Measuring the 'Colbert Bump'

[DenButsu]

Pretty much. And why am i a commie?

(sorry, everybody, skip this if you like... it's long)

<long winded answer to DB's question>
Well the phrase "the means of production" is straight from the Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels used it in their interpretation of how Europe transformed (more or less) from a feudal society to an industrial one. In a feudal society, basically, the means of production were somewhat evenly scattered across the land. Family farms and such. With industrialization, society's means of production were concentrated into urban centers. Factories, basically. And whereas before, for example, 100 people all worked for themselves supporting their own livelihood with the means of production they themselves possessed, now 99 people worked for 1 factory owner. The means of production were taken from their control; wealth was increasingly concentrated into the hands of the few. And those who controlled the means of production controlled society, basically. And that's capitalism. That's how Marx looked at it anyhow. He thought this inevitably resulted in a class conflict where the workers would revolt against the owners. But then later on in America, a massive middle class grew, which seemd to prove this all wrong and demonstrate that capitalism could exist in a democratic society without resulting in class conflict, and that the majority of people would be reasonably content in such a system. But more modern Marxist theorists pointed to the discrepancy between the very-rich and everybody else as proof that things were still very unequal. And basically they pointed to some ideas of bones they've thrown us masses to keep us just happy enough not to revolt. TV. Washing machines. Cars. Sofas. The vast majority of wealth is still concentrated in the smallest minority of the population, but we don't mind so much. And we don't challenge the system. And we don't really have any voices with big loudspeakers (and by this, these days, that would mean major news networks, major newpapers, any form of major media outlet) challenging the system. And why not? Well, because all those networks and papers and such are owned by the same people who own everything else. So they're not going to publish or broadcast content that presents a direct challenge to themselves.

And that's real censorship. The kind that is the most pervasive and influential precisely because we can't see it happening and so most people aren't even aware that it exists. Those who control the means of production also control the means of production of information, and that means that the majority of information that we all receive amounts to little more than the propaganda that the capitalist owners of the majority of the nation's wealth wants us to hear.

So it's not actually a communist belief per se, but it is a Marxist critique of capitalism.

And its best articulation is a book by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman called Manufacturing Consent.

The good news these days is that with the diversification of cable television programming and with the rapid growth of the internet, the means of production of information is probably more decentralized now than ever before in modern American history. So Rush is out there (not that I personally don't hate him, but he's free to speak his mind), and so is Jon Stewart, and so is Bill Maher, and so are all the bloggers and organizations that are chipping away at the stranglehold the 3 major networks used to have on the media flow. The bad news is that most people would still rather watch American Gladiator than debate whether there's any real merit or not to a Marxist critique of capitalism.

</long winded answer to DB's question>

[carson005]

I think both sides can laugh and appreciate Colberts comedy. Hes a genius!

[arkanian215]

Why is being a comedian license to need your nose broken?

LOL, I guess Chris Rock better watch out then.

nah that woman in that kansas town is a bigot. im just quoting.
but personally i dont like colbert or john stewart. i only like stewart more cuz he's a mets fan.

[DenButsu]

For those who think Stewart's interviews of conservatives are witch hunts, you should watch the interview he did Tuesday night with (I think his name is) Mel Martinez of Florida.

[dbroncos78087]

(sorry, everybody, skip this if you like... it's long)

<long winded answer to DB's question>
Well the phrase "the means of production" is straight from the Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels used it in their interpretation of how Europe transformed (more or less) from a feudal society to an industrial one. In a feudal society, basically, the means of production were somewhat evenly scattered across the land. Family farms and such. With industrialization, society's means of production were concentrated into urban centers. Factories, basically. And whereas before, for example, 100 people all worked for themselves supporting their own livelihood with the means of production they themselves possessed, now 99 people worked for 1 factory owner. The means of production were taken from their control; wealth was increasingly concentrated into the hands of the few. And those who controlled the means of production controlled society, basically. And that's capitalism. That's how Marx looked at it anyhow. He thought this inevitably resulted in a class conflict where the workers would revolt against the owners. But then later on in America, a massive middle class grew, which seemd to prove this all wrong and demonstrate that capitalism could exist in a democratic society without resulting in class conflict, and that the majority of people would be reasonably content in such a system. But more modern Marxist theorists pointed to the discrepancy between the very-rich and everybody else as proof that things were still very unequal. And basically they pointed to some ideas of bones they've thrown us masses to keep us just happy enough not to revolt. TV. Washing machines. Cars. Sofas. The vast majority of wealth is still concentrated in the smallest minority of the population, but we don't mind so much. And we don't challenge the system. And we don't really have any voices with big loudspeakers (and by this, these days, that would mean major news networks, major newpapers, any form of major media outlet) challenging the system. And why not? Well, because all those networks and papers and such are owned by the same people who own everything else. So they're not going to publish or broadcast content that presents a direct challenge to themselves.

And that's real censorship. The kind that is the most pervasive and influential precisely because we can't see it happening and so most people aren't even aware that it exists. Those who control the means of production also control the means of production of information, and that means that the majority of information that we all receive amounts to little more than the propaganda that the capitalist owners of the majority of the nation's wealth wants us to hear.

So it's not actually a communist belief per se, but it is a Marxist critique of capitalism.

And its best articulation is a book by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman called Manufacturing Consent.

The good news these days is that with the diversification of cable television programming and with the rapid growth of the internet, the means of production of information is probably more decentralized now than ever before in modern American history. So Rush is out there (not that I personally don't hate him, but he's free to speak his mind), and so is Jon Stewart, and so is Bill Maher, and so are all the bloggers and organizations that are chipping away at the stranglehold the 3 major networks used to have on the media flow. The bad news is that most people would still rather watch American Gladiator than debate whether there's any real merit or not to a Marxist critique of capitalism.

</long winded answer to DB's question>

Oh ok, that makes more sense to me, i thought you were specifically mentioning me, not the post.

[DenButsu]

Oh ok, that makes more sense to me, i thought you were specifically mentioning me, not the post.

No, I know you're not a pinko, DB, don't worry.

But the point you made was indeed consistent with a Marxist critique... so you're on a slippery slope!

[dbroncos78087]

No, I know you're not a pinko, DB, don't worry.

But the point you made was indeed consistent with a Marxist critique... so you're on a slippery slope!

I am going to have to read the Communist Manifesto sometime this year, i had to get a copy for school in the fall. I had to read it in 10th grade (a couple years ago) but i dont remember most of it.

[DenButsu]

I am going to have to read the Communist Manifesto sometime this year, i had to get a copy for school in the fall. I had to read it in 10th grade (a couple years ago) but i dont remember most of it.

My basic take on Marx:

A lot of his analysis and criticism of capitalism was spot on.

Much of his thought on what to do about it and most of his forecasting of the future - not so much.

[eyememine]

I am going to have to read the Communist Manifesto sometime this year, i had to get a copy for school in the fall. I had to read it in 10th grade (a couple years ago) but i dont remember most of it.

Yea you should. The people critique to Marxism (and communism I guess) is that people work hard and do not want to give up their stuff to other people. He who works like a slave eats like a king.

But from what I understand (which is not much, but a bit to do with Iran) is that some people are born into their poverty and have no way to get out of it, so therefor there could be an equal chance for all people, especially if the country is rich (like Iran was). Of course like I said I could be wrong so if someone can help me understand a little better that would be great (I'm sorry a bit off topic).

As for Colbert he is funny but he kinda annoys me because he acts like such a douche, but however that is his character and that is point of the show, so it's funny

[gcoll]

I've always viewed the Communist Manifesto as more of a rant against industrialized society, rather than as a solid plan for government.

My basic take on Marx

A bit off topic.....but I like this Monty Python clip, and it involves Karl Marx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2kAnTZBnTg

[gcoll]

Aw, come on now, you're just jealous because the right has never produced a funny comedian. The closest they've come is Dennis Miller, who actually started out more on the left, challenging the administration during the Reagan years, and then later when he shifted right he became unfunny.

I really don't know why it is. But the right has just never been good at comedy.

Alright. I'm gonna clean up this list a bit. These are all guys I'm pretty sure are conservative:

- Jackie Mason.
- The Blue Collar guys (a couple of them have got to be conservative)
- Carlos Mencia (can't stand him.....but, he seems right wing)
- Colin Quinn
- Nick Dipaolo (used to be a guest on one of Quinn's shows. Both were conservative)
- Norm Macdonald
- Drew Carey (he sucks.....but still.)

A couple shows that have a conservative lean, I would say are: "South Park" and "Married with Children"

One I'm curious about is Sam Kinison. He strikes me as a bit of a conservative.

So there are funny conservatives around. Although a few of the names I mentioned suck. But so do Janeane Garafalo, and Bill Maher.

I think that is because, to my understanding, traditionally the radio waves have been monitored more and censored more than television.

No. I think it depends on who the audience is.

And I think you can actually get away with more on the radio, than you can on TV. Look at how fast Michael Savage got thrown off of tv.....

[DenButsu]

South Park ain't conservative. They're just irreverent.

And Bill Maher is ****ing funny - and his show is great (better I'd say, for genuine political discourse, than the Daily or Colbert).

[arkanian215]

Aw, come on now, you're just jealous because the right has never produced a funny comedian. The closest they've come is Dennis Miller, who actually started out more on the left, challenging the administration during the Reagan years, and then later when he shifted right he became unfunny.

I really don't know why it is. But the right has just never been good at comedy.

haha wow where did that come from? i just dont like their approach to comedy. i dont like bernie mac or lewis black either. theyre just not my style. as for the content, i really couldnt care less if it was actually funny. my argument about not liking john stewart or colbert has nothing to do with my political views. btw i watch fox news for my comedy.

[DenButsu]

haha wow where did that come from?

Reality.

Make a list of all comedians you can think of who do political content as part of their shtick. Then divide the list, inasmuch as possible, into those who lean left and those who lean right. The list for the left is much, much longer and of a much higher quality. I'm sorry, but I think that's just pretty much true. I mean, just to name some of the more high profile ones right off the top of my head:

Left

George Carlin
Bill Hicks
Lenny Bruce (okay, maybe more "spoken word" than comedy, but still...)
Franken
Stewart
Colbert
Maher

Right

Dennis Miller
...someone mentioned Drew Carey before? I know who he is, but haven't heard his stuff (except for in the Aristocrats)

[NotVeryOriginal]

Aw, come on now, you're just jealous because the right has never produced a funny comedian. The closest they've come is Dennis Miller, who actually started out more on the left, challenging the administration during the Reagan years, and then later when he shifted right he became unfunny.

I really don't know why it is. But the right has just never been good at comedy.

The previously mentioned Chris Rock?

I think both sides can laugh and appreciate Colberts comedy. Hes a genius!

QFT! I cant believe theywouldnt let him onto one of the GOP nomination debates, pure blasphemy.

South Park ain't conservative. They're just irreverent.

And Bill Maher is ****ing funny - and his show is great (better I'd say, for genuine political discourse, than the Daily or Colbert).

Trey Parker is a registered libertarian and Matt Stone is a registered republican, and whilst neither strike me as conservative, on the left-right scale (as flawd at it is) they are more right than left.