Already bizarre when invoking the Soviets of all people, who were socially, outside of some avantgardists which were only tolerated as long as they were considered useful or irrelevant, extremely conservative.
But then again, to many a conservative, a leftist or progressive of any kind, is "a commie", and the difference between social democrats, different breeds of socialists, or communists for that matter, is already as lost on them as code is to a cat. Shit, according to recent trends, Hitler was akshually a leftist anyway. ;)
The same goes for contextualizing political violence; it's all the same, everywhere, all at once.
Have you not read his very consistent and personally defended party platform? He also said that the communists were close enough in ideology to join his party.
The idea that the communists were the opposite of the Nazis and fascists was an idea spread by the communists to create confusion and try to improve their own image.
Delivered as ordered, lol. It never fails.
But yeah sure, they both talk like they want big changes, so they are the same.
The only thing that the horseshoe theory got right is the inflated self importance of the center.
However, that doesn't mean that adding one modifier to the 1D view isn't valuable. I would argue that in-fact, horseshoe theory shows how inaccurate the 1D analysis really is, and leads the reader to think deeper about the entire situation.
duxup•8mo ago
From my experience that is the case. Surprising amount of people on the far right and far left when they drift into talk of violence and disruption talk about the same acts against the same people.
consumer451•8mo ago
I would love to hear anyone else's take on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...