HBO's VICE Episode 4

[MarxArchist]

http://hbo.vice.com/episode-four/ep-4-seg-2


They do interviews with Golden Dawn and Anarchists and quite frankly give pretty shoddy analysis calling communists 'extremists'. What's to be expected from HBO though. At least they didn't sugar coat what Golden Dawn is about.

CbFzpIhzZT8

In the show they also interviewed an x-world bank exec who warned that Europe was going to affect the entire western world and global capitalism as a whole. He rather subtly warned against a resurgence of communism and a domino effect in the face of austerity measures. I suppose it could be classified as unbiased reporting but check out the show if you can find it online or have HBO. It was mildly entertaining and at least some attention is payed to the ongoing economic crisis. In the same show they get into China's one child policy and the culture which sprung up from it that almost seems like the older Victorian patriarchal marriage arrangement's. Like women are being sold to the highest bidder. In any event all topics relevant to communism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What's wrong with being "extremist"? Opposition to capital MUST be extreme - rational and coherent, but extreme nonetheless. During the feudal era the liberals were "extremist" too.

[Geiseric]

The anarchists were in a positive light, I like how vice did. Their one about syria and mali are nuts.

[DROSL]

I like VICE, I watched S01E05 and it's pretty shocking to see india's current poor/rich condition.

[Rafiq]

What's wrong with being "extremist"? Opposition to capital MUST be extreme - rational and coherent, but extreme nonetheless. During the feudal era the liberals were "extremist" too.

The bourgeois ideologues have not the right to declare the midpoint on their silly political spectrum, and that's still supposing that the spectrum is legitiment in the first place. There are no extremists, it is false dichtomony. There is only class character.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes it's silly how they just automatically presuppose that their ideology is the happy medium and the people to the left and to the right of them are just extremists. That's the utter arrogance I hate about the liberal.

That's why I think they can be worse than the right winger sometimes because they just see us and other leftists as being a part of a "spectrum" that can all coexist in their liberal democracy. The right winger automatically and without illusion knows that the leftist is his opposing force do there is no need for him to act like we can all fit under a shaky republic.

[Crabbensmasher]

I was watching a separate video they did where they referred to Francois Hollande as a "far-left socialist" leader. Whether you believe in the left-right political spectrum or not, that kind of leaves a bad impression. It kind of put me off of their stuff for awhile. Like, I understand that it's entertainment, but I'd like to have at least a bit more factual research.

[KurtFF8]

The bourgeois ideologues have not the right to declare the midpoint on their silly political spectrum, and that's still supposing that the spectrum is legitiment in the first place. There are no extremists, it is false dichtomony. There is only class character.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Why don' they have that right :confused: They've been ruling the world for some time now and have much to do with the way all of society is structured.

That doesn't make them "correct" but to argue for the revolutionary overthrow of the existing global order certainly does put a political position/ideology/analysis outside a "mainstream"

[Rafiq]

Why don' they have that right :confused:

Because, the notion that bourgeois-liberal (of the neoliberal variant today) ideology is at the midpoint of all political spectrum (ignoring class character) pre-supposes that Communism, or revolutionary ideology is somehow an extreme substantiation of a component of existing bourgeois-liberal ideology. That is the first point. The second point I would like to make is that although yes, they are and have been in a position of class dictatorship for quite some time, this logic of "Communists and Fascists are too extreme, let's go for the middle ground" is rather infuriating. It is infuriating because, as I said, they have no right to a midpoint because their midpoint not only does not exist in correlation with objective reality, it is utterly historically inconsistent. During the times of slavery in the United States, one could easily adopt this logic and say "people who want to abolish slavery and people who want to expand it are too extreme, let's go for a middle ground" and it would be just as legitimate. The bourgeoisie has a right to decide a midpoint within the constraints of their own political spectrum, various forms of bourgeois ideology, but as materialists we recognize that this midpoint is not a universal objective truth but a result of changing conditions and etc. but this is for them purely tactical.

[bcbm]

watched the first four episodes or whatever the other night, wasn't very impressed at all. don't remember what specifically pissed me off cuz i was drunk but almost all of the reporting struck me as really sensationalist and insubstantial, which has kind of always been shane smith's thing in vice. i was hoping it would be better because they have some decent documentaries on their website, but i guess for hbo they just went for 'lowest common denominator'

[ckaihatsu]

Because, the notion that bourgeois-liberal (of the neoliberal variant today) ideology is at the midpoint of all political spectrum (ignoring class character) pre-supposes that Communism, or revolutionary ideology is somehow an extreme substantiation of a component of existing bourgeois-liberal ideology. That is the first point. The second point I would like to make is that although yes, they are and have been in a position of class dictatorship for quite some time, this logic of "Communists and Fascists are too extreme, let's go for the middle ground" is rather infuriating. It is infuriating because, as I said, they have no right to a midpoint because their midpoint not only does not exist in correlation with objective reality, it is utterly historically inconsistent. During the times of slavery in the United States, one could easily adopt this logic and say "people who want to abolish slavery and people who want to expand it are too extreme, let's go for a middle ground" and it would be just as legitimate. The bourgeoisie has a right to decide a midpoint within the constraints of their own political spectrum, various forms of bourgeois ideology, but as materialists we recognize that this midpoint is not a universal objective truth but a result of changing conditions and etc. but this is for them purely tactical.


The left-right political spectrum is objectively correct, both structurally and historically.

The rightward side represents increasing privatization and balkanization, even to absurdities of individualistic factionalism.

The leftward side represents an increasing expansion of the public domain, to include even mass production, land, and the means of life and living.

Historically we might say that 'progress' is from the rightward to the leftward -- roughly speaking -- and that it should continue in that direction, to ultimately usurp all private claims.

Currently I liken the 'middle' to status-quo statism, which has an interest in keeping everyone else "spinning", confused, and incapable. When the state goes into crisis it is less able to assert its contrived middleman role, and the true class nature -- either wing -- of society and social production, is revealed for more-apparent class conflict.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://s6.postimage.org/zc8b2rb3h/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/)


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimage.org/cpkm723u5/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/cpkm723u5/)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The bourgeois ideologues have not the right to declare the midpoint on their silly political spectrum, and that's still supposing that the spectrum is legitiment in the first place. There are no extremists, it is false dichtomony. There is only class character.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I wasn't so much endorsing a 2-pole political spectrum so much as just being rhetorical. "Extremist" is used as a pejorative but there is no understanding of what this term means or why someone might take a perspective seen as "extreme".

[MarxArchist]

Yes it's silly how they just automatically presuppose that their ideology is the happy medium and the people to the left and to the right of them are just extremists. That's the utter arrogance I hate about the liberal.

That's why I think they can be worse than the right winger sometimes because they just see us and other leftists as being a part of a "spectrum" that can all coexist in their liberal democracy. The right winger automatically and without illusion knows that the leftist is his opposing force do there is no need for him to act like we can all fit under a shaky republic.

And then they travel around the world pointing out all these fucked up social conditions and act like "what the hell is causing all this, we should really write some letters to the White House".