This is such an idealist take. Refusing to engage with bourgeois media because it contains bourgeois bias is ironically the most liberal thing you can do. It’s retreatism, curating a ‘safe space’ where you never have to encounter a contradiction, rather than confronting the dominant narrative head on.
If we discarded every source that had a liberal or capitalist slant, we would effectively have to stop reading 99% of Western media. We would be blinding ourselves to the very mechanisms we are trying to dismantle. We are adults with functioning brains. We possess the capacity for critical analysis. We should be able to read a piece of liberal slop, identify the ideological framing, strip it away, and analyze the material conditions they are reporting on or trying to obscure.
From a dialectical perspective, you need to read the Wall Street Journal because it is the mouthpiece of the ruling class. It tells you exactly what capital is thinking, what they are afraid of, and how they are strategizing to protect their interests. You cannot effectively dismantle an argument if you refuse to understand its internal structure and logic.
Running away from information because it doesn’t align with your worldview is what liberals do when they retreat into their MSNBC bubbles. As socialists, we should be secure enough in our own position to read sources we abhor, understand them, and approach their claims from a position of knowledge. Ruthless criticism of all that exists includes reading the wsj.
I agree with everything you said. My comment was strictly about posting such an article without any discussion, any comment, just a link to it. If feels like posting “shit reactionaries say” outside its proper space. But to be clear, since my short comment was certainly unclear, my problem was not with discussing such article, just with posting them without any commentary whatsoever.
My view is that we are in an explicitly Marxist space here, so we should be able to share these kinds of articles with understanding that people will read them critically. The article is a great illustration of the power dynamics between the empire and the vassals, and I don’t really see anything you could really add to the title there to make it better. Like I said in another comment, if people see news from imperialist sources and they’re not clear on what the materialist take on the news is, that’s a perfect opportunity to start a discussion.
I’ll have that in mind going forward, thank you :) Though I still think it might be a good idea to write a couple sentences in the comments, just like you did here. “The article is a great illustration of the power dynamics between the empire and the vassals” would’ve been perfect. But of course I’m in no place at all to demand such a thing, please don’t take it that way.
I’m also still adapting to this space and I understand things work differently here, which is something I do appreciate.
This is such an idealist take. Refusing to engage with bourgeois media because it contains bourgeois bias is ironically the most liberal thing you can do. It’s retreatism, curating a ‘safe space’ where you never have to encounter a contradiction, rather than confronting the dominant narrative head on.
If we discarded every source that had a liberal or capitalist slant, we would effectively have to stop reading 99% of Western media. We would be blinding ourselves to the very mechanisms we are trying to dismantle. We are adults with functioning brains. We possess the capacity for critical analysis. We should be able to read a piece of liberal slop, identify the ideological framing, strip it away, and analyze the material conditions they are reporting on or trying to obscure.
From a dialectical perspective, you need to read the Wall Street Journal because it is the mouthpiece of the ruling class. It tells you exactly what capital is thinking, what they are afraid of, and how they are strategizing to protect their interests. You cannot effectively dismantle an argument if you refuse to understand its internal structure and logic.
Running away from information because it doesn’t align with your worldview is what liberals do when they retreat into their MSNBC bubbles. As socialists, we should be secure enough in our own position to read sources we abhor, understand them, and approach their claims from a position of knowledge. Ruthless criticism of all that exists includes reading the wsj.
I agree with everything you said. My comment was strictly about posting such an article without any discussion, any comment, just a link to it. If feels like posting “shit reactionaries say” outside its proper space. But to be clear, since my short comment was certainly unclear, my problem was not with discussing such article, just with posting them without any commentary whatsoever.
My view is that we are in an explicitly Marxist space here, so we should be able to share these kinds of articles with understanding that people will read them critically. The article is a great illustration of the power dynamics between the empire and the vassals, and I don’t really see anything you could really add to the title there to make it better. Like I said in another comment, if people see news from imperialist sources and they’re not clear on what the materialist take on the news is, that’s a perfect opportunity to start a discussion.
I’ll have that in mind going forward, thank you :) Though I still think it might be a good idea to write a couple sentences in the comments, just like you did here. “The article is a great illustration of the power dynamics between the empire and the vassals” would’ve been perfect. But of course I’m in no place at all to demand such a thing, please don’t take it that way.
I’m also still adapting to this space and I understand things work differently here, which is something I do appreciate.
👍