Media in Communism

If I'm going to be honest, I'm growing weary of the very concept of mass media and whether it's truly compatible with democracy and socialism. It, or rather the information it transmits which is what matters anyway, is, by definition, both unidirectional and centralized; in other words, its very structure mimics that of an authoritarian hierarchy. If you tune in to a TV or YT channel, you immediately put yourself in a submissive relation to whomever is transmitting the message, whether it's to watch The Cranes Are Flying or Ow My Balls!. This happens because seeing as you have no input whatsoever, at least not during the time it actually matters, when all you can do is watch something else or even nothing at all. Sure, you can presumably suggest or complain to the channel, politely or not, after the fact, but you will simply be ignored unless a very high number of people sharing your opinion does the same. Seems familiar? It's the same principle behind the farce of bourgeois democracy. What you, individually or collectively, actually would like to watch, much like the people you would actually want to vote for, has little importance, because what's expected of you is to "choose" to either accept or acquiesce to what has been decided for you. All mass media follows an analogous form of the very principle of the consumer market, which is also, unsurprisingly, the principle of the bourgeois democracy itself: "vote with your wallet".

I'll end with a parenthetical. One might think, "at least with the likes of YT you can freely choose what you want to see", but that would be fallacious. YT is exactly like TV: watch or don't, whatever, no one's forcing you to. All it offers over TV is an immensely higher number of channels, almost all of which have even more dubious quality than those from TV. Sure, you have a much wider range of choices, and it's a godsend to be able to watch The Cranes Are Flying when 100% of TV's content and 99% of YT's is Ow My Balls!, but the point is, you still had virtually zero input on deciding what was shown, and starting your own channel will do absolutely nothing to adress the fact that you still can't find what you want. If you do happen to find exactly what you always wanted to watch, it was by sheer probability, thanks to YT's high number of minuscule channels. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people can't even choose to watch The Cranes Are Flying merely because they don't know it exists, thanks to a lifelong and overwhelming barrage of Ow My Balls!, as well as its equivalents in all other fields of human modern life.

What's your alternative?

Well, that's the million labor voucher question. Worldwide instantaneous telepathic network? Species-wide shared intelligence?

I haven't watched tv in about 10 years now i guess.
I mostly surf the net or read books. Im willing to watch a good movie but is usually foreign or independent or some artsy fartsy shit or i will watch really old movies, like the turner classic stuff.
When i was a kid i used to rent VHS tapes of charlie chaplin and marx bros films from the library.

Pretty much all media under capitalism is as you said trying to sell you something. Or trying to normalize the military industrial complex, or trying to promote the neoliberal status quo as cool and good.

I saw my parents raise my little sister. Every time she would ask them to buy her some stupid crap they would say "yes", but then never buy it for her.

She stopped asking after a while.

There's only one option.

Most media, especially those targeted at children, is made because people believe in them. They're not purposefully designed to be propaganda. They are the result of their environment, and people tend to flock to the one or few dominant ideologies, including creators.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Tisseron#Projects

Other then some rare exception most entertainment aimed at youth are geared towards promoting consumerism, either by selling their toy line or by promoting consumption in general. As for the situation today, it is far more a wasteland then when Newton Minnow created the term vast media wasteland in 1961.
I don't see this being a issue under communism as there would be no incentive for show writers to work in marketing.

Did you know the soviets had cartoons too.

The russian winnie the pooh looks like something some hipster shit from cal arts would have made to air on cartoon network

youtube.com/watch?v=P3UVAPQotxk

The Soviet Winnie the Poo is 1969 TV animation, meaning at the time the American counter-part was stuff like the original Scooby-Doo.

I mostly watch documentaries about food

HOW DARE YOU INSULT ВИННИ ПУХ

we weren't kidding when we said proletarian culture was extremely advanced.

My god, why must leftists be so annoying and serious about everything? Everyone here already knows capitalism will eat us all alive, but depriving them of entertainment and normie socialization because of muh ideology is some next level autism

of course, I used to watch it as well as a kid. It was worlds apart from American television. There wasn't really any violence like in of the time Looney Tunes. It was like 50% folk tales and book adaptations and 50% Soviet OC. It's kind of weird but I can't really remember any particular narrative that was pushed in these cartoons, not even socialism (tho maybe it was because I was too young to catch that), except the loaded conservative element in the fairy tales. I think the main difference is that Soviet cartoons were never really serialized except like Pooh if there were more stories to tell about.

Because exposing children to particular media is a serious matter.
Would you let your children rot their brain on television, social media and tablet games? If anything they'd be better socialized without it. A bit hypocritical coming from an Anprim smh.

Whoops, forgot to undo my shitposting flag

There are some developmentally appropriate and educational media in these things, a good parent thinks critically about what they expose their children to and discards the garbage appropriately.

Besides, childhood is a time for the child to learn about the society they live in and its norms (even though society is a noxious dumpster fire), save the discourse for when they're teenagers and they actually give a shit about these kinds of things.

The problem is there is a systematic degradation in western media . For example Looney Tunes was far less propaganda in its heyday given their artists lived during the Great Depression and it was decades before western media became a wasteland of bad writing and blatant advertising. Look at Riff Raft Daffy from 1948 and compare it to Space Jam from 1996 and you'll see a monumental shift.

What are some good ones?

Then don't watch Looney Toons?

You missed my point, I used Loony Tunes as a example of this decline in western media. You can't escape it, bad writing has infected Hollywood like a disease since now the focus is on marketing and quantity over quality.

You're missing mine. Of course there's toxic stuff in the media, but its mixed in with all the useful stuff too. The way capitalist society is structured is such that it is wholly necessary to utilize the media, but a good parent is able to inform the child of what is toxic and what is useful.

p.s. that poster is not the original one you were replying to

Is it?

You put my sentiments into words very well

All technology is this way. Cars and other vehicles were invented, and sure people can get around faster, but now most people in developed countries can't even go buy food without a car or public transportation. Same with the internet and TV; I teach middle school kids and they can't even do homework anymore without using the internet and their homework is full of pop culture references that would otherwise go over their heads

Please post a sample of this homework that is impossible to complete without watching TV.

What? When I was in High School in the 1990's the school board wouldn't acknowledge any art that was not classical.

I don't make and keep copies of my students' homework, sorry

The 90s was almost 20 years ago, bro

Yes and when I was in high school the English curriculum had been written in stone for decades prior. Where they just gave everyone the works of Shakespeare and Mark Twain so English teachers don't have to be re-trained (plus didn't have to deal with copyright).

So it's anti-socialist to disperse a pre-made message, art, "art", or entertainment because the viewer never decided whether or not it should be shown?

I assume "not during the time it actually matters" refers to before and during production? I don't see people making what they want to make without the coercive elements of exchange value and wages as being anti-socialist. Or perhaps (and it's not unlikely) I'm misunderstanding you.

Hot take: 20 years isn't a long time ago, you're just young so you think it is.

The newish idea of "teaching pop culture" is kind of disconcerting to me. From what I understand, it originally came from a critical place, but it seems to have been watered down significantly and tends toward Poochie territory now days.

The original reason is that school boards turn to universities for the proper interpenetration of literature, the classics have a mountains of papers already written yet by the time universities can deal with pop culture it is already dated.

Original reason for teaching classics

kek

I am normally not a fan of violent delights but for whoever created that monstrosity I make an exception.

youtu.be/byo-5Y8JWQg

20 years is more than a quarter of an average human life, that's a long time.

It is nothing when looking at society, human civilization is at least 6,000 years old. Capitalism only became dominant in the last two centuries.