Twisting history on the Daily Show

[Susurrus]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-21-2011/scott-miller

The liberal version of history, with the nasty evil anarchists, lacking a "moral compass" terrorizing the American people and perfectly nice gentlemen like Henry Clay Frick. :cursing:

[Le Socialiste]

And that, dear comrades, is why I can't stomach the Daily Show.

[jake williams]

The same clip viewable in Canada, possibly elsewhere (your link won't show in Canada):

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip502347

[Jose Gracchus]

Foul propaganda against the Haymarket martyrs. Just another offense against what in Europe at least now passes for an occasion warranting a mainstream holiday. Whereas we have the quasi-fascist "Loyalty" and "Law" Day.

[Le Socialiste]

Clip viewable in Canada, possibly elsewhere:

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip502347

It wouldn't play for me. What was it?

[Leftsolidarity]

I actually watch the Daily show all the time and usually love John. I just happened to watch that episode like 10 minutes ago and it pissed me off.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It's funny how they go about denouncing anarchists then praising colonialism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

that irritated me as well. it was going to be one of the interviews i was actually going to watch and like usual, the liberal late night pseudo-news anchor attacks the revlutionary left. he mocks communists and anarchists alike. but, his show, and colbert's are guilty pleasures none the less.

[Sugarnotch]

That was so spectacularly egregious for The Daily Show, I'm honestly speechless.

[Le Socialiste]

Now, I don't know very much about the whole affair that they talked about (the assassination and all), but it struck me as strange that they seemed to go out of their way to cast the guy who did it (is this for certain by the way?) as a crazy, lonely recluse who read about anarchism and went to Emma Goldman speeches. Again, I don't know enough about the situation to really say, but it just seems oddly predictable that Stewart and his guest would tear down this man as being little more than a terrorist. "Nevermind that the U.S. was a full blown imperialist power, let's ridicule this crazy anarchist!" :rolleyes:

[Jose Gracchus]

Well as this piece right here (http://exiledonline.com/the-rally-to-restore-vanity-generation-x-celebrates-its-homeric-struggle-against-lameness/) I think hits on the head, the worst thing for the Comedy Central liberals is being unhip. The idea of actually taking a position and doing anything politically and omg maybe acting too serious is the worst political sin imaginable to them.

[Leftsolidarity]

You know I actually like Stewart for the most part even though he is a liberal. If you watch the whole episode he doesn't actually say anything that bad. While that interview pissed me off it was the man who came in, not Stewart. Stewart has/still does to a certain degree, lean strongly to the left and says when he was younger he identified himself as a socialist.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Now, I don't know very much about the whole affair that they talked about (the assassination and all), but it struck me as strange that they seemed to go out of their way to cast the guy who did it (is this for certain by the way?) as a crazy, lonely recluse who read about anarchism and went to Emma Goldman speeches. Again, I don't know enough about the situation to really say, but it just seems oddly predictable that Stewart and his guest would tear down this man as being little more than a terrorist. "Nevermind that the U.S. was a full blown imperialist power, let's ridicule this crazy anarchist!" :rolleyes: Naw man that wasn't imperialism that was their "introduction to foreign relations".

[jake williams]

It wouldn't play for me. What was it?
It's the same clip, Comedy Central's clips aren't viewable in Canada.

[Commissar Rykov]

I am a little disturbed over the fapping on Imperialism and Bourgeois Factory Owners who cruelly suppressed Unions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well as this piece right here (http://exiledonline.com/the-rally-to-restore-vanity-generation-x-celebrates-its-homeric-struggle-against-lameness/) I think hits on the head, the worst thing for the Comedy Central liberals is being unhip. The idea of actually taking a position and doing anything politically and omg maybe acting too serious is the worst political sin imaginable to them.

These guys should really stick to comedy on non-political issues. They themselves seem to exhibit political buffoonery, trying to satirize political seriousness yet posing no credible alternatives.

[Sasha]

as i said in another thread:

seen it too, i was less impressed.
now i know that this is an mainstream program and very short but it does no good as an historian to talk about the Chicago martyrs repeating the accusations against them but forgetting to mention they had nothing to do with it.
also when steward was talking bullshit about the big freedom of speech for anarchists back then the writer did say emma goldman was arrested a lot but failed to tell she was deported eventually.
i hope that his book is more historically correct so that people who pick it up might learn something afterall

[pluckedflowers]

These guys should really stick to comedy on non-political issues. They themselves seem to exhibit political buffoonery, trying to satirize political seriousness yet posing no credible alternatives.

I disagree. There are obviously limits to Stewart's political perspective, but he performs a valuable function in calling bullshit on mainstream political discourse. It's up to us, as revolutionary leftists, to step in when people realize that mainstream political discourse is bullshit and explain why it's bullshit, why it can't be anything else under existing social relations, and how to do something about those social relations.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I kind of half expect this kind of shit from the mainstream. I'm much more offended and more suprized when the Daily Show routinely mocks grassroots activists and movements. The first rule of satire is that you don't talk about satire, the second rule is that good satire mocks those who are supposedly your superiors.

I think that's also why I tend to enjoy the Colbert show much more - because of the format of the show it's much more clear that it's all about mocking the right-wing. The Daily Show equivocates and it's not even in their interests to do so - they are never going to win over Bush supporters or Fox viewers so why try and even pretend to be "equal opportunity". I don't expect them to have a really good criticism of Obama or liberals and it's a nice bonus when they do, but mocking anti-war protesters or whatnot is Dennis Miller territory.

I also haven't seen either show since they did the digital cable conversion and I lost my free cable:( so I've missed most of their "Obama-years" shows.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why is everyone surprised? The Daily Show hates Marxists, unions, Code Pink, Medea Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan, etc.

The show in trying to be "equal opportunity" actually starts to praise institutional legitimacy, mostly by showing how people in power fell off.

Colbert Report is much better, mostly because I think Stephen has more creative control over the show and he is much more progressive and vehemently hates the right wing.

[RedSonRising]

Stewart had Evo Morales on his show and praised his first 6 months in office for being consistent with his campaign promises. I mean, I'm not saying Steward is the televised vanguard of popular revolution, but he seems open-minded from what I've seen, and aside from this interview of a writer with a particularly skewed mindset, doesn't seem to champion anti-leftist ideals. Someone please point me to evidence if I'm wrong, but this was always the impression I had.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Meh, Stewart isn't perfect, but he's more than happy to ridicule America's "left" liberals for being a bunch of sellouts and cowards. For instance, he will probably do a great show tonight on how Obama, Senate dems and house dems are bending over to the Republicans on the debt ceiling debate. He certainly seems more sympathetic to liberalism than any revolutionary ideology, but hey, he's still to the left of most Americans in that respect.

RedSon is right about his interviews with figures such as Evo Morales as well. Most American shows wouldn't have had such a "radical" on and would given a far less sympathetic interview. I think he's also been a great voice in ridiculing the critics of gay rights and the continued presence of sexism and racism in our society. And he interviewed Gigi Ibrahim (http://twitter.com/#%21/gsquare86) too, an Egyptian Communist twitter/blogger who participated in the revolution there, and gave a more than sympathetic interview to her as well.

So no, not every bit he does is perfect and his beliefs are not at all revolutionary, but his show overall is a positive influence on American society. I would say that the interview seemed unfair to anarchists too, but it's just one interview out of many (and I'd like to know more about the anarchist himself as well)

[Bardo]

Why is everyone surprised? The Daily Show hates Marxists, unions, Code Pink, Medea Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan, etc.


I wouldn't go that far, especially on unions. Stewart's mother was a teacher and he seemed really passionate about collective bargaining while the Madison protests were happening. I think alot of people here on revleft are criticizing him through a revolutionary leftist prism because well, we're revolutionary leftists. What Stewart does is point out the hypocracy and nonsense that goes on in our media/political arena on both sides of the aisle through a liberal perspective because well, he's a liberal.

I guess what I'm trying to say is he doesn't really pretend to be a far-left commentator, I believe the opposite is true. So I don't really expect him to cater to leftists, because he's not a leftist. I can, however, appreciate what he does in turning the media's shit into comic gold if I take it for what it is instead of what I think it should be.

[Pretty Flaco]

Colbert Report is much better, mostly because I think Stephen has more creative control over the show and he is much more progressive and vehemently hates the right wing.

He equated the trickle down theory to rich people drinking beers once. The rich drink beers and then piss it down on the rest. :rolleyes:

[Jose Gracchus]

Is it true that Stewart's brother is the Chief Operating Officer of the New York Stock Exchange?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Yeah we had so much more freedom of speech back then, that's why Emma kept getting arrested and was eventually deported.

[RadioRaheem84]

I wouldn't go that far, especially on unions. Stewart's mother was a teacher and he seemed really passionate about collective bargaining while the Madison protests were happening. I think alot of people here on revleft are criticizing him through a revolutionary leftist prism because well, we're revolutionary leftists. What Stewart does is point out the hypocracy and nonsense that goes on in our media/political arena on both sides of the aisle through a liberal perspective because well, he's a liberal.

I guess what I'm trying to say is he doesn't really pretend to be a far-left commentator, I believe the opposite is true. So I don't really expect him to cater to leftists, because he's not a leftist. I can, however, appreciate what he does in turning the media's shit into comic gold if I take it for what it is instead of what I think it should be.


Apparently, you've never seen the interview with Stewart and some author on a book about unions. Stewart kept trying to hammer on the point about unions serving their purpose, they became corrupt, they're not needed anymore, etc. He came off as a total anti-union jerk.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Now, I don't know very much about the whole affair that they talked about (the assassination and all), but it struck me as strange that they seemed to go out of their way to cast the guy who did it (is this for certain by the way?) as a crazy, lonely recluse who read about anarchism and went to Emma Goldman speeches. Again, I don't know enough about the situation to really say, but it just seems oddly predictable that Stewart and his guest would tear down this man as being little more than a terrorist. "Nevermind that the U.S. was a full blown imperialist power, let's ridicule this crazy anarchist!" :rolleyes:

Pretty much. What they're quoting is the reactions of his family members to the news of his actions and it seems to be a pretty wildly held belief about his character and personality that he was a usually timid, lack-a-daisical, and inept person. In fact, he was inept up to and including the assassination, as his original plan was a failure and his second plan for when he went back the next day wasn't that well-thought-out either. There's also some confusion as to when exactly he became an Anarchist and what pushed him to do this. Some authors have put forward the idea that he though Emma Goldman would love him if he killed McKinley and other similar sort of vain and disconnected reasonings. These have typically been dismissed for the most part, however. If you want to read a book which portrays the reality of the situation surrounding this event and sets the scene as far as what it was like to be a radical or an anarchist at the time, "The Anarchist" by John Smolens is a fairly decent novelization of the events surrounding the assassination and is fairly non-partisan in it's portrayal of the characters involved.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Why is everyone surprised? The Daily Show hates Marxists, unions, Code Pink, Medea Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan, etc.

The show in trying to be "equal opportunity" actually starts to praise institutional legitimacy, mostly by showing how people in power fell off.

Colbert Report is much better, mostly because I think Stephen has more creative control over the show and he is much more progressive and vehemently hates the right wing. And because Colbert is actually funny.

[Susurrus]

I think that the primary blame for this lies with the historian, who failed to correct the massive inaccuracies that Stewart and he perpetuated. Stewart accepted this version of history because it fits his world view. Had the historian presented a correct version of history, it would have challenged Stewart's(and the typical viewers) worldview and made for a much more interesting show.

[Caj]

"In the US in 1887 four anarchists were hanged for the murder of a Chicago policeman."

What fucking bullshit! Of the eight anarchists convicted for the Haymarket bombing, only one was actually at Haymarket square that day, and he was giving a speech when the bomb went off. Not to mention that the only reason the police were there anyway was to oppress the protesters.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

The part that annoyed me most was Stewart's suggestion that Emma Goldman wasn't up to reading a "real book." Not only is that factually stupid (she was extremely well read and lectured on stuff like Ibsen); it's also typical of self-hating Jews trying to "rise above" their own working-class/immigrant background.

[Susurrus]

self-hating Jews

I really don't think this applies to Stewart, and it's a bad idea to just fling negative labels around, particularly ones created to control dissent against zionism.

[AnonymousOne]

"In the US in 1887 four anarchists were hanged for the murder of a Chicago policeman."

That is actually, true. They didn't do it, but that's why they were hanged.


The part that annoyed me most was Stewart's suggestion that Emma Goldman wasn't up to reading a "real book."

I thought he was just being funny, rather than trying to critique Emma Goldman.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I really don't think this applies to Stewart, and it's a bad idea to just fling negative labels around, particularly ones created to control dissent against zionism.
It's not a negative label, it's a sociological description with a long, very serious history. And it was not invented to control dissent against Zionism, it was first applied to liberal Jews who had cultural and class issues with their own roots. (Theodor Lessing, Der Juedische Selbsthass, 1930). That's the sense in which I intended it, and I do think in all fairness that Stewart, who is Jewish, was letting loose on his own repressed ambivalence.

[Leftsolidarity]

I thought he was just being funny, rather than trying to critique Emma Goldman.

He was but some people on here are looking at Stewart as if he is Glenn Beck or something. The guy is a fucking comedian, he is a liberal, he had a stupid guest. End of story.

[Sensible Socialist]

People tend to put too much weight in what comedians like Stewart do, when in reality we shouldn't be expecting them to uphold revolutionary politics for a half hour every weekday night. It isn't as if he is the only one that buys into that version of history, and although it doesn't make it right, he isn't alone. I'll admit, I watch the Daily Show most nights and I enjoy it. It's not a bad way to get easy ammunition against people in politics and the media to use in debates. But no one should rely on it for a truly inspiring perspective on world events, considering Stewart crafts his message to fit trendy 30-somethings that view themselves as "too cool" for the typical corporate world and envision themselves as part of some "new generation" that is above petty politics, yet they participate and buy into the same type of political scheme that their parents were involved in as well, they just don't realize it.

[Klaatu]

He equated the trickle down theory to rich people drinking beers once. The rich drink beers and then piss it down on the rest. :rolleyes:

Actually the rich drink $1000 per bottle wines, and then piss it on to the working class. Thing is that they think the piss is actually more valuable than the original liquid (wine) was. "Creates jobs, you know..." :lol:

[Caj]

That is actually, true. They didn't do it, but that's why they were hanged.


I realize this, but his implication was clearly that they were guilty, which of course is false. Thus his implication constitutes "fucking bullshit." :D

[gendoikari]

I don't know Stewart always seemed like a closet socialist myself. A lot of what is on the show he didn't write anyway.

[wunderbar]

Is it true that Stewart's brother is the Chief Operating Officer of the New York Stock Exchange?

Yes (http://blogs.reuters.com/summits/2010/03/29/jon-stewarts-brother-says-mom-pretty-happy-with-both/).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Leon Czolgosz was never really an anarchist, at least not like some of the Galleanists with whom he's so often lumped in. He was a socialist who liked some things that Emma Goldman said and decided to shoot the president. If you read the "Mother Earth" entries that are written in regards to him, by people like Emma Goldman and Voltairine De Cleyre, they mention that he was completely unknown in the anarchist scene.

Anyway, I'm going to take another position from all the people who say that Stewart "ain't that bad". I think that he's actually worse than the more ridiculous figures on the conservative right, although I admit to sometimes watching his show. His liberalism is far, far more insidious than the ideologies he mocks, at least from a radical perspective. It reminds me of what a UK resident told me, in regards to the BBC: that the BBC, while not being as blatantly propagandistic as Fox News, still portrays the UK as basically the pinnacle of civilization thus far, and reports on anyone trying to alter it (a.k.a. people like communists etc) negatively in light of this.

Look at his "Rally to Restore Sanity" gig: "sanity" is the comfortable moderate liberalism that he espouses, the milquetoast political stance that relies on mocking only the most absurd GOP blowhards and once in a while a Democrat. Everything outside this narrow spectrum is "insane".

[Sensible Socialist]

Anyway, I'm going to take another position from all the people who say that Stewart "ain't that bad". I think that he's actually worse than the more ridiculous figures on the conservative right, although I admit to sometimes watching his show. His liberalism is far, far more insidious than the ideologies he mocks, at least from a radical perspective.

That's like calling a petty thief worse than a mass arsonist.

When we on the left start to criticise a comedian for supposedly hampering the movement of people to the left, instead of looking at ourselves for the mass of people hanging around the "center," we have a serious problem.

[Leftsolidarity]

Look at his "Rally to Restore Sanity" gig: "sanity" is the comfortable moderate liberalism that he espouses, the milquetoast political stance that relies on mocking only the most absurd GOP blowhards and once in a while a Democrat. Everything outside this narrow spectrum is "insane".

And radical leftists do the same. He is a liberal so obviously would think being something other than a liberal is "insane". He's not us but he's a fuck of a lot better than most other people with tv shows.

[Jose Gracchus]

With his "Rally to Restore Sanity," he stopped being merely some comedian, and active participant in dissipating and redirecting popular politics.

[Sensible Socialist]

With his "Rally to Restore Sanity," he stopped being merely some comedian, and active participant in dissipating and redirecting popular politics.
He's not dissipating anything. People give Stewart too much credit, as if he is the overlord of the service-sector, college-educated trendy demographic he "leads." The only thing he is doing is expanding his comedy into the realms he jokes about: politics. It's not his doing that a large segment of a generation is jaded and is so out of touch with actual politics that they get satisfaction from hanging out at hipster wankathons. He's in the business of making money, or at least his employers are. He is exploiting a niche in the market. To think he has any serious political aspirations and is trying to manifest or control those aspirations with a single rally is ridiculous. People act as if the man has been on a soapbox every week, staging rally after rally. He had a single gathering of his fans in conjunction with Colbert. It was a joke on Glenn Beck's rally, not a serious piece of political organizing.

[Tablo]

Still going to keep watching Stewart. I've seen far worse on television and I think his show is funny.

[Klaatu]

I've not ever heard Stewart SAY he is Socialist. But I have heard Ed Shultz say he (himself) is Socialist.
Heard Lawrence O'Donnell too say "I am a Socialist" on his show tonight. (problem is that, he said he also partly still believes in Capitalism... so does this count? - maybe he is in the process of transition. Like he said: "We must admit it to ourselves when we believe in Socialism... come out of the closet..." (this is not an exact quote, but close.)

This is good.. MSNBC commentators "coming out" Keep it going guys - we need your support!

[Revolutionary_Change]

I normally like the daily show, but this interview distorts and misrepresents just about every piece of history it mentions, ultimately taking the side of imperialism and capital over the people. In a mainstream program I expect a certian amount of brainwashed stupidity but what made me really angry, apart from the obvious misrepresentation of the anarchists, was that "liberal" historians have even agreed that the Haymarket trials were a sham and that those imprisoned and killed by the state of Illinois were victims of political persecution. Yet here was john pretending that they were "crazy bomb throwing terrorists" and using their execution as proof of how dangerous Anarchist were.

John talks about how weird it would be to have people touring the country speaking out against the government and rallying the working class, his implication being that such people should obviously be imprisoned. The real point is how persecuted the anarchists, trade unionist and communists were, just for speaking their opinion and pointing out obvious facts about capitalist society. The weird world is our own, where the media is controlled by a handful of corporations, and you hear the same right wing drivel day in and day out.

[Tablo]

I normally like the daily show, but this interview distorts and misrepresents just about every piece of history it mentions, ultimately taking the side of imperialism and capital over the people. In a mainstream program I expect a certian amount of brainwashed stupidity but what made me really angry, apart from the obvious misrepresentation of the anarchists, was that "liberal" historians have even agreed that the Haymarket trials were a sham and that those imprisoned and killed by the state of Illinois were victims of political persecution. Yet here was john pretending that they were "crazy bomb throwing terrorists" and using their execution as proof of how dangerous Anarchist were.

John talks about how weird it would be to have people touring the country speaking out against the government and rallying the working class, his implication being that such people should obviously be imprisoned. The real point is how persecuted the anarchists, trade unionist and communists were, just for speaking their opinion and pointing out obvious facts about capitalist society. The weird world is our own, where the media is controlled by a handful of corporations, and you hear the same right wing drivel day in and day out.
I honestly think John doesn't really know much of anything about it. It isn't like any of the early 20th century class struggle is taught in schools, despite the fact it is a HUGE part of American history. I can't even emphasize how big it is. One reason I was originally a secondary education major was because I wanted to expose the realities of history. John Stewart is a reactionary, but I think that could be said about most Americans and their views. The class war is a never ending struggle that will always have new challenges as long as humans exist. I already have low expectations for Comedy Central programs so maybe it is easier for me to shrug off this BS. It isn't like anyone outside of history/political nerds in the US, like myself, would know about.

[Hexen]

I think we a leftist version of the Daily Show.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That's like calling a petty thief worse than a mass arsonist.

Ultimately it isn't the people who Stewart makes fun of who cripple/destroy revolutionary movements. It's people who urge moderation, reconciliation and compromise.

[Sensible Socialist]

Ultimately it isn't the people who Stewart makes fun of who cripple/destroy revolutionary movements. It's people who urge moderation, reconciliation and compromise.
If you think Jon Stewart is the cause for the lack of strength of thre revolutionary left in America, you're deluding yourself. Sure, Stewart thinks people should calm down a bit and come together, but I'd much rather that opinion than a racist attitude toward any non-Americans and a desire to institute a christian theocracy. But they, that's just me. I think you're looking for a scapegoat for the current lack of revolutionary vigor.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If you think Jon Stewart is the cause for the lack of strength of thre revolutionary left in America, you're deluding yourself. Sure, Stewart thinks people should calm down a bit and come together, but I'd much rather that opinion than a racist attitude toward any non-Americans and a desire to institute a christian theocracy. But they, that's just me. I think you're looking for a scapegoat for the current lack of revolutionary vigor.

Ha where did I say that Jon Stewart is the cause of the lack of revolutionary leftism?

Jon Stewart is just a man.

[Sensible Socialist]

Ha where did I say that Jon Stewart is the cause of the lack of revolutionary leftism?

Jon Stewart is just a man.
I was under the impression you were referring to Stewart (and others) when you said "people who urge moderation, reconciliation and compromise."

[Welshy]

I've not ever heard Stewart SAY he is Socialist. But I have heard Ed Shultz say he (himself) is Socialist.
Heard Lawrence O'Donnell too say "I am a Socialist" on his show tonight. (problem is that, he said he also partly still believes in Capitalism... so does this count? - maybe he is in the process of transition. Like he said: "We must admit it to ourselves when we believe in Socialism... come out of the closet..." (this is not an exact quote, but close.)

This is good.. MSNBC commentators "coming out" Keep it going guys - we need your support!

What they think is socialism, is very far from what is actually socialism (hell it makes social democracy sound like communism). I don't think leftists should really support this sort of thing.

[Tim Finnegan]

It reminds me of what a UK resident told me, in regards to the BBC: that the BBC, while not being as blatantly propagandistic as Fox News, still portrays the UK as basically the pinnacle of civilization thus far, and reports on anyone trying to alter it (a.k.a. people like communists etc) negatively in light of this.
True. The Whiggishness runs very deep here.


He's not dissipating anything. People give Stewart too much credit, as if he is the overlord of the service-sector, college-educated trendy demographic he "leads." The only thing he is doing is expanding his comedy into the realms he jokes about: politics. It's not his doing that a large segment of a generation is jaded and is so out of touch with actual politics that they get satisfaction from hanging out at hipster wankathons. He's in the business of making money, or at least his employers are. He is exploiting a niche in the market. To think he has any serious political aspirations and is trying to manifest or control those aspirations with a single rally is ridiculous. People act as if the man has been on a soapbox every week, staging rally after rally. He had a single gathering of his fans in conjunction with Colbert. It was a joke on Glenn Beck's rally, not a serious piece of political organizing.
It is possible for a distinction to be made between that Stewart means to to do and what Stewart is actually doing. He may have staged his rally as a grand farce, and meant nothing more of it than to make fun of Beck and Jackson (because let's remember, Stewart prides himself on being on the exact centre, regardless of whether or not he actually is), but that doesn't mean that it can be taken as nothing more than that, as something essentially removed from the political context in which it occurred, and as such that it can be assumed to have had made no ripples of its own. You may as well claim that the recent British royal wedding was a political non-event, because it wasn't explicitly posed as such by its immediate organisers.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Daily Show likes to present itself as a non political, political show if that makes any sense. Like they're just joshing the establishment whenever some of them nudge Stewart and say WTF man.

But the show is an example of how an art medium can be political without even being political.

I can watch an episode of South Park, a non political one, and can tell the show is libertarian reactionary crap from what the show presupposes in its jokes.

Same with the Family Guy. You cannot really run away from politics because politics is social and prevalent in our society.

It's about as silly as when your friend tells you, "politics isn't my thing, it's not for me".

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was under the impression you were referring to Stewart (and others) when you said "people who urge moderation, reconciliation and compromise."

Well, yeah, but you said:


If you think Jon Stewart is the cause for the lack of strength of thre revolutionary left in America, you're deluding yourself.

I don't think that Jon Stewart is the cause of a factor in the lack of "revolutionary vigour" in America, but I think that the talking point he commonly emphasizes (i.e. look at all these crazy loons on the left and right, golly I'm glad I'm represent the common sense middle) is, to a certain extent.

Look. Ultimately these "Christian theocrats" aren't going to take over America. Only a minority of evangelical Christians even vote, in fact, and polls have showed that Americans have only gotten less religious over the decades. The spectre of evangelical Christian theocracy is a great way for Dems to get out the vote, right up there with the army of Glenn Beck brownshirts who will be marching in the streets any day now, or at least according to some on this site.

I'm trying to look at the situation from a communist perspective, as I'm sure others here do. If I was looking at the situation from a MoveOn.org perspective, then I'm sure that Stewart and the ideological perspective he represents wouldn't be as bad as the other garden variety wingnuts and reactionaries. And, all things being equal, he's not as bad as someone who wants abortion to be punished by the death penalty, or someone who wants adulterers stoned, etc. But all things aren't equal, those people have no chance of having their will legislated, and the social democracies of the world are no closer to achieving a real revolutionary movement than the USA is. Maybe a little further in some ways, actually...the spirit of compromise and coalition in the political sphere of many European states is a lot stronger than it is in the USA, for example.

[Agent Ducky]

Ugh. Generally I like his show because it's funny and I can watch it with my liberal parents without too many issues. But at this point, they were all up in my shit. Because they were talking about Emma Goldman and I was like "Emma Goldman is pretty cool." And they were describing McKinley's "introduction into foreign policy" and I was like "That's code for imperialist bastard!" I showed the slightest sympathy for the motives of the assassination and they started giving me shit and now I bet they think all anarchists including me are DANGEROUS MURDERERS. FFFFF-

[Magón]

Ugh. Generally I like his show because it's funny and I can watch it with my liberal parents without too many issues. But at this point, they were all up in my shit. Because they were talking about Emma Goldman and I was like "Emma Goldman is pretty cool." And they were describing McKinley's "introduction into foreign policy" and I was like "That's code for imperialist bastard!" I showed the slightest sympathy for the motives of the assassination and they started giving me shit and now I bet they think all anarchists including me are DANGEROUS MURDERERS. FFFFF-

And with that, you're finally a true Anarchist.

[Susurrus]

Czolgosz is actually a really sad case. It's true that his family despised him, but this was due to their Roman Catholic beliefs. By all accounts he was a recluse, and spent his time in the attic where he lived shut in his room, drinking milk and reading leftist literature. After hearing Emma Goldman speak he tried to get involved with the anarchist movement, but the anarchists believed him to be a police spy due to the fact that he appeared out of nowhere and advocated violence, and printed a warning against associating with him. He was inspired by the earlier assassination of King Umberto I of Italy by an anarchist.

If only there had been a revleft back then for him to join.:(

[o well this is ok I guess]

Czolgosz is actually a really sad case. It's true that his family despised him, but this was due to their Roman Catholic beliefs. By all accounts he was a recluse, and spent his time in the attic where he lived shut in his room, drinking milk and reading leftist literature. After hearing Emma Goldman speak he tried to get involved with the anarchist movement, but the anarchists believed him to be a police spy due to the fact that he appeared out of nowhere and advocated violence, and printed a warning against associating with him. He was inspired by the earlier assassination of King Umberto I of Italy by an anarchist.

If only there had been a revleft back then for him to join.:( So he could have spent all his days drinking milk and reading leftist literature.

[La Comédie Noire]

If you think Jon Stewart is the cause for the lack of strength of thre revolutionary left in America, you're deluding yourself. Sure, Stewart thinks people should calm down a bit and come together, but I'd much rather that opinion than a racist attitude toward any non-Americans and a desire to institute a christian theocracy. But they, that's just me. I think you're looking for a scapegoat for the current lack of revolutionary vigor.

He's not the cause, he is a symptom of the lack of strength of the revolutionary left.

[Klaatu]

What they think is socialism, is very far from what is actually socialism (hell it makes social democracy sound like communism). I don't think leftists should really support this sort of thing.

Actually I agree with you. Some people that SAY they are Socialist may not really understand what they are saying. Therein lies the problem: "pseudo-socialism." (have these folks actually studied Marx, et al?)

Also, it is said that the so-called "Tea Party" in the U.S. are "patroits." HA! These people are CAPITALIST FASCISTS, and are the reincarnation of HITLER himself. (Reincarnation of an IDEA, that is.) That idea is that there is ONE "correct" way of doing things, one "correct" political philosophy, one "correct" religion," one "correct" solution to all of the nations' problems, and that is the Tea Party.

Conclusion: Beware of people that claim to have all of the answers.

[Geiseric]

i think communism and DotP is the "correct" way of doing things, does that make me as bad as the anarchists?

[anarcho-communist4]

That episode actually made me sick. He trivialized everything anrachists worked for in the late 1800's and early 1900's. He couldn't even do the research and learn that the man who attempted to assassinate Frick was Alexander Berkman. He also got the details of the attempt completely wrong. They made Czoglosz seem like he was not accepted by anyone?? Anarchists including Emma and Berkman did not refute his "Propaganda by deed" whatsoever. I know its a satirical political show, on comedy central, but even for Jon Stewart this is a low. He usually seems at least semi well informed on most of the subjects he talks about, but this time, he came completely unprepared.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

A slight change of subject but what are the politics of the Family Guy? Most of it is semi-entertaining crap but at times it borders on class struggle commentary (Peter's relationship with his father in law, Mr. Puuuunishment) and I like Bryan's atheism.The show stops just short of meaningful commentary though. The Quagmire character is offensive as is the elderly implied pedophile neighbor.It doesn't help that the main lead Peter Griffin, is shown as a narcissistic egotistical nincompoop.

I just started watching this show closely and I'm trying to figure out what to think of it.

[Susurrus]

A slight change of subject but what are the politics of the Family Guy? Most of it is semi-entertaining crap but at times it borders on class struggle commentary (Peter's relationship with his father in law, Mr. Puuuunishment) and I like Bryan's atheism.The show stops just short of meaningful commentary though. The Quagmire character is offensive as is the elderly implied pedophile neighbor.It doesn't help that the main lead Peter Griffin, is shown as a narcissistic egotistical nincompoop.

I just started watching this show closely and I'm trying to figure out what to think of it.

It would seem they are fans of Bill Maher(idk though, never watched it):

BNbpSv4-4Is

[Crux]

A slight change of subject but what are the politics of the Family Guy? Most of it is semi-entertaining crap but at times it borders on class struggle commentary (Peter's relationship with his father in law, Mr. Puuuunishment) and I like Bryan's atheism.The show stops just short of meaningful commentary though. The Quagmire character is offensive as is the elderly implied pedophile neighbor.It doesn't help that the main lead Peter Griffin, is shown as a narcissistic egotistical nincompoop.

I just started watching this show closely and I'm trying to figure out what to think of it.
Well, Brian had a "Kucinich '04" bumper sticker on his car in the show I watched last night.