• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    For goodness’ sake, can we not do this? I’m an anarchist, I know this. I oppose the state on a conceptual level for this very reason. I’m speaking to you like a normal person using language that I know you understood the intended meaning of. There’s no need to engage in academic fartsniffery here. Just be normal.

    Meanwhile, I’m not an anarchist, and I do not oppose the state at a conceptual level. However, I do think that the state represents the interests of the class that controls power in society, and that western capitalist states fundamentally represent the interests of capitalists. So, when people talk about capitalist states having some sort of free speech for the oppressed working class, I find that surreal to be honest.

    Any meaningful free speech translates into tangible action, and when that happens the state uses brutal methods to stomp it out. MLK and Fred Hampton are two prominent examples of what happens when people in US try to exercise freedom of expression in a meaningful way.

    The owners of our media have a vested interest in maintaining their own control. They are not compelled to act by outside force, they largely act of their own free will to maintain their position in our corrupt system.

    They are the capitalist class who built the system to serve their own interests. The owners of the media are not compelled by force because they are the people whom the state represents. The state is a management bureaucracy for resolving the differences between capitalists in a civilized way.

    Understanding this distinction is crucial to being able to fix it.

    What’s crucial for fixing anything is understanding the nature of the state and whom it serves. Your comment makes it pretty clear that you lacking this understanding.