A monopoly on the means of communication may define a ruling elite more precisely than the celebrated Marxian formula of monopoly in the means of production.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
So far I go with the Socialists as to think it a pretty general rule that, where monopoly is necessary, it is better in public hands.
I don't know how it could be more stark or clear: this entire society is being dominated by corporate power in a way that may exceed what happened in the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century.
A moral monopoly is the antithesis of a marketplace of ideas.
And once you get instantaneous communication with everybody, you have economic activity that's far more advanced, far more liquid, far more distributed than ever before.
In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself.
I don't know what a monopoly is until somebody tells me.
Each honest calling, each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy based on excellence of performance.
The control of information is something the elite always does, particularly in a despotic form of government. Information, knowledge, is power. If you can control information, you can control people.
Redistribution of wealth would require enormous amounts of investment. The only time an elite has accepted this has been during crises, such as in America in the 1930s under Roosevelt.
An elite class that is free to operate without limits - whether limits imposed by the rule of law or fear of the responses from those harmed by their behavior - is an elite class that will plunder, degrade, and cheat at will, and act endlessly to fortify its own power.
No opposing quotes found.