Classical liberalism is right wing (but not far right). It’s been that way since the Chartists realised that they were as bad as the Tories back in the 18th century, then it became entrenched after the movement failed and the Chartists split into social liberals, social democrats and communists.
And yes, I know classical liberals were involved in the Chartist Movement. It still took them 60 years after it had ended to get rid of the requirement to own property before you can vote, which shows you how seriously they thought of the idea. They’re hardly the party of personal liberty.
After the French Revolution, the National Assembly formed what would become the model for liberal democracies around the world. The assembled politicians formed into two distinct factions with the radicals sitting to the left of the speaker and the conservatives to the right. That’s the first use of “left wing” and “right wing”.
According to Wikipedia, “Terms related to ‘conservative’ first found their way into political discourse in the title of the French weekly journal, Le Conservateur, founded in 1818 by François-René de Chateaubriand with the aid of Louis de Bonald.”
OK, I typoed 18th century when I meant 19th century, but wouldn’t the references to the Chartists suggest that I was talking about events after the French revolution?
(I’m thinking about flagging this to get it split into a new topic, as we have gone far away from the discussion of artwork in Manchester)
It was proven in practice when the Iron Curtain was “erected” and “fell”.
Former Gestapo agents had little problem working for their communist successors in the East German Volkspolizei.
The Gestapo was modeled off the NKVD as was the use of forced labor camps as a form of revenue source.
It was very easy for Russia to endorse far right politics when communism fell.
Also attributing ideologies to dictatorships is always a slippery process. In most cases ideology takes a backseat to whatever will support the leadership.
Horseshoe Theory is not bullshit, when you take a step back from the political positions, and start looking at the underlying mentalities. In my experience, you will find that fanatics and extremists of any sort are, ultimately, more similar to one another than the more moderate examples of the ideology involved. The mentalities of Nazis and Stalinists were remarkably similar, despite their political ideologies being mortal enemies, and in many ways had more in common with one another than either had of Social Democrats for example.
For a present-day example you can consider the mindsets and personalities of Dominionist Christians, and Islamist extremists, both of whom seem rather closer to one another in many ways than either are to the non-fanatical, moderate followers of either religion.
Yup, for the US it was an embarrassment and ultimately a failure. The Soviets could use their Nazis better than we could.
Those Nazis working for the US were pretty wide open to blackmail by other countries. Their past was detrimental to working for a democracy. The Soviets didn’t care if one had a history of atrocity as long as the people could commit atrocity for them.
Reinhard Gehlen’s organization in West Germany was thoroughly compromised by the KGB. Mostly by ex-Nazis working for the USSR. Even Israel managed to use blackmail to strongarm West German intelligence by threatening to “out” ex-Nazis.
I think it’s more complex than what’s described in horseshoe theory since there’s common traits among say Fascists, Stalinists, and Absolute Monarchists. The common traits have to do with the act of never questioning leadership, never questioning the course of things, and never distributing power among participants in society. Everything is bound into a singular authority without any ability to divest power. I think it’s better to consider it a difference of totalitarianism versus democracy (not necessarily representative as one could include participatory democracy just an example). The more your conception of a political system requires such things the more totalitarian it is. Whether it’s actual dictators or CEOs or cult leaders as they all share the same basic form and have the same basic problems/weaknesses as well (IMO).
