Socialism
I'm struggling with Enzenberger's article not because I don't understand his breakdown of media, but because I'm baffled by the idea that a socialist use of media is required. Why socialism? Why did I sit here and read a little less than twenty pages outlining how socialism can make use of the new media to transform society?
I'm not a Marxist. I find Marxism and socialism and this insistence that everyone is the same and should have the same access to everything, that everyone's words and everyone's messages are equally valid to be rather tiresome and really, when you get down to brass tacks, tiring. I understand Enzenberger's point that the new media has incredible transformative power, should it be applied to tearing down the capitalist system. But I, personally, do not understand why we need to throw the baby out with the metaphorical bathwater and rip down the capitalist system, shake up the middle class--what's left of it in this economic day and age--and turn everything into utter equality when in some very real ways, not all people are capable of all things. I'd rather have Bruce Springsteen making records than the guy who can't carry a tune in a bucket who lives next door. (Seriously. It's bad. I didn't know anyone could make Bon Jovi sound like that.) I just don't get socialism. And this whole idea that socialist anything is the cure-all for society's ills bugs me.
Hello, these are my red state roots showing. I'm not liberal enough for this. I'm not really that liberal at all. And I don't see why we need to transform society when we can just fix things where they're broken. I guess I don't see where the machine's broken, I just see some cogs and gears that aren't turning properly. Can't the new media do that? Isn't that just as valid of a use of it as societal overhaul/overthrow? Or are we only able to get excited about the most radical things, the exoticism of the fringe?
I'm not a Marxist. I find Marxism and socialism and this insistence that everyone is the same and should have the same access to everything, that everyone's words and everyone's messages are equally valid to be rather tiresome and really, when you get down to brass tacks, tiring. I understand Enzenberger's point that the new media has incredible transformative power, should it be applied to tearing down the capitalist system. But I, personally, do not understand why we need to throw the baby out with the metaphorical bathwater and rip down the capitalist system, shake up the middle class--what's left of it in this economic day and age--and turn everything into utter equality when in some very real ways, not all people are capable of all things. I'd rather have Bruce Springsteen making records than the guy who can't carry a tune in a bucket who lives next door. (Seriously. It's bad. I didn't know anyone could make Bon Jovi sound like that.) I just don't get socialism. And this whole idea that socialist anything is the cure-all for society's ills bugs me.
Hello, these are my red state roots showing. I'm not liberal enough for this. I'm not really that liberal at all. And I don't see why we need to transform society when we can just fix things where they're broken. I guess I don't see where the machine's broken, I just see some cogs and gears that aren't turning properly. Can't the new media do that? Isn't that just as valid of a use of it as societal overhaul/overthrow? Or are we only able to get excited about the most radical things, the exoticism of the fringe?