[Beren]

CNN/Fox create news for their consumer demographic dictated by need for profit.

They're privately owned and for profit, yes, which makes them even more effective propaganda tools. Which is what capitalism is all about, I mean effectiveness, if I'm not mistaken. They're more effective than PBS for sure.

[JohnRawls]

They're privately owned and for profit, yes, which makes them even more effective propaganda tools. Which is what capitalism is all about, I mean effectiveness, if I'm not mistaken. They're more effective than PBS for sure.

News flash, free press has existed like that for many hundreds of years.

But that is not something that we are discussing though. The problem is not who is a more "effective" brainwashing machine but what is the use of such media. Fox and CNN exist to make profit while state media exists to basically send out the government messaging, especially if we are talking about government media number 1 in a Authoritarian state.

[Beren]

News flash, free press has existed like that for many hundreds of years.

But that is not something that we are discussing though. The problem is not who is a more "effective" brainwashing machine but what is the use of such media. Fox and CNN exist to make profit while state media exists to basically send out the government messaging, especially if we are talking about government media number 1 in a Authoritarian state.

So what's your point? Is it that it's better to brainwash people and sell them propaganda or even direct government messages through for-profit privately owned companies than doing the same via state-owned organisations? The only difference is that they stick to capitalist methodology in America. The purpose of both is the same, to serve the status quo and the existing socioeconomic and political order, and help the rulers, or the ruling class, keep and exercise control over the whole system and society. American liberalism, or liberal capitalism is also totalitarian in its own way.

[Unthinking Majority]

They're privately owned and for profit, yes, which makes them even more effective propaganda tools. Which is what capitalism is all about, I mean effectiveness, if I'm not mistaken. They're more effective than PBS for sure.

PBS is probably the best model. The BBC is state owned so Efff that.

[JohnRawls]

So what's your point? Is it that it's better to brainwash people and sell them propaganda or even direct government messages through for-profit privately owned companies than doing the same via state-owned organisations? The only difference is that they stick to capitalist methodology in America. The purpose of both is the same, to serve the status quo and the existing socioeconomic and political order, and help the rulers, or the ruling class, keep and exercise control over the whole system and society. American liberalism, or liberal capitalism is also totalitarian in its own way.

That state media in Authoritarian society that I quoted basically posts state policy. So it is incomparable to CNN/Fox.

BBC is the closest comparison that we have in the West I guess but BBC censorship is mostly about about the royalties and some state policies.

[Beren]

PBS is probably the best model.

Maybe that's why even Republicans like Mitt Romney want to cut its funding.

That state media in Authoritarian society that I quoted basically posts state policy. So it is incomparable to CNN/Fox.

No, it isn't, it's just part of their effectiveness if you believe it is. CNN and Fox also serve the US government, their employees happen to be CIA agents on a regular basis, among other things.

The CIA used to infiltrate the US media at least, see Operation Mockingbird, I wonder though if they need to infiltrate them recently at all.

[JohnRawls]

Maybe that's why even Republicans like Mitt Romney want to cut its funding.


No, it isn't, it's just part of their effectiveness if you believe it is. CNN and Fox also serve the US government, their employees happen to be CIA agents on a regular basis, among other things.

The CIA used to infiltrate the US media at least, see Operation Mockingbird, I wonder though if they need to infiltrate them recently at all.

Your point is contradictory. Why would the CIA need to infiltrate the media if they could just order them or arrest them like China does. I am sure you understand by now that you are not making sense I hope.

[Beren]

Your point is contradictory. Why would the CIA need to infiltrate the media if they could just order them or arrest them like China does. I am sure you understand by now that you are not making sense I hope.

In my opinion they don't need to infiltrate them anymore, and I've never argued the American system is the same or works in the same way as the Chinese is or does. Pretty much the opposite, I rather argue both systems are totalitarian in their own different ways.

However, I wonder if you really try to get my point, dear C-3PO (I guess we could refer to Google Translator, which you happened to use in the OP, like that), or you just keep counter-arguing regardless.

[Patrickov]

1. Apparently Operation Mockingbird is a conspiracy theory.
2. China wants to make the world more oppressive so they don't look bad themselves.
3. If China manages to "overcome the middle-income gap" it is bad news for all of those freedom-loving righteous people. I would quote Job 6:9 in that case.

[annatar1914]

I actually have feeling for what is called the ''Deep State'' in America. These people are public servants, serve in the US government regardless of Administrations, and have to give some kind of continuity to a Government that at least officially, regularly rotates out it's elected political officials. They at least attempt to humor a public that is often ill-informed on the issues, or in some cases, is very well informed but not interested in the common good but instead a selfish special interest. It's hard trying to run things with no clear boss except ''the people'' or ''the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence'' as a guide. Perhaps they are well aware of the contradictions and want to resolve them, for the real good of America. I'm reminded of this;

[Rugoz]

CNN and Fox also serve the US government

I suppose that's why American media shit on the US government all the time. I have yet to see the Chinese media shitting on Xi.

I rather argue both systems are totalitarian in their own different ways.

If you want to render the word totalitarian utterly meaningless, sure.

[Potemkin]

So what's your point? Is it that it's better to brainwash people and sell them propaganda or even direct government messages through for-profit privately owned companies than doing the same via state-owned organisations? The only difference is that they stick to capitalist methodology in America. The purpose of both is the same, to serve the status quo and the existing socioeconomic and political order, and help the rulers, or the ruling class, keep and exercise control over the whole system and society. American liberalism, or liberal capitalism is also totalitarian in its own way.

Once liberal capitalism gains control of a society, it must expel anything which is not liberal capitalist from the system, rather like an immune response. This is why both the far right and the far left tend to be systematically marginalised, vilified, and dismantled. Likewise, once Communism gains control of a society, it must expel anything which is not ideologically compatible with Communism from the system, to ensure its own continued existence. In that sense, they are alike. But calling them both 'totalitarian' is misleading. Both systems would deny that that label applies to them, since their view of the state differs radically from the fascist view of the state (which is the only political ideology to proudly proclaim itself to be 'totalitarian'). Merely seeking to monopolise the political space of a nation does not make an ideology 'totalitarian'; rather, it is seeking to absorb civil society into the state apparatus which is 'totalitarian'. Mussolini's theoretical writings make this very clear.

[Rugoz]

Once liberal capitalism gains control of a society, it must expel anything which is not liberal capitalist from the system, rather like an immune response. This is why both the far right and the far left tend to be systematically marginalised, vilified, and dismantled. Likewise, once Communism gains control of a society, it must expel anything which is not ideologically compatible with Communism from the system, to ensure its own continued existence. In that sense, they are alike. But calling them both 'totalitarian' is misleading. Both systems would deny that that label applies to them, since their view of the state differs radically from the fascist view of the state (which is the only political ideology to proudly proclaim itself to be 'totalitarian'). Merely seeking to monopolise the political space of a nation does not make an ideology 'totalitarian'; rather, it is seeking to absorb civil society into the state apparatus which is 'totalitarian'. Mussolini's theoretical writings make this very clear.

By that definition communism has always been fascist in practice. Self-proclaimed communist states have always monopolized the political space beyond mere adherence to communism (whatever that means). China is of course capitalist, or at least no less capitalist than self-proclaimed socialist parties in liberal democracies, hence this entire argument doesn't apply.

Not that it makes sense in the first place. The profit motive will always trump the interest of capitalists as a class, hence if it becomes profitable for the capitalist media to advocate socialism, i.e. if such reporting attracts sufficient viewership, they will do so. But I suppose being consistent is too much to ask of Marxists.

[Potemkin]

By that definition communism has always been fascist in practice.

What do you mean by the phrase "fascist in practice"? Could you be more specific?

Self-proclaimed communist states have always monopolized the political space beyond mere adherence to communism (whatever that means).

This is actually not true. Historically, communist regimes have almost always started out as part of a wider 'Popular Front'; even the Bolshevik government started out as a coalition government with the Left SRs. And Stalin was notorious throughout the 1930s for insisting that foreign communist parties co-operate with bourgeois political parties. This is one of the reasons why the Chinese Communist Party eventually stopped listening to him - Stalin's advice had led to the disaster of 1927.

China is of course capitalist, or at least no less capitalist than self-proclaimed socialist parties in liberal democracies, hence this entire argument doesn't apply.

The ideology of the Chinese government is still Marxism-Leninism, with Chinese characteristics. When the Bolshevik government introduced the New Economic Policy in 1921, did it suddenly stop being communist?

Not that it makes sense in the first sense. The profit motive will always trump the interest of capitalists as a class, hence if it becomes profitable for the capitalist media to advocate socialism, i.e. if such reporting attracts sufficient viewership, they will do so.

Some capitalists will undoubtedly do that, yes. But whenever the capitalist system is plunged into a serious political crisis, it tends to hand over its political affairs to the far right, at least as a temporary measure to 'restore order'. Witness Italy and Germany between the World Wars, or Latin America in the 1970s and 80s. And the far right care little or nothing for the profit motive, so long as they can plunder the state treasury or their neighbours.

But I suppose being consistent is too much to ask of Marxists.

Lol.

[Beren]

I suppose that's why American media shit on the US government all the time. I have yet to see the Chinese media shitting on Xi.

Nobody's shitting on Xi because Chinese politics is not bi- or multipartisan, however, the American media shitting on the US government is just part of the shitshow.

If you want to render the word totalitarian utterly meaningless, sure.

It makes it utterly meaningless to you because you're (self-)indoctrinated to believe that a totalitarian system or regime must be authoritarian by definition, however, real totalitarianism rather appears to be spontaneous and natural thanks to indoctrination or conditioning so much so that people don't even realise it (partly because the political system is bi- or multipartisan and appears to be democratic, for example). But it's also totalitarian on the ground or in practice, so to speak, that's why Trump didn't even have a chance for reelection, and he could be president at all only because Hillary Clinton must have been really unwanted by a big chunk of the establishment as well.

Also, how come the US political system still stands with so low approval ratings in general? It's because the system is closed and exclusive, like a true dictatorship, and there's no real alternative (but only bipartisanship) within until a revolution or spontaneous collapse happens. The whole socioeconomic and political system is one completely intertwined conglomerate or monolith in the US as well as in China. The difference is that it's liberal capitalist, decentralised and bipartisan in the US, whereas it's state capitalist, highly centralised and authoritarian in China.

I admit that the Chinese system is more primitive and obvious, they'd argue perhaps it's more honest.

By that definition communism has always been fascist in practice.

Maybe that's why comrade Potemkin gets along with Fascists so well.

[Rugoz]

This is actually not true. Historically, communist regimes have almost always started out as part of a wider 'Popular Front'; even the Bolshevik government started out as a coalition government with the Left SRs. And Stalin was notorious throughout the 1930s for insisting that foreign communist parties co-operate with bourgeois political parties. This is one of the reasons why the Chinese Communist Party eventually stopped listening to him - Stalin's advice had led to the disaster of 1927.

They may have started out as a popular movements, but quickly transformed into tyrannical rule, like all demagoguery.

The ideology of the Chinese government is still Marxism-Leninism, with Chinese characteristics. When the Bolshevik government introduced the New Economic Policy in 1921, did it suddenly stop being communist?

Is this some kind of sad joke? It's communist by name only, which doesn't make it communist. What is your definition of communism, Potemkin?

Some capitalists will undoubtedly do that, yes. But whenever the capitalist system is plunged into a serious political crisis, it tends to hand over its political affairs to the far right, at least as a temporary measure to 'restore order'. Witness Italy and Germany between the World Wars, or Latin America in the 1970s and 80s. And the far right care little or nothing for the profit motive, so long as they can plunder the state treasury or their neighbours.

Even if we presume the "capitalist system" "hands over" the political affairs to the fair right far right in a serious crisis, which might succeed or not, and might still be a disaster for many capitalists, it's beside the point.

The question was: Does "liberal capitalism" monopolize the politcal space? No, it doesn't.

Edit: Corrected

[Beren]

Does "liberal capitalism" monopolize the politcal space? No, it doesn't.

It's rather a duopoly in the US indeed, which is still not a competitive market (a.k.a. democracy).

[Rugoz]

Nobody's shitting on Xi because Chinese politics is not bi- or multipartisan, however, the American media shitting on the US government is just part of the shitshow.

Multipartisan indeed, hence the media don't serve the government.

It makes it utterly meaningless to you because you're (self-)indoctrinated to believe that a totalitarian system or regime must be authoritarian by definition, however, real totalitarianism rather appears to be spontaneous and natural thanks to indoctrination or conditioning so much so that people don't even realise it (partly because the political system is bi- or multipartisan and appears to be democratic, for example). But it's also totalitarian on the ground or in practice, so to speak, that's why Trump didn't even have a chance for reelection, and he could be president at all only because Hillary Clinton must have been really unwanted by a big chunk of the establishment as well.

How does that not render the term meaningless? How would a non-totalitarian society look like to you? Is it even possible?

Also, how come the US political system still stands with so low approval ratings in general? It's because the system is closed and exclusive, like a true dictatorship, and there's no real alternative (but only bipartisanship) within until a revolution or spontaneous collapse happens. The whole socioeconomic and political system is one completely intertwined conglomerate or monolith in the US as well as in China. The difference is that it's liberal capitalist, decentralised and bipartisan in the US, whereas it's state capitalist, highly centralised and authoritarian in China.

The US political system is (partially) dysfunctional, but I don't think any political scientist would call it totalitarian, that's just not how the term is being used. In fact only North Korea would probably qualify as such nowadays.

[Rugoz]

It's rather a duopoly in the US indeed, which is still not a competitive market (a.k.a. democracy).

I see the media as a part of the political space, which are more diverse than the two-party system, as far as I can tell.

[Beren]

Multipartisan indeed, hence the media don't serve the government.

They rather serve each other, but the point rather is that they both serve the same people and interests, they're parts of the same system. They're like chess pieces moving seemingly independently of each other, but they're both parts of the same well-organised and controlled team.

How does that not render the term meaningless?

Being totalitarian means having total control, which is possible to achieve by non-authoritarian ways as well, it's just a matter of indoctrination and conditioning. Would you really argue that American society isn't extremely indoctrinated and conditioned?

How would a non-totalitarian society look like to you?

It'd look like a true democracy, I guess. Many people would argue it must be an anarchy.

Is it even possible?

I hope it is.

The US political system is (partially) dysfunctional, but I don't think any political scientist would call it totalitarian, that's just not how the term is being used. In fact only North Korea would probably qualify as such nowadays.

Then the term is being used falsely, which must be intentional.

Do you really care about political scientists, by the way?