3 ms·

That's exactly the old good european far-left. Lookup e.g. RAF.

by mantas 3y ago

hnbad 3y ago
I think the RAF (i.e. specifically the Bader-Meinhof group) were idiots at best and ruthless at worst but public perception of the RAF tends to be heavily biased by a lack of historical context. The Federal Republic of Germany used to hide behind the irrefutable cruelty and oppression of the German Democratic Republic to get away with disgusting levels of state repression well into the 1960s. After the end of WW2 both German states also rehabilitated a lot of former NSDAP members and restored their positions in public offices often wiping their records clean in mock trials. The modern examples of police repression in Lüzerath (which in Germany were mostly framed in favor of the police while international media often highlighted the excessive police violence) or the Stuttgart 21 protests (which even in German media were described as shocking police violence because the protestors were seen to be "average people" rather than activists) pale in comparison to what was normal at the time. Also, after WW2 the German communist party KPD had been banned on the flimsiest of legal justifications (which to this day are generally agreed to be bogus although there is no political interest in revising the ban from either side) - a fate that to this day has otherwise been reserved for NSDAP-offshoots. Germany has also been extremely slow to account for its past with trials of Nazi officers still happening a few years ago - many supposed criminals getting to die of old age before ever going to trial. The formation of the RAF can also directly be traced back to the murder of a student protestor by a police officer. The RAF - correctly - identified the US as the source of West Germany's anti-communism and it saw the West German state as a capitalist project largely operated by the same people that operated the fascist project of Nazi Germany before it. Their initial targets were primarily NATO, the West German police, West German politicians and former NSDAP members. They also targeted Axel Springer, a right-wing media mogul whose tabloids still routinely run afoul of media ethics rules and border on violating laws against demagoguery. They bombed the Axel Springer offices but this was clearly intended to be more about sending a message and disrupting infrastructure as they called in advance and made an explicit bomb threat - twice. The building was not evacuated. The "most ethical military of the world" still insists that this practice washes its hands clean of any casualties of the bombing following the advance warning, so make of that what you will. In the end, most of the original RAF members died in prison. The initial investigations were flimsy and there are credible allegations of their findings being motivated more by politics than evidence. Based on more recent examples of investigations into deaths in prisons or police custody, I find it difficult to trust either side on this. I think it's accurate to describe the RAF as terrorists. I don't think they did any good no matter what their intentions were. Even if you somehow can come up with ideological justifications for their actions, that falls apart with the second or third generation at the latest. But that doesn't mean their victims were the Good Guys. The narrativization of RAF terrorism at worst just provided an excuse not to reflect on what motivated them - and to what extent those problems still linger today.
- mantas 3y ago
  Yes. And that's why it's truly „far“ left. Stuff like this is what gets one labeled „far“. Same for the opposite end of the horse shoe.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    I didn't say the RAF weren't "far left". The exact ideology of the Bader-Meinhof group is not easy to pinpoint exactly, especially if you account for its evolution over time, but I think it's somewhat safe to say they broadly aligned with Maoism. They were at some point politically aligned with the East German government but that was clearly more for pragmatic reasons than deeply held convictions. I'm merely saying that we whitewash a lot of that part of German history exactly because the RAF stood in opposition to it and if we all agree that the RAF were bad because they were terrorists then their victims must have been "good" and that is arguably closer to the opposite of the truth. "1960s Germany was full of NSDAP members in leadership positions and used excessive police violence to suppress civil unrest" is not a far left take, it's historical consensus. The problem with the horse shoe and why although law enforcement likes it political scientists generally ridicule it is that politics are not one-dimensional and more often than not there actually isn't a middle ground. This actually has led to real world problems in Germany because just like how the East German government's ideological convictions made it incapable of acknowledging the existence of neo-nazis in East Germany because they saw fascism as an evolution of capitalism, German law enforcement can't adequately comprehend the German sovcit "Reichsbürger" movement because while being clearly far right it's actually in large parts a monarchist movement not a nazi one (although there are of course overlaps for pragmatic reasons).
    - mantas 3y ago
      I guess we're far off-topic, but anyway... As an outsider, I find that part of German history fascinating. It's a miracle that Germany was neutered relatively peacefully and it took just a generation or two. Especially when you compare it to post-war Japan (which was a success, but different, maybe better in the long run?) and post-cold-war Russia (which was a failure as we see nowadays). Regarding horse shoe, I can share my personal anecdote. I'm born USSR & raised ex-USSR. Here far right was (and still is to a big extent) built on top of anti-soviet dissent. Pro-free-market, pro-nation-states, free speech and so on, basically reverse of whatever the soviet regime was. Even soviet punks and hippies were quite (far-)right especially compared to their west counterparts at the time :) I spent some time on UK university campus a good decade ago. It was very interesting how (far-)left at the time was quite similar to far-right back home. The goals were different, but the people, vector and modus operandi were very very similar. Punk kids, often from good stable background, were trying to find a way to solve eye sores of the society. While UK right-wing was completely different world to me with old-money and all that jazz. Which was very similar to our ex-USSR-establishment circles.

That's exactly the old good european far-left. Lookup e.g. RAF.

by mantas 3y ago

That's exactly the old good european far-left. Lookup e.g. RAF.

I think the RAF (i.e. specifically the Bader-Meinhof group) were idiots at best and ruthless at worst but public perception of the RAF tends to be heavily biased by a lack of historical context. The Federal Republic of Germany used to hide behind the irrefutable cruelty and oppression of the German Democratic Republic to get away with disgusting levels of state repression well into the 1960s. After the end of WW2 both German states also rehabilitated a lot of former NSDAP members and restored their positions in public offices often wiping their records clean in mock trials. The modern examples of police repression in Lüzerath (which in Germany were mostly framed in favor of the police while international media often highlighted the excessive police violence) or the Stuttgart 21 protests (which even in German media were described as shocking police violence because the protestors were seen to be "average people" rather than activists) pale in comparison to what was normal at the time. Also, after WW2 the German communist party KPD had been banned on the flimsiest of legal justifications (which to this day are generally agreed to be bogus although there is no political interest in revising the ban from either side) - a fate that to this day has otherwise been reserved for NSDAP-offshoots. Germany has also been extremely slow to account for its past with trials of Nazi officers still happening a few years ago - many supposed criminals getting to die of old age before ever going to trial. The formation of the RAF can also directly be traced back to the murder of a student protestor by a police officer. The RAF - correctly - identified the US as the source of West Germany's anti-communism and it saw the West German state as a capitalist project largely operated by the same people that operated the fascist project of Nazi Germany before it. Their initial targets were primarily NATO, the West German police, West German politicians and former NSDAP members. They also targeted Axel Springer, a right-wing media mogul whose tabloids still routinely run afoul of media ethics rules and border on violating laws against demagoguery. They bombed the Axel Springer offices but this was clearly intended to be more about sending a message and disrupting infrastructure as they called in advance and made an explicit bomb threat - twice. The building was not evacuated. The "most ethical military of the world" still insists that this practice washes its hands clean of any casualties of the bombing following the advance warning, so make of that what you will. In the end, most of the original RAF members died in prison. The initial investigations were flimsy and there are credible allegations of their findings being motivated more by politics than evidence. Based on more recent examples of investigations into deaths in prisons or police custody, I find it difficult to trust either side on this. I think it's accurate to describe the RAF as terrorists. I don't think they did any good no matter what their intentions were. Even if you somehow can come up with ideological justifications for their actions, that falls apart with the second or third generation at the latest. But that doesn't mean their victims were the Good Guys. The narrativization of RAF terrorism at worst just provided an excuse not to reflect on what motivated them - and to what extent those problems still linger today.

mantas 3y ago
Yes. And that's why it's truly „far“ left. Stuff like this is what gets one labeled „far“. Same for the opposite end of the horse shoe.
- hnbad 3y ago
  I didn't say the RAF weren't "far left". The exact ideology of the Bader-Meinhof group is not easy to pinpoint exactly, especially if you account for its evolution over time, but I think it's somewhat safe to say they broadly aligned with Maoism. They were at some point politically aligned with the East German government but that was clearly more for pragmatic reasons than deeply held convictions. I'm merely saying that we whitewash a lot of that part of German history exactly because the RAF stood in opposition to it and if we all agree that the RAF were bad because they were terrorists then their victims must have been "good" and that is arguably closer to the opposite of the truth. "1960s Germany was full of NSDAP members in leadership positions and used excessive police violence to suppress civil unrest" is not a far left take, it's historical consensus. The problem with the horse shoe and why although law enforcement likes it political scientists generally ridicule it is that politics are not one-dimensional and more often than not there actually isn't a middle ground. This actually has led to real world problems in Germany because just like how the East German government's ideological convictions made it incapable of acknowledging the existence of neo-nazis in East Germany because they saw fascism as an evolution of capitalism, German law enforcement can't adequately comprehend the German sovcit "Reichsbürger" movement because while being clearly far right it's actually in large parts a monarchist movement not a nazi one (although there are of course overlaps for pragmatic reasons).
  - mantas 3y ago
    I guess we're far off-topic, but anyway... As an outsider, I find that part of German history fascinating. It's a miracle that Germany was neutered relatively peacefully and it took just a generation or two. Especially when you compare it to post-war Japan (which was a success, but different, maybe better in the long run?) and post-cold-war Russia (which was a failure as we see nowadays). Regarding horse shoe, I can share my personal anecdote. I'm born USSR & raised ex-USSR. Here far right was (and still is to a big extent) built on top of anti-soviet dissent. Pro-free-market, pro-nation-states, free speech and so on, basically reverse of whatever the soviet regime was. Even soviet punks and hippies were quite (far-)right especially compared to their west counterparts at the time :) I spent some time on UK university campus a good decade ago. It was very interesting how (far-)left at the time was quite similar to far-right back home. The goals were different, but the people, vector and modus operandi were very very similar. Punk kids, often from good stable background, were trying to find a way to solve eye sores of the society. While UK right-wing was completely different world to me with old-money and all that jazz. Which was very similar to our ex-USSR-establishment circles.