BEYOND MEDIA OF CRITICAL

BEYOND MEDIA OF CRITICAL

Nildo Viana

The concepts of cultural industry have some conceptual and theoretical problems that hinder more than collaborate with a better view of this phenomenon. This article is an outline of a more extensive work in preparation referring to a mode of communication theory in capitalist society. Because of this, we will only start as the questioning of the cultural industry theory, which serves as a starting point to think about a new theory of communication in capitalist society.

The cultural industry concepts, mass media, mass culture, among others, suffer from the lack of adequate methodological and conceptual basis. Despite the influence of Marxism in many elaborations on the cultural industry, the analysis actually do not use the dialectical method and end up falling in anti-dialectical position, even using the dialectic word or saying it to adopt such a method. On the other hand, and more serious, since produced such conceptions, they end up becoming obligatory references and create a linguistic armor impeding the intellectual advancement of the communication phenomenon in capitalist society. The problem of language is critical because awareness to use as mediating element to develop, and when the language is reified, it ends up effecting a reification of consciousness. Considering that we live in a society in which the reified consciousness prevails, then it and the reified language mutually reinforcing.

Therefore, we will initially perform critical of some concepts and constructs (misconceptions) to advance the analysis of the communication process in capitalism. The classical approach to the issue is the so-called Frankfurt School, mainly represented by Theodor Adorno, but also relying on the contributions of Horkheimer, Marcuse, Benjamin, among others. The position of this school is considered critical, as opposed to the apologists call "cultural industry", including American authors. Although the Frankfurt School has provided a good contribution to analyze this phenomenon, there are limitations in this approach that should be exposed. Thus, our work here will be at the same time, to criticize some approaches that seek to work "culture industry" or "mass media", or even "mass media", to show its limits and, in some cases, ideological, and, second, to present the outline of an alternative that will be developed in other work. However, due to the rudimentary state of this development process of a communication theory in capitalist society, we will therefore present our approach in the form of theses. Such theses form some of the basic elements of the critique of established concepts and outline some new elements for a new approach to communication phenomenon in capitalism.

1st THESIS:

The IDEOLOGY OF "MASS MEDIA" IS AN OBSTACLE TO BE OVERCOME.

The first point to make is that the discussion around the "mass media" is an obstacle to be overcome. Behind this expression hide many problems. Firstly, focus on "media"; Secondly, the use of the term "mass". First things first point. When speaking of "mass media", the focus is shifted to such means. Communication is performed in various ways and utilizing various means. But when working with the idea of ​​the media to refer to the problem of "big media", notably TV, Radio, Press, etc., hence the additional term 'masses', because it reaches a large audience. However, the initial and fundamental issue, a critical perspective, it would not be the means used but how it performs communication. The focus on "media" means transforming technological or industrial issue in the main aspect to be analyzed.

The first trap of this design is to homogenize the media. All come to have the same "essence". First, you must realize that the Gutenberg press was a communication revolution, which differs greatly from the TV. If we consider the radio and the Internet, we see so many profound differences. Similarly, industrial rationale behind these media not reach all equally. The great communication oligopolies work differently small media companies. Thus, a major publisher has a whole bureaucratic system and selection structure, production, dissemination, radically different distribution of a small publishing house. The same goes for the record companies, radio and TV, etc. Other differences could be asked, but would not add much to what has already been said. So only are there differences? The answer is no, because despite the many differences, there are similar elements. The point is that the similarity is not in the nature of media itself, but in the established mode of communication in our society, which discussed below.

The homogenization of the media is complemented by homogenization of the "masses" which would be all the receivers of the messages they convey. The construct "pasta" is an obstacle to the development of a correct awareness of reality. It is actually a replacement of another construct, called "people". The word "people" is commonly used and is usually associated with political discourse, as when one speaks of the "interests of the people"; "Will of the people", etc.

"This immoderate use, although natural under the conditions we live in, by the most varied people, and addressing also the most diverse groups, gave the word people such a generic meaning that stripped of any commitment to reality . In the mouth or pen of public men today - and of course that does not happen only in Brazil - nation is an abstraction. Everyone is free to attribute to the word people the meaning well imagine. And particularly, be included in person in what figures to be the people. Even in the political language - and it is at the political level that their use does not matter, - the one magic word, the chorus to which all hold fast, formula for all problems, sesame for all ports, has no limitations, contours, features "( Werneck Sodre, p. 188).

Thus, the term "people" as several others ("pasta", "globalization", etc.) not only suffers from inaccuracy, but also homogenizer and a magic word that everything responds without replying. It is a metaphysical abstraction. However, unlike the masses due to its use mainly in the language of institutional politics, election, assumes a positive character. His replacement "masses", in contrast, plays a negative role. If people can only mean the part of the poorest population, or its entirety, so does "mass". Where the term comes "masses"?

"... The first analyzes realize that the term 'mass' was originally used to describe the new society of the late nineteenth century and its respective culture. Under these conditions, in Western Europe, already living in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, it creates social and political conditions that determine the appearance of modern class society. Since then, the notion of 'people' became gradually being replaced by the concept of 'mass' "(Caldas, 1987, p. 30).

Interestingly, the author does not define this concept, but moves on to the "mass society" and "mass culture". This would be characterized by isolation, loss of individuality, standardization, the individual atomization and standardized culture. However, the ideas of "mass culture" and "mass society" are ideological. But the initial problem lies in the very term "mass". What is mass? It is a term that produces effects similar to the people term: is inaccurate (so much so that does not define who is a "mass" but the "mass culture" and "mass society") homogenizer (the batter is homogeneous, as "the people"), and abstract-metaphysical, as there is concretely. Thus, the masses would be homogenous as the media. But the masses, such as people, lack uniformity. In the broad sense of these terms (while the entire population), we must realize that there is the division of social classes, putting numerous differences and social antagonisms, not to mention the various subdivisions. In the narrower sense (as the poorest part of the population, or the "lower classes"), these terms are also not homogeneous, for the proletariat, the peasantry, the lumpenproletariat are very different and despite similarities, can not be placed all under one label.

But now let us return to our criticism of the term "mass media". Both sender, the media, and the receiver, the masses, are constructs that explain nothing of social relationship in question. The big question is to understand the communication process and their differences in capitalist society. It is an ideological discourse. The theses of mass society and mass culture are ideological, but we will not here carry out the criticism of these positions, defended by American authors, because our focus here is the thought that is considered critical and which uses the terminology means of mass communication. Adorno had already noticed that the masses are the "ideology of the culture industry":

"The cultural industry is the deliberate integration, from the high of its consumers. It forces the union of domains, separated for millennia, the top art and less art. A loss for both. The high art is seen frustrated their seriousness by speculation about the effect; the lower loses through its civilizing domestication, the nature element tough and rude, that it was inherent as social control was not total. To the extent that this cultural process industry undeniably speculates on the state of consciousness and unconsciousness of millions of persons to whom it is addressed, the masses are not, then the first factor, but a secondary element, a calculation element; accessory machinery. The customer is not king, as the cultural industry would have us believe, it is not subject of this industry, but its object. The term mass media, which was introduced to designate the cultural industry, deviates from the outset, the emphasis on what is harmless. It is neither the masses first, or communication techniques as such, but the spirit which is inflated them, namely the voice of his master. The cultural industry abuses consideration with respect to the masses to reiterate, firm and strengthen the mentality of these, it takes as given a priori and unchanging. It excluded everything that this attitude could be transformed. The masses are not the measure but the ideology of the culture industry, although the latter can not exist without them adapt "(Adorno, 1977, p. 93).

Adorno at the same time realizes the lack of reference to the media and the masses, can not fully overcome this reified language. Thus, the masses are passive objects before the all-powerful cultural industry. But Adorno just exchange one for another fetishist design as it makes the culture industry a fetish, something so smooth and metaphysical as the media or the masses. The same problem is in Edgar Morin, who from the 30s in the United States and then around the world, mass culture is altered to address "all", the "general public". Now here is confused communication technological means with the communication or the concrete manifestations of the media. We will address this further, however, here it is clear that said "general public" is another face of the ideology of the "masses."

After recognizing that the ideology of the mass media is an obstacle to be overcome, it is necessary to overcome it effectively, not only through criticism, but also through the explanation of the phenomenon that such hidden ideology.

2nd THESIS:

IDEOLOGY OF CULTURAL INDUSTRY IS ANOTHER OBSTACLE TO BE OVERCOME

As put earlier, the formulation by Adorno and Horkheimer of the term "cultural industry" means not only the creation of a word, but a meaning and a design, which is, after all, similar to the "media mass communication ". Therefore, we must also overcome the ideology of cultural industry. No doubt, like every ideology, both have elements of truth. Also does not go into discussion the concept of Adorno and Horkheimer carry more moments of truth than the ideology of "mass media". But Adorno and Horkheimer are attached to the reified linguistic universe because of the lack of use of the dialectical method and a theoretical vision broader than capitalism, which, in turn, is derived from the lack of from the perspective of the proletariat. This is related to the historical context in which they produced their theses, which is the implementation of intensive-extensive regime of accumulation (Viana, 2003; Viana, 2008). In this context, the Frankfurt School, as a whole, despite the differences between their representatives express a limited critique of capitalism of his day. This reflects both a non-dialectic of cultural design industry, not observing its contradictions and relation to class struggle (see 8th thesis), as the non-perception of the critical-revolutionary potential of the proletariat, arising from his alleged integration in oligopolistic capitalism, thesis defended by Marcuse and others.

The idea of ​​cultural industry suffers, too, in a very limited conception of capitalism. The Frankfurt School, despite having some influence of Marx's thought, did not come from this author capitalist theory, except in a piecemeal manner and without further deepening. Adding to this perception, rather limited, which had society of his time, find the reason for this rather narrow view of capitalist dynamics. The most important point is the exclusion of analysis of the totality of social relations, that is, the exclusion of subordinate capitalism (at the time called "Third World"), which led to no perception of imperialism and its effects in the imperialist countries, such as the relative stability achieved at the expense of exploitation of the proletariat of other countries. The weakness of the analysis here, derived from that, it was to realize that such stability was merely relative and that was not eternal. Hence, even the pessimism that characterizes the majority of the representatives of the Frankfurt School.

The capitalist mode of production is expansionary, turning everything into a commodity. In this regard, the communication also becomes merchandise. The big question, however, is that it has a particular sector of the capital facing the exploitation of commercial communication. From the emergence of oligopolistic capitalism and its characteristics commanded by intensive-extensive accumulation regime, the new needs of the production process (such as radio, TV, etc., electronic devices that are commodities) and means of production of consumption as a strategy to counter the downward trend of the profit rate, strengthens or creates certain capital sectors. Including the commercial capital and services, but also the communication capital. The communicational capital is the one facing the capitalist investment in media companies, increasingly oligopolistic. It is a new sector of the capital, which already existed in embryonic form in the previous regime of accumulation, but becomes stronger and will produce a process of concentration and increasing centralization. So, rather than industry, a relatively neutral term and inaccurate, it is capital, which expresses social relations of exploitation and accumulation, as opposed to a mere production process not defined linguistically, as industry or company. It is the rule of capital in media companies, forming capitalist media companies that become, over time, oligopolistic. The communicational capital does not produce culture, art. It produces messages, dissemination, communication of artistic works, cultural or information. Your employees are salaried, others who do not have employment are remunerated through copyright, payment for services rendered, etc. Basically, one thing is a popular music composer produce a song, a novelist writing a novel, a screenwriter produce the screenplay for a film, another thing is to commercialization via distribution of cultural products made by communicational capital. Thus, the concept of cultural industry is vague and euphemistic, while the concept of communicational capital is accurate and not at all euphemistic: expresses the capitalist domination in the communication process via technological means.

3rd THESIS:

COMMUNICATION IS A SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP

To overcome the metaphysical abstractions is necessary to resume the conceptual foundations that make possible an analysis of the phenomenon in question. The fundamental concept in the issue of so-called "mass media" is the communication. The reified language also performs the objectification of the word. Our goal is to overcome this objectification.

Communication is a social relationship. It is a relationship between individuals and / or groups: "communication is the process by which the meanings are transmitted between people" (Stoetzel, p. 216). A similar way of defining communication is: "set up communications, so as any transmission of information through (a) issuance, (b) conduct and (c) receive (d) a" (Aranguren , p. 11). Thus, traditionally, the idea is that communication takes place via a transmitter and a receiver, in which a message is transmitted. However, it is not in direct or inter-relationship is to think of a "transmitter" and "receiver" because both would be, with rare exceptions, both senders and receivers. Thus, overcoming the difficulties of such definitions, we can say that communication is a social relationship in which certain individuals barter messages, which can be information, requests, ideas, feelings, etc. .

In this respect, the distinction between sender and receiver is overcome. However, communication can be, and indeed is distorted in certain social relations. This is a type of communication which is occurring between same in the same conditions. Thus, it is an equal communication. However, in certain social relations, this egalitarian communication is replaced by an authoritarian communication. In this context, the separation between sender and receiver gains a certain reality. Communication between teacher / student; dad son; employer / employee, literate / illiterate; expert / layperson, etc., it takes the form of an authoritarian communication, in which one takes precedence as transmitter and the other as a receiver. Thus, a participant becomes an authority, is having at his side the repressive power, financial, cultural or just because it is considered more "fit" for communication or for the transmission of a message.

The communication can occur only between two individuals or among more individuals. The communication between two individuals alike in the same conditions take the form of transfer, being equal. Communication between several individuals equal on equal terms, too. This is the case of communication between brothers, students and peasants, workers, intellectuals, in certain situations. Ie the egalitarian communication assumes that there is equality between individuals and conditions, as, for example, two (or more) intellectual (read, intellectual professionals) can discuss on equal terms in a bar table, but not in the situation a lecture in which one holds a near-monopoly of speech and the other is predominantly in the listening position.

So what distinguishes a form of communication other is the mode of communication. The communication mode is made socially and has, in each concrete society, certain expressions means. The equal communication mode, horizontal, horizontal and equitable use means, such as speech. Obviously, the authoritarian mode of communication, vertical, you can use the same means, but in a different way, because the dialogue between two children is different from adult-child dialogue, or between parent and child, in most cases.

4th THESIS:

THE TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS OF COMMUNICATION HIKING TOWARDS oligopolization

In capitalist society, the expansion of communication technology or electronic media creates a new variety of forms of communication. But in every society of communication classes tends to be hegemonic authoritarian, vertical. Production of technological media, in turn, occurs in capitalist society and according to your logic. Electronic media benefit from technological development and serve the capital's reproduction process, to be goods. They are part of capitalist production and reproduction circuit are goods that are produced for profit and that are only accessible to those with capital to acquire them. Thus, the technological media, are commodities that generate income for certain sectors of the capital and are the means of production to other capital sectors, which make up the sector of media companies.

Thus, the technological media are private or state ownership. The capitalist media companies aim to profit from the form of the communication sector capital. Thus, communication products are goods. The communication becomes not only authoritarian, vertical, but also commercial and profitable. The message is no longer aim to be a medium. In this way, the message is transformed into a commodity, which has use value and exchange value, but the priority for the owners of the electronic media, is exchange value, while for consumers is the use value .

The great thing is that with capitalist development and communications sector, there is a growing process of concentration and centralization of capital. This creates, over time, the concentration and centralization of technological media, which become oligopolistic media, though not because they are technological, but because it is privately owned large companies, forming the communicational capital. So the authoritarian and vertical character expands, becoming a powerful instrument of social control and in the hands of a few capitalist enterprises. The big TV networks form oligopolies that drive communication via TV. Of course in other cases there is a greater variety, such as radio stations, but even these have networks and links with other institutions that make it possible to acquire the capital necessary for its existence. There is also a hierarchy, as in all capitalist production, between mega-companies, and others, to reach the small, but in the case of the latter, remains precariously. But the trend is the increasing concentration and centralization of technological media in a small group of oligopolistic firms.

The big problem, however, is not the "technological means of communication" but in the mode of communication established by capitalist society. It is an authoritarian mode of communication and this is amplified with the use of technological resources, who even are created according to the dynamics of capitalist society, both in the sense of deepening social division of labor, the commercialization, the the authoritarian communication. Thus, the inventors and those who finance them do not seek to produce technologies for an egalitarian communication but authoritarian. Hence the focus on production technologies that are used to issue, namely technological emitting media (in which establishing a whole-oriented technology for issuing - and not receiving - communication, or which has the ability to send a message to many receivers) and receivers communication means (technology that allows the "public" access to the message sent by issuers media). This technology building model is based on the authoritative communication, based on the distinction between sender and receiver.

So, while it creates a whole focused technology for sending messages, as all the technological infrastructure of radio and TV stations, it creates a whole focused technology for the reception, such as TV sets and Radio. In other cases, there is also a similar process, but because the technology involved is less vertical as the Internet. But in capitalist society, even the technological means that are constitutively less vertical, just due to the commodification process, concentration and centralization of capital, becoming hegemonizados and dominated by the major capitalist media companies. At first, for example, anyone can have a website, however, the most visited, accessed, they are those of large companies, including search services, etc. They are dominated by them.

5th THESIS:

COMMUNICATION is regulated by the STATE

The capitalist state carries out a regularization process of the set of social relations, including communication. Through legislation is introducing a system of censorship and control that prevents the free expression of communication. The state's role is not limited to this, because besides the power to legislate, control, enable (through concessions), it also has its own technological media and use them according to their needs, not fully commercial, but mainly political. Public networks prioritize information, educational programming and civility, the so-called "high culture" prioritizing political hegemony instead of profit. However, it gets stuck to the logic of reproduction of capitalist society, and is commanded by a sector state bureaucracy that controls the state media.

The state serves the interests of the dominant fractions of capital, and therefore benefits the oligopolistic capital. The oligopolistic capital of communication has expanded its force by the capitalist state, since this hinders through legislation, control, policy concessions, access to non-oligopolistic capitalist sectors and other sectors of society to the use of technological media. That is why there is a whole control policy and restrictions on the use of technological media, as seen in the fierce combat of the state against the community and alternative radio, etc., not to mention the current eagerness to want to control and regularize Internet. The political intent there, but the key reason for this repression and control is primarily to uphold the hegemony of oligopolistic capital of technological media, if only because not all fought initiatives are opposed to capitalism, and actually rare cases. Thus, with regard to the communication process through technological means, the state represents the interests of the communication capital. This, as has an immense persuasive power over the population, becoming decisive in electoral times, just exercising great influence also in governments and in their communication policies.

6th THESIS:

The communicational capital DOMINATES THE CULTURAL PRODUCTION

Large oligopolistic media companies dominate cultural production. The alternative cultural productions are not hegemonic and often share common elements produced by oligopolistic media. This domination is guaranteed through the process of concentration and centralization of capital on the one hand, and by state regulation, linked to oligopolistic interests on the other. Other cultural productions performed without the use of technological media have extremely limited scope and results.

The oligopoly of the expansion process of the media promotes communication imposition process that dictates the cultural, artistic and informational production. Cultural production generally passes to be elusive and in most cases of low quality. Are created also specialized market niches, for the privileged social classes or specific consumer groups, such as youth. Artistic production becomes dependent on oligopolistic companies of communication, which can create "fashions" and impose certain concepts, standards, productions. However, it often organizes this tax through consultation using an experimental process, that is, releasing certain artistic goods to see public acceptance, and if there is a relative acceptance, starts to broaden the dissemination and propagation. The informational production is in addition to the result of a selection guided by axiological criteria, often repetitive and founded on a global hierarchical network, through news agencies, television networks, etc. In addition, associated and related to, or at least dependent of the oligopolistic media companies, there is an entire cultural production sector (record companies, publishers, galleries, agencies, etc.) which reinforces its trends.

Cultural production out of communicational capital of the circuit is marginalized and influenced by it. In this regard, a wide cultural production is carried out, but it is not disclosed, since it does not rely on such companies and their means of dissemination. The cultural production that reaches the majority of the population is reported by oligopolistic companies such communication.

So the result of this communication production is the production of a mercantile culture (not "masses", where the focus becomes visas receivers homogeneously or negatively). The commercial culture is a culture to the market in search of its consumer market. It relates not the seemingly neutral mode of production to the "masses", but communication goods (artistic, informational, etc.) which are sold to the consumer market. The mercantile culture consists of goods that are sold or means to bandage of other products and are therefore exposed to much of the population, either through technological media or through commercial network that revolves around the cultural production.

7th THESIS:

CAPITAL ONE-DIMENSIONAL COMMUNICATION communication GERA

The communication process performed by the oligopolistic business communication through technological means, performs a one-dimensional communication. This one-dimensional communication is manifested through the virtual absence of exchange between sender and receiver. Besides being an authoritarian and vertical communication, communication technology is also one-dimensional. The reason of technological communication is one-dimensional is due not only to the use of technological means of communication, but mainly due to the process of concentration and centralization of its use in the hands of large oligopolistic companies and how they are used.

Obviously, as already put such technological means are not neutral, are made from completed social relations and with specific purposes. However, its use is related to the property distribution process. There is a hierarchy in the use and effectiveness of using such means, but nevertheless, what makes the communication process mediated by more and extremely oppressive technology is the concentration and centralization of capital, training and hegemony of oligopolistic business communication.

These companies, in turn, not only uses emitting means of high-tech communication, as it does in a certain way. The technological communication mode dictated by these big companies is the imposition of futilização, trivialization and axiology, and / or the formation of a reified and ordinary consciousness. All this in order to play and approve the futile way of life set in contemporary capitalist society based on consumerism and disposable culture, next to the reproduction of dominant values ​​and false and ideological conceptions prevalent. The set of values, ideas, feelings, etc., which are passed by technological communication aimed precisely reproduce the process of domination and reproduction of capitalism in every way: creation of manufactured needs to achieve expanded reproduction of the consumer market, preventing the manifestation opposition to capitalist society, numb individuals.

8th THESIS:

The communicational capital PLAYS THE CLASS STRUGGLES

The expansion of the commodification of social relations that occurs with the emergence of intensive-extensive regime of accumulation, caused the birth of what has become accustomed to calling cultural industry. Your character handler (and conservative) has been reported numerous times. The naive view of the culture industry that considers a manifestation of the interest of the whole society, being a product of it and, therefore, a medium that exerts a beneficial effect on the population, playing what she wants to see, does not hold since the emergence of the various analyzes of the cultural industry from the classic work of Adorno and Horkheimer (1986).

For Adorno and Horkheimer, the cultural industry denies consumers what promises you. It is a factory of illusions and superficial consumption (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1986; Jay, 1988). These authors, the first to use the term "cultural industry", make a severe criticism of it. According to Adorno, "the cultural industry is the deliberate integration, from the high of its consumers" (Adorno, 1977, p. 287). The profit and the logic of capitalist production realize the commercialization of art and culture, producing "cultural goods":

"The cultural industry goods are oriented such as lecture Brecht and Suhrkamp there are already thirty years after the beginning of their marketing and not according to their own content and their proper figuration. The entire practice of the culture industry transfers without more, the profit motive to spiritual creations. From the moment where the goods ensure the life of the producers on the market, they are already contaminated by this motivation. But they did not aim profit but to mediate way, through its autonomous character. What is new in the cultural industry is the immediate and confess the primacy effect, which in turn is calculated precisely in its most typical products. The autonomy of works of art, which, it is true, almost never existed in pure form and that has always been marked by effect connections, we see the limit abolished by the cultural industry. With or without the conscious will of its promoters. These are both enforcement agencies as well as those in power. From an economic point of view, they were looking for new capital investment opportunities in more developed countries. The old possibilities become increasingly precarious due to the same process of concentration, which in just around the cultural industry makes it possible as powerful institution. A culture that, according to their own sense, not only obeyed the men but always protested against the sclerotic condition in which they live, and it did them honor; this culture because their total assimilation to men, it becomes integrated into this sclerotic condition; thus, it demeans men once again. The spirit productions in the style of the culture industry are no longer also commodities, but they are full. This shift is so great that raises entirely new phenomena. After all, the cultural industry is no longer obliged to aim everywhere to cultural profit interests and sometimes have emancipated themselves from the compulsion to sell the cultural commodities which, anyway, should be absorbed "(Adorno, 1977, p. 289) .

The culture industry produces a standardization and rationalization of cultural production while also conserves "forms of individual production" (Adorno, 1977), or, according to Morin, produces a "standardization-individualisation" (Morin, 2006). It is, however, a pseudo individualist in which the advertising and handling a fundamental role (Slater, 1978). This whole process reproduces the interests of the ruling class. The culture industry produces a standardization and manipulation of culture, reproducing the dynamics of any other capitalist industry, the pursuit of profit, but also reproducing the ideas that serve to its own perpetuation and legitimation and, by extension, the capitalist society as a whole.

This position has some questionable points, although it is possible to agree with some of his theses. The first question has to perform call into question the very term "cultural industry" and replace it with capital communication. Here we highlight the reception view of the production of "cultural industry" on the population. The communicational capital really performs a one-dimensional communication, one-sided. As Baudrillard puts, "TV is, by the very presence, social control at home of each" (Baudrillard, 1978). The TV displays messages produced by an elite of experts who are, like it or not, the service of the ruling class. It is also true that their viewers do not send a message (or counter-message) back. This is true for most oligopolistic media. The section of letters in newspapers and magazines, applications and interviews on radio and TV are very limited and marginalized (and are selected according to the interests of who owns these media). Our disagreement is on two points overlooked by the cultural industry of Adorno's conception (and others who encampam and reproduce): the question of reception of the cultural industry and the non-perception of its contradictions.

The issue of receipt allows us to realize that the process of standardization and manipulation does not occur in virgin lands without any obstacles. People on the communicational capital are not empty vessels. The exploited classes do not assimilate the messages conveyed in the manner intended by their issuing. There is the very interpretation of the message assimilation placed under the consciousness of the recipient. For party intellectual one "Communist" a novel that features a character "communist" who abandons such a position appears to him as a dangerous and ideological anti-communist propaganda (Numerian, 1990). For a worker such particularity of the novel is not interested because the meaning of "communism" for it is another, being off of its values ​​and its interests. So if there was the intention to produce an anti-communist propaganda, which is debatable, it has very limited effects. The interpretation of each class (which also features internal differences and subdivisions) of the received message is related to his conscience and with the values ​​that can only be understood based on the analysis of their way of life. According to Anton Pannekoek,

"Among the workers and the bourgeoisie, a cultural community can only be superficial and apparently sporadically. Workers can read the same books of the bourgeoisie, the same classic and the same works of natural history, this was not reflected any cultural community. Being totally divergent fundamentals of his thought and his view of the world, workers read these works something totally different that bourgeoisie "(Pannekoek, 1980, p. 105).

Pannekoek states that no national culture hangs in the air like clouds and an expression of the material history of social class life. We live in a class society and this brings the social classes, according to the social division of labor, have different ways of life and therefore observe and interpret reality differently. Thus, class consciousness and the representations that are produced by social classes differ and, although they also have elements in common, since the "ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class", such differentiation interfere with the reception of cultural goods and culture in general. Thus, does not hold the view that the masses would be passive recipients of mass media. In this type of analysis does not see any contradiction in the process of sending and receiving the message and implanted the absolute rule of the bourgeoisie by the cultural industry. By eliminating the contradictions also eliminates the possibility of change.

Another element that must be taken into consideration is the existence of contradictions within the communicational capital. It performs two types of advertising: the ideological and commercial (Sweezy, 1977). The first reproduces the dominant ideology, both naturalized in art plan and fantasy (novels, movies, novels, fiction, comic books, music, etc.), as giving a certain interpretation of reality (newspapers, news, reports, etc.) based on a selection of events, interviews, etc. turning it into everyday, easily digested representations, and expressing the dominant values. This propaganda is carried out by who has control of the oligopolistic media and is often intentional, but not always.

Newscasts, newspapers, interviews, etc. representing a selection made by those who have control of the oligopolistic media will be re-interpreted for whom access to them, that is, there is a "selection" of what was "selected". The same is true as regards to art and fantasy, which also offers the possibility of a more open interpretation, since it does not have to be compared with the reality or being subject to thought "logical".

In addition to the interpretation of ideological propaganda vary according to who performs, there is another contradiction that undermines their effectiveness: the contradiction between propaganda and reality. An example is the incentive that the ideological propaganda (and commercial) seeks to provide to consumerism, to the struggle for social mobility and the lifting status, which strengthens the dominant bourgeois ideology and integration in capitalist society, but at the same time strengthens discontent with bourgeois society (and counter-ideology) of those sectors of society unable to materialize what has been encouraged by the oligopolistic media. The contradiction between the ideological propaganda and reality is another element alongside the cultural differences that prevent the absolute rule of the bourgeoisie through the communicational capital.

On top of that, the communicational capital can not become immune to the actions that are contrary to its goals. Despite the vigilance of the owners of the oligopolistic media and bureaucrats to direct along with pressure from advertisers, the very oligopolistic competition makes room for artistic production, informational, cultural, etc. criticism. This is due to the necessity of hearing, public or bandage, that is, the conservatives themselves (owners, bureaucrats, advertisers) are often driven to take actions contrary to its interests or objectives. However, one should not forget the ambiguity of these critical messages and trying to "adapt" them to the needs of capital made by its agents.

Commercial advertising is growing in importance with the oligopoly of capitalist production that transfers the price competition for space advertising, which is based not only on price but also in the promotion of "quality", "convenience", "income", " utility "," fashion ", etc. The oligopolistic capitalism that emerged after World War II marks a whole commodification process of deepening and bureaucratization of social relations and also marks the displacement of capitalist investments in the sphere of means of consumption, because of its need for expanded reproduction of the consumer market (Viana , 2003). It is in this historical context that increases the competition for the consumer market and the attempt of its expansion with the formation of manufactured needs (Viana 2002). Advertising plays a key role in this context because it remains true that "production creates consumption" (Marx, 1983) and that "advertising is the lifeblood of business."

In addition to expressing the stage of oligopolistic capitalism, the use of advertising competition aims to slow the development of productive forces through spending on new type of competition that shifts resources that would be applied in the accumulation of capital. However, the growing increase in advertising expenditures is accompanied by rising prices for products and elitism of consumers of certain goods released by advertising. If advertising is an incentive to consumption, it is at the same time, an impediment to consumption; it creates the will of consumption and at the same time, its impossible for certain social groups, and thereby create new social conflicts. However, in the imperialist bloc countries (US, Western Europe, etc.), that due to technological advancement and exploitation of subordinates capitalist countries, via more value transfer, provides a higher level of consumption that reaches even classes exploited and oppressed social groups.

The capitalist state also seeks to control the dissemination of culture via cultural industry. And this not only through the legislative apparatus but also through their own media companies. Both seek to reach the widest possible audience, although the emphasis of the private sector is the maximization of profit and the state sector in political propaganda. The private sector privileges, so public and state sector Your message:

"(...) The private system want, above all, to please the consumer. He will do everything to recreate, enjoy, within the limits of censorship. The state system wants to convince, educate: on the one hand, tends to propagate an ideology that can annoy or irritate; On the other hand, it is not driven by profit and may propose values ​​of 'high culture' (scientific lectures, classical music, classical works). The private system is alive, because fun. Want to adapt their culture to the public. The state system is affected, forced. The public wants to adapt to their culture "(Morin, 2006, p. 254).

One should not, however, forget that the state sector also aims to profit, although secondarily and the private sector, when you want to reach an elite audience, can also encourage so-called "high culture". But what we have here is one of the main divisions within the communicational capital, which is not a homogeneous whole. The pressure of certain sectors of society and the existence of segments within the communication capital that targets specific audiences (young people, intellectuals, etc.) open small loopholes that give rise to new contradictions within it.

Therefore, the communicational capital is not just stabilizer of capitalist society, but also player of its contradictions. Oligopolists media are not "neutral" and serve the interests of capital. Capital communication was produced by capitalist society and is subject to the social division of labor typical of this society. The bourgeoisie of the communication sector dominates not directly, but through their employees, ie the bureaucracy. This is subject to not only direct pressure from the owners of the oligopolistic media, but also by the pressure of the specific needs of capitalist enterprises requiring productivity and profit and puts these means in dependence of its advertisers. Added to this the limited vision of "communication bureaucrats" generated by what Marx called "idiocy of specialization" and we see that regardless of the bourgeoisie and capital dynamic, bureaucracy reproduce the bureaucratic mode of communication and the low level which is typical of these media.

9th THESIS:

A NEW WAY OF COMMUNICATION IS NECESSARY

From the analysis of the hegemony of authoritarian communication and the predominance of one-dimensional communications conducted by communicational capital, we need to understand the need for a new form of communication. This means that the equal, horizontal communication, it is a goal to be reached and its implementation must begin now. In this sense, communication in social movements, the opposition groups to capitalism, the set of social relations in which the goal is social transformation, shall not reproduce the capitalist mode of communication. Beside this, in the process of class struggle, the production of alternative technological means, founded on egalitarian communication, should be driven. Furthermore, and in addition, you can use the gaps of communication and media capital (oligopolistic or not) technological communication exist to carry out the criticism of the mercantile and bureaucratic world established by capitalism and propose a radically different society.

10th THESIS:

FOR PROCESSING AND SOCIALIZATION MEDIA COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

The socialization of technological media is one of the first steps to break the rule of capital. This process of socialization, however, does not mean nationalization, which would mean no more than change the bureaucrats who run such means, or to merge the old bureaucrats with new bureaucrats. This is an authentic socialization, held from the population to be taken by the self-management of technological media, to her cause several changes and make such means be collective rather than private.

Thus, the socialization of technological means of communication means, among other things, for processing. The large networks of centralized and bureaucratically controlled TV are replaced by free communication performed live and in different territorial points. In addition to local programming, a city which has part of its program drawn up by the neighborhood councils and partly by the spontaneous participation of the residents, there are regional or national programming, as national borders still exist, even if artificially due to clashes with the ruling class in other countries, which is held in part by a regional council chosen among the delegates of districts or communal councils, and partly by the relay between programming drafted by several communal councils spread throughout the society. Thus, the program becomes self-managed by the community and the technological means become accessible to the population.

Beside this, new technological media should be created (perhaps even to merge more vertical technological means, such as TV, with more horizontal means such as the internet, seeking to turn the vertical to horizontal) to allow the socialization process cultural, artistic and informational production, as well as the technological means for its realization.

Thus a new society requires new uses and new technological media. The abolition of communicational capital, along with the abolition of the state, implementing social self-management, creates the social conditions for a new mode of communication, egalitarian and horizontal.

References

ADORNO, T. & HORKHEIMER, M. Dialética do Esclarecimento. 2ª edição, Rio de Janeiro, Jorge Zahar, 1986.

ADORNO, Theodor. Indústria Cultural. In: In: COHN, Gabriel (org.). Comunicação e Indústria Cultural. São Paulo, Nacional, 1977.

ARANGUREN, J. L. Comunicação Humana. Uma Sociologia da Informação. Rio de Janeiro, Zahar, 1975.

BARAN, Paul & SWEEZY, Paul. Teses Sobre a Propaganda. In: COHN, Gabriel (org.). Comunicação e Indústria Cultural. São Paulo, Nacional, 1977.

BAUDRILLARD, Jean. A Sociedade de Consumo. Lisboa, Edições 70, 1978.

CALDAS, W. Cultura de Massas e Política de Comunicações. São Paulo, Global, 1987.

ENZENSBERGER, H. M. Elementos para uma Teoria dos Meios de Comunicação. Rio de Janeiro, Tempo Brasileiro, 1979.

JAY, Martin. As Idéias de Adorno. São Paulo, Cultrix, 1988.

MARX, K. Contribuição à Crítica da Economia Política. São Paulo, Martins Fontes, 1983.

MORIN, Edgar. Indústria Cultural. In: MARTINS, J. S. & FORACCHI, M. (orgs.). Sociologia e Sociedade. Leituras Introdutórias em Sociologia. São Paulo, LTC, 1978.

NUMERIANO, Roberto. Mass Media e Dominação Burguesa. Revista Brasil Revolucionário. Ano II, no 07, Dez. 1990.

PANNEKOEK, Anton. Luta de Classe e Nação. In: PINSKY, Jaime (org.). Questão Nacional e Marxismo. São Paulo, Brasiliense, 1980.

SLATER, Phil. Origem e Significado da Escola de Frankfurt. Uma Perspectiva Marxista. Rio de Janeiro, Zahar, 1978.

STOETZEL, Jean. Psicologia Social. 3ª Edição, São Paulo, Nacional, 1976.

VIANA, Nildo. Estado, Democracia e Cidadania. A Dinâmica da Política Institucional no Capitalismo. Rio de Janeiro, Achiamé, 2003.

VIANA, Nildo. O Capitalismo na Era da Acumulação Integral. mimeo. 2008.

VIANA, Nildo. Os Valores na Sociedade Moderna. Brasília, Thesaurus, 2007.

VIANA, Nildo. Universo Psíquico e Reprodução do Capital. In: QUINET, Antonio e outros. Psicanálise, Capitalismo e Cotidiano. Goiânia, Edições Germinal, 2002.

WERNECK SODRÉ, N. Introdução à Revolução Brasileira. São Paulo, Ciências Humanas, 1978.