Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What is a Democratic Socialist? [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)61. You are most welcome. Carey explains how Capital rose to defend itself with a bodyguard of lies.
If you didn't find it, here's the first part (scroll down at the link for the second part) on Carey:
http://tucradio.org/AlexCarey_ONE.mp3
Review of Alex Carey, Taking the Risk out of Democracy: Propaganda in the US and Australia
(University of NSW Press, 1995. 214 pp., $19.95)
Reviewed by Alex McCutcheon in Green Left Weekly
As Alex Carey sees it, "The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy''.
Throughout this book of collected essays with its unified theme, Carey succeeds in showing the reader that far from being a natural outcome of "market forces'' or some natural "law of nature'', the present hegemony that corporations enjoy has been the result of a consciously pursued goal whose origins lie within corporate America.
Carey makes the crucial (and often forgotten) point that in a technologically advanced democracy, "the maintenance of the existing power and privileges are vulnerable to popular opinion'' in a way that is not true in authoritarian societies. Therefore elite propaganda must assume a "more covert and sophisticated role''.
In the US, corporate propaganda has played upon the high level of religious beliefs in the community, beliefs which leave its citizens predisposed to see the world in "Manichean terms''. This outlook leads towards a preference for action over reflection, a "pragmatic orientation'' that is perfectly suited to the corporate aim of identifying positive symbols with business, while assigning negative values to those that oppose them, such as labour unions and welfare provisions.
CONTINUED...
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25/006.html
Please spread the word on the guy's work. The more people who understand why the media serve up the crapola, the better for democracy.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Never has worked...never will...no matter WHO tries to implement that system.nt
clarice
Aug 2015
#15
Excellent post! I have run into right wing trolls on this site who understand so little
PatrickforO
Aug 2015
#3
I knew that! We're definitely cool. But when the general election comes around and
PatrickforO
Aug 2015
#37
"... combines oligarchy with chest-pounding nationalism." Sounds like we have a little bit of
Stardust
Aug 2015
#58
The answer is, because that is an incorrect definition. The word Socialism in the definition isnt
stevenleser
Aug 2015
#13
"Democratic Socialists are anti-Capitalist and would seek to do away with Capitalism"
brooklynite
Aug 2015
#17
Is that what you call me having links to back me up? No wonder you are so confused! nt
stevenleser
Aug 2015
#47
Better than helping communist dictatorships like the Koch family did with Stalin!
cascadiance
Aug 2015
#60
The OP is confusing Social Democracy with Democratic Socialism. Democratic Socialists would agree
stevenleser
Aug 2015
#14
In a Boolean situation, what would you have him do, caucus with the GOP or vote with them?
stevenleser
Aug 2015
#62
Simple, you tried to make a judgement based on who he caucuses with and votes with.
stevenleser
Aug 2015
#69
That is an incorrect definition. The Actual Democratic Socialists of America describe themselves
stevenleser
Aug 2015
#11
They believe in working within capitalism AND within the Democratic Party. See Reply 27.
merrily
Aug 2015
#29
As far as it will take them, sure. But they are also clearly against Capitalism and for Socialism.
stevenleser
Aug 2015
#49
I'm always puzzled when I read that about Americans fearing becoming like Norway or
Stardust
Aug 2015
#59
You are most welcome. Carey explains how Capital rose to defend itself with a bodyguard of lies.
Octafish
Aug 2015
#61
It doesn't matter what the actual Def is: Socialism is defined by those who practice it.
lewebley3
Aug 2015
#19
Sure, Definitions don't matter, only stuff people pull out of their ears matters.
merrily
Aug 2015
#22
I am Dem I could not vote for socialist. Sanders should not be in the Dem party
lewebley3
Aug 2015
#36
He's not a Socialist, so no worries. See Reply 27 and the threads linked in that post.
merrily
Aug 2015
#38
I watch this man career for about 25 years: He refused to join the Dem for years
lewebley3
Aug 2015
#40
You think Dean (former Gov of Vermont and former DNC head) and Schumer didn't also watch his career?
merrily
Aug 2015
#41
Yes, this is the mentality you see down there in many cases. Time for an edumacation!!!
cascadiance
Aug 2015
#64
THANK YOU!!!! It is a shame that we live in the only western democracy where it is necessary
Douglas Carpenter
Aug 2015
#65