- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/32470699
Today I’m talking to Joti Brar, one of the leaders of the Communist Party of Great Britain, the editor of the party’s publication, and the Spokesperson for the World Anti-Imerialist Platform.
Joti Brar of CPGB-ML is the daughter of the late Harpal Brar.
“Neutrality Studies” is some Swiss nonsense, but at least they’ll listen to communists and anti-imperialists.
No. You could as well promote any US patsoc when they stick to the “right topic”. Or any fascist for that matter, they always appropriate some correct leftists stances. Communist spaces shouldn’t platform them even when they parrot the correct line.
Should we go and report any post from Al-Jazeera? Or any post that links to western state propaganda in general? Does that count as breaking the “Promoting anti-communism” rule? I think it’s a little much to go about reporting people for linking something somebody said, just because we don’t like the somebody who said it. I don’t see any explicit all encompassing endorsement of this person’s reactionary views anywhere in this post.
CPGB-ML are right deviationists so I’ll keep reporting them for breaking the rule “no right deviationists”. Joti is a prominent “socially conservative” figure on the British “left”, posting an interview with her is no different to posting an interview with Hinkle.
From MoreTankieChapo to GenZedong to Lemmygrad there is a cycle of nazbols / patsocs / whatever you wanna call them swarming the space looking to normalise their ideas, getting pushed back, and quieting down for a bit until the next cycle, and I think this is why there’s a rule specifically disallowing this content.
I’m not sure why you want to report Al Jazeera, there is no rule against posting from mainstream media.
They are a sectarian, anti China, anti Shia propaganda rag that manufactured consent for the destruction of Syria and Libya, yet I see plenty of posts of their articles here, particularly about Palestine, and yet I tolerate it and don’t report people for making such posts, because I don’t automatically assume the people posting are trying to promote sectarian, anti China views.
Also how do you interpret the rule, do you take it as meaning “We don’t want people with such views to be a part of this community and spread their views” or “We don’t want people with such views to even be mentioned in this community regardless of why”?
I could say all those things about the BBC, the Guardian, etc, and yet there’s no rule against posting them. I already explained why I think right deviationists in particular are banned, I might be wrong, I didn’t wright those rules this is just how I understand them. This is also what makes sense to me, I think banning New York Times is counterproductive but banning Haz is not.
That is the point, you definitely can, and if we followed the rules the way you did, we’d be reporting every post made out of one of their pieces, that’s my point. We do not post anything with the assumption that we are uncritically endorsing everything that has ever been said by the source. And if we do so for some and not others, we give legitimacy to the ones we don’t try and ban from our discussions. If this is the intended way we follow these rules, I am much more uncomfortable with Al-Jazeera, Middle East eye, New York times and their ilk being seen as totally fair and productive to post articles from than whoever this small UK party member is.
Nazbols / patsocs pretend to be Marxist-Leninists and there are always some people around ML spaces who sympathise with them. There’s nobody here who thinks NYT present the correct Marxist-Leninist line.
If this was posted as “Inteview with Joti Brar the patsoc TERF” I wouldn’t report it, alas it’s posted as:
And Al-Jazeera pretends to be pro Palestine while they’re just a state propaganda mouthpiece who’s main goal is to get Sunni Muslims to believe everything they say about regimes that “Oppress the true faith”.
As much as I would like to see it, I don’t report posts from them that don’t add “Sectarian Reactionary News Media” added in the title. Because unlike the new york times, there are a lot of outlets who, due to their coverage of the genocide, have lulled many people into thinking they are upstanding and should be listened to. Another example for this is just recently we saw middle east spectator reveal themselves to be Anti-LGBT when they commented on Zohran Mamdani’s position on pride. Do we now ignore, report, and block every single thing they report on?
It’s not the fault of the user who posts it, neither does it break a rule. I take no issue with your discomfort at CPGB being reactionary, I believe so too.
However it is not against the rules (as they are currently, I do think they could be improved) to post something they say, as long as it is not directly endorsing the party or it’s reactionary views. I don’t see that here.
Al Jazeera has promoted anti communist and pro imperialist propaganda which is a violation of Rule 1. Also, they previously have promoted Pro ISIS propaganda, whitewashed them when they couped Assad by calling them “rebels” and underreported the Alawites massacres(calling any resistance Pro Assad Loyalists).
I wonder if you didn’t know this or if you are intentionally minimizing this.
Are you for real? Lol fuck right off
Hey can we keep this somewhat civil. There is no reason to start swearing
You should be aware that pro-western media is outright dehumanizing for non whites and actively promotes the oppressors voice.
But of course, if you are not targeted by the western media, my comment and CommieWolf’s would seem exaggerations or non valid comparisons that could be minimized as non serious. Privilege is really a nasty thing that keeps people from having solidarity. It truly blinds people.
No, I won’t and I hope you backtrack from this disgusting comment. Do better.
As I said, I don’t think the poster was intending to promote them in any way.
Neutrality Studies is not a communist outlet and i hope that everyone here is aware of that and approaches any content that they put out with an awareness of the possibility that their guests are going to be people with some reactionary views.
There are many people speaking against russophobia and warmongering, we don’t need to post the ones who also speak against “the gays”.
When writing the effort post above I skimmed over that RATWM article again, and this stood out to me: “considering the people most impacted by US imperialism and imperialist war have been organizing against it long before these Mises people came along, why haven’t I seen most of these white Latte Leftists engaged in organizing with us? I mean, Black, queer, trans, disabled, Global South, African people will certainly all die should there be a nuclear war”
There are better voices to lift out of obscurity than Joti’s.