From: A and B Vitale (abvitale@FrontierNet.net)
Date: Mon 09 Dec 2002 - 13:11:55 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Bradley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I am glad that you pointed this matter out as many people conflate the
> I am a socialist, but not a Marxist. Likewise I am on the 'left', but only
> because the ones who I disagree with most claim that they are 'right' (not
> to be confused with correct).
it's an important distinction. in the aftermath of 9-11, the left is
getting slammed and slandered everywhere. finding convenient ways to
associate the left with failure makes the journalists who spew their
right-eousness look like they are actually making a valid criticism. and as
the left is far and away outnumbered in the media by the center (which most
see as the left) and the right, there is little in the way of public
discourse and defense. perhaps part of the issue is that the Left does not
tend to centralize and does not tend to package its message in sound-bytes
read by puppets.
because substance is not included within the "news" that most people receive
from the media, people have been trained to read for "association." the
conjunction is a useless part of the language now. as long as you can equate
two encapsulated buzz-words, you have all the news that's print to fit.
lumping in the Left with Marxism is one of those associations which have no
substance. the strategy works because when forced to defend these
allegations, the right pulls out another spin tactic: find a marxist and
prove they are on the Left. Since that, too, is read through associations.
the associative equation goes from: Left=Failed ideology to Person
there are many other left myths, based on the same associative spin. here
are a couple:
1) the anti-war left supports terrorism.
This despite the fact that criticism of the Taliban had been slung from the
Left since its inception...that human rights groups have always decried the
mistreatment of women in fundamentalist regimes...that even the marxist and
academic left were critical of the dangerous games being played by the US in
their funding of local warlords. however, since this time the US has
pronounced war on an ideology that is justifiably dangerous, it's forced
anti-war efforts to change strategy...instead of emphasizing that war is a
mistake, the anti-war left has to explain alternatives to perform the same
end. and such alternatives require attention to substance, which is just not
something that the media carriers care for.
And, of course, it's not just the left that supports terrorism...it's drug
addicts, too. commercials have shown, by association, that drugs are sold by
dealers who get their drugs from people who finance terrorists. associative
equation: drugs=supports terrorism.
The same equation was never made for oil. a more accurate one would be:
oil=supports nations which support terrorism.
2) the left are proponents of a failed economic system (marxism)
This despite the massive anti-globalization movements dominated by
non-marxist thinking. the public has been trained to think that you are
either a capitalist OR you are a communist. thus, the associative equation:
> Oh BTW are you A, B or A and B, and are you positive or negative?
i am the "A" in "A and B," positively.
> PS: Just for the record, I don't think that capitalism will work either
i agree...mostly because it propels centralization and larger populations,
requires exploitation, and is very good at becoming a pandemic.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 09 Dec 2002 - 13:08:22 GMT