The Off Topic Topic

[DGuller]

The red flag on dating profiles is apparently mentioning you are apolitical.  That actually means you are a fascist, but learned that's not appreciated by women.

I should be a red flag even if used honestly.  In this day and age, being apolitical supports fascism just the same.  Russia is a classic example of fascists staying in power and entrenching it on the back political apathy of the average Russian citizen.

[Sheilbh]

As an aside, I remain convinced that a significant contributor to the seriousness of this issue (which is probably naturally occuring), is Russian funding and agitprop.

FWIW - still not convinced by this

And one side that makes me think this is just saw a journalist following up on that who said they had talked to some women about this, one asked "I don't get why this guy I've started seeing is always going on about 'seed oils'.. Is it an internet thing?"

I think about the whole "crisis of masculinity" issue, where I think there are real issues which the left (and maybe particularly the online left) needs to think about. I don't have any answers - I'm not sure. But I think the pipeline from fitness, wellness, self-help internet to first conspiracies and for young men particularly to far right politics is a big part of this - and it isn't to say any of those things (fitness, wellness, self-help - even concern about seed oils) are necessarily political.

I think it's a very different than the boomer memes on Facebook or bot farms.

Edit: And as always, as a crude materialist I think there are material factors too It's not so observed in the UK as gender is not a big divide in our politics. But that might shift - for example in the young right now therre's a big gender gap at universities (about 57% women), there's also a (smaller) gender gap among those not in education or work with men over-represented. If that trend persists then we may get a gender gap in politics too.

But I think fundamentally there's a group with real issues, who don't have much support or guidance with some very, very dubious gurus/communities online - as much as anything it reminds me of reading about radicalisation of young men into extreme Islamism.

Edit: Also I feel like you've got kids in that group who are say mid-teens when it is (a) incredilbly normal to have not had a partner or any real experience dating and (b) have some peculiar politics ( ). I feel like in the normal process of growing up you fix (a) and (b) tends to fade away and if that's just not happening because in the online age there is a community and gurus to back you up on (b)?

[crazy canuck]

In my observation the "classic" tech start up was all about becoming a near monopoly in a market, typically by leveraging the network effect to establish an incumbent advantage. Hence the obsession with market share over revenue or profitability.

Then, as FANG + Microsoft dominated, a second order motivation took over as CC says - to be acquired by one of the big players. In my eyes the underlying business logic remained though - the way to make yourself attractive as an acquisiton is to be on a path to dominate a specific subset of the market. The major companies then acquire you to defend their dominant position and leverage their established network, or to expand their reach either into blue sea areas of business or to threaten their rivals in their core areas.

The underlying strategy remains the same, though: the pursuit of near-monopoly and entrenching incumbent advantages especially via the network effect. The thing that changed is that as the major companies got fully entrenched, start-ups pitched themselves to fit themselves into the majors' strategy rather than make a play for independent dominance themselves.

That's my read anyhow.

I think that is a good summary

[viper37]

[Josquius]

They do seem to be heavily pushing this omg Democrats arresting their political opponents line. Guess it makes sense when you're pursuing a strategy based on conspiracy theories. 

[Jacob]

FWIW - still not convinced by this

I'm curious why.

Is it because you don't think they're actually trying to undermine Western civil society and institutions via the radical and reactionary right?

Is it because you think that while they're trying, that sort of thing doesn't really work? Or even if it could work, the Russians kind of suck at it and their efforts are generally useless?

Or is it because that you think they're trying and are having success with influencing Western civil society and institutions via the radical and reactionary right, the impact of any success they have is subsumed in larger trends independent of them and therefore are pointless. Basically the rise of the reactionary right would've happened with or without any Russian effort - they're just claiming credit for something that would've happened anyways (or deluding themselves that they're more important than they are)?

[Zanza]

Basically the rise of the reactionary right would've happened with or without any Russian effort - they're just claiming credit for something that would've happened anyways (or deluding themselves that they're more important than they are)?

That's my take.

That said, both bare-chested horserider Putin suppressing gays and Russia challenging Western world order, I.e. the same elite that supposedly holds back the fascists in Western countries, creates support for Russia among Western fascists.

But Russian money has more influence on establishment politicians,just look at all the (mostly former) politicians they had on their payroll.

[PJL]

I long for the good old days when Russian money on politicians were just linked to communist parties and Trotsky entryists in social democratic parties,

[Sheilbh]

Or is it because that you think they're trying and are having success with influencing Western civil society and institutions via the radical and reactionary right, the impact of any success they have is subsumed in larger trends independent of them and therefore are pointless. Basically the rise of the reactionary right would've happened with or without any Russian effort - they're just claiming credit for something that would've happened anyways (or deluding themselves that they're more important than they are)?

Broadly this, especially in Europe. Fundamentally I just struggle with an answer that primarily focuses on, say, discourse or "culture" even with bad actors operating in that space. I think those are downstream and to the extent there is Russian agitprop, I think it's largely a contributing factor - it might amplify something more than be a cause.

I also think that it is often used as a coping mechanism, particularly by those on the liberal or a bit tribal to the "mainstream" to explain political shocks. This piece has a stronger headline than I'd choose, but I think there's a fair bit to this argument: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/the-liberal-obsession-with-disinformation-is-not-helping.html They're taking the credit but also getting the blame because it is easier and more comforting than a possibly painful self-reflection. I also think it's possibly reassuring, like a conspiracy theory - someone's to blame or in charge, there is a plan.

I also think that language of foreign interference and with it de-legitimisation is dangerous in a democratic society and needs to be handled with a care I'm not sure is always present (not aimed at you in any way). I'd add that in the UK there are sections of broadly liberal opinion that has become incredibly invested in conspiracies about politics (you see it in some pieces shared here) and I think there is a danger that as well as recreating the conditions of their initial political trauma as Adler-Bell talks about in that NY Mag piece, they are actually resembling their imagined enemies. Imagining their enemies as an insular online bubble obsessed with conspiracies and plots by elites which is what really drives politics, that is what some have become.

That said, both bare-chested horserider Putin suppressing gays and Russia challenging Western world order, I.e. the same elite that supposedly holds back the fascists in Western countries, creates support for Russia among Western fascists.

Yeah I think there is a difference between what is basically Russia's spin to the world and something more sinister.

I think Russia spins itself as traditional, Christian, strong etc which is deliberate and will get picked up by (some) European fascists because those are themes they care about and to an extent it's a theme of Russia's presentation to the world for hundreds of years. In the same way as Russia spins itself as anti-colonial, opposed to the West, respectful of sovereignty when engaging with the rest of the world - again picking up on decades of Soviet propaganda. I think ultimately that is something that all states engage in, it is basically public diplomacy and entirely legitimate. I think that's distinct from actively stirring up forces in another country's politics.

But Russian money has more influence on establishment politicians,just look at all the (mostly former) politicians they had on their payroll.

Also agree here. I'd carve out France and the RN because I think there is more going on there.

But I think an awful lot of Russian money was spent on, as you say, establishment politicians. It was normal - unethical, corrupt - lobbying that was about influencing mainstream policy of the mainstream parties by the sensible, grown-ups who could get a meeting with senior civil servants or ministers because they were once a senior civil servant or minister. That was aimed and successful at advancing Russian interests - I think vastly more important than any funding for the far right. Although it is possible it created a sense of corruption that has helped the far-right thrive?

[DGuller]

I do think that Russia had a great deal to do with the surge of hard right in the West.  However, that doesn't mean that they didn't tap into a pre-existing discontent.  It's a lot easier to sow discontent when you already have an existing discontent to take further, rather than having to manufacture one from whole cloth.

[Josquius]

Russia would love a strong far right in west.
But their actions are more about sowing division and discord. Promoting far left nonsense helps heavily too.
A west united behind the far right is something even the current Russian regime sees is a bad idea.

Nonetheless with the early days of new media and the far right often benefiting from new communication mediums it doesn't take much Russian support to really help push that side along.

It's accepted fact that with the brexit referendum there was a lot of Russian money and micro targeting and other dodgy shit which hit just the right apolitical crowd the right way. Factor in the remain campaign playing right into their hands and triggering reactance...

[DGuller]

Promoting far left nonsense also helps with promoting far right nonsense.  They do want to sow discord, but clearly they favor far right, because enemy Western countries that turn far right may become their allies.

[Josquius]

Promoting far left nonsense also helps with promoting far right nonsense.  They do want to sow discord, but clearly they favor far right, because enemy Western countries that turn far right may become their allies.

They favour the far right yes.
But I do think there's also the factor that this stuff simply sells better to powerful yet ignorant demographics.
Hacking into the worst in people is much easier even on an even field I would say - though the heavy right wing skew of the media over the past 30+ years laying a solid foundation in this direction that can be built on to crazy levels helps too.

[Sheilbh]

I do think that Russia had a great deal to do with the surge of hard right in the West.  However, that doesn't mean that they didn't tap into a pre-existing discontent.  It's a lot easier to sow discontent when you already have an existing discontent to take further, rather than having to manufacture one from whole cloth.

In Europe at least, I think it's more than pre-existing discontent.

I think the big trend in Europe is fragmentation and the relative decline of the big established parties. In some ways the decline of the European model of mass membership political parties and party democracy. That's been happening since the late 80s and early 90s. It's not exclusively benefited the far or radical right. In the same period we've seen significant growth of Green parties, regionalist parties and in some places the far left (the far left I think have done least well, so far). In addition to that general fragmentation I think the range of parties who've benefited  also indicates the fragmentation that's run in parallel.

Another side of that is, I think, the political strategies of different parties. The far and radical right have very consciously tried to moderate their presentation and bring their politics into the respectable mainstream (while also positioning themselves as outside it) - I think they've been relatively successful in that with some exceptions. I think the feature that is striking now in Europe is not so much that the far right is surging than that the line between the mainstream right and the far right is blurring - or those politics are converging. In a way I think the recent important thing is not that the far right or surging but the response of the mainstream/centre right.

I'd also add that the context for pre-existing discontent in recent years has been the global crash (and many European economies have still not recovered back to 2007 levels), austerity plus the European recessions in the 2010s that it caused, and a refugee crisis particularly in 2015. So I think when we say pre-existing discontent we mean failure of political leaders - some of those events were going to happen and the failure was the response, others such as the state of the European economy since 2010 was a political choice.

It's that that makes me query the importance of Russia in this. I think you've got some long-standing trends running for 40 years and, in my view, some generationally poor political decisions - and in that context I feel like Russia is probably doing stuff, but it's very much the mote in our eye.

Many of those politicians from the mainstream who made those bad decisions, were also the politicians who "responded" to Russia's invasions of 2008 and 2014. Some have in their time directly taken Russian funded jobs and others have been ommitted to economic projects that rely on Russia or Russian money. I'm not suggesting for a minute that they were bought or anything like that but I think that is, as Zanza pointed out, an important side of where Russian money has been used in European politics.

Promoting far left nonsense also helps with promoting far right nonsense.  They do want to sow discord, but clearly they favor far right, because enemy Western countries that turn far right may become their allies.

I can't remember where I read it but I read a recent article, and I can't remember who it was quoting - but it was a Russia on exactly this. Their line was actually they get the far left for free but have to pay for the far right.

Which is, given the nature of Putin's regime, a pretty damning indictment of the far left

[Tamas]

I am sceptical about the impact of Russian influence, it's not like our societies needed it to turn nasty in the past.

Where I think it works is serving as a "fake" proof that the fascist way works - look how well Putin is doing with Russia, it must be true, Putin is saying it himself!