this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2026
43 points (86.4% liked)

Manufacturing Consent

320 readers
25 users here now

When the media decides who you are rooting for.

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

All of the comments on that article are the usual pearl clutching drivel from pseudo MLs, bleating that 'anarchists' (collectively because anarchists are renowned for all thinking & behaving the same all the time!) are "rejoicing an imperialist power being instrumental in bringing down another oppressive govt" all based from a tweet from anonymous account that probably looked at another anonymous twitter account with an Ⓐ in it's profile, while they were all "you need to vote blue to keep the orange man out" and do fuck all for establishing a vanguard movement in their own countries, or even are involved in any kind of mutual aid programs at the very least.

Those people are so unserious that it's becoming harder by the day to distinguish them from the maga cultists

[–] DivineChaos100@hexbear.net 10 points 6 days ago

Partially true, but all the anarchist platforms (both on and offline) are mired in a "debate" about whether it would be better for Iran if the current regime fell without any established left power to take the reins and that in itself is a failure. Up until the Iraq war there was ZERO debate about whether a foreign government should fall or not. The movement's members knew that their job is to stop the US/NATO warmachine and acted accordingly. Black blocs were tearing shit apart in major western cities and sabotage was a daily occurrence. Where is that kind of energy in today's anarchist movement? Literally every time the US openly tries to bring chaos to a country the same handwringing bs is echoed all the fucking time from "anarchists" who then have absolute zero accountability when the regime whose overthrowing they cheered for "because it's an opening to bring anarchy" NEVER gets swapped to an anarchist commune but usually an even worse, even more exploitative government that starts clearing space with leftist movements.

So while i might agree to some degree to your point about MLs, the article is completely right about those "anarchists" whose opinion gets paraded in mainstream media.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That's the problem with a movement which has no leader. Everyone who picks up the logo can say things for it. And a lot of "Anarchists" have started saying they hecking love regime change. Are they mostly bots? Probably. But a few real figures have disappointed as well.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

How are MLs any different?

Anyone can, and does, call themselves an ML and out of the myriad I've seen online there's but a handful who have not only read theory but actually understand it, instead of regurgitating empty quotes and/or engaging in purity politics.

[–] space_comrade@hexbear.net 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

How are MLs any different?

They're on average more consistent on their positions, sure you can find plenty of self proclaimed MLs that are absolute clowns and nobody has the most pristine and most correct take about literally everything but in general they have more coherent positions on current geopolitics and are generally highly skeptical of imperialist propaganda, unlike anarchists who are all over the place.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago

I don't see MLs supporting regime change, nor rejecting the utility of leaders. I'm not sure who you count as the handful that not only read theory but actually understand it, but I certainly don't see support for the Mossad/CIA influence in Iranian protests nor kidnapping Maduro.

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

purity politics

It is absolutely hilarious for a person who refuses on principle to support actually existing revolutionary movements and governments to accuse anyone else of purity politics

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

ML's also quote Marx or Lenin when it comes to imperialism which are their leaders. I don't think I've seen any self-proclaimed ML's advocate for a military invasion of Iran so I guess that's the difference here. Though a lot of self-proclaimed ML's aren not following those books as religiously when China does something contradicting them.

[–] RedSturgeon@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

A lot of us don't call ourselves anything publicly, because most people don't read Marx nor Lenin nor understand what Marxims-Leninism is.

Do you know what Marxism Leninism is? Maybe that's too complicated, but what is Marxism? How did Lenin apply it? How have others applied it? Where did they succeed, where did they fail, why? How can you apply the lessons yourself?

You seem to believe you're a "real" ML, not like those fake ML's so please explain Dialectical Materialism to me, what it is and how has it been applied in the real world.

Lemme get in your shoes and question how real you are, how about I give you a purity test? Doesn't feel so good does it? Well maybe we should stop doing middle school politics and actually start asking why are things the way they are and how we can make things better. Instead of pointing fingers at each other and yelling CIA spy! KGB agent! Fake Marxist! I'm the one true Marxist! Is Theory bourgeoise decadence? Maybe let's start asking what can we do together to make the world a better place?

Try working on something like opening up a school in your neighborhood or even a learning club where you actually read Marx and your enemies will show up immediately. There's 0 need for purity testing like this, if someone is lacking in knowledge that you're privileged to posses, because you had the time and opportunity to learn, please educate instead. The world is not middle school.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml -3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Marx wrote books about Communism (building on a lot of material from others but those don't get any credit) and Lenin wrote on ways to practically start a revolution to bring it about.

Anarchism rejects authority which is probably why so many Anarchists probably don't like the Iranian government which is obviously very authoritarian. Though some online Anarchists (and other leftists) seem to think that without any prior organisation or mass education on Anarchism, Iranians can just remove an authoritation government and instead of a deadly power vacuum, people will all magically join communal volunteering organisations.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Marx wrote books about Communism (building on a lot of material from others but those don’t get any credit)

Marx wrote very little on communism itself, Engels did more of that. Marx's major contributions were in breaking from Feuerbach and flipping Hegel's dialectic from idealist to materialist, then applying dialectical materialism to history and the class struggle. This in turn led Marx to analyze capitalism first and foremost, its contradictions, and use this as the basis for what capitalism was necessarily working towards, ie centralization of markets into the necessity of collectivized and planned production and distribution.

Marx's prececessors, such as Adam Smith, Ricardo, Hegel, even the Physiocrats which were overall more wrong than Smith but got nearer to the truth of fixed vs circulating capital all get due credit. The reason these people are not studied as much as Marx is because Marx advanced upon them, and analyzing them is useful for better understanding the context of Marx's advancements.

Lenin wrote on ways to practically start a revolution to bring it about.

Partially correct, but this is missing that Lenin's greatest advancement was analyzing imperialism, and combatting the vulgarization of Marx by the second international that painted Marx more as a reformist than a revolutionary. Lenin didn't really talk about starting a revolution, but preparing and organizing for one, as you cannot simply force a revolution.

This is just proving comrade RedSturgeon and myself correct, though. Purity tests are nonsense, especially coming from those unfamiliar with Marxism-Leninism.

Anarchism rejects authority which is probably why so many Anarchists probably don’t like the Iranian government which is obviously very authoritarian. Though some online Anarchists (and other leftists) seem to think that without any prior organisation or mass education on Anarchism, Iranians can just remove an authoritation government and instead of a deadly power vacuum, people will all magically join communal volunteering organisations.

I generally agree with this criticism of what some western anarchists are doing right now. There isn't a mass organization in place in Iran that can both topple the government and replace it with a socialist one without Mossad and the CIA wrecking it, both of the latter 2 are far more organized in Iran from what I've seen.

This is why I critically support your posts and comments, if I may be cheeky. I know you can't see this, but some of your takes are good. It's your refusal to take analysis of the characteristics of imperialism seriously that leads you to working more with your gut instinct than any materialist analysis, leading you into false conclusions like claiming China is imperialist, and conflating weak anti-imperialism with imperialism proper. Same with your transphobic theories of "Transzionism" on Hexbear.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

For clarity, geneva_convenience hasn't read Marx nor Lenin but believes China is imperialist, according to Lenin, without actually proving how, purely because they abstained from the UNSC vote on the TRUST plan for Palestine. geneva_convenience blocked me after contextualizing it and proving that, while certainly not what I would have wanted the PRC to do, does not change that they are not an imperialist country.

For geneva_convenience, weak allies are enemies, and imperialism is being insufficiently anti-imperialist. When presented with this, they blocked me and spammed a bunch of unrelated Bad Empanada tweets. The importance of the distinction between weak anti-imperialism and imperialism proper is between working for and hoping for better anti-imperialism in the existing system vs actively needing to dismantle the PRC, which is why I felt it necessary to address in the first place.

Figured this targeted vaguery needed to be addressed, even if geneva can't see it. The only reason I gently reached out in the first place was because they are generally more reasonable, but seems like they were poisoned by Bad Empanada thinking, just taking the most inflammatory stance possible and burning bridges with people over slight disagreements.

This isn't even a "read theory" argument, it's that geneva believes they can dictate who does and doesn't understand Marx and Lenin based on watching Bad Empanada videos and tweets, without doing any reading on their own part or trying to come to a deeper understanding. This is also why geneva started claiming Hexbear is "Transzionist," and that Hexbear defends contrapoints on Israel because she's trans, which is blatantly false: Hexbear is anti-contrapoints and anti-Zionist. This corresponds with geneva_convenience's love for Bad Empanada:

All in all incredibly disappointing to see from someone who usually has decent political instincts, such as not falling for Mossad and CIA propaganda surrounding regime change in Iran. They seem to love to argue and don't block even the most reactionary of people, so the only reason I can think of for blocking me is because they didn't want to confront the idea that they are mistaken about imperialism. The bright side is that I can still interact with their comments, even if they can't see my responses.

[–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I am so embarrassed for u/geneva_convenience after reading this

Comrade Cowbee is one of the most patient and couragous members of this community

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago

Thanks! Yep, it's really disappointing, especially becayse they're usually right about things. The problem is that they don't take it seriously enough to study, and instead fill in the gaps on their own, which results in false conclusions from time to time.

[–] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

how fucking dare someone say we like contrapoints

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago

I know, spending 2 seconds on Hexbear and searching "contra" will get you mountains of complaints. This is why I say geneva is more concerned with mudflinging than actual anti-imperialism, and why they would especially benefit from getting organized and reading theory. It seems online debate is more of an outlet for them than something genuinely driven ideologically.