July 17, 2023 - 4:00pm
In the 20th century, the ultimate expression of red-brown politics — that is to say, the meeting point of far-Left and far-Right ideas — was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in which Stalin’s USSR and Hitler’s Germany carved up Eastern Europe between them. It came to an end when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, but the Pact stands as proof that, when it suits them, the political extremes are capable of uniting against the centre.
Does this warning from history have any relevance to us today? In an essay published last week, the British writer and journalist Paul Mason argues that the contemporary Left is under threat from a form of red-brown politics, in which “the conspiracy theories and obsessions of the far left and far right are becoming merged” .
He identifies this strain of thinking with antisemitism of the kind that shamed the Labour Party; expressions of solidarity with Vladimir Putin’s Russia against Nato; hostility to “wokeness”; support for Brexit; and belief in various conspiracy theories. It’s especially when these various stances overlap that Mason diagnoses a nasty case of the red-browns.
But just how extensive is this threat? Are we talking about an irrelevant subset of cranks on the extreme Left? Or is it characteristic of what Mason calls a “broad, anti-elite conspiracy culture”?
He appears to lean towards the latter in a tweet from the weekend concerning Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who recently made widely reported and highly controversial remarks about Ashkenazi Jews and the Covid virus. Commenting sarcastically, Mason said: “No, Paul, your warnings about an emerging Anglosphere red-brown ideology are totally OTT”.
Of course, Kennedy is not a red: he’s a US Democrat and a scion of the party’s most famous family to boot. Nor do his often eccentric ideas make him a brown, given that he has angrily denied recent charges of antisemitism. What we can say is that RFK Jr is symptomatic of a new politics, in which distinctions between the anti-establishment Left and the anti-establishment Right are becoming increasingly blurred.
The problem with sticking a “red-brown” label on this phenomenon is that it risks tarring all critics of the liberal elite with the same brush. Surely, those in charge of the West’s political, cultural and economic decline ought to be criticised. Further, policies like the mass roll-out of Covid vaccines and western support for Ukraine should be scrutinised — and I say that as a pro-vaxxer and supporter of Nato expansion.
What’s more, it is entirely reasonable for Left-wingers to oppose the impact of uncontrolled immigration on wage levels, or the European Union as an embodiment of neoliberal principles like the free movement of capital, or wokeness as a threat to working-class solidarity. They don’t need to borrow a single idea from the Right to reach these conclusions: they just need to understand democratic socialism as, say, Clement Attlee would have done.
Of course, anti-establishment politicians — whether of the Left or Right — should be subject to criticism too. Yet the red-brown label, harking back as it does to the ideologies of the 20th century, is still unhelpful.
For the most part, we’re not talking about Stalinists or fascists here, but instead something very different. Totalitarianism is the subjugation of the individual to the collective, but the appeal of 21st century populism and conspiracy theories is rooted in the very opposite: individualism stripped of all bounds — including the constraints of reality. That’s not a good thing either, but it can’t be opposed unless it’s correctly identified.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere is a reason populism is on the rise. The political, social, economic, academic and cultural elite are failing the people they are supposed to lead. It’s as simple as that.
The use of the term conspiracy has lost all meaning to me. What are all these conspiracy theories floating around out there? We are forever hearing about conspiracy theories. What are they?
Indeed. When so-called conspiracy theories are eventually found to have a high likelihood of being true (lab leak) or are pushed by the political/media elite to discredit enemies (Russian collusion), the term becomes meaningless.
I think you just conspired to get a thumbs up from me by making a reasonable and convincing argument!…and it worked! 😉
Conspiracies
Misinformation
Disinformation
I’m so sick of these terms. They’re nothing more than dog whistles to activate your political allies.
And don’t get me started on QAnon. I’m a well informed guy and I really have no idea what this is.
You forgot the new one, Malinformation. It means true, but we don’t want you to know about it.
That may be the present meaning of Malinformation, but I bet that wasn’t what it was supposed to mean when it was created. The Powers That Be would never create a term that so devastatingly described their recent behavior.
That may be the present meaning of Malinformation, but I bet that wasn’t what it was supposed to mean when it was created. The Powers That Be would never create a term that so devastatingly described their recent behavior.
You forgot the new one, Malinformation. It means true, but we don’t want you to know about it.
Conspiracies
Misinformation
Disinformation
I’m so sick of these terms. They’re nothing more than dog whistles to activate your political allies.
And don’t get me started on QAnon. I’m a well informed guy and I really have no idea what this is.
A ‘conspiracy’ is an imaginary crime, used by the DOJ to pile on extra charges and punishments. Any two people talking about their plans is a ‘conspiracy’. Its rather similar to an imaginary ‘hate crime’.
I think QAnon holds to an obvious, and ludicrous, conspiracy theory. The idea that Klaus Schwab runs the world and presumably the various governments are pure puppets is also a conspiracy theory.
Read what the WEF says about itself: instead of using the word ” rule”, it speaks of “shaping” every aspect of global life. A difference without a distinction. And not a theory; it is an agenda.
They’ve even published a book on their plans! People still claim conspiracy! Amazing.
They’ve even published a book on their plans! People still claim conspiracy! Amazing.
Read what the WEF says about itself: instead of using the word ” rule”, it speaks of “shaping” every aspect of global life. A difference without a distinction. And not a theory; it is an agenda.
It is not that the elites are failing the people it is that they are using the power of the state and corporations to impose polices which actively harm the people and which the people oppose.
By the way Attlee fired the starting gun on mass migration despite the serious misgivings of some in his party
Indeed. When so-called conspiracy theories are eventually found to have a high likelihood of being true (lab leak) or are pushed by the political/media elite to discredit enemies (Russian collusion), the term becomes meaningless.
I think you just conspired to get a thumbs up from me by making a reasonable and convincing argument!…and it worked! 😉
A ‘conspiracy’ is an imaginary crime, used by the DOJ to pile on extra charges and punishments. Any two people talking about their plans is a ‘conspiracy’. Its rather similar to an imaginary ‘hate crime’.
I think QAnon holds to an obvious, and ludicrous, conspiracy theory. The idea that Klaus Schwab runs the world and presumably the various governments are pure puppets is also a conspiracy theory.
It is not that the elites are failing the people it is that they are using the power of the state and corporations to impose polices which actively harm the people and which the people oppose.
By the way Attlee fired the starting gun on mass migration despite the serious misgivings of some in his party
There is a reason populism is on the rise. The political, social, economic, academic and cultural elite are failing the people they are supposed to lead. It’s as simple as that.
The use of the term conspiracy has lost all meaning to me. What are all these conspiracy theories floating around out there? We are forever hearing about conspiracy theories. What are they?
Paul Mason is an utter fool. Not sure why anyone still listens to him after his farcical association with Corbynism.
Viewing current political trends through the lens of 1930s politics (while understanding neither) is his entire M.O.
He isn’t an utter fool – he is right on the extreme concentration of wealth occurring in many modern western countries, particularly the US and UK it has to be said. The Right takes about this but as we saw with Trump, can’t really bring itself to address it in a meaningful way
Whether Mason’s assumed neo-Marxist prescriptions are the right solution (actually many of them seem pretty moderate to me) is another matter perhaps.
His ‘Postcapitalism’ book involved ”fully-automated luxury communism” as a prescription, among assumptions about a future post-scarcity society.
His ‘Postcapitalism’ book involved ”fully-automated luxury communism” as a prescription, among assumptions about a future post-scarcity society.
He isn’t an utter fool – he is right on the extreme concentration of wealth occurring in many modern western countries, particularly the US and UK it has to be said. The Right takes about this but as we saw with Trump, can’t really bring itself to address it in a meaningful way
Whether Mason’s assumed neo-Marxist prescriptions are the right solution (actually many of them seem pretty moderate to me) is another matter perhaps.
Paul Mason is an utter fool. Not sure why anyone still listens to him after his farcical association with Corbynism.
Viewing current political trends through the lens of 1930s politics (while understanding neither) is his entire M.O.
“(T)he Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in which Stalin’s USSR and Hitler’s Germany carved up Eastern Europe between them” only proved that these “extremes” were really just the same thing – determined dictatorships willing to do anything for power. They weren’t uniting against “the middle,” they were uniting against the other extreme, the one that is virtuous, valid, and necessary: Freedom.
“(T)he Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in which Stalin’s USSR and Hitler’s Germany carved up Eastern Europe between them” only proved that these “extremes” were really just the same thing – determined dictatorships willing to do anything for power. They weren’t uniting against “the middle,” they were uniting against the other extreme, the one that is virtuous, valid, and necessary: Freedom.
The most striking thing about this latest controversy over something RFK Jr. has said is the over-the-top reaction of the media. There was a time when a candidate for President would have been asked to clarify his remarks, to explain himself, but because the elites see RFK Jr. as a threat they immediately jumped to the most uncharitable view of the situation and declare him a raving lunatic antisemite. RFK Jr. is not an antisemite. I haven’t decided if he is a raving lunatic yet and I know I won’t get any help from the mainstream media determining whether or not he is.
In a conversation about bioweapons designed to kill based on race, he mentioned studies that show that Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews fare better when infected by Covid due to genetic factors, there are reputable studies that make this claim. I think Kennedy misspoke when he said we don’t know if it was engineered that way and did not mean to imply a conspiracy between Jews and the Chinese to kill the rest of us. You really have to hate someone to jump to the conclusion that they really believe something so ludicrous or be very afraid of them.
Again, proper journalists would have given RFK Jr. a chance to explain himself but since the elites and their minions in the media see dissent as a threat to their hegemony, they jump on any chance to discredit him. CNN and MSNBC even have the gall to admit that they don’t think he should be allowed on the air. How can anyone want to get their news from paternalistic fools who think they have to be protected from ideas.
Of course, CNN doesn’t care about protecting its viewers, they care about protecting their bosses.
The most striking thing about this latest controversy over something RFK Jr. has said is the over-the-top reaction of the media. There was a time when a candidate for President would have been asked to clarify his remarks, to explain himself, but because the elites see RFK Jr. as a threat they immediately jumped to the most uncharitable view of the situation and declare him a raving lunatic antisemite. RFK Jr. is not an antisemite. I haven’t decided if he is a raving lunatic yet and I know I won’t get any help from the mainstream media determining whether or not he is.
In a conversation about bioweapons designed to kill based on race, he mentioned studies that show that Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews fare better when infected by Covid due to genetic factors, there are reputable studies that make this claim. I think Kennedy misspoke when he said we don’t know if it was engineered that way and did not mean to imply a conspiracy between Jews and the Chinese to kill the rest of us. You really have to hate someone to jump to the conclusion that they really believe something so ludicrous or be very afraid of them.
Again, proper journalists would have given RFK Jr. a chance to explain himself but since the elites and their minions in the media see dissent as a threat to their hegemony, they jump on any chance to discredit him. CNN and MSNBC even have the gall to admit that they don’t think he should be allowed on the air. How can anyone want to get their news from paternalistic fools who think they have to be protected from ideas.
Of course, CNN doesn’t care about protecting its viewers, they care about protecting their bosses.
Was there ever a bigger fool than Marxist revolutionary turned establishment stooge Paul Mason? The Labour Party’s highest priority should be to keep him out of Parliament.
Was there ever a bigger fool than Marxist revolutionary turned establishment stooge Paul Mason? The Labour Party’s highest priority should be to keep him out of Parliament.
There is a clip of Paul Mason being put to task by Constantine Kisin regarding people being “de-banked”. In this clip, Paul Mason defends the banks to the hilt, which is rather odd as most of his career comentating on politics and economics shows him to be extremely adversarial to them. Here, however, we see how these two extemes (neoliberal corporatism and central government regulation) come together against the centre (people who need bank accounts to live, which is pretty much everyone).
Of course, it might actually be useful to have a cogent definition of left, right and by extension centre*. We can then add qualifiers, such as ‘far,’ or ‘extreme’ later.**
This is, of course, complicated because the modern world contains a great number of complex issues that can each broken down into further complex items. Each may be viewed as an axis of left to right. Therefore it would be more accurate to represent an individuals political leaning as a graph, not a linear spectrum.
There are examples of 2D views of political leaning: the political compass plots economy against social views (producing quadrants of conservatism, libertarianism, socialism and liberalism), Jerry Pournelle plotted rationalism vs statism on a similar chart.
Although I prefer both to the simplisted 1D left to right spectrum, I’d argue they could easily be merged into a 4D model, but at that point it is unweildly to envisage, which is why our simple left to right dichotomy will not die.
Paul Mason wishes to abstract everything into those two boxes and attach “far” to any concept he doesn’t like. This makes it easy to dismiss people and views he doesn’t like.
To me, it appears very similar to the post financial crash period. It is my contention that identity politics as a political weapon wielded by the elite against most people was borne from this era. Although our different political groups, such as conservatives, socialists, statists etc. had different views on how things ought to function, there was strong agreement that the global elite, particularly financial, was rotten to the core. This agreement needed division, so was effected by pushing various issues that would surely have those disparate groups arguing amongst each other again. Mission accomplished.
Now, I’m going to put my tinfoil hat on: Paul Mason is stirring the pot at the sign of a populist who may find decent common ground among a great many disaffected voters from the left or right or the different quadrants of the political graph.
*Typically right for conservatism/opposition to change and left for progressive/change oriented politics. Thanks, France [republic n].
**Probably just fuzzy logic.
Mason’s increasingly ludicrous pronouncements probably have more to do with his political ambitions than any genuine belief.
I’m not sure how it is in the UK, but in the US the “2D” left-right split is the root cause of the stagnation that has plaqued us since before the Vietnam War. We the people could have knocked together perfectly functional compromises about gun control, abortion, public education (content and funding), progressive taxation, endangered species, etc. long ago if not for the political silliness of the Red v. Blue color wars.
A plurality of voters don’t even belong to either party. Not very impressive for a “representative democracy”, is it?
It is certainly similar. Not sure we have any policies as divisive as gun control over here, although we tried with the EU referendum.
The issues you mentioned cannot be solved as otherwise people will find their own, natural, centre. Not a centre dictated by the political classes.
It is certainly similar. Not sure we have any policies as divisive as gun control over here, although we tried with the EU referendum.
The issues you mentioned cannot be solved as otherwise people will find their own, natural, centre. Not a centre dictated by the political classes.
If that was a long-winded way of saying that this is yet another article by a writer stuck in the dreary, outmoded Left-Right dichotomy which is no longer relevant, then I would agree with you,
A fair, succinct summary.
Too much beer and not enough sleep before typing that.
A fair, succinct summary.
Too much beer and not enough sleep before typing that.
Mason’s increasingly ludicrous pronouncements probably have more to do with his political ambitions than any genuine belief.
I’m not sure how it is in the UK, but in the US the “2D” left-right split is the root cause of the stagnation that has plaqued us since before the Vietnam War. We the people could have knocked together perfectly functional compromises about gun control, abortion, public education (content and funding), progressive taxation, endangered species, etc. long ago if not for the political silliness of the Red v. Blue color wars.
A plurality of voters don’t even belong to either party. Not very impressive for a “representative democracy”, is it?
If that was a long-winded way of saying that this is yet another article by a writer stuck in the dreary, outmoded Left-Right dichotomy which is no longer relevant, then I would agree with you,
There is a clip of Paul Mason being put to task by Constantine Kisin regarding people being “de-banked”. In this clip, Paul Mason defends the banks to the hilt, which is rather odd as most of his career comentating on politics and economics shows him to be extremely adversarial to them. Here, however, we see how these two extemes (neoliberal corporatism and central government regulation) come together against the centre (people who need bank accounts to live, which is pretty much everyone).
Of course, it might actually be useful to have a cogent definition of left, right and by extension centre*. We can then add qualifiers, such as ‘far,’ or ‘extreme’ later.**
This is, of course, complicated because the modern world contains a great number of complex issues that can each broken down into further complex items. Each may be viewed as an axis of left to right. Therefore it would be more accurate to represent an individuals political leaning as a graph, not a linear spectrum.
There are examples of 2D views of political leaning: the political compass plots economy against social views (producing quadrants of conservatism, libertarianism, socialism and liberalism), Jerry Pournelle plotted rationalism vs statism on a similar chart.
Although I prefer both to the simplisted 1D left to right spectrum, I’d argue they could easily be merged into a 4D model, but at that point it is unweildly to envisage, which is why our simple left to right dichotomy will not die.
Paul Mason wishes to abstract everything into those two boxes and attach “far” to any concept he doesn’t like. This makes it easy to dismiss people and views he doesn’t like.
To me, it appears very similar to the post financial crash period. It is my contention that identity politics as a political weapon wielded by the elite against most people was borne from this era. Although our different political groups, such as conservatives, socialists, statists etc. had different views on how things ought to function, there was strong agreement that the global elite, particularly financial, was rotten to the core. This agreement needed division, so was effected by pushing various issues that would surely have those disparate groups arguing amongst each other again. Mission accomplished.
Now, I’m going to put my tinfoil hat on: Paul Mason is stirring the pot at the sign of a populist who may find decent common ground among a great many disaffected voters from the left or right or the different quadrants of the political graph.
*Typically right for conservatism/opposition to change and left for progressive/change oriented politics. Thanks, France [republic n].
**Probably just fuzzy logic.
I’ve never understood why people regard the Nazis as on the right. Hitler was just as keen on central control of the economy as Stalin, he just recognised that the Krupps and Thyssens would run enterprises better than some over-promoted party apparatchik and should be given a reasonable amount of freedom to do so.
Likewise, they were both keen on people displaying devotion to the Party and the cult of the Leader.
National Socialism. The clue’s in the name.
I’ve never understood why people regard the Nazis as on the right. Hitler was just as keen on central control of the economy as Stalin, he just recognised that the Krupps and Thyssens would run enterprises better than some over-promoted party apparatchik and should be given a reasonable amount of freedom to do so.
Likewise, they were both keen on people displaying devotion to the Party and the cult of the Leader.
National Socialism. The clue’s in the name.
Mason was a journalist. He’s now a would-be MP, activist and former member of the Trotskyist WPG. I don’t care what he thinks, says or does as I abide by the old saw, ‘never trust anyone who’s been a communist’ (a rule, I would add, I apply equally to fascists).
Oversimplified. Jack Straw, former head of tue Young CL, was a decent person and politician. . The former Trotskyites in the Cabinet were not.
Oversimplified. Jack Straw, former head of tue Young CL, was a decent person and politician. . The former Trotskyites in the Cabinet were not.
Mason was a journalist. He’s now a would-be MP, activist and former member of the Trotskyist WPG. I don’t care what he thinks, says or does as I abide by the old saw, ‘never trust anyone who’s been a communist’ (a rule, I would add, I apply equally to fascists).
Labour and the EU? In 1972 every political party and movement was split over joining the EU, except the Labour Party which was unitedly against. The far left was split. The CPGB was against and the Trotskyites were in favour. The National Front was against but Mosley’s party was in favour. The Tories were split, too, not right wing and left wing. I dont remember what the Liberal Party thought. So it was complicated, as was the relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939, not reducible at all to far left and far right.
Labour and the EU? In 1972 every political party and movement was split over joining the EU, except the Labour Party which was unitedly against. The far left was split. The CPGB was against and the Trotskyites were in favour. The National Front was against but Mosley’s party was in favour. The Tories were split, too, not right wing and left wing. I dont remember what the Liberal Party thought. So it was complicated, as was the relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939, not reducible at all to far left and far right.
Can you please report what Kennedy actually said and not regurgitate what the MSM has said about it? I subscribe to unherd because I trust the MSM about as far as I could throw their staff.
Can you please report what Kennedy actually said and not regurgitate what the MSM has said about it? I subscribe to unherd because I trust the MSM about as far as I could throw their staff.
I’m from the US and I think that all conspiracy theorists are covert employees of the CIA and FBI. They have been sent among us to distract us from what these organizations are REALLY up to.
I’m from the US and I think that all conspiracy theorists are covert employees of the CIA and FBI. They have been sent among us to distract us from what these organizations are REALLY up to.
There are arguable advantages and disadvantages of both Totalitarianism and Democracy, and the various slightly-different systems lying between them.
Dio Cassius preferred an Emperor to a Senate, saying that ‘it’s easier to find one good man than a hundred”. Voltaire called Democracy “rule by the rabble”. Mr Biden is however vehemently supportive of Democracy.
I suspect all systems can work well or badly, and all can make their people content or discontent. Are Chinese less content than Americans?
I would much prefer the cultural revolution we are experiencing in the west today, than the one that gripped China.
China is more Terry Gilliam’s Brazil than 1984 though. An incompetent dystopia is arguably worse than one where the trains run on time, or in modern China, where escalators don’t eat a person a week.
China is more Terry Gilliam’s Brazil than 1984 though. An incompetent dystopia is arguably worse than one where the trains run on time, or in modern China, where escalators don’t eat a person a week.
Mr Biden is more ‘vehemently supportive’ of kleptocracy than anything else, it would seem.
To hear Mr. Biden talk, you would assume he is “vehemently supportive” of something, but it would be very difficult to determine what that something was.
To hear Mr. Biden talk, you would assume he is “vehemently supportive” of something, but it would be very difficult to determine what that something was.
Content? Or free? I agree in one instance only, that the world was marginally better off with crazy dictators Gaddafi in Libya and Sadaam Hussein in Iraq. Marginally. The reason that both Iraq and Libya are even worse off today is that there is no history of freedom of conscience in those countries. They lack a Protestant Reformation and Enlightenment which caused Europe to form a basis of common law which can produce a free society.
I would much prefer the cultural revolution we are experiencing in the west today, than the one that gripped China.
Mr Biden is more ‘vehemently supportive’ of kleptocracy than anything else, it would seem.
Content? Or free? I agree in one instance only, that the world was marginally better off with crazy dictators Gaddafi in Libya and Sadaam Hussein in Iraq. Marginally. The reason that both Iraq and Libya are even worse off today is that there is no history of freedom of conscience in those countries. They lack a Protestant Reformation and Enlightenment which caused Europe to form a basis of common law which can produce a free society.
There are arguable advantages and disadvantages of both Totalitarianism and Democracy, and the various slightly-different systems lying between them.
Dio Cassius preferred an Emperor to a Senate, saying that ‘it’s easier to find one good man than a hundred”. Voltaire called Democracy “rule by the rabble”. Mr Biden is however vehemently supportive of Democracy.
I suspect all systems can work well or badly, and all can make their people content or discontent. Are Chinese less content than Americans?