I've heard The New Atlas recommend them regarding their analysis of the military situation in Ukraine, but other than that I don't know much about them.
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2022
0 points (NaN% liked)
GenZedong
4289 readers
87 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
They are paleo conservatives.
They dislike the traditional right and liberals, and oppose interventionism. Simultaneously, they hold reactionary social views. On economics I haven’t heard them say much. Often times, they will mostly avoid social issues in their programs, and focus on mostly factual news—diplomatic, military, and economic.
I think the appeal for leftists is that they are ostensibly anti-imperialist, however they are still reactionary. In this regard though, they are still perhaps closer to criticizing capitalism accurately than some of the American “left”, since one of the most important elements of capitalism is imperialism.
In effect, it’s a bit like how a liberal might claim progressiveness on social issues, but be blind to imperialism. At the same time their social critique will be lacking and to various degrees superficial. Their critique of what we call imperialism is what might be called a critique of interventionism.
Accordingly, the Duran presents a view indirectly and sometimes directly critical of imperialism, which stems at least in part from the international relations theory that great powers weaken themselves when too interventionist. While they may not have a critique of capitalism in their analysis, they do cover both some of the internal rot in the imperial core, and present most of the critical developments of multi-polarization.
Since these developments are crucial, the Duran can be a decent source of news for some topics, on the condition that your familiar with their position. Perhaps since they have become increasingly resigned in support for the imperial core, and more supportive of anti-imperialist states for reasons other than ours, their content is more approachable for leftists.
Nonetheless, they are reactionary.
A good summary. A few points i would add:
First off the positives, they have been one of the most regular and thorough sources of news, commentary and analysis on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. They are pro-Russian but still quite objective. So far they seem to have been more or less correct. Also, for conservatives they have a surprisingly balanced view of China. Maybe this is due to their interaction with more knowledgeable people like Brian Berletic and Pepe Escobar, or maybe it's just because they have an extreme skepticism toward any and all western mainstream media. They are advocates of the idea of a multipolar world but they come at it from a different direction than we communists do. They take more of a Dugin line on it and speak of "civilizational states". As a result they also tend to have fairly decent views on Iran. They are also very anti-NATO and anti-EU.
As for the negatives, there are a lot of them. They are as you mentioned very socially reactionary, again in the vein of Dugin type traditionalism. Their economic views seem to be closest to something like Austrian school economics, very supply side oriented, against intervention in the markets, and tending to the fiscally conservative side that blames inflation on bad monetary policies like money printing and excessive spending. However they are not libertarians, they sometimes approve of state intervention and spending when necessary such as what Russia has done in response to the sanctions. Perhaps most disturbing are their views on energy, they are borderline climate change deniers and very against green/renewable energy and very pro fossil fuel. Finally they are antivaxers and they are like most conservatives nowadays obsessed with "globalism", Klaus Schwab, the WEF, etc.
My recommendation: consume with extreme caution. Keep in mind they align politically very much with the right wing so-called "populist" camp of politicians in the US and Europe and that will be reflected in a lot of their commentary.