******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
I always found this article particularly astute: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/ Here are some of PCR's views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts In other words, PCR sells anti-Stalinism mixed with conspiracy theories, neoliberalism, and anti-war/anti-Zionist politics. Some of those things are good, I'll leave it to Nancy Drew and the JSF crowd to figure out which ones are which. I'm also still wondering why nobody has addressed that Hendrick completely exaggerated the concept of "Third Positionism" by defining it as (basically) as anyone who is conservative but anti-Zionist and anti-war, or how PCR's overall balance of opinions is even comparable to the kinds of pro-war, Zionist apologism and blatant Islamophobia that floats around on the left. That is far, far worse than this kind of exaggerated conspiracism about the right, let alone "Nazism". I'd also point out that most of the genuinely troubling things about PCR's views -- anticommunism, lack of structural analysis, weird attachment to Putin, etc. are common on the left as they are on the right/far-right. >I applaud Elise Hendrick for having confronted this abomination. lol - Amith On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Jeff via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > I hadn't paid attention on the first read, but actually this is very > revealing: > > On Thu, July 23, 2015 04:15, Dennis Brasky via Marxism wrote: > > > > CP co-editor Joshua Frank replies on my Facebook page - > > > > We publish 100 articles a week, she's singling out 3 writers at most, > > which > > we publish on occasion - of course not all of thprominenteir stuff. For > instance, > > we > > don't run PCR's crazy 9/11 truth theories. > > So I found that in fact Paul Craig Roberts has been published on > Counterpunch not just 264 times as Hendrick counted (using a Google > search) but over 650 times in the last 11 years (according to the > Counterpunch site). A recent example is a defense of Vladmir Putin with > whom he surely shares his underlying values: > > http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/24/when-putin-speaks-in-his-own-words/ > > Unfortunately talk of this sort will be music to the ears of many -- I > fear most -- on the far left who have been sold the "new cold war" > paradigm and have heard similar sounding analyses from actual leftists. > Except that this is coming from a reactionary who thereby gains > respectability within the left. > > BUT, the Counterpunch editor Joshua Frank points out that they certainly > don't run ALL of Paul Craig Roberts' columns! No no. For instance, here > are recent columns that they did NOT run, where he asserts that the US > Civil War was not about slavery but calls it the "War of Northern > Aggression" against the Southerners who were just fighting for their > liberation. And that it's wrong to vilify American police as racist, > because after all, they kill more whites than blacks (!!): > > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42451.htm > http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/04/13/power-lies/ > > But my point wasn't to talk about Paul Craig Roberts, and not even the > fact that he gets published on Counterpunch. Rather that, as their editor > carelessly admits, they AVOID publishing the sorts of articles by the > scumbag which would reveal him as a racist pig, while allowing ones which > typical leftists could more relate to. In other words, the role of > Counterpunch in this regard is to appeal to those on the left and open > them to rightists who are talking in similar terms (already a huge problem > in itself). > > So no, I wouldn't at all call Counterpunch a right-wing journal. It is, as > Hendrick and Greenstein have shown, a journal which uses its left-wing > appearance to expose its left-leaning readership to the portion of the far > right which seeks a hearing among (and an unprincipled alliance with) the > left. Of course Counterpunch has got a lot of great (left wing) content as > well. But this role as a conveyer belt for the right to reach the left -- > while carefully sanitizing any material that would be counterproductive in > that regard! -- is despicable and should be denounced. > > Previously I had shrugged off the presence of right wing writers on what I > saw as a prominent leftist journal as an abberation or a one-off. Now I > see that it's systematic. I applaud Elise Hendrick for having confronted > this abomination. > > - Jeff > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
