4 ms·
Propagandists do like to co-opt narratives. It's a natural vector for sympathy. In terms of US politics, this has affected both of the main parties over the y
by tomohawk 3y ago
Propagandists do like to co-opt narratives. It's a natural vector for sympathy. In terms of US politics, this has affected both of the main parties over the years. Singling out the GOP here is itself a false narrative. There are surely people in that party who are co-opted, but that is only part of what's going on. The Dems also have their useful idiots.
Speaking of WWII, Joe Kennedy (John's father) was quite useful to the Nazis.
- exceptione 3y agoI hope you will agree that we should not distract ourselves by, I believe not intended, false equivalency and whatabouttisms. The situation is too serious. - We were talking about how conservatism has the weakness that it is particularly prone to siren songs of authoritarians. - There are more bad things happening in the GOP with respect to the democratic constitutional state, but that is hardly a relief. The Dems might have their own idiots, sure, but there is no equivalency here. - Perhaps I should not take the bait, but John Kennedy, the president, was not an anti-semite, unlike his father indeed, who was not president.
- nradov 3y agoLeftist and progressive movements are equally prone to authoritarianism. We should be on guard against extremists on both sides of the political spectrum.
- exceptione 3y agoIt is good to be on guard. Extremism is bad for society, be it left or right leaning. But we shouldn't confuse things. With progressiveness we are talking about progress in human and civil rights towards a more free society. It does not mean you have to agree with all policies of them. Authoritarianism is a direct contradiction with progressiveness.
- shakow 3y ago> Authoritarianism is a direct contradiction with progressiveness. Ever heard about this Lenin guy?
- exceptione 3y agoRevolutionary `neq` progressive, especially not in our time. If your read up on Lenin and the Revolution no serious human rights advocate today would vouch for that.
- shakow 3y agoBut the early USSR was both authoritarian and progressive, with the suppression of nobility privileges, strong improvements to women's rights, legalization of homosexuality, etc. > no serious human rights advocate today would vouch for that. This is close to a no true Scotsman argument; virtually no older-than-30y.o. political movement would check all the boxes to be qualified as such.
- exceptione 3y agoYou are right it had progressive elements and some regressive elements, sure!
- QuarterReptile 3y ago'Human progress' would appear to be the most seductive end to justify any means, judging by 20th century.
- lazide 3y agoHardly. Authoritarianism is what happens when ‘the right things don’t happen’ on their own based on ideology, so they need to be forced. Like seizing farmland from landowners and forming collectives to farm them instead (USSR). Or forcing affirmative action despite no identifiable discriminatory actions. Which is literally openly happening right now in the West in tech and other areas. It’s about forcing reality to confirm to an idealized ‘right’ way, despite objections or resistance - including often ignoring if the final situation/state even works. Example: Chinese Great Leap Forward and rural steel ‘mills’, USSR and collectivism, etc.