3 ms·

But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support 'those at the top'. Empirical observation over abstract philosophizing, please. Socie

But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support 'those at the top'. Empirical observation over abstract philosophizing, please. Society is much more complex & interesting than Chomsky imagines, with many more nuances. Even the actual federal government and military have many competing factions with different interests, different goals, etc. It's a philosopher's 'let's model civilization as a one-page flowchart' level of analysis. I don't think it's particularly deep or interesting, and I read a great deal of Chomsky back in the day

streb-lo 7y ago
This reads like an undergrad's hot take. No offense, and there are plenty of valid criticisms of Chomsky, but this is the laziest reading and interpretation of Chomsky that you are arguing with. >t's a philosopher's 'let's model civilization as a one-page flowchart' level of analysis. Irony.
Supermancho 7y ago
> (there are) incentives for all these organizations are aligned towards those same interests. > But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support 'those at the top'. That isn't the same thing. I'm not sure how you connect these. This is better illustrated in specific countries, where the incentives are fierce and immediate. You still see dissent there too, but that's not relevant to the point ("I don't see it all the time so it's not true", missing the point).
- hash872 7y ago
  The thesis of the book is that mass media acts or editorializes on behalf of the powerful in society- not just that their 'incentives are aligned'. The book is about the specific actions that media companies supposedly take. So, pointing out all of the times that mass media has acted orthogonally to powerful interests in society (publishing the Pentagon Papers, publishing the Snowden revelations, the current run of publishing ultra-critical pieces about tech companies, etc.) would be relevant counter-examples. Zooming out slightly, handwaving everyone who's wealthy or powerful in the US into 'elites' that are sort of one fused organic unit with identical interests is just bad, sloppy thinking, sorry. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the military, Fortune 500 corporations, Hollywood, New York/DC-media companies, Ivy League universities- they're all 'elites' and they are competing, at times hostile power centers to each other. I don't take any analysis that smushes them into 'elites' or 'the 1%' or whatever seriously. (For example, the 'mass media' that Chomsky handwaves- a more precise description would be New York/DC media moguls- is actively hostile to Silicon Valley these days. Many of these power centers actively compete. His categories are absurdly broad)
  - ehmish 7y ago
    Currently the elites are fighting and not one united front against the non-elites (the rise of tech created a new elite group that wasn't dependent on the existing elites to exist), bit that doesn't mean one side won't either eventually win, or broker a truce in order to go on managing the masses for corporate gain.
    - tsimionescu 7y ago
      But even now, how are the elites not united in most goals? Are the new tech elite pro workers rights? Are they for radical action to stop global warming? Are they anti-monopoly? Are they pro corporate taxation? Are they anti-interventionist? There may be in-fighting between the elites, but that does not mean that these groups are not still aligned on most broad topics. Teh same has always been true for democrats VS Republicans. They do care who gets to be in power, and will fight tooth-and-nail for that, but neither will do anything that would hurt the elites in general.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    No, the mass-media that Chomsky discusses very much includes Hollywood, Jeff Bezos' newspapers, gaming companies and any other popular company producing media. Of course there is in-fighting amongst the elites. But there is no group of elites that is willing to reduce the power of even a different group in favor of 'the masses'. The NY/DC media moguls may want to take SV down a peg, but they wouldn't want to see, say, FB become a worker's co-op, or Jeff Bezos to start paying 90% progressive income tax.
tsimionescu 7y ago
But we do! To a great extent, anyway. There is a spectrum of opinion, but it broadly goes between 'the most important thing is that the biggest corporations continue to make a larger profit, damn all else' at the extreme right, and 'we should make sure there is a modicum of prosperity for everyone, so that they will keep supporting our goal of ever increasing profit, damn almost everything else'. There are other topics where there is a wider variety of opinions (e.g. climate change, though even there, addressing climate change is only considered to the extent that it wouldn't hurt profit too much, or universal healthcare). There may very rarely be an article or two that really are going against the grain, but that is to be expected, since there is no claim of hard censorship.

streb-lo 7y ago

This reads like an undergrad's hot take. No offense, and there are plenty of valid criticisms of Chomsky, but this is the laziest reading and interpretation of Chomsky that you are arguing with. >t's a philosopher's 'let's model civilization as a one-page flowchart' level of analysis. Irony.

Supermancho 7y ago

> (there are) incentives for all these organizations are aligned towards those same interests. > But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support 'those at the top'. That isn't the same thing. I'm not sure how you connect these. This is better illustrated in specific countries, where the incentives are fierce and immediate. You still see dissent there too, but that's not relevant to the point ("I don't see it all the time so it's not true", missing the point).

hash872 7y ago
The thesis of the book is that mass media acts or editorializes on behalf of the powerful in society- not just that their 'incentives are aligned'. The book is about the specific actions that media companies supposedly take. So, pointing out all of the times that mass media has acted orthogonally to powerful interests in society (publishing the Pentagon Papers, publishing the Snowden revelations, the current run of publishing ultra-critical pieces about tech companies, etc.) would be relevant counter-examples. Zooming out slightly, handwaving everyone who's wealthy or powerful in the US into 'elites' that are sort of one fused organic unit with identical interests is just bad, sloppy thinking, sorry. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the military, Fortune 500 corporations, Hollywood, New York/DC-media companies, Ivy League universities- they're all 'elites' and they are competing, at times hostile power centers to each other. I don't take any analysis that smushes them into 'elites' or 'the 1%' or whatever seriously. (For example, the 'mass media' that Chomsky handwaves- a more precise description would be New York/DC media moguls- is actively hostile to Silicon Valley these days. Many of these power centers actively compete. His categories are absurdly broad)
- ehmish 7y ago
  Currently the elites are fighting and not one united front against the non-elites (the rise of tech created a new elite group that wasn't dependent on the existing elites to exist), bit that doesn't mean one side won't either eventually win, or broker a truce in order to go on managing the masses for corporate gain.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    But even now, how are the elites not united in most goals? Are the new tech elite pro workers rights? Are they for radical action to stop global warming? Are they anti-monopoly? Are they pro corporate taxation? Are they anti-interventionist? There may be in-fighting between the elites, but that does not mean that these groups are not still aligned on most broad topics. Teh same has always been true for democrats VS Republicans. They do care who gets to be in power, and will fight tooth-and-nail for that, but neither will do anything that would hurt the elites in general.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  No, the mass-media that Chomsky discusses very much includes Hollywood, Jeff Bezos' newspapers, gaming companies and any other popular company producing media. Of course there is in-fighting amongst the elites. But there is no group of elites that is willing to reduce the power of even a different group in favor of 'the masses'. The NY/DC media moguls may want to take SV down a peg, but they wouldn't want to see, say, FB become a worker's co-op, or Jeff Bezos to start paying 90% progressive income tax.

tsimionescu 7y ago

But we do! To a great extent, anyway. There is a spectrum of opinion, but it broadly goes between 'the most important thing is that the biggest corporations continue to make a larger profit, damn all else' at the extreme right, and 'we should make sure there is a modicum of prosperity for everyone, so that they will keep supporting our goal of ever increasing profit, damn almost everything else'. There are other topics where there is a wider variety of opinions (e.g. climate change, though even there, addressing climate change is only considered to the extent that it wouldn't hurt profit too much, or universal healthcare). There may very rarely be an article or two that really are going against the grain, but that is to be expected, since there is no claim of hard censorship.