John Stewart is a Tool

[fa2991]

Post links proving the "progressive" newscaster is still a bourgeois tool.

I'll start by giving you what is basically a list of times Jon has called Hugo Chavez a dictator :rolleyes:. As I write this, he's doing a bit making fun of "outdated" unions.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/?term=hugo+chavez&start=0

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, the man is a centrist tool. His rally to restore sanity is just a shot at leftist movements in the States. He equated right wing and left wing as one in the same extreme and thinks that his centrist liberalism is the rational approach.

He too has called Chavez a dictator and is a bit Zionist, not much but he likes to give room to Israeli supporters. His other show, Colbert Report (yes it's his show as a producer) has had Israeli ministers make the case for Israel.

I really cannot stand the guy. He has admitted to being pro-military and that half his writing staff is libertarian.

He represents what GA Cohen described as the convergence of Rawlsian Liberalism and Libertarian ideals. He also represents the type of politics I want leftists to really oppose instead of collaborate with.

Fuck Stewart.

[gorillafuck]

Edit: nevermind.

[Die Rote Fahne]

He's a liberal.

He's not a socialist or a social democrat.

Why do you people feel a need to get upset at one of the few sane people in the media?

I watch and enjoy The Daily Show. It makes me laugh. He makes right wingers look like the idiots they are.

[x371322]

He's a liberal.

He's not a socialist or a social democrat.

Why do you people feel a need to get upset at one of the few sane people in the media?

I watch and enjoy The Daily Show. It makes me laugh. He makes right wingers look like the idiots they are.

Yup. The Daily Show is on COMEDY CENTRAL. It's meant to make you laugh. Getting upset with John Stewart because of his politics, would be like getting upset with Bill o'reilly because his show's not funny.

Don't get all bent outta shape fa2991 and RadioRaheem. Everything's gonna be alright.

[fa2991]

Why do you people feel a need to get upset at one of the few sane people in the media?

It's this attitude I dislike. This idea that Jon is somehow better than the rest of the media because he's funny. His politics, beliefs, and information are still wrongheaded and reactionary, and people lose sight of that.

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh gosh. It's ridiculous to assume that his show isn't politically relevant because it's on Comedy Central. That's the argument he likes to play to deflect criticism of his show, yet every politician, journalist and buisnessman is dying to get on his show. It is politically relevant, even if it's sarcasm.

Also, how could zeekloid see his appeal to rationality rally as not also a shot at leftists? He denounced any sort of accusation of Bush as a war criminal. He made women wanting peace and justice look as crazy as tea partiers.

His show may be funny but do not act like the guy doesn't consider himself relevant.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's this attitude I dislike. This idea that Jon is somehow better than the rest of the media because he's funny. His politics, beliefs, and information are still wrongheaded and reactionary, and people lose sight of that.

I realize that. So does any socialist who watches him. But we arent sposed to expect a socialist to be on mainstream television.

Just be glad that he's the least bit rational. That way theres some sanity in american discourse.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Question for you. Does this mean that we should only watch openly socialist news shows/listen to openly socialist news podcasts and radio broadcasts/read openly socialist newspapers and websites? It is good sometimes to take a load off and watch some funny men talk about serious things in a funny way. Otherwise we'll all end up like MaoistRebelNews.

EDIT: Directed at comrade fa2991.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why is there almost always a need for some leftists to coddle liberals as if they're on our side? They just represent the other side of the spectrum that has more money and power than us, hence why they're on tv and not anyone we can actually fully get behind. It's like we take what we can get or something.

[RadioRaheem84]

Question for you. Does this mean that we should only watch openly socialist news shows/listen to openly socialist news podcasts and radio broadcasts/read openly socialist newspapers and websites? It is good sometimes to take a load off and watch some funny men talk about serious things in a funny way. Otherwise we'll all end up like MaoistRebelNews.

EDIT: Directed at comrade fa2991.

No. Of course not, but why not critique him where he is wrong? Are we supposed to sit back and let him defame the anti war movement and other things because he's funny?

[IllicitPopsicle]

Wait, who was coddling? Simply put, just because someone watches Jon Stewart or Bill Maher or even Democracy Now! and calls themselves a leftist doesn't mean they're protecting the power structure.

[IllicitPopsicle]

No. Of course not, but why not critique him where he is wrong? Are we supposed to sit back and let him defame the anti war movement and other things because he's funny?

No, there should be a critique. I just don't think the thesis should be "Jon Stewart is a Tool."

[RadioRaheem84]

In this day and age, a political blog can have about as much relevancy as an academic journal and people here are going to sell me the excuse that Jon Stewarts two shows don't have political clout? Please.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, there should be a critique. I just don't think the thesis should be "Jon Stewart is a Tool."
Does that offend you? Would it offend you if someone called Glen Beck a tool?

If not, then what is the big deal behind calling Stewart a tool? Maybe because he gets more cred among leftists for punking rightists. But when he calls people who share our views the same as the extreme right, then he is a comedian with no clout or relevancy. Cmon guys!

[IllicitPopsicle]

No, I think at that point, you're either a) stating an obvious fact that no one really cares about, b) taking things waaaaaay too seriously or c) bored.

Honestly, I can't say I've watched a full episode of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report. I probably won't in the future. It's just another television show to me, and the people who believe his schtick are the same people who also believe Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly/Keith Olbermann/Rachel Maddow/etc etc. and on and on forever. I.e., yer average television viewer in the US.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well you're right that he is just another cod in the media shrill machine, I just personally don't like it when leftists somehow get defensive about the guy because he's funny. The point was that he's not above criticism. Stewart and Colbert are like gods to the policy wonks at my former college and I remember taking leftist stances even before I became Marxist and being shut down cus it was in response to Stewarts centrist stance. These were supposed progressives taking a centrist stance simply because the argument sounded better when satirized.

[IllicitPopsicle]

That's understandable. It sounds like this happens a lot where you are. Again, personally I don't really care for Comedy Central, as it's the same station that airs Tosh.0 I can't really justify spending my spare time filling my head with that crap. I have shit to do.

Also: inb4 Godwin's Law.

[anticap]

I don't watch it (I don't have a TV), but I'm vaguely familiar with his show from YouTube clips. I don't see what's to hate. Not that there's anything to love; there's just nothing special there to hate. It's on a capitalist TV network. I expect all capitalist TV networks to be verbally fellating capitalism 24/7. If they take a break from that to wipe their chins and crack a joke it's sort of baffling to me. I don't expect anything even remotely radical to come out of a fundamentally anti-radical medium.

[RadioRaheem84]

All good points, comrades.

[manic expression]

I think the crux of it is that Stewart criticizes a lot but doesn't present any course of action. It's mostly "wow Republicans are raving lunatics and Democrats are spineless idiots"...which is essentially true. But I've never seen Stewart actually propose a substantial alternative, and people act like The Daily Show is more than a comedy show that makes fun of the news...it isn't, that's all it ever will be.

And that disconnect sums up the core of his viewership. When push comes to shove, I am absolutely positive that The Daily Show crowd will do jack shit. They won't fight, they won't take to the streets for a movement, they won't be pinpointing problems, they won't be showing a way forward. They'll be sitting around, complaining to their friends about how bad everything is, and that's it.

The "Rally to Restore Sanity" is a perfect example, it's going to be a political fad for a few minutes and then be forgotten as soon as it's over. Liberal "policy wonks" can feel cool and hip going to it...but in the end it's all just for show. That's very much what Stewart represents: a political demographic that, outside of election day, might as well not exist.

However, one thing I remember from 2003 is that Jon Stewart was virtually the only anti-war voice in the whole of the media. I mean, it sounds silly now, but honestly he was one of the solitary voices against the Bush administration back then. I'll give him credit for that, actually. Other than that, though, the only stands I've seen him take are ones he's started making fun of a few months later (for example, he was fully on the Obama bandwagon, until mid-2009 when Obama's policies became clear...then he turned on Obama), which speaks volumes.

So yeah, he satirizes politics and the news, because he wants capitalism to look better. Don't expect anything more than that.

[fa2991]

http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html

[anticap]

http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html

Whichever one doesn't lie by omission on a daily basis.

Oh, wait....

[progressive_lefty]

He's not a socialist or a radical but I think he tries to come off as more centrist than he actually is for the sake of the network.

We get the show here in Australia. I find him a bit annoying sometimes, and do all of you laugh at his jokes? I don't find some of his humor funny, maybe that's because its different and from the States.. I think he's comparable to Obama, they both are in the public spotlight in the US and are aware of the narrow spectrum so only appear to be centrist.

And I don't like Colbert, mostly because I don't get his humor as well..

[Diello]

And I don't like Colbert, mostly because I don't get his humor as well..

I think it really helps if you're exposed to the media which he parodies.

Now, the Chaser-- they were worth watching, hit-and-miss though they were.

[progressive_lefty]

Yea Chaser's is real good. I didn't know if it was on in other countries?

[RadioRaheem84]

Now workers in the EU protesting the austerity measures are lunatics on the same plane as the Tea Party mob in the US?

Again, fuck Stewart. The guy is too much and actually said they were whiners in a self entitlement culture.

The right wing said the same shit when explaining the Greek debt crisis.

[Peace on Earth]

Do I share the same political views as the man? No. But do I call him a tool? Not a chance. He has a funny show that, while not some socialist haven, points out hypocrisy within the goverment. I don't think we need to call all non-socialists tools, especially when he's far better than many people on television.

He's been going after Obama in recent months, so maybe he has a chance to move farther left.

[Diello]

Yea Chaser's is real good. I didn't know if it was on in other countries?

I've spent some time in Australia; I'm half-Australian so, though I've spent most of my life in the U.S., I am somewhat in touch with Aussie culture. I was around for the Howard/Rudd election. Very entertaining.

[Red Commissar]

Now workers in the EU protesting the austerity measures are lunatics on the same plane as the Tea Party mob in the US?

Again, fuck Stewart. The guy is too much and actually said they were whiners in a self entitlement culture.

The right wing said the same shit when explaining the Greek debt crisis.

Wow. I don't watch his show (I don't think I ever did), but that's a really moronic thing to say. Then again I might be more inclined to feel for the austerity protesters, but at least they are acting out of genuine concern and aware of their socio-economic status to an extent. Tea baggers are being led like dogs on a leash.

[Sasha]

Wow. I don't watch his show (I don't think I ever did), but that's a really moronic thing to say. Then again I might be more inclined to feel for the austerity protesters, but at least they are acting out of genuine concern and aware of their socio-economic status to an extent. Tea baggers are being led like dogs on a leash.

Actually steward didn't say they where the same,he just made a joke saying one should swap countries with the other.

[Ele'ill]

I think the crux of it is that Stewart criticizes a lot but doesn't present any course of action. It's mostly "wow Republicans are raving lunatics and Democrats are spineless idiots"...which is essentially true. But I've never seen Stewart actually propose a substantial alternative, and people act like The Daily Show is more than a comedy show that makes fun of the news...it isn't, that's all it ever will be.

And that disconnect sums up the core of his viewership. When push comes to shove, I am absolutely positive that The Daily Show crowd will do jack shit. They won't fight, they won't take to the streets for a movement, they won't be pinpointing problems, they won't be showing a way forward. They'll be sitting around, complaining to their friends about how bad everything is, and that's it.

The "Rally to Restore Sanity" is a perfect example, it's going to be a political fad for a few minutes and then be forgotten as soon as it's over. Liberal "policy wonks" can feel cool and hip going to it...but in the end it's all just for show. That's very much what Stewart represents: a political demographic that, outside of election day, might as well not exist.

However, one thing I remember from 2003 is that Jon Stewart was virtually the only anti-war voice in the whole of the media. I mean, it sounds silly now, but honestly he was one of the solitary voices against the Bush administration back then. I'll give him credit for that, actually. Other than that, though, the only stands I've seen him take are ones he's started making fun of a few months later (for example, he was fully on the Obama bandwagon, until mid-2009 when Obama's policies became clear...then he turned on Obama), which speaks volumes.

So yeah, he satirizes politics and the news, because he wants capitalism to look better. Don't expect anything more than that.


It was either NPR or KBOO (portland local station) where he was interviewed regarding his stupid mall event or whatever the fuck it is. He basically spent his time saying 'I'm not going to tell you what my actual position is because I don't have one- I don't have a course of action- but my position is superior to all yours.'

He then went on to further glamorize Glenn Beck and Glenn Beck's success.


Why would someone want to base a living around serious social issues?

He's a capitalist patsy.

I and many of you do it to actually change our world.


Also- I hate Colbert too.

They're both frauds that have shows catering to liberals that would rather spend the free time they have laughing about subjects I've cried over.

Sorry- they're both fucking useless frauds that are still masturbating in shock to their sudden position of privilege.

[mossy noonmann]

It was either NPR or KBOO (portland local station) where he was interviewed regarding his stupid mall event or whatever the fuck it is. He basically spent his time saying 'I'm not going to tell you what my actual position is because I don't have one- I don't have a course of action- but my position is superior to all yours.'

He then went on to further glamorize Glenn Beck and Glenn Beck's success.


Why would someone want to base a living around serious social issues?

He's a capitalist patsy.

I and many of you do it to actually change our world.


Also- I hate Colbert too.

They're both frauds that have shows catering to liberals that would rather spend the free time they have laughing about subjects I've cried over.

Sorry- they're both fucking useless frauds that are still masturbating in shock to their sudden position of privilege.

then why don't you go and break the windows of comedy central AND spraypaint it with some slogan, that WILL teach him. the minute you have done this , john stewart will change his show, and , come round to mastrubate on you. while you cry.

[Crux]

Colbert on the other hand is a blue dog style democrat.
Really? Well, I always liked Colbert more, maybe because you can go much further with that kind of satire. But it's no suprise that in reality they're pretty mainstream Democrats. But, eh, it's a comedy show.

[RadioRaheem84]

Jon Stewart invited a labour union historian onto his show and Stewart kept lambasting unions and kept harping on the "corruption" of unions and are not really needed anymore. His condescending tone was too much to take and the historian felt it a bit. He asked the historian three or four times about Union corruption and the need for "reform" in unionism.

The guy claims to have a populist, democratic liberal show and he himself claims to be a progressive, but the guy continues to spout mainstream centrist BS.

[Ele'ill]

then why don't you go and break the windows of comedy central AND spraypaint it with some slogan,

How about he bucks up himself and instead of falling back on the cry baby cop out stance that 'i don't have to be responsible as I critique people for being irresponsible because i'm just running a comedy show' and actually start a progressive movement and use his position to start changing things.

The excuse that 'it's not my job' is the biggest load of bullshit you will ever hear and it is the opposite of how community should respond to undesireable incursion. It is everyone's responsibility to be responsible.

Also important to note is that he isn't just 'running a comedy show' he's running a very political comedy show and that is a huge difference.




that WILL teach him. the minute you have done this , john stewart will change his show,


I'm sorry you have such a skewed view of how organizing works- perhaps when you graduate from elementary school you will be equiped with enough experience to make bold statements that make sense.

Actions without movement are a spectacle that do very little to help out the situation at hand. Fuck that.




and , come round to mastrubate on you. while you cry.

Paint chips can contain lead.

[Reznov]

Yes, the man is a centrist tool. His rally to restore sanity is just a shot at leftist movements in the States. He equated right wing and left wing as one in the same extreme and thinks that his centrist liberalism is the rational approach.

He too has called Chavez a dictator and is a bit Zionist, not much but he likes to give room to Israeli supporters. His other show, Colbert Report (yes it's his show as a producer) has had Israeli ministers make the case for Israel.

I really cannot stand the guy. He has admitted to being pro-military and that half his writing staff is libertarian.

He represents what GA Cohen described as the convergence of Rawlsian Liberalism and Libertarian ideals. He also represents the type of politics I want leftists to really oppose instead of collaborate with.

Fuck Stewart.

Amen. Its all about getting people to watch and for ratings. The Colbert Report is an attempt to try to appeal to the more right wing, and the daily show seems like a appeal to the left.

But the end game is just ratings with these guys.

[Peace on Earth]

Get over yourselfs, seriously. The only reason you whine about the mans politics is because he has national exposure. Do you want to know something? Put your ear to the computer screen and listen well: there are worse people out there! Instead of lambasting Stewart and Colbert for not being "down with the revolution," how about we turn our focus to combating capitalist injustices worldwide? These guys aren't that much of a hinderance.

I'm headed to both rallies (Rally to Restore Sanity and the March to Keep Fear alive, Stewart and Colbert, respectively) because it will be good for a laugh. We don't need to criticize every single comedian who uses satire to make a point for not being leftist enough.

The real tools are people who care enough to rant about comedians who aren't far enough left.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why don't you put a sock in it seriously?

The only reason why anyone is complaining about him is because he claims to be a person who represents liberal-left by lambasting the right and assuring people he is in the happy medium.

He is very influential among the politically minded college youth and he makes actual leftists appeals to sanity look insane.

So why do not you get over yourself and your personal love for his comedy and see that the guy is not only a corporate tool but also very good at making his comedy satire appear as serious criticism.

[progressive_lefty]

He was pretty cocky on the Letterman Show a couple of weeks ago. I get the feeling he doesn't like Letterman. He seems to be a real alpha male.

[praxis1966]

He was pretty cocky on the Letterman Show a couple of weeks ago. I get the feeling he doesn't like Letterman. He seems to be a real alpha male.

Letterman's another ass bag that can rot. I don't know what his politics are, though given the obscene amount of money he has my guess would be right wing, but he acts like a douche to half his guests. He's just like Carson was just before Leno took over; somehow he's got it in his head that what he has to say is more important than his guests. I can't wait till that dildo retires, lol...

[Ele'ill]

Get over yourselfs, seriously.

N/A



The only reason you whine about the mans politics is because he has national exposure.

Yes, and he's not doing much with the awesome position he's in. Which is sort of the point of this thread.


Do you want to know something?

No.


Put your ear to the computer screen and listen well: there are worse people out there! Instead of lambasting Stewart and Colbert for not being "down with the revolution," how about we turn our focus to combating capitalist injustices worldwide? These guys aren't that much of a hinderance.

They can do a lot of damage by framing the situation as 'ha-ha funny' and something for rich whites to watch on cable television. Having a talk show isn't enough and it can and has created a complacent atmosphere.


I'm headed to both rallies (Rally to Restore Sanity and the March to Keep Fear alive, Stewart and Colbert, respectively) because it will be good for a laugh. We don't need to criticize every single comedian who uses satire to make a point for not being leftist enough.

The people at the negative receiving end of capitalism don't need liberals vacationing to ineffective hipster activities. Spend that time otherwise.



The real tools are people who care enough to rant about comedians who aren't far enough left.

You failed to read a single post in this thread- as usual.

[Ele'ill]

He has a funny show that, while not some socialist haven, points out hypocrisy within the goverment.


That people laugh about and then refuse to act on. HAHA HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS DEAD IN IRAQ HAHAHAHAHA

Pakistan.




I don't think we need to call all non-socialists tools, especially when he's far better than many people on television.

He's a tool because he's using a political stance (liberal) to make a lot of money. He's not changing or challenging the issues he brings up himself legitimately.



He's been going after Obama in recent months, so maybe he has a chance to move farther left.

No, he's trying to test the water to see what kind of an audience he can build. Because he's a business man.

[Peace on Earth]

I don't think anyone ever laughed over the hundreds of thousands of dead. If you got that vibe, you're probably too damn blunt to get any of his simple jokes.

[progressive_lefty]

Letterman's another ass bag that can rot. I don't know what his politics are, though given the obscene amount of money he has my guess would be right wing, but he acts like a douche to half his guests. He's just like Carson was just before Leno took over; somehow he's got it in his head that what he has to say is more important than his guests. I can't wait till that dildo retires, lol...

No Letterman's a lefty, he made a lot of fun of George W. Bush when he was president. I have a lot of respect for him for doing that. It wouldn't have been easy.. I'd prefer him over Stewart, who can be pretty annoying.

[Ele'ill]

I don't think anyone ever laughed over the hundreds of thousands of dead. If you got that vibe, you're probably too damn blunt to get any of his simple jokes.

Case in Point-

HA-HA-HA MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX- INCOMPETENCE HA-HA-HA

We need more than Ha-Ha-Ha's - and those funnyman jokes are only being laughed at by those out of touch or becoming out of touch with the reality of the situations being discussed.

Do you think that the families of the soldiers killed are laughing?

Of the civilians on the ground?

Who laughs about it- when is it acceptable?


All of the above is a minor portion of the problems I have with shows such as his.

I'm glad you're in a position to laugh- it must be nice to not be on the negative end of capitalism.

[Peace on Earth]

Case in Point-

HA-HA-HA MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX- INCOMPETENCE HA-HA-HA

We need more than Ha-Ha-Ha's - and those funnyman jokes are only being laughed at by those out of touch or becoming out of touch with the reality of the situations being discussed.
Most of his jokes are satirical. If you can't understand that, you may want to evaluate yourself.




Who laughs about it- when is it acceptable?


All of the above is a minor portion of the problems I have with shows such as his.

I'm glad you're in a position to laugh- it must be nice to not be on the negative end of capitalism.
I don't think your aware his main point is to be satirical. It is a news satire show. He points out the follies in many of the things said in mainstream media and politics. Stewart isn't laughing about dead civilians. He's commenting on the illogical justificaiton for military conflicts, which is one of the only ways to open people's eyes to a subject.

He gets his point across moreso than people who shout "imperialist pig" and throw a rock.

Not everyone has to be a flag-waiving revolutionary to avoid the term "tool." There are different roles for everyone. Personally, I believe things are better off with people like Stewart on the air. Don't think that his removal would result in waves of trendy city-dwellers in their 20's signing up to end capitalism.

[Manifesto]

I really could have sworn seeing an episode a few months ago of John Stewart calling Israel a terrorist state.

[Nial Fossjet]

Are there any communist comedians?

[Public Domain]

There are numerous reasons why I like and watch Jon Stewart and his program (online, can't stand television).

For one, I've heard him debate for worker's rights, equality, anti-war, and moderately anti-capitalist. He's also much harder on Israel then the rest of the media. And so far, he's been all about hating the two main parties and moving against their governments. He screams about centrism, and goes on about 'The American people have shit to do' (working) in regards to politics, which is true. Which is an odd statement... Does he realize that workers need to organize politically and excersize their sanity through making society equal? I highly doubt it. He needs to invite on a good strong commie and be utterly crushed and have his 'reform works' world turned upside down.

Another thing is his sabotage-like technique that has caused damage to other groups such as Fox and CNN. He outs their bullshit on cable television. You don't have to subscribe to a conspiracy theory forum just to see a video of Fox news getting it wrong.

His 'Rally for Sanity' thing... He has to spout something. He has to say something more then "we should be friends, we shouldn't be partisan" or he'll lose me.

That all said, there is a lot he doesn't understand and a lot he gets wrong.

I watched Jon Stewart constantly long before I became a committed communist. And I still watch him. I feel the gears in his head turn a different direction then he publicly speaks of. He's publicly claimed a liberal.

If you were forced to watch TV for half an hour, I'd recommend The Daily Show. Probably the least damaging.

I suppose the ultimate reigning reason I watch Stewart is that he's quite funny. He's lucky to be some of the only bourgeoisie media I bother with.

[Peace on Earth]

The only problem I have with Stewart is that he invites members of numerous government officials that should be executed to be on his show, and then throws them relative soft-ball questions.

[Pawn Power]

http://millionmolotovmarch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/million-molotov-facebook.jpg?w=419&h=772

[JosefStalinator]

The only problem I have with Stewart is that he invites members of numerous government officials that should be executed to be on his show, and then throws them relative soft-ball questions.

This is my main problem too; if you get them in such a tight and highly watched spot, at least ask them something that isn't a joke.

[Ele'ill]

I'm a bit late with a reply- I forgot about this thread



I don't think your aware his main point is to be satirical. It is a news satire show. He points out the follies in many of the things said in mainstream media and politics. Stewart isn't laughing about dead civilians. He's commenting on the illogical justificaiton for military conflicts, which is one of the only ways to open people's eyes to a subject.

It gets to a point where there is no action behind his activistesque commentary- it lulls people- liberals- into a cultural cool where it is ok to talk a lot about issues but nobody does a god damned thing in action.

If it starts out as a satire- fine- but at a certain point it needs to do something more.




He gets his point across moreso than people who shout "imperialist pig" and throw a rock.

This is a pretty bad example as I'm not sure I've ever seen a situation where someone just did that on its own.

Even at the more incompetent actions I've seen people hading out flyers, talking to people- moving with a purpose.




Not everyone has to be a flag-waiving revolutionary to avoid the term "tool." There are different roles for everyone. Personally, I believe things are better off with people like Stewart on the air. Don't think that his removal would result in waves of trendy city-dwellers in their 20's signing up to end capitalism.

How about he doesn't get removed but actually starts to agitate- otherwise I think he's worthless- successful but worthless.

[gorillafuck]

I really could have sworn seeing an episode a few months ago of John Stewart calling Israel a terrorist state.
I dunno about that specifically, but he used to be left. Not a socialist, but still left. He dropped that since he wants to appear as centrist as he can in the American political spectrum.

Stewart has basically become a complete centrist who deems anyone who wants real change (whether they're a socialist or not) to be a far left loony. He lambasted people who oppose austerity measures in Europe and compared them to the Tea Party.

And you can't say that because his show is funny that it means that it isn't politically relevant. He's politically relevant and he knows it.

[gorillafuck]

No Letterman's a lefty, he made a lot of fun of George W. Bush when he was president. I have a lot of respect for him for doing that. It wouldn't have been easy..
Making fun of G.W. Bush was extremely easy and uncontroversial.

[RadioRaheem84]

John Stewart threw some "hard ball" questions at Obama but ultimately it was pure publicity for the Prez.

The guy is a straight up centrist that attacks us just as much as the right.

He thinks his position is one of reasoned sanity.

[Peace on Earth]

I'm a bit late with a reply- I forgot about this thread

It gets to a point where there is no action behind his activistesque commentary- it lulls people- liberals- into a cultural cool where it is ok to talk a lot about issues but nobody does a god damned thing in action.

If it starts out as a satire- fine- but at a certain point it needs to do something more.
That's a valid point. I think it would be great if he pointed out the follies of the right and then proposed solutions or action. But I'm not throwing the "tool" label on him because he doesn't. Is everyone who fails to propose meaningful solutions and instead simply pokes fun at the right a tool?


How about he doesn't get removed but actually starts to agitate- otherwise I think he's worthless- successful but worthless.
Worthless, maybe. A tool? I don't think so.

I agree with you that he doesn't promote the type of action that we need on the left. And in recent weeks he has been promoting his rally and his ideas about moderation in a way that smears anyone on the left who is truly angry. But I do believe he serves a pupose. Watching his show will prevent many from becoming angry conservatives. Maybe that is his function, or niche. We might not all be passionate revolutionaries, but people can still serve a purpose. It's a good thing that people have a place to go to see the hypocrisy and the illogical nature of conservative thinking. Stewart could be much better, there is no doubt about that, but I think it is good to acknowledge his function.

[RadioRaheem84]

He made fun of Code Pink and mothers against the wars.

Stewart is a jerk.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elk/jon-stewart-rally-represe_b_775409.html?ir=Media

Great article given to me by Jimmy Higgins. Explains it all. Nothing more needs to be said.

Stewart told a group of feminists to go F themselves and likewise denied labor journalists from covering the event.

[The Red Next Door]

Stewart is just an asshole cappie comedian; don't worry he will eventually die in plane crash or get cancer. just chill.

[GPDP]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elk/jon-stewart-rally-represe_b_775409.html?ir=Media

Great article given to me by Jimmy Higgins. Explains it all. Nothing more needs to be said.

Stewart told a group of feminists to go F themselves and likewise denied labor journalists from covering the event.

Awesome article, but oh god, the fucking comments are making my blood boil something fierce. Fucking latte-sipping liberals, I swear.

[Ele'ill]

Was there an anarchist presence lol

[Ele'ill]

After reading that article I dislike stewart even more although I feel a bit better that I'm not alone.

[Ele'ill]

Now I'm in an argument with what I thought was a friend regarding stewarts march.



I fucking hate liberals.

[progressive_lefty]

I think of him as being a bit like the jock from high school - loud and annoying. If you assess the way he is on the Daily Show and when he is interviewing guests, you'll notice that he barely makes eye contact with them. Its like - 'this is my show, don't screw with my ego'.
The links for when he was on Letterman: here1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN-aiuF2AVs) and here2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9m7dcs8uQA&feature=related). Throughout the interview he acts like 'I'm better then you Letterman so stick it'.

[RadioRaheem84]

He tries to play off the humble guy angle sometimes on his show with his guests but in reality I hear he is a douche.

He finally moved way up in the entertainment ladder and I think it blew up his ego.

This is a guy that didn't really make it until he was 40, so he is riding this train all the way to the bank.

[Ele'ill]

I mean- on one hand I'm glad that he finally is doing well and is successful- and that he had to struggle to get there and everything and it's always nice to see someone who sticks with something as a life dream and finally it pays off.

That gives me motivation.

But again- his life path's 'gut check' shouldn't be 'finally being successful' given the nature of what he's involved in- it should be in avoiding becoming the ineffective liberal version of fox news and taking a stance for something- working towards genuine social change.

I mean fuck- If I had enough money I could organize a big street party too- what's alarming and what hasn't been brought up is the fact that it doesn't require any type of genuine influence or popularity to get mass amounts of people (especially comfy liberal hipsters) into one location. Just look at the stupid zombie marches.

[Barry Lyndon]

Awesome article, but oh god, the fucking comments are making my blood boil something fierce. Fucking latte-sipping liberals, I swear.

Me too, I want to grab these people by the collar and give them a good shaking. It's not so much their idiocy but their smugness is what gets under my skin.

[Ocean Seal]

Post links proving the "progressive" newscaster is still a bourgeois tool.

I'll start by giving you what is basically a list of times Jon has called Hugo Chavez a dictator :rolleyes:. As I write this, he's doing a bit making fun of "outdated" unions.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/?term=hugo+chavez&start=0
I appreciate the effort comrade, but most if not all newscasters in America are corporate tools.

The post should read


Post links proving the "progressive" newscasters are still bourgeois tools.:lol:

[R_P_A_S]

I have to agree with fa2991 and the rest of you who also view Jon Stewart's comedy as just plain old fun. I also hate to sound so uptight. The show is funny and he does make great points and good fun at the right wingers BUT it does in fact SHOOT any legit progressive movement or progress because we are unfortunately aligned with him and his COMEDY SHOW.

[x359594]

"The celebrities from Comedy Central and the trash talk show hosts on Fox are in the same business. They are entertainers. They provide the empty, emotionally laden material that propels endless chatter back and forth on supposed left- and right-wing television programs. It is a national Punch and Judy show. But don’t be fooled. It is not politics. It is entertainment. It is spectacle. All national debate on the airwaves is driven by the same empty gossip, the same absurd trivia, the same celebrity meltdowns and the same ridiculous posturing. It is presented with a different spin. But none of it is about ideas or truth. None of it is about being informed. It caters to emotions. It makes us confuse how we are made to feel with knowledge. And in the end, for those who serve up this drivel, the game is about money in the form of ratings and advertising. Beck, Colbert and Stewart all serve the same masters. And it is not us."

Chris Hedges (emphasis added)

[Peace on Earth]

I like Chris Hedges, but for him to believe that Colbert and Stewart can be compared to the likes of Beck is ridiculous. You don't have to like certain people, but lets be careful who we lump them in with. Entertainers? Yes. Violent provacateurs? I think not.

[Meridian]

If you guys are interested, I think www.reddit.com is one of the bigger sites on the web where a lot of the 'educated american liberal' attitude is present. In fact, I think part of the idea and funding of the entire rally came from some users of that site. The site overall is good though, once you filter out the morons. There are relatively high numbers of radicals in many of the subreddits.

[x359594]

I like Chris Hedges, but for him to believe that Colbert and Stewart can be compared to the likes of Beck is ridiculous. You don't have to like certain people, but lets be careful who we lump them in with. Entertainers? Yes. Violent provacateurs? I think not.

“Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own?” Stewart asked [at the Rally for Sanity.] How is equating Marxists with homophobes and racists different from Glen Beck?

Anyway, for the larger context of Hedges remarks see the full article: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_phantom_left_20101031/

[RadioRaheem84]

“Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own?” Stewart asked [at the Rally for Sanity.] How is equating Marxists with homophobes and racists different from Glen Beck?

Woah. Wait? Did he really say this?

Stewart is seriously not suggesting that Marxists are akin to right wing lunatics, is he?

Jesus, this man thinks he has arisen to some higher echelon to pronounce his political views on the rest of us like the rest of the political-media elite he lambastes on his show.

God, I hate this man.

[RadioRaheem84]

If there is any question as to where he stands, the last quote should have ended any speculation.

The man is a corporate toll on the side of the Dems. He paints himself as a "rational" centrist but in reality is now part of the establishment and is loving every min. of it.

[Peace on Earth]

Hello......? Did anyone listen to his speech? He wasn't hating on Marxists. He was referring to the media in it's portrayal of certain groups. He said, [paraphrase] if the image presented to us was true, why would you work with a Marxist actively subverting the Constitution...

Do you people actually get the facts or just foam at the mouth any time you see the change to latch your fangs onto someone too liberal?

I'm fine with hating on libs, but at least get the quote in its context. He was specifically making fun of the medi (Fox) that paints anyone left of center as an America-hating Stalin-lover.

[ed miliband]

Alright bro, so explain the next part of the sentence:


"...racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own?”If, as you claim, Stewart was asking his audience "why would you work with a Marxist" if "the image presented to us was true", how do homophobes and racists fit into that? Is Stewart suggesting that homophobes and racists aren't actually homophobic and racist and are just presented as such by the media? I can't imagine that to be the case. Is he implying that the people in his audience actively work with people who are homophobic and racist, just as you claim he is suggesting they actively work with Marxists?

Try harder, dude.

[Peace on Earth]

Alright bro, so explain the next part of the sentence:



If, as you claim, Stewart was asking his audience "why would you work with a Marxist" if "the image presented to us was true", how do homophobes and racists fit into that? Is Stewart suggesting that homophobes and racists are actually homophobic and racist and are just presented as such by the media? I can't imagine that to be the case. Is he implying that the people in his audience actively work with people who are homophobic and racist, just as you claim he is suggesting they actively work with Marxists?

Try harder, dude.
Because the media portrays many people who say racial remarks as being part of a lynch mob, instead of simply being someone who gives their view on a racial issue. He was pointing the finger both at Fox for painting leftists as Comm-Nazi's, but also the MSNBC types who label anyone on Fox a racist.

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh man, talk about denial!

He's talking about the media who accuse certain politicians of being Marxists, racists and homophobes.

[ed miliband]

Yeah:

A shouldn't call B a Marxist and B shouldn't call A a racist homophobe.

To Stewart both A and B are in the wrong because they are accusing each other of being repugnant things.

[Peace on Earth]

Accusing each other of being repugnant things without basis.

[Comrade_Stalin]

but also the MSNBC types who label anyone on Fox a racist.

Everyone on fox is a racist, if you are for helping the poor, then you are "for black people" to them. I don't know how this can npt be racist.

[Peace on Earth]

The fact of being on Fox does not make on a racist. Assuming such is counter-productive to combating racism. It's true that Fox has a reputation for being incredibly racially insensitive and combative towards minorities, but it does not good labeling them all racists without proper basis. This is the type of stupidity Stewart was talking about. Angry leftists who use blanket statements to refer to anyone involved with a certain group, i.e. all Tea Party members are racists, do not help the cause.

[ed miliband]

accusing each other of being repugnant things without basis.


but the main point is that Jon Stewart clearly thinks being a marxist is repugnant.

[Peace on Earth]

but the main point is that Jon Stewart clearly thinks being a marxist is repugnant.
Said where in a serious manner?

[ed miliband]

Jesus...

He equates Marxism with racism and homophobia. He's saying the accusations are baseless, yes, but nobody complains about baseless accusations unless they are negative, do they? Stewart is saying that liberals shouldn't call conservatives racist and homophobic and conservatives shouldn't call liberals Marxists - he is saying this because he views both racists and Marxists in the same negative light.

It's so painfully obvious what Stewart is implying that I feel sorry for you.

[RadioRaheem84]

POE, why are you so hesitant on defending Stewart when he clearly equated Marxism with racism or any other thing in a negative light?

[Peace on Earth]

Jesus...

He equates Marxism with racism and homophobia. He's saying the accusations are baseless, yes, but nobody complains about baseless accusations unless they are negative, do they? Stewart is saying that liberals shouldn't call conservatives racist and homophobic and conservatives shouldn't call liberals Marxists - he is saying this because he views both racists and Marxists in the same negative light.

It's so painfully obvious what Stewart is implying that I feel sorry for you.
Lets not be trying to think of why or what he meant, as it's all just speculation based on, really, nothing. His point, as I took it, was it is wrong to be calling people racists and Marxists because they are highly charged terms that are both used as derogatory terms in today's political debate. His views on Marxism are irrelevant. The crux of the issue was throwing around powerful terms without proper foundation.

[Ele'ill]

Right- but given his stance on unions and Code Pink I think that's not what he was implying.

[Peace on Earth]

Right- but given his stance on unions and Code Pink I think that's not what he was implying.
You may be right; I'm not familiar with his views on either one. And for most issues, no one is. His views, publically, are mostly one-liners or witty comments that we don't know if they are for satirical, humorous purposes for if he is serious.

[Ele'ill]

Right, but if he's using satire in relation to political discussion it should be implied that he believes what he says- especially since he held a rally about it.

*I will never make a post about John Stewart without putting him down so here we go-

He is the smiley court fool that eventually tricks the king and queen into thinking it's funny when he drives a sword through the heir's chest- everyone will still be all smiles.

It's a no-connection break down of reality.

He caters to the same people that would want someone to be beaten to death just to exercise non-violence- because they themselves have never been put in any type of confrontational situation ever in their sheltered lives- yet would rise in absolute utter fury if you smeared ketchup on their fucking vintage love novel from the 1800's

It's white liberal projection.

[Ele'ill]

John Stewart Caters to the group of people who want to make decisions on tactics and civic action regarding issues that do not affect them in the least.

It's the ruling liberal white rich college graduates feeling good at the expense of every working class citizen in the country.

[khad]

There is a tendency on the part of many revleftists to see entertainment as something of a sacred domain upon which the value judgments of politics hold little relevance. Most often, this tendency boils down to a post hoc rationalization of why the user in question enjoys his/her own particular brand of hedonism. This user Peace on Earth is obviously no exception, as he will attend both the Stewart and Colbert rallies, in order to partake in the self-congratulating smug liberalism that these "movements" engender.

Within the structures of capitalist dominance, there is no question what role entertainers like Stewart and Colbert perform. Their media creates a type of psychological safety valve in which the public's real anger and outrage is redirected into impotent reassurances, condescension, and arrogance. Stewart reminds his "liberal" viewers that they are the chosen people, endowed with the gifts of rationality and centrist sensibility that the right-wingers lack, that no matter how much bad shit happens to the working class, they can still hold their heads up high--to look down on Republicans and point and laugh. Obviously because Republicans are so stupid and they're oh-so-smart.

It's a form of idiocy and self-delusion, and all it does is lead to complacency and apathy. Some no doubt watch the show as a way to deal with oppressive despair of the American political arena, but in doing so they acquire a worldview that offers no plan of action other than boosting their own egos through reminders of how stupid their enemies are.

I need not remind everyone how successful Republicans have been in shifting the entire political spectrum of American politics towards the right since the neoliberal turn. Their politics are more concerned with how to win. They have scumbags like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck with their calls to arms, and all that the left gets is a panacea of self-esteem from the likes of Stewart and Colbert.

[Ele'ill]

I agree, obviously, but I want to point out that not all of my posts in the stewart threads are aimed at the user Peace On Earth although the posts may be directed at their stance albeit coincidently.

[Leo]

Actually, Jon Stewart described himself as a socialist in an interview in the year 2000:


KING: I think you're a Democrat, Jon. STEWART: I think that's probably correct. I think I would say I'm more of a socialist or an independent but, yes, I mean, no one would ever I think watching our show think that, boy, that guy is just leaning so far right.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/15/lkl.00.html

He is also known for saying he was "very much in to Eugene Debs" in his youth.

Of course, his rally is fundamentally a pro-government rally.

[Os Cangaceiros]

He's not very kind to communism in Earth: The Book, lol. He basically puts it on the same level as fascism.

And I quote: "This system, under which millions were enslaved and murdered, was called communism."

(Granted, that's more a product of his writers than himself proper, but I doubt that he has any sort of favorable opinion of communism.)

[Peace on Earth]

This user Peace on Earth is obviously no exception, as he will attend both the Stewart and Colbert rallies, in order to partake in the self-congratulating smug liberalism that these "movements" engender.
I would appreciate it, as one member of the left to another, if you would refrain from stating why I wish to do certain things. You obviously don't have the slightest clue about my mindset, as your post gives that away. I wished to go (I couldn't make it) because it seemed funny. A large group of people, entertaining signs, oddities and oddballs, a nice day. It seemed like a good way to spend a Saturday. I'll promise you it wasn't to jack off to moderation with other libs/moderates.


but in doing so they acquire a worldview that offers no plan of action other than boosting their own egos through reminders of how stupid their enemies are.
Which is why no one is advocating that the only media outlet people go to is the Daily Show. Obviously it isn't presenting a plan of action for the left. How long do you think that would stay on t.v.?

[Peace on Earth]

Actually, Jon Stewart described himself as a socialist in an interview in the year 2000:




http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/15/lkl.00.html

He is also known for saying he was "very much in to Eugene Debs" in his youth.

Of course, his rally is fundamentally a pro-government rally.
I think one of the main reasons (speculation of course) for his recent affinity with moderation and the center is that he sees himself, and others, as forces to stop waves of people from moving towards the right. He knows he can't present a truly socialist platform, so instead he attempts to combat the turn to the right (especially by prospective voters) with a voice of moderation that the right in the United States lacks. From his position, perhaps he is a driving force in keeping Americans at least a little more sane than Republicans. While not the leader of the left by any stretch, he could be doing what he is able to from his position (one that he hopes to keep, mind you).

It could be wishful thinking on my part, however.

[ed miliband]

Actually, Jon Stewart described himself as a socialist in an interview in the year 2000:




http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/15/lkl.00.html

He is also known for saying he was "very much in to Eugene Debs" in his youth.

Of course, his rally is fundamentally a pro-government rally.

When a wealthy American claims to be a socialist, more often than not it means they want a British / Swedish / Dutch / romanticised European system.

[progressive_lefty]

"The celebrities from Comedy Central and the trash talk show hosts on Fox are in the same business. They are entertainers. They provide the empty, emotionally laden material that propels endless chatter back and forth on supposed left- and right-wing television programs. It is a national Punch and Judy show. But don’t be fooled. It is not politics. It is entertainment. It is spectacle. All national debate on the airwaves is driven by the same empty gossip, the same absurd trivia, the same celebrity meltdowns and the same ridiculous posturing. It is presented with a different spin. But none of it is about ideas or truth. None of it is about being informed. It caters to emotions. It makes us confuse how we are made to feel with knowledge. And in the end, for those who serve up this drivel, the game is about money in the form of ratings and advertising. Beck, Colbert and Stewart all serve the same masters. And it is not us."(emphasis added)Chris Hedges

I'm always shocked too see guests from Fox News on the Daily Show and Colbert Report. What's up with that?

I think Stewart is just caught up in a fantasy world. He wants to believe that conservatives can be reasonable - but the basis of American conservative/right-wing politics is being unreasonable. He should take some of the glory of the Democrats doing so badly. I can't work him out, one minute he makes fun of the Republicans and then slams the Democrats..

[Ele'ill]

Yes, he's caught up in a fantasy world where it's thought that as a liberal "I or we can help people outside of our bureaucracy by using our bureaucracy" but it's top down-

Nobody ever ever ever stops to think 'why should people be subjected to policies they've never heard of until they've being negatively affected- and why should so many people have to rely on other people or other groups outside of their communities or from the Global North extending out to the Global south? Shouldn't communities be able to help themselves.



They completely ignore this power structure.

[ed miliband]

People helping themselves you say?! That'd be chaos! They'd be killing eachother...

[RadioRaheem84]

When a wealthy American claims to be a socialist, more often than not it means they want a British / Swedish / Dutch / romanticised European system.

Yes, they're obsessed with the Olaf Palme days.

They fail to notice that most of the nations with extensive social benefits were once vast colonial empires and still retain a bit of measure in the third world from which to extract resources and command economic policies to favor their business class.

It makes no sense to suggest that there could be social democracy in Western nations without imperialism.

[ed miliband]

Yes, they're obsessed with the Olaf Palme days.

They fail to notice that most of the nations with extensive social benefits were once vast colonial empires and still retain a bit of measure in the third world from which to extract resources and command economic policies to favor their business class.

It makes no sense to suggest that there could be social democracy in Western nations without imperialism.

Much more importantly (in my opinion anyway), they fail to notice that the systems they view so positively have been failures on the whole.

[Vampire Lobster]

It makes no sense to suggest that there could be social democracy in Western nations without imperialism.

Calling countries like Finland and Norway, or even Sweden, imperialist powers who drain the lifepower out of the developing world seems pretty absurd, if you ask me.

[RadioRaheem84]

Sweden had a pretty extensive empire at one point.

Norwegian and Finnish companies exploit labor in Eastern Europe.

They're not as imperialistic as other Western nations but they're still a part of the elite nations in which trade agreements favor them over the countries they're trading with.

Again, social democracy cannot exist in a nation without the business class in that nation getting their lost revenue from somewhere.

How is this not obvious?

http://eid.sagepub.com/content/29/1/125.abstract

Just read the abstract of this paper to get a glimpse of what I am talking about.

This paper attributes the lack of collective bargaining and workforce participation in management in Norwegian Companies in Poland to "cultural differences".

[Vampire Lobster]

Sweden had a pretty extensive empire at one point.

Norwegian and Finnish companies exploit labor in Eastern Europe.

They're not as imperialistic as other Western nations but they're still a part of the elite nations in which trade agreements favor them over the countries they're trading with.

Again, social democracy cannot exist in a nation without the business class in that nation getting their lost revenue from somewhere.

How is this not obvious?

http://eid.sagepub.com/content/29/1/125.abstract

Just read the abstract of this paper to get a glimpse of what I am talking about.

This paper attributes the lack of collective bargaining and workforce participation in management in Norwegian Companies in Poland to "cultural differences".

Sweden was a vast empire which also happened to collapse around 17th century. I really don't think the plunder they took from Poles is still running the Swedish "folkhemmet".

Finnish and Norwegians exploiting labour force in the eastern EU countries is indeed a fact, but it's also a trend related to EU (and Schengen in case of Norway) and pretty much to the development of 1990's. You know, the decade when the happy fun joy rightists started to actually tear apart bit by bit the social welfare system established during 1960's and 1970's, when the only people Finnish and Norwegian ruling classes got to kick around were the Finnish and Norwegian workers, respectively. And this pretty much involves Sweden too, as I'm still quite confident the plunder they got from the coastal towns of the Baltic Sea did indeed run out couple of hundreds years ago already.

Social democracy has not historically really been that strong in vast, colonial empires sucking all the blood out of developing world just because they can. France would indeed be one, as would be GB. These both countries do certainly have traditionally had strong social democrat elements in how they operate, but we still see the most clearly social democratic countries in Scandinavia, which has been able to give imperialism a try only around 90's and global capitalism. Does this mean social democracy here is flourishing too, now as some Finnish companies like Nokia and UPM are profiting the shit out of cheap labour in Latin America and Eastern Europe? Hell no. They're cutting like they've never cut before. The best years of Finnish social democracy are long gone.

The thing about social democracy is that it's by no means profitable. That's why every single right liberal party out there is whining about the remnants of social democratic tradition at least some European countries still have. Okay, it does improve the purchasing power for those in the absolute bottom of the dear capitalist hierarchy to some extent, but all the numerous, numerous lost work hours, high wages for workers and the taxation you need to pull off a social democratic states outnumber vastly any kind of profits you could make there. The thing about social democracy is that it's a compromise. Obviously, ruling class can't give workers actual workers' democracy, as that would pretty much fuck up their plans for future. And in countries with strong leftist and union traditions - of which Scandinavia is a perfect example - they surely do seem to crave for this kind of stuff pretty openly, unlike in the States.

I'm going to take a Finnish example here. Finnish socialists had pretty good attempt at revolution in 1918 already with the civil war and around 1950's the local actually pretty revolutionary communist party SKDL was the biggest parliamentary party, ruled out of the cabinet by both the social democratic left and the bourgeois right. And this was before the 1960's, and we all know the direction leftism took pretty much everywhere. Revolutionary leftism was a very, very real threat. So you need to release the pressure somehow, even if you knew it's going to cost a lot. The boss didn't just show up on your door saying "hey I was rounding up some brown people yesterday and thought you could have this stack of money and have the summer off, Joe, this alright?". Workers in social democratic countries had to fight hard for every single little reform. For a little higher wages, for every single extra day off, for every single form of social aid from the government, from maternity benefits to unemployment benefits. And these had to be given to them because the ruling class knew that if they didn't, Finland would have a revolution going on pretty damn fast and this time the result would probably be rather different from the result back in 1918. You are willing to lose a lot of money when you compare it to losing your grip of the society.

So, social democracy is not real socialism. We all know this, and I'm by no means a social democrat. This doesn't mean we all shouldn't acknowledge the fact that social democracy, while it doesn't remove the root problem, it is a real working class victory and when social democracies first started springing up in Europe, the money needed to run the system weren't really taken from colonies, as most social democracies didn't even have colonies. Getting cheap labour from the developing world wasn't really something that happened a lot in 1960's in Finland, neither, nor there was enough free movement to allow the kind of global capitalism we're having now. It was taken from the corporations in plenty of different forms. But the corporations were the ones doing paying because they didn't want the workers to get all uppity and the logic where you extinguish the prairie fire about to burst with a social democratic compromise worked pretty damn well at least for a while.

And now, when our beloved corporate honchos have actually access to the kind of workforce who is pretty happy with a lot less money and luxury in their lives than the average Finn. So they pretty much can just flip the finger at us now, go all "FUCK YOU I'M A SHARK" and attack social democracy with full force.

That's why I don't really consider your childish and overly simplified analysis of the situation obvious at all.

[RadioRaheem84]

Saying Sweden had a vast empire which merely collapsed is not saying much at all. Relations still continue with past colonized nations, just in other forms.

What is with the harsh defense over here?

The Swedish model, when it was “viable,” was heavily dependent on Sweden’s stature within the imperial global order. Sweden was clearly a beneficiary of the imperialism of the North and West, and not an innocent bystander given its substantial military budget and arms sales in these years. It is well to remember that social democracy has never been even a remote possibility for today’s peripheral capitalist countries. It was exclusively open to the club at the center of the world system, i.e., those countries that have continually benefitted from a system of international plunder.

I think it's childish to just assume that nations like Sweden and Norway just happened to reform themselves into viable working systems that for a brief moment subdued the contradictions of capitalism.

This isn't to cast off the real gains workers made, it's just to say that capitalists do not just give up their profit margins simply because they'll lose society, they also find other means of making money. Foreign investment was pretty enhanced by the late 60s.

http://unctadstat.unctad.org/TableViewer/tableView.aspx

Again how is my analysis childish? You seem emotionally unstable when you say stuff like that instead of just countering my argument in a reasonable manner. Were you offended? Are you Scandinavian?

[Vampire Lobster]

Saying Sweden had a vast empire which merely collapsed is not saying much at all. Relations still continue with past colonized nations, just in other forms.

What? I really recommend you read a little more on the Swedish empire. Swedish influence in Africa and Americas was essentially nonexistent and any possible influence they ever had on some very little pieces of land here and there was pretty much ended when the colonies switched hands. Sweden was a failed colonial empire. But yeah, it was an empire, it pretty much dominated the entire Baltic sea and they did conquer some parts of northern Germany. But as they never actually colonized any country besides Finland, no permanent relations were formed. Swedish empire was based on stomping Germans, Poles and Russians and they haven't been in position to stomp any of these in a long, long time.


What is with the harsh defense over here?

I tend to harshly defend stuff if I consider them to be notable working class triumphs. Don't consider that one a vice myself.


The Swedish model, when it was “viable,” was heavily dependent on Sweden’s stature within the imperial global order. Sweden was clearly a beneficiary of the imperialism of the North and West, and not an innocent bystander given its substantial military budget and arms sales in these years. It is well to remember that social democracy has never been even a remote possibility for today’s peripheral capitalist countries. It was exclusively open to the club at the center of the world system, i.e., those countries that have continually benefitted from a system of international plunder.

I think it's childish to just assume that nations like Sweden and Norway just happened to reform themselves into viable working systems that for a brief moment subdued the contradictions of capitalism.

This isn't to cast off the real gains workers made, it's just to say that capitalists do not just give up their profit margins simply because they'll lose society, they also find other means of making money. Foreign investment was pretty enhanced by the late 60s.

Of course Sweden did benefit from global capitalism at that point, so did the Communist bloc. You really don't need to explain that to me. I just don't think that somehow was the thing that made social democracy possible. What made social democracy possible was the fact that all social democratic countries had strong leftist union traditions and these unions were struggling for the reforms pretty fucking hard. Capitalist society can't function without getting any kind of consent from the workers, after all. After some point a revolution would eventually occur. Reforms we saw in Europe during 1960's were, from ruling class point of view, damage control. Without them, chances are Europe would've taken a lot more steep left turn than the one it actually took. Doesn't mean the quality of life in Europe didn't get notably better with them, which is pretty much why I do consider them to be pretty damn positive development.

No matter how many weapons the Swedes were selling around, you would've seen the reforms we saw no matter what.


Again how is my analysis childish? You seem emotionally unstable when you say stuff like that instead of just countering my argument in a reasonable manner. Were you offended? Are you Scandinavian?

Are you a child?

A child? No. Neither am I emotionally unstable nor am I offended. Scandinavian I happen to be, though. A Finn, to be precise. I consider your analysis to be childish because you didn't really seem to give much appreciation to the fact that social democratic policies have been very important in making the lives of your average European better and your attempts to connect these reforms to imperialism seem pretty half-arsed. You seem to underestimate how desperate the corporate honchos were starting to get in the best years of 1960's and how incredibly strong and vivid the leftist movement was in many European countries.

[RadioRaheem84]

I figured you were Scandinavian and misunderstood what I said.

I know that it was the vast majority of the working class that tore concessions away from the corporate class, and not to mention the fact that the USSR was right next door.

It was the viable threat of total socialist revolution around the corner that scared the honchos.

And neither anywhere in my analysis did I conclude that these were not triumphs for the working class.

My point was that it is also foolish for liberals to think that social democracy was ever or can be a viable alternative to the contradictions of capital. It was a short lived triumph and on top of that it was also due to the corporate class finding ample foreign investment throughout these years. From the Stats I posted, Swedish foreign investment was even higher in 1970 than in 1980.

The point is not to denounce that it was positive element in working class history but that it was no ultimate victory and shouldn't be elevated to a Valhalla status like liberals and social democrats do. That was my point and all my point entailed. It was not perfect nor stopped the corporate class from rolling things back or seeking alternative investments. Concessions were done because of damage control like you said but likewise from foreign investment.

That is not a "childish" analysis. It's one that is grounded in seeing the whole picture, not a mythologized one.

[GiantBear91]

Getting upset with John Stewart because of his politics, would be like getting upset with Bill o'reilly because his show's not funny.





I just lol'd SO damn hard. You win. haha

[JerryBiscoTrey]

yeah he is kind of a tool. But he can be pretty funny and i hear he's a really nice guy

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I remember, not too long ago, I was watching the Daily Show and Jon Stewart called North Korea a fascist state. :laugh:

Can't get much more fucked up than that!