Dealing with Dissent

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Ideally, how would you prefer your proposed society addresses political dissenters? Will it be arrests or some other form of harassment? Maybe permission of "free speech" and expression? Or perhaps some good old fashion purges. Please provide your reasoning as well.

Btw, by "political dissenters" I mean persons who openly oppose or disagree with the government or political organization of your choosing.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Pouge will travel round the working class controlled areas in a low-rider spraying people with a uzi.

[ArrowLance]

Kill them all and eat their babies, obviously.

But no, political dissent is an important issue. It is very dangerous to the revolution. If say we manage to take over the state, but then the anarchists decide they want to try and fuck with our revolution, obviously we need to be ready to stop them.

Of course this extends to all dissenters of a large degree who weaken the revolution. I'm not a big fan of killing them but something needs to be in place. Work camps or censorship are both viable tools, which to use is dependent on the type of dissent and the effect on the revolution.

[The Something]

Dissent is essential for democracy. You stop them with logic and reasoning not with guns and death.

Protect yourself yes, but argue and vote first.

[mikelepore]

The set of rules in a free society doesn't need a category called "dissent." It should only categorize the specific things that people do. Some actions are permissible and some are not. One person writes a book. Is it permissible to write a book? Yes. Another person throws a rock in a crowd. Is it permissible to throw a rock in a crowd? No. In giving these answers, I didn't consider the issue of which of these individual did it because of dissent.

[ComradeMan]

In a free society there would be no such thing as political dissent.

If I am confident in my "state" then I would have no reason to fear dissent.

If some "dissenter" tries to lead a capitalist led invasion to destroy the revolution then woe betide him... :cool:

[ls]

Collectively of course, we deal with the issue of dissent collectively by coming to agreements in the councils with rough constitutions outlining the basic punishments for basic crimes.

Obviously, anyone who simply wishes to militantly crush the revolution will be shot for starters. Those that wish to constructively criticise or just criticise it, but not in a pro-capitalist way should be left alone, then again this should all be decided by the people and not by a few men.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is a little abstract. I'm all for dissent in a society run by workers but I think that society would probably want to ensure that worker's power remains in effect by both making sure that a separate class doesn't emerge from within as well as preventing a restoration of the old capitalist order.

How that looks like will depend on what workers at the time decide. You couldn't ask people in 1730s colonial America what a bill of rights might look like because they haven't gone through the revolutionary process yet.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Obviously, anyone who simply wishes to militantly crush the revolution will be shot for starters. Those that wish to constructively criticise or just criticise it, but not in a pro-capitalist way should be left alone, then again this should all be decided by the people and not by a few men.

In the US, there would be a lot of empty jails to house people actively organizing for a restoration of the capitalist ruling class - I'm in favor of locking any counter-revolutionaries up in these because of the irony factor. Even at the very worst, California prisons alone could probably hold every single member of world's capitalist ruling classes, military generals, police chiefs, the Chineese rulers, and the pundits and editorial board of FOX news.

[Kayser_Soso]

I am in favor of "people's forums" and public access TV for workers. Since ideally the role of the party should be progressively moved away from day-to-day running of society(handled instead by direct democracy and various councils), the party should focus on propaganda, education, military matters, and central economic planning. In public debates, it should fight for a socialist line against any emerging petit-bourgeois ideas.

Since the press will be owned by the people collectively, many things can be "censored" in the same way they are under a capitalist regime. Someone could submit their manuscript for a book advocating Randian-style libertarianism, and they would just be told that the publishing company doesn't think such a book represents the values of said company, or something along those lines.

Honestly I try not to go into too much detail planning for the future. The key thing is, that honest dissent must be taken into account, while pro-capitalist propaganda must be defeated on logical grounds. Trying to keep pro-capitalist propaganda from the people simply doesn't work- it must be presented in full, mocked, and dismantled logically- and it can be because capitalism cannot but defend itself with irrational arguments. It's just like Judo, use their strength and movements to slam them to the ground.

[Comrade Gwydion]

Indeed, I think even pro-capitalist dissent should be tollerated, and overcome by reason or if all else fails emotional appeal. There should be no repression.

Racism, Fascism, perhaps. But it's a very gradual line from conservativism to fascism, and 'regular' conservatives should still have the right to express their opinions. Except, obviously racism, homophobia, religious discrimination and sexism.

[Kayser_Soso]

Indeed, I think even pro-capitalist dissent should be tollerated, and overcome by reason or if all else fails emotional appeal. There should be no repression.

Racism, Fascism, perhaps. But it's a very gradual line from conservativism to fascism, and 'regular' conservatives should still have the right to express their opinions. Except, obviously racism, homophobia, religious discrimination and sexism.


Obviously there comes a point where one has to say "you spoke your peace, it's been discredited, you're done. Case closed." However, the best way to ensure that these debates don't go on forever is to let them out in the open, and let them be picked apart and destroyed.

Racism is a good example. Groups like the SPLC just tend to refer to all racist ideas as "hate", and do very little to engage in any kind of debate with racist pseudo-intellectuals. As a result, the latter use this to try to send a message that their opponents can't debate racialism, and their refusal to do so is proof of political correctness.

By contrast, compare what the SPLC writes to the work of anti-racist Tim Wise, who takes all racist claims head on and refutes them with facts and logic. Using logic, and using racist arguments against themselves, I have even managed to convince a Neo-Nazis to rethink their views. The lesson is, when you attack, people become defensive. When you ask them questions, and exploit the internal contradictions and illogical aspects of their ideology, then you make progress.

[ArrowLance]

The bourgeoisie have many advantages over the proletarian class, if we do not use the state to oppress them, then what difference does the revolution make? If we allow 'pro-capitalist' dissent and the such it weakens the revolution, why should we let the revolution be weakened? On principle alone?

Dissent gets in the way of progress, if the system is of the proletarian class then why should we let anything get in the way of its progress.

[Vendetta]

Dissent gets in the way of progress

Sounds like something Mussolini would've said.

[h9socialist]

Socialism has proved that it can weather dissent. In late 1991 the bourgeoisie was heralding the collapse of the USSR as the end of socialism. We've been digging our way back ever since -- and lately we've been a lot more relevant than the early 90s bourgeois could imagine. Obviously, we need to tolerate dissent. Capitalism tolerates dissent by co-opting it -- and that works, and should not be underestimated. Marx saw the ascent of socialism as ending class society, but not ending the dialectics of all social life. Lenin encouraged debate and discussion. The key is to build a socialism flexible enough to accommodate future dissent. As to reactionary dissent -- don't make martyrs of them. Fidel and Che were right to conduct people's tribunals against Batista's henchmen. They did not put the petit bourgeoisie as a whole on trial. Better to let them fade to irrelevance than suppress them.