Harry Targ
Theorists of society appropriately emphasize the relationships
between profound economic changes, political institutions, culture, and
prevailing ideas about the world. Aside from the episodic rise of a few
socialist economies and institutions, in which the peoples’ interests are more
likely to represent majorities than capitalism, the latter has been the primary
economic form since the end of feudalism in the fifteenth century.
Capitalism is an economic system fueled by work, both paid and
unpaid, the value of which goes largely to owners and managers of capital.
Capitalists, the private owners of capital—tools, farms, factories, banks, and
fields—accumulate most of the wealth derived from work and have dominant
control of most societal institutions. Ownership and control of capital always
has been in private hands but increasingly that control is shifting into the
hands of fewer and fewer wealthy and powerful individuals through
their multinational corporations and banks. Data suggests that both wealth
and political influence in capitalist societies, and in the global economy, are
unequally distributed, and the inequality is increasing.
The economic changes in society and the narrowing of political
possibility are causing growing resistance. Central to struggles for social and
economic justice and democracy are renewed examinations of ideas and
conventional historical narratives that justify the economic and political
system as it is in the United States as well as the global capitalist system.
The ruling class knows this and there is an intense effort by the wealthy and
powerful to control dominant narratives about our world: in the media,
educational and religious institutions, and in everyday discourse. For us to
move beyond poverty, racism, sexism, and war, progressive forces need to
mobilize around this “battle of ideas.”
However, one critical difference between movements for positive
change before this century and now is that technologies make it possible for
powerful forces to have qualitatively greater control of what the vast majority
of people think and what they think about. Therefore, the forces of resistance
have to develop more sophisticated ways to mobilization around ideas,
consciousness, and understanding.
A variety of institutional, policy, and ideological changes
occurring in 2017 suggest ways in which progressive forces are “losing the
battle of ideas.” For example:
-The iconic news magazine Time (and other popular
publications owned by the same publisher including People, Fortune, Entertainment Weekly, Southern Living) has been sold to Meredith
Corporation, a media and marketing conglomerate, with some
financing coming from the Koch brothers.
-Conservative media corporation Sinclair Broadcast Group owns
173 TV stations in 83 cities.
-Rupert Murdoch, owns, Fox News, The New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and more.
-iHeart Radio (formerly Clear Channel) owns 850 radio stations across
the United States.
-Local newspapers are being bought by media conglomerates such
as Gannett/USA Today, leading to the firing of local reporters and the
elimination of community news. The numbers of newspaper published in big cities
has declined by 75 percent since the 1960s.
-Media conglomerates now purchase multiple media outlets in
local markets: newspapers and radio and TV stations.
-Even National Public Radio, initiated as an independent
journalistic voice, and PBS on the television side, now receive funding from
David Koch and feature rightwing commentators as regular experts.
-The Federal Communications Commission is now ready to end net
neutrality, thus giving greater power to smaller numbers of economic giants in
the communications field. The largest media corporations, with profit and power
as their prime motivation, will gain advantage in access to the internet. That
advantage in conjunction with censoring internet content could destroy a
potentially more democratic instrumentality for receiving and consuming ideas.
-Much of the mainstream media spends 24/7 ridiculing President
Trump and his advisers while federal regulations are eliminated and decisions
are made with little visibility about the environment. Little attention is
given to decisions to dramatically increasing military spending or sending troops,
dropping bombs, flying drones, and funding covert operations in the Middle East
and Latin America. State and local governments load up on weapons to police
populations, shift public resources to charter schools, privatize most public
institutions, engage in efforts to destroy Planned Parenthood, and create tax
disincentives for those who use solar energy.
-Visible authorities, such as university presidents, small
numbers of academic experts, religious leaders, generals, and CEOs of
multinational corporations wax eloquent about the magic of the marketplace,
the virtues of American political institutions, and the superiority of
American culture, while defending “truths” about the inevitability of war, the
need for more policing, and the stifling effects of government regulations.
-Meanwhile, popular culture celebrates violence, sexism, and
racism at the same time as it promotes mass consumption.
A progressive agenda requires a fundamental challenge to
ideological hegemony. These might include the following:
1.Rigorously defining what that
hegemony is. What kinds of information, media frames, and ideologies are
being distributed through the dominant news outlets? What are the
priorities given to information: through stories, story placement in the
papers, photos used, column inches of stories with different emphases AND
what items never find their way into news print?
2.Asking who pays for the newspapers and radio and television stations? Who are the local advertisers? Can they be influenced to withdraw their vital financial support from media outlets that do not represent what citizens need and want to know? Can they be prevailed upon to support alternatives?
3.Investigating who are the subscribers to newspapers? Who watches television? Who uses the social media? Are there alternative sources of information and analysis that can be used, expanded, and created to address the material interests of majorities of people.
4. Identifying alternative media that appeal to, draw upon, and fulfill the needs of the vast majority of people living in our communities: workers, women, minorities, and youth?
5. Incorporating media in discussions of strategies for change: should we be thinking about alternative newspapers, radio stations, websites, and/or other venues for public communication of our ideas in our communities? Should we invite these potential consumers of progressive media to work for it, write its stories, and pay for its production? And is organizing around a progressive media project at the local level a worthwhile project?
6.And finally, asking if we can struggle to develop counter-hegemonic projects in a community and collective way so that raising our consciousness occurs at the same time as the consciousness of others is raised. Should we be encouraging the development of study groups, alternative educational institutions, progressive websites, public lecture series, and force public debate about capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, climate change, and the threats of war and police violence?
2.Asking who pays for the newspapers and radio and television stations? Who are the local advertisers? Can they be influenced to withdraw their vital financial support from media outlets that do not represent what citizens need and want to know? Can they be prevailed upon to support alternatives?
3.Investigating who are the subscribers to newspapers? Who watches television? Who uses the social media? Are there alternative sources of information and analysis that can be used, expanded, and created to address the material interests of majorities of people.
4. Identifying alternative media that appeal to, draw upon, and fulfill the needs of the vast majority of people living in our communities: workers, women, minorities, and youth?
5. Incorporating media in discussions of strategies for change: should we be thinking about alternative newspapers, radio stations, websites, and/or other venues for public communication of our ideas in our communities? Should we invite these potential consumers of progressive media to work for it, write its stories, and pay for its production? And is organizing around a progressive media project at the local level a worthwhile project?
6.And finally, asking if we can struggle to develop counter-hegemonic projects in a community and collective way so that raising our consciousness occurs at the same time as the consciousness of others is raised. Should we be encouraging the development of study groups, alternative educational institutions, progressive websites, public lecture series, and force public debate about capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, climate change, and the threats of war and police violence?
