Because she's suggesting taking advantage of the Nazi opposition to the Weimar government to abolish the FreikorpsReichswehr.
The right doesn't actually want to abolish the FBI, unless it's to replace it with something even worse. The right's latest surface-level grudge can't be used to push leftist policy. This only works if you have a strong movement that can play reactionaries against each other and take power afterwards. I think we all know that's not the case here.
i can't respond to all of your and vitrioll's quips, but: i disagree.
BJG, or anyone, can support of some policies without endorsing others, full stop. BJG, if you have any respect for her at all, just as a person and someone on the left, broadly understood, shouldn't be construed to mean, in the above case, that the fbi should be dismantled, to be replaced with a worse fbi. if those are the terms, she would reject it, as would we all. if the populist right wants medicare for all, we should support it. if the populist right wants medicare for all (and only whites and people not-on-welfare), we shouldn't and we won't.
a further point: if the fascists can recreate a "worse" fbi, without any support of the marginal left (because, as above, we would not support them in doing so), then they don't need the marginal left in the first place to get rid of the existent fbi. they can just fucking abolish it and create the bad one. so no, there isn't a concern of creating a worse fbi.
and, just a thought: why aren't there leftist movements ready to sweep into power? could it be because of "not as bad" federal agencies crushing these in their infancy? (oh no, what if the "bad" fbi assassinates the next martin luther king! lol)
furthermore, even having said the above, i don't necessarily disagree that it is wise to keep liberal institutions around for the time being. that's not an unreasonable take, but one which could be discussed. what i took issue with, and what is unreasonable imho, is the fact users of this site will thoughtless drag BJG or some one else, for only the most superficial reasons (here the outward appearance that she is mindlessly endorsing rightist policy prescriptions; and because she wanted to have the dems on the record that they don't support MM4A (or whatever that completely, terminally online "debate" was about) i guess.)
I just think it's sad BJG thinks the left is in any position to leverage this "outrage" reactionaries have against the FBI, even if it was real. The best possible outcome with the current state of the American left is being used as a useful idiot by reactionaries and immediately discarded afterwards. Neither BJG or anyone like her are in a position where pitting reactionaries against each other is even possible as a strategy, let alone advisable.
It's not that I think the FBI needs to be kept around, but I think the "left" should avoid discussing how we can use worse reactionaries against the FBI when we're not at all in a position to do that, let alone pick up the pieces afterwards. As @MaoistLandlord said, all this will accomplish is alienating people who are negatively affected by reactionaries like MTG.
i hear you. i appreciate your response, and i always should apologize for being a prick.
i agree that the populist right is a mostly a fiction, and it is really difficult to imagine how they could exist without their slavish deposition to capital (or migrating left). (i use this as an example, but agree that it is quite unlikely to come to pass.)
understood re-feds. i think whether or not we support getting rid of fbi (which is a fanciful, affective/rhetorical move by MTG anyway, not a serious proposal), it's useful to use this as a rhetorical opportunity to underscore the history of bad fed things (if only for sharping the understanding for ourselves). i take this to be what BJG is doing here, and of course making content (which is shameful, but necessary for some, before socialism).
cheers.
Because she’s suggesting taking advantage of the Nazi opposition to the Weimar government to abolish the Freikorps.
This is a ridiculous comparison, the Freikorps was a paramilitary and actively killed Weimar government supporters, and on top of it when the Nazi Party rose to prominence they and the remaining Freikorps supported each other.
and on top of it when the Nazi Party rose to prominence they and the remaining Freikorps supported each other
What exactly do you think the eventual relationship between the remnants of the FBI and open American fascism will be? These people are fundamentally on the same side, which is part of the reason trying to play them against each other won't work. Whatever shallow grudge they have against each other is nothing compared to the shared support for reaction and opposition to progress.
It's not meant to be an accurate historical metaphor, it's meant to make a point that you're not going to succeed by "taking advantage of" the "opposition" reactionaries have to other reactionaries. The fact that pitting the Nazis against the Freikorps wouldn't have worked is the point of the comparison, not that they're 1:1 interchangeable with the FBI and Trump's clique.
You're missing the point. The Freikorps wasn't defeated by fascists, it was "demobilized" by the Weimar military (Reichswehr) because it was a deranged death cult. The Nazis supported the Freikorps.
If a metaphor doesn't make sense, just don't fucking make it.
OK, then ignore the metaphor and read the rest of the comment, which unambiguously explains the point.
The right doesn’t actually want to abolish the FBI, unless it’s to replace it with something even worse. The right’s latest surface-level grudge can’t be used to push leftist policy. This only works if you have a strong movement that can play reactionaries against each other and take power afterwards. I think we all know that’s not the case here.
I acknowledge it was a clumsy metaphor at best, lol.
That's obvious, which is why I didn't comment on it. I just think the worst thing you can do for one's side is make a shitty argument in support of it.
Fair enough, lol. I agree it was a shitty metaphor. I should have known to resist the urge to make a Weimar comparison. It's always fun to do for the rhetorical impact, but they never really fit and I end up (as you said) just stringing words together.
I think it'll be fine if you just study it more. Making such analogies is not untenable; I have gotten a lot of mileage out of explaining things using the Chinese Civil War, for instance.
A slightly closer analogy would be just using the other entity that I mentioned, the Reichswehr, in place of the Freikorps. Still not great, but it's at least an imperialist organization that the Nazis really did destroy in order to replace it with a much more effective and reactionary force (the Wehrmacht), which did also have members from the old force join the new one.
Yeah idk why we’re dunking on this
Because she's suggesting taking advantage of the Nazi opposition to the Weimar government to abolish the
FreikorpsReichswehr.The right doesn't actually want to abolish the FBI, unless it's to replace it with something even worse. The right's latest surface-level grudge can't be used to push leftist policy. This only works if you have a strong movement that can play reactionaries against each other and take power afterwards. I think we all know that's not the case here.
i can't respond to all of your and vitrioll's quips, but: i disagree.
BJG, or anyone, can support of some policies without endorsing others, full stop. BJG, if you have any respect for her at all, just as a person and someone on the left, broadly understood, shouldn't be construed to mean, in the above case, that the fbi should be dismantled, to be replaced with a worse fbi. if those are the terms, she would reject it, as would we all. if the populist right wants medicare for all, we should support it. if the populist right wants medicare for all (and only whites and people not-on-welfare), we shouldn't and we won't.
a further point: if the fascists can recreate a "worse" fbi, without any support of the marginal left (because, as above, we would not support them in doing so), then they don't need the marginal left in the first place to get rid of the existent fbi. they can just fucking abolish it and create the bad one. so no, there isn't a concern of creating a worse fbi.
and, just a thought: why aren't there leftist movements ready to sweep into power? could it be because of "not as bad" federal agencies crushing these in their infancy? (oh no, what if the "bad" fbi assassinates the next martin luther king! lol)
furthermore, even having said the above, i don't necessarily disagree that it is wise to keep liberal institutions around for the time being. that's not an unreasonable take, but one which could be discussed. what i took issue with, and what is unreasonable imho, is the fact users of this site will thoughtless drag BJG or some one else, for only the most superficial reasons (here the outward appearance that she is mindlessly endorsing rightist policy prescriptions; and because she wanted to have the dems on the record that they don't support MM4A (or whatever that completely, terminally online "debate" was about) i guess.)
I just think it's sad BJG thinks the left is in any position to leverage this "outrage" reactionaries have against the FBI, even if it was real. The best possible outcome with the current state of the American left is being used as a useful idiot by reactionaries and immediately discarded afterwards. Neither BJG or anyone like her are in a position where pitting reactionaries against each other is even possible as a strategy, let alone advisable.
It's not that I think the FBI needs to be kept around, but I think the "left" should avoid discussing how we can use worse reactionaries against the FBI when we're not at all in a position to do that, let alone pick up the pieces afterwards. As @MaoistLandlord said, all this will accomplish is alienating people who are negatively affected by reactionaries like MTG.
deleted by creator
i hear you. i appreciate your response, and i always should apologize for being a prick.
i agree that the populist right is a mostly a fiction, and it is really difficult to imagine how they could exist without their slavish deposition to capital (or migrating left). (i use this as an example, but agree that it is quite unlikely to come to pass.)
understood re-feds. i think whether or not we support getting rid of fbi (which is a fanciful, affective/rhetorical move by MTG anyway, not a serious proposal), it's useful to use this as a rhetorical opportunity to underscore the history of bad fed things (if only for sharping the understanding for ourselves). i take this to be what BJG is doing here, and of course making content (which is shameful, but necessary for some, before socialism). cheers.
deleted by creator
This is a ridiculous comparison, the Freikorps was a paramilitary and actively killed Weimar government supporters, and on top of it when the Nazi Party rose to prominence they and the remaining Freikorps supported each other.
You're literally just stringing words together.
What exactly do you think the eventual relationship between the remnants of the FBI and open American fascism will be? These people are fundamentally on the same side, which is part of the reason trying to play them against each other won't work. Whatever shallow grudge they have against each other is nothing compared to the shared support for reaction and opposition to progress.
It's not meant to be an accurate historical metaphor, it's meant to make a point that you're not going to succeed by "taking advantage of" the "opposition" reactionaries have to other reactionaries. The fact that pitting the Nazis against the Freikorps wouldn't have worked is the point of the comparison, not that they're 1:1 interchangeable with the FBI and Trump's clique.
You're missing the point. The Freikorps wasn't defeated by fascists, it was "demobilized" by the Weimar military (Reichswehr) because it was a deranged death cult. The Nazis supported the Freikorps.
If a metaphor doesn't make sense, just don't fucking make it.
OK, then ignore the metaphor and read the rest of the comment, which unambiguously explains the point.
I acknowledge it was a clumsy metaphor at best, lol.
That's obvious, which is why I didn't comment on it. I just think the worst thing you can do for one's side is make a shitty argument in support of it.
Fair enough, lol. I agree it was a shitty metaphor. I should have known to resist the urge to make a Weimar comparison. It's always fun to do for the rhetorical impact, but they never really fit and I end up (as you said) just stringing words together.
I think it'll be fine if you just study it more. Making such analogies is not untenable; I have gotten a lot of mileage out of explaining things using the Chinese Civil War, for instance.
A slightly closer analogy would be just using the other entity that I mentioned, the Reichswehr, in place of the Freikorps. Still not great, but it's at least an imperialist organization that the Nazis really did destroy in order to replace it with a much more effective and reactionary force (the Wehrmacht), which did also have members from the old force join the new one.
:07: to a metaphor-maker with a better understanding of G*rman history.
I'm learneding! :gold-antifa: