Horseshoe Theory: Far left indistinguishable from plain old racism.
How Liberalism today is not Liberal at all.
Why do far-left ideological supremacists call themselves “Liberal”? The definition of Liberal ideology is individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom. “Liberals” in the classic sense typically believe that the best way to promote human well-being and development is to allow individuals to pursue their own goals and interests, free from government interference. They also believe that the government should play a limited role in society, and should only intervene to protect individual rights and liberties, such as with police or basic emergency services. Liberalism emerged in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, as a reaction to the absolute monarchies and religious intolerance that were common at the time. Classical liberals such as John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill argued that individuals have natural rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. They also argued that the government should be limited in its power, and should only intervene to protect individual rights and liberties.
So what went wrong? Those that call themselves Liberal today espouse highly anti-liberal views. In fact, they’re much more akin to ethno-socialists than liberals. What’s more, ethno-socialism looks very similar to national-socialism, the founding ideology for Nazism. This is called Horseshoe Theory: you go far left enough, and you’ll look like the far right. A most compelling way to demonstrate this is with extreme left and extreme right politics in 20th Century Europe; in Germany, extreme right politics led to the Holocaust, and extreme left politics led to the Pogroms, and 120 million+ dead. They both had concentration camps, both for extermination and for forced labour. They both labelled different groups as oppressed or oppressor, with the Soviets and the Nazis eradicating many groups of people along this narrative. They both ironically resulted in a superiority complex; the Nazis and the Soviets both believed themselves to be at the cusp of ideological supremacy, and their respective races were those chosen by God to lead the world.
What is fascism? Historically, it has been when a dictatorial government has totalitarian control over a country, where the major corporations and cultural epicentres march in lockstep on what beliefs people should have and how they should live their lives. In some cases it includes concepts of racial superiority, and the oppressor/oppressed paradigm, which is also found in socialism and communism.
What is socialism? Socialism is very similar to fascism, except lines are not drawn necessarily by ethnicity and culture, but by class. Another area of difference is that there won’t be corporations, as they are replaced by government controlled entities. Go even further, and you arrive at communism, which descends into state ownership of all property and resources, and effectively, of you. Some communist states such as North Korea even has racial superiority as part of their belief system too, rendering it relatively indistinguishable from Nazism.
So what part of todays far left ideology is similar to our notions of Liberalism? Basically, very little. Most far left beliefs are the antithesis of classical Liberal ideology. The far leftists claiming to be Liberals share nothing with Liberalism, and a lot more with both socialism and fascism.
Liberalism rejects identity politics.
One of the key Liberal antithesis beliefs of far leftists today is collective identity politics. The cornerstone of Liberalism is that everybody is equal under the law and unto the government. There aren’t to be any classes or ethnicities that enjoy higher legal or social privileges based on identity alone. However, there is some room for a little movement here; for example, a classical Liberal may believe that the state needs to go out of its way to accommodate the needs and requirements of disabled people, and to shift government resources to help this group out specifically. Disabled people enjoy a legal privilege that classical liberals endorse and tolerate because ultimately, it’s a moral good that British people as a whole would be more than happy to pay a little tax towards. However, as explored before, this has now begun to extend towards races and religions of people. For example, in the United States, having Black-exclusive venues and government benefits is a common belief upon those that might mistakenly call themselves liberal. In this case, they’ve horseshoe’d themselves into having similar segregatory beliefs as a KKK wizard. In the United Kingdom on the other hand, Muslims enjoy a great many benefits in society, including an effective right to never be offended, despite how much of an antithesis to free speech this is. Both these classes in both these countries enjoy higher legal privileges based on ethno-socialist beliefs. It’s not even to argue that they’re wrong or right; it’s just a matter of definition. It’s definitively not Liberalism; its definition is either ethno-socialism or just plain old fascism.
Liberalism is free market and small government.
Another key cornerstone of Liberalism is the free market, and a small government. Individuals should have the freedom to choose, and pursue their own interests. Increasingly in the United Kingdom, highly burdensome regulation and taxation has meant that small business has become a more and more impossible task. From business rates to VAT to insane employment regulation to income tax to NI, all of these and more make starting a business extremely difficult. This results in market stagnation in many different ways; first, no small business can innovate and bring new products, services, and infrastructure to the market. It means that nobody gets to enjoy the fruits of another’s ingenuity. Rishi Sunak recently talked about how people should be less afraid of going broke to pursue a dream; he’s almost grasped the truth, but he doesn’t realise that his own government is making this infinitely more difficult. Another market stagnation is that the big corporations become far less competitive, as they no longer have much competition. The markets begin to consolidate onto big players, and they begin to have more and more power and control. It means they’re no longer financially incentivised to innovate, and they become lazy; instead of having these small businesses constantly nipping them into staying on their toes, the big businesses can relax and start to hurt consumers by increasing prices, reducing quality, and paying fewer wages.
Liberalism does not scapegoat and demonise groups of people.
In far-left ideology, much like Nazi and communist ideology, there is an oppressor/oppressed narrative at its core. This core belief is a powerful driving force for intersectional hatred. Make no mistake; this intersectionality is a disgusting and primitive way to approach our relationships with our fellow human brothers and sisters. It demands that we see people as political tools, and not as individuals. It demands we see the race, the religion, the ethnicity, the gender, long before we see the name and the unique person in front of us. This is another far-left antithesis to Liberalism. Liberalism demands we look past our intersectional differences. It means that the government can only ever treat us as sovereign individuals, with our own agency and our own interests. Far left ideology is the opposite; you are seen as a mouthpiece for your race, your gender, or your religion. Anything you say or do will not only be held against you but held against the entirety of your intersectional group. Liberal thinkers of the 18th century Enlightenment believed that the sovereign individual is essential for the creation of a free and prosperous society. They argue that when individuals are free to make their own choices and pursue their own interests, they are more likely to achieve their full potential and contribute to the overall well-being of society. The far left are nothing close to Liberal; again, they are closer to ethno-socialists or fascists than they are anything even approaching Liberal.
Far leftists demonise and scapegoat entire groups of people. It’s not just British indigenous men either, though they seem to receive the brunt of the hatred and animosity. As well as that, there are “TERFs”, women that don’t see transexual women as women, and as such, are constantly victims of intersectional hatred. It’s a ridiculous term that means “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist”. The most famous of these is JK Rowling. In my opinion, JK Rowling sort of brought it on herself because she had flirted with intersectional political feminism for years, until she finally found herself behind the wave as it became more and more extremist. Despite still being an avowed feminist, she still continues to receive a much heavier brunt of hatred than the usual “TERF”. In America, Black men are also a routinely shamed and demonised group - but not from where you might expect. This seems to be an intersectional hatred coming from Black feminists, who see them as lazy, useless, broke, ghetto… it’s a very real feeling documented in millions of social media posts. It’s another example of that horseshoe; Black feminists are sharing a great deal of animosity towards Black men as your bog-standard white neo-Nazi, even espousing the same views. A most recent example is how far-left Jews have quickly discovered that they have no friends in the far-left, exemplified by the elation and celebration of the atrocity of October 7th 2023. Welcome to far-left ideology; just like the Nazis, they also hate Jews. It’s not just a Palestine/Israel thing either; many far-leftist ideologues see Jews as an oppressor class, much like how the Nazis viewed Jews. Another clean example of the Horseshoe Theory.
Liberalism does not suppress dissent.
Say what you want about Liberalism; literally. Because in Liberalism, society is free to explore the diverse and near-infinite spectacle of opinions and beliefs. People are free to get things wrong, to offend, to debate and discuss, without fear of authoritarian reprisal. It is often described as the “marketplace of ideas”, where ideas are allowed to be presented and debated, society whittles away extreme viewpoints. This is the typically Liberal reason given as to why even extreme ideas should be protected by freedom of speech laws. No-one wants, for example, neo-Nazi ideology in the United Kingdom. But a surefire way to ensure it permanently exists within society is to drive it underground with laws that restrict free speech. The Liberal thinker would argue that the quickest way to diffuse the extremist views of a neo-Nazi is to allow him to attempt to discuss his belief with others; it won’t take long for even any basic debate to render something as flawed as neo-Nazism as intellectually redundant. Take for example, in Germany, Holocaust denial is illegal. There is no more surefire a way to make people skeptical than to make a “truth” protected by laws and harsh punishment. Simply by making it illegal, German authorities have given fuel to extremist anti-semitic beliefs around the Holocaust.
Most importantly of all, Liberalist free speech means the government can never shut down dissent. A classical liberal argument that is forever proven true is that when you mandate the government the power and authority to remove ideas they disagree with from public discourse, you have the foundation of tyranny. It becomes an inevitable collapse, as the illiberal anti-dissent laws will mean that the most tyrannical and most conniving politicians will always use these powers to rise to the top and stay there. When they can make what you say illegal, then power-hungry people will find ways to ensure that disagreeing with them is a crime. This is exactly where the far-left is right now; for example, did you criticise Diane Abbott for being a bad politician? You’re a racist, and racism is illegal. Politicians do essentially what celebrities have done forever; call their critics “haters”, and lump them in with those that are just illegitimately trolling or being rude. However in this case, you get to prosecute them with an actual crime.
Conclusion? Liberals are not Liberal.
It’s as simple as that. People who call themselves Liberal today, share no beliefs with Liberalism. They’re anti-free speech, they’re anti-market, they’re pro-big government, they squash dissent with mob violence and government power, they scapegoat entire races of people, and they overtax. Let’s be clear about definitions; they’re basically fascists and ethno-socialists. Call them what they are.
