@simon_brooke I'd argue this is where class analysis becomes particularly important. The government should be seen as an extension of the class that holds power. Under capitalism, both the government and the media represent the interests of the capital owning class, and thus there is no need for the government to control the media. They're both instruments of the oligarchs.
Discussion
Loading...
Post
@simon_brooke I'd argue this is where class analysis becomes particularly important. The government should be seen as an extension of the class that holds power. Under capitalism, both the government and the media represent the interests of the capital owning class, and thus there is no need for the government to control the media. They're both instruments of the oligarchs.
@yogthos so long as the rich are able to make larger political donations than the poor, the rich will continue to own all those political parties which have enough funds to effectively contest elections.
This is how 'liberal democracy' is supposed to work — the political parties feircely contest with one another over issues which don't affect the #kleptocrats, but maintain careful unanimity in opposing anything which could undermine the #billionaires' power.
@simon_brooke The control is more insidious. The wealthy don't just own the parties, they own the whole narrative. Through their dominance of media and culture, they manufacture the public's very desires and beliefs, creating a society that often willingly votes against its own interests. That's the whole idea of cultural hegemony that Gramsci talks about.
bonfire.cafe
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
Automatic federation enabled