Horseshoe theory: Is Left-wing and Right-wing Radicalism the Same Thing?

 Translated from Groups Against Capital and Nation

Is left-wing radical the same as right-wing radical, or what does the horseshoe model of extremism theory achieve? 

Extremism theory didn't originate with the rightward shift brought about by the AfD. Right-wing and left-wing radical political programs and practices are said to be very similar and therefore, in a sense, basically the same. The horseshoe serves as a metaphor for the political spectrum: In the center are the mainstream democrats, and even there a distinction is made between right (e.g., CDU) and left (e.g., Alliance 90/The Greens), whose programs are also close to each other in the image. However, the lines rise so sharply at the extremes that the right and left ends are much closer to each other than the democratic center is to either of these extremes.

On the one hand – and this is no secret – extremism theory has simply been a working term used by domestic intelligence agencies since 1974. ^Their job is to monitor those who seek to change the raison d'état. Left-wing, right-wing, and foreign extremists are then working terms that indicate that these groups do not recognize the free democratic basic order (FDGO) as the absolute standard for their political goals. On the other hand, the horseshoe theory is supposed to convey more in public discourse. Extremists are said to be ideologically closer to one another and, together, far removed from democrats.

The justifications for this thesis contain several flaws. One can be stated quite formally: Extremism—as defined by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution—is only conceived negatively in relation to democracy. Regarding the NPD, AfD, parts of the Left Party, the German Communist Party (DKP), IS, and Al-Qaeda, one then only knows what they are not in one respect : loyal to the Basic Law. The term "non-anarchism" would be equally (non)enlightening for the NPD, FDP, and the Catholic Church. This logic is flawed not only when left-wing and right-wing groups are equated. Even the lumping together of anarchists, Stalinists, and consistent social democrats under the heading of "left-wing extremism" is absurd because of its focus on what they are not.

Many errors are inherent in attempts to identify positive characteristics of "extremist" organizations as something they have in common, something that is supposed to distinguish them from the democratic "center." Three examples from extremism theory, which is also taught at university:

Judgment 1: "Extremists are characterized by a messianic promise of happiness." ²

It can be said that this is unfortunately common in some left-wing organizations. Who doesn't know the song "Step by Step into Paradise" by Ton Steine ​​Scherben? (Translator note -- probably most people outside of Germany, including the Translator. Perhaps an analogous English language song  with a comparible theme about building a "better world" would be the Folk song "Big Rock Candy Mountain", John Lennon's "Imagine", or "People Have the Power" by Patti Smith.) The "pursuit of happiness" of the free democratic order also promises everyone that they can best pursue happiness within it. One could object that this only refers to the right to strive for happiness, which is indeed something different from a promise of happiness. However, it is equally clear that citizens confuse this with a promise of happiness. And bourgeois politicians sometimes use this to agitate in the same way: the keyword being "flourishing landscapes" in the takeover campaign of the GDR by the FRG. Nazis also promised a thousand-year Reich, thereby referring to the Bible. However, the content of this Reich consisted mainly of perpetual racial struggle and subjugation of inferior races by the master race. (Translator note -- one could add the mere biological reproduction and perpetuation of the "Aryan race" as a state-directed eugenics program selecting for physical and mental fitness, i.e. a militarized fighting force.) In short: when it comes to promises of happiness in general, no difference can be discerned between the "extremes" and the "center"; the content of the promise of happiness differs significantly among all.

Verdict 2: “Extremists are prone to violence” . ³

A superficial look at society reveals that Nazis kill people they perceive as foreign or left-wing. There are leftists willing to punch Nazis in the face. There are leftists willing to set cars on fire as a measure against gentrification or racist police brutality. There are elected parties that organize prisons, operate a military force, and deport people. A willingness to use violence is thus found across the entire political spectrum.

The above statement obviously means that some political organizations or individuals labeled as "extremists" have no problem perpetrating violence that lacks state legitimacy. This brings us back to the logic criticized earlier. The commonality of their use of violence arises from their distinction from violence that it is not legitimate—violence that is not permitted by the state. Incidentally, this approach is far removed from analyzing and potentially criticizing the reasons for the violence. But even setting aside the reasons, one can still distinguish between the consequences of violence and human suffering: killing people versus property damage. Extremism theorists conveniently ignore this distinction when they simply identify a breach of the legal order in both right-wing and left-wing extremist groups.

Judgment 3: “Extremists have a conviction that they do not relativize as an opinion, but rather want to spread and enforce.” ⁴

The Catholic Church is not considered extremist in Germany. However, it does claim to possess the truth. It maintains training centers and demands obedience from its followers. In enforcing this, it has made its peace with the state. It, and therefore its believers, allow themselves the contradiction of considering divine doctrine as supreme while simultaneously refraining in practice from anything that might conflict with state law. They thus treat their faith, their truth, like an opinion. Left-wing and right-wing radicals are therefore not the only groups in society that insist on truth. The crucial difference, once again, lies in the relationship to what is permissible and what is not.

That the legal system, rather than substantive debate, is once again providing the compass for classifying extremism is readily apparent in the practitioners of extremism theory themselves. They never waver in their conviction that the current legal system is the best, disseminate this idea with considerable effort, and enforce it through extensive surveillance, control, and violence. To avoid any misunderstanding: the intention here is not to suggest that the democratic state itself is extremist. The point is simply that this supposedly positive definition of extremism— a conviction they seek to propagate and enforce —is worthless when used to distinguish it from the democratic center.

Conclusion: At every point where extremism theory attempts to identify positive aspects of so-called extremists, either the commonalities are worthless; and/or it fails to differentiate them from mainstream parties; and/or it becomes clear that the logic of "x is incompatible with the rule of law" constitutes the entire content of the supposedly positive characteristic: in other words, nothing but pseudo-commonalities. Thus, one learns nothing about political groups in this way. The question of whether political extremes overlap cannot be answered with a yes or a no. Rather, the horseshoe theory of extremism must simply be criticized as self-serving nonsense. And this is no harmless nonsense:

The interest that this theory has generated, or the political purpose of the theory, aims to propagate a particular view of political currents in society: Whether a political current is not loyal to the Basic Law (translator's note -- the condition of Germany) should be understood as the essential criterion, that is, as what should first jump out at one as the fundamental evil.

Everyone should generally understand that right-wing extremists primarily pose a problem for Germany. The terrible thing about the NSU, for example, is not the dead people and the insecurity that right-wing extremist acts trigger in a certain segment of the population, but rather the damage to democracy and to Germany itself. Extremism theory thus propagates nationalism, a partisan stance in favor of a particular national interest.

Extremism theory is primarily a weapon against left-wing social critiques. The moral abhorrence of National Socialism instilled in schools is to be properly understood: the only correct lesson to be learned from German fascism is to support the free democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany. In this sense, the abhorrence of the right is to be productively channeled into an abhorrence of left-wing ideas: "It is a sign of change that since the great epochal shift of 1989/1990, the alternatives of our time are no longer ' right ' or ' left ' , ' capitalist ' or ' socialist ' , but rather democratic or anti-democratic." ^{5 The fight against the right, which some people in society currently consider important, should therefore not become a misguided intellectual exercise, but rather} lead to a genuine nationalism against false nationalism and left-wing ideas.6

This text is the seventh in the series 50 Questions 50 Answers - About the shift to the right – and how it's better not to criticize it.

Each week we publish another short analysis on right-wing extremist viewpoints, poorly executed criticisms of the AfD, and key terms in the debate about the shift to the right.

1 Richard Stöss, 'Old wine in new bottles'? Or: How extremist is the party DIE LINKE?, in: Left-wing extremism – The underestimated danger? Extremism symposium of the Lower Saxony Office for the Protection of the Constitution on 28.05.2009 in Hanover, p. 57.

2 All judgments are summaries of definitions from various authors; here: Hans-Gerd Jaschke, Political Extremism – Textbook, Wiesbaden 2006, p. 35. Backes speaks of a “quasi-religious promise of happiness”, as quoted in Carmen Everts, Political Extremism – Theory and Analysis using the example of the REP and PDS parties, Berlin 2000, p. 80.

3 “Anyone who uses violence to achieve political goals is an extremist;” – Eckhard Jesse, Forms of Political Extremism, in Extremism in Germany – Manifestations and Current Inventory, ed. by the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Berlin 2004, p. 16. Similar definitions in Jaschke, p. 34 and Everts, pp. 61f.

4 Steffen Kailitz, Political Extremism in the Federal Republic of Germany – An Introduction, Wiesbaden 2004, pp. 21f.; Jesse, p. 11.

5 Uwe Schünemann, (former) Lower Saxony Minister for the Interior, Sport and Integration, in: “Left-wing extremism – The underestimated danger? Extremism symposium of the Lower Saxony Office for the Protection of the Constitution on 28 May 2009 in Hanover”, p. 15.

6. Totalitarianism theory is essentially a specific variant of extremism theory applied to historically existing political systems. An older text on the "Black Book of Communism" is recommended in this context.