I agree that the poison that feeds the neolib propaganda is the concept of freedom. Harvey laid it out quite convincingly. I would only add that the problem is not that much the idea of freedom, but rather neolib monopoly on defining it. Same as with the neocon concept of family . They took over the "possession" of these concepts almost without a fight and then claim that they are the "freedom people" or the "family people". If you fight them, you fight freedom or family itself, so you are in a lost position from the start.
The point is that you cannot debate these guys in a conventional sense i.e. by trying to deconstruct their arguments. They know how to deal with and for every argument against them they can manufacture ten in their favor. And they are the freedom and family people, so they will be believed. The only effective way to engage them is to attack and undermine if not destroy their credibility and reputation. Do not argue with them, ridicule them. Show that they are despicable pieces of shit that cannot be taken seriously no matter what they say. This is the MM's way.
The only improvement on MM's approach is a more strategic selection of the target. CEOs of megacorps have high protections so it is difficult to effectively ridicule them. But not so with lesser schmucks - people whose livelihood depend on profession reputation - such as professionals or intellectuals. Destroying their public personae can be very damaging to them and they have fewer means to defend themselves against such attacks.
wojtek
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't know how effective Michael Moore is. I'd say Occupy was much more effective.
>
> The poison that feeds neoliberal propaganda is the idea that choice is the same as freedom. If you can get rid of that, you have a chance. But even lefties are enslaved by it. Think, for example, of the "pro-choice" Planned Parenthood meme.
>
> The problem is quite deep. You would not believe how many of my students in the eighties (at UC Berkeley!!!!) wrote that advertising was good because it helped consumers make informed choices.
>
> Joanna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> I think we should look at this beyond personal qualities and
> invective. These guys are foot soldiers, or paid mouthpieces if you
> will, of a well oiled sophisticated propaganda machine operating on
> multiple levels. This machine, I may add, make the Nazi or Soviet
> propaganda look rather amateurish in comparison. Unlike the Nazi or
> the Soviet model that relied on monopolizing media outlet with one
> centralized voice, the key to the neoliberal propaganda model is
> multiple seemingly independent voices quietly whispering the same
> message.
>
> I have been personally exposed to both types of propaganda and I can
> tell that the neoliberal variety is far more effective, because it is
> more insidious. The Soviet style propaganda first and foremost
> attracts attention to itself, as if saying "attention everyone, here
> is a propaganda message from our Ministry of Truth." The predictable
> effect is that people tune out and upfront discredit the message
> itself regardless of its content. The neoliberal propaganda model, by
> contrast, operates on an almost subliminal level - it masquerades
> itself under the supposedly benign content, so it is very difficult to
> identify it as propaganda.
>
> For that reason, it is incorrect to see joints like NYT in the same
> way you will see, say, Pravda. Pravda was an obvious mouthpiece of
> the ruling party and it even said so on its front page. NYT and Co.
> are not - they are respectable mainstream papers that practice mostly
> good journalism amidst which - at almost the subliminal level - they
> smuggle neoliberal propaganda payload. They operate in a somewhat
> similar way as most of the US visual media, notably TV - a good story
> carrying the payload aiming to persuade. In TV it manifests itself as
> commercial breaks - which are easy to identify and thus edit out. In
> NYT or better yet, NPR, the lines between story and propagandistic
> payload are much more blurred, so it is difficult to tell when
> reporting ends and propaganda payload message begins. For example,
> you may hear a good NPR story about some problem in a distant country
> but then amidst that story you hear how the locals effectively used a
> market-based solution to solve the problem. On the surface, it just
> reports what happened, but by a careful manipulation of emphasis and
> selective omissions it whispers the message "markets are good".
>
> Unlike the Soviet style propaganda that is very easy to identify and
> attack, this neoliberal propaganda resembles a guerilla war where
> combatants blend in with the local population and are very difficult
> to identify. So if you are careless and attack the entire population
> i.e journalism as a whole, you do exactly what the neoliberal Al
> Quaeda wants - you play out the stereotype of you as an 'enemy of
> civilization" - whether civilization is equated with Islamism or
> Western rationalism. OTOH, trying to "deconstruct" the situation and
> identify graft amidst benign and worthwhile context - a strategy that
> many left-wing writers especially those in the "pomo" tradition
> espoused - is very ineffective and quickly becomes an art in itself
> rather than an effective counter-propaganda tool.
>
> AFAIK, there are only two ways to counter this neoliberal guerilla
> kulturkampf. One is to use the same tactic against them and start
> planting subtle socialist "payload" in the "carrier" content,
> especially popular journalism. This, however, requires enormous
> resources and coordination - neither of which is the left's strong
> point. The other one is to use "surgical strikes" or drones if you
> will. That is, identify potential targets and remotely destroy them
> and their milieu by any means necessary. This means ad hominem
> attacks aiming to politically, economically, and socially
> "assassinate" the vulnerable members of the neoliberal establishment -
> not just journos but businesses financing neoliberal campaigns ,
> intellectuals and even students with neoliberal sympathies - which is
> the left's strong point. Michael Moore does that quite effectively.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:27 AM, joel schalit <jschalit at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As a fellow Berliner, I hereby confirm, this guy is an asshole. But
>> what else would you expect from the NYT? I haven't read it, with any
>> seriousness, in years. Precisely, I might add, because of content like
>> this.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Angelus Novus
>> <fuerdenkommunismus at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "The problem is that Germans have been spoiled by proactive government policies designed to fund affordable housing and promote mixed-income living spaces."
>>>
>>>
>>> http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/bobos-in-berlin/
>>>
>>>
>>> Also love the typical neolib description of "globalization" as a sheer force of nature, that just sort of magically dismantles welfare states.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> joel schalit
>> skype: jschalit
>> tel: +49 1514 0212899
>> email: jschalit at gmail.com
>> web: www.joelschalit.com
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
> --
> Wojtek
>
> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."