1)"Where once power elites severed the tongues of dissenters, perhaps now the policy is to switch off the microphone; a more civilised, but no less undemocratic, form of gagging. If the modern resistance to unregulated discussion, in Britain if not elsewhere, draws the line well short of massacring workers in Manchester or surrounding the Hyde Park gates with police, we have yet to see what response there would be for a struggle for equal access to and control of the contemporary means of mass communication.

The interests of information capital seem to be best served, not by denying workers all access to the media, but by allowing selected small minorities of them to have a piece of the action, to give the semblance of some measure of free speech. Thus we have phone-in radio programmes which purport to be 'the voice of the nation'. But, as Coleman (1997:125) notes, 'Phone-ins often accentuate the gulf between the authoritative expert and the humbly questioning laity.' Television consumer watchdog programmes serve the same deceptive purpose. A few customers have their complaints against inefficient or unscrupulous companies upheld and compensated for. This is designed to strengthen our confidence in making purchases where we are subject only to normal, rather than exceptional, exploitation.

Defenders of the mass media point to the choice available to consumers as justification for its increasing role in telling us what to think and what to buy. But the 500 television channels promised for every household will bring only an illusion of variety and choice (Martin and Schumann, 1997;18). Choice at the margin hides denial of choice at the core. If all candidates at an election stand only for slightly different ways of running capitalism, then those who wish to reject the profit system and live in some other kind of society are given no choice at all."

2) "Thus schools - or at least the general run of state schools and even many of the fee-paying schools - produce minimally skilled workers for wage or salary labour. These institutions 'educate' workers to an ideology of compliance. Schools play an essential role in maintaining the status quo. 'A capitalist society requires certain general human traits and institutional features, and schools function to fulfil these demands' (Liston, 1988:16)."

3)"The raw material of education - the acquisition and evaluation of knowledge - is strongly influenced by its capitalist environment. As Cohen ruefully admits, 'Really useful knowledge has come to mean skills which help you get on and make it, not insights that help you combine with others to build a better world' (1990:52). The privatisation of the public realm, the permeation of market values into the most intimate reaches of personal and social life, is apparent at all levels of education."

4)"One of the most popular types of radio and television programme is the soap opera. The label 'soap opera' was first attached to dramatic sagas broadcast by American radio in the 1930s. Drama of this sort was found to be the cheapest way of filling in the gaps between the commercials for detergents which sponsored the shows. The business has expanded enormously. Every week the studios receive messages of love, hate, advice and enquiry about people who do not exist. Soap operas are worthy of close critical analysis, and Jay (1986:167) offers just that:

Most soap operas, for most of the time, play a part in confirming social prejudices which support capitalism. Implicit in the drama, or as the critics say 'written into the sub-text', are all sorts of notions about the world we live in… They include the ideas that people suffer from something horrible called 'human nature' - an incurable condition that can only be softened or controlled but never removed. It means that people are innately anti-social or irrational. Other assumptions include the idea that the majority of people are not intelligent or responsible enough to exist socially without bosses, political leaders and police forces to keep them in order.
The role of soap operas in promoting acquiescence in the profit system is also recognised by Chomsky (1991:370), who links that role with the electoral process and the public education system, both of which have the same goal"

5) "There is profit in selling things to people who cannot really afford to buy them but can be enticed, cajoled or shamed into buying them. There is even more profit in concentrating sales efforts on people with money who can be more easily lured into buying things they don't need but can be persuaded to want. Battery-powered dancing beer cans and waterproof bible cases are available to American consumers. In Japan you can buy a doll which precisely resembles your own child (you're never too young to become a customer).

The culture of consumption is one example of hegemony. It creates realms of negotiation and empowerment in the consumption and interpretations that sustain the legitimacy of domination. Even trends of protest in fashion, film, music, travel and leisure soon become mass-marketed for privatized consumption."

http://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm-pages/infosoc.html

Are these forms of conditioning consciously forced upon us? Or is the conditioning given to us unwittingly by those who been conditioned also?Both? Are we conditioned at all? And what can be done about it?

(Edited by Jenkinss at 9:23 am on July 24, 2006)

---

why are your thoughts so unoriginal? In short, socialism sucks, it doesn't work and never will. Get over it.

---

No.

---

Television consumer watchdog programmes serve the same deceptive purpose. A few customers have their complaints against inefficient or unscrupulous companies upheld and compensated for. This is designed to strengthen our confidence in making purchases where we are subject only to normal, rather than exceptional, exploitation.

---

This of course assumes that these 'Watchdog Tv programmes' are wroking for Industry

a more simple explanation is as follows: -

TV Progs, are out to make monney, thus, they make a show trying to make other companies look bad -- the companies on the show pay out to avoid the Bad PR.

this explanation is far more plausible, as it assumes that not everyone (once they have a million dollar bank account) is best friends.

my conclusion is, these shows help make companies ACCOUNTABLE.

---

If all candidates at an election stand only for slightly different ways of running capitalism, then those who wish to reject the profit system and live in some other kind of society are given no choice at all."

---

1. yes, most modern democratic systems are flawed.

2. In most democratic systems, there is very little (if any) laws that will prevent you from voting, or creating a non-capitalist alternative.

3. If no party stands for the legalisation of rape, then those that wish their favorite pastime were legal are given no choice at all.  

---

Thus schools - or at least the general run of state schools and even many of the fee-paying schools - produce minimally skilled workers for wage or salary labour. These institutions 'educate' workers to an ideology of compliance.

---

Does the article happen to suggest the possible alternative?  - -- how else would/should be schools run??

---

As Cohen ruefully admits, 'Really useful knowledge has come to mean skills which help you get on and make it, not insights that help you combine with others to build a better world'

---

IMO, these to statements are NOT mutrally exclusive but, for the most part, one in the same....

QED:- A good way "to get on and make it" is to combine with others (i.e friends)

---

There is profit in selling things to people who cannot really afford to buy them but can be enticed, cajoled or shamed into buying them. There is even more profit in concentrating sales efforts on people with money who can be more easily lured into buying things they don't need but can be persuaded to want.

---

the very same people, who are 'cajoled' into buying things would still exist in some sort of socailist utopia.

you want to get rid of money? and run the world by barter economics?? surely, these people will be just as easily 'cajoled' into making bad trades [3 goat for a toothpick] as they are 'cajoled' into buying things they do not need.  


-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.

About education the article says,"The whole curriculum, from start to finish, is conducted within an atmosphere of competition and stress, together with a weeding-out process which segregates those with supposedly superior talents from those less fortunate. This is accomplished through the use of tests, examinations and grading, all of which have a direct bearing upon ultimate occupations and potential earnings. Such an environment prevents the pleasurable pursuit of education as a primary end in itself."

What are you thoughts on conditioning as described in the article?

---

I don't think there would any need to barter because all kinds of resources would be available to people without the use of money.  

About education the article says,"The whole curriculum, from start to finish, is conducted within an atmosphere of competition and stress, together with a weeding-out process which segregates those with supposedly superior talents from those less fortunate. This is accomplished through the use of tests, examinations and grading, all of which have a direct bearing upon ultimate occupations and potential earnings. Such an environment prevents the pleasurable pursuit of education as a primary end in itself."

 What are you thoughts on conditioning as described in the article?

---

barter Economics bascially refers to trade.

without the use of money thats what will happen, people will trade cabbages for carrots, tin for wood etc etc

how else could things be run??, and WHO WOULDN'T HAGGLE TO GET A BETTER DEAL FOR HIMSELF!?!?!?!?!?

as for Education, yes its competitve, exams are harsh but you still havn't put foward how things 'should' be run...

-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.

what stops me from taking more than I need?

what stops me from picking the best fruit and leaving all the shit ones to everyone else??

-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.

"But is it not the case that, given a society of unrestricted access to social wealth, human greed will lead people to consume all the wealth of society within one month? Such is the "problem" foreseen by the critics of socialism. To begin with, their prediction is based on the false assumption that socialism would be a society of consumption only, whereas it would obviously be a society where what is consumed would have to be matched by what is produced. So, if people in socialist society decide to eat ten dinners a day - as our critics seem to fear - there will have to be provision made to produce enough food to satisfy such unhealthy gluttony. Of course, in cases where people want what society is unable to produce, or has democratically decided it will not produce, their consumption will have to be limited. This may be bad news for the Utopian but, for the worker who is currently deprived of what he or she needs (not because society cannot satisfy the need or has decided democratically not to but because it is unprofitable to do so) the idea of democratically organised production for use is infinitely preferable to the present social arrangement. For example, the thousands of pensioners who have died of hypothermia are not likely to reject the socialist proposition because it will not allow them to eat ten dinners a day; at least a society based on producing for needs will ensure that no one is unable to have access to warmth.

But what about this greed? The critic of the socialist idea is truly worried that in a society of free access, people will take more than they need. Now it is quite true that if the stores were opened tomorrow and workers were invited to go in and take as much as they want without having to pay there would be a mad rush and the stores would be empty within a day. But why should this be the case if the stores are always open for free access? It would be odd indeed for the inhabitants of socialism to store dozens of loaves of bread, which would go stale before they could be eaten, when the option would exist to go to the store and collect a new loaf of bread each day or few days. It would be no less odd for us to read today of workers filling their lungs up with water because they fear that when they next turn the tap the free liquid will no longer be there to consume. Perhaps, in innocence, the earliest inhabitants of socialism will indulge in a few feasts of conspicuous over-consumption (who would be surprised at such action after years of poverty and social inferiority?), but such antics will soon end when the physical consequences of such irrationality are felt."

Source

You have to also understand that the society under socialism will promote different values than capitalism.  So the people in that society will reflect those values.

In utopian conditions ANY system of governance would be sucessful, however idealogoly always will surcum to pragmatism.

In other words, the world is not perfect, people are not perfect, etc, etc.

---

so a socialist society would not survive unless the people in it acted cooperatively in a spirit of mutuality."

---

And BANG!!! the complete admission that socialism [comunism] is a flawed concept, how the hell do you get millions of people to co-operate?

---

1) But why should this be the case if the stores are always open for free access? It would be odd indeed for the inhabitants of socialism to store dozens of loaves of bread, which would go stale before they could be eaten, when the option would exist to go to the store and collect a new loaf of bread each day or few days.

---

_________________________________
why would I take ALL the loaves?
_________________________________

If I got them all I could then extort everyone else who is in desperate need of bread...

If I have all the loaves, then I have power, I can choose who lives and who dies [without bread they starve] and so, I extort everyone -- If the mother's want bread for thier families they will have to sleep with me.....farthers? they can lick my shoes with shit on.

___________________________________
what if there was a food shortage??
___________________________________

surely then, some would stock up a weeks supply--to ensure the wellbeing of their family....

^ and those that get to the shop last may be the ones finding themeselves in the brink of starvation.

AND EVEN IF THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN CONSIDER THIS....

EVERY MAN REQUIRES 10 units of food a day, any more and he is well fed, any less and he starts to starve.

there are 1000 men, and there was a good harvest, the food is divided and every man recieve 11 units of food a day - throughtout the year...

the Next year however, a huge drought, and other misfortunes leave the state with small stockpiles -- if they were to divide it all equally each man would only recieve 3 units of food a day, every day of the year.

doctors, and other medical advisors warn the gvt' that  3 units of food is simply not enough, even the fittest and strongest of willed would die of starvation within 3 months.

And so, the GVT knows that equality is totatally unpractical, [dividing everything equally will slowly kill the whole population]....

the gvt knows that to safe a few, you must kill a few -- but in doing so means that you have to abolish your principles and value someone elses life over another --- what do you do??  

-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.

---

the gvt knows that to safe a few, you must kill a few -- but in doing so means that you have to abolish your principles and value someone elses life over another --- what do you do??  

 

---

Import good from a stable industrial nation such as the US  

---

Quote: from Blackadder at 1:15 pm on July 27, 2006

---

 the gvt knows that to safe a few, you must kill a few -- but in doing so means that you have to abolish your principles and value someone elses life over another --- what do you do??    

   

 

---

Import good from a stable industrial nation such as the US  

---

for the sake of simplicity assume this 'state' cannot get hold of any move food.

-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.

---

Quote: from frank112916 at 9:41 pm on July 27, 2006

---

Quote: from Blackadder at 1:15 pm on July 27, 2006

---

 

  the gvt knows that to safe a few, you must kill a few -- but in doing so means that you have to abolish your principles and value someone elses life over another --- what do you do??      

     

 

---

 

 Import good from a stable industrial nation such as the US  

---

 

for the sake of simplicity assume this 'state' cannot get hold of any move food.

---

I was joking.  

And we all know socialist socities don't work. It doesn't need explaining, we have empirical evidence that supports this statement. It's too bad this idiot has no original thoughts in his head and is just regurgitating the communist manifesto.

(Edited by frank112916 at 6:11 pm on July 27, 2006)

What makes you think there would be laws in such a society to prevent you from taking all the bread and becoming powerful?

I would like to see your empirical evidence.

Are we conditioned?