|
|
•
wealth: the richest 10 percent
Replies:
6
Views:
1352
Up one level
You need to be a registered member to post to this forum.
Register now.
•
wealth: the richest 10 percent
Posted by
kerrb
at
2007-09-20 07:24 PM
 Graph from tuttle's blog and is explained by: The chart shows the share of the richest 10 percent of the American
population in total income – an indicator that closely tracks many
other measures of economic inequality – over the past 90 years, as
estimated by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez
From memory Marx predicted this sort of thing. Rich man gets a much bigger house relative to poor man's more modest increase. So the focus these days is on keeping those who work diverted from the important questions - more Idol and Big Brother and other trivial pursuits. The rich get richer while the workers don't get the picture
_________________________
Bill Kerr
|
|
•
Re: wealth: the richest 10 percent
Posted by
youngmarxist
at
2007-09-21 08:02 PM
I'm not sure that putting the blame on shows like Idol and Big Brother is useful. Despite the obvious growth in inequality, the vast majority of the working class still has less incentive to revolt than it does to get what it can out of the capitalist system.
I find it hard to imagine that inequality in itself would cause a revolution. More likely would be a sharp drop in the living standards that people expect they are entitled to - if huge amounts of the people who "worked hard and followed the rules" end up with much less than they thought they were going to get due to some sort of economic collapse.
It's really hard to say exactly what would or could cause that, other than a general 'sharp downturn in economic conditions (TM - you can't use this cliche without paying me now :p )'.
One thing I'd like to see is some socialist propaganda on the net that doesn't hector or lecture - for instance a simple, chatty video explaining how profit is extracted from workers. I'll probably have a go soon - I'd barely mention revolution except to say something like "this situation will stay the same unless there is a revolution, and there is no evidence that the working class in the Western World are up for that at the moment".
I don't think such a video would change many minds now, but such efforts could be useful in the event that there is a sharp downturn - once people are ready to think about alternatives, then they would be in the mood to ask "So who has a solution?"
Strategically, I don't think we can do much more than wait and have an alternative solution when people are demanding one. I also think we could be doing reformist work in local communities to establish ourselves as people worth listening to. You'd be open about your politics while being fully aware that people aren't going to come around to your point of view until material conditions give them a reason to question the current system.
|
|
•
Re: wealth: the richest 10 percent
Posted by
kerrb
at
2007-09-21 09:51 PM
The reference to Idol and Big Brother was really a shorthand for Neil Postman's book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985). Postman's book is a critique of the effect of TV as a media on the nature of public discourse. I'd also recommend reading Frank Furedi's Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone (2004), ( previously recommended by arthur) which puts the blame on post modernist ideology, cultural relativism, political correctness. It argues that the whole notion of truth has become so devalued that intellectuals no longer speak for general social interest, rather universities etc. are now dominated by narrow specialists, experts in their particular area but who have no broader impact on social discourse I think these issues are important, as well as the economic issues. ie. analysing the impact of different media and ideologies on the nature of public discourse.
_________________________
Bill Kerr
|
|
•
Re: wealth: the richest 10 percent
Posted by
youngmarxist
at
2007-09-21 11:20 PM
I don't have the funds at the moment to buy the Postman book, so I'm relying on the Wikipedia entry for the book, the very brief foreword which is online, and an interview that Postman did with the Civic Arts Review on "Television and the Public Decline of Public Discourse".Oh, and I think the satirical song " It's What We Call The News" by Jib Jab seems to be a reasonable representation of Postman's general attitude. My main problem with Postman is that he seems to be looking back to a mythical Golden Age when the entire population engaged in rational thought about major public issues of the day: According to some figures we have sixty million
illiterates in America and in the last presidential election something under fifty percent
of the eligible voters participated. This is a world wide scandal. No Western democracy
has ever had such a poor showing in political elections. So there is evidence that
television, and particularly the news, has led to a general dumbing down of the culture.
And that is a kind of reckoning I think is very serious.
Now, I don't have a problem accepting that TV breaks things up into bite-sized chunks that don't let people get any real understanding of the issues of the day. The ruling class are hardly going to let TV give people a clear idea of the way that society works. But using the phrase 'dumbing down' implies that people were once much smarter and that TV can be blamed for this decline in general intelligence and/or awareness.
What frustrates me about arguments like this is that there seems to be an underlying contempt for the people who enjoy watching corporate TV as it is served up today. I think it's very important for people who want to see different messages out there to work out how they can best spread their messages and appeal to people who like TV - it's time to compete against TV, not complain about it.
What about an 'Idol' that launched independent musicians and gave them airtime, while explaining to viewers how recording companies shaft artists? Or a reality TV show where the prize was only won if the contestants worked together to solve a series of challenges, instead of the way that most reality shows are set up to encourage backbiting and plotting?
I think that this is a really important part of revolutionary optimism.
I also think that the effect of TV is over-estimated. If a real economic crash happens, TV isn't going to keep people passive who otherwise were going to get angry. In fact, I think TV and so on is the least important factor in ruling class dominance. It can re-inforce - very strongly - the messages that a ruling class society puts out there, but the real power is wielded by the teacher who tells you that you are stupid and the best you can hope for is factory work, the boss who threatens to ruin you if you work for the union, and the cop who breaks a strike.
|
|
•
Re: wealth: the richest 10 percent
Posted by
kerrb
at
2007-09-22 02:13 PM
hi YM,
It's hard to get people to read books these days. Is it just a matter of your funds? Or perhaps you really think that web2.0 resources are a good enough substitute for the real thing?
It is possible to get a general idea of what Postman is on about by other means and to make some intelligent guesses at where he might be off the mark
There is another perspective too. That the nature of your response is an example of what Postman is critiquing - the aversion to reading a book that you have already made your mind up is "wrong" and have worked out a "critique" in your mind.
My response is that - "we don't know what we don't know". Perhaps your views on media would change if you read Postman, the whole thing. You still might be critical but in a different way
There are already far too many half baked conversations going on in web2.0 land for me to continue contributing to another one.
_________________________
Bill Kerr
|
|
•
Re: wealth: the richest 10 percent
Posted by
youngmarxist
at
2007-09-22 03:57 PM
No, web resources are the best I can do at the moment. I read books every day but I have to find the money to buy them. Since I am living on benefits, this is not easy.
Certainly my opinion might be off the mark but the interview with the Civic Arts Review seems to be a reasonably in-depth look at Postman's views.
But no matter what critiques can be made of the media (and there are many), I doubt that anything Postman can say would change my mind that it is our responsibility to find ways to spread the ideas and methods we want, and that critique alone can never be enough.
There's plenty of critique around, and no-where near enough plans to try and change things.
|
|
•
Postman analysis
Posted by
kerrb
at
2007-09-26 07:09 AM
YM wrote (about Postman): I'm relying on ... an interview that Postman did with the Civic Arts Review on "Television and the Public Decline of Public Discourse".
I reluctantly agree that the above interview is a reasonable introduction to some of Postman's ideas. Reluctantly because I still think you need to read the whole thing to fully appreciate a lot of his argument - and also me trying to explain it is a poor substitute But using the phrase 'dumbing down' implies that
people were once much smarter and that TV can be blamed for this
decline in general intelligence and/or awareness.
My interpretation of Postman is that he is not saying there is a decline in general intelligence. ((At any rate the evidence seems to be that IQ (whatever that measures) is on the average going up - Flynn effect - previously quoted by keza in The Nature of Work thread)) Postman talks about a culture where print is primary as one that encourages exposition and a culture where TV is primary as one that encourages entertainment, that TV is a medium that does exposition very poorly.
What
frustrates me about arguments like this is that there seems to be an
underlying contempt for the people who enjoy watching corporate TV as
it is served up today.
Well, YM, once you establish in your mind that Postman has "underlying contempt for the people" then you better be sure you end up refuting him - but really you are just asserting (and not demonstrating) that anyone who thinks like Postman must have an underlying contempt for the people
I think it's very important for people who want
to see different messages out there to work out how they can best
spread their messages and appeal to people who like TV - it's time to compete against TV, not complain about it.
What
about an 'Idol' that launched independent musicians and gave them
airtime, while explaining to viewers how recording companies shaft
artists? Or a reality TV show where the prize was only won if the
contestants worked together to solve a series of challenges, instead of
the way that most reality shows are set up to encourage backbiting and
plotting?
I think that this is a really important part of revolutionary optimism.
TV could be a lot better and Postman's analysis does not include an analysis of social class, he confines himself to media analysis. Nevertheless, you have not addressed Postman's argument here that the medium does make a difference (entertainment versus exposition). For example, are the sort of ideas expressed on LS best done through writing or through something like TV? My observation is that serious thinkers use a variety of media but their preferred media is writing. eg. Dawkins, Dennett. Many of their arguments are too complex to be expressed coherently or in depth on TV. We could have a talking heads lecture - but writing is a better medium for that IMO
But - "it's time to compete against TV, not complain about it" - it's hard to figure where you are coming from.
- "it's time to compete against TV" - How? (are you thinking of You Tube? - that's not TV)
- "not complain about it" - Why not?
I'm not sure what you are being optimistic about. That TV is a desirable medium for any sorts of ideas? That there are not limitations to this medium? That the idea that mediums do have an impact on messages or metaphors can be easily refuted? I'm not so sure.
I
also think that the effect of TV is over-estimated. If a real economic
crash happens, TV isn't going to keep people passive who otherwise were
going to get angry. In fact, I think TV and so on is the least
important factor in ruling class dominance. It can re-inforce - very
strongly - the messages that a ruling class society puts out there, but
the real power is wielded by the teacher who tells you that you are
stupid and the best you can hope for is factory work, the boss who
threatens to ruin you if you work for the union, and the cop who breaks
a strike
You are pointing out that the ruling class uses TV in people's leisure hours and other forms of control at School and work. True enough but your assertion that TV is the least important factor is just an opinion, there is no real argument from you here. But no matter what critiques can be made of the media (and there are
many), I doubt that anything Postman can say would change my mind that
it is our responsibility to find ways to spread the ideas and methods we want, and that critique alone can never be enough.
There's plenty of critique around, and no-where near enough plans to try and change things.
This is an argument that any sort of activism is better than activism based on critical and deep analysis. Irrespective of the merits of Postman, the old Marx would disagree with the young marxist on this one. How could I convince you? By pointing out that marxists have always emphasised the importance of theory? This is not a very convincing appeal to blind faith in what marxists have always emphasised but the best I can do for now.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying Postman is correct about everything (eg. the effect of social class is a huge miss in his writings) - but that his ideas about TV are important enough to be read in full.
_________________________
Bill Kerr
|
|
|
Forums
Main Forum
