NationStates Jolt Archive

I have always wondered about this. In a system where the government controls all resources, how can political freedoms be preserved. Surely, if the government controls all news media and entertainment, and private holdings of any size are illegal, how will the marketplace of ideas be preserved. (Or is that another marketplace the communists wish to do away with?)

After all, in the west, even countries that have government controlled news media - like england - also allow for privately held media to compete. Thus ensuring a degree of honesty.

To put it another way, people bitch about fox and it's bias, but because of our free market, we can find other sources of information to dispute the fox viewpoint. But what if Comrade Murdoch was general secretary, and fox was the official (and only organ) of the government?

I have always wondered about this. In a system where the government controls all resources, how can political freedoms be preserved. Surely, if the government controls all news media and entertainment, and private holdings of any size are illegal, how will the marketplace of ideas be preserved. (Or is that another marketplace the communists wish to do away with?)

After all, in the west, even countries that have government controlled news media - like england - also allow for privately held media to compete. Thus ensuring a degree of honesty.

To put it another way, people bitch about fox and it's bias, but because of our free market, we can find other sources of information to dispute the fox viewpoint. But what if Comrade Murdoch was general secretary, and fox was the official (and only organ) of the government?

There is no freedom in non-consentual communism. And there really isn't any other kind on a political level.

well it all really depends on who's in charge, just because the government owns everything doesn't mean they won't let the people decide how to run it, and just because the government owns the media doesn't mean it will be propoganda

Well not for capitalists.

Personal freedom is the end result of property rights.

I have always wondered about this. In a system where the government controls all resources, how can political freedoms be preserved. Surely, if the government controls all news media and entertainment, and private holdings of any size are illegal, how will the marketplace of ideas be preserved. (Or is that another marketplace the communists wish to do away with?)

Because the government isn't an entity seperate from the people like it is in just about ever country at the moment. The government is the people. Property etc are owned collectively by the community.

After all, in the west, even countries that have government controlled news media - like england - also allow for privately held media to compete. Thus ensuring a degree of honesty.

Well it isn't really government controlled. Just financed throught the government.

To put it another way, people bitch about fox and it's bias, but because of our free market, we can find other sources of information to dispute the fox viewpoint. But what if Comrade Murdoch was general secretary, and fox was the official (and only organ) of the government?

Dammit I've just finished watching Ring[u], I don't want any more horrifying thoughts in my head.

Because the government isn't an entity seperate from the people like it is in just about ever country at the moment. The government is the people. Property etc are owned collectively by the community.


Yeah, I get that bit, but there is still someone - or a few people - in charge of the media. They can feed the people whatever they want, and it will be illegal to start a competing - and possibly much more accurate and truthful - newsource.

And to my Murdoch point, he strikes me more as an extremely ambitious opportunist rather than a right wing ideologue. So I can quite easily imagine him rising to the top of the news media in a communist society. (though preaching to a different choir in that case).

Many of us don't believe in a "government" per se, don't forget. It would be a system where the population have access to the media and participate in it accordingly.


There are problems with corporate media too- As a first year journalism student at university, I wrote a couple of articles and got offered to have them published. On one condition: They wouldn't pay me a cent. Corporate media tends to be something very hard to get involved in, and revolves around the opinions of a scant few with access to the editors ear...and by it's nature, it's naturally biased towards business interests.

So my counter-question is, how can we preserve media freedom in a system such as this? ;)

But what if Comrade Murdoch was general secretary, and fox was the official (and only organ) of the government?

It's heading more or less in that direction in Australia right now, with recent media ownership legislation removing restrictions.

Der Oberfuhrer Murdoch sounds more like it...

Many of us don't believe in a "government" per se, don't forget. It would be a system where the population have access to the media and participate in it accordingly.


There are problems with corporate media too- As a first year journalism student at university, I wrote a couple of articles and got offered to have them published. On one condition: They wouldn't pay me a cent. Corporate media tends to be something very hard to get involved in, and revolves around the opinions of a scant few with access to the editors ear...and by it's nature, it's naturally biased towards business interests.

So my counter-question is, how can we preserve media freedom in a system such as this? ;)


Oh, I have no doubt it is difficult to gain an adequate voice under the current system. But there is at least a diversity of editorial viewpoints, all from independant groups.

Under communism though, it would be impossible. As you will appreciate, running national newsmedia in a large country is an enourmous undertaking, and it is not something that you can really do out of you bedroom. Obviously in a communist society the type of resources required would only be capable of being marshalled by the government (in whatever shape it actually took).

Under the free market, while it is difficult, it is not impossible or illegal to assemble a rival news media service. Ted Turner, amongst others, did it.

Yeah, I get that bit, but there is still someone - or a few people - in charge of the media. They can feed the people whatever they want, and it will be illegal to start a competing - and possibly much more accurate and truthful - newsource.

Why do you think a communistic community would [effectively] remove heirarchy in nearly every aspect but would keep it in a few spheres. Like the media?

I imagine that the news media would operate much the same way as indymedia.org does.

Yeah, I get that bit, but there is still someone - or a few people - in charge of the media. They can feed the people whatever they want, and it will be illegal to start a competing - and possibly much more accurate and truthful - newsource.


there could be more than one TV News Program, run by more than one group

there could be more than one TV News Program, run by more than one group

But all answerable to the government though. So in effect, it is one editorial voice. (The BBC can only preserve its independence because of property rights - it's a corporation with a charter ;) )

Oh, I have no doubt it is difficult to gain an adequate voice under the current system. But there is at least a diversity of editorial viewpoints, all from independant groups.

Under communism though, it would be impossible. As you will appreciate, running national newsmedia in a large country is an enourmous undertaking, and it is not something that you can really do out of you bedroom. Obviously in a communist society the type of resources required would only be capable of being marshalled by the government (in whatever shape it actually took).

Under the free market, while it is difficult, it is not impossible or illegal to assemble a rival news media service. Ted Turner, amongst others, did it.

What makes you think that there would only be one news source?

Communist theory would actually disallow any shouting down alternate voices.

Also 'nationwide' effectively becomes meaningless since the nation state would stop existing with communism.

But all answerable to the government though. So in effect, it is one editorial voice. (The BBC can only preserve its independence because of property rights - it's a corporation with a charter ;) )

How does one answer to themself?

Everyone is part of the government (in a real sense, rather then in a token sense like belonging to the party). If everyone is part of the government it is obvious that there will be dissenting voice to totalitarian control of the media that you seem to infering.

PS: Love the poll :D

What makes you think that there would only be one news source?

They would be subject to the same executive though.

Communist theory would actually disallow any shouting down alternate voices.

I can't speak to that. But I am not suggesting they would shout them down, rather that their would be a single editorial policy.

Also 'nationwide' effectively becomes meaningless since the nation state would stop existing with communism.

That's a rather large supposition. But even if it did, then it would be replaced by a global media. (Or are you suggesting that with the death of the nation state, everything becomes ultra parochial? Which I find unlikely given the need to distribute resources through "democratic" processes.)

They would be subject to the same executive though.

There would be no executive.

[dammit, your making me sound like a right true comrade when I'm not]

I can't speak to that. But I am not suggesting they would shout them down, rather that their would be a single editorial policy.

Unlikely, unless editorial control was rotated.

That's a rather large supposition. But even if it did, then it would be replaced by a global media. (Or are you suggesting that with the death of the nation state, everything becomes ultra parochial? Which I find unlikely given the need to distribute resources through "democratic" processes.)

Not really, communism is completely incompatible with the nation state (look what happened when good comrades thought otherwise). And if a global media emerges it would be run similar to indymedia imo.

Your suggesting of things becoming parochial isn't too far off if I have it right (the definition of parochial). Which seems compatible with democracy to me.

To put it another way, people bitch about fox and it's bias, but because of our free market, we can find other sources of information to dispute the fox viewpoint. But what if Comrade Murdoch was general secretary, and fox was the official (and only organ) of the government?
Yeah thats what sucks about Stalinism although I am pretty sure murdoch would be hanging from a lampost in about 2 seconds after the revolution.

In a well run socialist society there still would be political debate and mutiple parties. The Soviet Union was extremely backward economically speaking for much of existence which led to the dictatorship. Repressive government is a symptom of extreme backwardness, when the people are hungry and desperate, there ussualy is either a strong leader like Stalin, Saddam, Tito etc or their is revolt and chaos whether the society be socialist or capitalist. The Soviet Union's failures to overthrow the more advanced capitalist regimes in Germany, Poland and elsewhere in Europe doomed it to backwardness and economic autarky.

Furthermore the USSR from the very begining was faced with military encirclement and constant threat of attack from all sides. In fact soon after the formation of the USSR it was invaded by the US and hostile European powers. These factors contributed to the emergence of Stalinism.

In a society of abundance like in the EU or the USA, where conditions were not so bad as in revolutionary russia things would not be so bad. There would be different socialist parties and factions but the freedom to say organize a capitalist party could not exist no.

How does one answer to themself?

Everyone is part of the government (in a real sense, rather then in a token sense like belonging to the party). If everyone is part of the government it is obvious that there will be dissenting voice to totalitarian control of the media that you seem to infering.

I am not suggesting that there will be anything so overt as Stalinist control. My point is more that even in a global direct democracy, there is going to issues of global concern. In order to make an informed decision people will have to rely upon a global media - which necessitates a rather large, resource intensive operation like BBC, or ABC news. Ultimately, they have the editorial say-so on how to, and what to, present as news. Even if it was not so overt as to deliberately fabricate news, it could still choose not to report scandals, facts, opinions etc. And in that case, it would be impossible for individuals to set up rival organizations, becuase they would not have the resources at there disposal.

In other words, who disseminates information of global concern, how are they chosen, and who are their watchdogs? This seems like a problem to me?

PS: Love the poll :D

Thank you. :)

In a society of abundance like in the EU or the USA, where conditions were not so bad as in revolutionary russia things would not be so bad. There would be different socialist parties and factions but the freedom to say organize a capitalist party could not exist no.

So advocacy of a capitalist viewpoint would be illegal, even if all other laws were obeyed?

Poll update: The yes votes are in the lead.

The irony of the poll choices is classic.

I am not suggesting that there will be anything so overt as Stalinist control. My point is more that even in a global direct democracy, there is going to issues of global concern.

It is doubtful that communism would lead to direct global democracy (short of all of us developing telepathy at the same time like). Generally what is conceptualised (would believe that is the fist time I have used that word on NS) is small communities organising into federations.

Chances are though that some news sources will become seen as being reliable and some unreliable. Global issues will feature in many, and since I think there is a good chance the internet will still be around in some form that these sources will be easily available.

In order to make an informed decision people will have to rely upon a global media - which necessitates a rather large, resource intensive operation like BBC, or ABC news. Ultimately, they have the editorial say-so on how to, and what to, present as news. Even if it was not so overt as to deliberately fabricate news, it could still choose not to report scandals, facts, opinions etc. And in that case, it would be impossible for individuals to set up rival organizations, becuase they would not have the resources at there disposal.

In other words, who disseminates information of global concern, how are they chosen, and who are their watchdogs? This seems like a problem to me?


The resources? The internet is a powerful resource.

The people are the watchdogs, this case is becoming more apparent everday. We know have far more information available, and far greater ease of getting it then, say, a couple of decades ago.

Thank you. :)

I may be a commie (for the purposes of this thread), but I still have a sense of humour :)

So advocacy of a capitalist viewpoint would be illegal, even if all other laws were obeyed?

No, comrade. In the communist society, there is no dissent, because 100% of the people believe in the Revolution and 0% even considers advocating capitalism. You see, by then, the communist belief will have completely out-competed capitalism as an ideal - oh, and eliminated greed and materialism too. Oh, and the concepts of 'nations' or especially 'states.'

Even though no single belief system has ever had such total and complete control without the possibility of violence or repression at the hands of those with power, communism will eliminate any power differences (making strong people weak, and weak people strong using the magic of Communism) and therefore bring about global utopia!1!!! OMG.

Of course... *I* disagree with communism already so the only way to get me to join would be to either convince me or

*gunshot*

...

So advocacy of a capitalist viewpoint would be illegal, even if all other laws were obeyed?

Unlikely. Freedom of speech would still be a valued liberty, no matter how unpopular the speech.

(A fact that horrifies my more liberal freinds and occasionally makes them leap to conclusions that I am rascist [I said the BNP had the right to stand for election] :confused: )

Political freedom is over rated.

Well, if communism would actually work with humans, yes.

Too bad it doesn't.

So advocacy of a capitalist viewpoint would be illegal, even if all other laws were obeyed?
We'll if it crossed a certain level it would probably have to be surpressed yes.

However, you would still need a free and open debate on economic policy. For example Lenin had a program called the New Economic Policy after the Russian civil war which was more or less a temporary partial resotration of capitalism in the countryside to jump start the economy after the devestation of the civil war ruined the country and millions of people were starving. If it had not been for this policy which allowed farmers do to capitalist things like sell some of their crops for a profit the USSR would have perished early on. However this was just a component of a larger socialist economy which was eventually reversed.

The open advocation of the destruction of the state and socialism would not be allowed however.

In theory however you would have workers to a large extend running society themselves, the term soviets literally meant "worker's congresses" or something like that. You would have elected representatives of the workers serving as the leaders of the state on so on. Once the workers owned the factories, industrial equipment they would have no reason to want to give it back. Or so the theory goes.

It is doubtful that communism would lead to direct global democracy (short of all of us developing telepathy at the same time like). Generally what is conceptualised (would believe that is the fist time I have used that word on NS) is small communities organising into federations.

Chances are though that some news sources will become seen as being reliable and some unreliable. Global issues will feature in many, and since I think there is a good chance the internet will still be around in some form that these sources will be easily available.

Ah, so everyone would have access to the news services of the other communities. And these little communities would compete - for want of a better word - in respect of news items. And in the case of local items, it is close enough to home that nothing too egregious could occur. (Like lying about a famine).

Thanks, I'll have to think about it though.


The resources? The internet is a powerful resource.

Oh I agree, but also much of what is on it is of doubtful provenance. I can't really see the day when bloggers will replace the NYT or Wall Street Journal. (Though it does make access to local sources much easier).

The people are the watchdogs, this case is becoming more apparent everday. We know have far more information available, and far greater ease of getting it then, say, a couple of decades ago.

Very true, but large news organizations have a tremendous amount of power, and really can influence the outcome of elections.

I suppose one solution would be to give comrade Murdoch one TV channel/paper/mag/radio station/website/whatever and give comrade Packer one TV channel/paper/mag/radio station/website/whatever as well. the government could give them a baseline minimum of resources required to run their media outlets, then keeping with true democratic style the people can decide what to watch and the government can allocate extra resources based upon which stations the people choose. Once everyone has settled in every five years there will be a popular election as to who should run what media outlet.

It's a solution, I don't know how effective it would be thouh. Shall we try it? :D

Because the government isn't an entity seperate from the people like it is in just about ever country at the moment. The government is the people. Property etc are owned collectively by the community.



Well it isn't really government controlled. Just financed throught the government.



Dammit I've just finished watching Ring[u], I don't want any more horrifying thoughts in my head.

That was a shitty movie. No one see it, if you haven't already. :headbang:

Funny thing about "biased" American media, is that foreign nations such as England seem to have better media coverage. They go into things more than we do, IMO. Of course, there have been quite a few people who have posted articles they've sourced from the BBC, and it was some pretty shitty BS. You will get that with all broadcast stations and media though.

I cannot answer that. From what I understand, communism is a form of economic control not government. :confused:

In my opinion communism doesn't work, though it's a great concept. The probably I don't think really is in the system of government, but more in people themselves. There isn't enough competition involved and also slackers put a drain on society.

For example, let's say you have this communal farm where each farmer has a field or whatever and then it is all gathered and split evenly among all the people (From each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Well, a slacker would think, "Hey, Joe's farm is more productive than mine and I'll get the same amount of food anyway..."

You could say the solution to this would be supervisors. Supervisors can get corrupted. Maybe prizes and bonuses to encourage work? Didn't work for Stalin, it's just a bonus for something they already were supposed to be doing. You see in Capitalism, you put your neck under the guillotine and hope the blade misses. It's a French invention, you never know (I'm just kidding. I have great respect for France. At least someone is smart enough to know that war isn't always the answer).

Though Capitalism isn't the ideal either. Allowing the workers to have rights and decent pay causing outsourcing (Bye Bethlem steel, hello wal-mart). In my home town of Baltimore this has caused the amount of soup kitchens to increase 50 to 800 within the last decade. Also, Capitalism exploits workers and the environment, promotes heirarchy preventing social equality, prophits at others' expenses, eats smaller companies, and is so focused on doing things cheap and efficiently, it can hurt the consumer (Corn-syrup in all american foods. Fiber-glass in dip tobacco to allow the nicotine to enter the blood-stream so people get addicted to it).

That's why I believe in an economy with some state control, but mostly a restricted capitalism (dismantle monopolies, setting tariffs on foreign goods to discourage outsourcing, environment protection, health inspectors, nutrition facts and ingredients on the cereal box). As I have not studied economy extensively, I have no room to talk, i just think if we take the good of both we can have a moderate, more ideal economy.

Oh, and I don't support Communism. That's just a corruption of socialism. I think the people need to have extensive social and political freedoms (Hey, I'm kinda liberal in my young age)

I might've missed the topic... Oh well...

In my opinion communism doesn't work, though it's a great concept.

COmmunism may be too difficult to work on large, national scales, but I assure you it can work. Just look at a communal hippy commune. These things work because everyone knows everyone else, which is impossible if you attempt to introduce communism on a large scale.