Pretentious TV presenters boast of their millions

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

For some time now, the entire Internet has been filled with rumors about the millions in earnings of TV presenters working on state television. Kiselyov, V. Solovyov, O. Skabeeva or some other A. Malakhov earn three, four or even more million rubles a month, “independent” bloggers make noise.

At the same time, the TV presenters themselves do not refute these rumors. On the contrary, they boast about it. So, D. Kiselev said directly: “Yes, I have a big salary. I have a huge salary, well, at least that's what I think …”.

All this, of course, further fuels the interest of the average person in television shows, especially political and dirty ones, to the delight of these TV presenters: ratings, i.e. their earnings are growing.

But here's what is striking. Everyone is perplexed, angry about the astronomical earnings of state TV presenters, but, oddly enough, no one even thinks of the question: why does the state pay TV presenters, who do not bring any benefit to society, tens and hundreds of times more than workers, engineers, scientists workers, doctors, teachers, without whom society cannot do without?

Are TV presenters increasing the amount of food, clothing, shoes, housing, etc.? Does the show - a commodity of TV presenters - contribute to raising education, enlightenment, and improving the health of the population?

No. On the contrary, the show, existing on the market along with vital goods, increases the total value of the mass of commodities, as a result of which the prices for everything and everyone rise.

TV presenters, like usurers, do not produce goods necessary for life, but, on the contrary, like a parasite, stick to the production of vital goods, reduce its size, and thus hinder the development of Russian material production.

So, what vital role do TV presenters play in modern society, that the state evaluates their "work" tens and hundreds of times more expensive than the labor of workers, engineers, scientists, teachers, doctors, without which human society is generally impossible?

Capitalism has long since exhausted itself, has outlived its usefulness. But it still holds out, continues to exist, first of all, thanks to the political violence carried out by the bourgeoisie with the help of the state, and also thanks to the ideological indoctrination of the working people by the bourgeoisie. It is the bourgeois state that is the force that guards capitalism.

But political violence causes a head-on collision between the bourgeoisie and the working people, which threatens the complete destruction of capitalism; the bourgeoisie resorts to open violence only when it senses that its power is wavering. This was proved by the Great October Socialist Revolution.

This greatest revolution in the history of mankind taught the bourgeoisie that it is impossible to rule by political violence alone, it taught it that it is more important for it than ever to rule the working people by indoctrinating them.

The ideological indoctrination of the working people, of the whole society is a matter of life and death for the bourgeoisie. Therefore, in order for the struggle of the working people against the bourgeoisie to be successful, it is necessary, at least in the most general terms, to find out what ideology is. This is also necessary because there is a huge confusion in the minds of ordinary people on the issue of ideology.

Ideology is a theoretical system of views of a particular class on how society should be organized, what its state structure should be, what policy should be pursued.

However, in the presence of private ownership of the means of production, some classes own the means of production, while others are deprived of them, which makes it possible for the latter to be exploited by the owners of the means of production. And this actually means that the interests of different classes are directly opposite and cannot be reconciled.

Therefore, of course, the opinion about the social structure, the attitude towards the state and the idea of what tasks it should solve for different classes and even for individual groups within one class do not coincide.

In a society divided into irreconcilably hostile classes, there is no and cannot be a non-class ideology, just as there are not and cannot be people who stand outside of classes. Since the split of society into hostile classes, into oppressors and oppressed, into exploiters and exploited, ideology has always been class.

At the same time, the dominant ideology has always been the ideology of the ruling class. And this is understandable. A class that has the means of material production at its disposal also disposes of the means of spiritual production, and by virtue of this, the thoughts of those who do not have the means for spiritual production are generally subordinate to the ruling class.

The slave-owning society was dominated by the ideology of the slave-owning class. This ideology openly defended inequality, considered slavery a natural phenomenon, consistent with human nature. In the slave society, theories were created according to which the slave was considered not a person, but a thing in the hands of the owner.

For example, Aristotle, this greatest thinker of antiquity, taught that for the helmsman the steering wheel is his inanimate instrument, and the slave is an animated instrument. If the tools worked by order themselves, if, for example, the shuttles themselves weaved, then there would be no need for slaves. But since there are many activities in the economy that require simple, rough labor, nature has wisely disposed of, creating slaves.

According to Aristotle, some people, by their nature, are free, others are slaves, and it is useful and just for the latter to be slaves. Aristotle was the ideologue of the ruling class of slave owners, he looked at slavery through the eyes of slave owners and proceeded from their interests. But, in any case, he was honest, was not a hypocrite, openly defended slavery.

In feudal society, the dominant ideology is the ideology of the dominant feudal lords in society - the class of landowners. If in a slave-owning society, along with religion, ideology played a dominant role, in a feudal society religion comes first - a religion that presupposes blind faith in supernatural forces, faith in gods.

Religion kills a bold thought, a critical mind, it requires humility of the human spirit, dull obedience, his admiration for a non-existent deity. [Necessary clarification: not religion, which is a connection with the Almighty, but modern religious institutions of any kind - they “kill a bold thought, a critical mind”, develop thoughtless humility before an unrighteous government. - Approx. ss69100.]

A person brought up in the spirit of religion becomes incapable of fighting oppressors and parasites. Religious leaders of the era of feudalism created theories with the help of which they inspired the whole society that the power of the feudal lords was established by God himself; that bloody despots - kings, kings, emperors - are the anointed of God. The feudal secular and ecclesiastical authorities subjugated the entire society through the physical extermination of dissidents.

Only the "most holy" Christian Inquisition tortured, exterminated, burned hundreds of thousands of people on their bonfires, in dungeons, just because they questioned the ridiculous theories about the creation of the world by God.

In slave and feudal societies, the slave or serf was in personal dependence on the slave owner or feudal lord. In these societies, exploitation was carried out openly and violently. Therefore, there was no ideological hypocrisy in these societies.

The situation is different with ideology in capitalist society.

When the bourgeoisie was just beginning the struggle for political domination in feudal society, in order to win this struggle, it first of all had to destroy the feudal ideology, which appeared in a religious form.

Therefore, the bourgeoisie opposed the idea of the natural equality of all people to the thesis of the divine origin of power. "Freedom, equality, brotherhood" - these noble words were inscribed on the banner of the French bourgeois revolution. But what was hidden behind them? The bourgeoisie really needed freedom from feudal restrictions, for the latter constrained its activities, narrowed the possibilities for its enrichment.

She needed freedom for the peasantry as well. But which one? The bourgeoisie needed workers free from serfdom and at the same time free from land and means of production. The bourgeoisie needed equality. Capitalist society is a society of commodity producers, and in it special privileges are a hindrance to this. In the market, formally, all traders should be equal.

The demand for formal equality follows from the nature of the economic relations of capitalist production. Thus, the bourgeoisie, preaching freedom, equality, fraternity, strove to achieve political power and strengthen its economic position with the hands of the working masses.

Having won political power, the bourgeoisie did not abolish exploitative relations, but, on the contrary, replaced feudal exploitative relations with capitalist exploitative relations; the place of the feudal lord was taken by the capitalist, and the place of the serf was taken by the hired worker.

Feudal society was thus replaced by capitalist society, i.e. a society in which the means of production are in the hands of non-workers - the capitalists, while the workers, although personally and free, are deprived of any ownership of the means of production, have nothing but their own labor power.

In a capitalist society the worker is personally free; no one can force him to work. But, possessing personal freedom, he at the same time is deprived of the means of production, and, consequently, of the means of subsistence.

Therefore, under the threat of starvation, he is forced to take a job with a capitalist, or, in other words, he is forced to sell his labor power to the capitalist in the so-called "free" labor market.

Outwardly, the sale and purchase of labor power appears as a simple transaction between free, legally equal persons, and the labor of the worker appears as voluntary labor. In fact, behind the formal and visible "equality" of these persons, their real inequality is hidden.

Here, not a simple buyer and not a simple seller are opposed to each other, but, on the one hand, the capitalist - the owner of the means of production, and, on the other - the worker, deprived of the means of production, act. This simple fact alone shows that the worker does not sell his labor power to the capitalist willingly, as bourgeois economists portray.

On the contrary, not having the means of production, the worker, in order not to die of hunger, is forced to sell his labor power to the capitalist, and, in essence, his labor is forced labor.

The forced nature of wage labor is masked by the fact that between the capitalist and the worker there is an act of buying and selling labor power as between free, legally equal persons, and also by the fact that individual capitalist employers are constantly changing.

Capitalist exploitation takes place as follows. The worker sells his labor-power to the capitalist for a certain wage per day.

Within a few hours, he reproduces the cost of this board. But according to the terms of his contract, he must work a number of more hours in order to fully fill the working day; the value that he creates in these additional hours of surplus labor is surplus value, which costs nothing to the capitalist, but still goes into his pocket.

If the worker received the value of full-time labor, there would be no capitalist profit. And such is the essence of capitalist exploitation, which is masked by the fact that the capitalist and the wage laborer enter into a contract as completely free, equal persons.

Given this state of affairs in a capitalist society with "freedom", "equality" and "brotherhood", that is, when freedom is in fact the freedom to exploit the workers by capitalists, when equality is in fact inequality between the capitalists - the rich and the workers - the poor, when the brotherhood turns around irreconcilable enmity between capitalists and workers - in short, when in a capitalist society inequality, enmity between people, exploitation of man by man appear openly, in a naked form, then the bourgeoisie cannot help but be hypocritical and lie. Lies and hypocrisy are essential elements of bourgeois rule.

With hypocritical chatter about "freedom", "equality", "justice", "free society", "society of equal rights", "civil society", the bourgeoisie actually disguises its exploitative, predatory policy towards the working people, its true views on organization society.

In this sense, bourgeois psychologists develop sophisticated differential methods of spiritual influence on people, directed not so much to reason, but as to emotions; emotional reaction blocks rational analysis and critical perception of the phenomena of social life.

For this purpose, the bourgeoisie uses a powerful propaganda apparatus, in which television, radio, the Internet and the press - the media - the media play the most important, leading role.

The bourgeoisie spends millions and billions on creating a huge network of "free" TV and radio companies that serve to form a certain public consciousness, orient the masses of people to those standard behaviors that are beneficial to capitalists, create a type of person who is easy to manipulate.

At the same time, a huge part of the population does not even understand that the source of the content of these "free" media are taxes levied by the bourgeois state from the whole society, as well as advertising, which, again, is paid by the whole society at constantly growing prices for everything and everyone.

Having brainwashed the working people in this way, the bourgeois media then instill in them the sanctity and inviolability of private property, the inviolability and eternity of the foundations of capitalism based on private ownership of the means of production, as a society, the improvement of which (in the spirit of state monopoly regulation or in the spirit of liberalism; this is depends on the political environment) is a reliable source of social prosperity.

As a result of such indoctrination, the working people simply lose their ability to correctly orient themselves in the phenomena of social life, to understand the real reasons for their troubles and misfortunes.

But if the bourgeoisie succeeds in ideological indoctrination of the working people, of the whole society (which it carries out with the help of the media) to retain power in its hands, to exploit the working people, then is it any wonder that the bourgeois state appreciates the "work" of state TV presenters who directly use this tool? tens and hundreds of times more expensive than the labor of workers, engineers, scientists, teachers, doctors?

The media are the second most powerful (after the army and police) instrument of subordination of the working people to the capitalists.[In fact, the media have an incomparably stronger and deeper, and even more so - an incomparably more lasting impact on the minds and consciousness of citizens. And in this sense, the media are incomparably more effective than the security forces. - Approx. ss69100.]

In a capitalist society, all political, entertainment, dirty shows, even educational and educational programs perform one and only function - to demoralize the working people and, thus, to subordinate them to the capitalist order.

Of course, the ideological indoctrination of the working people by the bourgeoisie is not the only instrument for keeping state power in its hands.

For this purpose, the bourgeoisie also uses the tried and tested instrument of the spiritual suppression of the masses - religion. The use of religion by the bourgeoisie is quite understandable: slavery, feudalism, and capitalism are based on private ownership of the means of production, on the exploitation of man by man.

Therefore, with all the difference between the three types of ideology of the exploiting classes, they have much in common. No wonder the bourgeoisie, especially the newly-born Russian bourgeoisie, resurrect pagan and medieval obscurantism.

But enough and more than enough. It is necessary to ensure that the working, working person understands what true role TV presenters play in capitalist society and at whose expense. It is necessary to ensure that the working people treat TV presenters (and radio presenters), who are often played by famous artists, priests, athletes, politicians, economists and other analysts and experts, as their worst enemies.

In short, we must strive to create an atmosphere of distrust and hatred towards TV presenters (and radio hosts) in society, so that under their feet, as the people say, the earth burns.