I generally agree. We insist on recycling 20th-century political taxonomy in our new age of woke. I think we should come up with new categories and new names.
But for now the old ones can still be useful. I’d stipulate that the ‘progressivism’ so fashionable in the US Uniparty looks a lot more like 1920s-30s Eurofascism than Russian bolsh…
I generally agree. We insist on recycling 20th-century political taxonomy in our new age of woke. I think we should come up with new categories and new names.
But for now the old ones can still be useful. I’d stipulate that the ‘progressivism’ so fashionable in the US Uniparty looks a lot more like 1920s-30s Eurofascism than Russian bolshevism.
Note the dominant role played by woke private corporations. Especially in the finance, defense and pharmaceutical sectors, it often appears corporate oligarchs are calling the shots, not the bureaucrats whom they’ve ‘captured’ ... much less questionably elected woke officials or their cabinet appointees. At the very least, the oligarchs seem generally to have coequal clout with government officials.
This relationship much more closely resembles Eurofascism or ‘national socialism’ of the 1920s-30s than it does bolshevism, under which major industries were directly state-run.
The waters are further muddied by western ‘libertarians,’ who regard bolshevism and fascism both as movements of the left, because they’re collectivist in essence, although fascism allowed corporations to remain privately owned and run.
If I’m right about corporate dominance of US government, that’s a key difference between today and both fascism and especially bolshevism 100 years ago: Mussolini and Hitler were most definitely calling the shots, not the captains of industry who operated under state supervision.
The irony is that Trump and MAGA represent the real American worker's party now (not the GOPe, who are corporate shills). That's one reason the power structure went after Trump -- he sided with Main St. over Wall St. You'd think the old labor socialists would have flocked to his banner, but alas they bought into all the fairy tales about Trump being a "racist" or whatever other meaningless slander got tossed his way.
Trump is an opportunist. He appeals to labor sentiments because there are the votes. But this is just talk. When you look at his actual policies he gives them only crumbs. Most of his policies serve two other constituencies: his sponsors (who are mostly rich) and the national bureaucracy.
I generally agree. We insist on recycling 20th-century political taxonomy in our new age of woke. I think we should come up with new categories and new names.
But for now the old ones can still be useful. I’d stipulate that the ‘progressivism’ so fashionable in the US Uniparty looks a lot more like 1920s-30s Eurofascism than Russian bolshevism.
Note the dominant role played by woke private corporations. Especially in the finance, defense and pharmaceutical sectors, it often appears corporate oligarchs are calling the shots, not the bureaucrats whom they’ve ‘captured’ ... much less questionably elected woke officials or their cabinet appointees. At the very least, the oligarchs seem generally to have coequal clout with government officials.
This relationship much more closely resembles Eurofascism or ‘national socialism’ of the 1920s-30s than it does bolshevism, under which major industries were directly state-run.
The waters are further muddied by western ‘libertarians,’ who regard bolshevism and fascism both as movements of the left, because they’re collectivist in essence, although fascism allowed corporations to remain privately owned and run.
If I’m right about corporate dominance of US government, that’s a key difference between today and both fascism and especially bolshevism 100 years ago: Mussolini and Hitler were most definitely calling the shots, not the captains of industry who operated under state supervision.
The irony is that Trump and MAGA represent the real American worker's party now (not the GOPe, who are corporate shills). That's one reason the power structure went after Trump -- he sided with Main St. over Wall St. You'd think the old labor socialists would have flocked to his banner, but alas they bought into all the fairy tales about Trump being a "racist" or whatever other meaningless slander got tossed his way.
Trump is an opportunist. He appeals to labor sentiments because there are the votes. But this is just talk. When you look at his actual policies he gives them only crumbs. Most of his policies serve two other constituencies: his sponsors (who are mostly rich) and the national bureaucracy.