Horseshoe theory: the result of taking one too many horseshoe kicks to the head.

Quora is one of the worst places on the internet. It’s just the mirror of Reddit but taken more seriously because people can list their “credentials.” News flash, knowing Finnish does not make you an expert on political matters.

That a Finlander of all people would try to make this argument is really embarrassing.

Communism was and remains based on the proletariat’s class struggle: an inevitable consequence of capitalism’s inadequacies. German Fascism was based on the European petty bourgeoisie’s struggle for survival. ‘Hate’ has about as much to do with these phenomena as it has to do with liberal capitalism (one could just as easily argue that liberal capitalism is based on ‘hate’ for communists and the lower classes). Likewise, Georg Hegel has but little to do with communism and probably even less to do with German Fascism. Dialectics (which does not mean ‘being pitted against’ something) is unnecessary for comprehending either.

The result on both is a Totalitarian dictatorship and single-party state with state controlling even the smallest corner on human life.

‘Totalitarian’ is a useless category, and as Private Life and Privacy in Nazi Germany documents, the Third Reich did not and could not possibly have wasted so many resources needlessly trying to micromanage the lives of millions of people. (Nor could any other state, for that matter.)

Both are based on violence, coercion and terror.

This is a classic oversimplification. My favourite counterargument is how minimally the Third Reich interfered with France’s private sector. The source that I quoted therein has more examples of the Reich preferring friendly incentives like money to earn collaboration. Depending on the cases, the Fascists actually used violence and coercion as the last resorts, not the first.

As for the Soviets relying on violence and coercion for everything, I find it highly unlikely that, for example, there would have been any Estonian communists for the Axis to purge were that accurate.

You get Nazism when you start from Hegel and go by the path of Darwin, Spencer, de Gobineau and Hitler.

While Giovanni Gentile respected Hegel, I can’t say that I have seen many German Fascists with the same respect. A minority of them did, but their importance should not be overstated. Concerning Herbert Spencer, so far I haven’t found anything linking him with German Fascism, nor anything trustworthy linking Charles Darwin with it (but Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau was indeed an influence). Hegel, Darwin, and Herbert Spencer were, at best, minor influences on German Fascism, not major ones.

Both ideologies are strongly Atheistic by their nature,

As books like The Holy Reich have documented, most of the German Fascists regularly promoted a culturally specific form of Christianity called Positive Christianity, and the minority of non‐Christian German Fascists were anticommunist neopagans. Given European Christianity’s long history of anti‐Judaism, such a conclusion should be unsurprising.

It is correct that communists have tended to be atheist by default, and sometimes (but not always) attacked organized religion, verbally and otherwise, but there have also been followers of liberation theology, who opposed the prosperity gospel preached by antisocialist Christians, so this is another oversimplification.

Communism stresses on extermination of the regressive classes.

Not really.

Both found their economy on Socialistic planned economy and centralized, state-controlled production.

See here.

Communism is basically 12th century Feudalism

Nope.

It can be safely claimed serfdom was finally abolished in USSR only in 1974 when kolkhoz peasants were finally allowed to freely exit the kolkhoz.

What the fuck are these people talking about?

On both ideologies, the individual has the status and value of a worker ant.

No.

Since both violently oppose both Liberalism (Socialism because of Marx, Nazism because of de Gobineau) and Capitalism, there is no speaking of human rights, individual freedoms or personal liberties.

This is a really, really fuckheaded thing to say… if somebody seriously thinks that this merits a response, read Human Rights in the Soviet Union. And if you can’t be bothered to read even a couple chapters of that, then there’s nothing else that I can do to help you.

The Totalitarian control state and spooks are everywhere, weeding out any dissidents, misthinkers, individualists or rebellious souls.

No.

Marx's solution, the route to human emancipation, was Collectivism, which would give people the freedom that bourgeois society denies them. Communism is, he explains, "the positive transcendence of private property, or human self-estrangement, and therefore the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man... the complete return of man to himself as a social being..."

It is difficult to understand how Marx's concept of freedom is anything more than a defence of tyranny, dictatorship and repression. Marx assumes humans have the souls of lemmings. No dissident or non-conformist can see society as the "realization of his own liberty."

Humans have lived as social beings long before the invention of agriculture; we weren’t hermits, and we rarely thought of ourselves as somehow separate from our tribes. Living in tribes and holding property in common was a wise thing to do because it ensured our survival. In contrast, private property encourages antisocial behavior by denying goods to people who need but can’t afford them. That is why he wrote that private property’s abolition would lead to ‘the complete return of man to himself as a social being’. Only an anticommunist would be egotistical enough to read Marx’s observations and conclude that they’re ‘a defence of tyranny, dictatorship and repression.’

Hitler internalized the Marxist view almost verbatim.

It’s funny that this dullard would mention this, not simply because it’s another evidence‐free claim but also because Schicklgruber’s claim that scientific socialism ‘denies the individual worth of the human personality’ looks very familiar.

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international.

Another anticommunist clueless about Anton Drexler. No surprise here.

The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without exterminating the propertied classes.

All that this tells me is that Schicklgruber’s grasp of socialism was about as solid as this dullard’s.

Hitler insists Darwinism knows no other morals than the survival of the fittest and the struggle of existence; Marx insists there are no common ethics for the mankind, but that each of the classes have their own sets of ethics (moral relativism).

Man, I wish that I were an anticommunist again. Then instead of spending hours doing research, I could just instantly make up whatever shit that I want and everybody would still take me seriously!

I know that there are a couple more paragraphs after that, but I’ve lost all my patience at this point. What a huge fucking waste of time I’ve made.

at least she heard the word dialectical somewhere, she has no clue what it is but still.

13k answers lmao this person is in a state of frantically typing on their keyboard day and night just making shit up and feeding themselves solely on energy drink

That's not what dialectical means

"Dialectical" means being pitted against something

dialectical ideologies, and both are based on hate

As opposed to enlightened nonpolitical centrism, which is based on selfishness and apathy.

dialectics is evil

So you think Hegel is like the most evil philosopher?

yes

Oh shit, lol.

communism and nazism are...the same guys!

based on hate

finnish

this should be a bingo of sorts

"That's not how dialectics work you stupid cuck..."

Uhh...that first statement. At least she isn't mentioning Voldemort and Darth Vader I guess?

But like...Cthulhu isn't "evil" that's kind of the point of the cosmic horror genre. The elder gods are just so far above humanity that they view destroying humanity in the same way we would view stepping on an ant. It's not evil, it's indifference.

And Beelzebub, like most Abrahamic demons, is most likely a repurposed god of one of their enemies, and depending on the context, most demons aren't even really evil, but more helpful to those who summon them, granting them boons (medieval demonology is wild stuff)

And the rest of this stuff is just standard "both sides" nonsense, but with extra liberal verbosity, not even worth discussing.

deleted by creator

Every time I see a post featuring a Finnish person on here it's always someone spouting the worst garbage