CHAPTER XXVII.
THE SOPHISTRY OF SEPARATION
AND THE INFLUENCE OF THE MEDIA.
********
Capitalist apologists seldom explain the capitalist socioeconomic organism as a single entity in which all factors and groups are closely interrelated. They prefer to promote the concept of entirely separate entities, each one performing a specific task for the good of the Economy and the Nation, as the 'Economy' and the 'Nation' were separate abstract concepts.
This philosophy suits the capitalists in their promotion of the double standard maxim that they need profit and personal gain not so much for themselves but for the well being of the 'Economy' and the 'Nation', and the workers must produce more and make sacrifices not for the capitalists but for the 'Economy' and the 'Nation'.
This way of thinking also makes it possible for them to blame any particular section of society or of the economy for all the problems, without having to question the basic faults of the system as a whole: we never hear the word Capitalism mentioned whenever there is a problem in our socio-economic organism. In fact, what we are being told all the time is that the businessmen are always willing to do their duty to increase their profits and personal wealth for the Economy and the Nation, but it is the selfish workers who make trouble by refusing to do their duty to make sacrifices for the Economy and the Nation. (1970s)
We know very well who is blamed in the media most of the time for our economic problems: the power hungry Unions, the greedy workers, the 'socialist' Labour party and Government bureaucracy; businessmen are always the victims.
It is a very effective trick to separate all sections and aspects of life in the society: the business community, the bureaucracy, the investors, the taxpayers, the public, the unionists, the family man, the man in the street etc. as they were completely abstract concepts unrelated to one another, but each of them being separately connected to the abstract concepts of 'Economy and Nation'.
For example, how many times we hear in the media that the unions have no concern for the good of the community and are sabotaging the economy. It sounds like union officials have no relation to the workforce who, with their families, makes up the greater proportion of the population, and, therefore, are the main part of the community, the economy and the Nation.
By this logic of separation, a person during his working hours is a worker and nothing else, when he is on strike or any other union activity he becomes a unionist, when he commutes he becomes the traveling public, at home he becomes the family man, when he is shopping he becomes a consumer and nothing else.
These attributes are true enough, but the way they are used in the media creates the impression that a unionist, for example, may not also be a family man, a commuter, a consumer, a member of the public, etc. all at the same time.
To suggest in the mass media that a person may have all of these attributes at the same time, would require an explanation on why such a person would engage in activities that would seem detrimental to himself as a family man, as a commuter, a member of the public, etc.
Such explanation may be too complex and difficult, and possibly too revealing for the capitalists' comfort.
Often we use philosophy to justify our actions. Therefore it suits the capitalists sometimes to adopt the idealist philosophy of separation, especially for their propaganda and their book keeping.
They would not risk using it in their business.
The fact that it is difficult to express ourselves without isolating the different aspects of a complex situation or concept only shows our intellectual limitations and the primitive stage of our languages.
For this reason the capitalist mass media is very effective in promoting support for Capitalism. Its logic is simple, superficially convincing, and it does not require much thought from lazy people or from people with busy lives. It uses elements of truth, and through superficial deductions it arrives at superficial assumptions. These, while appearing reasonable and truthful, have little real substance.
Moreover, as they are simplistic, they are difficult to challenge because reality is much more complex and, therefore much more difficult to explain to people who may have no time or inclination to think deeply and objectively.
So far, such people are the majority in a society. Eventually they may realise the shallowness of their assumptions when the realities of life overtake them and become obvious to most. But then it is usually too late to prevent the destructive consequences of their mistakes.
A typical example amongst the many in history is what happened in Germany before the Second World War. There the majority of the population was made to believe the Nazis' superficial assumptions.
These suited the people at the time, they were easy to believe, and they were reassuring. Only when it became too late, people began to realise their monstrous mistake. Suddenly, those people who had been persecuted as traitors of the Fatherland became the heroes of the Resistance. But Germany and the world had already paid dearly for the promotion of those assumptions.
How much responsibility can be laid on the German capitalists who financed, and on the middle class and on the media that helped to promote the Nazi movement? There should be little doubt that without their help and their passive complicity Nazism could not have succeeded.
Today, Capitalism is in the same situation in the world as a whole as it was in Germany before the war. Capitalists are acting exactly in the same way; they are favouring or actively promoting extreme conservatism, and if not in words at least in deeds they are supporting or condoning the most ruthless right wing dictatorships.
Extreme conservatives during the Cold War were promoting the philosophy of the first nuclear strike that a nuclear war could be won by striking the first blow. They also promoted the idea that it is better to be dead than red, and the mass media has been an accomplice in this promotion.
Only strong public opinion can prevent ecological and social calamities, and the influence of the media is vital in its formation. Therefore, the bosses of the media must bear a lot of responsibility for the plight of society.
As a recent example, in Australia, during the last twenty years or so they have relentlessly exhorted the government to embrace the dry economic philosophy of the "new right": - monetarism, deregulation, reduction in government spending, tax incentives for private business, restriction of union activities, etc.. Like lemmings we have followed the same economic policies that the U.S. and England had implemented ten years earlier.
We followed Milton Friedman, Reaganomics, and Thatcherism even when the miserable results of their philosophy had already become evident. Now that we are economically and socially almost bankrupt, in fact a slave Nation, the eunuchs of the Media, like the Ross Gittins and others, are acting innocent (1980s); they pretend that it wasn't them that urged and blackmailed the naive or the self seeking politicians in government to implement the interested editorial line of their masters in the media. Now they are at it again, pontificating about the economy and peddling the same hopeless line. So stupid and forgetful is the public!
In a dictatorship the media is controlled by the government, it must support the ruling political party. This shows how important is the control over the means of information for any ruling class; but this rough and simple directness becomes completely transparent and counter-productive when the ruling elite becomes corrupted and is lying.
In 'capitalist democracies' the situation is different, much more complex, and it varies in different countries. The media is part of free enterprise. Newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, the film industry, etc., they are an assortment of businesses run for profit.
Regarding their political leanings, it is natural that, as free as they may be, their allegiance and ultimate interests lay with the capitalist system. Moreover, the media not only depends financially from its readers and viewers but also from the advertising needs of business interests.
Whether it is owned by millionaires or by shareholders, it is subjected to capitalist conservative considerations.
Moreover, it doesn't make much difference whether the media is all in the hand of one businessman or it is split between many ; they all believe in the same philosophy and, on the important issues, promote the same editorial line. When the media outlets are owned by different businessmen we are confused into believing that it is free and democratic! When was the last time we have seen or heard a strong debate between media outlets about different or opposing economic or social alternatives? It would be better if the media was owned by just one entrepreneur; it would be less confusing and at least we would be clear where the editorial sermons were coming from.
The public media, like the BBC, ABC, RAI etc that were supposed to present all facts and points of view - Left, Right and Centre -, after decades of conservative government interference have completely dropped the Left part, therefore all we have is Centre, Right and extreme Right slanted news and comments influencing public opinion.
No journalist in the capitalist media is directly forced to follow the establishment's line, but everybody knows that one cannot go too far from it without risking his job. Consequently, for self preservation, they must accept some 'self imposed' limits. These limits sometimes are stretched very far but, as with capitalist economists, they must stop short of a deep inquiry into the core of the economic system, or short of blaming Capitalism directly as the main cause of our economic and social problems.
If we overlook commercialism, sensationalism and advertising, which is not easy, the media in capitalist democracies is very prolific, entertaining and informative; although very much inclined towards bad news as "bad news are good news" for profits. The capitalist political line is maintained not by printing direct lies, which is counterproductive in the long run anyway, but by a selective and subtle feeding of news and information set to support the editorial leadership; also by the use of appropriate words and adjectives to put the news item in a good or bad light to suit the editorial political line. This manipulation varies in intensity depending on the importance of the issue at stake.
This subtle slant in the media is not enough to fool an inquiring mind, but it is enough to sway that fickle twenty percent of the public that makes up the fifty one percent of the votes. Because of its subtlety and its indirectness it is more effective than the direct propaganda of a dictatorship, as it induces most people to believe that it is their own independent opinions that are reflected in the media instead of the other way around. Therefore, it is effective enough in the long term to produce in the majority of people a sort of vaccination against anything which is contrary to Capitalism.
The few anti capitalist weekly papers have no impression on the general public. Very few people would like to be seen buying or reading such papers, so strong and pervasive is the general atmosphere of disfavour, even antagonism, towards anything that may be associated with opposition to the capitalist system. There is no need to say that this atmosphere has been created over the years by the capitalist oriented mass media and other forms of communication and entertainment.
It follows that in practice even in allegedly democratic countries where there is not a strong and popular progressive movement with its own media outlets, the objectivity of the information reaching the public is not much better than in a dictatorship. In the first because of misinformation, in the second because of censorship, the public seldom comes into contact with news that are opposed to the ruling trend. The public is never presented with objective reality, and so, helplessly and tragically, masses of Human beings who have no interest or reasons to be against each other, succumb to suspicion and hate and are set to destroy one another.
Another example of the power and bias of the capitalist media can be seen in the continuous shift to the right in the political scene.
With its subtle relentless pressure the media can influence a section of the public and, with the passing of time, it can condition to a certain degree most of the rest, eventually even the more intelligent and inquiring people.
When there are two political parties, the conservatives by reflection are reinforced in their beliefs as public opinion is turned more and more 'antisocialist'. The more progressive Labour party, chasing votes and having little influence over the media, is forced to compromise and forego its ideals to gain some support from the capitalist press, and votes from the public. Its professional politicians, therefore, prostitute themselves and betray the people who elected them by making deals with self seeking media bosses and entrepreneurs.
So, gradually over the years, a proud party which started with a socialist platform becomes apologetic about its own name, let alone the word 'socialism '.
The tragic thing is that the society as a whole has lost the choice of a distinct alternative. At the elections, the only choice is between two similar social and economic prospects. For the superficial person this is democracy, but in practice this is the disguised dictatorship of the capitalist business class.
Both parties are committed to capitalist economy; but our economy has been thrown to the wolves of the world's market and is affected by global factors beyond the control of our business and political leaders and, moreover, it cannot be harnessed in its decline. Therefore, no matter which one is in government it will end up discredited and with the economy and society still in a mess.
Eventually, when both become discredited, and the public confused and cynical, a third party will emerge with the cast offs of the other two: Naturally it cannot be a radical party to the left of the two main parties where it is needed, as the capitalists who own or influence the media would not tolerate such a movement. This new party will squeeze itself in the middle, if there is any space just another safe horse to run for the capitalists.
With this trend, as Labour continually shifts to the right, the moderate Liberals lose their political platform and are thrown into confusion. They are left with no other alternative than to join the ultra conservatives while the Labour party is under constant threat of disintegration.
These three parties, all capitalist oriented, will engage into a three cornered electoral minuet for a number of years, while society continues to slide into deeper troubles, accompanied by the orchestra of the capitalist media blaming everything and everybody else but the main real cause of our present problems Capitalism itself.
It is tragic to see how the United Kingdom, the United States and other supposedly democratic countries are in this respect no better than the one party 'banana republics', nor better than what was the Soviet Union. The people of these countries have no real choice; they have no alternatives to Capitalism. All their political parties have become almost the same: they are different only in form but not in substance.
They are all subjected to the same capitalist economic forces, to obsolescence and degeneration.