Even in that wonderful socialist society you’re envisioning, organized working class appoints “managers”, and those become the ruling class. In order for them not to, they need to have very little power outside of what’s necessary. Having a state media in this case becomes this power.
So, as I said in my previous comment, a media independent both from the rulling class and from capital is a necessary prerequisite or having a free country.
Managerial positions are not classes. You are confusing the Marxist understanding of class, which is based on ownership of the means of production and distribution, with a more anarchist association of class with hierarchy. Administrative labor is proletarian in nature if the administrator owns just as much as the rest of the class. Their increased power is a privledge that comes from the working class as a whole, and can be taken away in the form of recall elections. This is how it generally works in socialist countries.
That’s the fun part. Theory of “power coming from people” sounds fun, until the people actually give someone a power. The second a person has any power over the group, - literal, actual power, giving orders and people being expected to follow it, no matter how specific those orders are, - that person starts being corrupted by such power. And when administrator starts craving more power, they can use instruments they have (media being one of such instruments) to do so. And no amount of “but power comes from the people” can stop it. That’s why I wrote, several times, and I will repeat it again until you stop ignoring it, that administrators that start as proletarians of the people, doing regular administrative work, end up being in control and transforming into rulers, if they have powers to do so, if there is no equally motivated institutions to prevent it.
This is how it generally works in socialist countries.
You’re treating power as a supernatural corrupting force. Administration does not inherently make someone evil, to begin with good and evil aren’t a thing. This is why I tried to return the conversation to a materialist analysis, rather than one that speaks of supernatural corruption.
As for existing socialist countries, in the current day there’s the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, and Laos. All are dominated by the proletariat at a state level, and all have social ownership as the principal aspect of the economy, ie the rising and dominant aspect.
I think you need to return to why Marxists are materialists, specifically dialectical materialists. We seek our answers from the understanding that the world is material, and human consciousness exists within the material. We do not look to supernatural causes and explanations, because those create flawed and incorrect analysis.
Even in that wonderful socialist society you’re envisioning, organized working class appoints “managers”, and those become the ruling class. In order for them not to, they need to have very little power outside of what’s necessary. Having a state media in this case becomes this power.
So, as I said in my previous comment, a media independent both from the rulling class and from capital is a necessary prerequisite or having a free country.
Managerial positions are not classes. You are confusing the Marxist understanding of class, which is based on ownership of the means of production and distribution, with a more anarchist association of class with hierarchy. Administrative labor is proletarian in nature if the administrator owns just as much as the rest of the class. Their increased power is a privledge that comes from the working class as a whole, and can be taken away in the form of recall elections. This is how it generally works in socialist countries.
That’s the fun part. Theory of “power coming from people” sounds fun, until the people actually give someone a power. The second a person has any power over the group, - literal, actual power, giving orders and people being expected to follow it, no matter how specific those orders are, - that person starts being corrupted by such power. And when administrator starts craving more power, they can use instruments they have (media being one of such instruments) to do so. And no amount of “but power comes from the people” can stop it. That’s why I wrote, several times, and I will repeat it again until you stop ignoring it, that administrators that start as proletarians of the people, doing regular administrative work, end up being in control and transforming into rulers, if they have powers to do so, if there is no equally motivated institutions to prevent it.
Name one
You’re treating power as a supernatural corrupting force. Administration does not inherently make someone evil, to begin with good and evil aren’t a thing. This is why I tried to return the conversation to a materialist analysis, rather than one that speaks of supernatural corruption.
As for existing socialist countries, in the current day there’s the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, and Laos. All are dominated by the proletariat at a state level, and all have social ownership as the principal aspect of the economy, ie the rising and dominant aspect.
I think you need to return to why Marxists are materialists, specifically dialectical materialists. We seek our answers from the understanding that the world is material, and human consciousness exists within the material. We do not look to supernatural causes and explanations, because those create flawed and incorrect analysis.