Is this supposed to be pro socialism?

I've seen some antisemitism stuff on here and I can't help wondering, why jews?

What's special about Isreal that makes you so invested? I could understand reasons to dislike Mexicans or blacks (at least, for americans), but jews? There's so few of them and they don't have a large impact here of any kind.

Is it entirely those theories about jews controlling the world behind the scene? If it is, do you have an elevator pitch for why you believe those theories?

To be clear, I'm not interested in joining and I suspect I'll strongly disagree with a lot of what you say, but I want to know where you're coming from and why you think/do what you do.

Not really

-no one ever showed me why a dictatorship for the proletariat would be for the proletariat (adjacent to human nature, since there's the assumption that they wouldn't be) -a dictatorship for the proletariat would never wither away because its existence ensures the existences of an oppressor and oppressed, on top of never being able to tell when its intended job is completed -humans don't want to sacrifice control (absolutely human nature, but I want to list it here as well just to list all my arguments) -governments aren't exclusively the tool of oppression for the use of a separate class -if governments are purely oppressive, granting them control over media is always bad -in a society on the brink of becoming a post-class society, control over the press would be the perfect tool to perpetuate idea that more oppression is needed (again human nature adjacent, since there's the assumption that governments would want to do that)

If my argument were entirely based on my idea of human nature though, what part of human nature am I wrong about?

I've read everything in both those links and either I didn't understand it or it was plainly contradictory and bad.

First, I never saw any reason that the group of people who make up the new government would serve the people. Not once was there a reason that a dictatorship for the proletariat would actually be for the proletariat. In fact, it seems like the exclusive role of the government is to oppress somebody, and the proletariat's a really easy target. Even if you and all your friends pick up arms, overthrow the government, and try to set up a state that acts in the interest of the people, your new government is going to be made up of people who act in their own self-interest, and the interests of the government as a whole will reflect that.

The idea of the state withering away, as I understand it, is based on the idea that the state is an instrument of oppression by one class against another, and when a classless society emerges, the state will lose its purpose and role and then slowly vanish. BUT the very fact that there is an oppressive state (that's busy oppressing the remnants of capitalism) means that there's a class divide (rulers and ruled, oppressed and oppressed, that whole shebang). Thanks to the immeasurability of when the capitalists have been defeated (Lenin stated that he couldn't know by what practical measures the defeat of capitalism will be known) the oppressive state is going to stick around indefinitely, oppressing more and more people.

In simpler terms, there's some dictator in charge of the dictatorship of the proletariat (or at least, there are high ranking members in it). During the extinguishing of capitalism, this dictator will have lots of power and authority granted to him by the people. He won't want to lose it. This man will do everything in his power to maintain total domination for himself forever. He will create imaginary threats, oppress people, frighten them, manipulate narratives, concentrate more power, punish insurrection, whatever it takes. If he doesn't, someone who will will take his place. This is human nature, the human nature you see in the bourgeois.

Secondly, the idea that the state is created by one of the two classes to oppress the other is either not true or a self-fulfilling prophecy. Was Genghis Khan a false mediator? The state exists because people in pre-history had really big armies and wanted to control people to obtain wealth and power for themselves. It turned out that people being alive and prosperous was really helpful for that, so states started supporting that, so people often submitted. This isn't the bourgeois creating a state to adjudicate disputes between them and the proletariat in the former's favor, it's just militaristic (or perhaps political or social) conquest.

I had lots of other problems with both the articles you linked, especially the article from Liberation School, but I don't really want to write a full paper on the errors of communism.

Instead, let's bring it back to the idea of freedom of the press. If the state is a purely oppressive tool used by one class to oppress another, a state-controlled press is bad. It doesn't matter who you're oppressing, or who you're claiming or actually doing it in the name of, it's bad because the result is truth is thrown out in favor of manipulation.

In a post-class society (I don't think that this is possible, but that doesn't matter right now) you actually would have a free press, because there's no government or state restricting it, and this would be great. However, something like this wouldn't come about through state oppression and control of the media. In fact, this dictatorship for the proletariat having power over the news ensures that there'll always be stories about the new, evil things capitalists are doing that your loving dictator needs more money and authority to squash.

They might not like it but it's what happens anyway. I don't have many examples off the top of my head, but I do know of at least one YouTuber who gives updates on geopolitics.

Governments are a separate organization of people with its own goals and motives. Sometimes those goals align with those of companies (either particular ones or just large companies in general), sometimes they align with the people, and sometimes they align with those of ducks.

If you assume that every organization must necessarily be part of either the bourgeoisie or proletariat, and you assume that organizations in those classes all share all their interests, then a governments interests necessarily align with those of a class, but this isn't very enlightening. It's much more useful to view the government as a self-interested organization whose goals may or may not align with any particular group or individual.

If government interests don't inherently perfectly align with those of a particular class, you've got to be pretty careful when giving them power. There is no such thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat (at least, not a stable one) because as soon as you have a dictatorship, the government no longer needs the proletariat. If there is any alignment of interests left at all it is only by coincidence.

Even if you had an extensive democratic system, all that does is incentivise some government officials to sometimes appear like they share interests with some of the people. It doesn't actually change governments interests.

uh, why? It seems like a free market economy is exactly where a free market press would work. Companies might buy news companies, but thanks to no government interaction, other news companies can pop up, make money because they deliver a service people want, and then grow.

It's a little more complicated to argue that the free market is good for the consumer (though it can be done), but it's pretty easy to argue that government is self-interested and power-hungry.

Firstly, history. Nearly every government ever has been populated with people concerned with their own power. Even since the popularization of democracy, governments were still incredibly corrupt and did not operate out of a love for the people. All democracy really does to alleviate a government's self-interest is make charisma more important during election cycles, which doesn't do anything to shift the government's interests.

The people in the government are the same type of people as CEOs and people who run multi-billion companies. Whether they're put in power by military force, by elections, or by people willingly giving them money for a good or service in return, they are all people who are 100% acting in their own self-interest collecting as much wealth and power as possible. The only thing that elections do is make it so that sometimes, some government officials have to appear to be good (or appear not as bad as their opponent).

That's way easier if the press is under the government's control though. Now, the government could imprison anyone who doesn't talk about how nice the president is to puppies for at least an hour. Or, less drastically, they could revoke your press license if you say that the things the president is saying is wrong (and then fine or imprison you if you deliver news without a license).

In a free press though, even if all the major news sources are owned by the same people (which is a good point and probably to some extent true, though I don't know to what extent), there's nothing stopping new people from popping up and delivering what they believe to be honest, unbiased news. That won't be the only type of person who pops up, and it'll be exploited a lot, but the possibility of a good news source exists now.

I saw this quote earlier today and responded to it there, but I'll also comment here.

If the press is not free, it means the government owns it. This means that they'll use it to manipulate narratives and take control. This is bad because the government is exclusively self-interested and evil. It will not hesitate to perform the worst acts imaginable to secure wealth and power.

The best model for the press (at least, that I can think of) is a free market press. One where people freely and continuously choose which press they'd like to support and the more support a news company receives, the more people it can deliver news to.

Yes, there's a risk that the press is bought and bribed, but it's a guarantee with a government controlled press (in that case, the government is the one to buy the press).

Without government involvement, people can hear both sides of the story and the possibility for new, unbiased journalists exists.