What did the New York Times mean by this...

The bourgeois figured out that psyops and gaslighting are more effective than direct censorship and violence. Instead of saying "socialism is bad and evil" and jailing socialists - inadvertently creating martyrs and giving socialism the forbidden fruit appeal - they just say that socialism is when trans woman CEOs of color are empowered to smoke weed in gender neutral bathrooms. They aren't popularizing socialism - they are popularizing liberalism with socialist slogans that proles find appealing.

On the contrary, right-wingers face open heavy-handed silencing precisely because it just makes martyrs out of them and creates a reserve of radicalized fascist stormtroopers that the capital needs for when shit goes down.

Attached: 4io1tu4rmi211.jpg (750x707, 52.26K)

Hitler was a ZOG Occupied Government that did the holocaust so that jews would have sympathy and get their state of israel. Harvey Weinstein is a radical feminist that sacrificed his own to career to create worldwide attention for rape culture. Donald Trump is the KGB's most proficient agent who hatched a plan to infiltrate the U.S by becoming president and stir dissent necessary for a marxist-leninist revolution. Your neighbor acts like a normal guy so that nobody will suspect him after he murders you.

1) Chomsky's a liberal so sure
2) Kek so the New York Times and Washington post have good intentions?

The American mainstream isn't really ethically or philosophically repulsed by certain aspects of communist ideals, and the American press is mostly pretty general - it covers a lot of stuff, and isn't strictly adherent to orders from the state. In the context of the American press, the consensus is essentially that communism doesn't work - the ultimate basis of this is mostly in its opposition towards capitalism and its association with dictatorships. Not really any reason for everyone to pretend to be repulsed by communist anti-racism, feminism, science achievements, etc. For that matter, even Nazis are usually not totally disregarded when it comes to science, engineering, or film (Riefenstahl), though their ideology was so repulsive and incompetent otherwise.

More generally, there's the old story circa '90s/'00s - the Russians can pick up Pravda and know it's mostly bullshit, but Americans are faced with the dilemma of getting their bullshit mixed in more subtly.

I won't even waste my time looking for a brainlet wojak for this one

Motive is not evidence.

It is literally negating contradicting evidence as supportive evidence.

There is literally nothing contradictory about a bourgeois state using socialist rhetorics to placate the masses. Even Marx wrote about it in the memefesto, Conservative or Bourgeois socialism.

If you think multibillion media conglomerates are actually in some way socialist, you are actually a moron.

To poison the well.

Trivialize Marxist thought and make it lose its revolutionary elements until it becomes a husk of itself and can be utilized to support neoliberal idpol.

STOP FUCKING SAYING THIS, SAY "ZOG" OR "ZOINIST OCCUPIED GOVERNMEN" JUST MAKE UP YOUR GOD DAMN MIND ALREADY

It's a word-filter

There is literally nothing contradictory about a secret spy neighbor acting like he's a nice regular guy so that he won't be suspected when he murders you.

...

Word filter for what?

It’s an allusion to this time a retarded Nazi typed that actually typed that word salad

Z/0G

Meant for

ZO.G

Not really, do you think this garbage will actually result in someone going to read Marx, Engels, and Lenin? Or will they, at most, go look up the Manifesto and give it a skim?

The other explanation is that multibillion corporations are actually secretly socialist and are selflessly pursuing a conspiracy that will lead to socialism and abolition of private property, which is millions of times more retarded, improbable and tinfoil-hat.

But wait, there's another option; these apparently absurd options do not lead to the conclusion that the least absurd option is correct but that the ideology which cannot imagine the situation as anything other than being reducible to them is itself ontologically flawed, itself absurd.

Otherwise, provide me with an ontological backing for your claim that does not presuppose itself.

Shut up retard

But your ideology, is not ontologically flawed, despite being unable to imagine anything not reducible to it as well?
That’s just about every fucking ideology btw, you mouth breather. If you think your cynical liberal centrism where ‘heheh no ones right’ isn’t itself one of the MOST ideological world views you could ever hold, specifically because it condemns all other ‘ideology’ outwardly, while not even acknowledging that it is an ideology in the slightest, you really are ‘lost in the sauce’ as one might say.
What is your explanation for the phenomena of small lip service paid to opposing political forces by mainstream media, in which the actual main points and conclusions of those political forces are obscufated?

Attached: 93D7AB9F-463E-4066-A9CD-029B673EC6D9.jpeg (426x302, 28.33K)

True, true.. and as such I would give a similar retort to a christian, who being convinced that the new york times is part of the empire satan, would explain the appearance of an article sympathetic to christianity as a trick by satan to fool us into believing that the new york times is not part of his empire.
Why should I assume that a media outlet has an ironclad, singular doctrine, from which every apparent deviation is an enigmatic phenomena that can only be understood as a tactical move to obfuscate its true ideological doctrinaire?

As for an explanation; the communism that is signified in the articles is not your communism, it is not an opposing political force to them as you imagine it to be. The communism of the mainstream imagination is one of grim buildings, strange experiments, mass hysteria, bond villains, roguish rebel leaders.. it failed and it doesn't work, but there's a distance to it as it being a historical happenstance that for example, nazism, does not envelop in the same sphere of imagination. This is reflected in the wording and the lightness of the articles, they don't really engage, they're careless.

Notice the dates. It was the run up to the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution, so they let some more left-inclined people get in the mood.

But that’s not what’s really being asserted here. At least not by me or any Marxist who actually has a materialist grasp of analysis, instead of vulgar Marxism. The assertion isn’t that there’s some big capitalist conspiracy(although there may be some, it doesn’t change my point), but that as the economic mode of production, capitalism is the dominant ideology from which all of our modern society is encompassed by. There doesn’t need to be intentional codes of censorship and conduct enforced by some singular capitalist empire, because the ideology reproduces itself constantly at even the individual level, and especially when a group of individuals who essentially function as an ideal, a for profit news organization that profits from the spinning of information. There isn’t conscious intentionality to declaw Communism in these articles, but it happens because these individuals don’t even grasp beyond their liberal analysis of what they write about, and as such, that is how it functions as a way to obscufate the actual revolutionary purpose of Communism.
But in this case, with regards to the rising popularity of Social Democrats in America, it very well could be an intentional tactic, but that wouldn’t change its function.

Americans do not like having good sex, so this is scary

That's precisely my point, there are the bare facts of Capitalism (market economy, wage labour) and those alone absolve one of the need to provide evidence for claims that are extrapolated from them. The theorem can never be contradicted, if the prophecy fulfills itself and we have FALC, it's proven, when it fails to make people act according to the truths it reveals to them, that means capitalist ideology is at work, preventing communism and confirming the theorem of the primacy of the class struggle. Everything begins and ends with marxism, it's faultless, whatever the failures of marxist movements, the problem never lies with marxism itself, only with marxism being misunderstood (marxist internal debate is most often a contest for the favour of marx, of who truly understands what marx truly meant with this or that, as an immortal author).

I believe I read somewhere in a marxist criticism of ⛏️rotskyism that ⛏️rotskyism is stalinism, as stalinism would have been ⛏️rotskyism if ⛏️rotsky had won; the disunion between the map and the territory can not be reconciled, the resulting discord manifests itself in the figures of the faithful and the traitor.

Mein gott,
How do you miss the point this hard and intentionally?

Oops fucked up and accidentally posted early(without erasing the name from a different thread), give a minute

Mein gott,
How do you miss the point this hard and intentionally?
There is no prophecy that fulfills itself, and ignoring the way the mode of production you live in affects how you think and act on an internal level is idiocy. You say no Marxist criticizes the USSR and other socialist states, but on the contrary we always do; and one of the very criticisms most adept would be the same one lobbed at the liberal publication this whole thread is about. That in their revolution, the past socialist movements still essentially carried them out with a capitalist ideological goal in mind and internalized. That instead of using the materialist outlook of Marx, they did instead cling to his exact commentary on capitalism during his time and hero worship. Yes most Marxists do not even grasp the philosophical implications of Marx and therefore while using his name and bare empiricist analysis and interpretation of his words, mistake the point. The point being that Marx wasn’t right on everything, and that ruthless criticism should be lobbied at both ourselves and everything that exists.

LOL

It teaches them that "Communism is cool and all but Capitalism is better". Everytime.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Test_of_the_News
Daily reminder this is what bourgeois media looks like in the times of a revolution. Between 1918 and 1920, among a fuckton of other lies, the New York Times reported literally 91 times that the Soviet government was about to fall.

Attached: 54c15994ef19ff8ef32c2caf70d818106f7b624e4c673aac78813d43e9c6e4f1.jpg (512x522, 49.23K)

it's about form and label, not content. nobody takes anything away from these articles. it's digital sign value but somehow even worse.

computers are stupid, algorithms are stupid, and because we let them nudge us around we are all stupid.

This

shitlibs think socialism is just an aggressive militant form of liberalism with like jean jackets and swears or something. they're incapable of thinking of a left outside of liberalism and so when they conceive of socialism, they think of it as the sort of elitist technocratic bullshit they already believe but on steroids. anyone who thinks they're allies is an idiot.