Horseshoe theory

{{significantly problematic}}{{Needs sources}}
[[File:Political spectrum horseshoe model.svg|thumb|165px|Diagram of the political horseshoe. Likely wouldn't fit a [[goat]].]]{{politics}}
{{cquote|All bigots and frauds are brothers under the skin.|||[[Christopher Hitchens]]<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/05/faithbased_fraud.html Faith-Based Fraud: Jerry Falwell's foul rantings prove you can get away with anything if you have "Reverend" in front of your name] by Christopher Hitchens (May 16 2007 12:46 PM) ''Slate''.</ref>}}
{{cquote|If you go hard enough left, you'll find yourself turning right|||Disney's Cars<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ss9nd-tImc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ss9nd-tImc]</ref>}}
{{cquote|For centrists, and for right-wingers, Horseshoe Theory is a convenient chunk of heavy iron to toss in the faces of left-wing opponents. But its very convenience should be treated with suspicion. |||Noah Berlatsky<ref>[https://psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/an-end-to-horseshoe-theory.html LET'S PUT AN END TO 'HORSESHOE THEORY' ONCE AND FOR ALL] by Noah Berlatsky (Feb 09 2018) ''Pacific Standard''.</ref>}}

The '''horseshoe theory''', also known as the '''horseshoe effect''', in [[political science]] is a claim that the [[Moonbat|far-left]] and [[Wingnut|far-right]] are more similar to each other in essentials than either is to the [[Centrism|political center]]. The "political center" in question often ''just so happens'' to refer to the exact beliefs of the speaker, making their position the "moderate" one — evoking a sort of inside-out [[balance fallacy]].

It was formulated by the [[French]] post-[[postmodernist]] [[philosopher]] Jean-Pierre Faye in 1996,<ref>''Le Siècle des idéologies'' by Jean-Pierre Faye (1996) Armand Colin. ISBN 220001441.</ref> but similar ideas existed previously.<ref>[https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1313108426 The Conscience of a Movement: American Conservatism, the Vietnam War, and the Politics of Natural Law: A Dissertation] by Matthew Kyle Yates (2011) The Ohio State University, page 136.</ref> Faye believed that the [[Extremism|extremes]] of the political spectrum both represented [[totalitarianism]] of different kinds; this meant that the [[political spectrum]] should ''not'' be described as a linear bar with the two ends representing the far-left and right being ideologically the furthest apart from each other, but as a horseshoe in which the two ends are closer to each other than to the center.

Not liking the comparison to their alleged sworn enemies, some Left-Wing to Far Left activists have created the "question mark" or "fish hook" theory, which allege that it's actually the center and the far-right that are most similar.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20180324210230/https://theweek.com/articles/755549/time-abandon-horseshoe-theory 'horseshoe theory'], Noah Berlatsky, The Week (originally published in Pacific Standard), March 24, 2018. Archived from the original on March 24, 2018.</ref><ref>BobFromBrockley. [https://pplswar.medium.com/debunking-horseshoe-theory-31c558b8d51c Debunking horseshoe theory.] ''pplswar''. Medium. March 14, 2019.</ref> This makes a certain kind of sense if you view both as your sworn enemies.

==Similarities==
There are several common features of far-left and far-right politics and political movements.

===Conspiratorial thinking===
{{cquote|Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools.|||Ferdinand Kronawetter{{efn|The saying is frequently attributed to {{wpl|August Bebel|Bebel,}} but probably originated with the Austrian democrat {{wpl|Ferdinand Kronawetter|Kronawetter;}} it was in general use among German Social Democrats by the 1890s.<ref>''The Coming of the Third Reich'' by Richard J. Evans (2005) Penguin Group. ISBN 0143034693. p. 496. {{wpa|August Bebel}}</ref>}}}}
Fringe ideologies often appeal to neurotic and paranoid types, and actual political positions often take a back seat to their mental states. Thus, conspiratorial thinking beyond the bounds of reason tends to characterize political extremes, so much so that the libertarian right and the anarcho-(''your movement here'') left seem interchangeable.{{fact}} Take the [[9/11 truther]] movement, which thrives on both political fringes because conspiratorial ideation and extreme values are correlated. This is not, of course, to say that ''all'' belief in the existence of conspiracies is irrational. But when someone views conspiracy as the prime mover behind history, or sees a [[unified conspiracy theory]] behind the fall of every leaf, they've gone off the edge of the map.

Historical revisionism is common on the political fringes. [[Jean-Marie Le Pen|A]] [[Ron Paul|wide]] [[Nick Griffin|selection]] [[Hal Turner|of]] [[David Duke|isolationist]] [[David Irving|weirdos]] [[Jörg Haider|and]] [[Texe Marrs|unreformed]] [[Eustace Mullins|anti]]-[[Willis Carto|Semites]] [[Pat Buchanan|on]] [[John Birch Society|the]] [[Paleoconservatism|Old Right]] have famously sought to [[Holocaust denial|rationalize, downplay, or flat-out deny the Holocaust]]. So too have [[Gilad Atzmon|a vocal minority]] of [[Israel Shamir|crazy assholes]] within the [[Anti-Zionism|anti-Zionist]] movement.

Likewise, a few hard-core leftists have denied that the conduct of the [[Yugoslavia|Bosnian War]] constituted a [[genocide]]. Some of the absolute worst revisionists, like Edward S. Herman,<ref>[http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2009/04/edward-s-herman-genocide-denier-caught.html Edward S. Herman: Genocide denier caught]</ref> even claim that the [[Serbia|Bosnian Serb]] militias' massacre of at least 8,373<ref>[http://www.war-memorial.net/victims-of-the-srebrenica-massacre-1.171 Victims of the Srebrenica Massacre] The Polynational War Memorial.</ref> unarmed Muslim civilians at and around Srebrenica was a legitimate act of self-defense, a shadowy Muslim mass-suicide, or an elaborate hoax. Presumably, these deniers fear it would be "imperialist" to say that big bad [[NATO]], which eventually intervened in [[Bosnia]] and Kosovo, ''once'' did a good thing. Even [[Noam Chomsky]] has [[Inverse stopped clock|occasionally]] indulged in this [[intellectual dishonesty]]: he once claimed that the {{wpl|Trnopolje camp}} was not a [[concentration camp]], because "people could [[death|leave]] if they wanted"<ref>[http://balkanwitness.glypx.com/chomskydenial.htm Noam Chomsky's Denials of Serbian War Crimes] (June 27, 2016) ''Balkan Witness''.</ref> (although he has since backed off on this). In this particular debate, moonbats align with [[Orthodox Christian]] fundamentalists (defending the Serbs as they're predominantly Orthodox too), pan-Slavicists in Russia, [[Neo-Nazi|neo-fascists]] like [[Golden Dawn]], paleoconservatives like [[Pat Buchanan]], and [[Islamophobic]] "thinkers" like [[Pamela Geller]] and [[Michael Savage]]; strange bedfellows indeed.

Conspiracism and its subset, revisionism, is endemic in all these groups because their members hold all their beliefs to be both true and self-evident to anyone of good will who knows the facts, leaving open (though not begging){{efn|[[Begging the question]] is a logical fallacy where someone assumes what they're trying to prove &mdash; it doesn't mean "raising the question"}} for them the glaring question of why these beliefs are so unpopular in the general populace. The usual answers are some sort of anti-democratic thought (most people are '[[sheeple]]') and a belief that one or more conspiracies must be keeping them from knowing the facts and possessing the mental equipment necessary to arrive at the correct conclusions.

===Pseudoscience promotion===
Quite a large number of extremists have but little regard for [[science]], and are often openly dismissive of it, seeing it as part of the [[Bourgeois pseudoscience|bourgeois]]/[[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy|liberal]]/[[International Jewish Conspiracy|Jewish]]/[[Cultural Marxism|Marxist]]/[[David_Icke|what-have-you]] establishment. As a result, they are very prone to promoting various [[pseudoscientific]] ideas. Well-known examples include:
*Christian, Muslim, and other religious [[fundamentalist]]s deny any scientific findings contradicting their religion, such as [[evolution]] or the [[big bang]].
*[[Racist]] groups likewise deny any scientific findings suggesting that the races are not separate sub-species or something of that description, while promoting [[bullshit]] claims designed to elevate their own race/ethnic group above all others. Among [[White supremacy|white supremacists]], this manifests in claims discredited [[scientific racism]] from the late 19<sup>th</sup>/early 20<sup>th</sup> centuries, while among [[Black supremacy|black supremacists]], you can find the [[Nation of Islam]] teaching that white people were created by a [[mad scientist]] six thousand years ago.
*Many forms of mutually-exclusive [[national mysticism]] claiming a divine/supernatural heritage for a particular people.
*Marxists promoted their philosophy as "scientific socialism."
*Stalin, out of sheer will to give the impression that massive developments were happening, [[Lysenkoism|banned scientific disciplines]] such as [[genetics]] and [[Darwin]]ian evolution. [[Nikita Khrushchev]] also promoted the pseudoscience of [[Lysenkoism]] after Stalin's death, but allowed freedom of the scientific press. After his death science saw a rapid development in the Soviet Union, even if it was still way behind Western developments.
*Nazi Germany attempted to suppress the work of [[Albert Einstein]] and other Jewish [[physicist]]s simply because they were Jewish, instead promoting ''[[Deutsche Physik]]'' as an "[[Aryan]]" alternative, by educating about Ayran physicist [[Irony|Jew sympathizers]] such as Werner Heisenberg.
*Fringe groups on both the left and the right are prone to promoting crankier forms of [[alternative medicine]], [[global warming]] denialism and anti-[[Genetically modified food|GMO]] whackery, often accompanying it with [[Appeal to nature|appeals to nature]] and conspiracy theories about [[Big Pharma]] and [[Monsanto]]. [[Survivalist]]s, [[New Age]]rs, [[Occupy Wall Street|Occupiers]], [[Tea Party movement|Teabaggers]], ''[[The Huffington Post|Huffington Post]]'' readers, [[Alex Jones]] readers, and Christian and Islamic fundamentalists all can be found in the big [[vaccine denialism|anti-vaxxer]] and anti-GMO tent. Likewise, in the 1990s, [[HIV/AIDS denialism]] infected both the [[religious right]] (who saw AIDS as a consequence of "sinful" lifestyles and quite possibly [[divine retribution]]) and radical [[gay]] and black activists (who saw AIDS as part of a government conspiracy to wipe them out). That being said, anti-GMO opinions still tend to be way too common on the political centre, as the EU 1997 GMO-moratorium clearly demonstrated, suggesting that anti-GMO is still mainstream consensus despite clear contradictory scientific evidence. 
*[[9/11 conspiracy theories]] are a recreational sport on both the far right and the far left. 
*Both [[Hard green|Hard Greens]] and [[anti-environmentalism|anti-environmentalists]] tend to deny the danger of certain pesticides that have scientifically been shown to be dangerous (the former on rotenone and the latter on DDT) and tend to invoke post-apocalyptic doom scenarios that are scientifically improbable.

==Possible explanations==
One way to look at the conundrum of explaining horseshoe theory is that the political spectrum is just one lens for looking at different political beliefs. Other lenses may make the seemingly great distance between far-right and far-left not seem so far apart after all.

===Conceptual schemes===
One possible explanation for horseshoe theory, particularly within [[conspiracy theorist]] [[worldview]]s, is the philosophical concept of 'conceptual schemes', also known as 'linguistics schemes' or {{wpl|Paradigm|paradigms|.}} The concept explains how people can have the same method of thinking (conceptual schemes) but still have completely different worldviews. So for example:
{{cquote|You believe that [[California]]ns are the secret controllers of the world and read the news accordingly, spotting the devilish Californian hand in every market fluctuation and weather report. I think you're nuts because I know its the ''[[Texas|Texans]]'' who ''really'' run things, calling all the shots. For all our differences we have much in common, insofar as we both see the world by means of the same categories — ''secret oppressor, oppressed, news report'', and so on. Conceptually-speaking, we are pretty much a match; we use the same concepts and have the same conceptual scheme.|||Gary L. Hardcastle<ref>"My Years with Monty Python, or What's So Funny About Language, Truth, and Analyticity?" by Gary L. Hardcastle (2006) In: ''Monty Python and Philosophy: Nudge Nudge, Think Think!'', edited by Gary L. Hardcastle & George A. Reisch. Open Court. ISBN 0812695933. Pages 253-264.</ref>{{rp|260}}}}

===Foreign interference===
In 2023, it was revealed that Russia had considered attempting to unite the far-left and far-right within [[Germany]] under a shared cause of opposition to getting further involved with supporting Ukraine's defense against [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|Russia's invasion]]; there was no evidence that Russia had actually implemented this plan.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/04/21/germany-russia-interference-afd-wagenknecht Kremlin tries to build antiwar coalition in Germany, documents show: Marrying Germany’s far right and far left is a Kremlin goal, according to a trove of Russian documents reviewed by The Washington Post] by Catherine Belton et al. (April 21, 2023 at 2:00 a.m. EDT) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> The Russian [[astroturf]] [[Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia]] organization can be viewed as a less-explicit attempt to unite far-left and far-right groups in the United States by exploiting far-right opposition to the [[antisemitic]] [[dog whistle]] of "globalism" and also attracting the African People’s Socialist Party.

==Critiques==

The common refrain that horseshoe theory accurately describes greater support for authoritarianism as one moves further to either end of the left-right spectrum is quite hilariously undermined by actual research on the subject. In a 2012 review of opinion polling and political surveys from the U.S. dating to 1952, Northwestern University Law Professor James Lindgren found that moderate and conservative Democrats expressed the highest support for authoritarianism.<ref>Lindgren, James T., The Centrist Authoritarian (March 27, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2029435 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2029435”[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2029435]</ref> A 2018 study by political economist David Adler concluded that “Respondents at the center of the political spectrum are the least supportive of democracy, least committed to its institutions, and most supportive of authoritarianism.”<ref>Adler, David, The Centrist Paradox: Political Correlates of the Democratic Disconnect (May 01, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3214467 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3214467”[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3214467]</ref>

[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-052-24, Münchener Abkommen, Mussolini, Hitler, Chamberlain.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Centrist [[Neville Chamberlain]] making nice with [[Hitler]] in 1938]]
The concept of horseshoe theory has been criticized in academia,<ref>''Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort'' by Chip Berlet & Matthew N. Lyons (2000) Guilford Press. ISBN 9781572305625. page 342.</ref><ref>[http://www.ips.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Miroslava-Filipovic_Marija-Djoric_SPT_1-2_2010.pdf The Left or the Right: Old Paradigms and New Governments] by Miroslava Filipović & Marija Đorić (2010) ''Serbian Political Thought'' 2(1–2):121–144. doi:10.22182/spt.2122011.8.</ref> and the supporting evidence seems to be a large collection of [[Anecdotal evidence|exceptional cases]] without much in the way of theoretical underpinnings. Simon Choat has noted that there is not much convergence between far-left and far-right on political policy and that few voters switch between the far-left and far-right when given the chance in a runoff ballot.<ref name=choat>[http://theconversation.com/horseshoe-theory-is-nonsense-the-far-right-and-far-left-have-little-in-common-77588 ‘Horseshoe theory’ is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common] by Simon Choat (May 12, 2017 8.18am EDT) ''The Conversation''.</ref> Choat has argued that the perpetuation of horseshoe theory "is that it allows those in the centre to discredit the left while disavowing their own complicity with the far right. Historically, it has been 'centrist' liberals – in [[Germany]], [[Spain]], [[Chile]],{{efn|The centrist [[Christian democracy|Christian democrats]] in Chile basically called upon the military to stage a [[coup]], leading to the [[Pinochet]] dictatorship.<ref>{{wpa|1973 Chilean coup d'état}}</ref>}} [[Brazil]], and in many other countries – who have helped the far right to power, usually because they would rather have had a fascist in power than a socialist."<ref name=choat/>

Quite a few examples can be given for centrists supporting or making agreements with the far-right, e.g., [[Neville Chamberlain]]'s appeasement of Hitler, centrists' defense of [[Marine Le Pen]],<ref name=choat/> and center-right Republicans backing Trump ''en masse''.<ref>[https://psmag.com/social-justice/an-end-to-horseshoe-theory Let's Put an End to 'Horseshoe Theory' Once and for All: Accusing the left of fascism only helps the real fascists.] by Noah Berlatsky (Feb 9, 2018) ''The Guardian''.</ref>

The simplest critiques tend to come from the extremists themselves, naturally, who either see themselves as being complete, utter, Manichaean opposites of the people on the other side of the spectrum, or acknowledge the similarities between the two extremes yet maintain that they are fighting for the "right people" while their enemies are not.

Also, so called "political centers" are socially and historically specific. For example, what was considered a norm in Europe 500 years ago, such as publicly beheading political rivals, would be considered extreme today ([[Saudi Arabia]] excepted<ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-seeks-unprecedented-death-penalty-woman-activist-n902771 Saudi Arabia seeks 'unprecedented' beheading for woman activist: The accusations against a group Israa al-Ghomgham is part of include chanting slogans hostile to the regime and attempting to inflame public opinion.] by F. Brinley Bruton (Aug. 22, 2018, 5:06 AM PDT / Updated Aug. 22, 2018, 9:51 AM PDT) ''NBC News''.</ref>). See the entry on moral relativism on the [[morality]] page.

===From extremists===
[[File:Fish hook theory.jpeg|thumb|right|165px|Fish hook theory, how many extremists see their political enemies of both the center and the other side.]]

On the extreme right-wing side, the criticisms are often couched in terms of religion, with far-rightists claiming that they are completely different from far-leftists because they believe in different "[[god]]s," or different takes on the same God. One example is the contrast drawn during the U.S.'s [[McCarthyism|Second Red Scare]] between Christianity and "Godless Communism."

A common gambit on the extreme left-wing side is to claim that few, or none, of the historical communist states are representatives of 'True' (classical Marxist) Communism, which has ''nothing'' in common with the evil right-wing fascist extremism.{{efn|See, for example, Noam Chomsky discussing how non-socialistic the Soviet Union was.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysxqd7aWI4s Chomsky comparing US and Soviet Union] (Uploaded on Oct 9, 2011) ''YouTube''.</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ Chomsky on Socialism] (Uploaded on Aug 2, 2009) ''YouTube''.</ref>}} One would be mistaken to think that this is an example of the [[No True Scotsman]] argument, if it weren't for the fact that [[Vladimir Lenin]], founder of the Soviet Union, described it as 'State Capitalist' (as opposed to Socialist) himself, explaining that State Capitalism was a path to Socialism as proposed in his 1921 New Economic Policy. [[Leon Trotsky]] held a similar, more bitter take on the same idea, viewing the Soviet Union under [[Josef Stalin]] as a betrayal of 'true' communism and the ideals of the [[October Revolution]].<ref>Leon Trotsky: ''[https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ The Revolution Betrayed]''</ref> A mirror version of this argument can also be found on the right wing among hardcore libertarians and [[Anarcho-capitalism|anarcho-capitalists]], who may claim that all historic examples of deregulated capitalism in action (e.g., [[Galt's Gulch, Chile]] and other [[libertarian paradise]]s) weren't ''true'' [[laissez-faire]] societies because there was still some degree of state intervention (or merely the existence of a state) that they didn't like.

Another variant of the same argument is that the term "left-wing", which includes the far-left, refers to philosophies that promote broader democracy, political participation, and social [[equality]], and that any form of [[government]] straying from this ideal [[No True Scotsman|is automatically right-wing instead]]. In considering this criticism it is instructive to look at the origins of the term "left-wing" which originally referred to the people who sat on the left side of the National Assembly during the [[French Revolution]]. Among these original left-wingers and far-leftists was Maximilien Robespierre, on whose watch the revolutionary government, still seated on the left wing, staged a series of political purges, [[Guillotine|executing]] about 40,000 people in the space of ten months. To which is replied by some far-leftists that this proves nothing at all, as just because they [[Danth's law|said]], or even [[Doublethink|believed]], that they were left-wing, doesn't mean they were, if their actions contradict this.
In some cases, like that of Robespierre, mainstream historiography, however, is starting to consider that all revolutionaries were violent in that time period, due to it being a time of major unrest, Robespierre being posthumously the subject of a black legend started by his equally cruel ennemies. The Jacobins and Robespierre continued to influence the mainstream French left-wing, in both academic and political activities, while other thinkers saw the Jacobins as precursors to fascism.<ref> https://www.amazon.fr/Robespierre-Fabrication-Mythe-Marc-Belissa/dp/272988369X/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_fr_FR=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&crid=2QUJCV4FKCUTH&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Toywe1ah1R9Tvfl7pcjcvQ.ywXd5h0GfxHJtBgW8tgilAFvb1rkz1sB8sQwi_FTml0&dib_tag=se&keywords=robespierre+ellipses&qid=1713981602&s=books&sprefix=robespierre+ellipse%2Cstripbooks%2C114&sr=1-1</ref><ref>https://www.amazon.fr/Robespierre-Jean-Clément-MARTIN/dp/2262074488/ref=sr_1_2?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.gblZlxFl5SGXBYwOcscYQv9eaPBBhIPCRdVYqJHQGiqXUTNYFmJ3v8G29pWAfapK6Zu8vxg6BKlHS7-KvgagGyQCEE4Gn1BEn2iZ04tcYUiASTho_nSvo8yRWTWFIqHQb-v8ShGY1JRGMh3YZxMzVvVFbiMHvkfZDJAM1e2X3YK1iDRotXB0v5urk1WecgZx2KHL99Kc6VvkG7ZeK-phFmHElzRKpfpnRvnsvSfze7s.HlWeVMe5g75x0Mznvrcuj7rJNkCTOlvq6qXnxUxMFkA&dib_tag=se&keywords=robespierre&qid=1713981583&s=books&sr=1-2</ref><ref>https://www.lepoint.fr/histoire/robespierre-n-est-pas-mort-il-divise-encore-10-08-2017-2149194_1615.php#11</ref><ref>https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2011/05/03/il-faut-sauver-robespierre_1516206_3232.html</ref> In addition to this, Robespierre was not an extremist in his time, and was actively fighting the ultra-revolutionaries. The historian Marc Bloch famously said: "Robespierrists, anti-Robespierrists, we cry out for mercy: tell us, simply, what Robespierre was". <ref>https://www.marianne.net/agora/entre-monstre-et-monument-pour-ou-contre-robespierre</ref>

Some extremists, however, have not only acknowledged and embraced the horseshoe theory but turned it upside-down, arguing that the far-left and the far-right are in fact natural allies united by a shared hatred of "the system" that dominates the center. This has been the justification for any number of "red-brown alliances" throughout history,<ref>Mounk, Yascha. [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/the-far-left-and-far-right-find-it-astonishingly-easy-to-unite.html "The Red and the Brown."] ''Slate'', 11 May 2018 (recovered 5 May 2020).</ref> starting with the attacks that Ernst Thälmann's German Communist Party mostly focused against Social Democrats, more so than against the [[Nazi Germany|National Socialist German Workers' Party]] in the early 1930s out of a belief that, after the liberals and conservatives were destroyed and the Nazis had run Germany into the ground, they'd be able to overthrow the Nazis and take over Germany.<ref>Winner, David. [https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2018/10/how-left-enabled-fascism "How the left enabled fascism."] ''The New Statesman'', 8 October 2018 (recovered 5 May 2020).</ref> Spoiler alert: Thalmann was arrested by the Nazis shortly after [[Adolf Hitler]]'s rise to power and executed in 1944.

===From non-extremists===
{{cquote|I am a firm believer in the ancient maxim that ''in medio stat virtus''. With this, mind you, I do not mean to say that extremists are always wrong and moderates are always right. I cannot say this for consistency, because to say that extremists are always wrong and moderates are always right would be to reason like an extremist.|||Norberto Bobbio<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-08 |title=Bobbio, il manifesto e gli estremisti |url=https://ilmanifesto.it/bobbio-il-manifesto-e-gli-estremisti |access-date=2025-06-09 |website=il manifesto |language=it}}</ref>}}

From the other direction, abuse of the horseshoe theory can lead to the [[balance fallacy]] and [[Appeal to moderation|appeals to moderation]]. This is a problem common among [[Centrism|centrists]], who, in their desire to avoid slipping into one partisan extreme or another, often have the opposite problem and go out of their way to characterize both sides as being fundamentally crazy, even if one side or the other may very well be clearly in the right in this instance. More cynically, it can be abused by those in power to frame all opposition to their rule as extremist by connecting their more grounded, legitimate critics with the crazies. Also, at one point or another throughout history, people who advocated for a lot of the things we take for granted in the modern West (democracy, abolition of slavery, rights for women and LGBT people, religious freedom, etc.) were often derided as extremists and that things that we nowadays frame as extremist ([[Apartheid]], [[eugenics]] etc.) were considered to be moderate options at the time they were implemented.

[[File:Jacques-Louis David 014.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Napoleon, centrist dictator]]
Political centrism itself is not immune to radicalism and authoritarianism. As a historical example of this instance we've [[Napoleon Bonaparte]], who in a period between fights of republicans and monarchists proclaimed himself to be the centrist in between the two options and then proceeded to establish a dictatorship (by assuming the role of an executive office with unlimited power) in the name of centrism and moderation, although this is a somewhat odd example since he claimed a syncretic politics that transcended left and right, whereas in the actual French Revolution "centrists" were often considered advocates of a constitutional monarchy. Although after he was exiled and King Louis XVIII became a French monarch, people who demanded a return of the Napoleonic empire were considered far-centrist. 

Also, as the horseshoe theory relies on the mainstream left-right [[political spectrum]], it runs the risk of over-simplifying political ideologies. One leading argument against a linear political spectrum is that it appears to have no place for ideologies which are less authoritarian than the political center, and as such, there exist alternative systems to delineate political ideologies, such as the [[Political Compass]], the [[Nolan chart]], and assorted surveys and quizzes with even more detailed analyses. For European parties, there exists a three-way system of free-loving vs. authoritarian, left economic vs. right economic, and pro-EU v anti-EU, which allows for eight quadrants — and there are parties at all quadrants. As a result of this, many horseshoe comparisons are not as meaningful as they first seem, as they often boil down to "these two groups of authoritarians are both authoritarian", "these two groups of fundamentalists are both fundamentalist", or "these two groups of bigots are both bigoted". Furthermore, our conceptions of left-wing and right-wing, with "liberal capitalism" being the political center, are largely derived from a modern, [[Western world|Western]] take of politics. In countries such as China, for instance, the political center is dominated by reformist Communists, while in Russia the center is defined by [[Vladimir Putin]]'s brand of nationalist politics.

Likewise, extremists themselves tend to have their own warped versions of the horseshoe theory, seeing extremists on the other side as having more in common with (if not mere tools of) the political mainstream than with them, and condemning them both. The definition between "mainstream" and "extremist" depends on perspective and background. On the far left, it is common to see fascism described as the logical end point of capitalism, the point where the [[Ruling class|bourgeoisie]] dispenses with the pretense of democracy and embraces [[nationalism]] and [[bigotry]] in order to more effectively cling to power and stave off the threat of a rising [[Social class#Working class|proletariat]]. On the far right, meanwhile, it is common to see capitalism and Marxism described as two sides of the same coin, both modernist economic systems that subjugate [[traditional values]], [[religion]], and community/ethnic/racial bonds, leaving an atomized mass of people ruled by an [[Atheism|atheistic]], [[Materialism|materialistic]] elite. Proponents of such views sometimes refer to this as "fish hook theory", seeing the political spectrum as shaped like a fish hook where the other end loops around and meets the center.<ref>Berlatsky, Noah. [https://theweek.com/articles/755549/time-abandon-horseshoe-theory "It's time to abandon 'horseshoe theory'."] ''Pacific Standard'', 24 March 2018 (recovered 5 June 2020).</ref> Similar observations can also be made when it comes to gender and sex. [[Trans-exclusionary radical feminism|Trans-exclusionary radical feminists]] see trans people, sex workers, and [[Men's rights movement|men's rights activists]] as all part of an antifeminist agenda undermining women's emancipation by proposing laws transgressing the autonomy of women,<ref>[https://feministwiki.org/wiki/Transgender_ideology Transgender ideology] ''Feminist Wiki''.</ref> while MRAs see feminists and transgender people/queer theorists as people who want to feminize men.<ref>[http://archive.is/wip/dYqRv Feminism] WikiMANNia (archived from 6 Apr 2020 20:06:49 UTC).</ref>

In January 1919, after Germany’s defeat in the First World War and the fall of the Kaiser, the new Social Democratic Party (SPD) government led by Friedrich Ebert used the far-right Freikorps militias to help suppress the Spartacist uprising, led by German Communist Party (KPD) founders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. In the process, Freikorps men tortured and murdered Luxemburg and Liebknecht. During the Cold War, centrist liberal politicians in the United States and Europe also had histories of propping up and colluding with [[Augusto Pinochet|far-]][[Jorge Rafael Videla|right]] [[Alberto Fujimori|governments]] in order to stop the rise of socialist ones, despite their lack of liberal democratic credentials,<ref name=choat/> although before the Cold War peaked during the Cuban Missile Crisis, those same liberal politicians also funded several groups within the anticommunist left to overthrow [[Rafael Trujillo|fascist dictators]] who were hostile to the US. The USSR was also more than willing to support nationalist, non-communist dictators like [[Gamal Abdel Nasser]] and [[Indonesia|Sukarno]] who called themselves "anti-imperialist" (i.e. anti-America/Western European), even if they were themselves non-communist or even (in the case of Nasser) hostile to communism.

Likewise, just because there are similarities between groups doesn't mean they are ''exactly'' the same. One example of this is that, while both fascists and communists claimed to adhere to revolutionary economic agendas and used authoritarianism to carry them out, fascist states largely protected the existing elites and gave them some leniency in what they were allowed to build and sell (so long as it didn't stand in the way of growing the military), while communist states overthrew the existing elites altogether (setting up new ones instead) and attempted to exert more direct control over the economy.

Not all members of all groups are also perfect examples of such an overlap. {{wpl|Eurocommunism}} is considered to be a communist ideology, but the adherents favor democracy over dictatorship and rejected the authoritarian policies of the Soviet Union. 

Scientific research also suggest that Democrats and Republicans have a different [[brain]] structure.<ref>[https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0960982211002892?token=1666E5977B8CD9AFFFE90809AE65D6657EE53235CF13616D45FD23EA52BC065402E3DA57439342F4608D7D2C190DBAC3 Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults] by RyotaKanai et al. (2011) ''Current Biology'' 21(8):677-680. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017.</ref> Although it has been suggested that American Republicans and Russian Communists have a similar brain, if we start to put a Democrat brain on the left and a Republican brain on the right, it is rather difficult to justify that the sum of all processes in a far-left brain and that of a far-right brain lead to the same outcome in ideas and thoughts. It's very likely that those brains are different, but that political ideas can be acquired by both.

{{wpl|Mikhail Voslensky}} in his book "Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class" argues that marks "left" and "right" are inapplicable to totalitarian parties such as communists and fascists because they are categories of pluralist societies and said parties are motivated by little more than power unrestrained by any legal obstacles and in totalitarian societies, unlike pluralist, there are no "left" and "right", there is only "general line" of the ruling party and anyone who doesn't align with it is criminally persecuted. When they are in pluralist societies, totalitarian parties tend to masquerade as left-wing workers' parties because they count that the workers can most easily be used to help them seize power. The economic differences between them is because the fascists came to power in already industrialized countries and decided not to destroy the capitalist system because it was benefitting the [[military-industrial complex]], and communists have seized power in mostly agrarian countries and in order to compete with industrialized nations, what required quick industrialization that strongly emphasizes hard industry for military, they adopted a planned economy and later they were reluctant to abandon it, despite its effectiveness, not because of actual ideology, but because it would mean abandoning part of their power. In fact, [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]] himself wrote a book against "left-wing" communism.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder]. ''Marxists.org''.</ref>

==Anecdata==
{{main|Anecdotal evidence}}
{{cquote|The real division is not between conservatives and [[revolution]]aries but between authoritarians and [[libertarian]]s.|||[[George Orwell]]<ref>From a 1948 letter from Orwell to Muggeridge, quoted in ''Malcolm Muggeridge: A Life'' by Ian Hunter (1980) Thomas Nelson. ISBN 0840740840.</ref>}}
On the left side of the horseshoe are [[communist]] countries such as the [[Soviet Union]], [[Mao Zedong|Maoist]] [[China]], [[Cuba]] under [[Fidel Castro]], [[North Korea]] under the [[Kim Il Sung]], and, well, every other communist country, with "happiest-barrack" countries like [[Hungary]] under "goulash communism" and [[Yugoslavia]] furthest from the end.

On the right side goes (in order from the end) [[Nazi Germany]], militarist [[Japan]], [[Pinochet]]'s [[Chile]], [[Mussolini]]'s [[Italy]], [[Francisco Franco|Franquist]] [[Spain]], and various [[Theocracy|clerical-fascist]] regimes, [[Junta|military dictatorships]], and absolute [[Monarchy|monarchies]].

In the center is the center-left to center-right continuum occupied by mainstream political parties in the countries that have adopted [[democracy]], [[Social democrats|social democracy]] and [[liberal]] [[capitalism]].

One rather explicit example of the horseshoe theory in action is [[third positionism]], which intentionally blends far-left and [[far-right]] politics. [[Fringe]] political movements such as the one initiated by [[Lyndon LaRouche]] also take ideas from both fringes of the spectrum.

===Far-right populists and state socialism===
Far-right populists, known as national populists, are frequent supporters of left-wing-sounding economic policies, often ''[[ad hoc]]'' government distribution of money that parallels state socialism.<ref>https://www.newsweek.com/gop-sen-josh-hawley-call-senate-vote-1200-stimulus-checks-1555786</ref><ref>https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/20/florida-sends-checks-families-offset-inflation-burden/10110183002/</ref> However, they tend to stop far short of supporting a fully socialist economy and instead tend to wind up rather supporting a form of capitalism with heavy state interference, while opposing both leftist and labour movements and also factions within their own parties who are too economically left-leaning (see [[Hitler and socialism]] for a classic example). Often the rhetoric of far-right parties is that they are vaguely "socialist" or anti-capitalist, but also anti-communist and anti-Marxist. Many also claim their policies are beyond left-wing and right-wing but simply nationalist; such parties may call themselves [[Third Position]].<ref>https://politicalresearch.org/2016/12/19/what-third-position</ref> In the case of non-fascist but elected conservative or right-wing populist politicians, one motive may be to attract votes from the recipients of welfare payments and to encourage socially conservative goals such as women staying out of the workforce and at home as parents.<ref>https://www.theamericanconservative.com/fairness-for-stay-at-home-parents/</ref>

Rather than a true example of mixing right and left beliefs, this populist rhetoric against capitalism may be seen as pandering to the working and middle classes to get their support, since once firmly in power far-right regimes do not try to fundamentally change the class structure of society, and aside from welfare programs (and maybe looting from their victims), they mostly leave property in the hands of its owners instead of redistributing it.<ref>https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Conservative-economic-programs</ref> By doing so they try to also get big business on the side of the regime; see the Nazis' dealings with German corporations like IG Farben, Krupp and Siemens who got government contracts to produce goods for the war effort while also getting to build factories near Nazi concentration camps and exploit the prisoners as slave labourers, thereby enriching both the ruling party and private business at once.<ref>https://www.adl.org/resources/news/german-industry-and-third-reich</ref><ref group=note>At last, an economic arrangement that both socialists and free-market capitalists can readily agree is morally repugnant and horrific.</ref> This strategy of trying to appeal to both capital and workers to unite under a shared nationhood is called class collaborationism in political theory.<ref>https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1511202#Class_collaboration_under_fascism</ref>

Some fringe political movements go further than populism or welfare statism and try to mix together far-right social beliefs with far-left economic beliefs do exist, some coming from the far-right (extreme nationalists and racial supremacists who also try to adopt socialism or communism) and others from far-left origins (communists and socialists who try to incorporate nationalism and racism). These movements may truly be harder to classify on the traditional political spectrum and are closer to the intent of horseshoe theory; examples include many neofascist groups that adhere to Strasserism (see [[Third_Position#Why]]), an anticapitalist variant of Nazism that Hitler opposed, or even [[National Bolshevism]], with origins coming from the far-right; and [[Juche]] and the [[Khmer Rouge]] coming from far-left origins. Some especially bizarre or conspiratorial ideologies like the [[Lyndon LaRouche|LaRouche movement]] may be too batshit to classify accurately.

===Far-left vs far-right antisemitism===
[[Antisemitism]] is absurdly common on both ends of the political spectrum. Whereas the far-right will engage in the usual bigoted antisemitism and [[Holocaust denial]], many third positionist elements within them tend to be anti-capitalist, ranging from ascribing to center-left social-democratic ideals to outright communism ([[National Bolshevism]] is a thing).

While most left-wing groups will criticize and combat antisemitism, some have trafficked in antisemitic conspiracy theories, evidenced by some racial justice movements engaging in it (typified by [[Jesse Jackson]] referring to New York as "Hymietown" and a few BLM activists using dog whistles against [[Bernie Sanders]]). However, the right and the Israeli government may also smear the pro-Palestinian left as antisemitic, or even "institutionally antisemitic", by claiming that legitimate criticisms of Israeli government policy are antisemitic.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190912162918/https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/170111143904887.html Avi Shlaim, "Anti-Zionism and antisemitism in British politics," Al-Jazeera, Jan. 12, 2017, accessed Sep. 23, 2019.]</ref> On the other hand, in a small proportion of cases, criticisms of Israel are thinly disguised antisemitism, and one can find examples of this on both the far right and the far left.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190918224555/https:/twitter.com/YourFriendZippy/status/1174391598999834624 A bit of [[racialism]] from a leftist pro-Palestinian (but also antisemitic) [[Twitter]] account. Accessed Sep. 18, 2019.]</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190904140154/https:/twitter.com/NoMoreNeoConWar Far-right Twitter profile whose name claims "regime change wars are for Israel, not big oil," accessed Accessed Sep. 18, 2019.]</ref> (See, for example, [[George Galloway]].)

===Authoritarian parties===
[[Authoritarian]] type parties on the hard-left and hard-right may not represent the furthest ends of the political spectrum but still mirror each other in significant ways.

Take the anti-pragmatic side of the [[United States]] [[Republican Party]] (especially the [[Religious Right]]) and compare it to the modern [[Communist Party of the Russian Federation]] and you can find quite a few similarities (besides the obvious one that both are [[Partisanship|ideologues]] focused on the "[[Groupthink|purity]]" of their movement), especially on [[social]] policies. In fact, if each party's leaders avoided talking to each other about [[economics]], they would find more common ground than they may expect, especially considering their vehement hatred for each other. For instance:
*Both strongly endorse "[[Police brutality|tough on crime]]" policies and the [[death penalty]].<ref>[http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100329/158350370.html Communist leader proposes reinstatement of death penalty for terrorists: Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov proposed on Monday the death penalty be reinstated as a part of the Russian penitentiary system] (17:54 29.03.2010) ''Sputnik International''.</ref>
*Both strongly support "[[traditional values]]", meaning hardcore [[social conservatism]], [[anti-abortion]] attitudes<ref>[http://theglobalcommunist.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/russian-communists-attack-liberalism-and-abortion/ Russian communists attack liberalism and abortion] (April 10, 2012 at 1:27 pm) ''Global Communist''.</ref> and hostility to [[LGBT]] rights.
*Both have weaknesses for conspiracy theories, especially the conspiracy theory that there is some deliberate effort to destroy [[morality]].<ref>[http://www.cs.ccsu.edu/~gusev/Russian/gzbio.html Gennady Zyuganov] "…Zyuganov declared that national culture and morals are being deliberately destroyed in Russia."] (Webpage of Dmitri A. Gusev)</ref><ref>[http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-03.html The New Right & The Secular Humanism Conspiracy Theory (Political Research Associates)]. A popular talking point for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others]</ref>
*Both are fervently [[patriotic]] and support some form of nationalism while holding the belief that each of their countries are the greatest in the world. This leads to some supporting a degree of [[historical revisionism]] as well.<ref>[http://cprf.ru/party-program/ Communist Party of the Russian Federation: Party Platform] See: "The peaceful development of the USSR was interrupted by the perfidious attack by Nazi Germany and its satellites."</ref>{{efn|Such as [[Texas]] "revising" textbooks to fit an [[American exceptionalism|American exceptionalist]] point of view<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change] by James C. McKinley Jr. (March 12, 2010) ''New York Times''.</ref>}}{{efn|Or wingnuts such as [[Glenn Beck]] who claim MLK was a conservative.}}
*Both are [[reactionary]] in nature and extremely [[nostalgic]] for some sort of "[[golden age]]" ([[Stalin]] for the [[Communism|commies]],<ref>[http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/communists-lay-carnations-for-stalin/story-e6frfku0-1225974765203 Communists lay carnations for Stalin] (December 22, 20105:15am). ''news.com.au''. They openly call for the "Re-Stalinization of Russia. Seriously.</ref> [[Ronald Reagan]] or the [[American Dream|1950s]]<ref>[http://americablog.com/2013/02/can-the-gop-be-saved-from-its-obsession-with-the-1950s.html Can the GOP be saved from its obsession with the 1950s?] by John Aravosis (2/18/13 1:07pm) Americablog</ref><ref>[http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_688102.html#axzz2aw9dWdHv Obama's good for GOP, Boehner says] by Mike Wereschagin and Salena Zito (Tuesday, June 29, 2010). ''Tribune-Review Live''. "They're snuffing out the America that I grew up in"</ref> for the GOP). 
*Both support increasing spending on an [[Military industrial complex|even larger national defense]] while rarely questioning if it's necessary. Also, they both tend to admire "[[Machismo|masculinity]]" and [[Jingoism|militarism]].
*Both make [[populist]] appeals to the lower classes, mainly by promising to cut their [[tax]]es,<ref>[http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/russianelections/2012/02/201222535730502215.html Zyuganov and Mironov: Back to the future: Communist party's Zyuganov and A Just Russia's Mironov call for a return to the socialist model] ''Al Jazeera''. Who'd have thought the commies don't like taxes either?</ref> regardless of whether it will be done or whether it can be afforded.
*Both have a love of dramatic [[rhetoric]], even by political standards.
*Both have strands of [[anti-intellectualism]], with intellectuals who question them being seen as "[[elitist]]."
*Both are currently trying to appeal to the [[religious]] majority in each of their respective countries, with even [[Communist Party of the Russian Federation]] leader Gennady Zyuganov citing the "[[spiritual]] values" of communism in his speeches to appeal to followers of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Russian Orthodox Church]], despite the party being historically [[atheist]].<ref>[http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2012/boer311212.html Zyuganov and Religion: On the Current State of the Russian Communist Party] by Roland Boer (31.12.12) ''Monthly Review''.</ref>
*Both support [[censorship]], and passing legislation to stop the "degradation" of national symbols.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/washington/27cnd-flag.html Amendment on Flag Burning Fails by One Vote in Senate] by Carl Hulse & John Holusha (June 27, 2006) ''New York Times''. Wanting to outlaw flag burning is common for wingnuts and commies</ref>
*Both support the limiting of free speech.
*Both, hilariously, blame each other for the [[Sturgeon's Law|supposed]] "degradation" of [[art]], [[literature]], [[culture]], and philosophy. The commies claim that the embrace of capitalism has left these areas bland because artists are only concerned about profit, not quality, whereas the Republicans like to say that "leftists" or "[[secularist]]s" have ruined these areas because their "hostility" to religion has harmed creativity.
*Both like to reference [[Founding Fathers|revolutionary]] [[Russian Revolution|heroes]] from their nation's past in their [[appeal to authority|arguments]],{{efn|This can be said for many other political parties, but authoritarian parties are especially abusive.}} usually by claiming that they are fighting for the same values they were, which is commonly followed up by saying that what they stand for is "[[No True Scotsman|True American/Russian values]]," whereas their opponents stand for [[evil]]/[[Irony|radicalism]]. They may also liken themselves to being the "underdogs" in their current fight, like said revolutionary leaders. Expect these historical figures to be [[Personality cult|glorified]] and their flaws to be ignored/excused/downplayed.<ref>[http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/23/408974/tennessee-tea-party-demands-that-references-to-slavery-be-removed-from-history-textbooks/ Tennessee Tea Party ‘Demands’ That References To Slavery Be Removed From History Textbooks] by Marie Diamond (Jan 23, 2012) ''Think Progress''. Stop the lies about the Founding Fathers and slavery!</ref><ref>[http://cprf.ru/2012/11/october-is-forever/ Communist Party of the Russian Federation: October Is Forever]. Stop the lies about Stalin and Lenin!</ref>
* Both oppose more moderate factions holding the same ideas, often using terms to distance themselves from them (RINO's for the GOP, Revisionist Communists for the Communist Party of Russia).

(At least on the Republican side, none of this is new: at the height of the [[New Left]] movement and the [[hippie]] tendency, Americans were regularly regaled with encomia favourably comparing Soviet youth to our own, the Soviets' supposedly being sober, patriotic, sexually puritanical, (if male) short-haired (and never draft-dodging), never foul-mouthed, and eagerly doing as they were told. This was usually presented as a "this is why we're in danger from them, our decadence will doom us" argument, but the admiration was patently unmistakable. If only Soviet youth had been permitted to hear these: they could have used a good laugh.) 

[[Bob Altemeyer]]'s research backs the theory that authoritarian types tend to mirror each other, even if they aren't as extreme to the right or left as they could be. 

A 1985 study of political extremist groups in the US at the time came to similar conclusions:<ref>[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/similarities-and-differences-between-left-wing-and-right-wing-radicals/C46411F0228745583D2EB8E91A19D881 Similarities and Differences Between Left-Wing and Right-Wing Radicals] by Herbert McClosky and Dennis Chong. ''British Journal of Political Science''. Volume 15, Issue 3. July 1985, pp. 329-363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400004221</ref> {{quotebox|…while the two camps embrace different programmatic beliefs, both are deeply estranged from certain features of American society and highly critical of what they perceive as the spiritual and moral degeneration of American institutions. Both view American society as dominated by conspiratorial forces that are working to defeat their respective ideological aims.

The degree of their alienation is intensified by the zealous and unyielding manner in which they hold their beliefs. Both camps possess an inflexible [[psychological]] and political style characterized by the tendency to view social and political affairs in crude, unambiguous and stereotypical terms. They see political life as a conflict between 'us' and 'them', a struggle between good and evil played out on a battleground where compromise amounts to capitulation and the goal is total victory.

The far left and the far right also resemble each other in the way they pursue their political goals. Both are disposed to censor their opponents, to deal harshly with enemies, to sacrifice the well-being even of the innocent in order to serve a 'higher purpose', and to use cruel tactics if necessary to 'persuade' society of the wisdom of their objectives. Both tend to support (or oppose) [[civil liberties]] in a highly partisan and self-serving fashion, supporting [[freedom]] for themselves and for the groups and causes they favour while seeking to withhold it from enemies and advocates of causes they dislike.

In sum, when the views of the far left and far right are evaluated against the standard left–right ideological dimension, they can appropriately be classified at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But when the two camps are evaluated on questions of political and psychological style, the treatment of political opponents, and the tactics that they are willing to employ to achieve their ends, the display many parallels that can rightly be labelled authoritarian.}}

===Objectivism and Marxism===
[[File:Atlas Shrugged John Galt poster.jpeg|thumb|left|120px|John Galt]][[File:Cheguevararevolution.jpg|thumb|250px|Che Guevara]]
[[Ayn Rand]]'s philosophy of [[Objectivism]] has frequently been described as the "Marxism of the Right" by its many critics. For example, the ex-communist turned conservative Whittaker Chambers, in his review<ref>[http://whittakerchambers.org/articles/nr/bigsister/ Big Sister Is Watching You] by Whittaker Chambers (28 December 1957) ''National Review''.</ref> of ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]'' for the ''[[National Review]]'' in 1957, suggested that Rand's [[materialism]], despite all protests to the contrary, was functionally almost identical to the [[Marxism]] that she so despised. Similarly, Vladimir Shlapentokh, who grew up and lived in the [[Soviet Union]], points out that Rand was more marked by the Soviet system than she was aware or perhaps cared to admit.<ref>[https://shlapentokh.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/the-marxist-and-bolshevik-roots-of-ayn-rand%E2%80%99s-philosophy/ The Marxist and Bolshevik Roots of Ayn Rand’s Philosophy] by Vladimir Shlapentokh (August 10, 2010).</ref>

Both Rand's ideology and Stalin's (which was Marxism as she knew it first-hand) dedicatedly divided people into groups of 'productive individuals' and 'parasites', and [[art]] and literature into acceptable (ideologically valid) and '[[degenerate]]' types. In the first instance, they strongly disagreed as to who were in these groups, with Marxists seeing the [[working class]] as productive and the upper class as parasites while Objectivists held the opposite view, something that led [[George Monbiot]] to describe the two philosophies as mirror images of one another.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/05/new-right-ayn-rand-marx How Ayn Rand became the new right's version of Marx: Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats] by George Monbiot (Monday 5 March 2012 15.30 EST) ''The Guardian''.</ref> However, they generally agreed about what art was acceptable versus 'degenerate'.

On a last note, despite both philosophies being ostensibly atheistic and naturalistic, both have occasionally supported anti-science crankery, including, in both cases, promoters that opposed both [[quantum mechanics]] and [[relativity]], for very similar reasons.

===Subculture of libertarians and authoritarianism===
Libertarianism contains many strains, and some are more consistent on [[Civil libertarianism|''civil'' libertarianism]] than others.{{efn|For example, [[Neoconservatism|neoconservative]] pundit Jennifer Rubin laments that: "Some libertarians, including Richard Epstein, argue that an isolationist foreign policy reflects a misunderstanding of true libertarian principles, but in practice the overwhelming number of libertarians vehemently oppose U.S. interventionism and want to eliminate foreign aid and slash defense spending… Libertarians have gotten the notion that the [[Bill of Rights]] supplants the laws of war and protects, for example, American jihadists from being droned and data gathering to detect [[terrorism]] plots. In that they often seem to be mimicking the Obama administration's fetish with applying criminal justice concepts to anti-terrorism policy. Most Republicans resist that leap of logic and constitutional misinterpretation.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/09/11/why-conservatives-and-libertarians-are-at-odds/ Why conservatives and libertarians are at odds] by Jennifer Rubin (September 11, 2014) ''Washington Post''.</ref>}} On one hand, libertarians like Radley Balko support movements like [[Black Lives Matter]],<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/11/05/a-partial-list-of-pundits-politicians-and-media-outlets-who-used-joseph-gliniewiczs-death-to-push-the-war-on-cops-narrative/ A partial list of pundits, politicians and media outlets who used Joseph Gliniewicz's death to push the 'war on cops' narrative] by Radley Balko (November 5, 2015) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Johan Norberg is well-known for his support of liberal immigration policies and his anti-racism while Julian Sanchez is well-known for his excellent work on surveillance and privacy issues.<ref>[https://www.c-span.org/search/?searchtype=All&query=Julian+Sanchez+Privacy+and+Government+Surveillance+ Privacy and Government Surveillance] by Julian Sanchez (January 26, 2017) ''C-SPAN''.</ref> However, it is necessary to separate the wheat from the authoritarian chaff within the libertarian movement. 

The subculture of younger, male libertarians online can be among the more authoritarian strains, as can be older men (they usually are) who, in the US, are often too comfortable with the religious right and other intolerant aspects of the Republican Party. This brand of libertarians loves to single out [[Moonbat|the crazies on the left]], but some (not remotely all) are [[Hypocrisy|extremely big tent]] when it comes to [[Wingnut|right-wing lunatics]] on the fringe, including [[Racialism|"race realists"]] and [[theocratic]] [[bigot]]s like [[Ted Cruz]] or the [[W|Bush]]-[[Dick Cheney|Cheney]] horror.{{efn|For instance, self-identified libertarian [[Glenn Reynolds]] ceased being anything but an authoritarian during the Bush era.<ref>[http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/libertarians-and-republican-party.html Libertarians and the Republican Party &mdash; Irreconcilable Differences] by Glenn Greenwald (Friday, July 07, 2006).</ref>}} Others, like [[Gary North]], have adopted libertarian rhetoric in the name of advancing a reactionary Christian agenda, seeing the [[government]] as restricting the 'freedom' of Christians to [[American Taliban|form their own private theocracies]] and lock sexual and ethnic minorities out of society; this brand of the movement is known as [[paleolibertarianism]].

More recently, the [[neoreactionary movement]] and [[Gamergate]] types have been making inroads into the younger libertarian base and venting their anger and resentment in unexpected directions unrelated to government intrusion on liberties, particularly in terms of race relations and [[gender theory]]. This may cause more traditional civil libertarians to modify their own philosophies to win that market of morons, or risk becoming irrelevant.<ref>[http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/guided-by-the-beauty-of-their-weapons-an-analysis-of-theodore-beale-and-his-supporters/ Guided By The Way of Their Weapons: An Analysis of Theodore Beale and His Supporters] by Elizabeth Sandifer</ref> You can no longer rely on just hating the government — you also have to hate culture, [[Anti-intellectualism|intellectualism]], [[feminism]], [[sexuality]], ethnic minorities, your mommy,<ref>[http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/tag/single-mothers/ Black women hate men and "do an <nowiki>[expletive deleted]</nowiki> job with their sons," white MRA lady JudgyBitch explains] (July 25, 2015) ''We Hunted the Mammoth''.</ref> and modernity in general<ref>[https://archive.is/2htVM Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto Predicted The Catastrophe From Technology And Liberalism] by Roosh Valizadeh (October 14, 2015) ''Return of the Kings'' (archived copy from 17 Oct 2015 04:48:36 UTC).</ref> as enemies of freedom (specifically, freedom for straight white males).

As the [[culture war]]s shifted in the 2020s from fighting Islam and Muslim immigration to fighting feminism and [[LGBT]] rights, some alt-right and libertarian activists like [[Mike Cernovich]] and [[The Great Aussie Patriot]] have either converted or expressed great sympathy to [[Islamism]], due to their shared hostility towards the LGBT community and women's rights, while finding new followers among young conservative Muslims.<ref>[https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/03/03/shermon-burgess-islam-far-right/]</ref>

===Fascism, communism, and ultra-nationalism===
{{main|Fascism#Fascism and the political spectrum}}
{{cquote| I think the Soviet Union protected Russians from an even worse ideology, that is the liberalism of the United States and Western Europe…|||White nationalist [[Richard Spencer]]<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/22/alt-right-dont-belong-american-conservatism-jamie-weinstein The 'alt-right' don't belong in the American conservative tradition] by Jamie Weinstein (Tuesday 22 November 2016 13.21 EST) ''The Guardian''.</ref>}}
All the way back since their respective moments of inception, ''far-right'' (fascist/ultra-nationalist) and ''far-left'' (revolutionary communist/anarchist) movements have been trading players back and forth like the fucking NFL. Irrespective of political wing, ''every'' supposedly unique movement positioned in violent opposition to liberal democracy has aligned perfectly with the {{wpl|Narcissism_of_small_differences|narcissism of small differences}}.{{fact}} Illustrative of this fact, the {{wpl|Swedish Security Service}} and the {{wpl|Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention}} both classify left- and right-wing extremism as practically identical,<ref name=sakerhetspolisen>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140409002034/http://www.sakerhetspolisen.se/download/18.635d23c2141933256ea1d1c/1381154798451/valdsam_polextr_2009.pdf Våldsam politisk extremism Antidemokratiska grupperingar på yttersta höger- och vänsterkanten] (2009) ''Säkerhetspolisen''. Rapport 2009:15 (archived from April 9, 2014).</ref> concluding formally that "the similarities are greater than the differences".<ref name=sakerhetspolisen/>{{rp|51}}

====Japan====
{{main|Japan}}
During the 1930s, many Japanese Marxists were arrested by the [[Japanese]] military government and volunteered or were forced to disavow the Japanese Communist Party. Rather than simply disowning the party, many — but not all — Marxists converted to [[fascist]]ic ultra-[[nationalism]].<ref name="ienaga">''The Pacific War: 1931-1945'' by Saburo Ienaga, 1978. Pantheon Asia Library, pp. 121-122. ISBN 0394734963.</ref>
{{cquote|Among the reasons were their formalistic radicalism and blind adherence to Comintern and party dictates and, despite their advocacy of "democracy," a lack of real experience or understanding of [[human rights]]. Although prewar Marxism was a sharp thrust to the left and away from tradition, its psychological structure had much in common with the ideology of the emperor system, a rote submission to authority. In one sense, Marxism was simply the reverse coin of a ''banzai''-shouting, emperor worshipping statism.|||Saburo Ienaga<ref name="ienaga"/>}}

====North Korea====
{{main|North Korea}}
The totalitarian regime of [[North Korea]], despite having originated as a Soviet- and [[Chinese]]-backed socialist state, has been called, in practice, the last display of "pure" fascism currently in existence.{{efn|Or at least, it was the last until [[Putin]] invaded Ukraine and [[Xi Jinping]] went on a power trip.}} It speaks of the Korean people as "the cleanest race" (''순결한 민족''), proclaiming that, because of their purity and childlike virtue, they need strong, parental leadership (i.e. the [[Kim|Kim dynasty]]) in order to be safe from an outside world that wants to destroy them. This is an ethnic supremacist ideology more analogous to that espoused by far-right [[White nationalism|white nationalists]] in the West, or by Imperial [[Japan]] in the 1930s and by Japanese ultra-nationalists today, than it is to the "Workers and peasants of the world, unite!" rhetoric that emanated from Moscow and Beijing.<ref>''The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters'' by [[Brian Reynolds Myers|B. R. Myers]] (2010). Melville House. ISBN 1933633913.</ref> However, there is considerable controversy over whether North Korea really described the inter-Korean people as "the cleanest race" (''순결한 인종'').<ref group=note>[[Brian Reynolds Myers]] tends to translate the word 민족 as [https://sthelepress.com/index.php/2019/04/07/rok-nationalist-left-front/ "race"]. 민족 means closer to 'nation', [https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/16/president-moon-jae-in-and-politics-of-inter-korean-d-tente-pub-77730 'our brethren'], and [https://identityhunters.org/2023/03/20/%EB%AF%BC%EC%A1%B1minjok/ 'ethnicity'], and is not often used as 'race'. In Korea, the word "race" is closer to 인종 (''injong'') than to 민족 (''minjok''). It is true that North Koreans describe themselves as 순결한 민족 (cleanest [ethnic-]nation), but never as 순결한 인종 (cleanest race). Moreover, Myers is a highly biased scholar who regards most of the South Korean leftists as pro-North Korean ethnonationalists. (See [[Brian Reynolds Myers#Right-wing, anti-Minjok and pro-American biased viewpoint of South Korean politics]])</ref> Speaking of Imperial Japan, the worship of the Kim dynasty has also been argued to have more in common with the emperor-worship of Korea's former [[Imperialism|colonizer]] than with the personality cults of Stalin and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]], and many of the early leaders that the Soviets installed in North Korea had in fact previously collaborated with the Japanese during their colonization of Korea.<ref>[http://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10724334/north-korea-history The single most important fact for understanding North Korea] by Max Fisher (Jan 6, 2016, 2:20pm EST ) ''Vox''.</ref>

Even with the North Korean regime's fascist roots, however, it had little problem cozying up with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China and adopting an officially communist ideology in its quest to get revenge on the U.S. and their "colony" of [[South Korea]]. Notably, once communism fell in Russia and their main benefactor evaporated, the North Koreans started dropping all pretense of communism with fairly little effort. On the surface, it had swung from the far-left to the far-right, but on a practical level, virtually nothing had changed. Today, some on the [[alt-right]] in the West have expressed solidarity with North Korea, viewing it as a bastion of resistance to 'globalism' that has been unjustly smeared by Western governments; in this, they stand aligned with many of North Korea's traditionally far-left apologists.<ref>[https://www.nknews.org/2017/01/enemys-enemy-the-trump-supporting-alt-right-and-north-korea/ Enemy's enemy? The Trump-supporting 'alt-right' and North Korea] by Oliver Hotham (Jan 19, 2017) ''North Korea News''. (Behind a paywall.)</ref><ref>[https://thediplomat.com/2017/07/alt-reich-north-korea-and-the-far-right/ Alt-Reich: North Korea and the Far Right] by Bradley Jardine and Casey Michel (July 6, 2017) ''The Diplomat''.</ref> However, it didn't entirely abandon its far-left pretense, as it maintains a Stalinist economy{{Fact}} that has been also compared to a [[Bronze Age]] palace economy, which is a superficially left-wing economy that distributes goods and wealth through the palace.

North Korea's hereditary leadership pattern also leads to comparisons with [[monarchy]]. The Kim Family is effectively a royal house, and are more similar to kings in certain respects than the non-hereditary Chinese leadership (nepotistic and brutal though it is). North Korea claims to be [[Antitheism|anti-religious]] (keeping some temples as museum pieces), but members of the public make [[Juche|obeisance to idols of the Kims]] every day.

====Benito Mussolini====
{{main|Benito Mussolini}}
The story of [[Benito Mussolini]]'s conversion from socialism to being the inventor of [[fascism]] is a famous one, repeated most often by right-wing pundits wishing to pretend that fascism is left-wing and has absolutely ''nothing'' to do with the right. Regardless, even after Mussolini had renounced left-wing politics and moved to the right, his vision for fascism contained many elements borrowed from socialism, most notably in its economic platform, with him dismissing both capitalism and Marxism as "obsolete doctrines" and upholding a [[Corporatism|corporatist]] economic system as a [[Third positionism|"Third Alternative"]] for [[Italy]].

Despite Mussolini's hankering for Roman values, his movement was also very technocratic and was associated with forward looking artistic and architectural movements. 

Mussolini also had a strange, but little remarked upon interest in [[Islam]]. On one occasion, he bemoaned Catholicism, saying that Italy was Muslim it would be better disciplined. Upon conquest of Libya, he also gained the title [[w:Sword of Islam (Mussolini)|Sword of Islam]] or Protector of Islam

====Horst Mahler====
The [[Red Army Faction]], a far-left terrorist group in [[Germany#Zwanzigstes Jahrhundert|West Germany]] that was most active in the '70s, was a particularly extreme manifestation of the [[New Left]] in that country, where outrage over the ruling class' historical, unanswered-for complicity in the [[Nazi Germany|Nazi regime]] was a major motivating factor in protests. Odd, then, that Horst Mahler, one of the RAF's founding members, would himself become a [[Neo-Nazism|neo-Nazi]] later in his life after serving ten years in prison for his activities with the RAF.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090227001644/http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=74 "Federal Constitutional Court Issues Temporary Injunction in the NPD Party Ban Case."] ''German Law Journal'', Vol. 2 No. 13 — 1 August 2001 (recovered 17 September 2017).</ref> Notably, Mahler insists that his views have not substantially changed; rather, he asserts that his conversion to neo-Nazism, and accompanying espousal of [[antisemitism]] and [[Holocaust denial]], stemmed from his opposition to capitalism and the United States, with him coming to see both as being in the hands of the Jews.

====Slobodan Milošević====
{{main|Slobodan Milošević}}
{{more sources}}
Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević has his admirers on both the extreme far left and far right. Tankies love him because he was a strong anti-Western dictator in an era where communism lost most of its influence in Europe. Meanwhile, right wing [[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]] nationalist conservatives liked his military action against [[Albania|Albanians]] and [[Bosnia|Bosnians]] and saw him as an inspiration for standing up to Muslims. Normally, traditional Marxist-Leninist commies and Tea Party traditionalist conservatives don't agree on much, but some of both groups view Milošević positively.

===Birchers and communists===
Historian [[Richard Hofstadter]] noted the similarities between the recruiting methods used by both [[radical]] left and radical right groups when he wrote "The [[John Birch Society]] emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through [[Front group|'front' groups]], and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy." Hofstadter also quoted [[New Right (United States)|New Right]] leader [[Barry Goldwater]], who said "I would suggest that we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not."<ref>''The Paranoid Style in American Politics'' by Richard Hofstadter (1964). Harvard University Press, p. 33. ISBN 0674654617.</ref> Cue the historical origins of [[neoconservatism]]. Important figures in the parallel development of [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcherism]], such as {{wpl|Keith Joseph}} and {{wpl|Alfred Sherman||,}} similarly modelled their tactics on the Leftist idea of the [[Entryism|"long march through the institutions"]]. Another rather explicit example of this is some [[Tea Party]] members reading the writings of leftist [[Saul Alinsky]] because of his suggestions on how to have a successful "radical" movement.

Hofstadter also points out the other examples of the radical right and ultraconservative emulating the "enemy". For example, while the "[[paranoid]]" may be an anti-intellectual, "the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry." [[Glenn Beck]] has been cited as a modern example of this.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2010/09/15/hofstadter/ The paranoid style in American punditry: Richard Hofstadter's seminal take on right-wing crackpots sheds light on the current anti-Muslim panic] by Laura Miller (Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 12:30 PM UTC) ''Salon''.</ref>

In fact despite the dislike and paranoia many hard-right figures have for academia, they often end up mimicking academia in many ways because as Hofstadter notes, their style of writing "is nothing if not scholarly in technique. [[Joseph McCarthy|McCarthy]]’s 96-page pamphlet, McCarthyism, contains no less than 313 footnote references, and Mr. Welch's incredible assault on [[Eisenhower]], ''[[The Politician]]'', has one hundred pages of bibliography and notes. The entire right-wing movement of our time is a parade of experts, study groups, monographs, footnotes, and bibliographies." The modern right-wing pundits' habit of overstuffing their book with unnecessary footnotes has become so cliché that even [[Stephen Colbert]] mocked it in his book ''America Again: Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren't''.<ref>''America Again: Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren't'' by Stephen Colbert (2012) Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 0446583979.</ref>

=== Identity politics on the left and right ===
Sometimes, statements made by ultra-"woke" leftists who subscribe to [[identity politics]] can sound disturbingly similar to those made by people on the far right. Generally, this is because they can be read in one of two ways, although there are also cases where genuine [[bigotry]] seems to be present. There is even a quiz-style [[Reddit|subreddit]] dedicated to documenting examples of this phenomenon, called "[[Stormfront]] or [[Social Justice Warrior|SJW]]?"<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/StormfrontorSJW/ Stormfront or SJW?], [[Reddit]].com</ref>

Some leftists also unironically support separate spaces for certain minorities or ethnic groups, and have developed a number of symbols for different groups, sometimes worn as badges, without realizing that this actually goes against the idea of multiculturalism and promotes a form of racial segregation and otherness.

===TERFs/SWERFs and the religious right/MRAs===
One of the more extreme wings of the [[feminism|feminist]] movement, [[trans-exclusionary radical feminism]] (or "TERF") as well as [[sex worker-exclusionary radical feminism]] (or SWERF), has, in the past, worked closely with religious conservatives on some sexual matters, despite their otherwise fervent hatred of each other.<ref>[http://www.feminist-reprise.org/docs/jeffreys.htm Sheila Jeffreys speaks on beauty practices and misogyny] (April 7, 2006) Andrea Dworkin Commemorative Conference. Sheila Jeffreys supports the radical right</ref> The two seem to get along on matters that have to do with being [[Transphobia|hostile]] to the [[transgender]] community (hence the name), wanting [[pornography]] and [[prostitution]] to be banned, and a dislike of certain other sexual minorities ([[bisexual]]s, the [[BDSM]] community, et cetera). Margaret Atwood's feminist dystopian novel ''[[The Handmaid's Tale]]'' even presented TERFs as having helped to pave the way for the theocratic Republic of Gilead through colluding with Christian fundamentalists on such issues.

Similarly, TERFs have been repeatedly compared to [[Men's rights movement|men's rights activists]]<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2014/03/03/quick-while-i-have-the-terfs-and-mras-distracted-go-solve-all-the-problems/ "Quick, while I have the TERFs and MRAs distracted, go solve all the problems!"] by Jason Thibeault (March 3, 2014). ''The Orbit''. Skeptics seem to agree on this actually.</ref> due to both having the tendency to direct overly aggressive rhetoric at the opposite sex, which is almost always based around [[Stereotype|hasty generalizations]]. Both may also overestimate the power of their enemy, believing that there is an organized effort by the media/society to destroy/oppress their [[gender]]. Some MRAs have even emulated fringe radical feminists, such as through the [[Men Going Their Own Way]] movement which encourages straight men to avoid women, much like what fringe radical feminists do with [[political lesbianism]], which encourages women to stay away from men. Also, both groups are (obviously) typically transphobic, often repeating the same claims about how letting trans people choose what bathroom to use will be the doom of society, and have both attracted certain [[homophobes]].<ref>[http://uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/2013/04/terfs-mras-and-lies-about-trans-people.html TERFs, MRAs and lies about trans people] by Natacha (Tuesday, 23 April 2013) ''UnCommon Sense''.</ref> MRAs also have a tendency to look for [[bias]] against them in the [[media]] [[Conservative correctness|even where none may exist]]; for example, if a women bests a man in combat on television or in a movie, there is a tendency to immediately assume this is for "[[Political correctness|PC]] empowerment" as opposed to more likely reasons such as plot convenience (apparently, the idea this is very possible is too crazy to be taken seriously).{{efn|This is also an odd complaint, considering that weaker men regularly defeat stronger men on television, so long as they're the hero.}} This is especially ironic considering that this is basically what they decry radical feminists for doing (i.e., eagerly looking for [[bias]] against women where none may exist).

TERFs/SWERFs also tend to share their right-wing counterparts' hostility for [[Feminism#The third wave: clashes of values (1980s–present)|third-wave feminism]].<ref>SJWiki: [https://web.archive.org/web/20230212101848/http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism#.WQyWp9ryuUk "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism: Against the third wave."] Recovered May 5, 2017.</ref> While religious conservatives and MRAs oppose it because they don't like feminism in general, TERFs often come out against it because they see third-wavers as allowing transgender [[Entryism|"infiltrators"]] into the women's movement,<ref>[https://moultingphoenix.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/the-third-wave-fight-terfs-vs-trans-women/ "The third-wave fight: TERFs vs. trans women."] by moultingphoenix (October 1, 2014).</ref> as well as their more permissive views on sexual matters and resultant opposition to the TERFs/SWERFs' hardline stances against pornography and sex work.{{efn|[[Social networking websites#Tumblr|Tumblr]], famously viewed as an online stronghold for the social justice left and third-wave feminism, is also well-known for its very laissez-faire attitude towards porn, drawing the line only at [https://tumblr.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/231885248-Adult-content actually hosting it]. About [http://www.refinery29.com/2017/04/152329/tumblr-update-turns-porn-on-and-off a fifth] of all Tumblr traffic is porn-related, and the porn and feminist sides of the site cross over more than you might think. Draw your own conclusions.}} In fact, some otherwise dyed-in-the-wool anti-feminists have taken to developing an appreciation for TERFs, seeing them as [[No True Scotsman|"real feminists"]] versus the [[Social justice warrior|"modern feminists"]] with their embrace of transgender rights, [[intersectionality]], and that hippity-hoppity jungle music the kids these days are into.<ref>[https://voat.co/v/NeoFAG/843505 "Hmm... these radfems aren't entirely wrong..."] MRAs on Voat discover TERFs.</ref>

===Vladimir Putin's fan club===
{{main|Vladimir Putin}}
Extremists sometimes champion surprising ''causes célèbres'', which can lead far right and far left to back the same horse. Their responses to Vladimir Putin illustrate this. When U.S.-Russian relations chilled in 2013 amidst controversy over a proposed U.S. intervention against [[Assad]] in [[Syria]], a vocal minority of Western leftists went beyond opposing the intervention and actually praised Putin. This tendency, most visible on [[tankie]] websites like [[Globalresearch.ca]] and Counterpunch, continued throughout the crisis in [[Ukraine]], in which the Euromaidan that ousted President Viktor Yanukovich was portrayed as a mob of neo-fascists. Around this time, American conservatives also began warming up to Putin, seeing him as a stalwart defender of Christendom against homosexuals, Muslims, and [[Pussy Riot|riot grrrl punk bands]] who made their favorite boogeyman, [[Barack Obama]], look "weak" in the bargain. It's no secret that sections of the American "libertarian" movement have [[Neoreactionary movement|deep strains of authoritarianism and power-worship]], and Putin has crafted an image that appeals to such people.<ref>[http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/07/29/why-does-ron-paul-keep-defending-putin/ Why Does Ron Paul Keep Defending Putin?] by Mark Splinter (29 July 2014) ''The Skeptical Libertarian''.</ref> The logical conclusion of this came in 2015, when [[Donald Trump]] accepted Putin's ''de facto'' endorsement for the presidency. Putin's moonbat supporters (probably) don't share many of his wingnut supporters' motives, apart from reflexive loathing of the Western "establishment", but their behavior has still dovetailed.

Another example is how in Europe, for example, Putin is generally associated with the far-right, linked with (open or secret) support of parties like the French Front National and Austria’s Party for Freedom that, conversely often praise Russia and Putin and propose a more Euro-Russian stance instead of Atlantism, whilst in places like Latin America Putin is associated with the far-left and seen as a strong sponsor of far-left regimes like those in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, to the point that some people in Latin America still think that Russia is socialist.{{cn}} Nevertheless, both the European far-left and the Latin American far-right also praise Putin. This is probably not entirely a coincidence, apart from both groups’ love for authoritarian anti-American and anti-NATO regimes, Putin indeed tries to get closer to every regime that is critical of the US for geo-strategic reasons whether it's a far-right ultra-conservative theocracy like Iran or a far-left socialist regime like Nicaragua.

===The Unabomber===
{{main|Unabomber}}
The American domestic [[terrorist]] Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, has been embraced as a hero by people and groups on both the far left and the far right. On the left, a number of [[hard green]]s have embraced his anti-industrial, neo-[[Luddite]] [[ideology]] on [[environmental]] grounds. The [[anarchist]] collective [[CrimethInc.]], for example, has an extended hagiography declaring Kaczynski "a hero for our time", claiming that the actions of his targets against people and the environment made his bombing campaign justified.<ref>[http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/days/unabomber.php The Unabomber: A Hero For Our Time] ''CrimethInc.''</ref> On the right, he's also won the affection of [[Radical traditionalism|radical traditionalists]] and other reactionaries due to his view that modern technology was responsible for the decadence, crumbling [[Traditional values|moral values]], and [[tyranny]] of the modern world. Right-wing pundit [[Keith Ablow]], for one, has defended Kaczynski's ideology; while he took great pains to state that he thought Kaczynski's ''actions'' were wrong, he went on to state that his ideas "are increasingly important" and "cannot be dismissed", saying that his manifesto, ''Industrial Society and Its Future'', deserved a place alongside ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'' and ''Brave New World''.<ref>[http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/26/fox-news-keith-ablow-unabomber-was-right-that-l/194638 Fox News' Keith Ablow: Unabomber Was Right That Liberals Are "Psychologically Disordered"] by Thomas Bishop (June 26, 2013 5:29 PM EDT) ''Media Matters for America]''.</ref><ref>[http://respecttheblankie.com/2013/06/28/does-dr-keith-ablow-suffer-from-a-reading-comprehension-disorder/ Dr. Keith Ablow's Political Hero, the Unabomber] (28 June 2013) ''Respect the Blankie''.</ref> According to Ablow's logic, since the [[NSA]] is spying on us and Barack Obama heavily employed the internet as a key campaign and outreach tool, that means that the internet is totally rotten to the core and that Kaczynski was right about technology.

===Art and propaganda===
Within the [[art]] world, the state-sponsored artistic styles of Nazi Germany and the post-Stalin Soviet Union have been described as having more in common with each other than either side might have been willing to admit, with art historians sometimes using the term "heroic realism" to describe both socialist realism and Nazi art.<ref>[http://webartacademy.com/fine-art-heroic-realism "Fine Art: Heroic realism."]</ref> Both were characterized by a firm rejection of [[Modern art and architecture|modernism in the arts]] as '[[Ruling class|bourgeois]]' or '[[degenerate]]', instead seeking to depict idealized figures representing the common man with the intent of use for propaganda purposes, and their state sponsors cracked down on alternative, modernist styles. During the [[Cold War]], the [[CIA]], as a reaction to socialist realism, sponsored modern artists to serve as a counterweight to the Soviet state style, even though, in the US, their main critics traditionally came from the right rather than the left.<ref>Saunders, Frances Stonor. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html "Modern art was CIA 'weapon'."] ''The Independent'', 21 October 1995 (recovered 8 July 2017).</ref>

On the other hand, before Stalin came to power, the early Soviet Union had a strong Futurist movement which was similar to that of Fascist Italy.

====New Age and conspiracy theory====
{{Main|Conspirituality}}
The online overlap of beliefs and attitudes between the politically opposed camps of right-wing conspiracy theorists on the one hand, and the left-wing New Age and the broader wellness movement on the other hand, has come to be commonly referred to as [[conspirituality]]. The initial contrast between the two is often exaggerated, and in part there's always been a broader range of political leanings to prominent New Age figures, and also to conspiracy theorists. But there's also been a real blending of initially separate belief systems and preoccupations over time, such as fundamentalist Christian fears of satanic conspiracies spreading along with other [[QAnon]] beliefs to New Age and alternative health circles.

Essentially, conspiracy theory is a common language and way of viewing the world which makes it easy for beliefs to spread across religions and political and cultural camps which formerly were opposed, or even still are opposed, to one another. New Age and alternative health movements believe in so-called "suppressed knowledge" concealed from most people, and thus also have conspiracy thinking baked into them to the core. In part, both modern reactionary conspiracy theory culture and modern western spirituality have strong ties to older cultural currents of [[Western esotericism]], and through this, are in some ways not that far separated to begin with.<ref name=consrec>Asprem, Egil & Dyrendal, Asbjørn. (2015). 'Conspirituality Reconsidered: How Surprising and How New is the Confluence of Spirituality and Conspiracy Theory?', ''Journal of Contemporary Religion''. 30. 367-382. 10.1080/13537903.2015.1081339. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282176020_Conspirituality_Reconsidered_How_Surprising_and_How_New_is_the_Confluence_of_Spirituality_and_Conspiracy_Theory Postprint copy.]</ref>

==See also==
{{collist|2|
*[[Balance fallacy]]
*[[Crank magnetism]]
*[[Eric Hoffer]], and his observation about the interchangeability of mass movements
*[[My enemy's enemy]]
*[[Paradigm shift]]
*[[Poe's Law]]
*[[Political Compass]]
*[[Zeal of the convert]]
}}

==Notes==
{{notelist|2|90%}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Political terms]]
[[Category:Political philosophies]]
[[Category:Political theory]]

Categories: Political terms, Political philosophies, Political theory