News Is Entertainment the New Motivation for Watching the News?

[WhoWee]

I just put on Fox - Glenn Beck talking about the George Soros connection (funding) to Wikileaks. It's quite informative, yet entertaining - think I'll have more.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm skimming over the "A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS" report at the moment.

Interesting.

But I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop talking about "Fox News" altogether. The Media Bias report implies that only 1 hour of "Fox News" daily 24 hours of programming is devoted to news. I was not aware of that.

But that's why I like this place. I learn something new every day.

That's one of the big pitfalls on this forum in talking about Fox News. It is not compared with other news sources on an apples-to-apples basis, often comparing the network as a whole to single programs from other sources. If one wants to call the Glenn Beck Program "news" and complain about its bias compared to what is found on other networks, one must also judge The View as a "news" program and consider its bias. Often, we see the entire Fox News network improperly compared with just the nightly news program of other networks.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That's one of the big pitfalls on this forum in talking about Fox News. It is not compared with other news sources on an apples-to-apples basis, often comparing the network as a whole to single programs from other sources. If one wants to call the Glenn Beck Program "news" and complain about its bias compared to what is found on other networks, one must also judge The View as a "news" program and consider its bias. Often, we see the entire Fox News network improperly compared with just the nightly news program of other networks.

I'm guilty of this (in the other thread). I don't watch Fox,* so I'm not really familiar with its lineup.

* Last time was about 5 years ago in a barber shop.

 

[turbo]

I'm guilty of this (in the other thread). I don't watch Fox,* so I'm not really familiar with its lineup.

* Last time was about 5 years ago in a barber shop.

I don't watch it either for the most part. The shows are SO biased that I want to throw a brick at my TV. They are so far to the right of every other news source that it is ridiculous. I don't keep my radio presets tuned to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk either. I swear that if Tailgunner Joe was reincarnated, Beck and Limbaugh would be all over him for being soft on communists.

I would love to hear well-reasoned opposing views to the political news stories and analysis featured on mainstream media (I was always a huge fan of William F. Buckley Jr.), but as soon as some flaming jerk starts tossing references of Stalin, Marx, Hitler, etc into discussions of modern-day politics, I have to switch to something a bit more sane.

We have a local FOX station, and a broadcast FOX affiliate and the local anchor is a brunette with prominent cheekbones. As soon as McCain had rolled Palin out, she got her makeup people to accent the rouge, bumped up her hairdo even more, and sported trendy-looking rectangular glasses. The anchor is not a bad news-reader, but looking at mini-Palin every night got me switched over to CBS/NBC pretty quickly.

Edit: Removed anchor's name. She's had enough trouble already.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, since Marxist influence during the early years of the U.S. equals zero...

One need not have ever heard of Marx (let alone be influenced by him) to be a Marxist.

 

[Al68]

I would love to hear well-reasoned opposing views to the political news stories and analysis featured on mainstream media (I was always a huge fan of William F. Buckley Jr.), but as soon as some flaming jerk starts tossing references of Stalin, Marx, Hitler, etc into discussions of modern-day politics, I have to switch to something a bit more sane.

LOL. You might have a point about Stalin and Hitler in many cases, but Karl Marx is the single most influential person in history relevant to modern-day politics. Not wanting to hear the word "Marxist" referring to the philosophy he popularized, and Dems espouse (almost word for word) incessantly, is just hiding your head in the sand.

I want to know and understand every major point of view. Especially the opposing point of view. That way I won't be writing posts that make it obvious that I have no real comprehension of the actual opposing point of view whatsoever.

 

[Al68]

One need not have ever heard of Marx (let alone be influenced by him) to be a Marxist.

That's a good point, in fact many Marxists are completely ignorant of Marx's writings. And most of his influence is actually second hand by later adherents, and I was counting all that as "Marxist influence".

 

[turbo]

LOL. You might have a point about Stalin and Hitler in many cases, but Karl Marx is the single most influential person in history relevant to modern-day politics. Not wanting to hear the word "Marxist" referring to the philosophy he popularized, and Dems espouse (almost word for word) incessantly, is just hiding your head in the sand.

OK, please provide documentation of Democrats espousing Marxists views.

Is it Marxist to expect our government to stand behind the social contract underlying Social Security? Is it Marxist to allow workers to bargain collectively when that's the only way for individuals to get any leverage in negotiations with large companies?

Present-day US is very different from the context in which Marx presented his ideas, so I'd like for you to get pretty specific about your claims that the Democrats are Marxists. Links to studies and scholarly papers please, not right-wing blogs.

 

[Al68]

OK, please provide documentation of Democrats espousing Marxists views.

Is it Marxist to expect our government to stand behind the social contract underlying Social Security? Is it Marxist to allow workers to bargain collectively when that's the only way for individuals to get any leverage in negotiations with large companies?

Present-day US is very different from the context in which Marx presented his ideas, so I'd like for you to get pretty specific about your claims that the Democrats are Marxists. Links to studies and scholarly papers please, not right-wing blogs.

No, I won't link studies, scholarly papers, or right-wing blogs. I will however provide quotes from Marx himself if you like, since that's actually relevant. I'd need time to do it justice, since I didn't expect to be challenged on this after you yourself have called Social Security "socialist" and Karl Marx is generally recognized as the primary founder of both modern communism and socialism.

But I'll start with just a couple of nuggets for now:

"Capital(ism) is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society." (Karl Marx)

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." (Karl Marx)

"I am not a Marxist." (Karl Marx) (My favorite in this particular context )

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx_3.html

 

[WhoWee]

OK, please provide documentation of Democrats espousing Marxists views.

Is it Marxist to expect our government to stand behind the social contract underlying Social Security? Is it Marxist to allow workers to bargain collectively when that's the only way for individuals to get any leverage in negotiations with large companies?

Present-day US is very different from the context in which Marx presented his ideas, so I'd like for you to get pretty specific about your claims that the Democrats are Marxists. Links to studies and scholarly papers please, not right-wing blogs.

I suppose you'll reject this - but given your rules, I thought it appropriate...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html
"My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”"

 

[turbo]

No, I won't link studies, scholarly papers, or right-wing blogs. I will however provide quotes from Marx himself if you like, since that's actually relevant. I'd need time to do it justice, since I didn't expect to be challenged on this after you yourself have called Social Security "socialist" and Karl Marx is generally recognized as the primary founder of both modern communism and socialism.

I did not call Social Security (a safety net for poorer elderly workers) "socialist". Use the words any way you want, but support your assertion that Democrats are quoting Marx word-for-word. You wrote that as a "fact", not as on opinion, and I want to see some back-up. I'm sick of hearing neo-cons tossing this crap around with no context and no elucidation. It's time to put up. Right-wing info-tainment personalities get paid to do this. You don't have a free ride to do it on this forum.

 

[WhoWee]

I did not call Social Security (a safety net for poorer elderly workers) "socialist". Use the words any way you want, but support your assertion that Democrats are quoting Marx word-for-word. You wrote that as a "fact", not as on opinion, and I want to see some back-up. I'm sick of hearing neo-cons tossing this crap around with no context and no elucidation. It's time to put up. Right-wing info-tainment personalities get paid to do this. You don't have a free ride to do it on this forum.

Social Security is not just "a safety net for poorer elderly workers". I just posted this 2 days ago in response to you in another thread.
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/cal021110-pr.html

My personal favorite is bi-polar claims
http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx
" Ask if the bipolar disability meets or equals a medical listing. Bipolar is listed under mental disorders. To satisfy the listing criteria for bipolar disorder, a number of variables are considered:

Anhedonia
Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Psychomotor agitation or retardation
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Thoughts of suicide and hallucinations
Delusions or paranoid thinking
In assessing bipolar disability relative to a listing level impairment, the following areas of functioning are evaluated:
Restrictions of activities of daily living
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration
Persistence or pace
Repeated episodes of decompensation--each of extended duration
An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

How many drunks will qualify?

 

[CRGreathouse]

you yourself [i.e., turbo-1] have called Social Security "socialist"

Since turbo disputes this, do you have a quote?

 

[Al68]

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all socialist programs meant to provide safety nets for the well-being and health of ordinary citizens. And no, "socialism" is NOT a bad word, except when nut-cases conflate it with Stalinism, etc, as they frequently did when attacking health-care-reform.

I did not call Social Security (a safety net for poorer elderly workers) "socialist".

LOL. See above. As you might imagine, it came as quite a surprise that you immediately picked social security as an example of how Democrats aren't Marxist. Are you even serious with these absurd objections? You rail against everything that everyone but you calls "conservative", then claim to be conservative by the "usual meaning"? Then you challenge me for the equivalent of claiming the sky is blue? Seriously?

Use the words any way you want, but support your assertion that Democrats are quoting Marx word-for-word. You wrote that as a "fact", not as on opinion, and I want to see some back-up. I'm sick of hearing neo-cons tossing this crap around with no context and no elucidation. It's time to put up. Right-wing info-tainment personalities get paid to do this. You don't have a free ride to do it on this forum.

I already said I would need time for this, as I didn't expect you to challenge something so obvious to anyone familiar with Marx, and it requires some legwork. But I think I said "almost word for word", partially because Marx's writings are not in English, and partially because English translations contain obscure and outdated words.

 

[Al68]

you yourself [i.e., turbo-1] have called Social Security "socialist"

Since turbo disputes this, do you have a quote?

Yep, we must have been writing our posts at the same time. See above.

 

[turbo]

You no doubt noticed my use of "socialism" when I was explaining how right-wingers use the word as a pejorative. Don't bother thanking me for the correction.

 

[Al68]

You no doubt noticed my use of "socialism" when I was explaining how right-wingers use the word as a pejorative. Don't bother thanking me for the correction.

What correction? I agreed with your use of the word in that earlier post. It can only be interpreted as a pejorative under the assumption that "socialism is bad". You simultaneously agree that you favor socialist policies while objecting to the word socialist being used to describe the same kind of policies, after you used the word socialist to describe the same kind of policies. Again, seriously?

Are you trying to plagiarize Who's on First in this thread?

 

[cobalt124]

Getting back to the opening post I find it all depressingly true. Serious news is entertainment, to be joked about even, rather than publicize injustice, bring the powerful to account, or help make a change for the better. I'm too busy these days to get the news like I used to, my main source now being BBC radio when I get chance. Not newspapers, certainly not commercial radio, not commercial television, not the internet, definitely not anything owned by Rupert Murdoch. Possibly blinkered, if I needed accurate news more than I currently do I would have to do something about that.

 

[mugaliens]

When I recommend PBS to Fox or MSNBC fans, what do you think is the complaint that comes back every time? It's boring! A few stated [paraphrasing] that the PBS reporting was good, but it isn't fun. Well no sh't Sherlock! Compared to the trash that passes as reporting these days, the real news is boring! I can understand people who don't seek quality information, and those wanting belief confirmation, watching Fox or MSNBC, but I was shocked to find that even serious old-time political junkies have been sucked into the abyss.

It seems the cheese media has won the war. People now watch the news to be entertained, not to be informed.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Ivan. Another consideration is that having listened to the "cheese media," as you call it, for years, the masses are convinced that it's objective reporting, when it's merely "somewhat to mostly so," depending upon the news agency, the issue, the reporter, and the editor on staff at the time.

While the latter factors are similar to most news agencies, the key difference are the news agencies themselves. It's no secret Fox leans to the right, the Washing Post leans to the left, and most news agencies lean one way or the other.

The kicker is that when someone listens primarily to one agency, the natural tendency is for them to believe that agency doesn't lean at all, but is reporting the news objectively. When that individual hears news from other agencies who lean further left or right, their perception is that the other news agencies are off-center.

This psychological phenomenon has a name (I don't recall it offhand), and it's as prevalent in this issue as it is with cliques, political affiliations and candidate support.

 

[WhoWee]

I think you hit the nail on the head, Ivan. Another consideration is that having listened to the "cheese media," as you call it, for years, the masses are convinced that it's objective reporting, when it's merely "somewhat to mostly so," depending upon the news agency, the issue, the reporter, and the editor on staff at the time.

While the latter factors are similar to most news agencies, the key difference are the news agencies themselves. It's no secret Fox leans to the right, the Washing Post leans to the left, and most news agencies lean one way or the other.

The kicker is that when someone listens primarily to one agency, the natural tendency is for them to believe that agency doesn't lean at all, but is reporting the news objectively. When that individual hears news from other agencies who lean further left or right, their perception is that the other news agencies are off-center.

This psychological phenomenon has a name (I don't recall it offhand), and it's as prevalent in this issue as it is with cliques, political affiliations and candidate support.

The primary difference I've observed with Fox (network) is they allow an opposing view to be presented - at several times throughout the day. In many ways, Fox offers a reliable test by which to determine/define what is "Left" - if you accept they are Right. That, I believe is done fairly.

 

[cobalt124]

Quote from mugaliens:

"The kicker is that when someone listens primarily to one agency, the natural tendency is for them to believe that agency doesn't lean at all, but is reporting the news objectively. When that individual hears news from other agencies who lean further left or right, their perception is that the other news agencies are off-center."

I'd agree with that, and have certainly been guilty of the former and probably the latter.

 

[OmCheeto]

That's one of the big pitfalls on this forum in talking about Fox News. It is not compared with other news sources on an apples-to-apples basis, often comparing the network as a whole to single programs from other sources. If one wants to call the Glenn Beck Program "news" and complain about its bias compared to what is found on other networks, one must also judge The View as a "news" program and consider its bias. Often, we see the entire Fox News network improperly compared with just the nightly news program of other networks.

(hyperbolding mine)

Speaking on behalf of the Marxists here at the forum, I'd say it's the inclusion of the word "News" in the network name that irks us. It should probably be called something else. I'll not express my opinion here as to what that should be, as I'm sure I'd get several demerit points for improper language.

But I should point out that Fox News probably took its clue from MTV. A once very entertaining music video channel has morphed into a non-musical, 'Who used my toothpaste!', 24 hour shout fest of teenagers locked into some waterfront flat.

Looking for a reason for this apparent misuse of titles makes me think of only one man; George Orwell.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/orwell1.htm"
April 1946
...
Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language —and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase

His statements sound as true today, as they did 64 years ago.

I suppose by this point, some people have put on their hip waders in response to my conjuring the ghost of Orwell. But that's OK, PF Politics & World Affairs should be entertaining once in awhile. Otherwise, we might log off, turn on the TV, and watch the news.

 

[Al68]

OK, please provide documentation of Democrats espousing Marxists views.

OK. A couple quick google searches made it obvious that your request for documentation of "Democrats espousing Marxist views" is like a request to find sand on Virginia Beach. Which means finding examples is easy, but doing the subject any justice at all is impossible without filling up thousands of pages. So I'll just give a tiny sample of the heart and soul of Democratic Party propaganda: their claim to represent the "working man" in opposition to "the rich", represented by Ted Kennedy's supposedly ""www.historyplace.com/speeches/tedkennedy.htm"[/URL]" at the 1980 Democratic Convention:[quote=Ted Kennedy]Our cause has been, since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the cause of the common man and the common woman.

Our commitment has been, since the days of Andrew Jackson, to all those he called "the humble members of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers."...

...And that nominee (Reagan) is no friend of labor...[/quote]From Marx's [I][PLAIN]"www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm"[/URL][/I]:[quote=Karl Marx]They (communists) have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole...

In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they (communists) point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat...In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole...[/quote]I could go on and on, since there is no shortage of speeches by Democrats containing this and other claims found in Marx's (and other Marxists'/socialists') writings, but I don't see the point. You have already acknowledged that policies advocated by Democrats are "socialist", anyway (before you denied it).

Anyone who reads [I]The Communist Manifesto[/I] can easily see the recurring theme (common to Democrats) of the delusional and/or fraudulent worldview that Marx's (or Democrats') political opposition consists almost entirely of the bourgeoisie (rich business owners/stockholders) while their own political agenda represents the (supposedly [I]monolithic[/I]) [i]common[/i] interests of the proletariat (working class). And I think it's fair to say this claim is the [I]bread and butter[/I] of Democratic Party propaganda.

And Democrats, as advocated by Marx: "never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the (supposed) hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat".

Interestingly, as a side note, Kennedy referenced Marx in that same speech:[quote=Ted Kennedy from same speech:]The vast majority of Americans cannot afford this panacea from a Republican nominee who has denounced the progressive income tax as the invention of Karl Marx. I am afraid he has confused Karl Marx with Theodore Roosevelt--that obscure Republican president who sought and fought for a tax system based on ability to pay.[/quote][quote=Karl Marx, decades before Teddy Roosevelt's Presidency:]Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable...A heavy progressive or graduated income tax...

...From each according to his ability, to each according to his need...[/quote]Obviously Kennedy was the one who was confused. A progressive income tax was advocated in Marx's [i]Communist Manifesto[/i] before that "obscure Republican president" was even born.

 

[OmCheeto]

OK. A couple quick google searches made it obvious that your request for documentation of "Democrats espousing Marxist views" is like a request to find sand on Virginia Beach. Which means finding examples is easy, but doing the subject any justice at all is impossible without filling up thousands of pages. So I'll just give a tiny sample of the heart and soul of Democratic Party propaganda: their claim to represent the "working man" in opposition to "the rich", represented by Ted Kennedy's supposedly ""www.historyplace.com/speeches/tedkennedy.htm"[/URL][/I]:I could go on and on, since there is no shortage of speeches by Democrats containing this and other claims found in Marx's (and other Marxists'/socialists') writings, but I don't see the point. You have already acknowledged that policies advocated by Democrats are "socialist", anyway (before you denied it).

Anyone who reads [I]The Communist Manifesto[/I] can easily see the recurring theme (common to Democrats) of the delusional and/or fraudulent worldview that Marx's (or Democrats') political opposition consists almost entirely of the bourgeoisie (rich business owners/stockholders) while their own political agenda represents the (supposedly [I]monolithic[/I]) [i]common[/i] interests of the proletariat (working class). And I think it's fair to say this claim is the [I]bread and butter[/I] of Democratic Party propaganda.

And Democrats, as advocated by Marx: "never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the (supposed) hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat".

Interestingly, as a side note, Kennedy referenced Marx in that same speech:Obviously Kennedy was the one who was confused. A progressive income tax was advocated in Marx's [i]Communist Manifesto[/i] before that "obscure Republican president" was even born.[/QUOTE]

So, if Marx said something was good, say a progressive tax system, and a modern day politician says a progressive tax system is good, that makes our politician a Marxist?

Wait! I like progressive tax systems.

Dear lord, I [B]am[/B] a Marxist.

But wait a minute, what's all this other "manifesto" stuff:
[QUOTE]
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,
[/QUOTE]

I can only see two things in the list that I support without hesitation: The progressive tax code and free education for children.
The other points are either outdated(an agricultural army?), or have been tested, and don't seem to work very well in the real world. A few could be argued. (Let's put the kids back to work in the factories. Marx didn't like that idea, so it must be a good thing.)

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that anyone who would call a democrat a Marxist is really grasping at straws.

And thank you for pointing out Teddy Roosevelt.

[QUOTE=Teddy Roosevelt]Behind the ostensible Government sits enthroned [B]an invisible Government[/B], owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day... [B]This country belongs to the people[/B]. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest." This assertion is explicit. We say directly that "the people" are absolutely to control in any way they see fit, the "business" of the country. [/QUOTE][RIGHT][PLAIN]http://www.bartleby.com/55/15b.html" [/RIGHT]

Not only was he obviously a Marxist, he was also a conspiracy theorist!

But that one line cracks me up; "This country belongs to the people".

Ah hahahaha! Commie!

 

[humanino]

this other "manifesto" stuff:

While I fully agree with you, I would like to make a comment related to this point. There are indeed several things in the manifesto. There is on one hand an analysis and modeling of society, and on the other hand political proposals. I do not expect somebody who thinks "socialist" is an insult to understand the difference between those two things in the manifesto. The idea that "socialist" is an insult merely comes from US XXiest century propaganda.

The word "socialist" is not an insult outside the US. I hope someday the US can look outside and realize there are things they can learn there.

 

[Al68]

So, if Marx said something was good, say a progressive tax system, and a modern day politician says a progressive tax system is good, that makes our politician a Marxist?

It means that their view on that issue is Marxist relative to my view, yes. But my point about the progressive income tax was that Kennedy was confused when he suggested Teddy Roosevelt thought of it before Marx.

But wait a minute, what's all this other "manifesto" stuff:I can only see two things in the list that I support without hesitation: The progressive tax code and free education for children.
The other points are either outdated(an agricultural army?), or have been tested, and don't seem to work very well in the real world. A few could be argued.

Well, that by definition would make you somewhat Marxist. Of course if those two things were the only things someone had in common with Marx, they would be only slightly Marxist.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that anyone who would call a democrat a Marxist is really grasping at straws.

Grasping at straws? You just said that you agree with two out of ten of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, and that others could be argued, and others are just "outdated" or "don't work well" (as opposed to being inherently objectionable?). And even the things on that list that Democrats don't fully embrace, they have drastically increased government's role in. How much of the Communist Manifesto does someone have to embrace before their views could be called "Marxist" relative to a libertarian like me?

Even if someone only agrees with a couple of things in The Communist Manifesto, it's obviously fair to refer to those specific beliefs as Marxist.

The things Democrats have in common with Marx are far more obvious to someone, like me, who does not share those views they have in common. I never said that Democrats agree with everything Marx ever said, but the differences between Democrats and their opposition (on economic issues) are things that Democrats have in common with Marx.

But that reference to the progressive income tax was only intended as a side note that Kennedy reference Marx in that famous speech.

My main point was about the propaganda that Marx advocated, claiming to be "on the side of the working class" against "the rich", and that Democrats have used that propaganda for decades.

Edit: I have asked many times in this forum if there were a good alternative to the word "Marxist" or "socialist" to describe the worldview and agenda of Democrats, that would accurately represent the difference between them and the (economically) libertarian worldview. I realize that "Marxist" and "socialist" are not perfect descriptions, since they are accurate only in a relative sense, but no one seems to be able to provide a useful and accurate (and not objected to) alternative. Any suggestions?

 

[Al68]

While I fully agree with you, I would like to make a comment related to this point. There are indeed several things in the manifesto. There is on one hand an analysis and modeling of society, and on the other hand political proposals. I do not expect somebody who thinks "socialist" is an insult to understand the difference between those two things in the manifesto. The idea that "socialist" is an insult merely comes from US XXiest century propaganda.

The word "socialist" is not an insult outside the US. I hope someday the US can look outside and realize there are things they can learn there.

That's a good point, and one that I and others have made before. I am not using the word "socialist" or "Marxist" as an insult, I'm simply using it to describe the views and agenda that I disagree with that are part of the socialist/Marxist worldview.

 

[Hepth]

It means that their view on that issue is Marxist relative to my view, yes.

You shouldn't view things like this. It's not correct. You can't take a property of a group and then describe that property by using its use by the group. Its a very short-sighted way of describing properties, and doesn't do them justice.

I.E. Children like chocolate, therefor chocolate is children food. Children like water, therefor water is children drink.

You would say : If you like chocolate, you are more a child than I am.
If someone didn't like water they'd say : If you like water, you are more a child than I am.

Incorrect usage.

Its the CULMINATION of properties that define the group; not a select handful that happen to be properties of a number of other groups as well.

Many socialist ideas are shared by non-socialists, as has already been pointed out. It doesn't make them "more socialist" anymore than liking water makes someone "more childlike", especially if its only one or two ideas, that happen to be shared by MANY outside the group.

I bet most of the world wants free education for children. So we're going to label the entire world as sharing the views with one if its small subsets. Its sort of ridiculous.

 

[Al68]

You shouldn't view things like this. It's not correct. You can't take a property of a group and then describe that property by using its use by the group. Its a very short-sighted way of describing properties, and doesn't do them justice.

I.E. Children like chocolate, therefor chocolate is children food. Children like water, therefor water is children drink.

You would say : If you like chocolate, you are more a child than I am.
If someone didn't like water they'd say : If you like water, you are more a child than I am.

Incorrect usage.

Its the CULMINATION of properties that define the group; not a select handful that happen to be properties of a number of other groups as well.

Many socialist ideas are shared by non-socialists, as has already been pointed out. It doesn't make them "more socialist" anymore than liking water makes someone "more childlike", especially if its only one or two ideas, that happen to be shared by MANY outside the group.

I bet most of the world wants free education for children. So we're going to label the entire world as sharing the views with one if its small subsets. Its sort of ridiculous.

You make a good point, and I agree for the most part. But that "select handful" of properties represents a basic worldview that seems to be shared by that same "number of other groups" and Marx, and socialists in general. And although the words "socialist" and Marxist" both suffer from the problems you mention, there isn't a good alternative that I'm aware of to describe that "select handful" of beliefs and the underlying ideology.

I think a better analogy than chocolate and children might be Catholics and Protestants. Each one considers the other to be very different, but that's the result of their perspective. From the perspective of an atheist, their similarities are striking and stand out, not their differences. But the atheist has at his disposal an unobjectionable word to describe both: Christian.

Similarly, from the perspective of an economic libertarian, the similarities between Democrats and Marx are striking and obvious, despite the fact that they disagree on specific agenda items. But the economic libertarian has no word, that is both accurate and not objected to, to describe both, despite the fact that he disagrees with the worldview and agenda of both for the exact same reason.

So, if not "socialist" or "Marxist", what word or words could be used to accurately describe that "handful of properties" they have in common, and their worldview, to distinguish them from economic libertarianism? "Economic authoritarianism" maybe?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think a better analogy than chocolate and children might be Catholics and Protestants. Each one considers the other to be very different, but that's the result of their perspective. From the perspective of an atheist, their similarities are striking and stand out, not their differences. But the atheist has at his disposal an unobjectionable word to describe both: Christian.

Similarly, from the perspective of an economic libertarian, the similarities between Democrats and Marx are striking and obvious, despite the fact that they disagree on specific agenda items. But the economic libertarian has no word, that is both accurate and not objected to, to describe both, despite the fact that he disagrees with the worldview and agenda of both for the exact same reason.

I'd like to see from you a list of what you consider the key points of Communism/Marxism, based on some authoritative text (possible its Manifesto), together with which points you feel are supported by Democrats, Republicans, and libertarians. This would help me better understand your athiest/Protestant/Catholic analogy. (The inclusion of Republicans is for comparison only.)

My thanks in advance if you choose to do this; if not, no hard feelings (but then I don't quite follow you).

 

[Al68]

I'd like to see from you a list of what you consider the key points of Communism/Marxism, based on some authoritative text (possible its Manifesto), together with which points you feel are supported by Democrats, Republicans, and libertarians. This would help me better understand your athiest/Protestant/Catholic analogy. (The inclusion of Republicans is for comparison only.)

My thanks in advance if you choose to do this; if not, no hard feelings (but then I don't quite follow you).

Sure, but I'm crunched for time right now. A short and very insufficient answer is that Marxists/socialists/Democrats all believe in using force against people to coerce them economically to serve their agenda, to shape/control society economically, while economic libertarians are against using force against people to shape, control, or "better" society. That single difference is the basis for the disagreement on each specific economic issue. And Marxists/socialists/Democrats all use propaganda that claims that they are "on the side" of working people, that working people have common political interests that are served by their agenda, while those who oppose their agenda, conversely, represent the interests of "the rich" against the working class.

When I have more time, I'll try to provide a better answer.

 

[OmCheeto]

While I fully agree with you,

Strike three. A Frenchman has agreed with me. I'll have to check my wallet now to see if someone's slipped the http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/card-carrying" in there.

I would like to make a comment related to this point. There are indeed several things in the manifesto. There is on one hand an analysis and modeling of society, and on the other hand political proposals. I do not expect somebody who thinks "socialist" is an insult to understand the difference between those two things in the manifesto. The idea that "socialist" is an insult merely comes from US XXiest century propaganda.

The word "socialist" is not an insult outside the US. I hope someday the US can look outside and realize there are things they can learn there.

I fully agree with you.

But we are steering dreadfully away from the topic. I'd hoped someone would have picked up on #6, "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. ". Back then, there wasn't even radio. Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraphy#Morse_telegraph" were in their infancy. Communication would have meant newspapers and bulletin boards. But nowadays, communication could be historically interpreted as the state run propaganda machines of the last 90 years. And my current view that; "What is worse? The government controlling what we are spoon fed, or Rupert Murdoch paying a whole slew of propaganda ministers to entertain the uninformed and therefore easily manipulated proletariat?"

Unfortunately, I think Ivan was correct, and it probably doesn't make a difference who controls the media:

It seems the cheese media has won the war. People now watch the news to be entertained, not to be informed.

Gads. That looks like strikes four and five against me. I've agreed with a Frenchman, and used 'proletariat' in a sentence. I can sense the deportation papers being typed up already.

 

[Al68]

And my current view that; "What is worse? The government controlling what we are spoon fed, or Rupert Murdoch paying a whole slew of propaganda ministers to entertain the uninformed and therefore easily manipulated proletariat?"

Disregarding your opinion on Murdoch's "propaganda", he does not control "the media". He only controls his own media outlet. If he was using force to control ABC, CBS, NBC, and every other media outlet, you would have a legitimate point.

...it probably doesn't make a difference who controls the media

It obviously makes a big difference that nobody "controls" the media.

 

[cobalt124]

Murdoch owns so much of the British media that, going as far back as Maragaret Thatcher, prospective Prime Ministers have had to woo and cajole him for his support. He may not control control the media, but he has far too much influence over the Government.

Quote: And my current view that; "What is worse? The government controlling what we are spoon fed, or Rupert Murdoch paying a whole slew of propaganda ministers to entertain the uninformed and therefore easily manipulated proletariat?"

I'd sooner have my government "controlling what we are spoon fed" as they are more accountable and we have a better chance of booting them out. Murdoch is far less accountable, and I trust his motives far less. He is using the "uninformed and therefore easily manipulated proletariat" on a power trip that rakes in loads of money. If he was preferable he would be doing something for their benefit.

 

[OmCheeto]

Disregarding your opinion on Murdoch's "propaganda", he does not control "the media". He only controls his own media outlet. If he was using force to control ABC, CBS, NBC, and every other media outlet, you would have a legitimate point.It obviously makes a big difference that nobody "controls" the media.

I use Murdoch only as a metaphor, for hyper-financially endowed entities, with self interests.

And as a contradiction to Ivan's inference that news as entertainment might be bad, I think the news over the next 27 days will be most entertaining, in a weird, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Jordan" , obtuse logic, kind of way.

Unless of course, someone starts a nuclear war. Then, well, that would not be entertaining.

 

[cobalt124]

Quote - "And as a contradiction to Ivan's inference that news as entertainment might be bad, I think the news over the next 27 days will be most entertaining, in a weird, Tracy Jordan, obtuse logic, kind of way."

I remember being jingoistic over the Falklands War and regretting it afterwards. I remember seeing the First Gulf War as entertainment, primarily because it didn't affect me directly. I don't know to what extent that was presentation or my perception, but again I thoroughly regret it. With the exception of 9/11 I don't see these things as the momentous events they are made out to be by the press. I am probably out of touch though.

Quote "I use Murdoch only as a metaphor"

I'm using him directly. He had a problem with free news provision, took it to court, and lost (sorry can't find a link). I don't believe profit should be made from news provision, it shouldn't be entertainment.

 

[WhoWee]

The last time I looked, there aren't many small players in the media business.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2008/gb20080922_496131.htm
"Murdoch and Turner Battle for Indian TV
Media giants know a monster market when they see one. That's why News Corp. and other Western broadcasters are investing in more channels for India "

Let's not leave Ted Turner out of this discussion.
http://tedturner.com/home.asp

A few Ted Turner quotes:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/ted_turner.html
"Every few seconds it changes - up an eighth, down an eighth -it's like playing a slot machine. I lose $20 million, I gain $20 million."

"Rupert Murdoch is the most dangerous man in the world."

"Life is a game. Money is how we keep score."

"The media is too concentrated, too few people own too much. There's really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It's not healthy."

"The United States has got some of the dumbest people in the world. I want you to know that we know that."

 

[WhoWee]

Ted Turner seems to have an opinion on policy matters.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/...L/2010/12/05/id/379010?s=al&promo_code=B3DF-1

"President Barack Obama made a “big mistake” in pushing healthcare legislation before climate change, billionaire Ted Turner said Sunday.

“We would have an energy climate change bill in the United States if President Obama had made that his top priority and brought that to the American people and Congress first rather than the healthcare bill,” Turner, founder of Time Warner Inc.’s CNN, said at a conference in Cancun, Mexico. “But he didn’t, and I think it was a big mistake.”

Obama, who campaigned on a promise to fight climate change, made the economy, healthcare, energy. and education his top priorities after taking office. Healthcare legislation was signed into law in March after contentious debate while a “cap-and-trade” bill to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions stalled in the Senate. Obama now says he doubts such a measure can win passage until 2013 at the earliest.

“The climate bill is much more important than health care because the climate situation is about life and death whereas the health-care bill was much more limited,” Turner said.

A bill creating a cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions and establish a market in pollution allowances passed the House last year. The Senate dropped the measure this year amid claims that an emissions-trading system would boost energy prices and hurt the economy.

U.S. skepticism about whether humans are causing climate change has increased, polls show. Almost four dozen new lawmakers going to Washington next month question global warming, according to ThinkProgress, an arm of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a Washington research group allied with Democrats.

Turner said more needs to be done to raise public awareness of the threat."

btw - in addition to media holdings (CNN) Turner has other interests.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/01/27/wheeler-dealer-ted-turner-turns-to-solar/
"Wheeler-Dealer Ted Turner Turns to Solar"
"Known for his media-empire building and vast herds of buffalo, Turner is an avid environmentalist who just happens to be the largest private landowner in the U.S."

 

[Al68]

OK, please provide documentation of Democrats espousing Marxists views.

Here's some examples of "Marxist" propaganda for you:

"This past year of struggle for national health care reform proves that the ultra-right, bankrolled by Wall Street and the big corporations, will stop at nothing to filibuster meaningful change."

"The election of President Barack Obama and ending Republican majority rule in the House and Senate has opened many padlocked doors. The long nightmare of right-wing misrule could be coming to an end..."

"We join in...demanding a massive public works and public service jobs program to create millions of green jobs and rebuild America, to demand a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions."

"The key is broad united action...getting a massive vote against the ultra-right in the primaries and in the midterm general election Nov. 2..."

Please, now tell me you don't think that sounds like Marxist propaganda, "almost word for word".

 

[humanino]

Please, now tell me you don't think that sounds like Marxist propaganda, "almost word for word".

Seriously, it does not.

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's some examples of "Marxist" propaganda for you...

I believe you forgot to add the link to the source.

 

[lisab]

Please, now tell me you don't think that sounds like Marxist propaganda, "almost word for word".

No, that sounds like typical election-cycle babble. Calling it 'Marxist'...that does, too.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Sure, but I'm crunched for time right now. A short and very insufficient answer is that Marxists/socialists/Democrats all believe in using force against people to coerce them economically to serve their agenda, to shape/control society economically, while economic libertarians are against using force against people to shape, control, or "better" society. That single difference is the basis for the disagreement on each specific economic issue. And Marxists/socialists/Democrats all use propaganda that claims that they are "on the side" of working people, that working people have common political interests that are served by their agenda, while those who oppose their agenda, conversely, represent the interests of "the rich" against the working class.

When I have more time, I'll try to provide a better answer.

I understand that your examples below are short because of your time constraints; thanks for what you were able to provide.

Here's some examples of "Marxist" propaganda for you:Please, now tell me you don't think that sounds like Marxist propaganda, "almost word for word".

Well... not really, to be frank. For comparison, I looked through http://eng.plakaty.ru/posters?cid=1&full=1&thumbs=1 of Soviet and Russian propaganda posters. I did find a few similarities (the histrionic depiction of Уолл-стрит "Wall Street" for example), but for the most part they seemed dissimilar to me (except in both being advertising/propaganda).

This may be biased by my comparison to specifically propaganda posters, or perhaps by my lack of imagination/intelligence. Feel free to enlighten me further in any case.

 

[Al68]

Please, now tell me you don't think that sounds like Marxist propaganda, "almost word for word".

Seriously, it does not.

Well, that's funny, since I was quoting the official Communist Party USA's "http://www.cpusa.org/cpusa-convention-a-call-for-united-action/" of Soviet and Russian propaganda posters. I did find a few similarities (the histrionic depiction of Уолл-стрит "Wall Street" for example), but for the most part they seemed dissimilar to me (except in both being advertising/propaganda).

This may be biased by my comparison to specifically propaganda posters, or perhaps by my lack of imagination/intelligence. Feel free to enlighten me further in any case.[/QUOTE]I was actually quoting the http://www.cpusa.org/cpusa-convention-a-call-for-united-action" word for word referring to current events, so it wasn't just "similar to" Marxist propaganda, it was specifically Marxist propaganda, of the extreme full blown communist variety. Notice how people assumed I was quoting Democrats then denied it sounded Marxist. That pretty much says it all.

It does seem to make a difference to use modern quotes. Although it's obvious to me that the substance of the propaganda is the same either way, using a modern source results in the same context for comparison, obviously making it easier to see.

I believe you forgot to add the link to the source.

Oops. Sorry about that.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well played! I wish more people adopted Reagan's attitude with respect to trust.

Now, if I may resume the badgering, how about something factual to establish the truth about the claim regarding Dems? The above experiment only demonstrates the plausibility of your claim (but that's something I accepted even prior to the experiment).

 

[Al68]

Well played! I wish more people adopted Reagan's attitude with respect to trust.

Thank You. It's amazing what can result from accidentally neglecting to source a quote.

Now, if I may resume the badgering, how about something factual to establish the truth about the claim regarding Dems?

Well, if you remember, my original claim was that Dems engaged in Marxist propaganda, which was always obviously true. I also claimed that they shared the same worldview, and that claim cannot be proven directly without a mind reading machine, so is based on their propaganda as well. But I think their words make that obvious.

And I said that the specific agenda items were different, but similar. A full blown communist wants complete power over the economy, while Democrats demand power over the economy, but to a lesser extent. So they are somewhat Marxist/socialist in their specific agenda.

I apologize, but I lost track, can you be more specific about what claim you want substantiated? The Marxist nature of Democrats (and many daily posts on this forum) seems so obvious and self-evident that I may have forgotten a particular claim.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, that's funny, since I was quoting the official Communist Party USA's "http://www.cpusa.org/cpusa-convention-a-call-for-united-action/" word for word referring to current events, so it wasn't just "similar to" Marxist propaganda, it was specifically Marxist propaganda, of the extreme full blown communist variety. Notice how people assumed I was quoting Democrats then denied it sounded Marxist. That pretty much says it all.

It does seem to make a difference to use modern quotes. Although it's obvious to me that the substance of the propaganda is the same either way, using a modern source results in the same context for comparison, obviously making it easier to see.Oops. Sorry about that.

I have to agree with Gokul. That was very well played.

It was almost as good as a Rush Limbaughism.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I was actually quoting the http://www.cpusa.org/cpusa-convention-a-call-for-united-action" word for word referring to current events, so it wasn't just "similar to" Marxist propaganda, it was specifically Marxist propaganda, of the extreme full blown communist variety. Notice how people assumed I was quoting Democrats then denied it sounded Marxist. That pretty much says it all.

It does seem to make a difference to use modern quotes. Although it's obvious to me that the substance of the propaganda is the same either way, using a modern source results in the same context for comparison, obviously making it easier to see.

Well played! Thanks for that.

I'm going to count my response as the best-informed-yet-entirely-wrong post of this thread.

 

[lisab]

Still sounds like typical election-cycle babble to me...change a few words around and it can come from left or right.

 

[Al68]

Still sounds like typical election-cycle babble to me...change a few words around and it can come from left or right.

Sure, it's typical election-cycle babble, but the difference between left and right is a difference in substance, while the difference between Democrats and communists/socialists is just a change in the exact words, no difference in substance.

And while there is propaganda from the right containing ad hominem attacks, the attack on motives used by the left, communists/socialists/Democrats as in my example, is not only consistent and persistent, as advocated by Marx, it's their bread and butter.

Where would the Democratic Party be if they pursued their same agenda, but refrained from ever using such Marxist propaganda to attack the motives of their opponents, but instead tried to rely completely on debating the issues on their merits alone?

They wouldn't just suffer election losses like the recent one, they would disappear completely. Their constituency exists primarily as a result of their Marxist ad hominem attacks, and they know it very well.