Out in the Wings: Left Wing, Right Wing, And Why It's All Nonsense

Why do we call it left wing or right wing and what are the merits of horseshoe theory?

I'm not partial to the martial
Or the plutocrats in their beaver hats
And the fascists have the outfits
But I don't care for the outfits
What I care about is music
And the communists have the music
-They Might Be Giants

Our story begins with the prototypical Fascist, Benito Mussolini.

Initially, as a prominent socialist editor and writer, Mussolini advocated for socialist involvement in the First World War, positing that war could catalyze the proletarian revolution, an idea deeply rooted in his upbringing by Communist parents and his activities as a Communist agitator and propagandist.

Benito Mussolini's transition to Fascism was catalyzed by his observations of socialism's inadequacies during the First World War.

His eventual schism with the Italian Socialist Party was acrimonious, driven by his belief that despite his significant contributions to the socialist cause that he had been unjustly denied a leadership role. Upon securing a position in the Italian Parliament, he positioned himself on the far right of the Parliament floor, not only physically distancing himself from his previous socialist comrades (who sat on the left wing of the building) but also adopting various symbolism such as the fasces and adding to those his new physical position within the building, calling on others to align with right-wing ideologies. This physical and ideological separation was marked by violent opposition against his former associates, including instances of assault and (most likely) murder. But yes - this literal physical separation is what today gives us the terms left-wing and right-wing¹; it has persisted ever since and been translated into the vernacular of nearly every language.

(As an aside, American media deliberately reversed the other commonplace political lexicon: in the United States these days, “Blue States” are politically left-wing and “Red States” are politically right-wing; this is not how the rest of the world does it, because the Reds are the Communists, but apocryphally the American News Media realized this was just a little too on the nose and intentionally reversed it because openly associating the Democrats with Communism was going to be potentially problematic. There had been less consensus historically but pre-2000 it had been more frequently blue for Republicans, red for Democrats; as of the turn of the millenium, however, this reversed with the fig leaf rationalization “Republican and Red both start with R” and the Mainstream Media all followed in lockstep.)

Mussolini reconsidered Marx's class struggle, recognizing its impracticality in Italy's socio-economic context where familial enterprises predominated. He reframed this struggle not as one between different classes within a society but between exploited, working-class nations like Italy and the exploitative capitalist powers such as Britain and the United States, and sought to frame this as a struggle to be conducted on a national scale - with himself at the head, of course.

The adoption of militarism, grandiose public displays, and intense nationalism in Mussolini's fascist doctrine was influenced by revisionist communist theorists who argued that these elements were necessary to mobilize the masses for revolution, given the observed willingness of people to die for their nation rather than for class solidarity. Mussolini thus cultivated a persona of a charismatic, omnipotent leader, employing massive parades and symbolic gestures, a strategy echoed by Hitler, although their personal and political relations were fraught with tension.

By the mid-1930s, Austria had already embraced fascism, leading to a complex dynamic where Austrian fascists and Nazis engaged in violent confrontations, including the assassination of Austria's fascist leader, which precipitated the Austrian Civil War. Mussolini, considering military action against Hitler, ultimately refrained due to Germany's superior industrial capacity. Their alliance was characterized by mutual mistrust, with significant strategic decisions often undisclosed to each other, and Italy lacked access to German military technology like Panzers and Messerschmitts.

Italy's eventual ousting of Mussolini saw the country align with the Allies, where former fascists were reincorporated into political life under new guises, illustrating the complexities of denazification and political rebranding. This historical maneuver allowed Italy to claim victory alongside the Allies in World War II, an extremely dubious position, but for various reasons (mostly to prevent Italy from going Communist after the war) it was the order of the day.

Anecdotally, it's humorously remarked that during Mussolini's reign, fascists purged libraries of evidence linking him to socialism, only for socialists to later repeat that process to ensure no remnants of this connection were overlooked after his demise.

Currently, Mussolini's granddaughter, Alessandra Mussolini, holds a position in the European Parliament, reflecting the enduring political legacy of the Mussolini family. The more things change, the more they remain the same!

So if one man can go from a Communist-raised hard-core Socialist to the founder of Fascism virtually overnight - what could cause such a radical swing? Aren’t those virtually opposite? Well, there’s reasonable reason to say “no” - and whether you call this the “Uni-Party” or whether you call it “Horseshoe Theory”, let us endeavor to explain a bit further.

Perhaps the extremes are not so different after all?

Political Horseshoe Theory posits an intriguing and somewhat controversial perspective on the ideological spectrum, suggesting that the far ends of the political spectrum, traditionally visualized as a linear continuum from left to right, actually converge or bend towards each other, forming a horseshoe or U-shape. As one might infer from Mussolini’s actual political journey, there is clearly more mobility between the various points on the political spectrum than one might otherwise generally believe.

At the core of Horseshoe Theory is the assertion that extreme ideologies, whether they are far-left (e.g., communism, radical socialism) or far-right (e.g., fascism, neo-Nazism), share certain operational or psychological characteristics despite their ostensibly opposing philosophical foundations. This theory challenges the traditional linear model of political ideology, which assumes a straightforward progression from left to right, where the middle represents centrism or moderation.

The “convergence of extremes” centers on several points, though primarily authoritarianism. Both ends of the horseshoe tend towards authoritarianism, where the state or a single leader exerts significant control over individual freedoms, often justified by different ideological ends but similar means, such as suppression of dissent, censorship, and the curtailment of civil liberties. Likewise, extremist ideologies frequently employ populist rhetoric and scapegoating, identifying and vilifying an 'other' - stereotypically, class enemies for the left or racial/ethnic minorities for the right, but often economic enemies in either case - as a means to unify their base against perceived threats. Another common point is a “cult of personality”, wherein there's often a reliance on charismatic leadership where the leader's persona is central to the political movement, which can be observed in figures like Stalin on the left or Mussolini on the right. Arguably, there may also be agreement in economic and social control: while the far-left might advocate for state control of the economy to achieve social equality, the far-right might support economic freedom but advocate for strict social control or homogeneity; curiously, both resulting in similar levels of conformity though with ostensibly different rationales. However, both might result in similar structures of control over individual lives and an establishment of an authoritarian state in the pursuit of these goals.

To be fair, horseshoe theory is not without criticism - mostly as an oversimplification. Critics argue that Horseshoe Theory oversimplifies complex political ideologies, ignoring the fundamental differences in goals (e.g., equality vs. hierarchy) and methods (e.g., collective ownership vs. private enterprise). There is debate over the empirical validity of the theory, with some scholars suggesting that the convergence is more about political practice under stress or in power rather than ideological convergence per se; that politics often boils down to “the ends justify the means” and simply what you are seeing is that “the means” are the same for Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot. And of course, if you wish to regard everything through the lens of cultural relativism, the applicability of Horseshoe Theory might vary significantly based on cultural, historical, and national contexts, where what might seem radical in one country could be centrist in another. There’s always someone who will say “Well, Vlad The Impaler was worse”, or the Mongols, or the Assyrians, or the Aztecs, or any number of other civilizations throughout history that, yes, we are indeed all thankful that we are not ruled/enslaved by.

The best value one can reasonably ascribe to Horseshoe Theory is that it encourages a nuanced understanding of political extremism, urging observers to look beyond labels to the actual behaviors and policies enacted by political actors. It suggests that in the pursuit of radical change, the methods and outcomes might look disturbingly similar, regardless of the ideological starting point. This theory invites us to question the linear model of political spectrums, promoting a more circular or multidimensional view of political ideology where extremes might share more in common than with the moderate center.

In conclusion, while Horseshoe Theory provides a framework to understand certain dynamics of political extremism, it also serves as a reminder of the complexity of political thought and the need for careful analysis beyond simple dichotomies.

Or it might just give you memes like this.

In all seriousness, however, the message to take from this? There is not a great deal of difference politically between us all. People are easily radicalized - Mussolini is an ideal example of going from Hard Left to Hard Right in very little time; you probably know many other examples in your own life who have done similar political flip-flops in months or only a couple years and you may even have done so yourself (it’s not uncommon to do this in college, or when rebelling against your parents’ ideology). Ideologies and beliefs do not fit all neatly on the left-right political spectrum. People who insist that they do are trying to keep you in a box, either for their own benefit or because they have been trained that This Is The Way It Is and they haven’t ever considered differently. If you take nothing else from this, consider what you have been preconditioned to believe … “what you think you know, that isn’t so” … re-examine that, and choose to think for yourself.

1. There is some earlier precedent that the etymology dates to the French Revolution - but the use of the term in that era doesn’t map particularly well to our modern definitions; you won’t find the Right Wing to be Monarchists today unless you squint really hard. There was also a period where anything avant-garde (art! opera!) was dubbed left-wing because the right-wing was the populist faction. That pendulum swings a lot.