Re: MD Understanding Quality And Power

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 16:52:26 GMT

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101"

    Hi all,

    Here are more ideas about the relationship between powerful states
    and their citizens, which might also apply to the relationships
    between states themselves. In general, my argument is that it is
    immoral for a state (a social institution) to curtail the freedom of
    expression of ideas, even if, perhaps especially if, those ideas
    challenge the legitimacy of state power. I've made a few statements
    and observations along these lines, and have invited thoughtful
    comment from all. I've said...

    1) States are violent by their very nature, so I don't want to be
    singling out the USG; they just happen to be the state with the most
    violent means at their disposal.

    keith said:
    States are capable of compassion as well as aggression.

    msh asks anyone:
    Can you provide an historical example where a state acted out of
    compassion, when the action meant relinquishing power?

    msh continued:
    2) in any state with a modicum of free expression, the means of
    control must be more subtle, such as by convincing people they live
    in a democracy, and that what they think really matters.

    keith replied:
    Well, it must be working on me. I think I live in a democracy, and I
    think what I think really matters.

    msh says:
    I think upon investigation you will discover that your stream of
    ideas are given meaningful voice only as long as they don't overflow
    the banks of official opinion. Do you believe that the voices of the
    millions of UK citizens who turned out against the invasion of Iraq
    were given a representational voice in your news media? Compare the
    coverage of the ant-war demonstrations with the repetitive and
    unrelenting coverage of the government line.

    Look at the evidence that's been accumulated by Herman, McChesney,
    Bagdikian, Chomsky, Solomon, about the way the major media, the sort
    of agenda setting media, the national press, radio and television,
    operate to filter and emphasize the boundaries of acceptable
    discussion. This is where is shaped and sent forth the opinions that
    you hear, the kinds of information that comes through, the sources
    that are given voice. I think, if you look, you will find some
    pretty surprising things about your "democratic system." I highly
    recommend the work being done by the Davids at MediaLens, if you'd
    like some analysis of thought control in the UK.

    msh quoted Ramsey Clarke:
    3) "[We need] to liberate this country from corporate oligarchy;
     they control our lives. This is not a democracy, it's a
     plutocracy. The people don !/ t rule here, wealth rules, the
     corporations rule. They rule the Congress, they elect the
     President, they run the Pentagon, they own the media."

    keith said:
    I agree up to a point, and I think the recent trend is negative,
    however, I feel that I have more chance of influencing things that I
    would have even 50 years ago. The wealthy elite don't get everything
    there own way, less now than ever before, don't you think?

    msh says:
    Look back earlier in this thread, where I offered to my friend Platt
    some stats that would indicate that the gap between rich and poor is
    greater than ever, and ever growing. But, yes, they, the "wealthy
    elite" don't get everything their own way. The question is, why
    should a small minority be permitted to benefit at the expense of the
    majority, AT ALL?

    keith summarized:
    I find all of this TOO pessimistic. Not that these aren't in some
    ways valid points, but they go too far. If all of this were true
    then this discussion forum for one would have been shut down many
    years ago.

    msh says:
    Shutting down the internet is not so easy, especially as it
    contributes to profit-making; but there have been attempts to control
    it. Besides, you don't need to "shut down" dissenting opinion with
    boot and truncheon: In a socio-economic system controlled by wealth,
    you simply buy up the bandwidth. This is what happened to radio and
    tv, and this is what is happening with the web. As long as wealth
    and privilege go hand in hand, the outcome is inevitable. Though it
    remains for now a powerful alternative to mainstream commercial
    media, the internet is rapidly becoming just another home shopping
    network. Whether or not this conversion is completed is up to people
    like us.

    Again, thanks to all for any feedback.

    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    --
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com

    "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
            We come from nowhere and to nothing go."

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 14 2005 - 17:32:08 GMT