Before I go full rant I should say that I totally understand the upset caused by state propaganda. I’m writing this in response to a former comrade who clearly flinched at the notion. It offends their libertarian instinct.
I had that same knee-jerk reaction too, now after careful reflection and having read the first few chapters of this book, I’m reconsidering that position.
I will start by attacking the system we currently have in place. Our news media (in the UK) is controlled by an elite of perhaps 40-50 people. These are the people at the top of the hierarchy, the editors who decide what to show and what not to show. They generally have their own political agendas to push. Their representation of world events is skewed by this bias. A slight extension to that analysis can be read here. My problem is that the media elite are right-wing in their bias. Free speech exists (within the constraints of libel laws), but anything that doesn’t fit with the worldview of the elite is filtered out. The system we have is a corporate propaganda machine.
Once one accepts that the problem stems from the fact that the news is owned by corporations it’s a short jump from there to my position that the media (all of it) should be free from the constraints of the market. I recognise that the systems for the dissemination of information are rapidly changing, a revolutionary government should encourage this. The nature of media production is also becoming democratic, again, encourage it. Make it accountable, and then constrain it by a code of ethics.
This code should not be ineffective and useless like the PCC’s code of practice, the code should be enforced. Yes, I’m talking about censorship, in the end though censorship is inevitable, just try to think of it as a necessary evil.
The means of production can be brought into public ownership. Workers don’t produce for the market, they produce for the state (or the proletariat), Lenin probably explains it better:
In a society based on private property the artist produces for the market: he needs buyers. Our revolution has freed artists from the yoke of these highly prosaic conditions. It has turned the Russian state into their protector and their consumer. Every artist, anyone who considers himself as such has the right to create freely, according to his ideal, independent of anything else.
But you must understand that we are Communists. We do not stand by with our hands folded and let chaos develop in all directions. We should guide this process and mould it’s results fully and systematically. – Vladimir Lenin, 1920
Of course artists did not create “according to their ideal”, instead they upheld the ideals of Socialist Realism. Firstly every work of art had to have a purpose, there was no question of art for art’s sake. Secondly that purpose was to promote socialism.
A media that promotes a socialist hegemony is no worse than the current system which promotes a capitalist one. Plus there are advantages to a nationalised media. Workers that labour for a purpose are more motivated (this is a common argument). The resulting products also have meaning derived from this purpose. All considered I’d rather have a media industry that made works like Alexander Nevsky than one that made Bratz or High School Musical 2.
PS. The posters used for illustration purposes are from Crestock.
