The politics of ignorance....

[RadioRaheem84]

Do you think that politicians, academics and journalists are quite ignorant of history, events and foreseeing the future (in terms of where society is going) because they lack a Leftist's perspective? I have found that Marxism and the leftist perspective has been the best way of analyzing events yesterday, today, and has helped me understand what might come next.

I mean the conservative and liberal perspective are so barred from total inquiry because of presupposed political and socio-economic constraints that nearly everything they talk about is skewered, turning into propaganda. You can't get the right history out of them, the right view on politics, economics or even what's going on in society. They never dare to further trek for the truth because they're ideologies are fixed. I mean how can you not understand politics without understanding the role of the nation state in terms of class relations? How can you not understand true history when you omit most of your own nations faults? How can even the most bleeding heart liberal understand the needs of the poor when he presupposes the capitalist concept of private property?

There is no hope in a top to bottom power system. Not when class interests are thoroughly in favor of the upper class. Not when the free market is supposedly the only hope to progress. How can any politician really help us when these barriers are blocking true progress? Everything they saw or do is skewered! The system then seems to be set up to only help the rich and anything that trickles down to us is simply by default. Does that mean that most of politics is really a game? Does that mean that most of academia is really a lie that must be kept in place?

I want to know if most of this is intentional or if it's due to a total lack (or better repression) of the leftist perspective?

[rednordman]

Do you think that politicians, academics and journalists are quite ignorant of history, events and foreseeing the future (in terms of where society is going) because they lack a Leftist's perspective? I have found that Marxism and the leftist perspective has been the best way of analyzing events yesterday, today, and has helped me understand what might come next.

I mean the conservative and liberal perspective are so barred from total inquiry because of presupposed political and socio-economic constraints that nearly everything they talk about is skewered, turning into propaganda. You can't get the right history out of them, the right view on politics, economics or even what's going on in society. They never dare to further trek for the truth because they're ideologies are fixed. I mean how can you not understand politics without understanding the role of the nation state in terms of class relations? How can you not understand true history when you omit most of your own nations faults? How can even the most bleeding heart liberal understand the needs of the poor when he presupposes the capitalist concept of private property?Incredible isnt it? I mean its like we are all going in circles or something, because we really are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. All just because of a fixed and biast hierarchy, that is so used to having it their own way, that they cannot understand another one.

For me this signifies much more than it just being a problematic system, it is actually proving western liberal democracy to be not just skewed, but totally bankrupt.

The reason i use this terminology isnt because so much that it only accept capitalist and nationalist viewpoint, but more to the fact that from now on, every victory for workers and unions, will be looked at as a defeat for the nation. The term 'going backwards' will be touted alot.

It really amazes me how alot of these liberal and conservative snobs look down of marxism as being defunt due to it being out dated and 'one dimensional'. As if that all of a sudden means its worth nothing. The pure hypocrasy is weighing heavily now, as its turning out that capitalism is even more one dimensional that any ideology around.

The term 'western liberal democracy' (or just even democracy) is now a big oxymoron, because technically we do not live in a democracy at all. Ironically, its a 'dictatorship of capital and individualist persuits'.

[RadioRaheem84]

Incredible how capitalism brought us back to the turn of the 20th century in terms of wealth disparity.

So is my generation going to have to look at the my parents and grandparents generation as better off economically and socially than I ever was or probably will be?

[cyu]

I want to know if most of this is intentional or if it's due to a total lack (or better repression) of the leftist perspective?

From We are intellectual prostitutes (http://everything2.com/title/we%20are%20intellectual%20prostitutes):

The former chief editorial writer of the New York Times, John Swinton, reportedly had this to say at a banquet held in his honor in 1880, nearing the end of his career:

There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

Sometimes, some people wonder why there is so much inane news about various random celebrities being constantly reported on the air. Some would argue that is what the viewing audience wants to see - that the media is only giving The People what they want. If the viewing audience didn't like this kind of gossip, then there wouldn't be enough ratings to sustain shows like these.

I wonder what I would do if I worked for the news department and three stories came across my desk:
1) A boring story about a celebrity.
2) An exciting story about a celebrity.
3) An exciting, but dangerous story that could cost me my job.

Which would I choose? If I considered myself a person of integrity, would I choose to focus on #3? Obviously if I were just worried about my career or mortgage payments, #2 would be the one audiences see that night.

What if I had kids in college? Would the right thing to do be to ensure they get the education they need and bury story #3? What if running story #3 would cost me my job now, which would mean I wouldn't be around to ensure even more important things get reported on? If that were my rationale, then I may choose #2 over #3 after all, and bide my time until I'm truly needed.

Of course, with rationalizations like that, I may just spend my entire career reporting only on "exciting celebrity news" - never once daring to venture into uncharted territory.

[RadioRaheem84]

Good point. The concept that the market is a form of a democracy, and if no one wanted inane news about celebs, there wouldn't be a market for it is only half true. In a top down structured society, the people at the top not only create the news and policies, but also markets. They create the initial incentive for others to emulate. You're right. It's by far a complex issue.

[Belisarius]

Baudrillard said on journalism during the first gulf war that the real war didn't happen in Kuwait or Iraq, but on CNN. according to him the war in Iraq was turned into an alienated action (soldiers for example are noweadays trained by playing computer games and first-person-shooters). soldiers don't kill people anymore, just virtualized stuff.

the real war happened on CNN, because every actions was magnified in order for the people at home to think that a lot is happening and that they are winning. journalists are only allowed to report when the army is operating on "clean" businesses, where they know they will win and where there won't be any civilian casualties. the name for this is "imbedded jouralism".

[Sendo]

Incredible how capitalism brought us back to the turn of the 20th century in terms of wealth disparity.

So is my generation going to have to look at the my parents and grandparents generation as better off economically and socially than I ever was or probably will be?

Because of out-sourcing, recession, monopoly capitalism, loss of savings from student loans, falling (in real dollars) wages, today's college graduates (pretty much from 2004 it became a major problem) are poorer than their parents.

Add to that a general decrease in quality of life, decrease in availability of natural resources, less availability of health care...we ARE MUCH WORSE OFF as a generation than our parents. Restricting it to native-born, of course, because I imagine 2nd generation immigrant children usually fare better than their parents.