ok; the use of the singular threw me off.

Another (related) question: do you think there are many points of view which aren't also subscribed (or exploited) by one or more moneyed classes?

I don't follow your question. What is your implication? Just come out and say it.

Sure I have my viewpoint. But I'm also genuinely interested in your viewpoint.

My viewpoint is that I don't buy the idea that there is a group (or groups) of people that have both the means (money) and the ideas they made up themselves and they use the money to push the ideas to the passive masses who are then brainwashed by these rich people.

I think the masses produce the ideas. Those ideas are then selected and amplified by all sorts of people leveraging all sorts of means driven by all sorts of motives.

In fact there are plenty of examples of populist leaders that are not rich. The fact that the US has the cult of the millionaire sometimes obfuscates that fact; for some reason for populist leaders in the US to raise they have to be millionaire (or pretend to be) to begin with.

My point is that, sure, the moneyed class does play a role, but reality is much more complex than that and I don't really buy the idea that the world is "controlled" by a bunch of "supermen" who are both incredibly wealthy and also incredibly intelligent and play 4d chess.

I'm not sure you believe that, that's why I wanted to ask a question instead of implying anything for your position. But since you asked.

EDIT: typos

> I think the masses produce the ideas. Those ideas are then selected and amplified by all sorts of people leveraging all sorts of means driven by all sorts of motives.

> My point is that, sure, the moneyed class does play a role, but reality is much more complex than that and I don't really buy the idea that the world is "controlled" by a bunch of "supermen" who are both incredibly wealthy and also incredibly intelligent and play 4d chess

These don't contradict what I said at all. You are arguing with a straw man.

That's why I asked you a question instead of implying anything but you forced me to just randomly speak my mind. I have no idea what you think

I'm willing to answer your questions, but I just didn't understand that last one. Anyway it sounds like we are probably in agreement. I recognize the world to be complex and that there are many parties with different interests. My point only was that Google is willing to support narrow and even inaccurate narratives at the behest of those willing to pay them lots of money.

Just yell "NOT ALL RICH PEOPLE" and be done with it, bro.

That's not what I'm saying. My intent is not to defend rich people. Yes obviously most of them don't spend their time controlling the media but instead spend time showing off on their yachts.

My point is something else: I don't but the idea that there are two factions, the rich and the poor, and that all rich people have the same interests and thus are allies and that all poor people have the same interests and are allied (or so they should).

Sure, this view is partially grounded in realty and that's why Marx did come up with it and it's why it stuck to this day as sensible to so many people.

But I don't think it's true. I think it oversimplifies reality to the point that a spherical cow in comparison is anatomically accurate.

But it's worse than just being wrong. It actively stifles conversation. Any attempt to have a nuanced conversation about these topics ultimately resolves in an accusation of "you're defending the rich, just admit it". That's what turns a idea into an ideology. Ideologies are ideas with built-in self-defense mechanisms.