Media foaming over Oliver Stone's film....

[RadioRaheem84]

I know that people in here get upset at me for getting upset at things that are obvious to some of you veterans, but as a relatively new person to socialism, and finally becoming some what accustomed to the inside mechanisms of propaganda, it's really amazing to see it work in action.

The Wall Street Journal released the hound dog, Ronald Radosh, a far right wing loon who penned a horrible essay in the Anti-Chomsky Reader and frequent contributor of that right wing nutjob site FrontPageMag.com, to pen an attack review on Stone's film. Radosh was apparently upset at Stone for not showing a favorable light on Chile's economic success due to Pinochet!

Not only that, but the NY Times apointed the same idiot who was supportive of the anti-Chavez coup (and made the Times retract their support) to right a review on the film!

Beyond this, a whole host of reviewers have jumped on the anti-South of the Border bandwagon. Even the so called "lefties" in the liberal press have come out against the film. I mean even if you have your doubts about Chavez, why invest so much in obvious oppositionist propaganda?

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5458

Anyways, thank god, Tariq Ali and Oliver Stone have the backbone to shred their drivel:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5457

[Guerrilla22]

This really should be no surprise. Someone makes a movie criticizing US foreign policy in Latin America and conservatives and liberals in the US alike jump to attack it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well the thing that makes this so wild to me is that the media has unleashed rather right wing loons like Radosh and the Times writer to write reviews. One would have to really be in the know to see this as a blatant hitjob. It just fascinates me that the "liberal" media can mimic the right wing press.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well the thing that makes this so wild to me is that the media has unleashed rather right wing loons like Radosh and the Times writer to write reviews. One would have to really be in the know to see this as a blatant hitjob. It just fascinates me that the "liberal" media can mimic the right wing press.

And yet I've continued to hear so much diatribe by anti-chavez critics, whether anarchist or marxist, that Chavez & his socialist model is a "phony" because they aren't attacked by the U.S. or any other capitalist power. :rolleyes:

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I know that people in here get upset at me for getting upset at things that are obvious to some of you veterans, but as a relatively new person to socialism, and finally becoming some what accustomed to the inside mechanisms of propaganda, it's really amazing to see it work in action.

The Wall Street Journal released the hound dog, Ronald Radosh, a far right wing loon who penned a horrible essay in the Anti-Chomsky Reader and frequent contributor of that right wing nutjob site FrontPageMag.com, to pen an attack review on Stone's film. Radosh was apparently upset at Stone for not showing a favorable light on Chile's economic success due to Pinochet!

Not only that, but the NY Times apointed the same idiot who was supportive of the anti-Chavez coup (and made the Times retract their support) to right a review on the film!

Beyond this, a whole host of reviewers have jumped on the anti-South of the Border bandwagon. Even the so called "lefties" in the liberal press have come out against the film. I mean even if you have your doubts about Chavez, why invest so much in obvious oppositionist propaganda?

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5458

Anyways, thank god, Tariq Ali and Oliver Stone have the backbone to shred their drivel:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5457
Wow Pinochet's success? The only reason Chile didn't go totally under while Pinochet was in power was because he kept one of the major copper mines nationalized and then nationalized more companies when that was the company holding the country together which actually led to some growth. When he tried implementing his free market experiments with Milton Friedman pulling the strings Chile failed fucking horribly. Right-wingers spewing this type of propaganda reminds me of a concept called doublethink.

But that they had a clown like this write a review for the movie is not much of a surprise.

[Guerrilla22]

Wow Pinochet's success? The only reason Chile didn't go totally under while Pinochet was in power was because he kept one of the major copper mines nationalized and then nationalized more companies when that was the company holding the country together which actually led to some growth. When he tried implementing his free market experiments with Milton Friedman pulling the strings Chile failed fucking horribly. Right-wingers spewing this type of propaganda reminds me of a concept called doublethink.

But that they had a clown like this write a review for the movie is not much of a surprise.

Yes, conservatives always like to point to the economic "success" of Chile under Pinochet while conveniently ignoring the economic crisis of 1980 and the fact the Chicago boys got kicked out after the fact.

[RadioRaheem84]

That was a full scale depression in Chile. No miracle only bailouts and massive transfer of wealth. But it is wild that the press is as right wing as rush limbaugh when it needs to be.

[R_P_A_S]

Is this film out yet?

[Barry Lyndon]

And yet I've continued to hear so much diatribe by anti-chavez critics, whether anarchist or marxist, that Chavez & his socialist model is a "phony" because they aren't attacked by the U.S. or any other capitalist power. :rolleyes:

Yes, Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution are demonized non-stop in the mainstream US media across the political spectrum, and have been attacked with military coup de tats, CIA assassination attempts, and military encirclement, because Chavez is a just a 'petit-bourgeois populist' caudillo who poses no threat to the capitalist-imperialist system. Riiiggghht.

I doubt the ruling class is aware the left-coms even exist.