A scientific theory must be a well substantiated explanation of a phenomenon or set of phenomena. In order for horseshoe
theory to be valid, it needs to be able to accurately describe a phenomenon, and has to be backed up by a significant
amount of evidence. Aside from that, exceptions must be be explained as not inherently violating the theory,
otherwise the theory itself is false.
What exactly does horseshoe theory state? Quoting Wikipedia:
"The horseshoe theory in political science asserts that rather than the far left and the far right being at opposite
and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, they in fact closely resemble one another,
much like the ends of a horseshoe."
So, in order for this to be considered a valid theory, one must have a good body of evidence suggesting that
far left always ends up being more similar to the far right than to the political center. Does that exist?
No, not at all. Anarchism, usually considered even farther to the left of most communist ideologies (note here that
there is not just one),is the polar opposite of fascism in almost every way, and is far more similar to liberal democracy
than it is to fascism. If horseshoe theory were valid, then anarchism must closely resemble fascism, or there should be
an explanation for why it doesn't, yet, horseshoe theory doesn't provide such an explanation, and it clearly breaks down
whenever we expand the far left and far right to include more than just Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Nor does it actually provide an explanation for anything. It's just a claim of coarsely and selectively observed evidence.
It just says "x will lead to y" and tries to pass this off as a theory. In reality, it doesn't predict or
explain evidence, it just claims observed evidence (which is quite thin and limited, and carefully selected to support its own tenets)
and then says "yeah that's what always happens because ????? (no underlying reason)."
This is just bad science, plain and simple.
Another problem arises when one realizes that there is no single left-right spectrum. Assuming all ideologies are
just more left or more right wing versions of each other is bad politics in and of itself, because it ignores the
many things that make each ideology different.
When even the basic assumption of your theory is flawed, your theory itself is flawed.
It also confounds political radicalism with political extremism. Just being dogmatic and using violence to
advocate your opinion doesn't automatically make your opinion extremely radical, yet horseshoe theory assumes it does.
It is possible to be a social democrat who advocates violence or an anarchist who advocates pacifism.
Last edited by Ezekiel; 08/08/16 06:20 PM.
