5 ms·

Well Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording. Maybe he doesn't neatly fit in

Well Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording. Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema, but by now he is mainly just a "bad media" propagandist. Also I can't take anyone seriously who claims to criticise mainstream media (almost always the more Liberal slanted one), but goes regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them. To see how to properly criticise Fox and Tucker search for the leaked interview with rudger bergman.

merricksb 6y ago
> Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording That’s an inflammatory claim, that needs direct quotes/links to be taken seriously. But lest it be forgotten that there has long been an acceptance among traditional left-wingers (including Bernie until it became unacceptable to too many of his followers) of the need for some immigration controls in order to protect the most vulnerable workers, and historically the loudest voices for open borders are Laissez-faire/social-Darwinist libertarians, most notably the Kochs. > Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema I think this is quite false: he fits into the traditional left/right spectrum as a bona-fide leftist. It’s the mainstream Democratic Party that has moved towards corporatism and militarism. > regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them What would it change for him to criticize them; to try to impress the people who would still hate him anyway? Carlson gives him airtime and the opportunity to express his position to an audience of people whose minds he might be able to change about a few things. Why waste that opportunity with token criticism?
- cycomanic 6y ago
  >> Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording >That’s an inflammatory claim, that needs direct quotes/links to be taken seriously. But lest it be forgotten that there has long been an acceptance among traditional left-wingers (including Bernie until it became unacceptable to too many of his followers) of the need for some immigration controls in order to protect the most vulnerable workers, and historically the loudest voices for open borders are Laissez-faire/social-Darwinist libertarians, most notably the Kochs. Maybe in the context of what counts as left in the US. But the socialist left movement was always an international movement (I give you three guesses what the anthem is called). Regarding some of the Greenwalds words: "Current illegal immigration – whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate – renders impossible the preservation of any national identity" http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as-argument-in.html http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as... Calling immigrants "hordes" is quite definitely language that is what I consider "hard-right". It dehumanises people and tries to instil fear and a violent counter-reaction. >> Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema >I think this is quite false: he fits into the traditional left/right spectrum as a bona-fide leftist. It’s the mainstream Democratic Party that has moved towards corporatism and militarism. The mainstream democratic party was never not corporatist and militaristic. There has not been a change. However, I'm interested what in your eye's qualifies Greenwald as a bona-fide leftist (whatever that means) >> regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them > What would it change for him to criticize them; to try to impress the people who would still hate him anyway? Carlson gives him airtime and the opportunity to express his position to an audience of people whose minds he might be able to change about a few things. Why waste that opportunity with token criticism? Funny, he does criticise the NYT and many other media outlets though. But you're not wrong, he can express his position to an audience, but he's not trying to change minds, he actually agrees with much that Tucker Carlson says. That means he agrees with the agenda of a billionaire who has been using his media to clearly push a neocon, hard-right agenda worldwide. Considering that Greenwald is somehow building this persona of a media critic who points out the "agenda" of mainstream media, it is somewhat contradictory to go on those shows without a word of criticism and without blinking an eye.
  - merricksb 6y ago
    I’ll try to keep it brief... - Those words about immigration were written in 2005. At worst they were unkind, hardly “hard right”, but he has since specifically disavowed those words [1][2]. Besides, your initial claim was that he was anti-immigration, which he has never been, just concerned about uncontrolled immigration, which is not inconsistent with being of the left, given that even Marx and other communists have wrestled with the pros and cons of immigration and issues around assimilation and solidarity [3][4][5]. - Greenwald has a long record of support for civil liberties, opposing wars and US militarism/interventionism, opposing Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians, campaigning for animal rights, supporting workers’ rights and unions, opposing “neoliberal” economics and corporate power, supporting universal health care and welfare. Which of these positions are not consistent with the left? And what actual policies has he supported in the past 15 years that are right wing? - He criticizes NYT and other mainstream media outlets for posturing in support of token liberal issues but ultimately promoting the interests of the corporate and military/intelligence establishments, which it can be reasonably argued, results in far greater real-world negative consequences than anything Tucker Carlson does. I expect you’ll disagree with that, which you’re entitled to do, but simply going on a conservative commentator’s show does not make you “right wing” when you have an at-least 15-year record of advocating for many clear-cut left wing positions and zero clear-cut right wing positions. [1] http://www.twitlonger.com/show/a2av5p http://www.twitlonger.com/show/a2av5p [2] https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/would-you-feel-differently-about-snowden-greenwald-and-assange-if-you-knew-what-the https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/would-you-feel... [3] https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/marx-on-immigration/ https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/marx-on-immigration/ [4] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0888325414566073 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08883254145660... [5] https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/1907-birth-socialisms-great-divide https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/1907-birth-socialisms-g...
    - cycomanic 6y ago
      Similar to my reply a bit further down, Marx (and the view of many of the socialists at the time) was not anti-immigration, or anti-immigrant. He (they) did not blame the immigrants for coming and in fact did not see anti-immigration laws as the solution (arguably having illegal immigrants leads to even more exploitation), but instead saw international organisation of workers as the solution. Your reference [3] says that and there are quite a few more writings from the time along similar lines (I will try to find the references later).
BlueTemplar 6y ago
The first communist international was mainly about antiimmigration. Were they "hard-right" too ?
- cycomanic 6y ago
  That's a pretty bold statement, you have any sources to back that up? The first international was about uniting international workers, there are in fact several writings who say that the bourgeoisie use nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiments to divide the working class.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_A... > They discussed the need for an international organisation, which would amongst other things prevent the import of foreign workers to break strikes. (Technically, at that point, other factions than communists were involved too.)
    - cycomanic 6y ago
      you said, quote: "The first communist international was mainly about antiimmigration." now the citation you give is they _amongst other things_ wanted to prevent the import of foreign workers to break strikes. Apart from "amongst other things" does not make it "the main thing", it also was very much not anti-immigration. The international workingmen association formation was about forming an international organisation to prevent "capitalists" from playing the workers in different countries against each other. In other words they realised that unless workers organise internationally, they would always be on the back foot.

merricksb 6y ago

> Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording That’s an inflammatory claim, that needs direct quotes/links to be taken seriously. But lest it be forgotten that there has long been an acceptance among traditional left-wingers (including Bernie until it became unacceptable to too many of his followers) of the need for some immigration controls in order to protect the most vulnerable workers, and historically the loudest voices for open borders are Laissez-faire/social-Darwinist libertarians, most notably the Kochs. > Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema I think this is quite false: he fits into the traditional left/right spectrum as a bona-fide leftist. It’s the mainstream Democratic Party that has moved towards corporatism and militarism. > regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them What would it change for him to criticize them; to try to impress the people who would still hate him anyway? Carlson gives him airtime and the opportunity to express his position to an audience of people whose minds he might be able to change about a few things. Why waste that opportunity with token criticism?

cycomanic 6y ago
>> Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording >That’s an inflammatory claim, that needs direct quotes/links to be taken seriously. But lest it be forgotten that there has long been an acceptance among traditional left-wingers (including Bernie until it became unacceptable to too many of his followers) of the need for some immigration controls in order to protect the most vulnerable workers, and historically the loudest voices for open borders are Laissez-faire/social-Darwinist libertarians, most notably the Kochs. Maybe in the context of what counts as left in the US. But the socialist left movement was always an international movement (I give you three guesses what the anthem is called). Regarding some of the Greenwalds words: "Current illegal immigration – whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate – renders impossible the preservation of any national identity" http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as-argument-in.html http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as... Calling immigrants "hordes" is quite definitely language that is what I consider "hard-right". It dehumanises people and tries to instil fear and a violent counter-reaction. >> Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema >I think this is quite false: he fits into the traditional left/right spectrum as a bona-fide leftist. It’s the mainstream Democratic Party that has moved towards corporatism and militarism. The mainstream democratic party was never not corporatist and militaristic. There has not been a change. However, I'm interested what in your eye's qualifies Greenwald as a bona-fide leftist (whatever that means) >> regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them > What would it change for him to criticize them; to try to impress the people who would still hate him anyway? Carlson gives him airtime and the opportunity to express his position to an audience of people whose minds he might be able to change about a few things. Why waste that opportunity with token criticism? Funny, he does criticise the NYT and many other media outlets though. But you're not wrong, he can express his position to an audience, but he's not trying to change minds, he actually agrees with much that Tucker Carlson says. That means he agrees with the agenda of a billionaire who has been using his media to clearly push a neocon, hard-right agenda worldwide. Considering that Greenwald is somehow building this persona of a media critic who points out the "agenda" of mainstream media, it is somewhat contradictory to go on those shows without a word of criticism and without blinking an eye.
- merricksb 6y ago
  I’ll try to keep it brief... - Those words about immigration were written in 2005. At worst they were unkind, hardly “hard right”, but he has since specifically disavowed those words [1][2]. Besides, your initial claim was that he was anti-immigration, which he has never been, just concerned about uncontrolled immigration, which is not inconsistent with being of the left, given that even Marx and other communists have wrestled with the pros and cons of immigration and issues around assimilation and solidarity [3][4][5]. - Greenwald has a long record of support for civil liberties, opposing wars and US militarism/interventionism, opposing Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians, campaigning for animal rights, supporting workers’ rights and unions, opposing “neoliberal” economics and corporate power, supporting universal health care and welfare. Which of these positions are not consistent with the left? And what actual policies has he supported in the past 15 years that are right wing? - He criticizes NYT and other mainstream media outlets for posturing in support of token liberal issues but ultimately promoting the interests of the corporate and military/intelligence establishments, which it can be reasonably argued, results in far greater real-world negative consequences than anything Tucker Carlson does. I expect you’ll disagree with that, which you’re entitled to do, but simply going on a conservative commentator’s show does not make you “right wing” when you have an at-least 15-year record of advocating for many clear-cut left wing positions and zero clear-cut right wing positions. [1] http://www.twitlonger.com/show/a2av5p http://www.twitlonger.com/show/a2av5p [2] https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/would-you-feel-differently-about-snowden-greenwald-and-assange-if-you-knew-what-the https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/would-you-feel... [3] https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/marx-on-immigration/ https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/marx-on-immigration/ [4] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0888325414566073 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08883254145660... [5] https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/1907-birth-socialisms-great-divide https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/1907-birth-socialisms-g...
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    Similar to my reply a bit further down, Marx (and the view of many of the socialists at the time) was not anti-immigration, or anti-immigrant. He (they) did not blame the immigrants for coming and in fact did not see anti-immigration laws as the solution (arguably having illegal immigrants leads to even more exploitation), but instead saw international organisation of workers as the solution. Your reference [3] says that and there are quite a few more writings from the time along similar lines (I will try to find the references later).

BlueTemplar 6y ago

The first communist international was mainly about antiimmigration. Were they "hard-right" too ?

cycomanic 6y ago
That's a pretty bold statement, you have any sources to back that up? The first international was about uniting international workers, there are in fact several writings who say that the bourgeoisie use nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiments to divide the working class.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_A... > They discussed the need for an international organisation, which would amongst other things prevent the import of foreign workers to break strikes. (Technically, at that point, other factions than communists were involved too.)
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    you said, quote: "The first communist international was mainly about antiimmigration." now the citation you give is they _amongst other things_ wanted to prevent the import of foreign workers to break strikes. Apart from "amongst other things" does not make it "the main thing", it also was very much not anti-immigration. The international workingmen association formation was about forming an international organisation to prevent "capitalists" from playing the workers in different countries against each other. In other words they realised that unless workers organise internationally, they would always be on the back foot.