Comrade-Z
6th May 2006, 17:14
For those of you who aren't familiar with it, Impact Press puts out one of the largest magazines of what I would call a "lifestylist" nature. You know, heavy on the veganism, anti-war, green anarchy, etc.
Well, I was disgusted when I saw their latest issue. On the front cover is a big picture of Martin Luther King's face photoshopped with Che's famous picture to make a blend of the two. The headline of this edition of the magazine is "Revealing the Revolutionary King"
In disbelief, I went to the article and was truly horrified by what I read (bolding mine, italics theirs):
...The time has come to stop giving lip service to the whitewashed version of King the powers that be force-feed us every year, and to take his call to march upon the radical road of living to free humanity of its bondage. We must resurrect the revolutionary King who called on America to give up its materialism, its objectification of human beings; the King who committed himself to economic and social equality for everyone; who unequivocally denounced warfare; repudiated neo-liberalism and an unrestrained, capricious capitalism...
Is there any other kind of capitalism? Impact and MLK seem to think so. And was neo-liberalism even a phenomenon back in King's day?
And notice the religious terms being thrown about. You'll find that it's a theme throughout this article, unfortunately. :o
...We must resurrect the spirit of the man who called on this nation to be "born again" because now more than ever, our country needs redemption, needs a savior, a prophet, needs the radical egalitarian message of Martin Luther King.
No. no. no. no. no. no. NO. NO. NO! NO! NO!!! :angry:
What the fuck is going on here!? :o :angry: This is supposed to be a revolutionary leftist publication!!! And yet they spew this leader-worship shit!
Later on they feature the words of King himself:
"We must honestly admit that capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small hearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that, like Dives before Lazarus, they are enmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity. The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered."
Capitalism has "often" left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty? How about always!
MLK also seems to think that our problem only lies with "small-hearted men." If only we had "benevolent" capitalists that cared for the poor, we'd be okay.
MLK also has no problem with the profit motive itself, just when it "gets out of hand."
MLK also denigrates egoism and individualism in the last line.
And note the continued religious allusions.
Impact magazine continues,
Considering the increasing concentration of wealth among the few, it's no wonder King believed that American society needed to be restructured and called for a broader distribution of wealth.
So now Impact magazine is trumpeting the cause of the broader distribution of wealth? Such pathetic reformism. Just absolutely pathetic.
The article features another quote by MLK that should clear up any confusion as to whether he was "revolutionary" or not:
"...Now don't think you have me in a bind today, I'm not talking about Communism...My inspiration didn't come from Karl Marx. My inspiration didn't come from Engels; my inspiration didn't come from Trotsky; my inspiration didn't come from Lenin...Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. The kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of Capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It's found in a higher synthesis that can combine the truths of both."
That piece of reactionary shit speaks for itself.
And apparently MLK was a dialectician all along! :lol: Of course, it's not difficult to guess what his "higher synthesis" is.
Wow, if dialectical reasoning can combine capitalism and communism into religion, then there must be something terribly inadequate about the thought process.
Possibly the worst section amongst this whole sickening article is the following passage by MLK which is featured in the article:
"If there had not been a Gandhi in India with all of his noble followers, India would have never been free. If there had not been an Nkrumah and his followers in Ghana, Ghana would still be a British colony. If there had not been abolitionists in America, both Negro and white, we might still stand today in the dungeons of slavery..."
Being such a spewer of leader-worship and religion, no wonder the bourgeois media doesn't have much of a problem making a saint out of MLK.
Impact also includes this reactionary piece of shit on the backside of the front cover:
"One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
Hey redstar2000, where can I find that vomiting emoticon once again?
In my opinion, this article is just one example of what I've been seeing more and more over the past six months or so with regards to the lifestylist movement: more leader-worship, more religion, more reformism, more neo-puritanism (straight-edge, anti-technology, asceticism, other weird stuff), less class struggle -- all negative tendencies for a revolutionary movement.
Well, I was disgusted when I saw their latest issue. On the front cover is a big picture of Martin Luther King's face photoshopped with Che's famous picture to make a blend of the two. The headline of this edition of the magazine is "Revealing the Revolutionary King"
In disbelief, I went to the article and was truly horrified by what I read (bolding mine, italics theirs):
...The time has come to stop giving lip service to the whitewashed version of King the powers that be force-feed us every year, and to take his call to march upon the radical road of living to free humanity of its bondage. We must resurrect the revolutionary King who called on America to give up its materialism, its objectification of human beings; the King who committed himself to economic and social equality for everyone; who unequivocally denounced warfare; repudiated neo-liberalism and an unrestrained, capricious capitalism...
Is there any other kind of capitalism? Impact and MLK seem to think so. And was neo-liberalism even a phenomenon back in King's day?
And notice the religious terms being thrown about. You'll find that it's a theme throughout this article, unfortunately. :o
...We must resurrect the spirit of the man who called on this nation to be "born again" because now more than ever, our country needs redemption, needs a savior, a prophet, needs the radical egalitarian message of Martin Luther King.
No. no. no. no. no. no. NO. NO. NO! NO! NO!!! :angry:
What the fuck is going on here!? :o :angry: This is supposed to be a revolutionary leftist publication!!! And yet they spew this leader-worship shit!
Later on they feature the words of King himself:
"We must honestly admit that capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small hearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that, like Dives before Lazarus, they are enmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity. The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered."
Capitalism has "often" left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty? How about always!
MLK also seems to think that our problem only lies with "small-hearted men." If only we had "benevolent" capitalists that cared for the poor, we'd be okay.
MLK also has no problem with the profit motive itself, just when it "gets out of hand."
MLK also denigrates egoism and individualism in the last line.
And note the continued religious allusions.
Impact magazine continues,
Considering the increasing concentration of wealth among the few, it's no wonder King believed that American society needed to be restructured and called for a broader distribution of wealth.
So now Impact magazine is trumpeting the cause of the broader distribution of wealth? Such pathetic reformism. Just absolutely pathetic.
The article features another quote by MLK that should clear up any confusion as to whether he was "revolutionary" or not:
"...Now don't think you have me in a bind today, I'm not talking about Communism...My inspiration didn't come from Karl Marx. My inspiration didn't come from Engels; my inspiration didn't come from Trotsky; my inspiration didn't come from Lenin...Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. The kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of Capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It's found in a higher synthesis that can combine the truths of both."
That piece of reactionary shit speaks for itself.
And apparently MLK was a dialectician all along! :lol: Of course, it's not difficult to guess what his "higher synthesis" is.
Wow, if dialectical reasoning can combine capitalism and communism into religion, then there must be something terribly inadequate about the thought process.
Possibly the worst section amongst this whole sickening article is the following passage by MLK which is featured in the article:
"If there had not been a Gandhi in India with all of his noble followers, India would have never been free. If there had not been an Nkrumah and his followers in Ghana, Ghana would still be a British colony. If there had not been abolitionists in America, both Negro and white, we might still stand today in the dungeons of slavery..."
Being such a spewer of leader-worship and religion, no wonder the bourgeois media doesn't have much of a problem making a saint out of MLK.
Impact also includes this reactionary piece of shit on the backside of the front cover:
"One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
Hey redstar2000, where can I find that vomiting emoticon once again?
In my opinion, this article is just one example of what I've been seeing more and more over the past six months or so with regards to the lifestylist movement: more leader-worship, more religion, more reformism, more neo-puritanism (straight-edge, anti-technology, asceticism, other weird stuff), less class struggle -- all negative tendencies for a revolutionary movement.