The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:04 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 12:35 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 10:24 pm
The problem with state owned media is that it campaigns for the party that pays for it. It doesn't campaign for both sides, and it doesn't stay out of the political battle between them.

We may not be thrilled with corporate media, and it may be less than ideal -- but it does have this much going for it; that it's non-political in its aims, and a lot less politically-biased than state media...or at least, it should be. If we have any media at all, its interests should be limited to things like the ethical, the informational and the pecuniary.

Of course, some corporate media shills for one party or another, but that, too, should be forbidden. Any linking between the political and personal gain is a bad thing for the public. And it's why we have so many awful politicians today.

And how do you intend to "forbid" corporate media from choosing favorites? I thought you were the one who believes that the global rich are "pro-socialist" (socialism being evil). Is that not true?

Did I say I "intended" to intervene? I'm well aware the media is corrupt, and if you can figure out a way to stop them, I'm all ears...but I don't know of one. If they had any ethics, I'd say appeal to those. But I think the only hope might be if the public stops believing them, and opts not to watch them, so their money dries up until they decide to rediscover basic journalistic ethics. But I can't do that alone, of course, and if too many others keep being enchanted with them, they'll never have an incentive to stop. So it might be unsolvable. But it's still terrible news for democracy, if that's the case.

The rich ARE pro-Socialist today. You surely can't miss that all the Hollywood elites, the multiple-mansion owning politicians like the Clintons, Obamas, etc., the heads of corporations like Blackrock and Amazon, or the crazed billionaire demagogues like Soros...all in favour of Socialism. And it shouldn't be that way, should it? Doesn't Marxist theory tell us that those guys are the enemy, the oppressors, the exploiters of the poor? Doesn't the very fact that they're rolling in cash make them suspect? How come they all want Socialism, then...and yet, surprisingly, they have not yet "redistributed" their own wealth to any great degree...how is that?

If that doesn't make you suspicious, I don't know what will. But I think you can figure it out. The Socialism is for you. The money is for them. And you see that modelled every year at Davos, where the rich and privileged fly in on their lear jets and spend a week in some of the world's most luxurious accommodations, eating fine meals and drinking vintage beverages...and they decide how you are going to fight climate change, or COVID, or where the world economy should go...and then they fly back out in their private planes, and return to their luxurious and privileged lifestyles.

Suspicious yet?

So intervention in the private sector is wrong, even if the private sector is corrupt and causing problems? Only government is bad? Is that the case?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:04 am
The rich ARE pro-Socialist today. You surely can't miss that all the Hollywood elites, the multiple-mansion owning politicians like the Clintons, Obamas, etc., the heads of corporations like Blackrock and Amazon, or the crazed billionaire demagogues like Soros...all in favour of Socialism. And it shouldn't be that way, should it? Doesn't Marxist theory tell us that those guys are the enemy, the oppressors, the exploiters of the poor? Doesn't the very fact that they're rolling in cash make them suspect? How come they all want Socialism, then...and yet, surprisingly, they have not yet "redistributed" their own wealth to any great degree...how is that?

Suspicious yet?

What this SHOULD make you suspicious of is your notion that these people are "pro-socialist"

Consider another possibility, that they consider the best/safest compromise is to allow to let the poor/downtrodden to have SOME share of the goodies. Otherwise, the poor/downtrodden might rise up and burn the wole house down.

Understand? They HEAR the socialists, and have decided best to take wind out of the sails of potential revolutionaries.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:04 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 12:35 am

And how do you intend to "forbid" corporate media from choosing favorites? I thought you were the one who believes that the global rich are "pro-socialist" (socialism being evil). Is that not true?

Did I say I "intended" to intervene? I'm well aware the media is corrupt, and if you can figure out a way to stop them, I'm all ears...but I don't know of one. If they had any ethics, I'd say appeal to those. But I think the only hope might be if the public stops believing them, and opts not to watch them, so their money dries up until they decide to rediscover basic journalistic ethics. But I can't do that alone, of course, and if too many others keep being enchanted with them, they'll never have an incentive to stop. So it might be unsolvable. But it's still terrible news for democracy, if that's the case.

The rich ARE pro-Socialist today. You surely can't miss that all the Hollywood elites, the multiple-mansion owning politicians like the Clintons, Obamas, etc., the heads of corporations like Blackrock and Amazon, or the crazed billionaire demagogues like Soros...all in favour of Socialism. And it shouldn't be that way, should it? Doesn't Marxist theory tell us that those guys are the enemy, the oppressors, the exploiters of the poor? Doesn't the very fact that they're rolling in cash make them suspect? How come they all want Socialism, then...and yet, surprisingly, they have not yet "redistributed" their own wealth to any great degree...how is that?

If that doesn't make you suspicious, I don't know what will. But I think you can figure it out. The Socialism is for you. The money is for them. And you see that modelled every year at Davos, where the rich and privileged fly in on their lear jets and spend a week in some of the world's most luxurious accommodations, eating fine meals and drinking vintage beverages...and they decide how you are going to fight climate change, or COVID, or where the world economy should go...and then they fly back out in their private planes, and return to their luxurious and privileged lifestyles.

Suspicious yet?

So intervention in the private sector is wrong, even if the private sector is corrupt and causing problems?

Where do you get these things I never said?

I didn't say it was wrong to "intervene." I said we could intervene by not supporting it. What did you have in mind?

Only government is bad? Is that the case?

No, lots of things are bad, including the government. Some governments are even worse than others. And statistically, a Socialist government is the worst of all. At least, it kills more people than any other, by orders of magnitude, so if dispossessing people is bad, and starving people is bad, and creating police states is bad, and killing people is bad, and crashing economies is bad....well, then, the worst of all governments is Socialism, far and away.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:21 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:04 am
Did I say I "intended" to intervene? I'm well aware the media is corrupt, and if you can figure out a way to stop them, I'm all ears...but I don't know of one. If they had any ethics, I'd say appeal to those. But I think the only hope might be if the public stops believing them, and opts not to watch them, so their money dries up until they decide to rediscover basic journalistic ethics. But I can't do that alone, of course, and if too many others keep being enchanted with them, they'll never have an incentive to stop. So it might be unsolvable. But it's still terrible news for democracy, if that's the case.

The rich ARE pro-Socialist today. You surely can't miss that all the Hollywood elites, the multiple-mansion owning politicians like the Clintons, Obamas, etc., the heads of corporations like Blackrock and Amazon, or the crazed billionaire demagogues like Soros...all in favour of Socialism. And it shouldn't be that way, should it? Doesn't Marxist theory tell us that those guys are the enemy, the oppressors, the exploiters of the poor? Doesn't the very fact that they're rolling in cash make them suspect? How come they all want Socialism, then...and yet, surprisingly, they have not yet "redistributed" their own wealth to any great degree...how is that?

If that doesn't make you suspicious, I don't know what will. But I think you can figure it out. The Socialism is for you. The money is for them. And you see that modelled every year at Davos, where the rich and privileged fly in on their lear jets and spend a week in some of the world's most luxurious accommodations, eating fine meals and drinking vintage beverages...and they decide how you are going to fight climate change, or COVID, or where the world economy should go...and then they fly back out in their private planes, and return to their luxurious and privileged lifestyles.

Suspicious yet?

So intervention in the private sector is wrong, even if the private sector is corrupt and causing problems?

Where do you get these things I never said?

I didn't say it was wrong to "intervene." I said we could intervene by not supporting it. What did you have in mind?

Only government is bad? Is that the case?

No, lots of things are bad, including the government. Some governments are even worse than others. And statistically, a Socialist government is the worst of all. At least, it kills more people than any other, by orders of magnitude, so if dispossessing people is bad, and starving people is bad, and creating police states is bad, and killing people is bad, and crashing economies is bad....well, then, the worst of all governments is Socialism, far and away.

To control the media is to control thought. Do you seriously trust corporations to control our thought?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:04 am
The rich ARE pro-Socialist today. You surely can't miss that all the Hollywood elites, the multiple-mansion owning politicians like the Clintons, Obamas, etc., the heads of corporations like Blackrock and Amazon, or the crazed billionaire demagogues like Soros...all in favour of Socialism. And it shouldn't be that way, should it? Doesn't Marxist theory tell us that those guys are the enemy, the oppressors, the exploiters of the poor? Doesn't the very fact that they're rolling in cash make them suspect? How come they all want Socialism, then...and yet, surprisingly, they have not yet "redistributed" their own wealth to any great degree...how is that?

Suspicious yet?

What this SHOULD make you suspicious of is your notion that these people are "pro-socialist"

Well, they certainly want you to THINK they are. But I think you're right to be suspicious. Clearly, they think you being Socialist is useful to them in some way...

And we know how. You give up all your freedoms and your property, such as you have; and they'll tell you everything you can and cannot do, control the entire economy, and send you back a sub-subsistence level income, in exchange. Remember: "You'll own nothing, and be happy."

Sure, sure.

Consider another possibility, that they consider the best/safest compromise is to allow to let the poor/downtrodden to have SOME share of the goodies.

You see evidence of that? How much money has George Soros, Larry Fink, or Klaus Schwab sent you? Are you living in one of Bernie Saunders' four mansions? Or maybe Obama's lending you his Martha's Vineyard retreat? How about Taylor Swift; has she mailed you a cheque?

Postal service seems slow, these days...

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:24 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:21 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:08 am

So intervention in the private sector is wrong, even if the private sector is corrupt and causing problems?

Where do you get these things I never said?

I didn't say it was wrong to "intervene." I said we could intervene by not supporting it. What did you have in mind?

Only government is bad? Is that the case?

No, lots of things are bad, including the government. Some governments are even worse than others. And statistically, a Socialist government is the worst of all. At least, it kills more people than any other, by orders of magnitude, so if dispossessing people is bad, and starving people is bad, and creating police states is bad, and killing people is bad, and crashing economies is bad....well, then, the worst of all governments is Socialism, far and away.

To control the media is to control thought. Do you seriously trust corporations to control our thought?

Gary...Gary...Gary...go back and find where I said I trust corporations to control our thought. Repeat it to me.

I'll be in my hammock.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:30 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:24 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:21 am
Where do you get these things I never said?

I didn't say it was wrong to "intervene." I said we could intervene by not supporting it. What did you have in mind?


No, lots of things are bad, including the government. Some governments are even worse than others. And statistically, a Socialist government is the worst of all. At least, it kills more people than any other, by orders of magnitude, so if dispossessing people is bad, and starving people is bad, and creating police states is bad, and killing people is bad, and crashing economies is bad....well, then, the worst of all governments is Socialism, far and away.

To control the media is to control thought. Do you seriously trust corporations to control our thought?

Gary...Gary...Gary...go back and find where I said I trust corporations to control our thought. Repeat it to me.

I'll be in my hammock.

Without government preventing them from owning the media, how do you intend to stop corporations from controlling the media? And if corporations own the media, how do you think you'll be able to spread the word to stop supporting corporations that control the media?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:30 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:24 am

To control the media is to control thought. Do you seriously trust corporations to control our thought?

Gary...Gary...Gary...go back and find where I said I trust corporations to control our thought. Repeat it to me.

I'll be in my hammock.

Without government preventing them from owning the media, how do you intend to stop corporations from controlling the media?

Show me where government control of the media has been a solution for anything. I'll show you a dozen places where government control of the media has resulted in the denial of truth and the suppression of basic human rights.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:50 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:30 am
Gary...Gary...Gary...go back and find where I said I trust corporations to control our thought. Repeat it to me.

I'll be in my hammock.

Without government preventing them from owning the media, how do you intend to stop corporations from controlling the media?

Show me where government control of the media has been a solution for anything. I'll show you a dozen places where government control of the media has resulted in the denial of truth and the suppression of basic human rights.

Does the PBS or NPR in America or the BBC in England deny truth and suppress basic human rights? And if they don't deny truth and suppress basic human rights, then is it not false that government supported media must NECESSARILY deny truth and suppresses basic human rights? It seems to me that government supported media is only bad if the government is bad and the governments in liberal democracies are not as bad as governments in authoritarian or totalitarian states.

Do you think it's possible that your fundamental mistake is to equate all government programs with oppressive governments.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:55 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:50 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:37 am

Without government preventing them from owning the media, how do you intend to stop corporations from controlling the media?

Show me where government control of the media has been a solution for anything. I'll show you a dozen places where government control of the media has resulted in the denial of truth and the suppression of basic human rights.

Does the PBS or NPR in America or the BBC in England deny truth and suppress basic human rights?

Well, you're American. Judge for yourself. Is PBS or NPR Leftist or right wing? In your view, what is the level of their interest in diversity of opinion? What is their commitment to providing neutral coverage and clear information to the general community?

You know.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 5:02 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:55 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:50 am
Show me where government control of the media has been a solution for anything. I'll show you a dozen places where government control of the media has resulted in the denial of truth and the suppression of basic human rights.

Does the PBS or NPR in America or the BBC in England deny truth and suppress basic human rights?

Well, you're American. Judge for yourself. Is PBS or NPR Leftist or right wing? In your view, what is the level of their interest in diversity of opinion? What is their commitment to providing neutral coverage and clear information to the general community?

You know.

They are excellent quality, much better than any corporate media that I've ever seen. Their science and news programs are top notch, about as objective as you can find. Although, Trump and his ilk think they're anti-conservative because they feature LGBTQ friendly programs among their offerings. So if you have hangups with LGBTQ, then you may not like it.

They also have some programs whose facilitators might fall under the category of Critical Race Theory followers. That seems to get a lot of bad press lately too from people who claim whites are oppressed. So if you believe that whites are oppressed, you might not like it either. Personally, I've never been oppressed for being white, but I guess I can't speak for people who think giving the KKK and white supremacists a voice equates to "objectivity" in the news.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:04 am The rich ARE pro-Socialist today. You surely can't miss that all the Hollywood elites, the multiple-mansion owning politicians like the Clintons, Obamas, etc., the heads of corporations like Blackrock and Amazon, or the crazed billionaire demagogues like Soros...all in favour of Socialism. And it shouldn't be that way, should it? Doesn't Marxist theory tell us that those guys are the enemy, the oppressors, the exploiters of the poor? Doesn't the very fact that they're rolling in cash make them suspect? How come they all want Socialism, then...and yet, surprisingly, they have not yet "redistributed" their own wealth to any great degree...how is that?

Because they are not pro-socialist. No way they want collective or social ownership of the means of production (i.e., factories, capital, major industries not privately owned for profit). They make noises about some regulation of capitalism but under the Clintons the rich got richer and got more means to get richer without labor, just happened under the ReaganBushes and Trump. They make noise, well some of them do, about more regulation of capitalism, and perhaps under liberal admins there is a slowing down of the destruction of the middle and working classes, but these guys are all capitalists. It's a good question what this show is all about but none of those people are socialists and they never even say the key things at the economy level of discussion about socialism. They don't even reach the Scandanavian model which isn't even socialism. And what is the result of what they do at the social politics level? the end of capitalism? Nah. More splitting the people against each other, making it harder to unify against them.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 5:34 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:04 am The rich ARE pro-Socialist today. You surely can't miss that all the Hollywood elites, the multiple-mansion owning politicians like the Clintons, Obamas, etc., the heads of corporations like Blackrock and Amazon, or the crazed billionaire demagogues like Soros...all in favour of Socialism. And it shouldn't be that way, should it? Doesn't Marxist theory tell us that those guys are the enemy, the oppressors, the exploiters of the poor? Doesn't the very fact that they're rolling in cash make them suspect? How come they all want Socialism, then...and yet, surprisingly, they have not yet "redistributed" their own wealth to any great degree...how is that?

Because they are not pro-socialist.

Ummm...yeah...okay...I guess you think they're lying...

No way they want collective or social ownership of the means of production

They want government control of EVERYTHING. And that's always done "in the name of The People."

Of course, as Mao says, "The People" in Socialism only refers to those who are not "alienated from their humanity" by not already being Socialists. Socialist consciousness is what makes one considered to be human. So everybody who is not a Socialist is simply considered not "The People," and their viewpoints, wishes and interests do not figure in any Socialist government plans...they are to be humiliated, dispossed, and then shipped off to the labour camp for "re-education."

...these guys are all capitalists.

No, there's no such thing as a "Capitalist." That's a Marxist meme, no more.

Rather, they're something much less ideological, much more ordinary. They're greedy totalitarians...the same sort that inevitably become Party functionaries in the Socialist regime, when it finally gets control of the country. And, in every case, they get to stay rich and get richer; and you get to eat mud and live in terror of being denounced to The Party, and are told to be thankful for your share of the mud.

If any of them wanted to be Socialist, they wouldn't be rich right now. Nancy Peolosi would have long ago distributed the $266.26 millon dollars she became worth while in office, and Ilhan Omar, the alleged Socialist, would have long ago dispersed her own household assets of $30 million. You get the picture: these ardent "Socialists" and proponents of Socialist policies somehow don't have the slightest conscience about private property when it's their own. But they don't mind telling you that you owe yours to the government, so they can pay for some more social programs they will promise and not deliver.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 5:26 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 5:02 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:55 am

Does the PBS or NPR in America or the BBC in England deny truth and suppress basic human rights?

Well, you're American. Judge for yourself. Is PBS or NPR Leftist or right wing? In your view, what is the level of their interest in diversity of opinion? What is their commitment to providing neutral coverage and clear information to the general community?

You know.

They are excellent quality,

Okay, maybe you don't know.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 6:09 am Ummm...yeah...okay...I guess you think they're lying...

Politicians, Large corporations, crazed billionaires lying?? No, can't be. Well, sure. Is it controversial that these people lie?

Amazon is one of the most abusive corporations to its workers out there in the West. Amazon is not going to hand its workers ownership of production. And they would tooth and nail go to war against legislation or legislators taking even small steps in that direction. Blackrock is the uber capitalist machine, making it's money off of the most capitalist of capitalist methods, things like derivatives and ai rapid stock trading. Making huge amounts of money in the cracks and not producing much directly or indirectly. Sure, they and some of the others make progressive noises, but those people do not want the people to own the means of production. Not even close. The real question is why do they support the social policies they do. What did Obama's health care actually do, for example? It forced people to buy insurance from enormous companies. It actually led to power concentration in the insurance business. Fewer more powerful corporations.

We're being played by a good cop bad cop system. The conservatives see democrats as the bad cops. The liberals see the republicans as the bad cops. Which makes them vote for the supposedly good cops. It's tag team wrestling. It's smoke and mirrors.

No way they want collective or social ownership of the means of production

They want government control of EVERYTHING. And that's always done "in the name of The People."

They have ALL reduced government control of corporations and the finance sector (and thus billionaires).

They aren't socialist. They will never let the people have control of the production. And all of them have led to greater concentrations of power and more freedom for the elite.

Sure, they want to control little people - the vast majority of citizens - as do their counterparts on the Right. Trump has managed to break pretty much every promise he made and most clearly around regime change. He's busy now making it even harder for the poor, working and middle classes. They all say a lot of shit and support polices on the social level to make them seem like they are on the right or the left. Many conservatives are happy with what ICE is doing, not realizing that Trump just sidestepped the need for judicial warrants and added radically to the powers of law enforcement. Nice of commie OBAMA was the most punitive against whistleblowers, setting precendents there that will be used by autocrats on both supposed sides. Not to mention executive killing of american citizens precendents.

It's a show. One Roman autocrats would have been very impressed by. Bread and circuses is primitive compared to the modern versions.

They love it when you think 'it's the liberals who are bad and socialists'. And they love when the liberals and the left think 'it's the repubs are bad and fascists'. They love it when we think the good cop is a good cop. It's tag team mind fuck.