I think he was a useful idiot. Right alongside people like Dunphy.
Well-meaning but fundamentally misunderstands the goals of radicals pulling at the threads. Unwilling to take measures that appear in any way "conservative" because he's stuck in the left-right mindset.
I also think he was terrified of being criticized by groups like the Coalition For Women in Journalism or the ACLU. Afraid to be "the bad guy" in the eyes of progressive groups.
About Vivians tweet, suggesting that the far right want to eliminate certain social groups:
Here's a challenge, I think, in an article by an English professor who studied Socialist literature.
He says, with stunning confidence, that "In the European century that began in the 1840s from Engels's article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found."
Anyone want to accept the challenge of finding a non socialist who advocated genocide in that hundred year period?
He also poses the interesting question of why Goebbels would talk positively about Socialism, and Socialism for Germany, in his personal diaries.
It's an interesting argument that I've never spent a lot of energy on. It certainly doesn't damage my belief that left-right sorting isn't very valuable right now. This is why I refuse to use "socialist" as a description of the DSA members. Their ranks are filled with communists and the march openly under communist banners.
Both Fascism and Communism have used "socialist" to candy coat opposition to Western liberal democratic values. That's why I want support a reclamation of the Three Arrows. Against all forms of authoritarianism.
I would agree if it weren't that left/right sorting wasn't so important for so many people. The British PM is not alone, unfortunately, in broadcasting assumptions about "far right" knowing full well that this, in the publics mind, associates with fascism and nazism. It's a false association and should be challenged because it's damaging.
Otherwise I have no issue with your argument about using a different axis.
About Fascism. Please take a look at the Fascist Manifesto for the Italian Social Republic, co written in 1943 by Mussolini and Nicola Bombacci, who had been one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party.
It should be especially interesting, because it was written under the watchful eyes of the Nazis, who had recently rescued Mussolini and were the military muscle behind the Social Republic which is often described as a Nazi puppet state.
It does not condemn Communism or Socialism.
It does condemn "the internal capitalist system", which it pledges to abolish.
A very interesting document, I think. Its demarcation of private property especially.
I like the diagrams. Keep them coming.
Keep doing what you're doing!
Where would you put former Multnomah County D.A. on the vertical liberal-to-authoritarian axis?
I think he was a useful idiot. Right alongside people like Dunphy.
Well-meaning but fundamentally misunderstands the goals of radicals pulling at the threads. Unwilling to take measures that appear in any way "conservative" because he's stuck in the left-right mindset.
I also think he was terrified of being criticized by groups like the Coalition For Women in Journalism or the ACLU. Afraid to be "the bad guy" in the eyes of progressive groups.
Thanks! I can see that. And here I thought Schmidt was a true believer like his royal red buddy Chesa Boudin.
About Vivians tweet, suggesting that the far right want to eliminate certain social groups:
Here's a challenge, I think, in an article by an English professor who studied Socialist literature.
He says, with stunning confidence, that "In the European century that began in the 1840s from Engels's article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found."
Anyone want to accept the challenge of finding a non socialist who advocated genocide in that hundred year period?
He also poses the interesting question of why Goebbels would talk positively about Socialism, and Socialism for Germany, in his personal diaries.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html
It's an interesting argument that I've never spent a lot of energy on. It certainly doesn't damage my belief that left-right sorting isn't very valuable right now. This is why I refuse to use "socialist" as a description of the DSA members. Their ranks are filled with communists and the march openly under communist banners.
Both Fascism and Communism have used "socialist" to candy coat opposition to Western liberal democratic values. That's why I want support a reclamation of the Three Arrows. Against all forms of authoritarianism.
I would agree if it weren't that left/right sorting wasn't so important for so many people. The British PM is not alone, unfortunately, in broadcasting assumptions about "far right" knowing full well that this, in the publics mind, associates with fascism and nazism. It's a false association and should be challenged because it's damaging.
Otherwise I have no issue with your argument about using a different axis.
How do you feel about the claim that Trump is a Left Populist?
Populist I see, but not left. The left despise him, surely? What's the argument that he's left?
About Fascism. Please take a look at the Fascist Manifesto for the Italian Social Republic, co written in 1943 by Mussolini and Nicola Bombacci, who had been one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party.
It should be especially interesting, because it was written under the watchful eyes of the Nazis, who had recently rescued Mussolini and were the military muscle behind the Social Republic which is often described as a Nazi puppet state.
It does not condemn Communism or Socialism.
It does condemn "the internal capitalist system", which it pledges to abolish.
A very interesting document, I think. Its demarcation of private property especially.
Would you consider this a far right manifesto?
https://arplan.org/2019/05/12/verona-manifesto/