I feel you are missing the point I am making. Just because media in a capitalist society mentions or brings up Marxism or communism sometimes, does not make that free media. It’s about the way the information itself is laid out and the perspective it is worded in. It is about the narrative the msm is trying to craft in order to change public opinion about that topic.
I agree. Tucker Carlson talking about Marxism isn't the same thing as Slavoj Žižek talking about Marxism.
That said, Žižek isn't invisible to the public. There is no one outright banning him from participating in media discourse. Twitter isn't shutting down his account for having Marxist dialogues. He is fundamentally free to talk about Marxist doctrine with whomever he pleases in pretty much any public space - even the heavily corporate and capitalist-dominated ones.
Example, Bezos owns the washpost. You will never find an article criticizing him in any way
Not in the WaPo. But I see plenty of critical pieces aimed at Bezos by way of Common Dreams and even one or two from the NYT. Not to mention the salvos from rags like Breitbart. There is not a void of media criticism for Bezos. What we more often see is hagiography out of Bezos-friendly journals which prompts criticism from rival media. Its often centered around some click-bait superficial news cycle commentary, though. Real Marxist critique simply isn't reprinted in the tabloids.
I’m not entirely sure what the point is you’re making here?
That Free Press / Speech exists as a policy. Its a thing that you can (and we mostly do) have in a liberal society. The merits of liberal free speech are what are debatable. But the exigency of the policy is indisputable.
Is a false claim. These policies exist and are in effect throughout much of the Western World.
The existence of Free Speech / Press simply isn't a threat to institutions of Capital. You can distribute all the Theory you want without any meaningful obstruction.
Where Capitalists push back - and push back hard - is in any effort to galvanize people into action. The SEIU can print a thousand fliers without anyone lifting a finger. But as soon as you actually try to strike, the hammer drops.
That Free Press / Speech exists as a policy. Its a thing that you can (and we mostly do) have in a liberal society. The merits of liberal free speech are what are debatable. But the exigency of the policy is indisputable.
Free speech isn’t a policy. It’s a philosophical idea that does not have the same weight as actual policy laid out in law. We have freedom of speech in the dumb as fuck constitution, but history shows that the government can take it away at any point. Things like free speech have as much power as we the people living under the system of government that drew them up give them. The government cracks down all the time throughout our history on people they think are using it against their interests. COINTELPRO and assassinations are a perfect example of this.
And I wasn’t saying in my example that Bezos never gets criticism. I literally said that in the paper he owns you will be hard pressed to find any. Which just shows that private censorship is a real thing that exists currently.
I’m honestly getting major :LIB: vibes the more I read your replies. Most leftists who actually apply a Marxist critique/viewpoint understand the futility of arguing freedom of speech being a real thing. Especially if you bring it up as a “policy” of a government lol
That becomes a policy when the domestic bureaucracy implements it as such.
We have freedom of speech in the dumb as fuck constitution, but history shows that the government can take it away at any point.
So long as it doesn't, "Free Speech" is the policy of said government.
The government cracks down all the time throughout our history on people they think are using it against their interests. COINTELPRO and assassinations are a perfect example of this.
The historical focus of COINTELPRO has been on activist communities - people actually attempting to realize their rhetoric through deeds rather than just distributing newsletters. The FBI didn't shut down the whole NAACP. It focused on the folks who organized the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Most leftists who actually apply a Marxist critique/viewpoint understand the futility of arguing freedom of speech being a real thing.
And yet here you fucking are. I guess we're both :LIB:s
I agree. Tucker Carlson talking about Marxism isn't the same thing as Slavoj Žižek talking about Marxism.
That said, Žižek isn't invisible to the public. There is no one outright banning him from participating in media discourse. Twitter isn't shutting down his account for having Marxist dialogues. He is fundamentally free to talk about Marxist doctrine with whomever he pleases in pretty much any public space - even the heavily corporate and capitalist-dominated ones.
Not in the WaPo. But I see plenty of critical pieces aimed at Bezos by way of Common Dreams and even one or two from the NYT. Not to mention the salvos from rags like Breitbart. There is not a void of media criticism for Bezos. What we more often see is hagiography out of Bezos-friendly journals which prompts criticism from rival media. Its often centered around some click-bait superficial news cycle commentary, though. Real Marxist critique simply isn't reprinted in the tabloids.
That Free Press / Speech exists as a policy. Its a thing that you can (and we mostly do) have in a liberal society. The merits of liberal free speech are what are debatable. But the exigency of the policy is indisputable.
Is a false claim. These policies exist and are in effect throughout much of the Western World.
The existence of Free Speech / Press simply isn't a threat to institutions of Capital. You can distribute all the Theory you want without any meaningful obstruction.
Where Capitalists push back - and push back hard - is in any effort to galvanize people into action. The SEIU can print a thousand fliers without anyone lifting a finger. But as soon as you actually try to strike, the hammer drops.
Free speech isn’t a policy. It’s a philosophical idea that does not have the same weight as actual policy laid out in law. We have freedom of speech in the dumb as fuck constitution, but history shows that the government can take it away at any point. Things like free speech have as much power as we the people living under the system of government that drew them up give them. The government cracks down all the time throughout our history on people they think are using it against their interests. COINTELPRO and assassinations are a perfect example of this.
And I wasn’t saying in my example that Bezos never gets criticism. I literally said that in the paper he owns you will be hard pressed to find any. Which just shows that private censorship is a real thing that exists currently.
I’m honestly getting major :LIB: vibes the more I read your replies. Most leftists who actually apply a Marxist critique/viewpoint understand the futility of arguing freedom of speech being a real thing. Especially if you bring it up as a “policy” of a government lol
It is absolutely a policy.
That becomes a policy when the domestic bureaucracy implements it as such.
So long as it doesn't, "Free Speech" is the policy of said government.
The historical focus of COINTELPRO has been on activist communities - people actually attempting to realize their rhetoric through deeds rather than just distributing newsletters. The FBI didn't shut down the whole NAACP. It focused on the folks who organized the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
And yet here you fucking are. I guess we're both :LIB:s
Me trying to explain my original point to you
:wall-talk:
This isn't Reddit, dude.
You just have real Redditor :LIB: vibes is all