A lot of people on the left have been worried about a supposed red-brown alliance. within this article I will examine the origin of this theory and look at some of the arguments made by those who believe there is a red-brown alliance.
This theory comes from a deranged neo-con smear merchant
From my research, this theory originated from Alexander Ried Ross a geography professor at Portland State University. Ried ross is best known for having his work retracted from the SPLC for smearing anti-war journalists. He came to attention again when he wrote this article for the daily beast that tried to connect many figures on the left to the far-right through ridiculous six degrees of separation. Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton of the Grayzone also exposed that Ried-Ross has a history of collaborating with the C.I.A. and DHS agents. Ried ross seems to have a lot in common with the U.S. security state (which is very ironic for someone who talks about a red-brown alliance so much).
Some ridiculous guilt by association
Ried-Ross’s theory of the red-brown alliance is fully explained in this incoherent drivel passed off as an academic paper. To explain his theory in simple terms, it is basically that much of the left opposed Russiagate so did Russian media and the right-wing, so they are in cahoots. But Russia-gate was untrue. Of course, the left opposed it because it was a national security state deception, Russian media opposed it because it increased tensions between the U.S. and Russia and the right-wing opposed it because it was going after Donald Trump. This theory is akin to someone during the Iraq war saying the left does not believe Saddam has WMDs, Saddam Hussien denies having WMDs and isolationist conservatives such as Pat Buchanan deny Sadam has WMDs, so there is a red-brown-Iraq alliance. This type of guilt by association could easily be used against Ried-Ross: the C.I.A F.B.I and far-right neo-cons agree with his view of Russia and Russiagate, does that not by his own definition make him in a red-brown alliance.
Some of the funniest parts from Ried-Ross’s incoherent scribblings.
The most bizarre part of the paper is the segment where he tries to link the word McCarthyism to the far right and Russia. He starts off by saying that left-wing anti-war, anti-security state outlet Consortium News and Pat Buchanin’s publication American Conservative both used the word “McCarthyism”. But as stated earlier Pat Buchanan opposed the Iraq War. If you go by Alexander Ried Ross’s theory opposing the war in Iraq makes you part of a “red-brown alliance”. The section continues to just blindly repeat C.I.A talking point after C.I.A talking point most of which I have already debunked in previous articles. He goes on the lob smear after smear, he claims Glenn Greenwald is trying to whitewash the Russian government’s image in the U.S. despite the fact that Greenwald has never said anything positive about the Russian government, he goes after Aaron Mate for a factually true article that shows Crowdstrike CEO Shawn Henry admits there is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC server and he claims the Grayzone is most similar to right-wing publication TheAmericanConservative despite the only position the two publications share is opposition to military intervention. He also seemed to think everyone on RT is a mouthpiece for the Kremlin even naming Mike Papantonio, an RT host with very mainstream centre-left views as a Russian agent. While RT, of course, has a bias they are no different from any other state-funded outlet such as Al Jazeera or the BBC and host some excellent shows with complete editorial freedom such as On Contact with Cris Hedges. The section finishes by naming a number of people on the left who have used the word “McCarthyism”. Basically to summarize what he was saying “there is a word that the left the right and Russian use”. He may as well have just said that all three groups breath air and that proves an alliance. Again this smear is particularly ridiculous because throughout the paper he repeats talking points from the C.I.A and far-right neo-cons. My readers can go through Alexander Ried Ross’s paper for themselves he is clearly a neo-con, clearly looking to smear left-wingers and clearly deranged.
But What About Leftists who go on Tucker Carlson?
This would only be a red-brown alliance if leftists were going on his show to agree with him on his far-right views like his extreme anti-immigration stances. But this is not the case they are pushing him left. For example, Carlson admitted that Jimmy Dore made him change his mind on Jullian Assange. People like Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, and Jimmy Dore routinely go on Tucker Carlson to advocate against war, against the national security state, and in favor of left-wing policies such as Medicare for All. This is causing an audience that mostly hears right-wing propaganda to hear a left-wing anti-imperialist perspective. A great example of this is journalist Anya Parampil's appearance on Tucker. Fox News viewers have only ever heard the right-wing and neo-con view of Venezuela with constant demonization of both the Chavez and Maduro government and a constant push for regime change. Anya went on Tucker after reporting from Venezuela to debunk the U.S. propaganda and oppose the Donald Trump-led coup thus exposing the audience to the left-wing perspective. A red-brown alliance would entail the left-wingers agreeing with Tucker Carlon on his far-right stances but this is not what leftists do on his show, they offer a left-wing perspective not usually heard on his show or on Fox News and in turn pushing him and his audience to the left.
But Jimmy Dore interviewed a Bugaloo Boy
Jimmy Dore interviewed a Bugaloo boy because he did not have views that most people on the far right have. Most people on the far right are staunchly anti-immigration, anti-black lives matter, and pro-cop. The individual who was interviewed on Jimmy Dore’s show claimed he was for immigration, the abolition of ICE, defunding the police and in favor of Black Lives Matter, all positions typically associated with the left. One can critique the interview and say the Bugaloo boys do not all believe this or that he was lying about his political views which are fair criticisms but a red-brown alliance would mean Jimmy Dore interviewing a member of the Bugaloo boys who had right-wing positions which his interviewee did not.
Final thoughts
To summarize this theory comes from an “academic” who actually does have right-wing pro-national security state views. He is discredited and has a long history of smearing many elements of the left. Any example of a Red-Brown alliance anyone has shown have been the left working with the right when the right adopts left-wing stances such as being anti-war, anti-security, state pro-immigration, etc. Every alliance between the left and right ard because some the right adopt the left position not the other way around. Today’s political climate does not have linear left-right boundaries. This means there will be issues where the left and the right agree. But in most of these cases, it is because more establishment elements of the left started to adopt the historically right-wing position such as priasing the national security state during Russiagate. No one has given an example of anyone on the left adopting far-right social views such as being anti-immigration or anti-black lives matter which is what the “red-brown alliance” people are trying to portray. In reality- most people pushing the red-brown alliance know it is a smear and for whatever reason want to attack anti-war and pro medicare for all activists. Alexander Ried ross is a neo-con masquerading as an anarchist who wants to use this to smear the anti-war left. People like Emma Vigeland used this again the March for Medicare for all because they dared criticize her beloved politicians. It is just another neo-liberal smear used against those who actually challenge power.
Great piece. I cite it every time I hear someone pull the "Red-Brown Alliance" card.
Dumb.
If you go through Reid Ross's citations, he means the ideological tendencies as an outgrowth of Conservative Revolution of 1918-33 and informed by the 1968 riots as well as the Years of the Lead. He was very careful to name influential neo-fascist thinkers like de Benoist, Franco Freda and Jean-François Thiriart. Some of those esoteric thinkers were funded by Operation Gladio.
If you want to attack ARR's thesis, then the ur-text is Chip Barlet's "Right Woos Left" from the 1990s. ARR also cites Martin A Lee's "Beast Awakens" extensively. His big problem was when he tried to apply Kate Starbird's modelling of tracking cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns between existing nation-states to pre-existing research, but readers are not told about how he arrives at his conclusions.
That asides, the contemporary meaning of the word comes from Europe. The label gets used in situations like when the secular left accidentally capitulated to the Islamophobic Front National, DIE LINKE takes the same position on Alternative für Deutschland with anti-refugee sentiments. Or recently the Danish Social Democrats aligning with Danish People’s Party on restricting movements of refugees and immigrants.
ARR didn't invent the concept. The term came from a turbulent time when Romanian, Slovene and other countries' politics were in scrambles and unconventional parliaments were formed.
And yes, the term is good to use in situations where the left's inability to exclude the right-wing talking points compromise and soils the reputation of movement as a whole as we have seen with the Yellow Jackets in France or Occupy Wall Street in yesteryears when people got scared of the antisemitic remarks and the left's failure to combat them. That's why you are currently seeing progressive social democrats using the term against the chauvinist social democrats in U.S. discourses like Angela Nagle.
Sometimes East European Marxists use the term to describe a situation when communist organizations are banned by bourgeois democracies until only parliamentary communists conforming to the capitalist state remains. But you rarely read about that in English, you're more likely to see the term in English to talk about when democratic socialists and social democrats dovetails with the populist right.