******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
David Walters misunderstands what I'm saying. Nobody is proposing "socialist realism" nor its cousin, "proletarian culture". But I think he is being totally unrealistic to think that what people see on TV, the images they "consume", don't affect their thinking. Does he really think that all the TV shows that show cops protecting little children, that show cops pushing around a serial child molester in order to get information on where he's hidden his victims (thereby justifying police brutality) -- all that sort of thing - does he really think those images don't affect the thinking of millions of people? Why does he think the automobile companies spend untold millions associating their product with attractive young women or the cigarette companies spend similar millions associating their product with healthy, outdoor scenes? Does he think they just love to throw away their money? Or is it possible that maybe - just maybe - they've actually commissioned studies that show that these scenes actually work at some level, that they actually succeed in getting these associations accepted? Incidentally, even the Pentagon understands this. The book "The Compassionate Instinct" recounts how the US military found that many US soldiers resisted killing by intentionally aiming over the heads of the "enemy" soldiers. So what they did was subject new recruits to scenes of violence to help overcome that resistance. The authors theorize that the increase in PTSD among vets since then is a result of the success of these programs and soldiers doing things that violate what is really in the "nature" of human beings. Does he really think that the association of sex with domination doesn't affect people's attitudes? I used to know a guy - a very nice and thoughtful worker - who told me that when he was young, he'd watch scenes on TV of a guy forcing a kiss on a woman who resisted and resisted and then, suddenly - magically - she yielded and passionately returned the kiss. This guy told me that for years he thought that that was true - that if he forced a kiss on a woman, that at some point she'd want to kiss him back. There was nothing unusual or psychotic about this guy, so there's no reason to think he was unique. Or take another example: They've done studies that show that watching porn tends to increase the propensity towards sexual aggression. And if David thinks that the idolizing of being rich doesn't affect the thinking, well then, I think he's very wrong. Incidentally, the British left journalist Monbiot wrote a very interesting piece on celebrity culture. It's directly related to what we're discussing here. This is the link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/celebrity-corporate-machine-fame-big-business-donald-trump-kim-kardashian It is simply idealistic - non-Marxist - to think that what we see on TV doesn't affect our consciousness. As for rap music: David completely misses my point. That point was exactly that rap originated as a form of expression of the experiences of life in the inner cities and was then transformed by Hollywood. My own personal belief is that all political movements are in a sense an expression of the inner-most feelings and experiences of people and that was true for the black revolt of the 1960s and '70s. When that revolt declined and was crushed, then that self-expression found a different form, one less overtly "political". That was what rap music originally was, as in the example of Grand Master Flash. But even that was too dangerous so it was taken over by Hollywood. I don't know about David, but I used to listen to what my kids were listening to back in the late '70s and '80s when we rode in the car together. I found it so distasteful that I'd make them turn it off. If it were something that was overtly racist, we'd object. Why not to music that's overtly sexist? What - we don't think that affects people's thinking? Let's get real here. John Reimann -- "No one is going to give you the education you need to overthrow them." Assata Shakur Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
