Horseshoe theory completely ignores the actual origins of the terms Left and Right in order to push a false narrative that they’re somehow the same.
It’s very simple. The terms Left and Right come from a vote held in the French Assembly just before the Revolution.
The vote was, “should the King have an absolute veto over laws passed by the Assembly?” Those sitting to the Left of the Speaker’s podium said No, those to the Right said Yes.
Knowing the true origin of the terms makes defining them easy, if you are in favor of more power to the people, then you are on the left, if you think power should be concentrated to the few, you’re on the right.
This can apply to social issues as well. If you think minorities deserve protection and representation then you are on the left, if not you’re a horrible person.
The economy, if you think everyone should have a truly fair shake, you’re on the left, if you think money makes some people better than others, you’re on the right.
See how easy that is? Which is why the right wing invented Horseshoe theory. To confuse people.
That and some dictators flat out lied about what they were doing and claimed to be Communist.
Because Lenin betrayed the Revolution after losing the only free and fair election that Russia has ever had.
Complicated question. There is no fixed definition, and this is multi factorial.
To put it simply, I’ll say
Left: equality (economical, social, no discrimination), more state centered, ecology, at the price of private property (specifically private property of companies, factories, means of production) and less freedom (individual rights and economical).
Right: more freedom (specifically economical), stronger (traditional) culture, patriotism/nationalism, less state centered at the price of less equality (limited help if you don’t succeed).
Overall that’s not strict, and there are a few examples of that: non-conservative right (doesn’t seem to exist in the USA).
It’s also important to say that people often have ideas that are a bit of both sides: ex: more economical freedom (right), but no patriotism/nationalism (less right), but more equality in terms of identity (gender, ethnicity…), democracy (can apply to both left and right)
Let’s break down your idea of the “right” because it does need to be analyzed.
You say “more freedom”, but you never actually specify who gets more freedom except in a backhanded way of contrasting your idea of the left, who limit the freedoms of companies.
This is an important point. The Right gives companies and the rich, more freedoms, which in historical context has always meant more freedoms to exploit, or even kill their workers in the name of profit. This conversely means less freedoms for actual people who don’t want to die or be poisoned by some rich asshole who wants to make a buck.
You also say Traditional culture, which has always meant more rights to rich white men and fewer rights to minorities and women. Or maybe you want to couch it by saying a push for more religion, which then means less protections for the people who practice the wrong religion.
But you see how every single point goes back to more power for some people at the expense of everyone else.
This is not a bug, this is a feature. Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre both wrote about how this was the desired outcome, and how democracy was a threat to “traditional values” and how the idea of equality was, in their words, repugnant.
There is a direct through-line from those two bastards to every single conservative thought leader of today, and many of them use the exact same talking points.
You’re free to think whatever you want about the right. You’re making valid criticism, but it goes both sides!
The freedom in question is also the freedom of owning private property, like a house or objects… which tends to dissapear when you go to the far left, and everything is shared.
Right is also going in the meritocracy direction. People could make criticism by saying that political left doesn’t reward intellectual jobs and studies, etc… and give people that abuse a better life. Leaning towards political rights gets more logical when you benefit from it.
In the end, most people are selfish and will vote for whoever helps them the most. That’s the world we live in. Being pro-left doesn’t say shit if you have low income; you do not risk anything from it, and it might be selfish because it’s mainly to serve your own interests. On the other side, being pro-right when you get taxed a shit load for hard work, which makes you feel scammed, is logical as well. Selfish, but logical.
But yea, in the current society, everyone wants money and wants to be rich, but to become rich, you have to be an asshole. Thanks, capitalism!
Ah yes, the lie of “you don’t own things under communism”
I mean, come on, that’s fucking stupid.
No, the only people who would have any property seized are the super rich, and most of them are lucky if they don’t get the guillotine for their crimes.
You cannot have gross excess under communism, because you’ll never be able to exploit your fellows in order to steal what should be shared.
The workers seize the means of production, and then produce. Then the factory shares the wealth created by the factory. You know, like a co-op.
That’s small scale communism. Everyone chips in to work, and everyone gets a piece of the profit because everyone owns a slice of the company.
Anyway Marx and Engels thought that after reaching that point, the government would sort of wither away and everyone would live in fantasy land utopia.
The other way seems better, a one world government where every single person on earth has a vote, because there are some issues where everyone on earth should have a voice.
But that would require a massive change to, well, human nature to start. Making people less tribal or giving the vast majority of the population the ability to sit and consider what’s good for the Earth, five, ten, or even a hundred years in the future, is a bit beyond me. Not something I’m every going to be capable of doing.
Some people just cannot wrap their head around the difference between totalitarianism and socialism.
But I will say this: viewing political opinion on a straight line never really made much sense. At the very least one should think of it as a field (2 dimensions instead of 1). And of course this does NOT mean that I approve of the horseshit theory.
Every time I try to come up with a different metric, it usually boils down to, “where does the ultimate power lie”.
In an ideal democracy, that power comes from the consent of the governed, i.e. the people and their direct vote. But that’s usually untenable on larger scales, so thus power is concentrated. The how of that concentration can lead to all sorts of axis on a chart, but in the end, the other side of the chart is usually some form of direct democracy, i.e. returning power to the people.
So you go into a conversation about a modern topic where the modern definition of terms is a particular thing, and then you said “well ackshually the definition of this in 1780 was this so you’re wrong”.
I don’t think anyone cares what the definition of left and right are in 1780s France and it has no bearing on a modern discussion of these terms.
The point I’m making is that the trough line has always been, Right-wing concentrated power, Left-wing distributed power.
The fact that certain dictators have pretended to be left-wing, and right-wing jackasses have gone along with it, is where the deliberate confusion was introduced.
Communism as proposed by Marx is a true leftwing ideology, the Totalitarian dictatorship created by Lenin was communist in name only, it had more in common with Feudalism than communism. Mao was just as bad. An out of touch dictator who told farmers to plant their seeds several feet underground, and when that obviously failed, feasted while they starved.
That doesn’t seem anything like what Marx wrote about, or rather it was disturbingly similar to what Marx wrote about capitalism.
But again, right-wingers love to confuse the issue, because it turns out kings are not popular, so you have to lie to get people to bow before one.
Horseshoe theory completely ignores the actual origins of the terms Left and Right in order to push a false narrative that they’re somehow the same.
It’s very simple. The terms Left and Right come from a vote held in the French Assembly just before the Revolution.
The vote was, “should the King have an absolute veto over laws passed by the Assembly?” Those sitting to the Left of the Speaker’s podium said No, those to the Right said Yes.
Knowing the true origin of the terms makes defining them easy, if you are in favor of more power to the people, then you are on the left, if you think power should be concentrated to the few, you’re on the right.
This can apply to social issues as well. If you think minorities deserve protection and representation then you are on the left, if not you’re a horrible person.
The economy, if you think everyone should have a truly fair shake, you’re on the left, if you think money makes some people better than others, you’re on the right.
See how easy that is? Which is why the right wing invented Horseshoe theory. To confuse people.
That and some dictators flat out lied about what they were doing and claimed to be Communist.
Because Lenin betrayed the Revolution after losing the only free and fair election that Russia has ever had.
The meaning of words change over time, that’s the same for “left” and “right”
You’re framing the “right” to rewrite the current meaning with the historical meaning, which just doesn’t work.
It scares me that there are so many upvotes on this. Misinformation is on both sides, and you’re comment is proof of that.
What are the current meanings of left and right?
Complicated question. There is no fixed definition, and this is multi factorial.
To put it simply, I’ll say
Left: equality (economical, social, no discrimination), more state centered, ecology, at the price of private property (specifically private property of companies, factories, means of production) and less freedom (individual rights and economical).
Right: more freedom (specifically economical), stronger (traditional) culture, patriotism/nationalism, less state centered at the price of less equality (limited help if you don’t succeed).
Overall that’s not strict, and there are a few examples of that: non-conservative right (doesn’t seem to exist in the USA).
It’s also important to say that people often have ideas that are a bit of both sides: ex: more economical freedom (right), but no patriotism/nationalism (less right), but more equality in terms of identity (gender, ethnicity…), democracy (can apply to both left and right)
Let’s break down your idea of the “right” because it does need to be analyzed.
You say “more freedom”, but you never actually specify who gets more freedom except in a backhanded way of contrasting your idea of the left, who limit the freedoms of companies.
This is an important point. The Right gives companies and the rich, more freedoms, which in historical context has always meant more freedoms to exploit, or even kill their workers in the name of profit. This conversely means less freedoms for actual people who don’t want to die or be poisoned by some rich asshole who wants to make a buck.
You also say Traditional culture, which has always meant more rights to rich white men and fewer rights to minorities and women. Or maybe you want to couch it by saying a push for more religion, which then means less protections for the people who practice the wrong religion.
But you see how every single point goes back to more power for some people at the expense of everyone else.
This is not a bug, this is a feature. Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre both wrote about how this was the desired outcome, and how democracy was a threat to “traditional values” and how the idea of equality was, in their words, repugnant.
There is a direct through-line from those two bastards to every single conservative thought leader of today, and many of them use the exact same talking points.
You’re free to think whatever you want about the right. You’re making valid criticism, but it goes both sides!
The freedom in question is also the freedom of owning private property, like a house or objects… which tends to dissapear when you go to the far left, and everything is shared.
Right is also going in the meritocracy direction. People could make criticism by saying that political left doesn’t reward intellectual jobs and studies, etc… and give people that abuse a better life. Leaning towards political rights gets more logical when you benefit from it.
In the end, most people are selfish and will vote for whoever helps them the most. That’s the world we live in. Being pro-left doesn’t say shit if you have low income; you do not risk anything from it, and it might be selfish because it’s mainly to serve your own interests. On the other side, being pro-right when you get taxed a shit load for hard work, which makes you feel scammed, is logical as well. Selfish, but logical.
But yea, in the current society, everyone wants money and wants to be rich, but to become rich, you have to be an asshole. Thanks, capitalism!
Ah yes, the lie of “you don’t own things under communism”
I mean, come on, that’s fucking stupid.
No, the only people who would have any property seized are the super rich, and most of them are lucky if they don’t get the guillotine for their crimes.
You cannot have gross excess under communism, because you’ll never be able to exploit your fellows in order to steal what should be shared.
The workers seize the means of production, and then produce. Then the factory shares the wealth created by the factory. You know, like a co-op.
That’s small scale communism. Everyone chips in to work, and everyone gets a piece of the profit because everyone owns a slice of the company.
Anyway Marx and Engels thought that after reaching that point, the government would sort of wither away and everyone would live in fantasy land utopia.
The other way seems better, a one world government where every single person on earth has a vote, because there are some issues where everyone on earth should have a voice.
But that would require a massive change to, well, human nature to start. Making people less tribal or giving the vast majority of the population the ability to sit and consider what’s good for the Earth, five, ten, or even a hundred years in the future, is a bit beyond me. Not something I’m every going to be capable of doing.
Some people just cannot wrap their head around the difference between totalitarianism and socialism.
But I will say this: viewing political opinion on a straight line never really made much sense. At the very least one should think of it as a field (2 dimensions instead of 1). And of course this does NOT mean that I approve of the horseshit theory.
Every time I try to come up with a different metric, it usually boils down to, “where does the ultimate power lie”.
In an ideal democracy, that power comes from the consent of the governed, i.e. the people and their direct vote. But that’s usually untenable on larger scales, so thus power is concentrated. The how of that concentration can lead to all sorts of axis on a chart, but in the end, the other side of the chart is usually some form of direct democracy, i.e. returning power to the people.
So you go into a conversation about a modern topic where the modern definition of terms is a particular thing, and then you said “well ackshually the definition of this in 1780 was this so you’re wrong”.
I don’t think anyone cares what the definition of left and right are in 1780s France and it has no bearing on a modern discussion of these terms.
The point I’m making is that the trough line has always been, Right-wing concentrated power, Left-wing distributed power.
The fact that certain dictators have pretended to be left-wing, and right-wing jackasses have gone along with it, is where the deliberate confusion was introduced.
Communism as proposed by Marx is a true leftwing ideology, the Totalitarian dictatorship created by Lenin was communist in name only, it had more in common with Feudalism than communism. Mao was just as bad. An out of touch dictator who told farmers to plant their seeds several feet underground, and when that obviously failed, feasted while they starved.
That doesn’t seem anything like what Marx wrote about, or rather it was disturbingly similar to what Marx wrote about capitalism.
But again, right-wingers love to confuse the issue, because it turns out kings are not popular, so you have to lie to get people to bow before one.