Anarchism and Mass Media

[Nuvem]

Just a curious question about Anarchism and mass media. Obviously under market systems mass media (radio, television, internet, magazines, newspapers) is operated for profit. TV stations broadcast television programs and commercials for profit, mainstream radio stations broadcast for profit, internet providers grant internet access for profit and the same goes for magazines and newspapers.

In all former or current Communist nations mass media was monopolized by the state and all other media was small-scale and in some cases clandestine newspapers were distributed or pirate radio/television was broadcast, but always to little effect or impact.

My question, as many of you may have guessed, is what is the Anarchist standpoint on the operation of mass media during and after the hypothetical transformation into a communal Anarchist society assuming that media can no longer be distributed for profit and that no state exists to operate it? I don't mean this as a challenging question, I'm just legitimately curious.

[ContrarianLemming]

Add's are currently a main source of profit for say..newspapers, sellings newspapers is not profitable (manufactory consent explains this) the ads in the newspaper are where the profit comes from, and this is why radical news is marginal - they don't take ads and ads don't use them.

I just think it's interesting

anyhoo, in regard to the question, I think the media would be organised similarly as now, I don't think each little commune is gonna have it's own news, nor each region, we could still have CNN aand CBS, the main difference being that CNN will now be CNN CO-OP, run for utility.

same goes for loads of current companies, I don't see Microsoft dissapearing, I think it's gonna become Microsoft Co-op.

[NGNM85]

I would imagine you would still have larger scale professional news broadcasters, just run on an Anarchosyndicalist basis, and without all the advertizing and most of the biases and omissions we see in the present mainstream media. There would also, of course, be smaller, local media operations, like what you see on public access. Contrary to what some people seem to think, a spot on primetime television is not a right.

[Manic Impressive]

I like the phrase "one man one newspaper" and really in a futuristic society or even if it happened tomorrow I don't see what the point of national newspapers would be in a stateless society. It just doesn't seem very logical to cut down trees to use for newspapers when we have an endless supply of internet :D
(as for recycling we could put that to better use elsewhere)

As for TV couldn't people just take turns? Like if you have something important to say then you ask for some time to say it.

although I'm not an anarchist I just wanted to add my two cents

[ContrarianLemming]

and without all the advertizing and most of the biases and omissions we see in the present mainstream media.

I don't agree with this, I don't see why an anarchist news source wouldnt be extremely biased in favour of anarchism and workerism. I've read leftist news and it's certainly not unbiased or lacking omissions.

Any jounalist source outside your own tendency seems like a liar though.

[Nuvem]

I think the media would be organised similarly as now, I don't think each little commune is gonna have it's own news, nor each region, we could still have CNN aand CBS, the main difference being that CNN will now be CNN CO-OP, run for utility.

I have some problems with this answer and none of the answers posted thus far have really addressed my question as fully as I hope. While I could see the possibility of a media cooperative, the fundamental question of "why" has to be asked. There's so much superfluous content on television, on the internet and in magazines that is solely there to entertain and not to persuade or inform or complete any other intellectually driven goal- just to distract and entertain. For this reason I wonder what the motivation would be for a media cooperative, especially once you take away the profits to be had from advertisements. I can see groups choosing to operate media at cost for the purposes of propaganda and education (persuade, inform) but not for entertainment, because I don't see (and this could be a lack of knowledge of some theory) how mass media can be operated from a practical standpoint without some means of gaining money to support the hosting of said media, I.E., payments for broadcasting or printing advertisements.

How will mass media keep itself afloat without sponsorship or advertisement? Who will reward the hosts of media for their efforts, why, and how much? In other words, how will a media-based cooperative prosper and be able to continue operation without a source of income (sponsorship in markets or tax revenue for state media)?

[ContrarianLemming]

There's so much superfluous content on television, on the internet and in magazines that is solely there to entertain and not to persuade or inform or complete any other intellectually driven goal- just to distract and entertain.

in all honesty..so what? That's what TV is primarily for, and I like it, as do a great many people, whats the problem with entertainment? Are you telling me you only ever watch documentories and the news? So you avoid all actions films or comedy? Have you not seen Star Wars? oo well that would be a waste of time!

I don't mean to sound harsh, but such a utilitarian system of media is not desirable - we like our mindless action movies


How will mass media keep itself afloat without sponsorship or advertisement?

in the context of an anarchist economy, keeping something aflout is not something we have to deal with: media companies going under is a characteristic of a free market media, of capitalism. In anarchy, the media would be run as a co-op for utility, and owned by the locals/public, it is the publics institution, and it operates for them, if they don't want it then it goes.


Who will reward the hosts of media for their efforts, why, and how much? In other words, how will a media-based cooperative prosper and be able to continue operation without a source of income (sponsorship in markets or tax revenue for state media)?

im confused, are you talking about this in a post revolution context? I thought you were, clarify, because a market and taxes and income as we know it would not exist in communism.

[Magón]

I have some problems with this answer and none of the answers posted thus far have really addressed my question as fully as I hope. While I could see the possibility of a media cooperative, the fundamental question of "why" has to be asked. There's so much superfluous content on television, on the internet and in magazines that is solely there to entertain and not to persuade or inform or complete any other intellectually driven goal- just to distract and entertain.

Well I for one, don't see why you still couldn't have shows that just distracted people from the daily grind and stuff. I mean, even if I worked in a hypothetical Anarchist Commune where I was one of the many workers, I'd still want a little something to take my mind of the job. Not that I wouldn't like my job, but I mean I wouldn't want it to be on my mind 24/7 and would like a show or something to take my mind off of the job for a bit. Not everything would have to be "intellectually driven" and be some high end educational program 24/7. Even I'd get sick of that sort of thing, and I like learning just fine.

There are some people, if you haven't realized, that are artistic in the art field that they want to express that through a play or TV show. You could still have such things, but it'd be people who co-operately work together to bring the show to life. Like nowadays, when a screen writer makes a show, they come to actors, etc. and everyone who they want. These will just be forms of people who want to express art, and such to the people, but don't need the money to do so. Their reward is people's appreciation for the show if they like it enough. If they don't, then they don't, you can't please everyone with a show.


For this reason I wonder what the motivation would be for a media cooperative, especially once you take away the profits to be had from advertisements. I can see groups choosing to operate media at cost for the purposes of propaganda and education (persuade, inform) but not for entertainment, because I don't see (and this could be a lack of knowledge of some theory) how mass media can be operated from a practical standpoint without some means of gaining money to support the hosting of said media, I.E., payments for broadcasting or printing advertisements.

Like I said, people wouldn't be doing shows for money, since in an Anarchist Society, everyone already has the means to which they need to live, etc. and money would be void of all meaning. So things like Advertising would only be there to make people aware of the latest restaurant or something opening up nearby. Just like now, but without the money involved. I mean, if a show's not willing to advertise for some place, that's their business, and the advertiser can go somewhere else and try, but payment for broadcasting, etc. would all be done by those taking part in the production of the show or whatever. It'd be one large co-op itself, with the broadcasting station and printers for the advertising of the show, working along side those who make the show.


How will mass media keep itself afloat without sponsorship or advertisement? Who will reward the hosts of media for their efforts, why, and how much? In other words, how will a media-based cooperative prosper and be able to continue operation without a source of income (sponsorship in markets or tax revenue for state media)?

Well for one, you're stuck that there is still a monetary system. There wouldn't be, so tax revenue, etc. would be non-existant. Since money is no longer a factor, props would be made by those who were asked and obliged by making the props for the show. Nowadays, when there's a show in production, there's these really tight deadlines that things need to be done, etc. Those deadlines would still be there, since everyone is still working towards a reasonable time to air and show their new work, but they'd be less stressful and the times wouldn't be such a stressful issue like they are now.

As for other forms of media, like a Newspaper or Magazine, the creators and workers of them wouldn't need to be supported by advertising people, they could still advertise, but it'd only be for like I said, information on a new place opening or closing here or there. News Media would/will always be important, and those who work in the News Media will be doing it because they want to, not because they're in it for some cheap paycheck or something. I think if you take away a Journalists paycheck, and didn't worry about anything else, but still were somehow able to get them from place to place to report on something, they'd still do their job. I mean, it's sort of the doctor argument people bring up in Anarchism. "Why will Doctors do their job in an Anarchist Society, if they're not payed?" The simple answer, is because they originally became a doctor to help people, not just so they could please mommy or daddy, which would cease to be a reason or thing all in itself for someone becoming a Doctor.

Same thing goes for those wanting to report. If I wanted to become a Journalist, I wouldn't be doing it for the money, I'd be doing it so I could travel outside just my Commune and see the rest of the world with my own eyes while reporting on it, and bringing the news I got to my Commune. It's all for the greater good of everyone to say the least.

[Invincible Summer]

In all former or current Communist nations mass media was monopolized by the state and all other media was small-scale and in some cases clandestine newspapers were distributed or pirate radio/television was broadcast, but always to little effect or impact.

My question, as many of you may have guessed, is what is the Anarchist standpoint on the operation of mass media during and after the hypothetical transformation into a communal Anarchist society assuming that media can no longer be distributed for profit and that no state exists to operate it? I don't mean this as a challenging question, I'm just legitimately curious.

A communist society and Anarchist one should in theory be the same. I believe what you're referring to is Marxist-leninist vs Anarchist? But even then, it's only the period in between revolution and communism that makes the difference - again, in theory.



I have some problems with this answer and none of the answers posted thus far have really addressed my question as fully as I hope. While I could see the possibility of a media cooperative, the fundamental question of "why" has to be asked. There's so much superfluous content on television, on the internet and in magazines that is solely there to entertain and not to persuade or inform or complete any other intellectually driven goal- just to distract and entertain. For this reason I wonder what the motivation would be for a media cooperative, especially once you take away the profits to be had from advertisements. I can see groups choosing to operate media at cost for the purposes of propaganda and education (persuade, inform) but not for entertainment, because I don't see (and this could be a lack of knowledge of some theory) how mass media can be operated from a practical standpoint without some means of gaining money to support the hosting of said media, I.E., payments for broadcasting or printing advertisements.

How will mass media keep itself afloat without sponsorship or advertisement? Who will reward the hosts of media for their efforts, why, and how much? In other words, how will a media-based cooperative prosper and be able to continue operation without a source of income (sponsorship in markets or tax revenue for state media)?


I don't think most people get into the stressful work environment of mass media and television for the money. It's really hard to move up and there's a lot of sacrifice and work involved even if you do manage to get a higher position. Much like scientists, engineers, etc: the work is reward enough it seems. I don't imagine that if one hated particle physics research, one would go into the field anyway just because one could eventually get a cushy research position at a university making $90k / year. You really have to be passionate about it.

I think that most journalists and entertainers have at least some interest in the actual field they work in and would be willing to do it for free, provided that all their living needs are met (which they should be post-revolution), since that's what costs money.



And also I'd like to make the unoriginal point that print journalism is dying. I think most media sources in a post-revolutionary society would be TV and online.

[Nuvem]

It seems both CL and Nin misread the entire first half of my last post. I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with superfluous media content- I personally don't watch much on TV that isn't short, stupid and comedic. I spend as much time on YouTube watching stupid shit as I do on RevLeft. I'm not condemning pointless media.

Nin, you're just being unnecessarily hostile about this. I'm just trying to figure out how Anarchists view the future of this facet of society and I really don't know much about it. Obviously, I will throw in my interpretation of things and question what I'm told.
For as long as your message was, it basically came down to "it will work out and people will host media because they can". As for the bits about the actors and journalists and such, forget that and the whole bit about the doctor argument. I'm not talking about a single television show or news program or the actors, newscasters, reporters, journalists, etc. I'm talking MASS media: hosting of the internet, large-scale broadcast of television and radio, massively distributed newspapers. I'm talking about the organizations themselves that host, broadcast or distribute media to the masses.


Like I said, people wouldn't be doing shows for money, since in an Anarchist Society, everyone already has the means to which they need to live...you're stuck that there is still a monetary system. There wouldn't be, so tax revenue, etc. would be non-existant.

This is true, because I am a Statist and have yet to be convinced by any argument that the state will ever cease to exist, nor have I ever been convinced that such an event would be desirable. The above quotes just seem like cop-out answers that dance around the question by saying "it'll work out because it will".

Assuming these things are true, that would mean that internet hosting, television and radio broadcast and publications of magazines and newspaper (all high-maintenance full-time work) would be done without any necessary supporting income by people who already have everything they need, so in other words entirely by volunteers who already have work in some other field- otherwise these people would be provided everything they need without contributing to industrial or agrarian output and essentially be leeching off of laborers for sustenance while performing a "luxury" service for society. In the former case, I find it unlikely that a high number of volunteers could be found for the hosting and distribution of media as a hobby alongside their usual work, seeing as performing these services is a full-time job as it is. You could find plenty of actors, prop makers, producers, directors, etc, but again that's not what this is about. It's about the providers of mass media themselves.

In the latter case, this would clearly simply not be a desirable way of going about providing mass media because this situation leaves us with a large number of people being provided for by industrial and agrarian laborers without contributing to a greater economy or giving anything tangible back to society. In a market system those who provide this non-productive service give back to the economy/society by paying for the goods and services they need for day-to-day life, which eventually pays the wages of the laborers who provide the critical services for society and keeps their job venue open. The same could be true in a non-Capitalist cooperative situation. Either way, there is an exchange, a give and take. The situation mentioned is simply not ideal.

Neither the former nor the latter are ideal, in fact. If mass media is provided by volunteers, there would likely be a shortage of volunteers and difficulty providing media effectively. If those who provide mass media are compensated for their work by having everything else they need provided to them at only the cost of the service they provide, they are a drain on public resources. I still need a holistically practical answer as to how mass media would be provided in a stateless society.

Finally, Invincible Summer, this is being written after the rest of my point because I read your comment after I finished writing all of this. Again, too much emphasis on individuals who MAKE media such as entertainers and journalists. I'm just talking about the means by which media is hosted/broadcast/distributed.

[Invincible Summer]

But the individuals are the ones who run the radio stations, television stations, cameras, etc... no?

I'm sort of confused as to what you're getting at. No one said anything about working in media "as a hobby" in addition to a "real job," which would also be volunteer-based anyway.

What's with the fetish for industrial/agrarian labour? Most of that can be automated. And why is working in media a "luxury?" Most people want to know about the world external to their immediate social networks.

[Magón]

Nin, you're just being unnecessarily hostile about this. I'm just trying to figure out how Anarchists view the future of this facet of society and I really don't know much about it. Obviously, I will throw in my interpretation of things and question what I'm told.
For as long as your message was, it basically came down to "it will work out and people will host media because they can". As for the bits about the actors and journalists and such, forget that and the whole bit about the doctor argument. I'm not talking about a single television show or news program or the actors, newscasters, reporters, journalists, etc. I'm talking MASS media: hosting of the internet, large-scale broadcast of television and radio, massively distributed newspapers. I'm talking about the organizations themselves that host, broadcast or distribute media to the masses.

And by just giving the example of a small show, I meant that as an example of how it would work on the MASS scale, I just think it's easier to explain on a smaller scale, so people get a better idea. All you have to do, is put what you do on a small scale, and do the same on a bigger scale with more organization and understanding of who's doing what and when, etc.



This is true, because I am a Statist and have yet to be convinced by any argument that the state will ever cease to exist, nor have I ever been convinced that such an event would be desirable. The above quotes just seem like cop-out answers that dance around the question by saying "it'll work out because it will".

Assuming these things are true, that would mean that internet hosting, television and radio broadcast and publications of magazines and newspaper (all high-maintenance full-time work) would be done without any necessary supporting income by people who already have everything they need, so in other words entirely by volunteers who already have work in some other field- otherwise these people would be provided everything they need without contributing to industrial or agrarian output and essentially be leeching off of laborers for sustenance while performing a "luxury" service for society.In the former case, I find it unlikely that a high number of volunteers could be found for the hosting and distribution of media as a hobby alongside their usual work, seeing as performing these services is a full-time job as it is. You could find plenty of actors, prop makers, producers, directors, etc, but again that's not what this is about. It's about the providers of mass media themselves.

In the latter case, this would clearly simply not be a desirable way of going about providing mass media because this situation leaves us with a large number of people being provided for by industrial and agrarian laborers without contributing to a greater economy or giving anything tangible back to society. In a market system those who provide this non-productive service give back to the economy/society by paying for the goods and services they need for day-to-day life, which eventually pays the wages of the laborers who provide the critical services for society and keeps their job venue open. The same could be true in a non-Capitalist cooperative situation. Either way, there is an exchange, a give and take. The situation mentioned is simply not ideal.

Neither the former nor the latter are ideal, in fact. If mass media is provided by volunteers, there would likely be a shortage of volunteers and difficulty providing media effectively. If those who provide mass media are compensated for their work by having everything else they need provided to them at only the cost of the service they provide, they are a drain on public resources. I still need a holistically practical answer as to how mass media would be provided in a stateless society.

You seem to be flawed in the thought that if say I'm a Journalist, I have to be feeding off the work of the laborers in the fields because I don't work in the fields. This simply isn't true. We share a trade with each other. They provide food for not only me, but for themselves and everyone. I provide news for them and everyone. Both are important, because without food I couldn't survive, and nobody else could. Without news from the world, people wouldn't be able to know what was happening in say New York, when they're living in California. Both are vital and equal in a Anarchist Society.

Like everything else, everything is vital in an Anarchist Society, and people are trading one good for another in a sense (like I've already said above.)

Just because we have a Stateless Society, doesn't mean things wouldn't get done because nobody has a State to tell them. Things would probably be done more efficient, since like you said that peoples work would be hard to juggle, so is the work of the State. So if you have one group of people focusing on this or that, and another on this or that, then the work load isn't so heavy on the person that's say working in the fields while another works in a Journalism Office helping to write up the latest edition of a newspaper or something. The State itself has a lot more to juggle, and soon enough, like we see today, the State's different sectors all get jumbled together and causes problems for everyone. With a Stateless Society, that wouldn't happen.

That's why workers in the US are stressed so much more than their European Counterparts. Because here in the US, we're juggling so much of work and stuff, that we can't let someone else take the reins while we focus on what's most important for us, and them what's most important for them. (In other words, let the farmers worry about the farm season, and the journalists the media.)

I don't see why you couldn't have what it is today, but with a equal and shared society with the people of that society doing various work that helps everyone. Like I said already.

[Manic Impressive]

How will mass media keep itself afloat without sponsorship or advertisement? Who will reward the hosts of media for their efforts, why, and how much? In other words, how will a media-based cooperative prosper and be able to continue operation without a source of income (sponsorship in markets or tax revenue for state media)?

In Europe we already have achieved this for the last 60 something years. In England we have the BBC which has no sponsors and/or advertisements. I'm certain France have one and I'm pretty sure all the central European countries have something similar.


If mass media is provided by volunteers, there would likely be a shortage of volunteers and difficulty providing media effectively. If those who provide mass media are compensated for their work by having everything else they need provided to them at only the cost of the service they provide, they are a drain on public resources.

Honestly I do not see being in the media as a stressful or hard job. The people who are orientated to that line of work will enjoy it. News and entertainment are always important to relax with or to be kept informed and I believe that by removing the commercial aspect quality would greatly improve.

[AK]

Things like magazines and newspapers (should they exist) would be distributed the same way other goods would be distributed - purely according to need and want of consumers.

[Manic Impressive]

I really don't see the logic behind producing magazines or newspapers, even in present society they are dieing out.

The internet has the potential to be of great benefit to a communist society we are already seeing a rise in news and entertainment made by "normal" people shared for free. With more free time more people would have the opportunity to produce their own art form which ever field it is in.

ah I love getting all utopian :laugh:

[Tifosi]

Add's are currently a main source of profit for say..newspapers, sellings newspapers is not profitable (manufactory consent explains this) the ads in the newspaper are where the profit comes from, and this is why radical news is marginal - they don't take ads and ads don't use them.

Also, adds are a great way of keeping dissenters out of the media. Adds make it easy for the government view to always get heard and others to never be heard.

If I was to the Tailban where terrorist's everyone would agree with me, there would be no need for me to give examples, sources etc to show why they are terrorist's. Now if you said Obama was a terrorist very few would agree and so I would have to give loads of example to show why Obama is a terrorist's, which isn't really that bad a thing, just to give examples takes some time, time we don't have because with the media time is everything as time is money.

With an add break every fucking minute you can't get your voice across if you say Obama is a terrorist. The shows time schedule won't allow it, you can't fit all or even some of your examples into a two minute time lot. Most likely people would get bored of hearing half an answer and turn over. So it's far easier for the governments to put their views across than it is for those that take a different view.

[Nuvem]

What's with the fetish for industrial/agrarian labour? Most of that can be automated. And why is working in media a "luxury?" Most people want to know about the world external to their immediate social networks.

It's not a "fetish". It's all fetishes with you people. Anything you don't acknowledge as important is a "fetish". What I'm saying is that society is based off of agricultural and industrial output. Those are the driving forces which provide us with everything we need for day to day life- food, shelter, and all of the possessions we need to live a modern life. The people who provide these things are performing the most critical job in society- keeping everyone else alive.

Working in media isn't a luxury, media is a luxury. Without base societal needs covered, people can't provide media. What I'm saying is that if media is brought to the masses by people who have no other occupation but providing media and who do not contribute to productive labor, they will be a drain on resources without giving anything back. As I said in the market system or even a transitional socialist system them give back money in return for the goods and services they need to survive and so can provide the luxury service of media without being a drain on the system because their money keeps the system going. If money doesn't exist and they're simply given food and whatever other possessions they need solely for hosting media and aren't expected to do anything further than that, they are a drain on resources because they do not pay in any way for the resources they use and do not produce any themselves.


Most of that can be automated.

This is neither attainable within the near future in struggling countries nor desirable within a Socialist society.


In Europe we already have achieved this for the last 60 something years. In England we have the BBC which has no sponsors and/or advertisements. I'm certain France have one and I'm pretty sure all the central European countries have something similar.

This is untrue.


"The BBC is an autonomous public service broadcaster that operates under a Royal Charter.[/URL] Within the United Kingdom its work is funded principally by an annual television license fee, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#cite_note-crown-3) which is charged to all United Kingdom households, companies and organizations using any type of equipment to record and/or receive live television broadcasts;[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#cite_note-TVLic-5"] the level of the fee is set annually by the British Government and agreed by Parliament."

Basically the BBC is a privately operated television broadcaster which everyone who owns a television pays a state imposed fee to operate. It isn't run by volunteers and doesn't somehow get profits without having advertisements. It's funded by the state but run privately.



Just because we have a Stateless Society, doesn't mean things wouldn't get done because nobody has a State to tell them. Things would probably be done more efficient, since like you said that peoples work would be hard to juggle, so is the work of the State. So if you have one group of people focusing on this or that, and another on this or that, then the work load isn't so heavy on the person that's say working in the fields while another works in a Journalism Office helping to write up the latest edition of a newspaper or something. The State itself has a lot more to juggle, and soon enough, like we see today, the State's different sectors all get jumbled together and causes problems for everyone. With a Stateless Society, that wouldn't happen.

That's why workers in the US are stressed so much more than their European Counterparts. Because here in the US, we're juggling so much of work and stuff, that we can't let someone else take the reins while we focus on what's most important for us, and them what's most important for them. (In other words, let the farmers worry about the farm season, and the journalists the media.)

I don't see why you couldn't have what it is today, but with a equal and shared society with the people of that society doing various work that helps everyone. Like I said already.


=http://www.turkishforum.com.tr/en/content/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/the-garden-of-eden.jpg
Eliminate the state and everything will work out for no particular reason. I don't buy it. There's not really much point in continuing this discussion. As with most of my conversations with Anarchists I find that none of the answers satisfy me because they all just hinge on everything working out once the state is abolished.


A communist society and Anarchist one should in theory be the same. I believe what you're referring to is Marxist-leninist vs Anarchist? But even then, it's only the period in between revolution and communism that makes the difference - again, in theory.
Yeah, but...only in theory. I personally don't think Marxist-Leninists or Maoists will ever make the transition to statelessness, which is why I support them.

[Magón]

Don't you see though Nuvem, you're logic is flawed in thinking as Anarchists, we just make everything work right away. Nobody thinks that, everyone who's an actual Anarchist knows it'll take a lot of hard work to get to a Stateless Society, and it's not going to work over night. That's what the revolution is about, not just knocking over one State and replacing it with another, in history that's obviously shown that State/Power corrupts those in a hierarchal society.

Obviously if there's an Anarchist Revolution somewhere, the people are already starting to have/or already have the mindset that a State cannot support them properly without some form of Hierarchal living, and that people will continue to step on one another just to get by in life. Call us Utopian or whatever you want, but in an Anarchist Revolution or Society afterwards, people have the mindset that being their own masters, doing the work for everyone, etc. is better than being selfishly greedy.

[Manic Impressive]

In Europe we already have achieved this for the last 60 something years. In England we have the BBC which has no sponsors and/or advertisements. I'm certain France have one and I'm pretty sure all the central European countries have something similar.

This is untrue.


"The BBC is an autonomous public service broadcaster that operates under a Royal Charter. Within the United Kingdom its work is funded principally by an annual television license fee, which is charged to all United Kingdom households, companies and organizations using any type of equipment to record and/or receive live television broadcasts; the level of the fee is set annually by the British Government and agreed by Parliament."

Basically the BBC is a privately operated television broadcaster which everyone who owns a television pays a state imposed fee to operate. It isn't run by volunteers and doesn't somehow get profits without having advertisements. It's funded by the state but run privately.


Yes but it is not privately owned it's publicly owned and it does "somehow get profits without having advertisements." by paying tax. This is easily equated to the sharing of products in a society without money. It was a crude example but I was just saying that alternatives to commercial media already exist I've spoken to other American comrades recently who did not realize this. It was my assumption that you were one of them ;)


Working in media isn't a luxury, media is a luxury. Without base societal needs covered, people can't provide media. What I'm saying is that if media is brought to the masses by people who have no other occupation but providing media and who do not contribute to productive labor, they will be a drain on resources without giving anything back. As I said in the market system or even a transitional socialist system them give back money in return for the goods and services they need to survive and so can provide the luxury service of media without being a drain on the system because their money keeps the system going. If money doesn't exist and they're simply given food and whatever other possessions they need solely for hosting media and aren't expected to do anything further than that, they are a drain on resources because they do not pay in any way for the resources they use and do not produce any themselves.

Who's saying that "luxuries" will be abolished?

You could look at this two ways neither of which you seem to see. First you could see the entertainment and information provided from the media as a product of that groups labour which is exchanged with the rest of society for the products to meet their needs.

or

What I'm saying is that technology provides us with the opportunity to create our own media with which we can share it with people around the world for free and this will greatly improve in the future. With people creating their chosen art form for theirs and others enjoyment without a commercial incentive I believe quality will improve. With production run more efficiently in other areas people will have more free time to create music or art.

[bcbm]

what is with all the "what will blahblah look like in an anarchist society" threads lately? it would be like asking a medieval serf what the world would look like once feudalism had crumbled. its fun to speculate but the changes that will follow the end of capitalism will be so monumental that most speculation is probably just utopian.

[NGNM85]

what is with all the "what will blahblah look like in an anarchist society" threads lately? it would be like asking a medieval serf what the world would look like once feudalism had crumbled. its fun to speculate but the changes that will follow the end of capitalism will be so monumental that most speculation is probably just utopian.

There's definitely some truth to that. I think it's happening for two reasons. First, as this is the 'Learning' section we have some generally young, even compared to most of us here, people, who are just getting into Radical politics who are genuinely trying to understand and asking very valid questions. These discussions, however, are also catnip to the Leninists, who take everey opportunity to use these discussions to trash Anarchism as utopian, and idealistic, and as a vindication of their position on the common points of contention. Namely, the vanguard party, democracy, civil rights, authoritarianism, etc. Those two forces are really driving these types of conversations.

[Invincible Summer]

It's not a "fetish". It's all fetishes with you people. Anything you don't acknowledge as important is a "fetish". What I'm saying is that society is based off of agricultural and industrial output. Those are the driving forces which provide us with everything we need for day to day life- food, shelter, and all of the possessions we need to live a modern life. The people who provide these things are performing the most critical job in society- keeping everyone else alive.

So basically anyone who isn't an agricultural/industrial worker is a leech to society?



Working in media isn't a luxury, media is a luxury

Why does it have to be?

.
Without base societal needs covered, people can't provide media. What I'm saying is that if media is brought to the masses by people who have no other occupation but providing media and who do not contribute to productive labor, they will be a drain on resources without giving anything back.
But they are giving something back. They may not be providing a tangible, edible, wearable, etc product, but knowledge and information production is still worth something.


If money doesn't exist and they're simply given food and whatever other possessions they need solely for hosting media and aren't expected to do anything further than that, they are a drain on resources because they do not pay in any way for the resources they use and do not produce any themselves.
So again, anyone who does not directly work in agriculture and labour - doctors, engineers, teachers, plumbers, etc - are all "a drain on resources?"

And people who work in media don't "solely host media," that's a reductionist strawman.



This is neither attainable within the near future in struggling countries nor desirable within a Socialist society.

Many industrial plants already rely primarily on automation, and it would not be difficult to implement slightly more advanced technology to take the automation further.

Who the fuck would want to work in a factory making sure the cheese is lined up correctly? Why are you saying that automation is not desirable? This is why I say you are fetishizing agricultural/industrial labour. These alienating, mind-numbing forms of work should be eliminated in order for people to pursue more fulfilling jobs.




Eliminate the state and everything will work out for no particular reason. I don't buy it. There's not really much point in continuing this discussion. As with most of my conversations with Anarchists I find that none of the answers satisfy me because they all just hinge on everything working out once the state is abolished.
Then read some anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist literature for godsakes.



Yeah, but...only in theory. I personally don't think Marxist-Leninists or Maoists will ever make the transition to statelessness, which is why I support them.
So you admit that you do not strive to achieve communism, but basically want to replicate the revolutionary societies of yesteryear?

At least Stalin and Mao made it seem like they were trying to achieve communism. You just want an authoritarian state it seems.