Communist nations and censorship.

[j-mak]

IS Censorship part of the communist doctrine?
Why does every present day communist nation have heavy censorship?
In China the internet is heavily censored.
In North Korea there is a ban on mobile phones and the internet.
In Cuba, only recently can you buy a computer or mobile phone.

Is censorship an important part of Communism?
Or does it relate to dictatorship?
Either way, how is removing free speech and right to information justifiable to any government?
- Anyone pro censorship?
Thanks.

[Crusade]

No. If it was I wouldn't be a communist.

[Tablo]

Communists want absolute freedom so censorship is not compatible. The nations you mentioned aren't Communist.

[j-mak]

Communists want absolute freedom so censorship is not compatible. The nations you mentioned aren't Communist.

Thankgod, there is a learning section on this forum.
What are China,North Korea and Cuba?
I am almost 100% sure Cuba is Communist?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Thankgod, there is a learning section on this forum.
What are China,North Korea and Cuba?
I am almost 100% sure Cuba is Communist?Well one of the questions that many people ask is "why don't different radical groups work together" the answer to your question above is the answer the the question I just mentioned.

What most radicals agree is that communism is a stateless classless society. Are the states you mentioned headed that way? Are they holding power until the day that conditions allow for a stateless society? There are many different opinions on this.

Personally I don't think there are any existing socialist (worker-run) or communist (stateless and classless society) societies. I think Russia was attempting socialism but within years or even months of the Revolution, this possibility was lost. The Bolsheviks tried to keep things together and there were lots of different ideas about what to do but ultimately a policy of "socialism in one country" was adopted and this is the model that most of the following so-called socialist countries adopted or looked to for inspiration. In my political tradition, this kind of state is called "state-capitalist" and is defined by nationalization of industry some social reforms (good in Cuba, not so good in North Korea for example) and basically the use of state power to stand-in for the role normally played by capitalists.

Some political traditions see what I described as "state-capitalism" as possibly good if the state is run in the interests of workers, but in Russia and elsewhere basically a new class runs the state.

Personally I don't think socialism is possible without 1. Worker control of the means of production (workers run workplaces together democratically or through elected representatives or whatever other form they want). 2. A huge level of democracy that is unknown in bourgeois states. All the decisions now made in backrooms with politicians or in boardrooms or whatever will be democratically decided.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Thankgod, there is a learning section on this forum.
What are China,North Korea and Cuba?
I am almost 100% sure Cuba is Communist?

Well, first of all, Communism has never been achieved yet. Communism represents a stateless, classless, egalitarian society. We haven't even achieved true socialism yet really, at least not one that lasted 'til now. Cuba right now is state-capitalist with a socialist theme. The benefit out of this is that the workers have a better lifestyle than the free-market capitalism that's run in the U.S.

[Invincible Summer]

IS Censorship part of the communist doctrine?
Why does every present day communist nation have heavy censorship?
In China the internet is heavily censored.
In North Korea there is a ban on mobile phones and the internet.
In Cuba, only recently can you buy a computer or mobile phone.

Is censorship an important part of Communism?
Or does it relate to dictatorship?
Either way, how is removing free speech and right to information justifiable to any government?
- Anyone pro censorship?
Thanks.

Censorship is not an important part of Communism, no. In fact, it's not even something that communists see as necessary really.

Also, as others have mentioned, there has never been communism in modern history, as communism means a classless, stateless society. Therefore, single countries cannot be communist, as that necessitates a state.

Anyways, I can only speculate that China censors its population due to a highly corrupt bureaucracy that just wants to hold onto its power. If its huge population was able to learn about what real socialism is supposed to be like, there would be no question that there'd be mass demonstrations and political change. It's a shitty explanation, but I'm not too well read on Chinese politics.

Because N. Korea is in a more unstable condition (I believe it is considered at war with S Korea and its allies), censorship can be rationalized by the way of state security. Also, I'm not sure if they even have the infrastructure to support massive mobile phone and internet usage... but then again not many know about what N Korea is like so...

As for Cuba, I don't see how that is censorship?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

As long as a workers state suffers international isolation and such there is going to be some censorship, but as with capitalist society if the ruling classes hold on power is stable then why would there be any need for censorship? We are no more committed to censorship as an ideal than the bourgeoisie is really committed to free speech.

[j-mak]

Thanks for the replies.
I guess Censorship relates more to corrrupt governments than to communism.

Side question:
Does communism or Socialism promote dictatorship?

[Luisrah]

Thanks for the replies.
I guess Censorship relates more to corrrupt governments than to communism.

Side question:
Does communism or Socialism promote dictatorship?

No. Like some people said before, Communism is a stateless and classeless society, so no one is above any other.
Socialism is worker's control of the means of production, so there can't be a dictator when the workers (the biggest part of the people) rule for themselves.
What can happen, and seems to happen a lot, is the vanguard (party that is composed of the more conscious members of the proletariat [workers]) turns into another class, the bureaucracy.
If the party centralizes too much power, it may eventually lead to a dictatorship, due to opportunism.

Therefore, when socialism comes to a country, it has to start democratically, or it will most probably be doomed from the beggining.

[danyboy27]

IS Censorship part of the communist doctrine?
Why does every present day communist nation have heavy censorship?
In China the internet is heavily censored.
In North Korea there is a ban on mobile phones and the internet.
In Cuba, only recently can you buy a computer or mobile phone.

Is censorship an important part of Communism?
Or does it relate to dictatorship?
Either way, how is removing free speech and right to information justifiable to any government?
- Anyone pro censorship?
Thanks.
the name of your topic should be: state capitalist nation and sensorship.

[Rjevan]

Either way, how is removing free speech and right to information justifiable to any government?
Removing free speech is definitely no characteristic of communism but there might be situations when restricting e.g. freedom of press is necessary. After the revolution the overthrown bourgeoisie will strive to get back its former power and therefore try to create opposition and resistance to the new workers state and sabotage it whenever possible. So in such a situation it would be stupid to allow obvious reactionaries to spread their propaganda through the media or in parliament.


Side question:
Does communism or Socialism promote dictatorship?
No, communism promotes democracy. What you might have in mind is the dictatorship of the proletariat in a socialist state. This simply means the dictatorship of the working class over its enemies, the bourgeoisie and the reactionaries. Current democracy is de facto the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the rule of an exploiting minority over an exploited majority. After the revolution, in order to ensure this will never happen again, the former ruling class has to be restricted in their rights. So the dictatorship of the proletariat means the rule of the majority over the minority and while it is dictatorial for the reactionaries it is more democratic than ever for the working class and the broad masses.
"Total democracy" can never be achieved as long as there are classes (and thus class struggle) and a state, so it will only be achieved when communism is achieved.

[CartCollector]

After the revolution the overthrown bourgeoisie will strive to get back its former power and therefore try to create opposition and resistance to the new workers state and sabotage it whenever possible. So in such a situation it would be stupid to allow obvious reactionaries to spread their propaganda through the media or in parliament.

If the masses were class conscious enough to carry out a revolution, would this really be necessary? As an example, after the American Revolution, the US never had to undertake a campaign of killing monarchist counterrevolutionaries. At least I've never heard of that campaign. Then again the US had the luxury of the imperialist powers being far away from them with no easy way for them to stage a counterrevolution. Not so in France.

[ArrowLance]

I support the use of censorship as a revolutionary tool. Why should we allow enemies of the revolution to spread their ideas? If your intentions and ideas are truly right then we are just in censoring the opposition.

Also in my opinion, Cuba is doing great work for the revolution, and North Korea has potential and I support their efforts.

[Comrade B]

during the dictatorship of the proletariat the bourgeois will be deprived of the ability to spread counter-revolutionary propaganda. Also, the news will be state provided (because corporate media is controlled by capitalists already, it is in the name).

North Korea and China are not communist, Cuba is socialist, but not true communism.

[Tablo]

You don't need censorship when the vast majority of people understand Communist ideology. Censorship hurts individualfredom so I can not ever support it in any fashion.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Any time totalitarianism is involved in a "socialist" or "communist" movement, you can no longer call it either. Like what happened in the USSR, and elsewhere: the workers did not control the means of production, the party did. What occurred was "State Capitalism". This is essentially an aristocracy (where a small group of elites rule the majority), in this case the aristocrats were the parties in power. In the USSR it was the Stalinist regime. The aristocrats controlled the means of production, not the workers. The aristocrats, quite obviously, would wish to keep their power. They did this through means such as censorship, purges (such as Stalin committed) and other forms of oppression. Socialism, where the workers control the means of production, has not occurred.

As communists we support absolute freedom, so, to answer your question: no. Censorship is not a part of Marxist doctrine.

I'll leave you with two quotes from Rosa Luxemburg:


Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party - though they are quite numerous - is no freedom at all.
Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.

[Orange Juche]

Removing free speech is definitely no characteristic of communism but there might be situations when restricting e.g. freedom of press is necessary. After the revolution the overthrown bourgeoisie will strive to get back its former power and therefore try to create opposition and resistance to the new workers state and sabotage it whenever possible. So in such a situation it would be stupid to allow obvious reactionaries to spread their propaganda through the media or in parliament.

What you're saying here is removing free speech isn't a characteristic of it, but it might be necessary sometimes. Can't have it both ways. "Restricting" it is just a plain bad idea anyways, if the anarchists or the council communists or anyone else disagrees with state ideology, they get the shaft too. It's tyrannical. If a system is actually good enough to work and promote democracy, it doesn't need to stop opponents from expressing themselves.




"Total democracy" can never be achieved as long as there are classes (and thus class struggle) and a state, so it will only be achieved when communism is achieved.

Yes, but if by there being classes you mean every last person who wishes to express their support of a capitalist system, it's unlikely "true democracy" will ever occur.

[ArrowLance]

What you're saying here is removing free speech isn't a characteristic of it, but it might be necessary sometimes. Can't have it both ways. "Restricting" it is just a plain bad idea anyways, if the anarchists or the council communists or anyone else disagrees with state ideology, they get the shaft too. It's tyrannical. If a system is actually good enough to work and promote democracy, it doesn't need to stop opponents from expressing themselves.


You're jumping ahead of yourself; restricting some 'free speech' does not mean 'shafting' all dissidents. The only people who would be in danger would be those deemed to be dangerous to the revolution.

So of course you ask, who decides what is dangerous to the revolution? Those in power of course, it is never any different and true in any society in a different sense. So it's a matter of getting the just into power, by that I mean the workers.

[Jarc]

I believe censorship is only necessary when it is preventing the rise, or propagation of the burgoisie.

[Weezer]

IS Censorship part of the communist doctrine?
Why does every present day communist nation have heavy censorship?
In China the internet is heavily censored.
In North Korea there is a ban on mobile phones and the internet.
In Cuba, only recently can you buy a computer or mobile phone.

Is censorship an important part of Communism?
Or does it relate to dictatorship?
Either way, how is removing free speech and right to information justifiable to any government?
- Anyone pro censorship?
Thanks.

China is capitalist. Anyone who knows the basics of economics knows this.

North Korea removed all references to "Communism" in their constitution. They've been "Juche" since 1994 or something.

There's a lot of misinformation and Propaganda against Cuba. There are one of the most medically advanced countries in the world.

Censorship is not part of communist doctrine, even if some communists believe in it.

Keep in mind there are many, many tendencies of Communism.

Communism isn't supposed to reproduce the stupidities developed in capitalism, like censorship. P.S. Communist state is an oxymoron.

[ls]

No, in a socialist society I certainly do not think a racist has the right to go up to someone and call them racist names for example, nor to quietly infer racist stereotypes, that kind of censorship in the context of a socialist society is absolutely necessary.

[Orange Juche]

You're jumping ahead of yourself; restricting some 'free speech' does not mean 'shafting' all dissidents. The only people who would be in danger would be those deemed to be dangerous to the revolution.

So of course you ask, who decides what is dangerous to the revolution? Those in power of course, it is never any different and true in any society in a different sense. So it's a matter of getting the just into power, by that I mean the workers.

But when you start talking about restricting something as basic as expression, that's where it gets very dangerous... where there's a "slippery slope."

Like I said, if the system in place is working so well and is such a good idea, it shouldn't feel the need to repress any speech.

[Luisrah]

But when you start talking about restricting something as basic as expression, that's where it gets very dangerous... where there's a "slippery slope."

Like I said, if the system in place is working so well and is such a good idea, it shouldn't feel the need to repress any speech.

The thing is atleast in the beggining, the system will never work well. It is just ''normal'' that the bourgeoisie will defend their interests, and how will they do that?
Making news articles of 1, 2 or 3 (no more than 10) people that are harshly repressed by the evil communist state, that doesn't care for freedom.
You know what that means? Less some thousands supporters, another 20 years to wait for the revolution.

We are outnumbered. Throughout history, revolutions exiled and fuzilated people, and the bourgeoisie won't mind killing a few million people to get things the way we want.
Before the end, there will be blood, there will be war almost certainly.
Not everyone is going to be a victor in a happy society filled with flowers.

I'm not saying we should start killing everyone and whatever. If the revolution can be bloodless, even better! But idealism will take us nowhere.

[Rjevan]

What you're saying here is removing free speech isn't a characteristic of it, but it might be necessary sometimes. Can't have it both ways. "Restricting" it is just a plain bad idea anyways, if the anarchists or the council communists or anyone else disagrees with state ideology, they get the shaft too. It's tyrannical. If a system is actually good enough to work and promote democracy, it doesn't need to stop opponents from expressing themselves.
You can have it very well both ways. That something isn't a characteristic does not mean that it is totally excluded. It always depends on the very situation, in case everything runs just fine, the people are supporting the revolution wholeheartedly and the bourgeoisie is too depressed or too frightened to fight back then of course there is no need to restrict free speech.

But in the more realistic case that the bourgeoisie manages to create massive opposition, uses initial problems like e.g. food shortages (which are very likely to be organised by the bourgeoisie) for their propaganda against the new system and maybe even is supported by parts of the army and/or foreign troops as well as by foreign capital, the situation might suggest that sacred rights like freedom of press are maybe only sacred so that the reactionaries can use them as tools against the proletariat. And to see and generously allow that, rather sacrificing the success of the proletarian revolution than daring to touch the bourgeois freedom of press, would be as stupid as to assume that the socialist society will face no problems and be just like the land of milk and honey from the very first second. The only ones who would be grateful for that would be the members of the former ruling class and as soon as they are grateful for your actions you have the best proof that something goes terribly wrong.


Yes, but if by there being classes you mean every last person who wishes to express their support of a capitalist system, it's unlikely "true democracy" will ever occur.
I really fail to see why there is any need to define what I mean by classes now, since they are defined very clearly. Do you suggest that a proletarian who supports capitalism is part of the bourgeoisie? One's class is not determined by his/her attitude.

[ArrowLance]

But when you start talking about restricting something as basic as expression, that's where it gets very dangerous... where there's a "slippery slope."

Like I said, if the system in place is working so well and is such a good idea, it shouldn't feel the need to repress any speech.

Where is this 'slippery slope.'

The problem is exactly that the 'system is not perfect' and during a revolution can be quite fragile. Like any power system, in believing it is just, should defend itself. Our power system is of the proletariat, and is just for the proletariat, it should defend itself from its enemies.