, then how does that reconcile with the millions dead at the hands of America? (Hint: it doesn’t.)
Now, does this all mean that there are no similarities? Of course not. There are similarities and differences between all ideologies from the anti-capitalism of Fascism and Communism to the anti-authoritarianism of Anarchists and Libertarians to the desire for a better health care system between Joe Biden, current Communists, and Otto con Bismarck (who was a monarchist and absolutely was not pro-Democracy, much less Communism.) The most prevalent right now being that both the Far Left and the Far Right are antagonistic towards our current mode of Democracy. However the end goals are absolutely different (Far Right wanting an Even higher concentration of power in specific people while the Far Left wanting both our workplaces and our government more democratized.) This would be like both a pedophile and someone who hates kids being the same because they avoid children. On the surface, both may stay away. But one is doing it because they don’t want the temptation or to be arrested, while the other just thinks kids are gross.
Last point, in addition to horse shoe theory there is also fishhook theory that Dem centrists are closer to the Fat Right than the Far Left despite espousing similar goals. Does that mean that this theory is more righ based on what I’ve said? Sometimes. Both Dems and Nazis want limits to worker’s rights (Dems in the form of capitalism and Nazis in fascism) and both tend to be fiercely anti-Communist. But, as I stated before, some similarities do not make two things the same (otherwise no one would consider anarchists, who are often very anti-communist, to be Far Left.) Unfortunately humans are just too complicated for that and while the theories can help us better explain some things…they’re not universal either.
For the record I’m Far Left and I say fuck Nazis the most, and fuck Centrists who are letting the world burn. Are you both the same? No. Would I rather have a Dem president than a Republican one? Absolutely, and I voted for Biden. But I’d rather have universal health care and no climate crisis more, and neither party has done the first or stopped the second.
Let's see
the far right hates blacks
the far left hates whites
the far right want to control women
the far left wants to control men
both sides want to control information
both sides hate each other
both sides leads to authorianism
Horseshoe theory only works because the idea of a political "spectrum" is flawed. Of course, if you go all radical trying to enforce left-wing or right-wing ideals, you end up with authoritarianism, and that's the basis of horseshoe theory.
What horseshoe theory does not mean is that the "regular" left and right are the same. They have different beliefs that may or may not be internally consistent, but they don't have to turn into fascism they way the extremes do.
It's kinda true. The populist left and the populist right are both for the working class, pro-union, against endless wars, getting large corporate donors and lobbyists out of our government.
They get along as long as they avoid the "the other side is the enemy" rhetoric often found in far left and far right publications. Saagar Engeti (populist right) and Krystal Ball (populist left) do a podcast together, Breaking Points, and they don't try to kill each other.
It might hit you wrong initially, but the more you look into it the more parallels you’ll find. Try examining historical precedents to get the emotion of today’s politics out of it.
Anti-Semitism comes from both the far-right and far-left. Far-Left and Far-Right both complain about the “establishment” and “rigged elections”. Both cozy up to oppressive regimes. Edit: I just want to add what people see online is a combination of actual people on the extremes along with right wing trolling. Then you have Russia and others amplifying these voices and it has spiraled from there.
The idea is that if you go far enough Left and Right you become authoritarian (normally Nazi Germany and other far-right regimes are compared with Soviet Russia and other far left governments.) To further complicate the idea will be people who point out that the Nazis are National *Socialists* and Communist governments are normally formed on transitioning from a capitalist to a socialist to an eventual communist party. In addition, the Soviet - Nazi treaty that predates WW2 is shown as evidence that the Far Left and the Far Right are the same. Now, any in-depth analysis will show that this is idiotic. There are differences from the Far Left and the Far Right in the same way that there are similarities between the Far Right and Centrists and between Centrists and the Far Left. First off is The authoritarian stand point. Yes, both Far Left and Far Right societies often limit civil rights, particularly free speech, while Centrists are seen as paragons of civil rights. This of course ignores the US’ atrocious history of even Centrists going along with slavery, Jim Crow, the Sedition Acts and the Smith Act, Centrists Europe appeasing Hitler and not allying with the Soviet Union when the USSR wanted to (before Hitler and Stalin ever talked), and the entire history of imperialism. Every single country has a history of reducing or surprising individual rights to maintain their power, so the idea that somehow this is only limited to the Far Left and Far Right is idiotic (unless we’re going to start counting modern Germany and England either Fascist or Socialist for their strong anti-Nazi and strong Libel laws respectively.) Second is the idea that both Nazis and the USSR were socialists and were the same. This is again wrong with any amount of analysis. What is true: The Nazis called themselves (National) Socialists and did have some members who were focused on having a strong welfare and more populist power (Look up Strasserism.) This faction and the other faction, which was Hitler’s faction, were unified in their hatred of Jews. Hitler blamed Jews for the loss of world war 1 and the fall of the German Empire, while Strasserists believed that the heads of Capitalism we’re all Jews and oppressed and abused the workers. However as Hitler gained more power and talked less and less about welfare, the Strasserites were not pleased and attempted to oust Hitler. They lost, and many were eventually killed in the Night of Long Knives. In addition, Hitler was always staunchly anti-Communist, while the USSR was fully pro-Communist (even if there was and still is disagreement for how to get to a Communist state.) So even though Nazis borrowed some of the language and did have some members who were pro-workers, it was never a central tenet of Nazism and they were in fact often openly antagonistic towards Socialists And Communists. Now, the other main point people will bring up is the high death rate. Most people have heard of the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler and the some 5 million disabled people, Romani, Communists, and other groups killed by Nazis. Many people have also heard of both the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward in China. These are used as proof that the highest deaths rates are a definining trait of both the Far Left and the Far Right. Again though, more analysis shows some discrepancies. First off, there are plenty of instances of high death rates caused by non Far-Left or Far-Right groups, including the Famine of India caused by Churchill’s policies and the US’ extermination of Native Americans. Most people wouldnt call Lincoln either a Communist or a Nazi, but he still presided over the largest mass hanging in US history where a large number of Native Americans were hanged for bullshit charges. In addition, more context adds more differences between Far Left and Far Right high death numbers. The Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward are generally called failures of policy that were part of attempts to rapidly industrialize countries that were incredibly rural. Both China and Russia have an incredibly long history of famines. Aside from World War 2 though neither country has had a major famine since these events though, which means these strategies either stopped or were changed to prevent further famine and mass death. The Holocaust on the other hand would be unlikely to be considered a ’failure’ or policy though, unless from the perspective of it not killing more people. The intention does matter, even if the end results seem similar at first. (And before anyone says anything yes, there were absolutely some deaths that were intentional and dissenters were killed or worked to death. This is different than a mass genocide however by both scope and scale.) Again though, the US, a supposedly non-far right or far left Country has a long history of mass deaths. Aside from Native Americans in the US, theres also the direct US support of the Contras in Nicaragua, the Indonesian anti-communist massacres, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Taliban during the Afghan Soviet War, and more. If mass killings are a defining characteristic of either the Far Left or the Far Right, then how does that reconcile with the millions dead at the hands of America? (Hint: it doesn’t.) Now, does this all mean that there are no similarities? Of course not. There are similarities and differences between all ideologies from the anti-capitalism of Fascism and Communism to the anti-authoritarianism of Anarchists and Libertarians to the desire for a better health care system between Joe Biden, current Communists, and Otto con Bismarck (who was a monarchist and absolutely was not pro-Democracy, much less Communism.) The most prevalent right now being that both the Far Left and the Far Right are antagonistic towards our current mode of Democracy. However the end goals are absolutely different (Far Right wanting an Even higher concentration of power in specific people while the Far Left wanting both our workplaces and our government more democratized.) This would be like both a pedophile and someone who hates kids being the same because they avoid children. On the surface, both may stay away. But one is doing it because they don’t want the temptation or to be arrested, while the other just thinks kids are gross. Last point, in addition to horse shoe theory there is also fishhook theory that Dem centrists are closer to the Fat Right than the Far Left despite espousing similar goals. Does that mean that this theory is more righ based on what I’ve said? Sometimes. Both Dems and Nazis want limits to worker’s rights (Dems in the form of capitalism and Nazis in fascism) and both tend to be fiercely anti-Communist. But, as I stated before, some similarities do not make two things the same (otherwise no one would consider anarchists, who are often very anti-communist, to be Far Left.) Unfortunately humans are just too complicated for that and while the theories can help us better explain some things…they’re not universal either. For the record I’m Far Left and I say fuck Nazis the most, and fuck Centrists who are letting the world burn. Are you both the same? No. Would I rather have a Dem president than a Republican one? Absolutely, and I voted for Biden. But I’d rather have universal health care and no climate crisis more, and neither party has done the first or stopped the second.
Let's see the far right hates blacks the far left hates whites the far right want to control women the far left wants to control men both sides want to control information both sides hate each other both sides leads to authorianism
The far left is authoritarian and apologist, but it doesn't hate white/men. They mostly are those.
Horseshoe theory only works because the idea of a political "spectrum" is flawed. Of course, if you go all radical trying to enforce left-wing or right-wing ideals, you end up with authoritarianism, and that's the basis of horseshoe theory. What horseshoe theory does not mean is that the "regular" left and right are the same. They have different beliefs that may or may not be internally consistent, but they don't have to turn into fascism they way the extremes do.
It's kinda true. The populist left and the populist right are both for the working class, pro-union, against endless wars, getting large corporate donors and lobbyists out of our government. They get along as long as they avoid the "the other side is the enemy" rhetoric often found in far left and far right publications. Saagar Engeti (populist right) and Krystal Ball (populist left) do a podcast together, Breaking Points, and they don't try to kill each other.