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.
"Hence, while decrying 'McCarthyism' and conflating Russia with the left, a number of actors engaging in accusations of 'McCarthyism' participated in a syncretic network with critical nodes in Russian media itself."
This is where ARR is not a good writer. McCarthyism is when you accuse someone of being a communist or being a sympathizer to the communist movement. Except the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union and Russia has been capitalist for three decades (if we ignore Marxist-humanist critiques of the USSR).
He is correct that alternative media is using the term "McCarthyism" incorrectly any it's being amplified. A honest journalist would use "Russophobia" or "fashjacketing" since people associate Moscow with the far-right having a reverence for the country as being traditionalist or the Third Rome.
As seen here:
"It is important to note that, at this point, not only had the term 'McCarthyite' become diffuse but its narrative had also slipped into different meanings and contexts. The accusation that began with a denial of Russian hacking now involved general 'Russophobia' and especially the idea that Trump was collaborating with the Russian government."
Democrats absolutely overemphasized Russian interference since they didn't want to address the broken gerrymandering and electoral college. But that's not what he's doing here: he was tracking how the definition of the word McCarthyism changed and who were responsible for alternating the definition.
Nowhere he said using the term makes someone red-brown. Just that there is a linguistic shift.
the left wants to overthrow bourgeois representation and replace them with workplace democracies where workers in the means of production through councils and confederations.
The Boogs and other similar movements like Patriot movement and Atomwaffen want to replace the current government with a more violent order or to be able to commit acts of violence without oversight. Thought Slime covered this ideology in a video: "I Read The Most Hateful Book Ever Written". People who distribute SIEGE and Turner Diaries are not our friends.
The left and the right have very different ideas in what they want from disposing the current government. The danger is that the militia movement are better equipped and would put us into concentration camps. It happened many times. That's why people got angry at Dore platforming Magnus Panvidya. They don't want a repeat of the Greensboro massacre.
It's hilarious Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal accuses ARR of being a fed when Ben's father is a high-ranking pilot in the military and Max Blumenthal's dad is literally a Clinton operative. Both of those individuals are just as close to the mechanism of so-called "deep-state" as ARR is.
The neo-fascists ARR mentions in his articles were funded by the CIA in the 1960s-1990s before switching geopolitical camps in 2000s. The whole thing just the Spiderman meme pointing at each others.
It's okay to say ARR reformed as liberal. Anarchists heavily criticized him for settling down into cushy position. Radicals get old and some of them cross the picket lines. Look up the blog post "Is Alexander Reid Ross the CEO/dad of antifa?: On contagion, shades of grey, and the three-way fight".
From what I have seen from honest critiques why Medicare for All got accused of red-brown, people's issue with Medicare For All marches is anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians at the events don't believe in universal healthcare and they could had asked National Nurses United for assistance with organizing the marches instead of discrediting themselves by aligning themselves with anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists which undermines the integrity of the message.
There are a lot more apathetic honest workers who could had been reached out to instead of entertaining fringe factions who don't believe in universal healthcare.
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.
This is the passage:
"Hence, while decrying 'McCarthyism' and conflating Russia with the left, a number of actors engaging in accusations of 'McCarthyism' participated in a syncretic network with critical nodes in Russian media itself."
This is where ARR is not a good writer. McCarthyism is when you accuse someone of being a communist or being a sympathizer to the communist movement. Except the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union and Russia has been capitalist for three decades (if we ignore Marxist-humanist critiques of the USSR).
He is correct that alternative media is using the term "McCarthyism" incorrectly any it's being amplified. A honest journalist would use "Russophobia" or "fashjacketing" since people associate Moscow with the far-right having a reverence for the country as being traditionalist or the Third Rome.
As seen here:
"It is important to note that, at this point, not only had the term 'McCarthyite' become diffuse but its narrative had also slipped into different meanings and contexts. The accusation that began with a denial of Russian hacking now involved general 'Russophobia' and especially the idea that Trump was collaborating with the Russian government."
Democrats absolutely overemphasized Russian interference since they didn't want to address the broken gerrymandering and electoral college. But that's not what he's doing here: he was tracking how the definition of the word McCarthyism changed and who were responsible for alternating the definition.
Nowhere he said using the term makes someone red-brown. Just that there is a linguistic shift.
Regarding the Boogaloo Boys:
the left wants to overthrow bourgeois representation and replace them with workplace democracies where workers in the means of production through councils and confederations.
The Boogs and other similar movements like Patriot movement and Atomwaffen want to replace the current government with a more violent order or to be able to commit acts of violence without oversight. Thought Slime covered this ideology in a video: "I Read The Most Hateful Book Ever Written". People who distribute SIEGE and Turner Diaries are not our friends.
The left and the right have very different ideas in what they want from disposing the current government. The danger is that the militia movement are better equipped and would put us into concentration camps. It happened many times. That's why people got angry at Dore platforming Magnus Panvidya. They don't want a repeat of the Greensboro massacre.
It's hilarious Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal accuses ARR of being a fed when Ben's father is a high-ranking pilot in the military and Max Blumenthal's dad is literally a Clinton operative. Both of those individuals are just as close to the mechanism of so-called "deep-state" as ARR is.
The neo-fascists ARR mentions in his articles were funded by the CIA in the 1960s-1990s before switching geopolitical camps in 2000s. The whole thing just the Spiderman meme pointing at each others.
It's okay to say ARR reformed as liberal. Anarchists heavily criticized him for settling down into cushy position. Radicals get old and some of them cross the picket lines. Look up the blog post "Is Alexander Reid Ross the CEO/dad of antifa?: On contagion, shades of grey, and the three-way fight".
From what I have seen from honest critiques why Medicare for All got accused of red-brown, people's issue with Medicare For All marches is anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians at the events don't believe in universal healthcare and they could had asked National Nurses United for assistance with organizing the marches instead of discrediting themselves by aligning themselves with anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists which undermines the integrity of the message.
There are a lot more apathetic honest workers who could had been reached out to instead of entertaining fringe factions who don't believe in universal healthcare.