Stephen E Philion wrote: > Sam, > I'm not so sure they can't accept it. I get the sense more and more that > they are just seen as glitches, inevitable glitches, but glitches that can > be overcome and when they are overcome, despite the immediate and heavy > price borne by the working class,whether employed or unemployed, all's for > the better. Glitches,yes, in an otherwise rational and decent system but that's usually as far as even the best of the mass media goes e.g. FT or WSJ. The mass media have a very short memory. First, following Lee Kwon Yu (sp?) it was "asian values" responsible for the boom in Asia, then "asian values" become the reason for its collapse. I get the sense that if a pundit at a major newsheet began writing strong critiques on a regular basis she wouldn't have job for long (self-censorship). There are constraints to what an employee at a major newspaper or magazine can say. With serious threats to capitalism either > removed,peripheralized, or incorporated into capitalist circuits of > production and trade, well why should pundits be concerned about being a > tad more honest about capitalism than in the past? I agree here since there is no point comparing actual existing capitalism with something that only exists in theory (socialism). Whenever the mass media write about Marxism or socialism it falls into the novelty category. Sort of like doing a story on flying fish or the Edsel. Sam Pawlett
