Analyzing Right-Wing Propaganda (I)

A friend of mine sent me a link to the right-wing propaganda film Agenda: Grinding America Down and asked for my thoughts on it. Talk about opening the floodgates. Below you will find live-blogging of my experience watching the film in its entirety.

- Ronald Reagan appears onscreen and I already know this is going to be good. Given the black and white picture and his relative youth, I imagine this is a clip from his classic 1964 “A Time for Choosing” speech in which he claims Medicare represents the beginning of communism in America and the end of freedom as we know it. I pour my first drink.
- Bunch of people talk and it’s clear this movie is going to be all about culture. Culture is the trump card for the right-wing propaganda machine, because it removes economics completely from the picture. Instead of being the inevitable byproduct of profit-oriented media eager to boost the bottom line, the increasing amount of sex and violence in media is blamed on a nefarious, conspiratorial “liberal elite” and therefore represents one of the first steps on the path to communism.
- So liberals are not actually communists, just the “useful idiots” which the communists use as pawns in their grand scheme to eliminate everything good and decent about America. Nothing paranoid about this!
- Less than 3 minutes in and they’ve brought out the Nazi footage! Even as the talking heads conflate liberalism and communism, it looks like this movie will follow Glenn Beck’s example by conflating communists and fascists (aka the most fervent opponents of communism).
- Why would the left continue to push communist policies? “They’re either ignorant, or they’re evil.” Simple!
- I love how while talking about the left’s evil schemes, they show a book burning in which one of the books being burned was written by Lenin. Doublethink – gotta love it.
- Interesting how Curtis Bowers describes his experiences meeting with the CPUSA. This is a superb example of framing: if you support feminism or gay rights, what you’re really supporting is the destruction of morality and the family.
- Flash-forward to 2008, and Bowers can’t believe how successful their agenda has been! The disintegration of the family, the massive power supposedly wielded by the environmental movement, hate crimes legislation that calls bigotry what it is – all this reveals the utter narrowness and backwardness of Bowers’ views.
- The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen was also one of the books most instrumental in the development of Glenn Beck’s warped worldview. Birds of a feather...
- As I look at all the goals of Communist infiltrators outlined by Skousen, I wonder why I’m supposed to take seriously the paranoid ramblings of a former FBI agent and right-wing Mormon crank as definitive proof of leftist goals in the United States.
- “Goal #27: Discredit the Bible”. You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who ripped out every page in his Bible he believed to be false and was left with a few measly pages clinging to the spine?
- John Stormer cites J. Edgar Hoover calling communists “masters of deceit.” Well, if there’s one figure in American history who was a paragon of honesty and virtue, it’s a guy who blackmailed public figures for their sexuality while wearing dresses in his spare time.
- Hearing these guys talk about Latin America and China and lumping them together as “communist” says much about the lack of nuance in their worldview. Liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists, opportunist capitalists calling themselves communists – whatever, it’s all the same thing!
- Jim Simpson acknowledges that most of the people supposedly spreading communism are not communists, instead calling them mere “useful idiots”. So basically, he’s admitting that any social cause with the merest whiff of progressivism is identical to communism as far as he’s concerned. If anything, all he’s doing is identifying himself as an enemy of human progress! I’m sure if Bowers was alive back in the 1850s, he would have said the same thing about those nefarious abolitionists trying to destroy the Southern way of life.
- Great job, Bowers. With your political spectrum, you’ve once more revealed your utter idiocy and lack of historical knowledge. Even though he tries to lump together liberals, socialists, communists and fascists by saying they all worshipped the state, Bowers seems totally unaware that the Nazis were the declared arch-enemies of the communists, that they beat up communists before they came to power, jailed and murdered them after they did come to power, and – oh yeah, invaded the Soviet Union in the largest act of military aggression in world history. But forget all that – Nazis were basically the same as communists.
- Ah, I see – the entire American political spectrum has moved to the left, not the right. Is that why Obama is cutting Social Security while starting new wars and claiming the right to execute American citizens without charges or trial?
- And there is no opposition to any of this – except, of course, for the entire American right-wing blathering on endlessly about the socialist threat as if it actually existed.
- “What’s So Bad About Communism?” Again, these conservative talking heads have only the most simplistic and base view of what “communism” is. They can’t grasp that there could be severe disagreements and criticisms within the communist movement. They have no apparent awareness of Trotsky’s struggle against the bureaucratic degeneration in the USSR and how he was outright murdered by Stalin’s goons, as were so many of the old Bolsheviks. And they’re so very concerned about how many people were murdered under “communism” – I wonder what their thoughts are on U.S. imperial wars or the current policy of assassination-by-drone-strike based on presidential fiat?
- How many people have died due to capitalism? Funny how nobody ever compiles those figures.
- What a fucking warped view of history these people have. So America’s public schools are teaching how to carry out genocide? Funny, they always seemed to mostly ignore what happened to the Native Americans...
- I was about to praise the narrator for explaining the difference between socialism and communism – until he said that socialism can be summed up as “Big Government”. HELP! I’m trapped in a sea of right-wing talking points!
- The central fallacy – liberalism/socialism/communism are evil because of “wealth redistribution”, because they take money people earned through hard work and give it to the undeserving. You know what that reminds me of? CAPITALISM, which is based on not paying people the full value of their labour while the capitalist pockets more than his fair share. That’s where profit comes from. But you’re never going to hear the right complaining about those lazy capitalists mooching off the workers.
- Why use an atomic bomb to illustrate how socialism destroys everything in its path? I checked the social system of the only country ever to actually use nuclear weapons in war, and it wasn’t socialist.
- You know, I wish there were as many people on the left who believed that the final victory of socialism was at hand as there seem to be on the right.
- Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but right after David Noebel talked about how Venezuela was “hard-core Marxist”, I swear I heard him refer to Nicaragua as “N*gger-agua”.
- The “red plague”. Are you kidding me?
- Watching them talk about how Karl Marx begat the Fabian Socialists who begat the Students for a Democratic Society who begat the Weather Underground, and how many of them are still in positions of power, such as Rev. Jim Wallis. Oh yeah, Rev. Jim Wallis – there’s a figure who will send shivers down the spine of the ruling elite. Amazing how right-wing propaganda manages to make the oppressed look like the oppressors and vice versa.
- Sympathizing with the Viet Cong, how dare he! It’s not like they were morally in the right, fighting for national liberation against a military superpower attempting to protect its puppet government, or anything like that.
- Jim Simpson is correct – throughout my impressionable years in elementary school, all I ever heard from my teachers was how great it would be if I grew up to become an atheist alcoholic homosexual.
- Have to laugh out loud at the juxtaposition of July 4, baseball and apple pie with a group of intellectuals plotting behind the scenes to “make America so corrupt it stinks.”
- There is no middle ground: either the father is the breadwinner, disciplinarian and protector of his family, or the government is. Nice to know there is no alternative possibility to the mother being a domestic slave without her becoming married to “Big Government”.
- “Cultural Marxism” was also one of the obsessions of mass-murderer Anders Breivik, who accused young members of the Labour Party of such when he gunned them down in 2011.
- “Most people will give over to the [government], because they don’t want the chaos.” Kind of like how so many people on the right wet their pants and asked Big Bad Government to protect them after 9/11 with the Patriot Act? And how they continue to demand government take away their rights to protect them from the omnipresent threat of “terrorism”? I pour my third drink.
- Thanks to Saul Alinsky, we now know that everyone on the left worships Satan as a matter of course.
- Saul Alinksy defines the modern American left? Funny, I thought lesser-of-two-evillism did.
- The Piven plan to “overload the welfare system” – how exactly did they encourage this? Was there an organized strategy to overload the welfare system? I’d love to see some proof of that, but that would overwhelm the paranoid fantasy.
- That section on Betty Friedan is almost painfully stupid. But then, so is the rest of the film.
- Society is falling apart - I’ll grant you that, Bowers. But your proposed solutions have no relevance to existing power relations.
- “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” Awesome Karl Marx quote!
- The Progressive Caucus of the Democrats – truly, a life-and-death threat to the government of capitalist America which trembles before its 20% representation in Congress.
- I know, Christianity gets so much flak in America, more than any other religion. This is especially unfair when we consider how Christianity has traditionally faced persecution in U.S. society to a degree unmatched by any other religion.
- As the narrator says, those who believe in the sanctity of human life have always been the biggest challenge to those totalitarian regimes who would impose “Big Government” on all of us. Just ask Pope Pius XII.
- Why is it that, unlike Aristotle, we now know slavery to be wrong? Because we have the Bible. ("You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." - Leviticus 25:44-46)
- Whether we know it or not, “the Left is at war with God.” Such a thoughtful, nuanced interpretation of events.
- “Anti-God” is the same thing as “Anti-free enterprise”. Perhaps an unintentionally revealing analogy...
- If we tell people about problems with the environment, racism, etc., we are stunting their critical thinking skills. If we tell them that the whole world was created by God and all the proof you will ever need is in the Bible, we are creating free-spirited independent thinkers. Gotcha.
- Movie is promoting the idea that it’s all about self-reliance. How many huge corporations got that way without government assistance? Just want to know.
- Global warming is nothing but a hoax! Well, there’s a reasonable and well-considered idea.
- Jim Simpson says socialism will lead to extreme hardship for most Americans. I suppose that makes sense, if you don’t consider the fact that 1% of Americans own 40% of the national wealth.

Chairman Mao's Greatest Hits

Just finished reading Quotations From Chairman Mao Tsetung (aka the Little Red Book). I first became interested in reading Mao's book after watching a documentary on the origins of the Black Panther Party, whose founder Huey Newton cited it as a key blueprint for the party's programme in the 1960s. While the Panthers were facing somewhat different circumstances than the broader masses of today - i.e. with American blacks just emerging from a century-long period after the Civil War in which their status as second-class citizens had become officially enshrined through Jim Crow and segregation, which thereby necessitated a greater role for racial solidarity in the movement than might otherwise have been the case - I was nevertheless inspired by the presence of a radical North American socialist movement that achieved such high visibility during its short existence.

I had always generally viewed Maoism as a distortion of Marxism, akin to Stalinism. Mao's emphasis on the peasantry always smacked to me of trying to square a circle; for Marx, socialism could occur only in developed capitalist countries with a large industrial working class. Furthermore, Mao's grotesque failures of statesmanship, most notably the Great Leap Forward and the excesses of the Cultural Revolution, seemed to indict him as a Stalinesque tyrant who gave communism a bad name. Still, the Panthers seemed to get some use out of his works, and I had heard that Mao was still admired as a philosopher and poet in a modern China that has otherwise moved on. Could there be more to Mao than I first assumed?

After finding a copy of the Little Red Book in my local library, I carried it everywhere I went (such are the perks of its small, deliberately portable size) and read most of it on the city bus. Having finally reached the end of its surprisingly dense 312 pages, I've walked away fairly impressed. Were it not for the knowledge that Mao's policies led to the deaths of up to 70 million Chinese in peacetime, I would be fairly quick to heap praise on this book. The numerous quotations tackle all kinds of issues and is probably the only practical guide out there for launching a communist revolution. Mao's conclusions can be highly questionable, his ideology controversial and his adherence to his own advice often dubious, but I have no doubt that the book certainly presents some food for thought.

Here, then, are some of my favourite quotes from the book and my reactions to them:

"It is up to us to organize the people. As for the reactionaries in China, it is up to us to organize the people to overthrow them. Everything reactionary is the same; if you don't hit, it won't fall. This is also like sweeping the floor; as a rule, where the broom does not reach, the dust will not vanish of itself."
- "The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan" (August 13, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 19.

A simple yet often overlooked truth. The task of waging a people's revolutionary movement is no walk in the park, but even having the will of the people carried out by Parliament or Congress has proven to be a Herculean task in the bourgeois democratic system. In today's system, especially given the past three decades of neoliberal advances, money rules all. The place to start is by fighting against all reactionary ideas and moving on from there.

"The enemy will not perish of itself. Neither the Chinese reactionaries nor the aggressive forces of U.S. imperialism in China will step down from the stage of history of their own accord."
- "Carry the Revolution Through to the End" (December 30, 1948), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 301.

Similar to the previous quote, Mao here reminds us again that the instinct of every entrenched elite is to protect its own power. Such has been the situation in every historical system of government, from the British monarchy to the Iranian theocracy, from the Soviet apparatchiks to the modern-day corporate oligarchies, and any truly revolutionary impulses will be viciously opposed by the rulers, if necessary through violent repression. Knowledge of this fact leads us to the eternal debate, so eloquently summarized by Malcolm X, between the ballot and the bullet.

"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
- "Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan" (March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 28.

Here Mao stops beating around the bush and unambiguously states the nature of revolution, which in his mind requires violence in order to forcibly overthrow the ruling class. This may be the most controversial idea in Marxist theory, and has historically divided those on the left who believe it is possible to substantially improve the lives of the working classes by working within the confines of the parliamentary system (like the Russian Mensheviks, the Canadian New Democrats, or European labour parties before the neoliberal era) from those who believe only violent revolution can lead to the end of capitalism (as thought the Bolsheviks, the Communist Party of China, and most Trotskyist groups). For me, this remains an uncertainty. I have always maintained pacifistic tendencies and tend to frown on violence, but I must admit that the powerful more often than not are willing to resort to force, and in this way they assert their dominance over the weak. Can it therefore be the case that only violence will defeat a ruling class that, aside from its hoarding of public wealth, is most notorious for its addiction to state violence? I remain indecisive, but Mao has no such qualms:

"Revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in class society, and without them it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win political power."
- "On Contradiction" (August 1937), Selected Works, Vol I, p. 344.

Debatable. Don't forget that the China of 1937, like Russia in 1917, was a country that had no real experience with liberal democracy and had been ruled by autocrats for centuries (in the case of China, millennia). It could be argued that in a liberal democratic system with appropriate checks and balances, or a direct democracy akin to the ancient Athenians, a sufficiently energized, motivated and educated population could win political power merely through exercising the power of the ballot box. However, it must be noted that even the most progressive capitalist governments, like FDR's New Deal Democrats, are only willing to be pushed so far by giving in to workers' demands for certain reforms. Any push to actually abolish capitalism and replace it with a dictatorship of the proletariat would necessarily infringe on the property and power of the ruling classes and would therefore be repelled by the full armed might of the bourgeois state. So perhaps Mao is right on this point, as long as you're a communist and not merely seeking an end to child labour or a 40-hour work week.

"History shows that wars are divided into two kinds, just and unjust. All wars that are progressive are just, and all wars that impede progress are unjust. We Communists oppose all unjust wars that impede progress, but we do not oppose progressive, just wars. Not only do we Communists not oppose just wars, we actively participate in them. As for unjust wars, World War I is an instance in which both sides fought for imperialist interests; therefore the Communists of the whole world firmly opposed that war. The way to oppose a war of this kind is to do everything possible to prevent it before it breaks out and, once it breaks out, to oppose war with war, to oppose unjust war with just war, whenever possible."
- "On Protracted War" (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 152-53.

I probably agree with the first two sentences, although they are blanket statements. Anyone who has truly experienced war (as Chris Hedges wrote in War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning) knows that all the abstract proclamations of patriotism and just cause go out the window when the bombs start going off and you have to frantically reassure your best friend he'll be okay even as his intestines pour out of a gaping wound. No matter what the cause or supposed justification, war is a bloody, unpredictable affair that inevitably dehumanizes all it touches.

At the same time, anyone familiar with history, or who has merely interacted with other people, knows that aggression and violence have always been a part of the human condiction. Sometimes there are bullies, psychos, criminals and killers who initiate aggression, and in that case the rational response must be to meet violence with violence, if only to save one's life. Expanded to the larger scale of full-out warfare, the same principle holds. If Nazi Germany embarks on a campaign of annihilation to exterminate the people of the Soviet Union and destroy the state as a political entity, the people can fight, or perish. In that case, then, Mao is right - the Soviet people were truly fighting a just war. Nevertheless, that abstract knowledge can never compensate for the sheer brutality of war, the destruction it causes and the tragedies it imparts on its countless human victims.

"Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler. The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more complete the defeat the better. [...] For the wars launched by the Japanese aggressors and Hitler are harming the people at home as well as the people of the world. China's case, however, is different, because she is the victim of aggression. Chinese Communists must therefore combine patriotism with internationalism. We are at once internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is, 'Fight to defend the motherland against the aggressors.' For us defeatism is a crime and to strive for victory in the War of Resistance is an inescapable duty. For only by fighting in defence of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism."
- "The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War" (October 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 196.

A well-argued case for a war that truly was one of necessity, unlike Barack Obama's laughable characterization of the war in Afghanistan in that manner. Having read Iris Chang's account of the Rape of Nanking, I know that the horrors of Japanese rule in China could only be combatted by full-scale war against the aggressors, and in that regard Mao does a fine job in this quote of reconciling the Marxist doctrine of internationalism with the nationalist feelings inherently created by war.

"The Communist Party does not fear criticism because we are Marxists, the truth is on our side, and the basic masses, the workers and peasants, are on our side."
- Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work (March 12, 1957), 1st pocket ed., p. 14.

Hard to reconcile with the Cultural Revolution and its demonization, torture and execution of those who did not follow the proper Maoist line, but a good thought for 21st century Marxists who wish to wipe the slate clean and build a new people's movement.

"Conscientious practice of self-criticism is still another hallmark distinguishing our Party from all other political parties. As we say, dust will accumulate if a room is not cleaned regularly, our faces will get dirty if they are not washed regularly. Our comrades' minds and our Party's work may also collect dust, and also need sweeping and washing. The proverb 'Running water is never stale and a door-hinge is never worm-eaten' means that constant motion prevents the inroads of germs and other organisms. To check up regularly on our work and in the process develop a democratic style of work, to fear neither criticism nor self-criticism, and to apply such good popular Chinese maxims as 'Say all you know and say it without reserve', and 'Blame not the speaker but be warned by his words' and 'Correct mistakes if you have commited them and guard against them if you have not' - this is the only effective way to prevent all kinds of political dust and germs from contaminating the minds of our comrades and the body of our Party."
- "On Coalition Government" (April 24, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III, pp. 316-17.

I admire Mao's idea of self-criticism as a way to prevent rigid dogmatism from dominating party policy, but unfortunately China's own experiences during his rule illustrated that Mao had a much different attitude towards criticism that was directed at him personally.

"Both dogmatism and revisionism run counter to Marxism. Marxism must certainly advance; it must develop along with the development of practice and cannot stand still. It would become lifeless if it remained stagnant and stereotyped. However, the basic principles of Marxism must never be violated, or otherwise mistakes will be made. It is dogmatism to approach Marxism from a metaphysical point of view and to regard it as something rigid. It is revisionism to negate the basic principles of Marxism and to negate its universal truth. Revisionism is one form of bourgeois ideology. The revisionists deny the differences between socialism and capitalism, between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What they advocate is in fact not the socialist line but the capitalist line. In present circumstances, revisionism is more pernicious than dogmatism. One of our current important tasks on the ideological front is to unfold criticism of revisionism."
- Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work (March 12, 1957), 1st pocket ed., pp. 26-27.

Honestly, this passage struck me as Obamaesque, and not in the ludicrous, Glenn Beck-inspired Obama-is-a-communist teabagger claptrap way, but rather in the method by which it reveals Mao as a politician trying to appeal to all sides, and in that regard saying things that are very broadly agreeable within the context of whoever his audience is. Whereas Obama's style is "conservatives say x, liberals say y, why can't we just all get along and find some common ground?", Mao's goes, "revisionists are too far in the direction of x, dogmatists are too far in the direction of y. We can't go too extreme in either direction." The desire of politicians to please everybody is apparently more universal than I thought.

" 'Don't you want to abolish state power?' Yes, we do, but not right now; we cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus - mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts - in order to consolidate national defence and protect the people's interests."
- "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship" (June 30, 1949), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 418.

A fine idea, but the problem is that power corrupts and institutions originally designed to serve "the people" have a way of being corrupted over time by a calcifying elite that equates its own interests with those of the masses even what that is no longer the case (as it rarely is when an elite exists at all). Every government will claim that it serves "the people", and checks and balances must be maintained to ensure that power does not merely return to a new, different elite. The "democratic centralism" of China and the USSR is now widely viewed as an anachronism, a failed experiment that claimed to represent the will of the people but merely perpetuated the power of the Communist Party. A new, 21st century socialism should perhaps embrace a more decentralized model.

"Every Communist working in the mass movements should be a friend of the masses and not a boss over them, an indefatigable teacher and not a bureaucratic politician."
- "The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War" (October 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 198.

Good advice...too bad it didn't work out in real life. Maybe next time?

"Communists must never separate themselves from the majority of the people or neglect them by leading only a few progressive contingents in an isolated and rash advance, but must take care to forge close links between the progressive elements and the broad masses. This is what is meant by thinking in terms of the majority."
- "The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War" (October 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 198.

"We Communists must be able to integrate ourselves with the masses in all things. If our Party members spend their whole lives sitting indoors and never go out to face the world and brave the storm, what good will they be to the Chinese people? None at all, and we do not need such people as Party members. We Communists ought to face the world and brave the storm, the great world of mass struggle and the mighty storm of mass struggle."
- "Get Organized!" (November 29, 1943), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 158.

Nice notes to end on, because I'm getting tired of writing and let's face it, you should just check out the book for yourself. Still, it strikes a crucial point for me personally, as well as other left-leaning bloggers in the information age - namely, that revolution doesn't happen in a vaccuum. If you want to change the world, you have to go out and spread your thinking, educate the people, and form a united front in actuality, not just as an academic exercise. Hopefully I can play a greater part than just writing rants on this blog, but only time will tell.

In the meantime, if you've made it this far, I'll leave you with an entirely unrelated quote by a very different political philosopher, whose point of view is less dogmatic and much funnier. Ladies and gentlemen, the late, great George Carlin:

"If lobsters looked like puppies, people could never drop them in boiling water while they're still alive. But instead, they look like science fiction monsters, so it's OK. Restaurants that allow patrons to select live lobsters from a tank should be made to paint names on their shells: 'Happy,' 'Baby Doll,' 'Junior.' I defy anyone to drop a living thing called 'Happy' in rapidly boiling water."
- Brain Droppings (1997), p. 71.