|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 17:56:45 GMT -5
Any corporation that forces you to pay for salary of Chris Evans can fuck themselves. Didn't have a crush on Billie Piper back in the day did you? (Just trying to lighten the mood!)
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 17:57:59 GMT -5
Any media that is controlled and operated by an elite class is inherently propaganda. The BBC is owned by the state, but the state is owned by capitalists. What we call our "free press/media" is in my opinion an evolved propaganda system that serves many functions, among them creating the illusion of a vocal left and right wing, when in reality all prominent media is just different shades of capitalism - and as such is all right wing. This limits critical thought, prevents any structural analysis of society, and is an admirably elegant way of manufacturing content - as Chomsky and Herman put it. Forget the Labour Party or the Tories, forget the BBC or ITV and look at the structural picture. Media in capitalism can only ever represent the interests of the elite classes. Whether this is funded by the public, or whether this particular paper supports this particular party are surface issues distracting from the root problem. All news is propaganda, what Chomsky writes is correct, but its difficult for ANYONE in the system to wean themselves off the capitalist machine. Even Chomsky himself is hypocritical - he benefits from the capitalist markets as much as anyone he criticises. So I can't his self-righteousness seriously. The problem with what your saying Matt is capitalism is able to get to that very base human instinct- Greed. Therefore the idealism of Marx, etc. has a very hard time going up against established power bases and ingrained ideals. It happens in so called socialist countries like China and North Korea, or the former USSR- human nature is the problem, not a construct system and that is harder to change
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 23, 2015 18:08:01 GMT -5
All news is propaganda, what Chomsky writes is correct, but its difficult for ANYONE in the system to wean themselves off the capitalist machine. Even Chomsky himself is hypocritical - he benefits from the capitalist markets as much as anyone he criticises. So I can't his self-righteousness seriously. The problem with what your saying Matt is capitalism is able to get to that very base human instinct- Greed. Therefore the idealism of Marx, etc. has a very hard time going up against established power bases and ingrained ideals. It happens in so called socialist countries like China and North Korea, or the former USSR- human nature is the problem, not a construct system and that is harder to change I don't deny that and I agree with that, and with what Chomsky said in Manufacturing Consent is correct. But we all live in the system, and we are all products of the system. Yes, it is about challenging those assumptions but that doesn't necessarily mean Chomsky is more 'pure' than the general public. This is a man who writes many anti-capitalist books but himself is vulnerable to the instinct of greed - he invests money into TIAA-CREF stock funds of which also fund oil contractors! That's not just a 'product' of the capitalist system, this is a man who actively seeks benefits in the markets. So I don't necessarily have a problem with what he writes about capitalism, but he can't portray himself as a cut above the rest (of which he does, and my god, he has talked some right bullshit down the years - christ, I'm not even thinking about him denying genocide in Cambodia, that's how much bullshit he can come up with).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 18:10:02 GMT -5
Any media that is controlled and operated by an elite class is inherently propaganda. The BBC is owned by the state, but the state is owned by capitalists. What we call our "free press/media" is in my opinion an evolved propaganda system that serves many functions, among them creating the illusion of a vocal left and right wing, when in reality all prominent media is just different shades of capitalism - and as such is all right wing. This limits critical thought, prevents any structural analysis of society, and is an admirably elegant way of manufacturing content - as Chomsky and Herman put it. Forget the Labour Party or the Tories, forget the BBC or ITV and look at the structural picture. Media in capitalism can only ever represent the interests of the elite classes. Whether this is funded by the public, or whether this particular paper supports this particular party are surface issues distracting from the root problem. All news is propaganda, what Chomsky writes is correct, but its difficult for ANYONE in the system to wean themselves off the capitalist machine. Even Chomsky himself is hypocritical - he benefits from the capitalist markets as much as anyone he criticises. So I can't his self-righteousness seriously. I don't think that's hypocritical at all. What would be hypocritical would be if he owned news businesses privately. You can't just not engage with capitalism at all, you can benefit from it and criticise it without being hypocritical IMO, as long as the way you're benefitting from it doesn't contrast with your criticism. Chomsky benefits from markets in that his work sells, fine. The problem with capitalism is the unjust authority of privately owned businesses, everything else is derived from that. As long as he's not the CEO of "Anarchist Thought Ltd." I don't think he's a hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 23, 2015 18:27:51 GMT -5
All news is propaganda, what Chomsky writes is correct, but its difficult for ANYONE in the system to wean themselves off the capitalist machine. Even Chomsky himself is hypocritical - he benefits from the capitalist markets as much as anyone he criticises. So I can't his self-righteousness seriously. I don't think that's hypocritical at all. What would be hypocritical would be if he owned news businesses privately. You can't just not engage with capitalism at all, you can benefit from it and criticise it without being hypocritical IMO, as long as the way you're benefitting from it doesn't contrast with your criticism. Chomsky benefits from markets in that his work sells, fine. The problem with capitalism is the unjust authority of privately owned businesses, everything else is derived from that. As long as he's not the CEO of "Anarchist Thought Ltd." I don't think he's a hypocrite. For a guy who berates 'property rights' and favours income redistribution, he has a funny way of showing it by charging folk for audio of speeches, in addition to his own personal trust funds which can't be touched by the federal government in America (so yes, he is strictly benefiting from the materialist and individualistic - rather than the moralistic - pursuit of the American Dream as the trust funds appeal more to Republican ideology!). That barely scratches the surface to his hypocrisies. The man benefits from being a capitalist commodity. Put Chomsky's name on a book and it will sell and he will earn much from the privately owned businesses that publish his work in a way that writers for revolutionary parties in a foreign land would never see. His books are thought provoking and insightful, but the man himself? He's not the pure honest man he likes to think he is.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 18:34:04 GMT -5
The problem with what your saying Matt is capitalism is able to get to that very base human instinct- Greed. Therefore the idealism of Marx, etc. has a very hard time going up against established power bases and ingrained ideals. It happens in so called socialist countries like China and North Korea, or the former USSR- human nature is the problem, not a construct system and that is harder to change I don't deny that and I agree with that, and with what Chomsky said in Manufacturing Consent is correct. But we all live in the system, and we are all products of the system. Yes, it is about challenging those assumptions but that doesn't necessarily mean Chomsky is more 'pure' than the general public. This is a man who writes many anti-capitalist books but himself is vulnerable to the instinct of greed - he invests money into TIAA-CREF stock funds of which also fund oil contractors! That's not just a 'product' of the capitalist system, this is a man who actively seeks benefits in the markets. So I don't necessarily have a problem with what he writes about capitalism, but he can't portray himself as a cut above the rest (of which he does, and my god, he has talked some right bullshit down the years - christ, I'm not even thinking about him denying genocide in Cambodia, that's how much bullshit he can come up with).And although I like his writings on political and social economics, I cannot disagree with you there. As to the TIAA-CREF it is another point that validates what both of us have said so far- perhaps our views aren't so far apart after all. Good debate man, and I have to hand it to you for well constructed points to back your views
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 23, 2015 19:29:13 GMT -5
Christ, reading that back, this thread is a case study in me getting sidetracked. Anyway... I don't think BBC stands for Blur Bias Corporation. And who gives a shit whether you were Team Blur or Team Oasis - both bands gave a lot to the cultural landscape of the time, and we would be poorer off without both of them. And let's be honest, the rivalry between them really cemented both bands in the higher echelons of British music. When all said and done, it was all good. Especially comparing it with today.
|
|