This is what's wrong with the news these days.

[FireIceTalon]

You'd think that not every issue in this world needs be re-molded into the nail, thus necessitating the Marxist hammer.

That's because any other way of looking at capitalism, outside of a Marxist lens, is one-dimensional at best. In my humble opinion anyway. I see flaws of mainstream analysis of capitalism everyday in my political science classes (I know u think my classes are promoting socialist ideologies and "indoctrinating" us with Marxism - but it is quite the opposite actually: they assume the student accepts a pro-capitalist framework and free market values). I'm not mad about that, and in fact, it is what I expected going in. But that doesn't change the fact that Marxism is the most empirical, comprehensive, objective, and most importantly, honest, way of studying the capitalist system and how it works - to date anyways. I don't say that because it is Marx who formulated the theory - cause it could have been anybody. But the truthisms within it are undeniable, however inconvenient they are to justification of bourgeois hegemony. Capitalists and right-wingers know this too, which is why they have gone to such great lengths to demonizing Marxism, vulgarizing it, misrepresenting it. They know it is truth, their fear and demonization of it, is confirmation of that. If there was little or no truth in it, they'd have nothing to fear, but very clearly they do

In that Rupert Murdoch has built, owns, controls and perpetuates a dominant control over a significant amount of news around the world girds the statements that "He" may be the trouble with news reporting. Maybe his dominance is not the only one, but certainly important enough to be amongst the leading issues, if not the leading issue.

RM is a symptom of material conditions though, not a cause (even if he certainly helps to reinforce the status quo). Do you really think if he had never been born, or somehow was removed from having control of many news outlets across the globe, that things would change? I don't see any reason why they would. And I'm not being pessimistic here, just acknowledging how the world really works. Capitalism, its corresponding institutions, and culture were the central issue long before RM was even a thought, and they still are today. RM obviously represents the most extreme and reactionary of neoliberal thought today, but at the end of the day it is necessary for the expression of ruling class ideas to dominate the media, otherwise capitalism goes caput (or is at least vulnerable to doing so). This is equally applicable to so-called more liberal media outlets like MSNBC, which is also dangerous for the fact that it provides an illusion of choice. It would be impossible for me for instance, even if I had the financial resources to do so, to start a Marxist news outlet as an alternative to liberal and conservative outlets. Even if I received enough funding to get it going (which in itself would be quite unlikely since corporations ain't gonna sponsor a Marxist ), it is unlikely I would be able to keep it going for any meaningful length of time - as I would most likely be shut down very quickly for the promotion of "radical" or "extremist" views that are against the interests of the entire social order. It would be like trying to promote Christianity or other western values through the media in say Afghanistan - it just ain't gonna happen.

As a society in the US, we have acknowledged the issues of Capitalism run amok, about a hundred years ago (Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914). The regulation of that unrestrained power began in earnest just 7 years after Marx death.

I tend to agree with The Impossibilists.

The state is an instrument of class rulership, thus such policies are not made to constrain capitalism. They are made to PRESERVE the social relationships that make up its composition. If that means busting monopolies, so be it. Capitalists may hate it because it hurts their short-term interests, but they get over it since it certainly protects their long-term ones. The welfare state and piecemeal reforms were capitalism's "answer" to Marx. Unfortunately, they fall miserably short - due to the inherent contradictions with the capitalist system, and the fact that reformism is designed to ultimately preserve the social order. And even if they weren't intended to do so, it hardly matters, since rollbacks as history has shown, can very easily occur. Which explains all the austerity that is taking place right now around the world. Piecemeal reforms do not advance the cause of socialism, and in fact, they only strengthen the capitalist system most of the time. Of course, if I were a social democrat or some type of utopian socialist, I would be ok with that. But I'm neither.

The former leading Yugoslav communist, diplomat, author, Leo Mates, once remarked, "If we had had Sen. Sherman, we never would have needed Karl Marx."

Sounds like more Great Man theories to me. But moreover, it's also a contradictory statement anyways, since Sen. Sherman was a bourgeois liberal politician that wanted reform policies to put a "happy face" on capitalism, where as Marx advocated a complete overhaul of the system. Given capitalism's history and the current material conditions, I'd say Mates' comment has been proven wrong, but moreover, it is useless.

You might look at abusive monarchs and say the problem is due to monarchy. Britain's answer was Parliamentary democracy. There are problems with unrestrained anything, which are dealt with by legal societal checks on that "unrestrained" power.

Capitalism is capitalism, unrestrained or highly regulated - it is the same drivel that liberals use when they try to push the false dichotomy of "good" capitalism and "crony" capitalism, lol. I don't buy it, and there is a good reason I don't - because it has proven to be exploitative regardless of how much it is regulated, or not. Reform policies and social welfare programs do not reconcile the antagonisms of capital and wage labor (both of which communists want to abolish), the extraction of surplus value from labor that results in unpaid labor time for the worker, falling rates of profit, etc. This is because they are inherent features of the capitalist system, that cannot be materially altered.

Are workers today better off than they were during Marx's time? Sure. But more to the point, it has nothing to do with capitalism becoming more humane over the years (because in reality, it hasn't), and everything to do with workers organizing and struggling for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Without these struggles, capitalism would be the same otherwise. These struggles were small victories, and many of them are being rolled back now anyways....capitalists, on the other hand, are doing as well as they ever have, in some cases even better than ever while the rest of us get more austerity, financial insecurity, and debt. These material factors pretty much debunk the popular myths that "capitalism raises the standard of living for everyone" or "capitalism generates the most wealth for all" (nope, it generates the most wealth for those who own private capital - even though it is labor of the working class that produces all of said wealth).