4 ms·

The New Yorker is an upper-middle class publication. That is its target audience. Other magazines owned by the same media conglomerate, Conde Nast, are broadly

The New Yorker is an upper-middle class publication. That is its target audience. Other magazines owned by the same media conglomerate, Conde Nast, are broadly similar in orientation: Vogue, Bon Appetit, Vanity Fair, GQ, Architectural Digest. I don't think they 'advocate for the lower classes', subjectively or objectively. I read very few socialists and communists in the New Yorker!

BurningFrog 6y ago
As OP said,"pretend they advocate for the lower classes"
- Emma_Goldman 6y ago
  Hence why I wrote 'subjectively or objectively'. They have no pretence to being a working-class magazine, or to advocating a working-class politics.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    OK. Maybe we're not so different after all!
pas 6y ago
Do socialists/communists really advocate for the lower classes?
- tharne 6y ago
  Nope, they advocate for "control", with them in charge, of course.
  - tdhz77 6y ago
    Who better to control the money and know how best to use money than the people?
    - mc32 6y ago
      I think you’re talking past each other. In communism, in principle, things belong “to the people”, but in reality they belong to the state which can decide what you get, and taken away (as form of punishment). On the other hand, in democracies governments rarely leave things to “the people” they take the money to the feds, the state, county and then the local gov... Do I want my money going to podunk or a mismanaged (corrupt city), or locally where we have more of a voice?
    - tharne 6y ago
      People should be in control of the money they earn, because that's the only time there's any skin in the game. If you think The Government == The People, you're out of your mind. It's a nice ideal, but it's never been achieved in a modern nation state. Some nation states are less abusive than others, but that's as good as it gets. The government is careless with spending and can't be trusted with people's money because they didn't earn the money they have. They took it out of people's paychecks, and if they run out, they can levy more taxes or just print more, there's no incentive to be thoughtful, careful, or diligent. At any rate, when the government is reckless with people's money, it's never the government that has to feel any pain.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Depends on the socialists or communists, but historically - often, yes. Certainly more so than capitalists, who are either indifferent or actively hostile, but may pretend to be otherwise as a matter of political expediency.
- OwlsParlay 6y ago
  That's entirely the point of the idealogy. The problem is that after the anti-communist purges of the 60s', there's no representation of the lower classes in academia or political science. This is less of a problem in European countries where their socialist parties actually have a strong working-class background.

BurningFrog 6y ago

As OP said,"pretend they advocate for the lower classes"

Emma_Goldman 6y ago
Hence why I wrote 'subjectively or objectively'. They have no pretence to being a working-class magazine, or to advocating a working-class politics.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  OK. Maybe we're not so different after all!

pas 6y ago

Do socialists/communists really advocate for the lower classes?

tharne 6y ago
Nope, they advocate for "control", with them in charge, of course.
- tdhz77 6y ago
  Who better to control the money and know how best to use money than the people?
  - mc32 6y ago
    I think you’re talking past each other. In communism, in principle, things belong “to the people”, but in reality they belong to the state which can decide what you get, and taken away (as form of punishment). On the other hand, in democracies governments rarely leave things to “the people” they take the money to the feds, the state, county and then the local gov... Do I want my money going to podunk or a mismanaged (corrupt city), or locally where we have more of a voice?
  - tharne 6y ago
    People should be in control of the money they earn, because that's the only time there's any skin in the game. If you think The Government == The People, you're out of your mind. It's a nice ideal, but it's never been achieved in a modern nation state. Some nation states are less abusive than others, but that's as good as it gets. The government is careless with spending and can't be trusted with people's money because they didn't earn the money they have. They took it out of people's paychecks, and if they run out, they can levy more taxes or just print more, there's no incentive to be thoughtful, careful, or diligent. At any rate, when the government is reckless with people's money, it's never the government that has to feel any pain.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Depends on the socialists or communists, but historically - often, yes. Certainly more so than capitalists, who are either indifferent or actively hostile, but may pretend to be otherwise as a matter of political expediency.
OwlsParlay 6y ago
That's entirely the point of the idealogy. The problem is that after the anti-communist purges of the 60s', there's no representation of the lower classes in academia or political science. This is less of a problem in European countries where their socialist parties actually have a strong working-class background.