[gRed Britain]

Ok this question is to do with socialism and not communism. How do we ensure fully balanced media under socialism? Obviously at the moment media groups who are owned by people such as Murdoch etc pump out pro-capitalist propaganda and will print anything in order to sell papers. But with a state-owned paper you have the government controlling what information you receive. I can't quite figure out the answer.

[chaz171]

I'd imagine that if one looks at Lenin's "What is to be done" and peruse chapter 5, one would get a general Idea of what should happen. Don't get too confused over who owns it, as much as who controls the tone and the spin it takes.

I feel there is no perfect answer, but a state run would fit better into what Communism stands for. (i.e. worker's control of the means of production)

[Fallen Raptor]

First of all, a fully balanced media has never existed, and will not exist under socialism. The mass media is as much of a tool of the ruling class as the state is. We may expect something close to a fully balanced media under communism when political struggle has ended, but we can't know for sure.

That being said, the state will probably not be the only media source under socialism. Given today's communication technologies like the internet, just about anyone can be a news reporter, journalist, or commentator. Unions, parties, and other non-profit organizations may also have their own media outlets.

[Lensky1917]

I pretty much agree with Fallen Raptor. Allende was pretty lenient on the media, and he ended up dead.

[Besoshvili]

While it's certainly true that everyone (nowadays) can find a way to create their own media, the major instruments and means of mass-communication will and must belong solely to state, and the message, information and content must be guided by the state/Party apparatus. This enables all major forms of mass-media (print, broadcast and online) to serve as important instruments in the cultural enlightenment of the people, political control of the population and provide the public with varying sources of information.

And as stated above - there is no such thing as an "unbiased" media. It's non-existent - nor would it be desirable. Every outlet or publication has editorial guidelines (that go well-beyond defining 'house' style and fact-checking policies). Rather than unrealistically trying to create a totally objective media; a socialist state should have no choice but exploit the power that comes with total control over the instruments and means of communications technology.

[Wheelchairmaniacal]

You know people, you do realize it's not shocking or earth-shattering when you say objectivity in media is rare (if not non-existant, although I would say it's a broad claim to say that it's never existed, as people who are ridiculously highly educated are still discussing the possibility of a truly objective media).

That's an obvious and well juvenile statement. And in a future socialist society, I can't imagine it would be particularly popular in the west to make all media state-owned. One would hope that socialist governments would however bring the documentary formats back to state-channels like BBC or DR-TV in Denmark.

But I don't understand the obsession with getting rid of freedom of expression. With the bourgeoisie gone (or well out of power), wouldn't that mean for the first time you could 'truly' have freedom of expression? A freedom of expression in the best interests of society?

[Whitten]

WCM is correct. In a stable socialist state media should be mostly uncensored. Free from private ownership information and opinion can be truly independent. This freedom is a pre-requisite of real public development in (socialist) understanding. The enlightenment of the masses cannot be attained by enforcing a regime of selective ignorance. That is ignoring the obvious risks of giving a state that much power. There used to be a strong tradition of labour papers and such, cooperatives and collectives could run the media, along side a state media network and the party's paper.

[Besoshvili]

I didn't say all media would be state owned - I said the means and instruments of mass-communication. Obviously, with technology, it wouldn't be feasible or effective to try and control all forms of media. However, state ownership of communications is a basic necessity of socialism. To allow private ownership would not only be a contradiction - it would be ridiculously wasteful to simply discard such opportunity to reach the masses and consolidate a substantial power base.

Allowing trade & labor organizations to print, publish and write their own content would obviously be permissible - but even that has to have some restriction/limitation. Clearly we wouldn't want another "Solidarity" movement to arise - hence the need for some degree of oversight from Party/State/Security organization(s).

As to the rejection of a completely objective media (as it relates to even the existence) - there are also numerous individuals (also highly educated) who reject the possibility that even basic information can be disseminated objectively. Jacques Ellul wrote that the belief that basic information dissemination can be objective is the biggest fallacy that has made modern day propaganda (whether state or private) so effective. Most people take for granted the way in which messages or information are conveyed. The language, the format, the chronological order, the medium, public bias, cultural norms, inherent prejudice, political climate, changes in material conditions all influence the way in which information is delivered and received by an individual.

The most effective propaganda is often times the most objective in content. Simply changing the structure of a message can have a great impact on how an individual (much less the masses) understand the message. Even changes as trivial as replacing articles, "a" with "the" in a sentence has proven to influence people's minds to a great extent, and can reaffirm confidence in something that may or may not have happened.

Everything, from what I'm writing here to the messages you get on your TV or Radio, have an influence and attempt to frame your mindset in one way or another. Hence, the effort that would be required to even work towards establishing a *truly* objective form of information/news media would be a waste of time, and even more important, politically and economically inexpedient.

Not to mention - on a practical level the advantages of consolidating the means and instruments of mass communication far outweigh whatever disadvantages might arise. To weaken the dictatorship of the proletariat, in favor of pluralism and liberalism , would be a disservice to the Party and the working class.

Quote:

WCM is correct. In a stable socialist state media should be mostly uncensored. Free from private ownership information and opinion can be truly independent. This freedom is a pre-requisite of real public development in (socialist) understanding. The enlightenment of the masses cannot be attained by enforcing a regime of selective ignorance.

I would advocate the state/party disseminating crudely selective information that risks credibility. Lenin said on the subject that it was important to be as truthful as possible, and that transparency is not only important as a means of being open and honest with the masses, but also necessary to preserve credibility. After all - propaganda necessarily has to be subtle. If people assume you're lying, assume you're trying to influence them, then they simply shut you off or are now selectively biased against what you have to say. Thus, the ideal isn't to keep the masses selectively ignorant; but rather, consolidate their support, raising them to a higher level of consciousness and framing them for a particular end/objective: communism.

[Whitten]

You can't raise someone's level of consciousness by filtering their information supply. State ownership isn't the only form of public ownership. Organisations can be publicly owned yet still completly independent.

[Besoshvili]

Quote:

You can't raise someone's level of consciousness by filtering their information supply. State ownership isn't the only form of public ownership. Organisations can be publicly owned yet still completly independent.

I never said it did. But, under socialism, the state is at the hands of the Party, which is the vanguard of the proletariat and toiling masses. As such, it is the master of the revolutionary theory that guides and instructs the masses and puts them on the path of the victory of socialism, and finally, communism. The problem with independent (yet public) organizations also having a stake in such processes are the opportunity to deviate, distort or outright oppose the direction of socialism. Too great a risk. The sole purpose of the state is entirely entrenched in means, not ends. Thus, Marxist-Leninists should use the state accordingly. Not to sound the alarm for a slippery slope - but pluralism is as dangerous as outright counter-revolution.

[Wheelchairmaniacal]

The obvious rebuttal is that such a system failed pretty hardcore early in the '90's...

[Besoshvili]

Quote:

The obvious rebuttal is that such a system failed pretty hardcore early in the '90's...

That's not a rebuttal, that's an anecdote. And the example you're referencing isn't analogous - the system was in a process of decay and degeneration for decades.

[Fallen Raptor]

Wheelchairmaniacal wrote:

But I don't understand the obsession with getting rid of freedom of expression. With the bourgeoisie gone (or well out of power), wouldn't that mean for the first time you could 'truly' have freedom of expression? A freedom of expression in the best interests of society?

There isn't an obsession with getting rid of freedom of expression. On the contrary, freedom of expression is a necessity of socialism, as Rosa Luxemburg explained:

Quote:

Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule. Among them, in reality only a dozen outstanding heads do the leading and an elite of the working class is invited from time to time to meetings where they are to applaud the speeches of the leaders, and to approve proposed resolutions unanimously – at bottom, then, a clique affair – a dictatorship, to be sure, not the dictatorship of the proletariat but only the dictatorship of a handful of politicians, that is a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense, in the sense of the rule of the Jacobins

Besoshvili wrote:

But, under socialism, the state is at the hands of the Party

This is incorrect. Under socialism, the state is directly in the hands of the proletariat, not a self-proclaimed proletarian party. The role of the vanguard party is to guide the masses in revolutionary struggle, not to dominate over them.

[Besoshvili]

Quote:

This is incorrect. Under socialism, the state is directly in the hands of the proletariat, not a self-proclaimed proletarian party. The role of the vanguard party is to guide the masses in revolutionary struggle, not to dominate over them.

My statement was posited under the assumption that the Party, the vanguard, was inextricably linked with the masses and is the concentrated force of leadership responsible for guiding the masses in revolutionary struggle. My statement was not suggesting that the Party is in any way, shape, or form separate or isolated from the proletariat itself.

[Whitten]

But in the real world that has shown itself repeatedly not to work out. The system needs to be built under the assumption that any number of its components could fail, it needs redundancy.

The proletariat cannot censor themselves, that's a logical absurdity. Only with unlimited access to information can they know for themselves what to accept and what to reject and only through this process can people develop true socialist consciousness.

[Besoshvili]

Quote:

The proletariat cannot censor themselves, that's a logical absurdity. Only with unlimited access to information can they know for themselves what to accept and what to reject and only through this process can people develop true socialist consciousness.

I never said anything to the contrary; in fact, I specifically stated that state-run/Party-run media should be transparent and open.

Nor did I say that state/party organs should completely dominate the media - but rather the major instruments and means of mass-communication. This would mean media companies responsible for the publication of Tier 1 Media Outlets in print and broadcast need to be expropriated by the state. The Tribune Company, CBS, NBC, et al. would cease to exist as privately run corporations with private capital - and in turn would become public property vis-a-vis state ownership.

Again, lying to the masses is politically disadvantageous - nothing is more detrimental than losing your audience on the basis of lack of credibility. But, what does matter and what can be controlled is context, framing and spinning information to promote and reflect values in concert with the construction of socialism.

If the end objective is to increase the general consciousness of the masses - then it's well known that it's going to take work and will not be achieved over night. Furthermore, just because the masses are proletarian doesn't make them communist. Putting the masses on the path to socialism and then communism can be supplemented by other means - in addition to the natural elevation of consciousness resulting from revolutionary changes in their relations to the means of production and material conditions.

[Whitten]

My point was that censorship automatically creates an unhealthy relationship between party and masses, it implies a concentration of privileged power separate from the proletariat, and not even accountable to them. In a stable socialist state censorship goes strongly against the Leninist conception of the state.

Almost all counter-revolutions have been launched by a group within the party, specifically because it became an organ of privileged power. It's worth noting that Cuba, being the only country to have avoided this concentration of power to the party is the country which has avoided counter-revolution and remained truest to socialism.

[Fitzy]

There is no need to ban private media, or for media to be state run. The only banning that needs to be done, is the banning of advertising. This would put public (state/worker/consumer controlled) media on an equal playing field with private media. It might even be useful to keep the private media around for a while, and let it wither away naturally.

[rcorporon]

I think that countries like Canada (with the CBC) and England (with the BBC) have managed to show that state owned and operated media outlets are easily capable of being more than propaganda.

It simply needs to be handled responsibly.

[Fellow Comrade]

Quote:

I think that countries like Canada (with the CBC) and England (with the BBC) have managed to show that state owned and operated media outlets are easily capable of being more than propaganda.

I disagree. Everybody produces propaganda.