The RIAA and p2p sharing

[ashep612]

Okay, in another post, I forget which one its been awhile, people were talking about how much they dislike the RIAA because, as far as they are concerned, the RIAA doesn't give money to the artists and they keep potentially good artists from making it anywhere. Well I am asking this question, if tommorrow the U.S. Government decided that the RIAA and any organization like it was unlawful and they had to cease operations and the people, not the RIAA, decided what was good, would p2p stop? If the artists, producers, etc., no more record labels, gained 100% of the profits from their sales would the p2p stop? I think not, because when it comes down to it, everyone wants something for nothing.

[Caitlyn Marble]

yeah, well, at least radio would be liberated by having the pop synchers literally fallen off the airwaves, since they basically live off of exposure and since thier main backers are the RIAA, well, they'll be relegated to fashion magazines and the national enquirer.

Oh, and we could go back to a simpler age in which the hit single came on a CD which actually had other really good songs on it too. Like the whole album perhaps. (I ain't talking about cheezy hit song compilations either) then maybe people will start buying more, and artists will be making a decent living. People will still be sharing music on p2p, and money will be lost in this way, but in my eyes its a neccessary evil. P2P will always be free, and people will buy what they like.

[Caitlyn Marble]

basically the point is that the RIAA won't be killing music anymore with made for TV artists.

[TC75580]

Oh, and we could go back to a simpler age in which the hit single came on a CD which actually had other really good songs on it too.

Throughout popular music history there have always been albums like this, even nowadays. You know which ones are good and which have filler, but this has been happening for years.

And IMO, I don't care if an artist is manufactured or not, as long as they have some good records. If they don't, then they are trash, even if they've got a hit single.

[ashep612]

I think that if the RIAA did suddenly collapse the music industry would not change much. Radio stations would still play what was popular and the artists would just be that much more rich. I think p2p would stay simply because people would use the rationalization of "Oh, they already have enough money" or something like that. p2p is here to stay regardless of the RIAA or anyone else for that matter.

[Caitlyn Marble]

Originally posted by TC75580

Throughout popular music history there have always been albums like this, even nowadays. You know which ones are good and which have filler, but this has been happening for years.

well, its gotten really bad these last couple of years, especially with pop music. And I don't buy a cd without trying it out, so I never have that problem anymore, but from the comments I see on the board, some people haven't figured out how to download an album, or they have cash to spare.

:bk

[Peter Stroker]

The RIAA is just trying to survive. They know they are outdated.Technology has rendered them obsolete. But, they've got an incredibly good thing going and they're going to fight tooth and nail to survive, despite what's best for the public. They've got high-priced trial lawyers,lobbyists with unlimited funding, and they are super greedy mo-fos. They need to DIE NOW!

[WhitePony]

To me, the general decline in music quality started with the advent of the CD format and it´s progressing overpricing. The fact that this format allows for more minutes of music in one disc than was the case with vinyl has been progressively forcing music makers to come with more stuff to fill a disc, thus, more poor quality music in one CD. Just look at the way the number of tracks in a disc has been rising. In the vinyl era, you had LP´s with 8-9 songs, top. Now, it´s very common to see major label artists coming out with 14-track albums. And since nobody thinks in the long term anymore, that means more filler without any kind of quality.
Since the "quick buck" is the predominant mentality in the music business, no one bothers to make a long term investment in developing a band anymore. So, these bands know that they have to make a hit single in order to "make it" and spend less time in actually creating a good album, also with the knowledge that they´ll get ripped off in the royalties department anyway...
I speak for myself...I only got into P2P about 2 months ago, but I had already stopped buying as many CD´s as before a long time ago...and I was the kind of guy who bought at leats 4 CD´s per month.
Look at Tool : they are one of the few bands to come up with 70+ minutes albums that are consistent throughout. But for that, they take their time and had to get into a legal battle with their former manager and record label...
Major labels spend huge ammounts in promoting shit, most of the times to little effect. Why not use P2P for promotion? Wake the hell up!

[Arby]

RIAA will exist and do just fine - it's problems, keep in mind, are 'relative' - as long as capitalism exists. Actually, the first poster's question was a good one, as it brings up a number of issues.

What do people want? Well, That matters, and it's good or bad depending on whether people are principled or unprincipled. I myself don't believe in democracy, but I do believe in fairness. I get along just fine with democrats who believe in fairness. I can be friends with others who don't believe the way I do.

I don't believe capitalism will be with us forever. For now, we have capitalism, and all that that allows. My view is that capitalism today is not really a 'certain type' of capitalism, although to say so is acceptable shorthand. But unlike social democrats, who think that all that is wrong with capitalism can simply be fixed, or reformed, I think that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. Money exists for one reason only, namely so that some can have more of it, and more of what it can buy, than others. With that at the core of capitalism, talking about reforming the system makes no sense. You don't reform immorality. You stop it.

While I have definite views on things, I am not fanatical. When the social democrats (like the NDP here in Canada) actually succeed in getting reforms put in place, Do I object? Not al all. Less exploitation and oppression (my shorthand for capitalism) is always preferable to more. Capitalism today (neoliberal, which means no regulations on 'capitalists' and lots on 'labor') is showing it's true colors. When the machinery (technology, processes) is fully in place and the system is fully functional, the true measure of the entire system, which is still manmade and still operated by humans, is easier to take. Inequality is this system's hallmark. Depending on your values, that is either acceptable or unacceptable. I'm always trying to get folks, including social democrats, to understand that winning or losing economically (which relates to file sharing, since economic strength equals political strength equals who says how things should go) in this game of 'riches for the strongest' isn't the important issue. The game's the problem. If the game's rules say that there always has to be losers, and the losers will be the majority (and with capitalism it also means the health of the planet), then 'riches for the strongest' in fact is a no win situation. Even the Darwinian-minded winners are losing in this game.

Precisely because we are presently imperfect, do we need to understand that with a system like capitalism, the best way to run it is, is 'not' the way that it normally should be run. Democrats can be imperfect, but they don't have to be unwise or unprincipled. If we ran our capitalist system more the way it was run post World War 2, when John Maynard Keynes (thanks to a president who for a moment exercised wisdom and grasped that we couldn't run capitalism full tilt if we wanted to be sane or show compassion; he later weakened, but not before the Bretton Woods system of 'regulated' capitalism was established), then the free p2p community and the RIAA could find some way to work things out.

That's because there is more fairness in an arrangement where all of the political power does not reside with holders of capital who also control the politicians. As well, The capitalists can't get away with applying the business model to everything, which has very perverted outcomes, as we see in education (Ontario is being ravaged by the defund, destroy, discredit, and discard caitalist, business model approach to education. The Tories here, and the Liberals are of the same mind, want to come up with the 'discard' or 'privatization' solution to the education system that they defunded and crippled.). In other words, Whether it's right or wrong, from a simple, personal, business perspective (and according to rules, after all, that the capitalists have managed to have made for their own personal benefit), Should the RIAA be able to do what it wants and no one else? In other words, What about what we want? Forget the rules of capitalism, made by the powerful to crush and regulate the poor and others (critics etc). What do we want? Does that have no frikken place in anyone's deliberations?!! Provided we don't want what we want at others' expense (and with fairness in place, no single group can arbitrarily decide what that means), Why can't we have it? In a 'deformed' (half decent) capitalism system, Everyone gets something, even if there's still too much inequality, which there always will be as long as capitalism is with us.

Later...

[PatientSaint]

I find it funny again that you blame the system and not the people running it. I don't see how you blame an ecocnic sitatuation for the current climate of P2P and the RIAA. This has been a storm long brewing since the 1950's when the current outdated business model was adapted an mixed in with pop culture tastes with music.The current problem right now i don't believe is at fault with an economic system( as i sure you will refuse concede). I hope i can givea few credited reasons

1. Technology advances and refuses to keep up with it
2. We actually have an alternative now so that erases their oliogopoly
3. Generation differences
4. I think the biggest perhaps is the fear of change

Technology has gotten us to digital format of music and many other things. IF the RIAA had been smart when they saw appilcations like napster soaring to popularity they'd got something like like it up and running for a small fee as an alternative to "piracy" but in stead at first they saw it as now threat and when it become evident it was a bigger problem to thier business practices than they had first thought they've jumped on it. Had they embraced P2P as a mass advertising tool they would've had no problems with it. They simply refuse it seems to me to update their outdated business model.

Before our alternative to high prices and shoddy artists was college radio airwaves an indie record labels. Which stil lare great soucres of unheard talent. But the Net opened up doors to expose people to new sounds and ideas in music. An with P2P exploding in the late ninties came P2P which came on the scene as friends swapping files and trading for free. This was an alternative cuonsumers didn't have before an now it threatens to break up their oliogoply.

Generations differences has something to do with it as well i believe. A lot of the older board member of labels i am willing to bet are older business men and women. They've seen Vinyl to 8-track to the advent of cassette to the rampant takeover of CD and now easily digital transfer os music an MP3 format an i have to mention Ogg-vorbis now for all u fans. That's some change in their lifetime and i am sure they really down to the core don't understand a lot of it .They don't want to because they can't really relate to the applications of it all.

The last reason i think partiailly is a fault with some people and that is fear of change. Things are changing rpaidly in this new brave world we face. Computers are getting small an faster i heard the other day at MIT they made next generation computers that use molecules as the transisters an ressitors etc. Point is things will keep changing an some people can't handle that so they want to hold onto the past. Sure our pasts have had good times as well as bad. But if you can't keep up with the pace of change today and technology (or in the RIAA's case refuse to embrace it and target those who do) you're doomed to be left behind. That's what going on with the RIAA they're getting left behind and they are clawing their way to try an keep thier old business practices when they just won't work anymore.

My last point is going to be this arby. Any system can look good on paper but if you don't have people in he right mindset to make it work to it's potential their will always be a chance for corruption, greed, political scandal, exploitation in ANY economic system. The system isn't wrong it's the people running it that are.

[Arby]

PatientSaint: I don’t want to let people off the hook if they are guilty. The folks who have given us neoliberal capitalism are guilty. Your ‘argument’ would be solid if I ‘was’ saying that people can’t do any wrong. I haven’t said any such thing.

I don't subscribe to the 'force' belief, which says, among other things, that everyone possesses a good 'and' an evil part to them. We are imperfect, which is not quite the same thing. For one thing, We have inherited that imperfection, and God takes that into account and has a plan for dealing with that and reversing it. (That doesn't mean that those who have inherited imperfection can't blow it by taking it further.) Living reality, which is based on the living God, Jehovah, does not include allowance for serious evildoers, who have deliberately rejected the Creator and his standards, to continue forever. They are eventually destroyed body and soul. They do not get to do a 'Darth Vader'. If such a system existed, then all such reformed Darth Vaders could again become evil Darth Vaders. A God of love would not consent to maintaining such a chaotic system, in which those who are innocent can never truly and fully expect to be free from oppression and exploitation.

In fact, Those who stand to lose the most from the disbandment of the status quo are those who would argue that negative outcomes are the result of a few bad apples. I’m not arguing that there aren’t a few bad apples. I wouldn’t take those out of the discussion. I would offer additional factors, like perhaps more than a few bad apples, as well as a bad system, which bad apples have designed and sleepy citizens have not sufficiently opposed. Here in Ontario, Canada, destructive capitalism is in high gear. School trustees, who do full time work for less than part time wages, have joined with parents in resisting the province’s privatization schemes for education. The province passed a law prohibiting school boards from running budget deficits. Meanwhile classroom sizes are too large, kids don’t have clean, safe schools, or enough textbooks. And so on. And the province, like the neoliberal federal government, is not properly funding social programs and public institutions. But the parents and the trustees who are opposing the government’s plan also voted for the government! That’s what I mean by sleepy citizens.

Also, When you get fascistic, neoliberal (deregulate and privatize) governments in place, you can’t always count on them even playing by the rules. They move the goal posts whenever they want. Especially when there’s no proportional representation can governments like these carry out their privatization and deregulation agenda with ease and against the wishes of the majority. Here in Ontario, again, the government introduced an omnibus bill in 1995. Omnibus bills aren’t unusual. But this one was far ranging. Normally, such bills deal with housekeeping matters. The Harris government (Mike Harris has retired, but his righthand man, Ernie Eves took over) introduced the legislation just before the Christmas break when most MPPs were in their ridings. And the government made no provisions for public hearings, which was scandalous enough that it relented and allowed three weeks for that.

“What has not been much talked about in the public forum is the very notion of an Omnibus Bill in the context of our British style of parliamentary government. Our system is one in which a determined government has considerable power as long as it can keep a majority caucus on side. One of the only real checks on the power of the government is the legislative process itself, supposedly requiring even the most ruthless government to submit to parliamentary debate on each legislative initiative (most publicly during Question Period). To ensure that parliamentary debate happens, the tradition of parliamentary procedure is that each Bill must deal with a single, coherent theme... The requirement to deal with issues individually is a vital restraint on the powers of any government.” -pages 86 & 87 of ALIEN INVASION - HOW THE TORIES MISMANAGED ONTARIO, edited by Ruth Cohen (2001)

That particular omnibus bill dealt with much more than spelling errors. It in fact included numerous bills that each needed careful study and debate, including debate in public, since policy changes were being put in place. “This behavior, which came early in the mandate of the Conservative government, left some Ontarians uneasy about the commitment of the Harris government to well-established democratic procedures.”

What’s changed in Ontario? Nothing. “Moraine morass is a developer’s bonanza,” is the title of (former Toronto mayor) John Sewell’s article in the Sept 12, 2002 edition of Eye magazine. “One of the most startling public acts of deception and sleight of hand has been undertaken by the provincial government. It’s breathtaking, actually... Tony Clement promised that provincial staff would attend Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearings to testify about the impact of development... Indeed, provincial staff pulled no punches... Rather than allow the hearing to complete its course, the new minister, Chris Hodgson, brought in legislation to freeze the situation for six months... Many were surprised at the apparent goodwill of the government... The government basked momentarily in the happy glow and then it began to draft a plan covering the whole of the moraine... Many complained publicly about the way precise parcels were categorized, but the plan was quickly adopted by the minister. Then on June 27, Hodgson, empowered by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, created a planning order enacting the necessary Official Plan and zoning approvals for subdivisions permitting the development of 7,000 new homes in Richmond Hill. All of the land in his orders is within the moraine, and the bulk of it is labelled settlement areas. The minister did not publish these orders in The Ontario Gazette, a biweekly formal government publication, as he is required to do - he has still not done so - so the developers were the only people who knew of their good luck.”

Once the giddy developers, concerned only with their profits, saw this favorable development, they applied to get technical approval of their plans, which is how the public found out about the betrayal. While the original hearings that Hodgson terminated were looking at ‘whether’ to build on the sensitive moraine lands, Now, under the new Oak Ridges Conservation Act, the settlements are allowed, and only “details of the subdivision plans remain to be resolved.”

The ‘few bad apples’ line, in fact, is the standard defence of those who are on top within the status quo. How does everyone contribute to the problem? Everyone’s playing the Darwinian game of ‘riches for the strongest’. Economic losers and winners alike are caught up in a personally and socially harmful machismo, a social reality that sees such machismo as being a positive, rather than a negative. Survival, and not ‘how’ you do it, is the highest ‘principle’. Folks who think this way put a high premium on aggressiveness, brute strength and cunning. Hodgson, et al, may be liars and betrayers, but the more important point is that they are ‘winners’ and they are playing ‘by the rules’, namely the same rules that the losers are playing by. That’s why I disagree with the title of Ruth Cohen’s book, which, again, is ALIEN INVASION.

Are Americans any different than Canadians, or Brits or French citizens, etc.? I personally don’t think so. But those who are American, who therefore have learned what they know from being there and watching fellow Americans at work, will ‘seem’ to think so. Nevertheless, They offer valuable lessons - for everyone everywhere, especially considering that it’s that nation that leads the world. Elliot Aronson is a social psychologist and he has this to say in his book, THE SOCIAL ANIMAL (1972):

“As a culture, we Americans seem to thrive on competition; we reward winners and turn away from losers. For two centuries, our educational system has been based upon competitiveness and the laws of survival. With very few exceptions, we do not teach our kids to love learning - we teach them to strive for high grades. When sportswriter Grantland Rice said that what’s important is not whether you win or lose but how you play the game, he was not describing the dominant theme in American life, he was prescribing a cure for our overconcern with winning. From the Little League ball player who bursts into tears after his team loses to the college students in the football stadium chanting “We’re number one!,” from Lyndon Johnson, whose judgment during the Vietnam conflict was almost certainly distorted by his oft-stated desire not to be the first American president to lose a war to the third-grader who despises his classmate for a superior performance on an arithmetic test, we manifest a staggering cultural obsession with victory. Vince Lombardi, a very successful professional football coach, may have summed it all up with the simple statement “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” What is frightening about the acceptance of this philosophy is that it implies that the goal of victory justifies whatever means we use to win...” -pages 167 & 168

‘Riches for the strongest’ is the dominant paradigm (a philosophical system, if you like) of human civilization at this time. (I personally don’t embrace it.) Should it not be examined?

[PatientSaint]

ok....well good reading material def and i know you are a smart man. But, as i've asked in a past thread i am curious what economic system works to your tastes.Or have you been putting out some nice stories just no concrete ideas to back up what you preach? As for you saying that i implied that you said people do no wrong nope. I was pointing out merely how you seem to blame the total system.I'd really just like to know what your ideas on a fair working system would be instead of you preaching propaganda.

[Arby]

Preaching progaganda? What's bugging you? So, I'm a "smart man" preaching "propaganda." I noticed that you didn't take very long to reply to my post. If I'm preaching propaganda - a euphemism for someone who thinks about things and has definite ideas? - then you've decided that I don't know anything, since you only skimmed over my post. Should I show you the same courtesy I wonder?

I'll post another piece of propaganda, not as an answer to you, but just to complete my thought. Then, as far as you are concerned, I'm done. I don't engage flamers and lamers. Go back to sleep.

[Arby]

Capitalism was throughly discredited with the Great Depression. But triumphant capitalism doesn’t see any real threats from other systems. Capitalism may be a terrible system, but it is indeed triumphant. The rickety house, in which there are a very few masters who preside over a great number of slaves, stands. Some of the slaves would rather see a well run, safe and clean mansion, in which no one was the boss and in which everyone contributed and benefitted from the collective contribution. But too many slaves also think that things are normal.

Noam Chomsky has some useful things to (authoritatively) say about the capitalist system. One of the ways those who benefit from that system go about protecting it is via propaganda.

“In accordance with the prevailing conceptions, there is no infringement of democracy if a few corporations control the information system: in fact, that is the essence of democracy. The leading figure of the public relations industry, Edward Bernays, explained that “the very essence of the democratic process,” is “the freedom to persuade and suggest,” what he calls “the engineering of consent.” If the freedom to persuade happens to be concentrated in a few hands, we must recognize that such is the nature of a free society. Since the early twentieth century, the public relations industry has devoted huge resources to “educating the American people about the economic facts of life” to ensure a favorable climate for business. Its task is to control “the public mind,” which is “the only serious danger confronting the company,” an AT&T executive observed eighty years ago,” from the year, 1991, that DETERRING DEMOCRACY, from which I take this excerpt (page 366), was published.

Chomsky goes on to quote Bernays (whose “advocacy of propaganda is cited by Thomas McCann, head of public relations for the United Fruit Company, for which Bernays provided signal service in preparing the ground for the overthrow of Guatemalan democracy in 1954, a major triumph of business propaganda with the willing compliance of the media,” for which Clinton later apologized, I might add) and Walter Lippman, men of great influence, who believed that democracy should mean both manufacturing consent - rather than sharing information with the public and then dialoging with it and coming to decisions based on input from people from all walks of life - and the running of society by the few ‘right’ people. The first target of propaganda must be the managers of society, a middle class that serves the elites by keeping themselves ‘and’ the rabble below them in line.

“It follows that two political roles must be clearly distinguished, Lippman goes on to explain. First, there is the role assigned to the specialized class, the “insiders,” the “responsible men,” who have access to information and understanding. Ideally, they should have a special education for public office, and should master the criteria for solving the problems of society: “In the degree to which these criteria can be made exact and objective, political decision,” which is their domain, “is actually brought into relation with the interests of men.” The “public men” are, furthermore, to “lead opinion” and take the responsibility for “the formation of a sound public opinion... They initiate, they administer, they settle,” and should be protected from “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders,” the general public, who are incapable of dealing “with the substance of the problem.”

Chomsky bemoans the lack of democracy, which he believes in. I bemoan the lack of fairness, which is one of the things I believe in.

AGE OF PROPAGANDA, also by Elliot Aronson (co-authored with Anthony Pratkanis) whose book THE SOCIAL ANIMAL, I quoted from in my last post, adds some valuable insights and facts to this discussion, when it’s authors point out that we are too busy in our message-dense, hectic society (all developed democracies would qualify) to centrally process information, a fact that our elites are aware of and don’t intend to do anything about. We can’t weigh the pros and cons of so much information that comes to us - which is sometimes serious, as for example, at election time. Therefore we rely on heuristics, or shortcuts, that are simple cues that know from common experience. A mom shopping for cereal, with kid in tow in the supermarket, is more likely going to grab the box of cereal whose advertisements on television have most impressed themselves into her brain, especially if the package shows a bowl of wholesome grains with the raw grains and so forth in the background. Whereas a bowl of cereal that shows what looks like animal or other shaped candy obviously designed to appeal to kids but not very revealing as to what it’s made of, would not signal to the mom that that is what she wants. And yet, that visual reliance isn’t a good substitute for stopping and reading the ingredients on the box and knowing, from previous reading, whether what’s listed is good or not.

Highly sophisticated propaganda - more necessary in developed democracies where people have won freedoms, as Chomsky notes - together with brutal work culture which zaps our energies and steals our time, conspire to keep us from easily dealing with important matters affecting us. And the elites know that and count on that system to keep us in line and out of their way. Still, There are challenges to the elites, such as was presented by the assassination of JFK.

The murder of JFK led to a great propaganda campaign that had as it’s main goal the diversion of public examination of the killing and the very system in which such a killing could take place. By making it look like JFK was a good man who wanted to end the war in Vietnam and usher in a new era of peace, the propagandists made it appear as though it wasn’t the system that was at fault. Afterall, the system produced Kennedy. It was just a few bad apples, albeit a few ‘powerful’ bad apples, who went too far and sidetracked democracy, temporarily. John Newman’s faulty history was used by Oliver Stone to make his blockbuster movie, JFK, which was great entertainment. Unfortunately, It was also great propaganda. The central idea of Newman’s history, which Stone picked up on, was the idea that JFK’s last National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) and Lyndon Johnson’s first NSAM, were different and reflected different policy directions. In other words, The motive of whatever group assassinated JFK was related to JFK’s threat to the ‘business’ of armies, which is to keep the military industrial complex and it’s elite managers and the whole capitalist system going.

We don’t know who, exactly, killed Kennedy. But we do know that the establishment embarked upon a grand propaganda campaign afterward to bolster the image of JFK, the shining knight in white armor, and by extension, the American capitalist system which produced him. The problem is, the record, which is mostly declassified now, doesn’t even come close to supporting the propaganda here. The two NSAMS, above, were identical in policy thrust. Chomsky looks at them in his book, RETHINKING CAMELOT (1993), which, many years ago he personally recommended to me.

“...we can take the Tet offensive of January 1968 to be the turning point for the cultural managers, who now faced several challenging tasks. One was to defuse the opposition, an interesting story, still untold. Another was to restore the basic doctrines of the faith: The war must now be understood as a noble effort gone astray, in part because of disruptive domestic elements who had impeded earnest efforts of “early opponents of the war.” ... The high-level shift of policy after Tet called for a revision of the earlier record. Since everyone was now an “early opponent of the war,” the same must have been true of the grand leader. The enterprise had soured; the picture of John F. Kennedy must therefore be modified. The Kennedy Administration was unusual in the role played by people sensitive to imagery and doctrine, and in a position to shape them. The love affair of the intellectual community with Camelot is in part a reaction to this unaccustomed whiff of (real or imagined) power. The liberal intelligentsia naturally felt the “need to insulate JFK from the disastrous consequences of the American venture in Southeast Asia,” Thomas Brown observes in his study of Camelot imagery... No less important is another factor that Brown brings up in discussing the split among JFK’s war managers over escalation: “The ‘doves’ in this debate,” he notes, “were not advocates of complete withdrawal from Vietnam but of greater reliance on counterinsurgency measures.””

“Termination of the attack against South Vietnam was unacceptable - indeed, unthinkable, the concept of US aggression being barred from intellectual culture. To guard the faith, it is important to ensure that debate over the US war be constrained within the dove-hawk spectrum: the imaginable policy options lie between US-supported terror (allegedly JFK) and expansion of JFK’s aggression to a full-scale attack on all of Indochina (LBJ, most of the Kennedy advisers who stayed on). And all choices must be sanitized: they are defense against “the assault from the inside” in JFK’s words - the “assault” by indigenous guerillas against a foreign-imposed terrorist regime that could not survive political competition. If discourse is constrained within these bounds, the propaganda system will have done its duty,” writes Chomsky. (from the section of chapter 2, “Interpretations,” titled “The Record Revised”)

[cheapprick]

"Chomsky goes on to quote Bernays (whose “advocacy of propaganda is cited by Thomas McCann, head of public relations for the United Fruit Company, for which Bernays provided signal service in preparing the ground for the overthrow of Guatemalan democracy in 1954, a major triumph of business propaganda with the willing compliance of the media,” for which Clinton later apologized, I might add) and Walter Lippman, men of great influence, who believed that democracy should mean both manufacturing consent - rather than sharing information with the public and then dialoging with it and coming to decisions based on input from people from all walks of life - and the running of society by the few ‘right’ people. The first target of propaganda must be the managers of society, a middle class that serves the elites by keeping themselves ‘and’ the rabble below them in line."

What PatientSaint seemed to be pointing out is, you seem to be selling a product, but never come right out and say what it is. This is part of what you posted in return. Again, I mean no offense to you, but you are jumping around like a rabbit on speed.

What theory of society do you prescribe to? The obvious guess would be Communism, but the off hand mention to the NDP makes me think socialist.

I remember a short time ago I invited you to start a thread on the strengths of your view. However, you must have decided that it would be a waste of time. I disagree. Post your views and have it done, rather than poke your head out once in a while and bemoan capitalism while offering no positive alternative. If your view has any merit, some people will agree with you.