Media?

[Imposter Marxist]

I had a question posed to me and I struggled to awnser it, Im sorry if this is the wrong place to ask (There should be a question section). It was about Media in a Marxist/Communist type system. My buddy made the argument since it would be controlled by the media, it could be too easily used to exploit.

What would I say if someone said that?

[btpound]

In a socialist society, which is the first step to a communist society, I think the media will be very grassroots. The is no quote from Marx where he says, "the government is monolithic and totalitarian". This is just the form it took in Russia, and it was copied by almost every other communist country, because they had no other model to go by. Also since the USSR helped these countries come to power in the first place. I think that in America, where I live, or any other highly developed capitalism country, we would need to take a drastically different route that Russia. I think the media would be highly grassroots. The government would publish a paper probably, but only to discuss whats happening in the government (new laws, committee meetings, voting days, etc.) People, ideally, would be supplied paper and printers free, so they could print whatever they want. In Beijing during the cultural revolution there were 900 papers in circulation. Information would be free to exchange in a way where the government supports the rights of people. However, "freedom of press" is a slippery slope. While we want to ensure freedom to the proletariat, we must be care not to give enough freedom to the bourgeoisie. That's the idea anyway, suppressing the bourgeoisie so they can't suppress us. Since we can't use the way they oppressed us on them (capitalism), we will have to use the only means we have, force. So freedom of press is good, and encouraged. But at the same time, freedom to capitalism cannot be tolerated.

[Manifesto]

I had a question posed to me and I struggled to awnser it, Im sorry if this is the wrong place to ask (There should be a question section).
For future reference there is, its called Learning.

[Q]

For future reference there is, its called Learning.

This. I'm moving this thread from Theory to Learning.

[ArrowLance]

The media should be ran by the state in the interest of the proletariat. We can, in this way, speak out for the proletariat and easily censor dangerous dissent and remove the ability of bourgeois publications.

All important information would be made available in this way as well as constructive ideas published for consideration by the workers.

[Q]

The media should be ran by the state in the interest of the proletariat. We can, in this way, speak out for the proletariat and easily censor dangerous dissent and remove the ability of bourgeois publications.

All important information would be made available in this way as well as constructive ideas published for consideration by the workers.

Why can't workers own and publish their own media? Certainly in this day and age of the internet and with the advent of stuff like e-paper, I see no longer any role for the state. Besides, even in the early days of the Bolsheviks, the state only acted as a arbiter, ensuring everyone access to the printing presses. Only at a later stage was the state also assuming "responsibility" over published content, which of course resulted in the media being used in the interests of the Stalinist clique.

[cb9's_unity]

For the most part I agree with btpound, media in a socialist society should come from the workers themselves. However I believe I differ in my opinion of freedom of speech.The task of the proletariat is to suppress the bourgeoisie simply by taking the means of production away from them, once that is done they cease to be bourgeois and are unlikely ever to regain their rights to private property. That can be done without actively suppressing capitalist ideas, or bourgeois freedom to speech. A revolution in which a serious amount of the population is swayed by capitalist ideas is a revolution that is clearly not fully developed.

In fact suppressing freedom of speech has proved only to be detrimental to socialist revolution. Suppressing any ideas only leads to a type of fucked up reverse McCarthyism in which genuine and revolutionary socialists are either called capitalists or their ideas are accused of leading to capitalism. Dissident elements of the proletariat who recognize flaws in the revolution are liable to be called capitalists and unfairly suppressed.

[Ben Seattle]

You may be interested in my essay:
Politics, Economics & the Mass Media when the Working Class Runs the Show

(please see the link in my sig below)

[Ben Seattle]

I should also note I believe there will be a need to apply the principle of separation of speech and property in order to prevent people with money and privilege from dominating the mass media. This will be necessary because the social divisions of rich and poor, etc will not be abolished overnight. My essay has more on this.