Public service TV & the construction of a healthy society -

[El Che]

It seems to me that western societies are at a cross road. On the one, hand there has never been such wide spread democratic practice as there now exists, but on the other hand we see that despite this many problems subsist. More especificaly western governments continue to impose imperialistic and oppressive policies on the rest of the world, this is done to a great extent by the US with the complicity of Europe. And at home? Well as we all know at home Capitalism thrives, and the social relations and structure inherent to Capitalism also remains, despite what some fools would have us believe.

Now, lets just pause for a minute and consider that some people will agree entirely with what I have said above, some will agree only with the problems I identified (i.e some anarchists will not agree with me that there is democracy in the west) and some others will agree only that there is democracy and will not agree with me on the problems I point out, these are known as “conservatives” :P But my point is that this is my personal view, but in what follows I will not advocate the things I will advocate just for the mere purpose of solving the problems I identify in our societies, but rather I will advocate certain things as a matter of general principals, though I will of course relate my thoughts on what should be done to the current problems I identify. Thus weather you agree with my interpretation of society or not is irrelevant for the real bottom line subject here is institutional functioning of democracy. If you wish to dispute that please do so, but if you don’t agree with my opinions with regards to my analysis of society either bring it up some were else or don’t because that is not really what I am arguing here.

So when faced with this current state of affairs, I ask why is democracy failing? In the sense that there should be greater equality among nations, in the sense that imperialistic military acts of aggression are conducted with the support of aggressing nations politically free population, in the sense of the total lack [on the part of the masses] of questioning of the society around us. Now being a Socialist, I believe people are inherently good, so I will only conclude otherwise when all other options fail. So I guess my answer to this very pertinent question is this: it’s a cultural problem. Ok great it’s a cultural problem, so now what? Well now we act of a cultural level instead of talking about military coups all the time! By we I mean us commies.

Now I am truly convinced that what is need is action to “perfect” the democratic process already existent, to make it as close to perfect as we can get, to make it better. But I am not arguing this only as a means to and end, but rather because it is the ethical thing to do. If I come to the conclusion that there is no longer a significant cultural problem and my views still continue to be in minority I will have no problem with that. I can only answer for my self.

What is democracy all about? Its about that discussion. You see, we humans have to make a lot of noise amongst our selves before we can come to sensible decisions, the more noise we make the better the outcome. A free and open society, that incentivates active discussion of all topics and critical revision of its self. More and more and more of it. But one must not be naïve, there are interests in society and the established order is established for some reason… This may all seem very pretty but to effectively put these ideals in practice is no easy job. Its easier to control the ignorant then the learned, just as it is easier to maintain a status quo that is sheldomly put in question. This applies to all societies, be they Capitalist or eventually some day Communist. Constant questioning of the status quo, constant revision. But there is also a question of standards involved, it’s a qualitative one, but while we agree that quality is subjective, it isn`t that subjective!!! If your catching my drift…

What do you think of the dept and level of CNN? What about your national news agencies? What about the critical revision of your society? And the level of political debate and participation? Oh and what about the quality of your TV cultural and political programs? That’s right, its all one big piece of shit, if you`ll pardon by subjective qualification.

The level of discussion must be raised to the academic standard, and this can only be done by an active, responsible and ethical intellectual intervention in public life. Even if they wish to defend capitalism, I have no problem with that, as long as it’s a discussion with quality, that is to say real cultural and informative value to the public. And besides at least it would be an improvement on the current situation because at the least the system that governs the world would at least from time to time be put in question. As it is now, its just complete apathy, as if capitalism was as inherent to this world as the blue skies.

But if it sounds to you like I am being elitist, hear me out. When I say discussions of intellectual quality (and questioning of all things social with no complexes) I absolutely do not mean discussions only accessible to some. You can speak simply, bluntly and with quality and value. Clear thoughts clear speech. Philosophical webs are better suited in other places, I am talking about pragmatic talk but with a qualitative difference. A major one at that. Regradless of your political standing if you don’t agree with me on the principals of democratic functioning, I say you have no vague conception of what democracy means. But you see, the problem is that this optimal functioning of democracy is HIGHLY inconvenient to the right, to the capitalistic state of affairs and to the “system” in broad grossly generalising terms…

Hence we should all of us make pressure to accomplish these things and contribute to their realisation in what ever way possible. We know we cant count on the private media corporations for obvious reasons, so what is needed is a real focus and attention to the kind of public service media we are getting. Because they MUST give us the high quality public service that is so essential to the democratic process I really cant stress that more…

Just one last thing, consider the work of Chomsky, here is a man that tries to single handedly accomplish what is lacking in American society. Responsible and politically active he speaks simply directly and with quality. And im not just saying that because I agree with many of the things he says too. Its his role in society, his quest to try and elevate a mediocre (at best) social debate, that is of tremendous value. Though I don’t agree at all with his revision of Marxism, his life`s work and his posture are an example. And like all anarchists I guess he is a Marxist at heart :)


(Edited by El Che at 12:22 pm on April 19, 2002)

[guerrillaradio]

"What is democracy all about? Its about that discussion. You see, we humans have to make a lot of noise amongst our selves before we can come to sensible decisions, the more noise we make the better the outcome. A free and open society, that incentivates active discussion of all topics and critical revision of its self. More and more and more of it. But one must not be naïve, there are interests in society and the established order is established for some reason… This may all seem very pretty but to effectively put these ideals in practice is no easy job. Its easier to control the ignorant then the learned, just as it is easier to maintain a status quo that is seldomly put in question. This applies to all societies, be they Capitalist or eventually some day Communist. Constant questioning of the status quo, constant revision. But there is also a question of standards involved, it’s a qualitative one, but while we agree that quality is subjective, it isn`t that subjective!!! If your catching my drift…"

One of the problems with democracy is it assumes the majority will always decide on what is ethically right, which, to me, is actually quite a stupid concept. And whether quality is subjective is a huge philosophical discussion which I doubt you wanna get into on this thread.

"What do you think of the dept and level of CNN? What about your national news agencies? What about the critical revision of your society? And the level of political debate and participation? Oh and what about the quality of your TV cultural and political programs? That’s right, its all one big piece of shit, if you`ll pardon by subjective qualification."

That has very little to do with democracy. The fact is, very very very many people quite simply do not give a flying fuck about politics, and they would much rather watch Jerry Springer. However, it works both ways, and the lack of political debate and coverage on television has contributed to Spinger-fever somewhat.

"The level of discussion must be raised to the academic standard, and this can only be done by an active, responsible and ethical intellectual intervention in public life. Even if they wish to defend capitalism, I have no problem with that, as long as it’s a discussion with quality, that is to say real cultural and informative value to the public."

Another problem with democracy is the fact that it divides people in two camps. If we are to take a televised debate, between a member of the government and a member of the opposition, for instance, it is obvious who will take which side. The government politician will be lauding and trumpeting the government's latest actions whilst the opposition member will be lambasting and criticising them.

Good post El Che, I'm interested in what you suggest...

[peaccenicked]

El che.
I liked your post on the whole, it has teeth.
The cultural domain is exactly where we should be finding our bearings in the world. The mechanics of revolution are rather empty if hegomony does not shift towards socialist cultural values that in the modern world are anti imperialist. The biggest contradiction in the world to day is between the rich nations and the poor ones. This is reflected in public consciousness in the growth of charitable organisations and the increasing enviromentalist influence. Even Holywood seems to want to attack the excesses of corporatism.
Gramsci's ideas on the organic and traditional intellectuals are useful here as the world needs less of people who only specialise and more of the organic type who take the historical narrative on board and embrace scientific socialism.
The criticism of the limitations of charity in only ameliorating problems, instead of solving them needs to be taken to the heart of the public domain.
This brings me to 'democracy'. It is certainly needs expanded into every level of society, on some level
'peoples power' as displayed in the former stalinist states needs to gain momentum in the advanced countries and bring about radical democratic changes.
The extra parliamentary activities of the workers need
a pole of attraction, that can centralise their aspirations,
and produce ultimately stable democratic structures that are ultimately inclusive of all strands of human oppression.
First of all, I think we need to be using the net imaginativelly, conducting our own polls, and bringing together artists internationally aligned against imperialism etc.
As to TV, it is a changing medium and I think somewhere
along the line we need to be thinking about our own TV
network.
The problem is networking, how to include, how to erase
amateurishness, how to make the most out of everything at our disposal.
This cannot be done overnight but though out as a plan of action by the left, who in light of their weaknesses, be brought towards answering a serious minded professional body of ideas.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:35 pm on April 19, 2002)

[Fires of History]

El Che,

Well said, well thought out.

I agree, there is a deep sense of anti-intellectualism in society, particularly in amerikkkan society. And I believe part of that has spread around the globe. A deep distrust for anything theoretical, anything above common sense thinking, especially anything from the 'ivory tower;' and it has everything to do with the absurd notion that ideas in and of themselves are dangerous to freedom and democracy.

I agree with you that it is a cultural problem. People are so busy having a good time, and striving for success and comfort that rarely do they stop to ask any questions about their mode of thinking.

But I guess it's all part of the capitali$t deification of self interest over the common good. The idea that tremendous personal success somehow contributes effectively to the betterment of all society. Which is my way of saying that I believe that a large, often forgotten part of democracy is the functionality of community. People are so isolated today, and more often than not think of themselves as separate from any larger whole. With this kind of thinking, I believe, democracy is impossible.

Part of my frustration at the state of affairs is that most people simply don't have the time or energy to actually engage in the community. Working, sleeping, and personal demands often leave little time, or energy, for anything else. I think people should have the day off for voting. I think more parties should exist, for what is democracy without any real choice? And I think, above all, that people need to start thinking of themselves more and more as part of a greater whole, a greater community, than just isolated individuals segregated from the effects of the rest of the world. It's amazing how many people believe that what goes on 'out there' has little effect on them. This idea in itself is enough to destroy any semblance of democracy.

“American politics are deeply contradictory of course, but anti-intellectualism is the common strain. This includes a deep suspicion of anything that isn't simple, fundamental, traditional, down-to-earth and American in the ideological sense, and this can be exploited easily by demagogues and cynical politicians of the right. The key word is freedom, which includes the freedom to own and use firearms, the freedom to trade and use the marketplace without restraint even if it means serious injury to health and decency, the freedom above all to make America's will rule all over the earth.” –Edward Saide

“The genius of any slave system is found in the dynamics which isolate slaves from each other, obscure the reality of a common condition, and make united rebellion against the oppressor inconceivable.” –Andrea Dworkin

[El Che]

>>>guerrillaradio

"One of the problems with democracy is it assumes the majority will always decide on what is ethically right"

I dont think democracy assumes that at all. Rather it assumes that authority of the majority over the miniority is more ethical than the other way around. Even if the majority makes all the wrong choices.


>>>peace

Though I agree with certain principals you enounciate you are rather on a different wave lenth then the one here in question. In that you are thinking and presenting views and courses of action based on your own political position. People may agree or disagree with our views but if they are not ready to questioning them selves then all evolution is impossible. So regradless of ones own political views it is very important that we bring seriousness and quality back to political and social debate. And it is actualy easier to do that from an independant and imparcial position, as simple citizens with ethical conscience and social responsibilities. In other words we should stand for quality just for the sake of quality and separate that from our other agendas, be they political or social or whatever.


>>>FoH

Anti-intellectualism as you very well point out is also a part of the problem. This is both a causation factor and a result of the cultural problem that is effectivly a handy cap of democracy. It is what I call culture of mediocrity. American society is indeed the most worring of cases and especialy because it seems europe is following the US in what concerns social evolution. As Marx said, "an advance nation shows the others but a mere reflection of their future self". Thanks for those quotes, they perfectly illustrate what im talking about.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from El Che on 7:57 pm on April 22, 2002
>>>guerrillaradio

"One of the problems with democracy is it assumes the majority will always decide on what is ethically right"

I dont think democracy assumes that at all. Rather it assumes that authority of the majority over the miniority is more ethical than the other way around. Even if the majority makes all the wrong choices.


True, but it still assumes that the majority will make the ethically correct decision. It assumes that the majority will decide on the right leader at an election, it assumes that the majority will make the right decision at a referendum. Democracy proves the basic inadequacies of humanity, if you ask this disillusioned existentialist...

[Fires of History]

El Che & Guerrillaradio,

You both are raising a true dilemma in democracy: Whether or not decisions made by the majority are necessarily the correct ones.

It's an interesting problem. Are we supposed to assume that the majority is always correct? Are we supposed to even think that the majority is even well-informed?

That, in a nutshell, is my current problem with democracy. The public is misinformed...constantly. The Mind Media has mastered the task of swaying the public mind. And, all too often, the people think they are justified in their actions based on propaganda.

Which all sort of treads back to El Che's comment about Public Service Media. As long as private interests own, control, and make all the decisions about the media that the majority accepts as 'truth' there will be no true democracy, mostly because all decisions by such a majority are inherently based on biased, one-sided information with a private agenda. The ignorance of the majority is a very significant issue.

[peaccenicked]

It was Goethe who insisted that the majority is always wrong, and Gramsci who delved into the whole common sense question. Brecht saw that sense had to be made common.
Quality contol is not my subject, but politics tells me that that quality is not necessarily neutral. Read Anna Karenina and you dont have to read much more on the pain of infidelity.
Good art, moving art reveals the human condition, bad art diverts us from it . There is also good quality escapism but that only works when it has no pretensions.
Kant is interesting here, he believed that beauty is universal and objective. I am still coming to terms with that idea.

[Fires of History]

Peaccenicked,

Well said, but I couldn't disagree more with objectivism. It is truly difficult for me to imagine that 'reality' exists 'out there,' and I am much more inclined to think that virtually everything is relative. Perhaps all. Just my opinion though.

My main problem with Kant is how thinkers since have used his arguments in application to 'moral law.' But, I am no Kant expert, I usually try to stay away from too much rationalist reading. I even find it difficult to swallow when even existentialists claim that the human mind is rational as a basis for 'true knowledge.'

That said, and because I believe all things to be subjective, media is a interesting beast indeed. It seems more than ever that any semblance of 'reason' and 'objectivity' is substituted for private agenda.

And usually when I find a source claiming to be 'objective,' what is really meant is that both sides- both biases- are presented. Which is why it's even worse when just one bias is presented.

I couldn't agree more with Nietzsche that all 'knowledge' is a will to power. And even I would admit that the 'voice of the people' is a biased perspective. But it is at least a more representative voice. But that just takes us back to the dilemma of whether or not widely held opinion is necessarily the 'correct' one.

One of my favorite history professors of all time was fond of saying, "Nothing works...nothing." And I agree. Because of that I usually accept whatever one's basis for 'knowledge' is, knowing from experience that one will always find a way to justify one's beliefs.

Another problem I see with democracy is the question of whether or not the public is even capable of critically thinking about information presented to them. It seems that even if 'objective' media is presented, that public opinion will always slide to the lowest common denominator. Who knows though.

But I still hope for democracy. Not that I think it exists. At least with democracy there is an increased chance for the 'greatest good for the greatest number.' But it is funny to me that while most now have the right to vote in Western democracies, that fact is really irrelevant if the basis for their decisions comes from biased media.

I just wish more of the public was more informed and better equipped to deal with the large amounts of information that is presented to them- in a nutshell, more able to critically take in, then take apart, the 'truths' that are slung around everyday. The people defeat themselves at every turn...

[peaccenicked]

FOH
The subject /object relationship is the bones of philosophy. The best I have found is Hegel, the logic is
revealing but the Phenomenology reads like the best acid trip of all time.
The History of Philosophy and the Philosophy of History is up there too.
Hegel on aesthetics is also mind blowing.
Hegel believies that an all sided truth transcends the subject object relationship.
I wrote a related essay ten years ago.
I have matured a little since then.
But this gets to the rub.
http://www.geocities.com/paulanderson9/ess...ir/Marxism.html (http://www.geocities.com/paulanderson9/essaysdir/Marxism.html)
El che. I hope you are not disappointed with the way this thread is developing, you have raised many important questions and I could return here time and time again. I would appreciate your input at this time.

[guerrillaradio]

The question of why democracy is failing is unimportant, as the answer should seem quite clear to most. None of the "great" world democracies have a candidate representing every political persuasion. In fact, in the majority, the choice is frankly pathetic.

In the US (which I think is one of the least democractic countries in the developed world), at the last election, voters could choose between TWO men of almost identical policies. (Obviously, there was a third choice, but if you wanted your vote to mean anything, Bush and Gore were the only options.) HOW is this a democracy?? It isn't anymore democractic than Cuba, where one can only vote for communist candidates. What is the difference between only being able to select (right-wing) capitalist candidates and only being able to select communist candidates?? In France, the choice is currently between a moderate right-winger and a far right-winger. Yet again, this seems wholly undemocractic. The UK also has a hideous under-representation from the left. Democracy seems to be totally elusive in the West.

As for the media, it is shambolic. Rupert Murdoch owns a huge proportion of the English-speaking media (in the UK, he is behind Sky, The Times and The Sun), and those that he has yet to get his green-tinted hands on are owned by other conglomerates. As FoH says, "private interests own, control, and make all the decisions about the media."

It's true that democracy does not exist at all. However, I feel that this cannot be helped by televised debates or review programmes, as anti-intellectualism, as you call it, is so prevalent in international society. People would much rather go out drinking or watch a sports event than tune into a proper political debate. I also agree with FoH that the public cannot be relied upon to make an informed decision even if the information was available to them. The fact remains that on the list of priorities to Joe Bloggs (the average man, before you ask), politics would be very low.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that as human beings, we will have to get used to failing in everything that we aspire to do. I do not think that there is a way in which we can "perfect" democracy, it is a failed theory, the same as every other theory put into practice.

Oh yeah, and truth and reality are unattainable. I suspect that many of you read the thread I started on this forum not so long ago concerning science which developed into a debate on the nature of truth:

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...ic=191&start=10 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=191&start=10)

[Fires of History]

Guerrillaradio,

Well said. I too have very little faith in Joe Bloggs. Unless something directly interferes with their own personal well-being, people just don't care.

And there is no choice. As Chomsky says very well, "There is essentially one political party, the business party, with two factions."

Peaccenicked,

Let me have a day to read and digest your essay :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another major problem I have with current 'democracy' is scale.

A lot of the defenders of democracy I know harken back to the days of yesteryear, the days of the Golden Age of Greece. Athens, they say, was a shining example of democracy at work, and how democracy does work. Sure, I say, all fine and dandy.

But what a lot of people I know forget is that the Greeks founded their brand of democracy on the City-State. And, sure, representation is simple when you only have a city to account for. Of course democracy works better on such a small scale.

But more and more I ask myself if there is such a thing as the 'voice of the people' to be found in throngs of millions and millions?

Can there truly be true representation when the state consists of hundreds of millions? Or over a billion in the case of the P. R. of China?

Can democracy work on such a large scale?

I personally don't think so, and I believe states should be much smaller. More later, gotta run :)

[El Che]

Though I dont wish to enter into a discussion on the nature of truth I have no objections to such a discussion taking place, far from it. But I will not do it because I really dont like to treat such subjects in a superficial manner, and for me to get into such an issue would require a great deal of things all of which are self imposed. Besides I still have alot to read and am aware of my limitations. Not to say that such a discussion can not take place in future or that I would not take part in it.

Now as for the issue of the thread its self, I have to say that I frontaly disagree with some opinions being posted. Which is after all natural and healthy. It is the spirit of democracy right here on CHE-LIVES.com. In that everybody disagrees with everybody and things are discussed in an enviorment of mutal respect and debate of ideas.

It seems this thread has turned into a questioning of democracy its self, in my opinion democracy is an inevitability. The point of my post was to point out the problems with our current western societies, and it is also a realisation on my part that democracy isn`t enough. Perhaps it was thought by some that all that would be needed to move humanity foward was democracy. But what we are still coming to grips with is the fact that democracy can be subverted by a sort of surreal common sense that shields the rulling class and the institutionalised powers from the noxious self awareness of reality on the part of the masses. Shielding the masses from reality in order to shield one`s self, as rulling class and instutionalised power. It is this new challenge that the left has failed to meet.

I forgot to say that I dont put democracy in question. Perhaps because I thought this was assumed by all, but it seems it is not, and I want no ambiguoities on the subject. Democracy is the only ethical system and constitutes in and of its self a significante social advance. If people dont vote for the alternative parties dont blame democracy, blame the people, or try and something about it which is more constructive if you ask me. Democracy is the system that allows alternative parties, allows all alternatives to power to come fourth and present them selves before people that decide through their vote. Democracy is nothing more and nothing less, it assumes nothing with regrad to the ethical correction of the majority and other such notions. The only thing it assumes is that a) authority is necessary(the state) and B) since authority must be imposed then it is for the majority to impose. It also presuposes an open society and freedom. The problem is not democracy, it is society in the cultural sense.

[guerrillaradio]

El Che - I also agree that democracy is the best option available to us. My views are summed up quite well by Winston Churchill (not my best friend admittedly, but he seemed to be accurate on this occasion), "democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the alternatives". I was merely pointing out its shortcomings, of which there are many, as I'm sure you know.

FoH - you are right in saying that democracy cannot work on such a large scale. In fact, like all political systems, democracy can only 'work' (how much it 'works' is a different question altogether) in certain countries, the majority of which being rich and westernised. A country with the population size of China would probably benefit better from a 'strong' government, or, even better, as you say, being split up into small states. This of course, asks another question. Maybe the concept of a Chinese leader is impractical?? Maybe China would benefit more from having local government leaders and no central government?? I'm not necessarily holding to this as an opinion, I'm just suggesting it to see the reactions of the good people who have posted on here so far.

And peaccenicked is right, a post of the quality of El Che's deserves a better response that what it has gotten. Maybe the resident members of this thread can still make a worthy debate of it?? Let's hope so...

[I Will Deny You]

I think that another problem with Western democracies is one that has not been discussed much: Education. Education is one of the best ways to measure how democratic a nation really is. How many dicatorships do you know of that are run by tyrants who sacrifice money that could be used for palaces so that children can learn? I can't think of any. A good education system is a sign that the government is willing to invest in its people, and the people are willing to invest in their children by spending hard-earned tax dollars on others. And education and democracy work in a cycle, really. If children had better teachers who motivated them to want to learn, they might spend more time on Civics homework and less time watching Temptation Island reruns. Has anyone else here noticed that the developed nations with better education systems (England, France, Germany, etc.) tend to have more democratic governments and better welfare-type programs? Education is a step towards better democracy, and democracy is a step towards better education.

[Fires of History]

Guerrillaradio,

I have a hard time imagining a 'proper' debate with El Che from myself because I agree with everything he initially said. He seems to be demanding a rise in the quality of democratic conversation, as well as more transparency in and through media. I was simply trying to make the point that that quality will never rise while corporations own media.

I also agree with El Che that democracy is inevitable, and that it really prescribes nothing with regard to the 'morality' of the decisions made. And I agree with him that democracy as an idea cannot be blamed for the apathetic decisions made by the people based on simple-minded media.

IWDY,

Yep :) Partly why I brought up anti-intellectualism in today's society. You can't instill a love for learning in a society afraid of education, and one that views new ideas as a threat to 'freedom' and 'democracy.'

[Fires of History]

El Che & All,

What are your thoughts about the internet, in terms of public discourse?