Why do we remain only on the Internet?

[Jacob Cliff]

I really don't mean this in a pretentious way or anything – I'm sure a great deal of you are involved with protesting, organizing, etc. (I unfortunately am not given the area I live in).

But why do none of you well-read Marxists challenge, say, a Fox News anchor to a debate? Why does nobody call in on Michael Savage's show and deal him an ideological deathblow? Why not try to make our understanding publicized – via the most effective means of propaganda: the media?

I would participate in that myself, but I'm not nearly as well read as some of the folks here. Why does nobody here – and there really are some geniuses on this forum – openly publicize their views on, say, the news or talk shows?

All it really takes is one embarrassment of a guy like Michael Savage or Glenn Beck (people who really are arrogant enough to take a debate up on this issue on their talk shows) to send a video going viral. And, in my opinion, that's probably be best way to reach out to the youth.

Even if it's not convincing everyone watching of revolutionary socialism, it would certainly open people up to the fact that the left is not dead – that the communist movement isn't that shallow left-liberal moralistic philosophy that conservatives make it out to be. I think this kind of action – especially done en masse – could really make a difference.

[motion denied]

Some parties justify their participation in bourgeois elections coming from your line of reasoning. The question is though: if you're looking to convince people, why would you go on TV and not join them in their actual movement, day-to-day jobs etc?

I'm not from Burgerland but I'd think when you're debating a true freedom-loving, God-worshiping murkan it doesn't matter who has the best arguments.

[Emmett Till]

I really don't mean this in a pretentious way or anything – I'm sure a great deal of you are involved with protesting, organizing, etc. (I unfortunately am not given the area I live in).

But why do none of you well-read Marxists challenge, say, a Fox News anchor to a debate? Why does nobody call in on Michael Savage's show and deal him an ideological deathblow? Why not try to make our understanding publicized – via the most effective means of propaganda: the media?

I would participate in that myself, but I'm not nearly as well read as some of the folks here. Why does nobody here – and there really are some geniuses on this forum – openly publicize their views on, say, the news or talk shows?

All it really takes is one embarrassment of a guy like Michael Savage or Glenn Beck (people who really are arrogant enough to take a debate up on this issue on their talk shows) to send a video going viral. And, in my opinion, that's probably be best way to reach out to the youth.

Even if it's not convincing everyone watching of revolutionary socialism, it would certainly open people up to the fact that the left is not dead – that the communist movement isn't that shallow left-liberal moralistic philosophy that conservatives make it out to be. I think this kind of action – especially done en masse – could really make a difference.

An interesting thought, but I'm pretty sure Savage and Glenn Beck screen who gets on. Actually they are popular enough that they pretty much have to. And if not, you could expect to get hung up on as soon as you identified yourself as a socialist--or subjected, at least with Savage, to a savage tirade where you don't get allowed a word edgewise, and then hung up on.

[Jacob Cliff]

An interesting thought, but I'm pretty sure Savage and Glenn Beck screen who gets on. Actually they are popular enough that they pretty much have to. And if not, you could expect to get hung up on as soon as you identified yourself as a socialist--or subjected, at least with Savage, to a savage tirade where you don't get allowed a word edgewise, and then hung up on.
You'd be surprised – a lot don't. And even if they did, they might think they're going to show America "how dumb the socialists are" and be in for a pleasant surprise when asked exactly what the "communism" they always shout about even means.

[Abdullah Tshabal]

You'd be surprised – a lot don't. And even if they did, they might think they're going to show America "how dumb the socialists are" and be in for a pleasant surprise when asked exactly what the "communism" they always shout about even means.

Someone should get directly to the point and ask that on live TV. I'd love to see the response

[Comrade #138672]

But why do none of you well-read Marxists challenge, say, a Fox News anchor to a debate? Why does nobody call in on Michael Savage's show and deal him an ideological deathblow? Why not try to make our understanding publicized – via the most effective means of propaganda: the media?Do you really believe that is going to work? Do you really believe that they will help us spread our "message"?

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Do you really believe that is going to work? Do you really believe that they will help us spread our "message"?
More than this forum, not that it's its objective.

[#FF0000]

I understand where you're coming from but, just to nitpick, calling into some right-wing talk-radio thing isn't really going to help anyone. Those people are showmen above anything and you aren't going to ever actually get a leg up in that discussion, especially when they have the power to hang up or mute the caller.

[Jacob Cliff]

Do you really believe that is going to work? Do you really believe that they will help us spread our "message"?
Let's see:

Did I say I think it would not help spread our message?

No?

Okay, then you have your answer.


Seriously, enough with this pretentious bullshit that doesn't contribute a thing.

[BIXX]

Then why do it?

[The Idler]

Most leftists are not interested in debating with the media, dismissing it as bourgeois. Read this http://madammiaow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/why-is-left-failing-to-grab-popular.html
That is why it is not difficult for Russell Brand to look radical and become popular.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I called Glenn Beck up last week but he said he's washing his hair. :(

[Mr. Piccolo]

Trying to debate right-wing talk show hosts is like trying to debate your crazy uncle who thinks Obama is a communist and will be sending people to the Gulag any day now. It is much better to talk to regular working people about their everyday struggles to show them how the capitalist system is making their lives worse.

[Antiochus]

Actually debating using the mainstream media is absolutely idiotic. Off course the media is "bourgeois" (wtf is it if not merely a propaganda/marketing tool for Capital).

Even in an ideal situation: Equal time with say, a batshit idiot like Glenn Beck. You could NEVER win the debate. I mean NEVER (in the 5-10 minute 'format' typical of the media). There is simply no way. These people have not only the media backing them up, but LITERALLY the entire state apparatus. They can make the most absurd claims possible and they will still be taken seriously. For example, lets say you identify as a Socialist, all Glenn Beck would have to do is say "rofl rofl venezuela rofl rofl". You would then have to spend your entire time attempting to differentiate "your" Socialism from his vision of it (which incidentally is what 90%+ of Americans believe in).

Russel Brand is popular because he is an idiot. He is a clown. And that is fine. As soon as you get someone with left-leaning politics that is a serious person (say Chomsky), the answer is then simply to ignore them totally. I didn't even know he existed until 3 years ago. And if that is the case for a linguist with enormous exposure in international media, is it not obvious what it would be for a 'typical communist'?

If you honestly think this would 'work', you might as well try your luck convincing hundreds of top shareholders to 'change their mind' about Capitalism and single-handily bring it down.

[Comrade #138672]

Russell Brand is popular because he was already popular because of his movies.

[The Idler]

Russell Brand's media strategy was considered fresh thinking because socialists on the media are unheard of.
And it was taken more seriously because he was asked to edit the New Statesman.
Socialists ignore the media at their peril.

[Црвена]

Russell Brand's media strategy was considered fresh thinking because socialists on the media are unheard of.
And it was taken more seriously because he was asked to edit the New Statesman.
Socialists ignore the media at their peril.

Russell Brand wasn't socialist and didn't say anything socialist. He was your average hipster liberal who used a lot of radical rhetoric but didn't say anything particularly radical. So he was useful to the people running the media because he could make them look as though they were listening to radicals without them actually having to listen to radicals. And he is also a celebrity with a ton of money behind him.

Also...wtf, New Statesman? I didn't think they cared that much about looking "current."

[The Idler]

Russell Brand wasn't socialist and didn't say anything socialist. He was your average hipster liberal who used a lot of radical rhetoric but didn't say anything particularly radical. So he was useful to the people running the media because he could make them look as though they were listening to radicals without them actually having to listen to radicals. And he is also a celebrity with a ton of money behind him.

Also...wtf, New Statesman? I didn't think they cared that much about looking "current."
Also BBC Question Time and BBC Newsnight on multiple occasions including a one on one interview with Jeremy Paxman ...
I'm not saying Russell Brand is socialist or even radical. The point is the absence of socialism in the media is only made possible by the absence of socialists caused by socialists absenting themselves. In any case you write for Weekly Worker whose members have been on TV on multiple occasions including BBC News and BBC Newsnight.

[Comrade #138672]

The point is the absence of socialism in the media is only made possible by the absence of socialists caused by socialists absenting themselves.And why do you think that socialists are "absenting themselves"? Is it really the case that socialists ignore the media?

This seems similar to saying that "unemployment exists because workers are not looking for work hard enough" in that obviously many workers stop looking for work when they cannot find any work over a long period of time, but to see that as the primary reason for unemployment is a bit of a stretch.

[Црвена]

Also BBC Question Time and BBC Newsnight on multiple occasions including a one on one interview with Jeremy Paxman ...
I'm not saying Russell Brand is socialist or even radical. The point is the absence of socialism in the media is only made possible by the absence of socialists caused by socialists absenting themselves. In any case you write for Weekly Worker whose members have been on TV on multiple occasions including BBC News and BBC Newsnight.

I think in most cases, it's a good idea for socialists to absent themselves, because on the right-wing talk shows the OP was talking about the outcome will pretty much inevitably be a whole lot of straw-manning and bias and no constructive discussion, as people have mentioned. I was just pointing out before that the only reason this doesn't really happen to Brand is that he isn't radical.

[The Idler]

A list of CPGB-PCC appearances on TV


23rd November 2009, Communist Student on BBC News 24
http://communiststudents.org.uk/cs-news/cs-member-on-news-24/
11th October 2008, Mark Fischer (Channel 4 News)
http://hammer-and-sickle.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/cpgbs-mark-fisher-on-tv.html
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=1848976562
21st September 2007, Mark Fischer on BBC Newsnight
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/381693.html?c=on
15th November 2005, Mark Fischer on G8: Can you Hear Us? (BBC 4)
https://archive.org/details/G8CanYouHearUs
22nd November 1991 / 1992?, a very young Mark Fischer on End of the Party (Channel 4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbZeqwFxaQw&t=7m8s

[John Nada]

Those right-wing show are not for honest debates, dialogs, discussions or informational. It's an act, and the enemy is there as a prop for the slapstick comedy. 99% of the time, they either get someone that we'd at the fringes, or isn't articulate, attractive or charismatic at all.

The host will through a bunch of dishonest rhetorical questions, strawpersons, ad hominems and logical fallacies("Why do you hate freedom and want to kill 100 billion people like Stalin and Mao? We don't have the money, you going to steal it from hard-working Americans to give lazy welfare queens and illegals heroin and free stuff? Do you want America to end up like Greece and the Wiemar Republic, they were socialist? What if everyone in Mexico just jumped the borders, takes your job, overwhelm our schools and hospitals, and murdered your family? You want terrorist to invade, killed you and imposed Sharia law? What if your mom aborted you? Socialism doesn't work!") at them to throw them off, to piss them off, catch them off-guard, have them think about a response, stumble, get nervous and saying "uh" a lot so they look ignorant. And if none of this works, they just edit it to make the host look better.

There is rare times every once in a while where there is someone who manages to maneuver, counters it all and actually make the rightist look bad, even after editing. It's very hard to pull off. Seems like it occurs when the host gets a guest they think is a fool and vastly underestimates them for whatever reason. Or they're just one of those people who're really smart, articulate and charismatic.

Or they make the first move and turn their bullshit on them first("Why do you want millions to starve while you just sit on your butt in this nice office? You want to napalm millions of children! You support capitalism, which killed billions people! Hundreds of millions more a year!The workers pay your welfare from the profits, you parasite! You hate freedom and want a police state. You support genocide. You're just a corporate mouthpiece and a shill, nothing special! Can't believe they pay for your opinion, couldn't get that TV gig. Got a face for radio anyway. You're a racist and a fascist!). But they might end up looking like an asshole.

Really I don't see the need to share a platform with a bigot and take the part as a clown in their circus. They spew some racist, sometimes fascist shit. You might get exposure, but it's like going to a fundamentalist church, mosque or temple and making a case for atheism, LGBTQ liberation, abortion and abolishing the family. The audience consist of people with right-wing authoritarian personalities who've already made up their minds. People with that mindset are "true believers" and it's essentially useless trying to convince them. They're probably more likely to convert you to their rightist bullshit. Not that they're convincing, but that right-wing authoritarians tend to be very set in their positions.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Other users have already addressed the m.o. of talk show hosts like Savage. It also doesn't seem to me, from what I've heard, that most people watch these shows looking for serious political discussion.

Also, I don't think the left simply needs more media exposure. To tell the truth, we have enough. It's just that the exposure reveals that the left is in shambles, that is has lost all touch with the working class and often with reality as well, and that right-wing ideology is so popular because most self-proclaimed leftists are unable if not unwilling to formulate an alternative.

The socialist left needs to get its act together. It needs to show itself able to formulate an alternative - to the hungry stomachs it needs to prove that its ideas can lead to a society without hunger, to brains boiling over the situation in the world it needs to prove that the socialist worker can inherit the progressive mantle of the old revolutionary bourgeoisie.

And for that to happen, the socialist left needs to drop the vagueness, the mysticism and the anti-scientific attitude, the same old slogans that are recycled in every situation (fight cuts! fight austerity!), uncritical assimilation of radlib and academic "radical" theories, the populism. It needs to sharply differentiate itself from the swamp of existing parties and groups, particularly those that call themselves "left". It needs to offer a detailed, forward-thinking vision of the future society, not vague promises and a child-like opposition to everything existing. It needs to stand for a progressive, rational society.

I don't think the bourgeois media will help in this regard. Part of what needs to be done is of course intervention into the class struggle. I actually think our comrades from the CPGB-PCC have some idea of the other component, although they shouldn't let that get to their head: building workers' institutions to create something like a revolutionary workers' culture. But these can't be bicycle clubs, or Kollontai's workers' cantinas. We need workers' and minorities struggle leagues, workers' guards against anti-immigrant violence, workers' schools and lecture series etc.

But - all of this after we clear with ourselves what we want and if we're all on the same side.

[human strike]

The debate or interview or whatever will always be on their terms and what you'll end up with is this:

4:11 - 5:30 - http://www.channel4.com/news/bristol-fire-arson-police-informal-anarchist-fedederation

When the media is intent on fitting your words into an already decided upon narrative it doesn't matter what you say, it's only going to be framed in a way that fits that narrative; which is what I think can be seen in this Channel 4 interview.

[RedMaterialist]

A list of CPGB-PCC appearances on TV


23rd November 2009, Communist Student on BBC News 24
http://communiststudents.org.uk/cs-news/cs-member-on-news-24/
11th October 2008, Mark Fischer (Channel 4 News)
http://hammer-and-sickle.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/cpgbs-mark-fisher-on-tv.html
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=1848976562
21st September 2007, Mark Fischer on BBC Newsnight
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/381693.html?c=on
15th November 2005, Mark Fischer on G8: Can you Hear Us? (BBC 4)
https://archive.org/details/G8CanYouHearUs
22nd November 1991 / 1992?, a very young Mark Fischer on End of the Party (Channel 4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbZeqwFxaQw&t=7m8s

Five appearances in 25 yrs?

[Comrade Jacob]

I have been meaning to do weekly meet-ups with my party comrades in Glasgow, but travel is a problem and that city brings back hard memories.

[RedMaterialist]

One reason is that the internet is anonymous. At least until the FBI sends a subpoena to Google.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

One reason is that the internet is anonymous. At least until the FBI sends a subpoena to Google.

You don't need to do that when you have a backdoor to their data.

[The Idler]

Five appearances in 25 yrs?
Five more than 'exposure on the bourgeois media never helps the left'.