Media, Monopoly and Marxism.

I had a discussion on Facebook today, with someone who disagreed with socialism, yet supported clearly socialist ideas and policies, as I find so often. A reply by someone to the original Facebook post stated fascism and socialism were wrong, as well as all monopolies (as monopolies were assumed to be fascist in nature).

Below is my reply to posts regarding media near-monopolies, specifically how many newspapers, radio and TV stations were owned by just three corporations. I make no attempt to justify the actions or views of any media company in this blog post, but I did defend monopolies in general–in theory, as power can be corrupting (corrupting the Marxist and capitalist alike).

My concern is about the attitudes of those that we all rely upon to balance corporatism–the people. While most want to name an enemy within the people to attack, for reasons I will allude to in the post, I am more concerned with the change than I am with who is in power, as I see most oligarchies similarly.

My greatest criticism of people is how polarized between “us” and “them” we are, and how constructed, artificial and ego motivated those divisions are.

From FaceBook:

Fascism is certainly wrong we agree. (Where my reasoning differs is) I think “monopoly capitalism” is a socialist idea that is full of ‘social justice’ (need based theft).

To illustrate the small but distinct difference between the concepts of fascism and “monopoly capitalism”, I propose an example for comparison:

One person is rich and actively and purposely attempts to weaken or inhibit others–acts negatively to increase wealth, power or market share. (Regardless of the size of the business entity)

The other rich person (or not) works positively to create a great responsible product that meets the customers needs so well that all the scum-bag competitors go out of business–resulting in a monopoly.

The first is clearly more a threat to society and human rights, yet the second has the monopoly. The first is motivated by greed and fear, while the second motivated by love and joy. The first causes destruction and needless suffering. The second is an example for all business leaders.

The concept represented by the term “monopoly capitalism” is a construct of socialism that sees state ownership as righteous, and personal ownership as inherently unjust, regardless of the individuals’ actions that are judged.

The real, but often subconscious, purpose of socialist academia is to bias the language and debate to vilify and dehumanize the victims of socialism, so that the masses can more easily strip their wealth or power by force.

The fact that the individual victims’ wealth and the perceived “needs” of “the people” (the socialist oligarchs) are paramount in socialism, shows the true motive is not justice at all–but theft. Justice is in relation to actions being beneficial or not. Justice is not what I have that you need. That’s the same thinking of a fascist! The poor have it and the fascists want it, is the same as the rich have it and the socialists want it. What difference is it if I join fascists to steal from the poor, for my perceived “needs”, than if I join the poor to steal from the rich? Marxism is the flip side of the same ego coin as Corporatism. They are the problems–not the solutions.


4 responses to “Media, Monopoly and Marxism.

  1. Programs that are socialist in-part or whole that most people (including most conservatives) endorse:
    * Public education;
    * Roads and bridges;
    * National mail services;
    * The Internet and telecommunications infrastructures;
    * Public transportation;
    * Universal Healthcare
    * The Emergency Room
    * The Fire Department
    * The Police
    * Emergency Responders

    I’m sure I’ve missed some….

  2. TheQuantumBuddha

    How have you defined socialism? Why?

  3. I’m conceptualizing it comprising obligatory buy-in programs run by the state. In creating such programs, the state is – in theory, at the very least – acting on behalf of the collective interests and values of the society.

  4. A free market police force or fire department, for example, might offer to cover a person (or group) or unit of property at a given rate. If a person has purchased the coverage, the police or fire service would respond to service need. If not, they wouldn’t. No one would be forced to sign on.

    Of course, this is not particularly desirable for most. Most of us don’t want safety and justice to be quite so commodified. Further, there are externalities. The fire on your home may spread to your neighbours, for example. Most people will thus favour universal fire and police services. Similarly, most of us wouldn’t want to be turned away from receiving desperately needed health services because we couldn’t afford our premiums. We wouldn’t want to be excluded from receiving mail or telecommunications access at affordable prices because it didn’t make business sense for Rogers or Fed Ex to not charge radically more for services provided to people in 100 person towns in Northern BC (if indeed they provided the services at all) compared to people in downtown Vancouver.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s