Of course, there will be many interpretations, but what are the defining Marxist ideas on the definition?

I ask, because you see a lot of libs and liblefts calling America fascist, but then being asked how, and not being able to respond. It makes them (and us, because we always get lumped in with them) look bad. I'd like to be able to step in if I ever witness such a thing.

Hello folks - I've tried all.the usual spots like Anna's archive and Z library and so on to no avail. This is the book in question -

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Theater_and_Film.html?id=W7HdXRCLcoIC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

There's a copy of it on internet archive but it's only accessible to American people with impaired sight it seems.

Anyone know a way around it?

not bad

found guilty of supporting designated far right terrorists and letting their banana boats be used for drug smuggling

I don't even know where to put this other than badposting

it was literally the most bad post I've ever read

really just stomach churningly moronic

I feel like this has been a concept for a long time within imperialist studies, but I can't find it. Surely it's a thing. What would you call it?

EDIT: thanks for all the brilliant responses

Come contribute your analysis in the comments, vibes based or otherwise.

I think sometimes it depends on the topic.

Reuters is good at getting some key points and missing full state department spin, but the problem is that they have a reputation as non-biased, and that reputation means they/you do not bother to inspect their own ideology. In other mainstream media, it's easy to spot the political spin and bias if you know what you're looking for, but Reuters is much more clandestine, and possibly unintentionally so.

I imagine it to be ran by 'well meaning' liberals who have a level of journalistic integrity, that is born from 'do the right thing in the name of democracy' rather than from a serious political education.

So they thoroughly explore 'both sides' a lot, while presenting all of their information with a very 'objective' feeling register of language, in the process omitting important facts/framings that they would deem to be inducing a level of political bias.

That said, I will say they're not otherwise too worthy of my ire in comparison to other major media organisations.

Weirdly, I was researching Venezuela recently for a stageplay I'm writing, and Bloomberg gave surprisingly good coverage of events I didn't expect them to bother with. You wouldn't be able to form a meaningful analysis of venezuela based on their coverage alone, but I was still quite shocked that I found bits of their coverage to be pretty OK, and sometimes divergent from the usual state department shit that CNN or even The Guardian would put out. Very curious.

Blinken is number 1 spot for my least favourite guy of the year. Elon Musk in 2nd place.

On a similar note, I'm pretty sure the UK is still holding 2 billions of dollars in gold reserves from Venezuela.

"Ukraine’s entry this year is the rapper and singer duo Alyona Alyona and Jerry Heil."

Jerry 'Heil'

“There are many wars now in the world and, of course, it is not easy to constantly keep attention on yourself so that people do not get tired of our war."

EDIT: upon further research of Jerry Heil:

'Heil began using her alias at the age of 15. After registering for the Russian social media service VKontakte, she used the name Jerry Mouse, referencing the cartoon character of the same name. She then changed Mouse to Heil, citing her desire to use whatever American surname she saw on the Internet first.

She has expressed her embarrassment for the backstory behind her stage name, calling it "moronic".'

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/may/06/eurovision-winner-jamala-says-ukraine-cannot-afford-to-boycott-contest

What a perfect little capsule of the state of America.