Do capitalists "deserve" free speech?

[☭World Views]

Is taking over corporate owned media stations in the name of proletariat internationalism really such a bad thing?

Haven't the cappies spread their poison long enough?

You can always say that at least in the case of Venezuela, most of the media stations being shut down owned by right wingers advocating a coup and terrorist activities, and would be dismissed just as quickly in the USA if they declared a coup against Obama.

Not that Venezuela is a shining example revolutionary leftism in action, but if we don't get our hands dirty and guide the direction of the wave of leftism in Latin America we communists will alienate the masses. The workers must demand more.

To a greater class consciousness all over the world!

[rebelmouse]

I think also that it is very important to have our media.
but I would like to mention that marxists and anarchists in switzerland several times occupied radio station (I think in zurich) and gave their news from there. :laugh:

[al8]

Free speech is just a flashy phrase sheepishly regurgitated by demagogues. Speech is never free, it's always bound by a societal framework. With a new society come new frameworks for speech.
It's very stupid to support whatever nonsense spreading by supporting free speech in the abstract.

[spiltteeth]

In answer to ‘the sermons’ on the NEP preached by Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries—‘The revolution has gone too far. What you are saying now we have been saying all the time, permit us to say it again’—Lenin told the Eleventh Party Congress:


We say in reply: ‘Permit us to put you before a firing squad for saying that. Either you refrain from expressing your views, or, if you insist on expressing your political views publicly in the present circumstances, when our position is far more difficult than it was when the white guards were directly attacking us, then you will have only yourselves to blame if we treat you as the worst and most pernicious white-guard elements.’

[JimmyJazz]

The problem is defining who is a "cappie". You can claim it's easy, but in Stalinist society, it was anyone who wasn't a Stalin croney. Taking away freedom of expression is a slippery slope.

The biggest restriction on freedom of speech currently is lack of ability of most people to broadcast their views since it takes money to do so. That problem can be addressed by creating People's media that everyone or a rotating and randomly chosen sample of the population has access to. That takes away the money bias. But adding more restrictions on speech, how is that going to solve anything?

[gorillafuck]

But adding more restrictions on speech, how is that going to solve anything?
During a revolution or during revolutionary times, it seems like it would be pretty foolish to let the capitalists keep their media.

[cb9's_unity]

Media stations should be directly controlled by the workers, the state should keeps its current role in facilitating the transportation of the news but not the content of the news itself.

While I have no objection to the state releasing its own propaganda, there should be outlets apart from the state that are allowed to disseminate current events and opinions.

[The Red Next Door]

Everyone deserve free speech, if you don't like it. There always Amy Goodman. I love me some Goodman. but i don't have link or free speech on my cable.

[Angry Young Man]

Well, we've been stifled because they hold the media. Once we take control, we control the media, and when socialist arguments are put to the fore, the Sun will start to look absurd

[JimmyJazz]

During a revolution or during revolutionary times, it seems like it would be pretty foolish to let the capitalists keep their media.

That sounds great. But what happens when the capitalists becomes the capitalist roaders, capitalist roaders becomes the working class opposition, and the working class opposition becomes the working class?

I would suggest that if the working class isn't at the point of being able to filter out and reject bourgeois perspectives, then the working class isn't ready for revolution. If you're talking about shutting stations down because they called for a military coup or something like that, then of course I agree with that. But shutting down media for deliberate political subversion/treason is quite a different thing from shutting them down for being "capitalist". Incitement is quite different from expressing ideas. Just shutting capitalist institutions like the MSM down before you've built up a functioning socialist alternative (a "People's Media" like I mentioned before) is nihilism, not revolution.

If you still disagree, I would be interested to hear you address the problem of defining who can and can't have free speech - and more importantly, who gets to decide. Personally I find this problem insurmountable. Of course, some will be tempted to just quote Engels ("a revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is"), but that doesn't address the question of who gets to weild that authority (A class? A party? A single man?). I believe he was referring to a class, not to a handful of elite deciders. And history shows that once censorship of ideas is permitted to start, it doesn't stop, and the decisions related to censorship inevitably fall to a small handful of deciders, not to the class as a whole.

[Vendetta]

If you don't have free speech, then you may as weell not hold a revolutiojn

PS: someone remind me i posted in this topic, i am dead drunk. And willl explaini my points tomorrow; or whenveer.

[Comrade B]

Capitalists may control 1 news station, which has time lots of 10 minutes, it will be called The People's Comedy Central of The World. The scripts will be given to people who do not speak the language the station is being broad cast in the country of and the words will be written out semi-phonetically. Each show will be consumed with 6 hours of commercials for a nonexistent penis pills, 30% of their commercials will be made up of side effect lists, read by a smiling woman with a huge chest. At the end of each show, there will be 20 second clip of Rupert Murdoch attempting to survive on a desert island covered in cameras. At the end of each skit, Murdoch takes a bite out of a dead puppy he killed. This is his only source of food. Mr. Murdoch's life will be consumed 10% with crying, 42% with eating, 23% with sleep, 25% with failed attempts to escape his island. His island will have 2 seasons, the hot season, and the freezing season. He will not be provided with a way of keeping track of time.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Well, the workers will seize control of the media during a revolution. I suppose this will limit the free speech of the capitalists, but only to the extent that the free speech of the average person is limited under the current system--indeed, less so, because they will still have access to media; they just won't have any more access than anyone else. Any other restrictions on the freedom of speech would be insanely dangerous to the integrity of the revolution.

[Orange Juche]

Punishing people for expressing unfavorable opinions does not extinguish that opinion, nor can it stop it's spread.

[IllicitPopsicle]

The revolution won't be televised anyway - give em their freedom of speech, we have Indymedia and Infoshop. (This may be an extremely ignorant POV; I just really don't care.)

[spiltteeth]

Everyone here needs to shut up and only listen to me.

[al8]

I think the reactionaries should receive a red terror grater then all the white terrors combined. And I would only grant'em pigs their grunts and squeeks in the context of finding them out so they can be exterminated. [/internet_tough_guy]

[Muzk]

evreeyone SHUT UP the OPPRESSORS DONT DESERVE SHIT

[gorillafuck]

That sounds great. But what happens when the capitalists becomes the capitalist roaders, capitalist roaders becomes the working class opposition, and the working class opposition becomes the working class?

I would suggest that if the working class isn't at the point of being able to filter out and reject bourgeois perspectives, then the working class isn't ready for revolution. If you're talking about shutting stations down because they called for a military coup or something like that, then of course I agree with that. But shutting down media for deliberate political subversion/treason is quite a different thing from shutting them down for being "capitalist". Incitement is quite different from expressing ideas. Just shutting capitalist institutions like the MSM down before you've built up a functioning socialist alternative (a "People's Media" like I mentioned before) is nihilism, not revolution.

If you still disagree, I would be interested to hear you address the problem of defining who can and can't have free speech - and more importantly, who gets to decide. Personally I find this problem insurmountable. Of course, some will be tempted to just quote Engels ("a revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is"), but that doesn't address the question of who gets to weild that authority (A class? A party? A single man?). I believe he was referring to a class, not to a handful of elite deciders. And history shows that once censorship of ideas is permitted to start, it doesn't stop, and the decisions related to censorship inevitably fall to a small handful of deciders, not to the class as a whole.
You bring up some good points that I'll consider.

[The Broke Cycle]

It's not a matter of "deserving." I really do think that people ought to have the legal right to say anything they want, subject to certain common sense restrictions (such as threatening to kill someone). Those who oppose freedom of speech oppose the very essence of a egalitarian society.

[Muzk]

It's not a matter of "deserving." I really do think that people ought to have the legal right to say anything they want, subject to certain common sense restrictions (such as threatening to kill someone). Those who oppose freedom of speech oppose the very essence of a egalitarian society.


what if someone runs around yelling FUCKING FAT PRICK to every overweight person and when he sees 2 men together he shouts FUCING FAGGETS HITLER WOULD HAVE KILLED YA, is that a good right?

[JimmyJazz]

Muzk wins the thread.

[bcbm]

what if someone runs around yelling FUCKING FAT PRICK to every overweight person and when he sees 2 men together he shouts FUCING FAGGETS HITLER WOULD HAVE KILLED YA, is that a good right?

it certainly shouldn't be illegal for them to say, but i'm still going to jack them in the jaw.

[Socialist Guy]

Free speech all the way, we all (or most of us) support radical change and if the current Government banned that then we wouldn't have political parties to represent us which organises mass protests.

[spiltteeth]

I'm sticking to my Lenin quote.

Free speech in front of the firing squad only.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

what if someone runs around yelling FUCKING FAT PRICK to every overweight person and when he sees 2 men together he shouts FUCING FAGGETS HITLER WOULD HAVE KILLED YA, is that a good right?

Who cares? Why do you want to mess with comedy? Idiots are pure entertainment.

[The Broke Cycle]

what if someone runs around yelling FUCKING FAT PRICK to every overweight person and when he sees 2 men together he shouts FUCING FAGGETS HITLER WOULD HAVE KILLED YA, is that a good right?

Yes.

[Nwoye]

the constant talk of firing squads always perplexed me. i mean, correct me if im wrong but wasn't Marx explicitly against capital punishment?

[GracchusBabeuf]

wasn't Marx explicitly against capital punishment?Source?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Source?


it would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/18.htm

[spiltteeth]

the constant talk of firing squads always perplexed me. i mean, correct me if im wrong but wasn't Marx explicitly against capital punishment?

I am very much against capital punishment, and have fought against it for years.

[Tyrlop]

if we do this then we will sink to their level, censorship should not be tolerated from our perspective.

[Nwoye]

I am very much against capital punishment, and have fought against it for years.
so would you make a distinction between capital punishment and revolutionary violence? i'm actually interested in this.