NationStates Jolt Archive

I pose a question for communists (if any socialists could answer this though, that'd be appreciated): in the transitional government between socialism and *pure* communism, the State owns everything, correct?

This includes the media - since the media is controlled by the government, how can we garuntee freedom of the media (including the press)?

I pose a question for communists (if any socialists could answer this though, that'd be appreciated): in the transitional government between socialism and *pure* communism, the State owns everything, correct?

This includes the media - since the media is controlled by the government, how can we garuntee freedom of the media (including the press)?


The BBC.
all you need to hear.
Given that it is state-owned, technically. It runs off of public funding, but is not answerable to the government except through conventional legal channels, like the whole thing that sparked off about the Hutton enquiry, causing the resignation of Greg Dyke.

Alright, you gave me an example of state-owned media that is running smoothly - I acknowledge that.

But how do you prevent the situation from going sour?

Well, the simple answer is, you can't on that level. However, to counter, I would ask. Why would it go sour? Done correctly, at this transitional stage, the government would be fully democratic, and would not want to upset the people.Control of the media is never absolute and when control is tightened, any flaws are much more glaringly obvious. The misconception here is that a socialist/communist gov't is always looking for a way to screw the people, when it actually doesn't have to be. Remember that a good communist gov'ts only concern would be the people, and so harming them would be the last thing they would want.

Basically, if it was a true socialist/communist government, it would never do that, and if it did, it would have to answer to the people.

Remember that a good communist gov'ts only concern would be the people, and so harming them would be the last thing they would want.
Understood.

The only problem is human greed, which (up to this point) has shown us that communist governments kinda go downhill at one point or another.

The BBC example doesn't cut it, they're not socialist (in any sense).

As I understand it, in a true socialist economy, I could still stand on a street corner and shout into the wind until I'm blue. That's cool.

But the means I might use to make my speech effective-- newspapers, radio stations, televeision stations--are under the control of the government.

Over time, political and social freedom correspond to the degree of economic freedom that the people have retained.

It has shown us the communist governments that leap from a capitalist autocracy go wrong. Not, however, that communist governments that stem from democratic socialism go wrong. A simple solution would be government by lot. The only disadvantage is that it requires an intelligent population base. Not so much a problem in a progressive, modern country. A few months to figure out the basis of gov't, something that can be largely bypassed with a civil service, and a few months in executive office, with too little time to assume a popular dictatorship.

But the means I might use to make my speech effective-- newspapers, radio stations, televeision stations--are under the control of the government.



In a capitalist government, they are under the control of the corporations, which in turn can be under the control of the government in a covert sense. The result is biased news that claims independence. The truth is different. To have your views broadcast in an ideal capitalist situation, you would need to be CEO of the company. Not a likely circumstance.

In a capitalist government, they are under the control of the corporations, which in turn can be under the control of the government in a covert sense. The result is biased news that claims independence. The truth is different. To have your views broadcast in an ideal capitalist situation, you would need to be CEO of the company. Not a likely circumstance.
Obviously overworked and myopic. You've reached too far to grasp the concept of effective.

Example:
The National Review
The New Republic
American Conservative
Reason
FOX
CNN

I could go on all night about the vast diversity of opinions available.
I don't believe in the left/right media bias myth. Whatever your slant, there's a source for it.
If you're on the left, you'll tell me there's an obvious right-leaning pro-business, anti-liberal bias
On the right, there's an even greater liberal media conspiracy to cry about.
Give it up. Neither exist. People choose which source they'll go to for their news.

My fave? The Daily Show.

Obviously overworked and myopic. You've reached too far to grasp the concept of effective.


Not quite. It'd be more accurate to say I completely missed your point.

ok, to refute this again. In a socialist/communist environment, the assumption would be that there would be only one news channel, and I feel that assumption has a grounding, but not a concrete one. If there is demand for it, as there would be in a transitional society moving from a democracy, the existing media sources would not be joined into one. Each of these examples would still exist, employing the same people, and to as much degree as it matters, being administered by the same people. The difference is, any profit it makes goes to the gov't, and any investment comes from the government. People keep dealing with an absolute system. The reality is, a lot of what worked well in the old capitalist environment would be kept, just adapted to work in a communist/socialist environment.

Not quite. It'd be more accurate to say I completely missed your point.

ok, to refute this again. In a socialist/communist environment, the assumption would be that there would be only one news channel, and I feel that assumption has a grounding, but not a concrete one. If there is demand for it, as there would be in a transitional society moving from a democracy, the existing media sources would not be joined into one. Each of these examples would still exist, employing the same people, and to as much degree as it matters, being administered by the same people. The difference is, any profit it makes goes to the gov't, and any investment comes from the government. People keep dealing with an absolute system. The reality is, a lot of what worked well in the old capitalist environment would be kept, just adapted to work in a communist/socialist environment.
Sorry, didn't realize you didn't understand my previous post.

I really don't get the point of yours above though. Do you mean that a capitalist/socialist hybrid would be effective? (Basically, the Democratic Party's agenda)?

I do indeed think that a capitalist/socialist agenda could be effective, after all, why not combine the best parts of both styles? I'll admit, I'm a dreamer, I'd rather some beautiful dystopia, but the best that's on offer to me is a capitalist society with a safety net that doesn't rely on charity of others to look after its own, but yet still leaves people with the ability to make their life more comfortable than the average Joe, which is, after all, the motivation everyone needs to be valuable.

Okay, I understand now. You're a Democrat, and I won't try to change your mind about that.
I thought you were going way over into the Red Territory, and claiming that there would still be an effective media outlet for political dissenters.

In a Communist society there would be no state and would therefore be no government to control the media. The press would most likely be owned by many different independent non profit making cooperatives expressing a wide range of views and being run by and in the interests of all their readers.