Media under revolution and in socialist society

[RedWorker]

When the revolution happens, obviously the mainstream TV channels etc. will have to be run by the left or it will be quickly defeated.


What authority will be in charge of this? By whom will that authority will be controlled?
In order to avoid obvious problems, the media will have to be in favor of the proletariat, the class in general, rather than one party. How will this be accomplished?

In my opinion, the proletariat can come to run all mainstream media without violating the principle of freedom of speech. The media is in favor of the bourgeoisie because of the current model of ownership, because they have more power and money. But when socialism is installed, such principles will not exist any longer, so reactionaries will get to control what they deserve: a minority, negligent fraction of the media.

In socialist society, who will get to have his newspaper printed instead of someone else's? How is this decided? (in capitalism by the amount of money)
How will it be decided who gets 100,000 copies of his propaganda printed rather than someone else?

[motion denied]

I don't know about the left, but it will surely be controlled by workers' organs, the central authority of the DotP. I'm also a fan of free public debate.

In a socialist society, I imagine, anyone would be able to publish. Be it poetry, news, history, etc etc.

That are very abstract questions, however.

[RedWorker]

it will surely be controlled by workers' organs, the central authority of the DotP.

What I wonder when everybody mentions such things is:

In the 21st century, how will these organs work? I think that it could be very different to how it would work in the past. With new technology being only part of the reason.

How can it be ensured that these workers' organs won't become subverted, corrupted? How can their correct functioning be verified?

[Orange Juche]

In the 21th century, how will these organs work? I think that it could be very different to how it would work in the past. With new technology being only part of the reason.

How can it be ensured that these workers' organs won't become subverted, corrupted? How can their correct functioning be verified?

I don't think we can quite say, it depends on the conditions which such a society is established and structured and we wouldn't know what that will be like until it exists - even Marx recognized that, which is why he wasn't very detailed on socialism. So it's tough to answer that, we can only make broad, varying speculations.

I think, however, it's important to keep principles within socialism if we ever manage to move forward into a world with socialism - values like allowing people freedom to publish whatever they want or say what they want, and keeping any proletarian media organization very self-critical and with a lot of checks and balances and democratic input so it doesn't basically become an equivalent to a lie machine like North Korean State Media.

To implement any of this, though, I don't know if we can know until the opportunity is there and people are figuring it out. We can only really come up with fictional scenarios.

[RedWorker]

In a socialist society, I imagine, anyone would be able to publish. Be it poetry, news, history, etc etc.


I think, however, it's important to keep principles within socialism if we ever manage to move forward into a world with socialism - values like allowing people freedom to publish whatever they want or say what they want

Ok, so someone wants 100,000 copies of propaganda posters with reactionary messages to be printed. Is the request fulfilled? Does this vary depending on whether we are in the revolutionary stage or socialist society is firmly installed?

Now, what if several people want the same instead of just one? And what if it is in the same day?

Will it work based on limits? E.g. at the books printing-house: Only 100,000 words allowed to be printed per person per month? And all requests are fulfilled as long as they do not surpass the objective limits?

[Orange Juche]

Ok, so someone wants 100,000 copies of propaganda posters with reactionary messages to be printed. Is the request fulfilled? Does this vary depending on whether we are in the revolutionary stage or socialist society is firmly installed?

Now, what if several people want the same instead of just one? And what if it is in the same day?

Will it work based on limits? E.g. at the books printing-house: Only 100,000 words allowed to be printed per person per month? And all requests are fulfilled as long as they do not surpass the objective limits?

If I were voting on it, not by the DotP. But if they get the blank posters themselves, and find their own way to put a message on them, that's their prerogative - freedom to express what you want =/= the organizational structures of the working class necessarily have to fork over resources to make those expressions easier.

I think if socialism ever takes a strong foothold, reactionary nonsense will die out almost completely within a generation or two - and by not forbidding it, it will help. When you tell people "you can't think this way and say these things", there is an innate tendency in some people to resist simply because they don't want to be controlled.

I'm not talking about how they make posters - they can figure that out, that's their problem - I'm talking about the right to not get arrested, or even worse, eliminated by the state after going through with making the posters.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So, you guys think that during or post-revolution FOX news will continue to exist except Sean Hannity would be replaced by MRN? What?

[Zoroaster]

So, you guys think that during or post-revolution FOX news will continue to exist except Sean Hannity would be replaced by MRN? What?

Nah. FOX should be burned to the ground and replaced with a monument to innocent Arabs who died during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It'd be the equivalent of phasing on someone's grave, and it'd be great.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Nah. FOX should be burned to the ground and replaced with a monument to innocent Arabs who died during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It'd be the equivalent of phasing on someone's grave, and it'd be great.

You missed my point but I'm just saying, a revolution implies the radical and violent upheaval of society and this would imply that 'the media' as we so know it, would be radically different than beforehand. For obvious reasons.

[Zoroaster]

You missed my point but I'm just saying, a revolution implies the radical and violent upheaval of society and this would imply that 'the media' as we so know it, would be radically different than beforehand. For obvious reasons.

Yeah, true. I just really hate FOX.

But in all seriousness, FOX would be replaced by some kind of worker managed media station. A book I read a while back called "Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA" did a good segment on that.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yeah, true. I just really hate FOX.

But in all seriousness, FOX would be replaced by some kind of worker managed media station. A book I read a while back called "Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA" did a good segment on that.

I'm not so sure and to a degree I think 'the media's' utility is becoming more an more nonexistent comparatively to newer forms of self-reporting and 'viewer'/clandestine journalism.

[RedWorker]

If I were voting on it, not by the DotP. But if they get the blank posters themselves, and find their own way to put a message on them, that's their prerogative - freedom to express what you want =/= the organizational structures of the working class necessarily have to fork over resources to make those expressions easier.

But that is no real freedom of speech - when you are unable to write in a newspaper or wherever else, because the ones with resources lock you out from being able to do so.

So there would be discrimination on a subjective level?

What is there to prevent that supporters of a certain party lock out resources for certain others, claiming that they are counter-revolutionary, when they may or may not be? That would be repeating mistakes of the past.

[Blake's Baby]

If you are writing for a newspaper you are by definition one of the workers that is voting on whether or not your stuff is used. Have you ever worked for a newspaper? There are meetings to decide what goes in the paper. The same thing happens in the offices and newsdesks of TV and radio stations. At present everyone argues their case and the editor makes a final decision (or appoints people to make decisions about particular segments so that the head of the sports team decides what goes into the sports section, head of regional news decides what goes into the news section, head of international news decides what goes in there, head of consumer affairs decides what goes into that section, etc).

When media outlets are being administered by the workers' councils then there will still be discussions about what goes in. Not everything will. If you write something and no-one else thinks it should be published, then, it won't be published.

You presented your piece to the forum - further publication was rejected. Is anyone stopping you taking it somewhere else and seeing if they'll print it? No. Is that interfering with your freedom of speech? No.

[RedWorker]

I still do not understand how the mainstream media would be taken over.

[Slavic]

I still do not understand how the mainstream media would be taken over.


I think a bigger question is, how do the people on this forum obtain their news?

See how many people respond with FOX, MSNBC, and CNN and then you will know how vital "mainstream media" is to the dissemination of information pre- post- during- apocalyptic- revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

Not really. We are by definition a bit of a weird and self-selecting demographic. Politics nerds are not like most people in terms of their reading/information-gathering habits.

For example, the largest-selling newspapers in the UK are the Sun, Star and Mirror, then Express and Mail I would think. I don't know what the most-watched news programmes are, probably BBC News, ITN on ITV and Sky. Out of all of those, I'd only bother regularly getting news from the BBC. So I'd only use one of the eight most popular news outlets.

The point about 'mainstream media' is that is, well, mainstream. We, pretty much by definition, are not.

[Hit The North]

I still do not understand how the mainstream media would be taken over.

Mass media is owned by corporations and are businesses just like any other. They will be expropriated by organised workers just like all other businesses. The reliance that mass media has on advertising revenue will also, no doubt, present a crisis for privately owned media as the expropriation of the means of production will affect this income stream.

It is worth noting that big media is not only produced by journalists but also a variety of other skilled workers - camera operatives, electricians, etc.

[Hrafn]

Nah. FOX should be burned to the ground and replaced with a monument to innocent Arabs who died during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It'd be the equivalent of phasing on someone's grave, and it'd be great.

Innocent Arabs who died in Afghanistan?

[sudipta.arka.das]

Our current idea about mass media is shaped by capitalism. We should ask ourselves - what is media? Free the bandwidths, free the frequencies, let people transmit and receive as they wish. Communication 'is' the media. Who needs so called 'professionally produced' content?

[RedWorker]

Mass media is owned by corporations and are businesses just like any other. They will be expropriated by organised workers just like all other businesses.

Of course. But "organized workers", in the real world, is probably going to take the form of a party which has already taken over the state. This may result in problems. So how will it be ensured that media is truly managed by society or its workers?

[Hit The North]

If the party is the only motive force in the revolution this will result in problems far deeper than just the media. It might be the case that some, if not all, means of communication are seized by workers as a prelude to the seizure of state power. In my view, only the independent organisation of the workers, organised at the point of media (and other) production, will guarantee that it is truly "managed by society or its workers". If it is the case that a centralised power is monopolising the means of communication then we have a precondition for dictatorship over the workers, not of the workers.

[Blake's Baby]

Of course. But "organized workers", in the real world, is probably going to take the form of a party which has already taken over the state. This may result in problems. So how will it be ensured that media is truly managed by society or its workers?

What? Why? The councils of print-workers will run the papers, the councils of broadcasting workers will run the TV channels and radio stations. I'm sure, if there are different parties, they will want their own news outlets but there's no necessary reason for them to get them. But unless they're complete idiots, they'll probably be able to persuade the communication workers to print at least some of their stuff.