After the Attack: Brecht Answers Beck
Posted by Mike E on March 2, 2010
Kasama received the following press release from Kazembe Balagun, the Outreach Coordinator of the
Brecht Forum (212-242-4201 ext.11).
Glenn Beck vs. Brecht Forum: Which Side Are You On?
Who is afraid of the Brecht Forum? Apparently Glenn Beck is. Beck, the infamous right wing talk show host featured a ten-minute diatribe attacking the Brecht Forum on his top rated Fox News program last night. Pulling clips from a September 16th, 2009 event titled “The Van Jones Effect,” Beck equated “social justice” with “danger,” and conflated socialism with Nazism.
It is not surprising to us that Marxist ideas are being raised in the public debate in this country–the problems of this society are obviously not being solved or even addressed by Republican or Democratic ‘bi-partistan’ politics and neoliberal economics. The Brecht Forum is a political space that is proudly Marxist and features a range of thinkers from progressive democrats, communists, anarchists, feminists, to cutting edge cultural workers. In this context, it is clear why Glenn Beck would target the Brecht Forum — right as record numbers of people are coming through our doors, over 10,000 in 2009.
Glenn Beck hysteria over Brecht Forum
Still, not wanting to appear on Beck’s McCarthyite radar screen, one of our funders has retracted a $10,000 grant. We need to respond. Help us raise $10,000 to prove that no right wing ringleader can do us harm. Which side are you on?
P.S.- Consider becoming a subscriber to the Brecht Forum and support us in our 35th anniversary.
P.P.S- See what some of our supporters are saying about the Brecht Forum.
–
Otto said
If I were persuaded to drop support because of Glen Beck, I would never forgive myself. They may have lost $10.000, but the mental midget who withdrew it is no loss.
mark vlcek said
this is America and we are not stupid commi’s i am with glenn and you will be deafeated anytime you run for a office
friend of a friend said
The Brecht needs all of our support. It is open, participatory spaces that help us to think together. Our movements cannot rely (for a minute, let alone in general) on the fickle, conditional support of the foundations that use money to dictate the terms of what can and can’t be said. If you can give $10 – send them that. But if you work full-time, please consider overflowing the coffers. If they lost $10,000 – let’s help them raise $100,000.
Tell No Lies said
Mr. Vicek,
Most of us, though certainly not everyone here, are “commies,” but we’re not stupid. People here put a great deal of thought into their ideas. Take a moment to read some of the articles and discussions here. You might encounter ideas you don’t like, but you might also be surprised. Most Americans have very little first hand exposure to what communists actually think or do. Rather they mostly have what they have been fed by others in school and on TV.
We value lively, serious, but mutually respectful discussion, not the sort of stuff you routinely see on cable news channels. We are not afraid of debating our opponents. While we regard Glenn Beck as a demagogue, we welcome his attack for the simple reason that it brought you and presumably many others like you here.
For the past several decades the gap between rich and poor in the US — and around the world — has grown wider and wider. US soldiers, largely from poor and working class families, are killing and dying in two wars that most Americans don’t understand or really support, but that are making a handful of people very rich. Now we find ourselves in the midst of the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. The ice caps are in fact melting. People are asking serious questions about capitalism and the rule of the rich. Even though socialist and communists movements in the US are presently very weak, the ruling class fears those ideas and is determined to inoculate you and everybody else against them. That is what Glenn Beck’s hysterical ravings are really about — a way of saying to millions of Americans “yeah, the system has screwed you, but don’t you dare think about what another world would look like.” While we believe that the socialist revolutions of the 20th century have much to teach us and accomplished important things, the societies they ultimately created are NOT what we are striving for. We want a genuinely free society where nobody lives in fear, whether of hunger or a knock on the door by the police. We are seriously interested in understanding what went wrong with the revolutions of the 20th century so that the revolutions of the 21st century can produce something much more worthy of the awesome potential that exists in humanity.
Bob Harris said
RE:”Most of us, though certainly not everyone here, are ‘commies,’ but we’re not stupid”
Uh, yes. If you are a “commie” and can’t see the mass murder, oppression, and suppression of the human spirit this twisted and bloody ideology has wrought over the last century, you are indeed stupid; damn stupid.
Otto said
At least we are smart enough to see through the tons of propaganda we’ve been spoon fed since the second grade and have learned to re-evaluate history for ourselves instead of just believing everything we are told by those who profit off our servitude.
n3wday said
Bob Harris,
“Uh, yes. If you are a “commie” and can’t see the mass murder, oppression, and suppression of the human spirit this twisted and bloody ideology has wrought over the last century, you are indeed stupid; damn stupid.”
This is no different from me saying, yes if you support capitalism and can’t see the history of coups, mass murder, napalm campaigns that economic system and ideology has wrought all over the world in the last century you are indeed stupid; damn stupid.
The point I’m making is that allegations put forward in this way offer no concrete examples and hence leave no room for rebuttal, except that of the same kind.
However, things aren’t as simple as that. Understanding a moment in history requires placing it in historical context and looking at how the different forces at play interacted to produce a particular result. This way, multiple lines of interpretation can be explored and those with insufficient explanatory power can be exposed and discarded. Otherwise, the conversation will occur without anything really being said and without any chance for transformation in the participants views—after all, that is the point of political discourse, to debate, explore, and deepen our understanding of the world and how to change it for the better.
Providing assertions without substance and following them with insults just isn’t helpful to anyone.