cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/766438
Some of the replies and reposts have me chuckling.
American left is kinda nutty in that there are a lot of people siding with Blumenthal in the replies which I find insane. Some choice ones include a guy ridiculing Norton for calling Blumenthal’s turn right-wing. Some guy implying Norton is paid by Pfizer. Another one did not like how Norton covered the “freedom” convoy.
They need to readsettlers.org.
I could not care less if Norton stole money or intellectual property or whatever. It’s great if he did.
Eh, Settlers is kinda a bad book, has been done better since 1979, and includes stuff you learn in history class in school anyway.
The problem with the people supporting Blumenthal in the comments is that Twitter is filled with PatSocs and LaRouchites.
So fuck 'em
I liked settlers. It’s thesis was a little extreme, but I learned a lot of new stuff from it (probably because it’s old). Which parts did you learn in history class? In a way I don’t want patsocs to be able to group us in the Sakai stans, but I’d also like to promote it to spite them. Yes, there are better books now.
We are communists, we don’t automatically refuse extreme just because. Problem with it that it was undialectical and thus unmarxist.
includes stuff you learn in history class in school anyway.
dog what, did you go to school on the moon or something?
Uh, I was in a southern state. I learned a lof of what it talked about in several history classes before reaching college (which definitely did talk about this stuff as well).
What class did you learn about Bacon’s Rebellion in?
It’s sad how much the anti-vax cult has spread.
Because there is a kernel of truth. Reports about negative side effects were actively supressed in the west and people concerned about those effects were immediately equated to nazis. Perfect soil for radicalization.
What the fuck is the LaRouchite movement about anyway?
Lyndon LaRouche was in a Trotskyist org and split to make another. That org is famous for beating CPUSA people with nunchucks. That cult became full on fascist, and eventually turned into the Schiller Institute. After LaRouche’s death his cult still calls all environmentalists eco fascists, spreads conspiracy theories, and says anti-nato stuff. I think I heard they once said we could fit 100 billion people on earth.
To be fair, depending on the technological sophistication and architecture, you could fit that many on Earth. But I would highly advise against it.
Maybe if you want to factory farm humanity like the matrix.
Like a city-planet ecumenopolis.
Why is anti-vax a thing, again?
Mainly in the West, though of course, you see it with the PatSocs a lot.
it’s rabid in Western Europe as I recently found out. Restaurants wouldn’t even serve us when we wore masks. They’d tell us they were booked up or some other nonsense and turn us away only to let the next wandering group right in. Also the amount of people that fake coughed in my face was unreal.
This whole situation is crap. I have respect for all parties involved and I get informed from both platforms. Yes, I would probably agree far more with Ben Norton over Max Blumenthall ideologically.
But I tend to judge people based on their work, and Max (alongside Aaron Mate) are doing excellent work in covering US imperialist and capitalist attrocities. So does Ben. And that’s the only part of their relationship to me, as their audience, that matters. Everything else is borderline sectarianism.
Couldn’t have said it better. GZ and Norton serve different purposes to me.
Hell, the Duran ppl, who iirc are paleocons, have extremely useful analysis in certain areas. I think they’re very mistaken in other areas.
At some point recently I freed myself from ideological bloc discipline as it relates to media sources and just started sampling broadly and making up my own mind according to my values. It’s liberating.
I could not agree more. This is my sentiment as well. Once you become confident enough in your own ideological convictions as a Marxist-Leninist there is no reason why you can’t draw on sources with all sorts of different ideological inclinations as long as the analysis they provide is solid and valuable. I find it is a sign of weak conviction in one’s own position when someone tries to exclude sources based on their ideological orientation rather than their credibility on a given issue (because i don’t believe in blanket credibility…everyone has their biases). I’m not going to suddenly become an anti-vax conspiracy theorist because i read Grayzone articles, and I’m not going to become a paleoconservative by listening to the Duran, because my political and ideological views were not formed on the basis of online personalities like is unfortunately the case for many among the “breadtube” left and who seem to think that simply by listening to people who are not perfectly aligned with you ideologically you will suddenly change your core beliefs about the world. If your views are informed by a solid, scientific understanding of the world, you are if not completely immune then at least highly resistent to anti-scientific nonsense and you can pick and choose what is valuable and true from the analysis of people with whom you have disagreements and discard the garbage.
I’ve had conversations with ‘leftists’ who religiously ignore right wing literature and are shocked to hear me cite it after revealing that I’m a Marxist. Concrete analysis of concrete conditions and the ruthless criticism of all that exists mfs. That means you’ve got to learn to read things you disagree with.
You can’t treat it like a team sport where you assume that your side has a monopoly on knowledge (well, MLs do, but that’s different 😉) or as if contrary views are contagious. If you’re at risk of reading a biography of Reagan and becoming a neoliberal, perhaps you’re not as principled as you’d like to think.
You need to remind those people that we wouldn’t even have had Marxism if Marx had chosen to ignore everything Adam Smith had written in the way they choose to ignore everything that can be labeled “right wing”.
Part of being politically (and scientifically) literate is being able to treat sources critically.
Got to wonder how much of this is pushed by state security services. People are far less dangerous if they don’t know what’s really happening. Iirc @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml is regularly challenged e.g. for citing Rand. As if you can know what the right wing thinks by ignoring it’s bloody think tanks (which happen to be quite open about the horrors they want to unleash on the world and, lo and behold, whose policy papers often become policy a few months or years later).
It’s absolutely incredible how much of this stuff is right there in the open. The really sad part of all this is that even when this information is officially published and accessible, people will still refuse to acknowledge it. This is what we’re up against.
About ten seconds after I posted this I saw that you’d been heavily down voted for saying that China has long term economic plans. It’s misplaced but I can understand libs being mad at praise for China. But mad at basic facts? Come on now.
It’s no coincidence that you find agreement over basic facts in the kinds of sources we’re talking about. Not always. And it can be spun in different ways. But, yeah, it’s just… yeah… I’m lost for words when I come across it. Online anti-communists are deeply unserious yet entirely unaware of it, apparently. They can have strong and what they think are rigorous viewpoints without ever really having delved into the topic.
Yeah, I’m with Ben on this one. The whole thing from Max Blumenthal appears to be incredibly malicious. First question is, why come out with this now. What is he trying to achieve with this smear campaign. As Ben arrives in a new country to benefit from the goodwill of his hosts, citizens must be warned that a criminal mind is lurking in their midst. Seems a tad much, is he warning all of China against him?
The only thing I could think of would be him trying to get Ben’s visa revoked. China has pretty strict non-criminal record requirements on their visas (at least on work visa, not sure about other types).
I guess, but if he thinks China’s going to revoke Ben’s visa over a twitter smear then he’s even more of a clown than I thought.
