Donald Trump's administration is planning to spend $4 million to bolster right-wing media in ‌Europe, part of a package of at least $25 million for civil society groups working on conservative causes in the region, according to four people familiar with the funding.

The grants risk deepening tensions between the Trump administration and European governments, some of which have already accused Washington of interfering in their domestic politics.

The U.S. ​State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) says the funding is meant to strengthen transatlantic ties and promote ​free speech. It comes as European countries prepare for elections over the next couple of years, and ⁠as the Trump administration openly backs Europe's populist right-wing and far-right parties.

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 75 points 2 months ago (21 children)

We ought to come down hard on this and deal with it with the seriousness it deserves. They can keep their swamp on their side, even though we've been dealing with the spill off of their shit for too long.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 months ago* (15 children)

    Sorry to tell you but the swamp is emerging everywhere (in the first world anyway) all at once. Trump and co. definitely aren't helping, but European far-right politics are definitely not an American import.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    There have always been dormant racists waiting to hatch but the concerted efforts and the real emergence happened around the Brexit/Trump first presidency time. It's a combination of events that allowed them to feel comfortable being misanthropes and come out of their shell. We've been going downhill ever since.

    We certainly have had our own share of problematic groups but our society isn't yet rotten to the core in order to allow what's happening in the US right now with so little resistance. We are being affected though. And it's terrifying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    There have always been dormant racists waiting to hatch but the concerted efforts and the real emergence happened around the Brexit/Trump first presidency time.

    Not quite; the key event seems to have been the 2015 refugee crisis. The cleanest interpretation of the available evidence would be that Europeans just didn't have enough clear outsiders to trigger the near-hysterical reaction we're seeing now before that (the Roma being a clear example of how European societies treated clear outsiders even before Trump).

    We certainly have had our own share of problematic groups but our society isn't yet rotten to the core in order to allow what's happening in the US right now with so little resistance.

    I mean, Europeans are even more anti-immigration than Americans. For the most part it seems to be that European countries/societies are exporting their dirty work to the Mediterranean instead. Besides, I mean, FrontEx isn't exactly a bastion of human rights, and neither are national forces. The rot you describe has been in Europe from the start; it just wasn't visible unless you paid attention.

    Edit: See also: https://fedia.io/m/leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com/t/2583036/Good-imperialism-and-bad-imperialism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    While there is truth in what you're saying, and while the European immigration strategy has been to close eyes and it will go away, there is no comparison of what is happening in the US at the state level with how things are in the last decade in the EU, even at our worst.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Britain seems to be going downhill fast. If you're trans, America is straight up a better deal at this point. Part of the problem is the coalitions you get in parliaments happen within our two major parties. So rather than a cogent far right base that has to compromise with moderates, they were able to hijack half our political structure with one win. Even so, until parties like AfD and its equivalents are banned, I wouldn't act smug. Looking at how political winds are blowing on both sides, we might soon be in a position where we're already rebuilding while you're in the thick of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    The situation of Roma and relative groups in Europe differs quite a lot from country to country, not so much because some societies are so much more racist than others but because of size and history and local circumstances. Austrian Roma are largely integrated in the larger society and while there has been racusm and even terrorism against them in the past they are pretty much not much talked about, not even by the FPÖ. Romanian Roma are, but primarily due to their organised begging business.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    They might have already been there, but American oligarchs like Elon, and now the US government pouring money into them is certainly enabling them. They may not be an American import, but they're being American grown.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    You're ignoring the impacts of European oligarchs here. Ultimately in a modern democracy most funding for a political movement will have to be homegrown or it's never going to be enough to hit critical mass. If European oligarchs didn't want fascism it'd have never gotten as far as it has.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Agreed, but I prefer his position. What can we do? We have strength in our numbers, but we have to fight the misinformation. How can we steal from them the control of information? How can we fight the bots they control? Federated networks help to some degree, but it's clear they are within us. Could we build an AI network to fight this? We can't throw the towel, we have to fight them!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    The problem isn't information; it's actual things happening in real life. The far-right is as strong as it is because its lies contain a grain of truth: It offers (cruel and ineffective) solutions to people's very real problems. This means the only realistic solution here is to deny them that grain of truth by offering effective solutions to those problems. Now some effort is being made here—it's no coincidence that the left is rising as if in response to the far-right—but more of that needs to happen and fast. The focus on misinformation misses the fundamental reasons that misinformation works as well as it does (after all it's not like lying was invented in 2016).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Yes, high-control systems are like that, they demand obedience to the dogma even when data shows other way is better. Low-control systems encourage curiosity, discovery, update knowledge with latest for human benefit. For some it's easier to do what told, don't think much, and appeals at times of scarcity, some of which is controlled by the wealthy, to keep people worried and seek a "strong hero", fall for the propaganda and vote right-wing. Please see through it, the pattern is clear, regression for the majority like Russia, Argentina and with maga policies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    That's a REALLY good point. We basically need a lot more Mamdanis.

    While other lefties are arguing symantic nuances of political theory and purity testing and excommunicating themselves, this guy is fixing potholes and makes the busses run on time and gets workers paid. People SEE that stuff, they FEEL that stuff.

    If the side of empathy and compassion moves in swiftly and shows how good life can be under them, people will see that abundance is possible.

    'Pubbies and their fascist friends get followers because they pretend we're forever on a deserted island, and their first move is

    "We gotta make the 'hard decisions' and cull the people we personally conveniently don't like and take all your resources...for survival." And it riles up everybody's fear-monkey-brain into thinking they must know what they're talking about.

    Lord of the Flies was bullshit about fundamental human nature, but it got so lauded because the fashies get to tell us that's what they're "protecting us from."

    When we aren't even on a desert island at all, and people actually enjoy helping each other get along. They need to condition us to cockfight for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Could we build an AI network to fight this?

    There's a reason why some very bright people in tech with decades of experience aren't dismissing AI whole cloth.

    The dangers are vast. The social harm is a real effect. The brain atrophy is an actual pitfall to be avoided, even at the cost of tying yourself to the metaphorical ship mast.

    But the possibilities are also real, else they wouldn't be using them against us.

    The hatred is fine and all, but I really really wish the kind of people who frequent the Fediverse and spouted all of the encouraging anti-establishment stances...also minded their basic Sun Tzu:

    If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    You can't stop it, not without a populist alternative, and you don't have that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    and this is how the centrists wind up enabling the right wing. They spend more effort destroying the populist left, supposedly because that will stop them from effectively opposing the right, that they have nothing except "we're not the right" and the same policies that benefit bilionaires that are slightly watered down.

    So the only one without an effective opposition is the right, who coasts in by default. Because the centrists refuse to let go of their failed ideology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You get it. It's so obvious, yet most of the left doesn't seem to get it. But maybe it's influence operations making us think we are a minority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I've been in this shit since the Iraq War started.

    It's also why I've given up on the US left in lots of ways - I started getting ready to leave the US when Bernie refused to knock Biden out in 2020 in the last debate. And left as Biden kept his promise . . .

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 2 months ago*

    Airing Sesame Street in the Middle East was one of the most effective western propaganda tactics of all time and this chucklefuck shredded it.

    And replaced it with this.

    Too many bad things happen when you teach women and children they don't need to be sex slaves, I guess.

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Why are tax dollars being spent for this? This is bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    This is only what we know about, he CIA will be neck deep in trying to help their fascists over the top.

    Phones will be compromised with pegasus level spying I strongly presume, and information used to help the fascists for instance. Idc about scandals, but I wouldn't put anything past them at this point. I could see them manufacturing scandals against the opponents of their tool politicians they and russia are pushing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Isn't this the shit they accuse Soros of?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You don't understand. They say Soros uses his own money. Trump is using ours.

    I don't know why that's better, but it seems to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 months ago (56 children)

    If Europe made a similar statement about bolstering left wing media in the US he’d go nuts accusing them of election interference.

  • source
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    They literally did this with a Canadian commercial airing a Raegan area terror tariff statement and tried to blame us for interfering.

    Their kettle is charred.

    Edit- Corrected spelling

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    That is actually a stroke of brilliance.

    4 million is a lot of money, but it is also a pathetically low amount if you’re trying to make a dent in European politics

    In fact, there are so many leftists in Europe -who would jump at the chance of publicly humiliating Trump- that I honestly believe you could raise 4 million just by starting some sort of kickstarter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (53 children)

    Europe wouldn't do that to begin with, as Europe is right-wing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 53 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (52 children)

    Calling both the US and EU right wing definitely misses a metric fuckton of nuance though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (51 children)

    I wouldn't say a "fuckton." Both are imperialists, it's just that the US is the imperial hegemon while Europe is secondary to it. Both have consolidated finance capital and expropriate vast amounts of wealth created by the global south, and are dependent on this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 51 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (50 children)

    You’re talking about imperialism, which isnt synonymous with right wing; I was talking about domestic political orientation. Europe can participate in an imperial economic system while still being, on average, considerably further left than the US on welfare, labour rights, healthcare and regulation.

    It may have moved right, and imo absolutely has, but that doesnt leave them at the same spot on the scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 50 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (49 children)

    Imperialism as a stage in capitalist development is definitely right wing. Not only that, but fascist parties across Europe are rising. The fact that Europe uses imperialism to subsidize welfare while retaining capitalism, rather than pivoting to socialism, does not make them more "left."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (48 children)

    It feels like you're confusing 'more left' with 'left'. What makes Europe more left is the greater redistribution of wealth, stronger welfare states, universal healthcare, stronger unions and labour rights, larger public sectors and greater regulation of capital. You can argue those things don't constitute socialism, but "left-wing" and "socialist" aren't actually synonyms either.

    Conversely, the US is further right through lower taxation and redistribution, a weaker welfare state, predominantly market-based healthcare, weaker unions and labour protections, less generous statutory benefits, greater reliance on private provision, and generally fewer constraints on capital. Again, none of that makes Europe socialist. It makes Europe relatively further left than the US on the conventional political spectrum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (47 children)

    I cannot consider rights that are explicitly built on the backs of the global south as "left." Welfare under imperialist states is not the welfare created by a given society and redistributed, it's built on the backs of the global south. Imperialist states aren't regulating capital in the interest of their workers either, it's done to protect capital. It's also why safety nets are weakening across Europe, workers do not actually have power there.

    Trying to argue that Europe is "more left" is more of a semantic argument. Both Europe and the US are built on imperialism and capitalism, and both are sliding further into fascism because of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (46 children)

    We're just talking about different things. You're arguing about whether Europe qualifies as meaningfully left-wing under a Marxist framework; I'm only saying Europe is further left relative to the US. They're not contradictory claims.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (45 children)

    I'm saying trying to say Europe is "further left" is more semantics than anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (44 children)

    I mean, yeah, it's a relative comparison. Calling one country richer, more democratic or more authoritarian than another is "semantic" in the same sense. It doesn't make those comparisons meaningless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (43 children)

    Semantics aren't the same as making relative comparisons. I'm saying you have to kind of torture our understandings of what makes something more or less "left" to a degree that is more destructive to our understanding than constructive to say that Europe is "more left" than the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (42 children)

    I don't think you have to torture the definition at all. If one society has substantially more redistribution, public provision, organised labour and constraints on capital than another, describing it as relatively further left is a perfectly ordinary and useful comparison. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that Europe doesn't go nearly far enough, or to be dissatisfied with its current trajectory, and id fully agree with you, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (41 children)

    Europe does not have greater constraints on capital, or even more organized labor. You keep erasing imperialism from how these countries function, pretending that domestic and international policy is separate rather than deeply interrelated. The German working classes, for example, enjoy what they do enjoy because the system depends on the expropriation of wealth from the global south, workers in the global south that prop up Germany do not have any say whatsoever in how Germany is run nor do they get any of the spoils. This is my central point, it's like saying a country with greater rights for landlords is more left than one without it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (40 children)

    European workers generally have stronger unions, labour protections, welfare provision and constraints on capital than American workers. Strong enough? Often no, but stronger? Certainly.

    You're still just arguing that those differences don't count because they exist within an imperial capitalist system. That's a valid Marxist critique, but it doesn't make the differences disappear.

    Explaining why those differences exist is a separate question from whether they exist. Can you see that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (39 children)

    Again, you are divorcing the necessary system of imperialism from the structures that imperialism supports. An accurate look at the German system requires investigating German neocolonies and multinational corporations, finance capital, etc. The German working classes are not actually in control in Germany, the concessions they have are thus eroding. The system isn't "more left." My point is that the differences that exist between European countries and the US are not such that they can actually be compared in terms of left and right, such a spectrum analysis does not accurately reflect reality despite attempting to increase the nuance. False nuance is obfuscation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (38 children)

    I understand your argument. I just don't accept that being capitalist and imperialist makes left-right comparisons within capitalism meaningless. If two capitalist societies differ substantially in redistribution, labour power, public ownership and market regulation, those differences can still be compared politically. Your framework choosing not to recognise them as left-right differences is seemingly arbitrary, and doesn't make the comparison incoherent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (37 children)

    My issue with your framing is that you erase the real nature of imperialist economies by pretending imperialism is separate from how the domestic economy functions. At this point, you're treating left and right as arbitrary, and not as functional, useful descriptors for systems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (36 children)

    But I'm not separating them. I'm saying that even accounting for imperialism, meaningful political differences still exist between capitalist states. If "left" and "right" are useful descriptors, they should be capable of describing those differences rather than collapsing every capitalist imperial power into the same category.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (35 children)

    I never said there were not meaningful political differences, I said describing these differences as "more left" is a destruction of nuance by obfuscating what's actually going on. Differences can exist without calling one "more left" or "more right."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (34 children)

    Then we agree that the differences are meaningful. I'm describing those differences using the conventional left-right spectrum. You're arguing that doing so obscures their shared capitalist and imperialist structure. That's a disagreement about the usefulness of the framework, not whether the comparison itself is accurate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (33 children)

    I never said there weren't meaningful differences. My point is that describing the imperialist European powers as "more left" does more to damage our understanding than improve it, and therefore is not an accurate comparison. There can be differences in form that cannot be boiled down to "left and right."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (32 children)

    Sure, but I haven't "boiled them down" to left and right. I've used left-right as one axis of comparison. Acknowledging that Europe is relatively further left on that axis doesn't require ignoring imperialism, capitalism or any other dimension of the comparison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (31 children)

    It does, though, as you have to treat domestic policies dependent on imperialism as though they are independent from it. That's like saying one landlord is more left than another landlord, such a comparison doesn't make any actual sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (30 children)

    Dependence doesn't imply equivalence though? A domestic policy can be enabled by imperialism and still be meaningfully further left than another domestic policy. You're arguing that its origin disqualifies the comparison, but I don't see why that follows.

    It feels like this comes from a concern that identifying any small part of our society as left-wing somehow means accepting it as sufficiently left-wing. But refusing to locate anything on that spectrum doesn't help us understand or progress it either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (29 children)

    I'm arguing that identifying policies dependent on imperialism as "left wing" makes about as much sense as calling a Kibbutz settlement on Palestinian land "left wing." Left and right is not actually a spectrum in the traditional sense, and treating it as such obfuscates the reality of the situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (28 children)

    That analogy doesn't establish your point though. A kibbutz can have left-wing internal economic structures while simultaneously participating in an oppressive or colonial system. Calling those structures left-wing doesn't require calling the settlement as a whole left-wing.

    That's exactly the distinction I've been making?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (27 children)

    I understand the distinction you're making. My point is that it entirely obfuscates the nature of left and right, rather than expanding our knowledge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (26 children)

    So this ultimately comes down to our different conceptions of what “left” and “right” describe. You treat them as classifications of the underlying system; I'm also using them as comparative descriptors of individual policies and institutions, but i don't see how the latter inherently obfuscates the former.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (25 children)

    You look at elements of a system as though they are independent from the system itself. There's no such thing, however, as an element independent of the system it exists in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It sounds a lot like calling a fascist party National Socialist German Workers Party to obscure fascism, or calling yourself a Zionist, then screaming that pointing out actual fascist genocide, copied directly from Germans who directly copied slavers is "anti-Semitic," against white Westerners, without a drop of Semitic blood in their veins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (22 children)

    I haven't said they're independent. Being able to distinguish and compare an element of a system doesn't require pretending it exists independently of that system. If it did, you couldn't meaningfully analyse individual policies or institutions at all?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (21 children)

    You can compare, but when you declare individual elements of an overall system as "left" or "right," you immediately throw the entire comparison into disarray. Comparison does not require labeling them as left or right. For example, a military in a socialist country like China and a military in a capitalist country like the US can be very similar in form, or even identical, yet they play a left or right role thanks to their overall systems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (20 children)

    But your example assumes what you're trying to establish. You're defining whether something is left or right entirely by the system it serves. That's precisely the conception of left and right that we disagree on.

    A redistributive policy doesn't cease to be relatively left-wing simply because it operates within capitalism, any more than every policy within a socialist state automatically becomes left-wing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (19 children)

    You're attaching "left" and "right" to elements of a system, when you cannot. I'm making the point that elements can have near identical forms, but the nature of the system determines what class they ultimately benefit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (18 children)

    But again, that's your definition of left and right, not an argument for why mine is invalid. You're defining them exclusively by which class ultimately benefits from the system; I'm using them to describe political characteristics that can vary within a system. That's the disagreement we've been having all along. You can't objectively establish your conception as the correct one here, because there isn't a single objectively correct conception to establish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    The reason your analysis is weaker is because it ultimately obfuscates reality more than it helps explain. Any attempt to categorize and sort something that detracts from our general knowledge, such as claiming unions built on imperialism are "left," does more damage than it builds up our understanding. Beyond that, it's a semantic argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (16 children)

    But “it obfuscates reality” is the conclusion you keep asserting, not something you've demonstrated. Identifying one dimension of a system doesn't prevent analysis of the others. Calling stronger organised labour relatively left-wing tells us something specific; we can then separately analyse how that labour movement relates to capitalism and imperialism.

    At this point, calling my framework “weaker” because it doesn't adopt yours is just circular.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    I did demonstrate it. An example would be China and the US both having militaries, trying to call either "left" or "right" based on the form ignores the context. A kibbutz on Palestinian land is a settler-colonial project, it doesn't matter that it is a communalist formation. You confuse the situation by abstracting forms out of their context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (14 children)

    As I said at the time, those examples demonstrate that context matters, which I've never disputed. They don't demonstrate that characteristics can't also be described independently. Saying a kibbutz has a communalist economic structure doesn't erase its settler-colonial context. Both facts can be true and analytically useful simultaneously.

    You're treating acknowledging one as necessarily obscuring the other, and that's the part you haven't established.

    Ultimately, you could have saved us both a lot of time by acknowledging that what you really mean is: “I don't think Europe should be described in terms of leftism because its underlying capitalist and imperialist structure disqualifies it.” That's an opinion, and a reasonable one, but not an objectively correct conception of left and right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    I'm saying labeling the form of something divorced from the rest of the system as "left" or "right" is an impossible task, as they depend on the context of the system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (12 children)

    But nobody is divorcing it from the system. Analysing a characteristic within its context and identifying its political orientation is entirely possible. You're repeatedly equating distinguishing something analytically with pretending it's independent, and those aren't the same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Calling a system more "left" based on analysis of individual parts of it on the basis of form, rather than the entire system, divorces them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (10 children)

    Why do you believe that?

    Dont give another example with the premise baked in, put it into words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Because forms do not exist without the context of the whole. Systems are not just the sum of individual parts, the actual interactions of the parts determine the overall nature of how the parts fit together.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

    That explains why context matters, but it still doesn't explain why analysing or comparing a part necessarily divorces it from that context. I can consider both the form of a policy and how it functions within the wider system. Where's the contradiction?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Because when you analyze the form as though it exists outside the system, and then use that form as a summation of reasons why a system is more left or right, you obfuscate the role it actually plays within the system. The form can only be analyzed within the system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (6 children)

    But that's the premise I keep asking you to establish. I haven't analysed anything as though it exists outside the system. You're defining any analysis of form as necessarily doing that, then using that definition to prove that it does. That's circular.

    The fact you cant explain this must be telling you something about your premise?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    You did, though. By saying "labor unions are left," you then looked at increased unionization within Europe as an example of why they are more left. You necessarily presuppose that unions themselves are left structures, even if the purpose of unions in imperialist countries is to placate the workers into maintaining imperialism. You are fully capable of comprehending my point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    I comprehend your point. I dispute the premise. You're asserting that the purpose of unions in imperialist countries is to placate workers and maintain imperialism, and therefore their function can't meaningfully be described as left-wing. That's your Marxist interpretation of their systemic role, not an objective property that follows from their existence within imperialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    How does it falling in line with Marxism make it non-objective? Could it be that left and right cannot be meaningfully understood as a simple spectrum, as I initially asserted?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Marxism isn't non-objective by definition. Your interpretation isn't objective simply because it's Marxist. You're applying a particular theoretical framework to determine what these institutions “really” function to do, then treating that conclusion as proof that other frameworks are invalid.

    And I've never claimed left and right are a simple spectrum. Something can be multidimensional and still permit relative comparisons along particular dimensions

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago

    This is an attack on Europe.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    This is how those with the power have done it for ages and want it to remain. Scapegoat minorities and immigrants for all issues, make people angry, offer only hope of fix is to double down and be more harsh, austerity, sacrifice for country, etc, which gets more people fearful and go against what actually works better for healthy humanity, and for the dictatorship. Look at other current countries and in the past, and how maga has caused regression on human health and democracy measures. It's a pattern visible if you're awake.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    So they shut down independent news like Voice of America, and are replacing it with state propaganda.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    $4M is nothing. That's like 50 bloggers in western Europe, or one regional rag with no readers. Or a Twitter troll farm in Hungary with 100 totally real humans and their handlers getting rich siphoning most of it off for themselves. A literal drop in the bucket.

    The US has been funding foreign media for a century at least, steering narratives. It was part of their soft power strategy. This isn't surprising. Where people are freaking out is due to the shift in alignment.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    First amendment violation. I'd be surprisrd if this wasn't struck down

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    So they're funding the right-wing...

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›