376
Trump administration plans $4 million for right-wing media in Europe, sources say (www.reuters.com)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
115 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Donald Trump's administration is planning to spend $4 million to bolster right-wing media in ‌Europe, part of a package of at least $25 million for civil society groups working on conservative causes in the region, according to four people familiar with the funding.

The grants risk deepening tensions between the Trump administration and European governments, some of which have already accused Washington of interfering in their domestic politics.

The U.S. ​State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) says the funding is meant to strengthen transatlantic ties and promote ​free speech. It comes as European countries prepare for elections over the next couple of years, and ⁠as the Trump administration openly backs Europe's populist right-wing and far-right parties.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago* (1 child)

Why do you believe that?

Dont give another example with the premise baked in, put it into words.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Because forms do not exist without the context of the whole. Systems are not just the sum of individual parts, the actual interactions of the parts determine the overall nature of how the parts fit together.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    That explains why context matters, but it still doesn't explain why analysing or comparing a part necessarily divorces it from that context. I can consider both the form of a policy and how it functions within the wider system. Where's the contradiction?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Because when you analyze the form as though it exists outside the system, and then use that form as a summation of reasons why a system is more left or right, you obfuscate the role it actually plays within the system. The form can only be analyzed within the system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (1 child)

    But that's the premise I keep asking you to establish. I haven't analysed anything as though it exists outside the system. You're defining any analysis of form as necessarily doing that, then using that definition to prove that it does. That's circular.

    The fact you cant explain this must be telling you something about your premise?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    You did, though. By saying "labor unions are left," you then looked at increased unionization within Europe as an example of why they are more left. You necessarily presuppose that unions themselves are left structures, even if the purpose of unions in imperialist countries is to placate the workers into maintaining imperialism. You are fully capable of comprehending my point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    I comprehend your point. I dispute the premise. You're asserting that the purpose of unions in imperialist countries is to placate workers and maintain imperialism, and therefore their function can't meaningfully be described as left-wing. That's your Marxist interpretation of their systemic role, not an objective property that follows from their existence within imperialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    How does it falling in line with Marxism make it non-objective? Could it be that left and right cannot be meaningfully understood as a simple spectrum, as I initially asserted?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    Marxism isn't non-objective by definition. Your interpretation isn't objective simply because it's Marxist. You're applying a particular theoretical framework to determine what these institutions “really” function to do, then treating that conclusion as proof that other frameworks are invalid.

    And I've never claimed left and right are a simple spectrum. Something can be multidimensional and still permit relative comparisons along particular dimensions

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent