Talk:Horseshoe theory

Criticism

"He dissents from the theory, objecting that it fails to take into account the unbroken continuum of political thought."

How does it differ from classical theory? It also breaks continuum in its far ends, unless we assume its stretches into infinity, thus for every right/left political thought we can always find more rightish/leftish one. Can we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.67.45 (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence. The reference link if broken, it doesn't make any sense to say first that he supports it and then that he dissents. And the last commenter is correct. A horseshoe is an unbroken continuum just the same as a straight line is an unbroken continuum. It makes no sense to say that, and without a reference I don't believe he did say that. Primium mobile (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While you're at it, remove this one too. "Critics of the theory have suggested that many sociologists consider the Horseshoe theory to have been discredited". In fact, remove the whole section. 72.208.211.248 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the passage is that Horseshoe Theory was never credited, such that it could be subsequently discredited. The editors of this page cannot find a source establishing it as an academic topic. Removing the entire criticism section is unwarranted. The entry on Climate Change Denial establishes it up front as pseudoscience. And that's exactly what Horseshoe Theory is. Social pseudoscience.

How come the article lists 'religious rhetoric' as "far-right", maybe it's just me but I don't remember Jesus ever hanging any Jews from trees... So next time I read the bible I guess I'm just going to have to face it that we're all just a bunch of angry, hedonistic fascist national socialist thugs cause Wikipedia says so. - Eli

References

Surely we can come up with a few more decent refs for this? Perhaps somebody who speaks French can find out about its coinage by Jean-Pierre Faye and maybe, if we knew the French term he used we could use that to dig up some other references. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Going by fer à cheval for "horseshoe", it looks like Faye coined the term in Langages totalitaires (1972) although I suspect the idea predates that (i.e., it seems obvious that the far left and far right share being viewed as extremist). I wonder if there isn't a more popular name for this in English. —Mrwojo (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See also

I have more or less replaced the "See also" links as most of them seemed to be irrelevant (or only very tangentially relevant). I put the competing systems of political classification in instead as that is what people are most likely to want to compare and contrast. It is possible that I missed the relevance of some of the old links. If so, please add them back but use a comment saying what makes them relevant. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

citing a ridiculously biased source.

"Critics of the theory have suggested that many sociologists consider the Horseshoe theory to have been discredited." is justified solely by a reference to a site whose slogan is "Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers".

Seriously.

Of course a far left group whose agenda is openly anti-conservative is going to disagree with this, the assertion that they are similar to the far right. This is hardly notable. 64.24.209.204 (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that source has a clear left bias. --72.208.211.248 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

One might as well argue that a centrist advocate of the horseshoe theory is biased by their centrist agenda. I mean, who else would advocate it but a centrist? 64.85.226.50 (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

property rights

i removed the two phrases regarding the far left and far right violating people's property rights. that is a biased description of their policies that depends on readers sharing a particular view of what constitutes property rights and what would violate them. --dan (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove this paragraph?

"Other scholars such as Ludwig Von Mises and more recently, Jonah Goldberg [author of "Liberal Fascism"] reject the Horseshoe theory and place Communism, Socialism and Fascism all on the left end of the political spectrum. Prior to WW2, there was a distinction between International Socialism, with its center being in Moscow and Russia and National Socialism also known as Nazism with its center being in Berlin and Germany. Both had similar social policies but one focused on a world wide movement and the other was focused as a national movement. Similarly Italian Fascism had its roots in Socialism and Mussolini considered himself a Socialist. National Socialism and International Socialism cooperated closely with each other culminating in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in which Hitler and Stalin agreed to cooperate and carve up Eastern Europe. When Hitler broke this treaty and attacked Russia, this created a schism between National Socialism and International Socialism. From that point on Russia and its leftist sympathizers distanced from National Socialism placing it on the other end of the spectrum. At the same time, Russia became an ally of the US and UK in WW2 which led Western academics to also place International and National Socialism on opposite ends of the political spectrum."

• 1)Jonah Goldberg is not an actual scholar. An ameuteur or hobbyist perhaps, but not a qualified scholar, and his book is not a very good source based on the opinion of actual scholars.
• 2)This presents a shaky, temporary alliance as being a result of similar ideology rather than real politik. Stalin wanted land, Hitler wanted land, neither was in a position to go to war wih each other, so they made an agreement that quickly broke down when there was no more land and one (thought) they could handle a war. There could be a point here that totalitarian states whether far-right or far-left are imperialist in their actions but not that they were part of the same movement.
• 3)There was already a schism between the two. Communists and Fascists were already killing each other, just not on the eastern front. Again this paragraph makes is seem like they were BFF's when Stalin was using "Social Fascism" as an excuse to kill anyone to the right of the Communist party (such as the social democrats) and both Hitler and Mussolini were paranoid anti-communists. Hence why they were placed on opposite sides of the spectrum even before the war (even in the US nazism was considered far-right such as when Henry Ford's magazine was accused of pushing "extreme right" views.)
• 4)Mussolini murdered the socialists and even said his official policy was to bash their heads in. I'm doubtful he considered himself a socialist after becoming a fascist but if he did it was not in the left-wing egalitarian sense.

The horseshoe theory is a respectable one, so can we revise this page to be more, er, respectable? This seems like we're putting too much weight in the words of a few, how do I say this politely... crackpots. (PS sorry I'm a BON right now I couldn't sign in I'm "clothcoat" if you're curious) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.192.212 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horseshoe theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2013/05/north-korea-fascist-state.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is there a "citation needed" for it being in political science?

The fact that Horseshoe theory involves political science hardly seems like a claim warranting a "citation needed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC49:600:6DF8:9149:B603:5B56 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree and am removing it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.100.124 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that horseshoe theory is a topic of "political science"? As far as i can tell, it's a pop theory put forward by political commentators, not academics. The citation of Jean-Pierre Faye doesn't even contain the quoted reference. I'm skeptical that Horseshoe Theory is deserving of a wikipedia page, but if there's going to be one it should properly contextualize it as a kind of epithet or aphorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhess126 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horseshoe theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203054730/http://www.rolandberger.com/news/2008-12-22-rbsc-news-NewYearEssay.html to http://www.rolandberger.com/news/2008-12-22-rbsc-news-NewYearEssay.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Fish hook theory

"Choat also argues that although proponents of the horseshoe theory may cite examples of alleged history of collusion between Fascists and Communists, those on the far left usually oppose the rise of far-right or fascist regimes in their countries. Instead, he argues that it has been centrists who have supported far-right and fascist regimes that they prefer in power over socialist ones.[7]"

This is actually the basis some of the far left (and probably also the far right) uses for a similar theory, sometimes used ironically but sometimes not: the fish hook theory. It supposes that it is actually centrists that conform more to one extreme end of the spectrum than the other. The far left side of this argument would advocate that centrists are closer to the far right than the far left by showing that centrists are the hook's bend while the far right are the hook's point, with the far left being the eye of the fish hook. Vice versa for the far right's perspective of course. Does this fact deserve a spot in this article? KarstenO (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Be bold! – Kaihsu (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

But make sure it's properly sourced. I can't find a single reference to fish-hook theory on google scholar (except in biblical studies). Usually a sign that it's not ready for inclusion. OsFish (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is in an awful state

Why is almost every single citation in this article a op-ed about "our divided politics" or something similar? Literally the only academic source is at the bottom labeled "criticism".

I was going hunting for academic sources about it, and the only recent papers about it I found from someone with credentials in political science, both only mention it in passing as "discredited". That kind of introduction doesn't at all align with the content of the article that seems to treat it from the lede up until criticism, as a valid framework for analyzing politics. I think this article needs help, preferably from someone with some more experience in poly-sci. Either way, editorials with a heavy tilt towards conservatism in particular should not form the backbone of analysis for this kind of subject. Right? Right??? i kan reed (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)