I watched the GG interview and was very aware of her hesitations around questions that pushed into uncomfortable territory around left-right convergence.
I wasn't, and still am not, sure whether Sahra Wagenknecht was too timid or Glenn Greenwald too insistent on the possibility of seamless blending between traditional enemies.
I have to ask though: on what planet are "economic redistribution and restrictions to free market ideology" hard left dogmas? This is to repeat the same sort of silliness Republicans indulge in when they called Obama a "socialist".
There is literally no leftist who does not advocate redistribution and rejects free market ideology. This is the socialist programme which has come to be known as leftism. This is neither Marxist, nor Leninist, nor particularly Social Democrat (the latter which endorses free market ideology), but certainly Wagenknecht stands for this program.
My question was, and is, how is standard common-a-garden left liberal policy like redistribution and restriction on free markets in any way, sense, or form "hard left dogma"? Or do you also believe Obama was a socialist?
It is leftist dogma in what I call leftism, into which the radical left has collapsed. The economic horizon of the left is state control and redistribution. I do not understand what this has to do with Obama being a socialist or not. For what goes as socialism today, Obama certainly is a socialist, i.e. a capitalist. By Marxian standards, socialism is a subform of capitalism. So I do not quite grasp the question.
OK. I wasn't really sure where you were coming from with "hard left", a term that for decades has been used to describe people to the "left" of social democrats and all that mealy-mouthed version of "the left". You are apparently using it to describe everything from centrist liberals to ML larpers on substack, which makes it such a broad term that it verges on meaningless.
Could you suggest a policy or programme that would meet your standard of "Marxist"?
In single-handedly embodying the Gernan political opposition in a Bundestag parliament gloriously united when it comes to the major topics of war and plandemics, her "rigid" centre-left views are reflected as being the voice of the sovereign time and again in polls, and in a parliamentary democracy, you need an opposition. So in being the one talking head on the TV talk formats, she has done her part in saving Germany, no less than from the embarrassment of forming a gleichschaltung 5+ party, 1 opinion government
I watched the GG interview and was very aware of her hesitations around questions that pushed into uncomfortable territory around left-right convergence.
I wasn't, and still am not, sure whether Sahra Wagenknecht was too timid or Glenn Greenwald too insistent on the possibility of seamless blending between traditional enemies.
I have to ask though: on what planet are "economic redistribution and restrictions to free market ideology" hard left dogmas? This is to repeat the same sort of silliness Republicans indulge in when they called Obama a "socialist".
There is literally no leftist who does not advocate redistribution and rejects free market ideology. This is the socialist programme which has come to be known as leftism. This is neither Marxist, nor Leninist, nor particularly Social Democrat (the latter which endorses free market ideology), but certainly Wagenknecht stands for this program.
"Redistribution" is a pretty wild term.
How about just bringing taxes back?
The more money a person has, the harder it should be to make more.
I really think it's that simple.
My question was, and is, how is standard common-a-garden left liberal policy like redistribution and restriction on free markets in any way, sense, or form "hard left dogma"? Or do you also believe Obama was a socialist?
It is leftist dogma in what I call leftism, into which the radical left has collapsed. The economic horizon of the left is state control and redistribution. I do not understand what this has to do with Obama being a socialist or not. For what goes as socialism today, Obama certainly is a socialist, i.e. a capitalist. By Marxian standards, socialism is a subform of capitalism. So I do not quite grasp the question.
OK. I wasn't really sure where you were coming from with "hard left", a term that for decades has been used to describe people to the "left" of social democrats and all that mealy-mouthed version of "the left". You are apparently using it to describe everything from centrist liberals to ML larpers on substack, which makes it such a broad term that it verges on meaningless.
Could you suggest a policy or programme that would meet your standard of "Marxist"?
you can check out one of my more recent books: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538160152/The-Conformist-Rebellion-Marxist-Critiques-of-the-Contemporary-Left
There is also a review in Monthly Review https://mronline.org/2023/01/31/the-conformist-rebellion-marxist-critiques-of-the-contemporary-left/
I Haven't bought the conformist rebellion ,but, i thought the review was very helpful
I went to the protest in Berlin and was really disappointed to hear her shout "Neonazis and Reichsbürger have no place here".
I was unaware of the “nazi” label during covid.
Unbelievable.
In single-handedly embodying the Gernan political opposition in a Bundestag parliament gloriously united when it comes to the major topics of war and plandemics, her "rigid" centre-left views are reflected as being the voice of the sovereign time and again in polls, and in a parliamentary democracy, you need an opposition. So in being the one talking head on the TV talk formats, she has done her part in saving Germany, no less than from the embarrassment of forming a gleichschaltung 5+ party, 1 opinion government