Does the far left need its own Glenn Beck

[The Idler]

Does the far left need its own Glenn Beck i.e. a simple populist?

[¿Que?]

Does the far left need its own Glenn Beck i.e. a simple populist?
Who slanders the right with misleading comments, out of context quotes, half-truths and lies.

As a tactical maneuver, yes. But also, representatives of the left should distance themselves from such figure.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This thread shows the disconnect between agitation and education.

I'm OK with having a bad cop "demagogue" or two with agitational skills, so long as such persons are subordinated to more educated elements.

[Wolf Larson]

No. This would only create a confused mass movement in support of the state. The state exists to facilitate and protect capitalist markets foreign and domestic. There are already generic liberal propagandists and the result of their mindless subjective drivel has been sycophantic support for Obama. We need intellectuals or people who can explain whats really going on who have mass appeal and can rhetorically navigate around the anti collectivist feelings in America. The thing is, the MEDIA exists to manufacture consent. An actual anti capitalist personality will never be put on the airwaves. Never. That would go against the entire point of their media consolidation into the hands of a few capitalist conglomerates. What we need is funding for anarchist/socialist/communist TV/Radio/Internet programing [documentaries, symposiums etc] but it would serve our interests well to get the message out in more generic terms somewhat like Nader and the Green party has tried to do. They focus on corporatism which seems more appealing the less involved political mind. Anyhow, as far as Media look at Democracy Now and other liberal stations on the Radio. All they do is manufacture support for the state. For Obama. Chris Welch/Amy Goodman = joke.

The Tea Party movement succeeded because the Koch brothers organized the so called grass roots while the media conglomerates created the psychological atmosphere. We lack both the funding from billionaires and the free 24/7 airtime on TV and Radio. We need more media/propaganda avenues. Fighting this wall of disinformation will take more than loosely organized internet posts and conversations with people at work. We need funding and we also need to put some fire under our own asses when it comes to organizing without funding. The capitalists are smart. They know there is a recession every ten years or so and have learned to anticipate socialist kick back during the recessions. This Tea Party movement is no accident it was a carefully planned operation to insure the perpetuation of capitalism on into the future. It was designed to keep class awareness from manifesting during all of these bail outs, wars and structural adjustments. It has worked. Obama is facilitating staus quo capitalist policies and it's being called socialism by the corporate media to insure no grass roots socialist movement takes hold. It has nothing to do with Obama as they know he is a capitalist. It' all about controlling the public's perception. Setting the normative standard so far to the right that the only effect left wing organizing will have is pulling us back to the center. It's a psychological program meant to keep capitalism going at the workers expense. Democrats and Republicans are both working to facilitate the same agenda. The partisan game actually manufactures consent for the various policies which in reality are no different. The right wing movement has , in reality, manufactured consent from the left for a right wing capitalist health care bill.

[Chambered Word]

We don't need to look like more of a bunch of lunatics than the right already says we are.

[CartCollector]

I think the first step is to take back the word socialism. Once Americans understand that capitalism means capitalist ownership of the means of production and the government, and socialism means worker's control of the means of production and the government, then the nonsense about Obama being a socialist will be gone. It will once again be possible to be both anti-US government and socialist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Does the far left need its own Glenn Beck i.e. a simple populist?

Michael Moore is sort of that right now. He speaks pretty well the left-wing populist anger. He speaks in a way that makes sense to working class people (and I don't mean he speaks simply or drops the "g" from the end of words) - the liberal talking heads have to speak all this mumbo-jumbo that doesn't make sense because they are trying to confuse workers. Moore simply says things like: if you are going to bail out the auto-industry, why not take it over instead and build wind-turbines and public transit instead of closing factories and laying off workers. That's working class logic - reformist logic, yes, but it's much more appealing to workers that the shit that liberal apologists have been serving up. If Moore made a clean break from the Democrats (again) I think it would be a signal of some positive changes happening among traditionally liberal-leaning workers.

But as far as someone who is really like Beck and fear-mongers and tells crazy conspiracies to whip people into a frenzy - absolutely not. It won't do us much good if the Ron Paul or Glen Bleck zombies or whatnot suddenly switched from pseuo-libertarianism to pseudo-socialism. Fear-mongering does not lead to a self-acting, conscious working class... it leads to followers and I think most of us on the left want to see working class leaders, not someone leading the working class - particularly on the basis of inflamitory stories and half-truths.

Radical organizers can not buy working class confidence in radical politics like bourgoise political groups can - we do not influence the media - lies are told about our intentions constantly. Because of all this, radicals need to be 100% honest to the working class at all times in order for people to trust us - if we overexaggerate then we loose all currency, if we whip people up and can not deliver, we loose credibility. We can and should lie to the upper classes, but not workers.

[Obrero Rebelde]

It's not what the reactionaries think or feel that matters. It's what the masses of the people will think or feel about a Glenn Beckish Left Wingnut that we should worry about.

The revolutionary Left in this country doesn't need more discrediting than we already get from the reactionaries, the right wing in general, the liberals and the ultra-"left".

I would agree with everyone who has already spoken in favor of raising the political consciousness and education of the masses.

It would be great, however, if we in the revolutionary Left can strive to develop the kinds of communication skills so apparently possessed by Barack Hussein Obama and so uncomonly demonstrated among our own.

Too many of our speakers sound too much like canned "Lefty" speeches, which is fine if we're just preaching to the red choir. But we can only win over the masses of the people if we can connect to their own concrete experiences and their mood of the moment, particularized to the cultures of the audiences we address.

Obrero Rebelde

[genstrike]

The problem isn't that the left doesn't have loudmouthed idiots. The problem is that our loudmouth idiots don't get the same platform to air their views as Glenn Beck

[CartCollector]

OK I have a question. Glenn Beck supports the interests of capitalists, and the only reason he gets a gigantic megaphone to shout at people is because of that support, correct? If that's true then why have a whole bunch of businesses cut sponsorship of his show?

[SandiNeesta]

OK I have a question. Glenn Beck supports the interests of capitalists, and the only reason he gets a gigantic megaphone to shout at people is because of that support, correct? If that's true then why have a whole bunch of businesses cut sponsorship of his show?
I think all these companies believed in him awhile back before Beck got completely full of himself and starting calling the president a racist and all the other completely ridiculous things he's been saying lately. I'm sure they agreed with his principles at one point but lately Fox has been letting him off the leash....which I'm sure helps ratings if not advertising. I guess they gotta draw the line somewhere to protect their image.

[Pawn Power]

Why would need are own fat ranting white man?