Supression of the Burgeoise Media.

[La Comédie Noire]

If a revolution was to occur, would it be nessicary to supress Burgeoise media or sympathizers as to stop counter reveloution? Or do you think letting them have their space allows for them to die out peacefully and without matyars?

I would make a poll but I have no clue how to. :blush:

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Once enough people are ready to question the very values they hold, it wouldn't matter if they broadcats every night.

[KC]

If it's necessary, then sure.

[benjaminbarker]

Bourgeoisie ideals, like religion, are useless and an enlightened society would see them as obselete. I'm not for oppression, so I'd say no, we shouldn't suppress them. But, if we can convince the people to see the light, to see the way the world really is instead of looking at the world the way a capitalist or religious twit looks at it, then we will not need to suppress anything, the people will reason it out.

[JKP]

There must be no free speech for reactionaries in a revolutionary period. Will this yield disapproval from other capitalist nations? Yes, but we're not liberals afterall.

[CrimsonTide]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:40 am
There must be no free speech for reactionaries in a revolutionary period. Will this yield disapproval from other capitalist nations? Yes, but we're not liberals afterall.
I completely agree. The people must be immediately severed from the brainwashing effects of bourgeois media centers. I would sieze radio first, since (a: they are a major epicenter of conservative propaganda, and (b: proletariat militias can have "radio men" who carry around radios so they can hear pro-proletariat propaganda and suggestions as to where to go and what to do to best serve the revolution in progress.

If we are going to wage Class War, let it be TOTAL War...

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 04:55 am
If a revolution was to occur, would it be nessicary to supress Burgeoise media or sympathizers as to stop counter reveloution? Or do you think letting them have their space allows for them to die out peacefully and without matyars?
First of all, "bourgeois media" isn't a metaphysical entity; it is composed of very material organisations, which are capitalist corporations.

Now, what are we going to do to capitalist corporations?

No, we are not going to "suppress" them; we are going to take them from their bourgeois owners, and run them ourselves.

Luís Henrique

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 04, 2007 12:01 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 04, 2007 12:01 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 04:55 am
If a revolution was to occur, would it be nessicary to supress Burgeoise media or sympathizers as to stop counter reveloution? Or do you think letting them have their space allows for them to die out peacefully and without matyars?
First of all, "bourgeois media" isn't a metaphysical entity; it is composed of very material organisations, which are capitalist corporations.

Now, what are we going to do to capitalist corporations?

No, we are not going to "suppress" them; we are going to take them from their bourgeois owners, and run them ourselves.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Exactly. Freedom of the media for our enemies is a moot issue, since we will take their property from them, the property involved in producing newspapers isnt exempt from that.

[La Comédie Noire]

Never said it was a metaphysical entity. ;)

Even if we do seize property they can get their message around somehow. I mean most of us don't own property but we still get things around. It was already to be assumed we took away their property.

I'm saying should we go as far as to shut down individual people on message boards, writing local papers, ect. Not everyones going to see "the light" as one member eerily wrote.(No offense to the writer it just sounded weird, I got what you meant.)

Would it be good, and I'm not talking morrals wise, to suppress them? With political prisons? Or would it be better to just let them carry on until it dies out? if it does?

Also keep in mind.


we're not liberals

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 04:55 am
If a revolution was to occur, would it be nessicary to supress Burgeoise media or sympathizers as to stop counter reveloution? Or do you think letting them have their space allows for them to die out peacefully and without matyars?

I would make a poll but I have no clue how to. :blush:
no

only violent opposition to the revolution should be met with force and bourgeois propaganda should be simply met with revolutionary propaganda


There must be no free speech for reactionaries in a revolutionary period. Will this yield disapproval from other capitalist nations? Yes, but we're not liberals afterall.

Nonsense. The working class can only rule collectively through democracy (worker-councils), and democracy can only work well with complete freedom of speech.
In other words, restricting free speech for "reactionaries" (define reactionary?) would be the most counterrevolutionary thing possible to do.


Freedom of the media for our enemies is a moot issue, since we will take their property from them, the property involved in producing newspapers isnt exempt from that.


ok, true.

[shadowed by the secret police]

I would call for suppression of the bourgeois media because it is in the nature of things. That is, you can't have a revolution without nationalizing the private media conglomerates like CNN, ABC, NBC et al. Secondly, the bourgeoisie when they were in power suppressed the workers' media and consigned them to the margins. However, the workers' media must have freedom of speech.

[MissLeftistRevolutionary]

The Bourgeoisie should be supressed. Its necessary to achieve equality.

[RGacky3]

No, no media should be suppressed, but without a monopoly on media and without bourgiousie in control, the bourgiousie Media will be very much marginalized.

This idea of counter revolutionaries and Bourgiousie mentality is basically Lenninist/Moaist crap, as soon as you start suppressing any media or line of thought, you've just ruined the revolution.

[La Comédie Noire]

This idea of counter revolutionaries and Bourgiousie mentality is basically Lenninist/Moaist crap, as soon as you start suppressing any media or line of thought, you've just ruined the revolution.

Agreed. Once the means of production are taken out from under them the Burgeoises' relation to society changes completely. Infrastructure, it's a powerful thing. :)

[JKP]

There must be no free speech for reactionaries in a revolutionary period. Will this yield disapproval from other capitalist nations? Yes, but we're not liberals afterall.



Nonsense. The working class can only rule collectively through democracy (worker-councils), and democracy can only work well with complete freedom of speech.

100% correct.

Except with the distinction that we want democracy and free speech for workers, and despotism for capitalists and reactionaries.


In other words, restricting free speech for "reactionaries" (define reactionary?) would be the most counterrevolutionary thing possible to do.

On the contrary, it's one of the most revolutionary things you can do. We'll be resisting capitalists and fascists with everything at our disposal, so why should we give them freedom of speech? We're not liberals after all.


Additionally, I'd like to direct you to this article by Redstar2000 since he had the patience to go more into depth:
http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

[cenv]

It doesn't really matter. Most bourgeois propaganda revolves around the argument that socialism doesn't work. However, it's kind of hard to stand up in a functioning socialist society and declare that a socialist society won't function. Members of the bourgeoisie advocating reactionary activities will simply look ridiculous and will not be able to convince anyone to do anything.

Also, bourgeois ideology is only a tangible threat when it has a monopoly on popular culture, media, and such (as is the case under capitalism). Seeing as the media will be under workers' control, there's nothing to suppress. The one issue I can foresee is the bourgeois media in other countries which have not necessarily had revolutions yet. There's not too much we can do about that, though.

So basically, I think we'll have much more important things to worry about while trying to contruct a post-revolutionary society than the bourgeois media. Remember, the proletariat will be trying to build a whole new society, which is a tall order; it won't have time to worry about a few reactionary pipsqueaks running around with printing presses.

[chimx]

The act of revolution is an organic spontaneous process. Assuming people don't seize the outlets for their own usage, a response to reactionary journalism will follow out of necessity, not policy.

[Enragé]

Except with the distinction that we want democracy and free speech for workers, and despotism for capitalists and reactionaries.


Yea
and i guess you'll be the one deciding who's reactionary and who's not?

If people are afraid to say what they want for fear someone would yell "REACTIONARY!", democracy is dead and as a consequence socialism is.


On the contrary, it's one of the most revolutionary things you can do. We'll be resisting capitalists and fascists with everything at our disposal, so why should we give them freedom of speech? We're not liberals after all.


Because if we dont give them freedom of speech people will refrain from saying certain things for fear it might be deemed "politically incorrect"
For instance,
"What worker-council X is doing is a shitty idea"
" :o REACTIONARY! YOU TRY TO UNDERMINE THE AUTHORITY OF THE WORKERS! DIE!"

get it?

therefore you could say byebye to democracy.

Also, what would we have to gain by shutting up capitalists? hmm? Like if people hear "capitalism is better than socialism/communism" they will automatically hand over all the power they have just fought and died for to the next best person who will then suck them dry?
you think they would then?

and no we're not liberals
they shut up other people too if they get in the way of profit, economic prosperity, the good of the nation etc.

Only when freedom of speech is used to call for the violent overthrowal of people's rule, only then would we have the right to infringe on that freedom of speech, in the same way as AFA goes out to stop nazis from spewing their nonsense since they call for violence against people of other "races"

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:23 am
100% correct.

Except with the distinction that we want democracy and free speech for workers, and despotism for capitalists and reactionaries.


In other words, restricting free speech for "reactionaries" (define reactionary?) would be the most counterrevolutionary thing possible to do.

On the contrary, it's one of the most revolutionary things you can do. We'll be resisting capitalists and fascists with everything at our disposal, so why should we give them freedom of speech? We're not liberals after all.
We want free speech FOR EVERYONE, if its not for everyone its not free speech is it? If its not democracy for everyone its not democracy. Plus after the revolutoin there will be no more Capitalists, they will have to become fellow workers like everyone else helping and contributing to society. If someone thinks that Capitalism is better for society, they have as much a right to voice it as do Socialists in a Capitalist system.

Even the term Reactionary, what the hell does that mean, again like the concepts of counter-revolutionary and Bourgiousie Mentality its Lenninist-Maosit-Stalinist crap, you can't pigon hole people into reactionaries and revolutionaries. People are people with different ideas, different ethics, different backgrounds, and all people should be respected.

Thats one thing that I think is good about the United States, it has unconditional free speach, not many other countries have that, even the so called liberal countires in Europe.

[Enragé]

Thats one thing that I think is good about the United States, it has unconditional free speach, not many other countries have that, even the so called liberal countires in Europe.

:lol:

oh lord...

unless you actually threaten the almighty power of the state with what you say, then you get wiped out by the FBI

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:16 pm
If someone thinks that Capitalism is better for society, they have as much a right to voice it as do Socialists in a Capitalist system.
No, not in fact. They will have much more of a right to a voice than we do now.


Even the term Reactionary, what the hell does that mean, again like the concepts of counter-revolutionary and Bourgiousie Mentality its Lenninist-Maosit-Stalinist crap, you can't pigon hole people into reactionaries and revolutionaries.

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe there aren't people who would kill you, torture you to ensure our class cannot come free?

I am sure Stalinists and their assorted ilk invented many things, but no, they did not invent the concept of counterrevolution.


Thats one thing that I think is good about the United States, it has unconditional free speach, not many other countries have that, even the so called liberal countires in Europe.

Do you really believe you actually have unconditional free speech in the United States? Or, in fact, that you have "free speech" in the same sence the owners of Fox or The New York Times have free speech?

Have a closer look, things are not so simple as you seem to believe they are.

Luís Henrique

[JKP]

Except with the distinction that we want democracy and free speech for workers, and despotism for capitalists and reactionaries.



Yea
and i guess you'll be the one deciding who's reactionary and who's not?

I take offense to that; where did I even allude to something like that?

It will be decided by the working class of course.



Because if we dont give them freedom of speech people will refrain from saying certain things for fear it might be deemed "politically incorrect"
For instance,
"What worker-council X is doing is a shitty idea"
" :o REACTIONARY! YOU TRY TO UNDERMINE THE AUTHORITY OF THE WORKERS! DIE!"

get it?

therefore you could say byebye to democracy.

Also, what would we have to gain by shutting up capitalists? hmm? Like if people hear "capitalism is better than socialism/communism" they will automatically hand over all the power they have just fought and died for to the next best person who will then suck them dry?
you think they would then?

and no we're not liberals
they shut up other people too if they get in the way of profit, economic prosperity, the good of the nation etc.

Only when freedom of speech is used to call for the violent overthrowal of people's rule, only then would we have the right to infringe on that freedom of speech, in the same way as AFA goes out to stop nazis from spewing their nonsense since they call for violence against people of other "races"

Again, I'd like to direct you here once more since you obviously didn't read it the first time around: http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

[RGacky3]

I'm not saying there will be people against the revolution, and that they will fight to maintain power, but that does'nt mean that people who are against the revolution are neccesarily reactionaries, and if they don't use violence or force to oppose the revolutoin they have a right to be against it. I also don't think that people are innately "Evil," When you start pigonholing people into reactionary and revolutionary, and whoever does'nt support you is a reactionary, you start getting on very slippery ground I think.

In the United States, if I stand write papers saying that Capitalism is wrong and it should be done away with, the government is wrong and should be done away with, and I stand up and tell people to resist the state I legally cannot be stopped, they might arrest me, but if I go to court (according to the law) they MUST allow me to say whatever I want, legally, its in the constitution, in the past that right has'nt been respected at times, but its still there legally, and is very much defended by the American people.

[Janus]

It may be necessary and it may certainly seem like an easy solution but how is it really feasible and would it really be a healthy thing?

It's definitely possible to censor print and television media but it's near impossible to seriously stop Internet media. Even the former would require a large bureaucracy to handle and would certainly give potentially dangerous powers to the police or whatever group would be doing this. So although I would say that it seems very fine in theory it's certainly going to be very difficult and perhaps even dangerous in practice.

[Enragé]

Again, I'd like to direct you here once more since you obviously didn't read it the first time around

The douche continuously talks of people who would want to kill you, destroy the revolution violently. Yes, those must be supressed, but percieved reactionary opinions should not, for the reasons stated.

[RGacky3]

If the revolutoin is mass based, and in the hands of the working class in general, those people who are calling for the violent destruction of the revolutoin will not have much sway, and if they tried anything they would be heavily outnumbered, he would be basically calling for the violent destruction of people in general.

The only time suppression of free speach would be actually helpful would be if it was a vanguard party trying hold onto power and create a revolutoin.

[metalero]

we would take over the economical basis for their ideologies and propaganda, that means expropriate the buorguise and create alternative and popular media under strict control of the working class. There will be still a number of cells of counter-revolutionary information, that would radicalize calling for violence, (as happened in Chile and recently in venezuela) and there will be needed also a radical response from the working class in power.

[Kia]

I can see why suppression of the Bourgeoisie Media could be beneficial to a leftist revolution and the society/political system afterwards; I cannot justify it. absolute freedom of speech must be a part of any progressive society. Many of us are enraged by governments that deny freedom of speech to its citizens...why would we want to do the same?
As many have said earlier, during the revolution these corporations would loose control of their property so in that sense we would be suppressing the ruling class (soon to not be) from make their points of view heard. That however is quite different from denying individuals and other groups the ability to make critical comments on the current revolution. These people should be allowed their say, maybe we can actually learn something from what they have to say and critique the current revolution as it is happening. Again as others have said, its not likely that during a revolution that somehow the Bourgeoisie Media could suddenly convert the minds of the people from supporting the cause.
We are not capitalists, fascists, dictators, and tyrants..so we should definitely not act like them. :angry:

[CrimsonTide]

Yes, yes, lets' not oppress those poor old oppressors. Nonexistent Lord knows they need their "Universal Human Rights" too...Oh, wait...There are no such things.

History is littered with the corpses of former oppressors taken down by the people they once ruled. Let us not wheep for their lost "freedom" (if there is such a thing), for they would surely use it to mortally wound the Revolution and keep the dream of communism from coming to life. Those who advocate for a return to dreaded Capitalism, or of Private ownership of the apparatus of production should be jailed, put on trial, and shot. Those who speak well in-general of the Revolution, but have their own ideas concerning its' path will of course be allowed to speak freely.

There have allways been oppressed and oppressors. It will not change with the advent of the Rule of The Proletariat. The only change will be that we will oppress the right people.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:28 pm
There have allways been oppressed and oppressors. It will not change with the advent of the Rule of The Proletariat. The only change will be that we will oppress the right people.
Nope, that is outright foolery.

We want a revolution to end all oppression, not to become oppressors ourselves.

Luís Henrique

[Hate Is Art]

Those who advocate for a return to dreaded Capitalism, or of Private ownership of the apparatus of production should be jailed, put on trial, and shot.

You're going to shoot people for holding a different political viewpoint from you.

Viva la fucking revolution. It can't come soon enough if there are people on street corners shouting out this ridiculous bull shit.

After the revolution there will be no need to supress 'reactionary' media. The circumstances from which the revolution will have to arise (mass class consciousness etc) means that people will be fed up with the oppresive system they live under. They will not suddenly revert to old class based relationships because The Daily Mail is still in print. If you think this then you clearly have little faith in the revolution.

Violence will be met with violence, ideas with ideas. And we have the better ideas.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:28 pm
History is littered with the corpses of former oppressors taken down by the people they once ruled. Let us not wheep for their lost "freedom" (if there is such a thing), for they would surely use it to mortally wound the Revolution and keep the dream of communism from coming to life. Those who advocate for a return to dreaded Capitalism, or of Private ownership of the apparatus of production should be jailed, put on trial, and shot. Those who speak well in-general of the Revolution, but have their own ideas concerning its' path will of course be allowed to speak freely.

There have allways been oppressed and oppressors. It will not change with the advent of the Rule of The Proletariat. The only change will be that we will oppress the right people.
If a revolution came about in which other people were oppressed. I would be a revolutionary against that revolution, if you started a revolution and only allowed media you deamed helpful to the revolution and shot people who oppsed it, I would oppose your revolution.


Nonexistent Lord knows they need their "Universal Human Rights" too...Oh, wait...There are no such things.

If there are not Universal Human rights, and if oppression is ok, then why not just stick with Capitalism, hell why not Fascism, if the Human being and his freedom is'nt important then theres no point in revolution.

The revolution is'nt about one group of people agaisnt another, its about freedom and equality agaisnt oppression. Once those oppressors are taken out of their place of power, they will be equal to everyone else, their say will mean as much as someone who has been a worker his whole life, and his life will be just as important as any revolutionary.

Freedom is'nt freedom unless its for EVERYONE. Equality is'nt Equality unless its for EVERYONE.

[Proudhon]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 12:01 pm
Now, what are we going to do to capitalist corporations?

No, we are not going to "suppress" them; we are going to take them from their bourgeois owners, and run them ourselves.

Luís Henrique
Hitler has done exactly the same..... he took over the jewish media and replace it with facist media.... Why should people stand up and fight just to replace one system of opression with the next?

[LSD]

Ultimately, there are only two possible justifications for communist censorship and both of them fail.

Firstly, that it's an issue of "safety" and that the words of reactionaries are so dangerous that society must be protected from them at all costs; and secondly that it's simply a matter of saving resources.

The problem with the first one is that such protection cannot come from a majoritarian or democratic system. A person cannot be his own censor and therefore participatory decision making is impossible on this question.

That inherently nescessitates an elite of some sort -- whether it is acknowledged as such or not and whether it is functionaly institutional or not -- to make these decisions.

Whether it's a "government agency" or just the workers running the power station; if there's a minority determining "acceptability", the society is not free.

Insofar as the second possiblity, saving resources, it is equally ludicrous. A communist society is not about "efficiency", it's about liberty.

Many activies in a communist society would not be objectively "efficient", rather they would serve to maximize the bennefit of their actor. Making a guitar or a bottle rocket does not provide clear social bennefit, but both of these acts consume far more energy than putting up a website on an already running server.

The fact is that in the end, the only reason for advocating censorship is emotional. You hate fascists, you hate capitalists, and you hate the notion of their ideas being spread.

I can certainly understand this.

But communism is not about making everyone "happy", it's about making everyone free. And there is simply no way that such a society can incorporate suppression.

It'll mean a little more grinding of the teeth, but it will also mean a much more stable and functional society.


There must be no free speech for reactionaries in a revolutionary period. Will this yield disapproval from other capitalist nations? Yes, but we're not liberals afterall.

I don't think anyone's worried about capitalist "disapproval", but about the inevitable internal consquences of institutional censorship.

The issue here is not that censorship is "immmoral" but that it that it cannot be implemented without establishing a de facto state to execute it.

I mean, really, think about it. Who do you envisage culling through the internet searching for "reactionary" websites? Who do propose will have the authority to "shut them down"?

Again, there are only two ways to go about this. One, you take the cenralized route and set up a Committe for Public Safety or you take the nonsensical redstar route and allow each powerstation and webserver to set up its own "rules" for "acceptability".

Either way you end up with either statism or chaos, neither of which have anything to do with communism.


On the contrary, it's one of the most revolutionary things you can do. We'll be resisting capitalists and fascists with everything at our disposal, so why should we give them freedom of speech?

It may not seem "fair" to allow "reactionaries" free speech, but as I already outlined, it's basically unavoidable in a free society.

Again, "democratic censorsihp" is simply an unworkable ideal. No society can "protect itself" from ideas and no one can act as their own censor.

If postrevolutionary society is to be truly majoritarian and participatory in nature, it would require that everyone have complete access to every document related to every decision. That would require keeping on file a copy of all censored materials.

In other words, any "reactionary" would be able to get their "fix" of "propaganda" by just attending public meetings!

Unless you want to set up some elite "revolutionary guard" to clamp down on "unacceptable" speech, you're going to have to live with some distatestul material circulating.


Secondly, the bourgeoisie when they were in power suppressed the workers' media and consigned them to the margins.

Revolution isn't about "class spite". We fight the bourgeoisie because we have to, not because we enjoy it. "Hurting" the former capitalists would be a complete waste of time and worse than useless public policy.

We're not overthrowing the bourgoeisie to replace them with a worse oppression! The revolutionary aftermath is a very delicate situation and a little too much overeagerness in "suppression" can derail the entire endeavour.

We don't want another Lenin ...or another Mao. Tha means no "iron discipline", no "ruling party", and no government suppression!

Now, that might mean having to debate capitalists a lot longer than we might like to, but so long as we're on the wining side of history, who gives a damn? Revolution isn't about making revolutionaries happy, it's about emancipating the proletariat.

And censorship is fundamentally incompatible with an emancipated society.


There have allways been oppressed and oppressors. It will not change with the advent of the Rule of The Proletariat. The only change will be that we will oppress the right people.

And "right people" will be defined by...?


I would sieze radio first, since (a: they are a major epicenter of conservative propaganda, and (b: proletariat militias can have "radio men" who carry around radios so they can hear pro-proletariat propaganda and suggestions as to where to go and what to do to best serve the revolution in progress.

Stop living in the 19th century. This isn't a matter of "printing stations" or "radio men".

It's a matter of televeision shows and radio programs and websites and podcasts and all the other communication innovations of the past 20 years, not to mention whatever ingenious new broadcast media we'll come up with in the next few decades.

There won't be one "central" "cappie press", they'll be dozens of borderline "reactionary" publications, all with their own ideas and style. Deciding which ones constitute genuine "reaction" and which are acceptable dissent is a full time job and will require a full time bureau.

Oh look, you just created a state. <_<


The act of revolution is an organic spontaneous process. Assuming people don&#39;t seize the outlets for their own usage, a response to reactionary journalism will follow out of necessity, not policy.

I&#39;m pretty sure we&#39;re talking post-revolution here, not durring the throws of violent struggle.

Unless you&#39;re suggesting that assaulting "reactionaries" should be tolerated in a communist society? Maybe beating up fascists should be made "legal"? :o

[SPK]

I generally believe that the traditional mass media in the usa is right now much more closely and overtly aligned to the state apparatus than it has been in many decades. It seems that television, radio, and newspapers / journals – all of the old media – give far less exposure to opponents of the current imperialist campaigns than was the case, say, during the amerikan aggression in Vietnam. And give far more exposure to its supporters, primarily within the ruling class. A quick look at the bullshit on Fox News or CNN would demonstrate that, I think: they’re like a late-capitalist version of Pravda or Tass, mindlessly parroting every pronouncement from our exalted leader Bush.

What is striking about this current situation is that, even without any of the major bourgeois media companies vaguely reflecting or representing their position, large numbers of workers and oppressed peoples in the usa have turned against the war. Moreover, that happened very quickly, historically speaking -- it took only about three years at most – and in a very restrictive political context, i.e. no genuine, militant mass movement against the war. In my experience, there is a far higher level of skepticism about what the mass media churns out today than at any other time in the past. This is due in part to the absolutely deluded and farcical character of the current administration: every claim they make is clearly and unambiguously disconnected from the real, objective world around them, and folx can see that.

So, the capitalist media at this point seems to have a limited efficacy or power, certainly in terms of winning people over to ideas. And in a revolutionary process or rupture, when the movements are much stronger along with peoples’ political development, that effectiveness would be even less. That should make us question the abstract need for political violence against people in the mass media. It doesn’t appear necessary and could also be a diversion from the immediate, necessary tasks facing us: folx already have the correct information, in a certain sense, but what is required more than anything else is organizing those workers and oppressed peoples to oppose the system – that is what is missing.

The outrageous stupidity of the amerikan capitalist media today, which is rather different from the way it operated in earlier periods, does have a certain logic or rationale. Their modus operandi isn’t to win a battle of ideas – the chatter on CNN or Fox News doesn’t ascend to the level of an “idea” :lol: -- but to demonstrate or display, to create a spectacle of, the power of the capitalist state. When the ruling strata can use its media mouthpieces to decree, without any challenge, that up is down, slavery is freedom, the earth is flat, and so on, their statements are clearly false, and all can see that. Nonetheless, those very assertions, communicated to hundreds of millions through the massive, central media infrastructure, are a form of power. They indicate just how far the ruling elites can go and get away with it: telling lies that everyone knows are lies. They indicate the absolute determination of the bourgeoisie to not merely reflect or represent objective reality, but to change it in accordance with their interests: so that reality coincides with their lies. They indicate the indifference of the capitalists to the interests and beliefs of the significant majority in this country: by not attempting to win people over through classic ideological obfuscation and illusion, but through sheer, naked force and the imposition of will. This rhetorical strategy that we see in the media is a type of power designed to instill fear and terror, and thus sow quiescence and apolitical resignation in the population. There are no true “ideas” (in the sense that word has been used in this thread) in this strategy.

Given the way the media works right now, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where those outlets are actively agitating against the revolutionary process or rupture, or actively organizing for fascist reaction. That would be only a logical extension of their current role. In that case, political violence should be used to counter their threat.