Economic Systems: Probing the Debate of Communism vs. Socialism

[alexandra]

There are places where that's certainly the case, and often there is a link between media monopoly and this situation. Italy is an example, with Berlusconi.

Ah yes, Berlusconi is the perfect example of big business, the media and politics all coming together - a very blatant example of what happens in other countries just a bit more subtly in that while all the powerful belong to the same class, they aren't the exact same person!

But most other European countries do not suffer from that problem - as far as I can see. What is of course the case is that many politicians are somehow sold to a certain electorate. For instance, in france, the electorate of Chirac is typically the farmers (those that didn't switch yet to extreme right). That explains, for instance, his insistance on these famous European aids for farmers. Some more right-wing parties are sold to the practicing catholics.

Yes, this is true here. In the Australian Coalition (formed between the Liberal Party and the National Party because neither historically had the numbers to win an election on their own), the National Party generally represents the interests of the rural sector (the farmers) while the Liberal Party represents the interests of big business. The Australian Labor Party has totally lost its support base (as have labour parties throughout the west, I think) because its policies have moved to the right and are now identical to the policies of the Liberals. The working class has been punishing Labor for this for years now, but because of the wider politico-economic structure and the spread of global capitalism, Labor cannot bring back popular policies that favour the working class so they're dead as a political force. In my opinion, they may as well just pack up and join the Liberals! The working class needs to organise its own party now.

The extreme-right wing (fascist) parties essentially recrute in the low-paid workers sphere, and, very funny, in the immigrants sphere.

LOL - yes, it's amazing how some groups of people crazily vote in direct opposition to their own interests! Things have gotten so confused, sizeable groups of people don't even seem to be able to identify what their own interests are any more.

The social-democrats in france are sold to the worker's unions (in fact, most of them CAME from the worker's unions) and to a strange kind of "pseudo intellectual left" (people who have all the characteristics of right-wing voters, like owners of real-estate, businesses etc..., but where it became fashionable to be "left" to get a kind of intellectual stamp). There is a party in france which is devoted to businesses - it doesn't have much success, and is now absorbed into Chirac's moderate right wing union. And then there are several left wing parties with independent programs from the social democrats ; each of them doesn't weight much (there is the communist party, there are 2 Trotskist parties, there is the green party, there are a few parties centered around the promotion of different ethnicities, there's a women's party ...) They hover in fact around the social-democratic party and jump on the train when the social-democrats win the elections.

French politics sound incredibly complex, vanesch. The 'pseudo intellectual left' sounds like a hilarious (but also quite a sad) group - rich 'socialists'?

 

[vanesch]

Ah yes, Berlusconi is the perfect example of big business, the media and politics all coming together - a very blatant example of what happens in other countries just a bit more subtly in that while all the powerful belong to the same class, they aren't the exact same person! Yes, this is true here.

It is indeed a danger. I'd say that as long as there are SEVERAL different groups having their different influences in the media, it isn't so bad. It is when effective monopolies arise that there is a real danger of positive feedback and latch-up: political power< -> media power <-> business power. It has been suggested over here that the media became such an important power in society that they should be given a special status ; instead of having 3 fundamental 'forces' (the legislative power, the executive power, and justice), that one should add 'news media' as a 4th force, so that media would become a pillar whose independance would be as much guaranteed (by independent legal review commitees) as the independence of justice - so that there would be some "high court of journalists" whose mission is to crack down on every attempt to influence the news media.

The working class has been punishing Labor for this for years now, but because of the wider politico-economic structure and the spread of global capitalism, Labor cannot bring back popular policies that favour the working class so they're dead as a political force.

Yes, that's about everywhere the same thing ; problem is, the old electorate of social-democrats usually goes extreme: right or left. (and usually more right than left...)

The 'pseudo intellectual left' sounds like a hilarious (but also quite a sad) group - rich 'socialists'?

Yes, they even have a name here: "bobo - socialists". I know one personally: he's a university professor, married to the daughter of a Greek boat fleet owner (yeah! like in the movies), his father was a colonel, he talks full of dispise about the "stupid workers fixing his fancy appartment on the mediteranian" which he pays unofficially, but an extreme-left wing activist who distributes tracts and so on, and goes playing bongo in the park with other "activists". He regularly asks me if I don't want to join. Crazy guy !

 

[alexandra]

It is indeed a danger. I'd say that as long as there are SEVERAL different groups having their different influences in the media, it isn't so bad. It is when effective monopolies arise that there is a real danger of positive feedback and latch-up: political power< -> media power <-> business power. It has been suggested over here that the media became such an important power in society that they should be given a special status ; instead of having 3 fundamental 'forces' (the legislative power, the executive power, and justice), that one should add 'news media' as a 4th force, so that media would become a pillar whose independance would be as much guaranteed (by independent legal review commitees) as the independence of justice - so that there would be some "high court of journalists" whose mission is to crack down on every attempt to influence the news media.

The problem is, though, that the trend seems to be in the opposite direction: towards more concentrated corporate ownership and control rather than towards more independence. For instance, here's an exctract from the International Federation of Journalists' website:

Every year the process of media concentration is increasing and with it comes growing concern for the impact on media quality, pluralism and diversity.

Public concern about corporate and political dominance over media and information services is greater than ever. Confidence among readers, viewers, listeners and users of information is low and there is an increasing perception that journalism is failing to carry out its watchdog role in society because of the vested interests that drive the media business. Reference: http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Issue=OWNER&Language=EN

I do not personally agree with their next statement (which I believe is a result of flawed analysis on the part of the International Federation of Journalists, but I will include it so I am not accused of being selective in the facts I present):

Not surprisingly, politicians are worried, too. The media concentration process has paralysed policy makers and it is time to stimulate fresh debate and prepare concrete actions to confront the challenge of corporate power in mass media. Reference: http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Issue=OWNER&Language=EN

And here is my reason for being skeptical about their previous statement (funny how they can see this themselves, yet not draw the obvious conclusions)

The IFJ says the market itself cannot protect pluralism and diversity. The public’s need to be properly informed means that information services must be regulated beyond the market framework of ratings, profits and commercial objectives.
Reference: http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Issue=OWNER&Language=EN