Horseshoe theory

Why is the horseshoe theory derided by political scientists? (Other than those on both teams).

its just bullshit some guy pulled out of his ass and political beliefs don't exist on a spectrum

It's simplistic and it's stuff we already know.
>Authoritarians are corrupt and torture innocents. I am a genuis!! xdxdxdxd

*authoritarians on both sides

t.lolbertarian

>horseshit theory

Because its the most sensationalist false dualism ever made?

Also

>implying that pic related isn't appealing as fuck to Nazbol fags

Who derides it? Most people accept it and know it's accurate for the most part. Far left and far right extremists are no different in practice compared to more rational moderates in the center left and center right.

What the hell is National Bolshevism anyway? The real life ideological embodiment of the commie-nazis?

"National Anarchism" and the "Autonomous Nationalists" of Germany are syncretic movements that combine ideological elements of the far-right with the far-left.

Political scientists often claim that revolutionary ideologies aren't necessarily totalitarian (although they often don't say the same thing about traditionalist ideologies).

NazBol is North Korea.

There is a theory that North Korea is the spiritual successor to Imperial Japan, albeit with a communist paint job.

They're basically tankies who view fascism as another mode of revolution against capitalism, and are deeply rooted in slav nationalism and nationalism in general.

Imagine Hitler and Stalin combined- thats what Nazbols want. Strange lot, to be sure.

From what I've read about them, they are not Neo-Nazis (even if they use similar imagery), they don't have an explicit belief in racial supremacy, but they tend to be xenophobic and antisemitic. I think a more honest analogy is that their ideology is a cross between Mussolini-style fascism and Bolshevism.

Economically they support marxist teaching but socially they support Nazi beliefs of racial homogenity.

Its more based on Strasserism than anything else, they have mix of biological determinist and environmental determinist views. They aren't traditionalists in the sense that they believe that aristocracy is an inherent part of human society, rather they also have a combined historical materialist and racialist view of history and human development.

Horseshoe theory is *more or less* true, because the extremes on both sides want ideological purity.

It's not that they necessarily have exactly the same ideas, it's that they create a rationalistic system which is complete, absolute and has to be obeyed.

They are similar because they are extreme forms of categorization.

The reason poli-sci people don't like it is because it isn't reducible to resource theory.

Because it's based on the mistaken idea that the Nazis were extremely far to the right, rather than being a third position movement outside of the traditional left-right dichotomy

How is it outside the traditional left-right dichotomy, when it didn't produce anything new?

I mean, the only thing that can be said to be a new thing about it was that it was more extreme than anything before it.

Real far-right leaders like Duvalier, Pinochet and Franco could also be inserted into the theory too though.

Nazbol is 90s Serbia
>go tienamen on your people
>then go to war
>get surprised when draft turnout is 13%
>only mentaly unstable people, criminals and a few idealists go to war
>le ebil serbs

It seems that it assumes a universal left-right spectrum, which is the biggest meme in political science. Even still, there are idiots propagating this idea.

because it simplifies ideals more complex than the advocates of said theory will ever understand

>implying binary policies