Leninists Maoists etc, do you oppose freedom of speech, and if so why?

[727Goon]

So are most of you authoritarian communists against freedom of speech and political expression? Why? I know in Cuba there are banned political parties and shit, and the internet is censored. I find it pretty elitist to think that the working class has to be protected from stupid political ideas by a state, especially in a revolutionary climate.

[RedStarOverChina]

Should a racist have "the freedom of speech"? How about a Fascist? I'm inclined to say screw their freedom of speech.

[Who?]

I personally believe that freedom of speech and political expression are healthy in a revolutionary society. However I also feel that certain groups should be monitored. For example you don't want certain groups taking advantage of an unstable political situation. If there are extreme counter-revolutionary measures being taken we may need to take certain radical measures to protect the revolution.

[727Goon]

In a post revolutionary climate the majority of people should be socialists, so their beliefs should not be taken seriously by the masses. I see no need to imprison someone just because of their political beliefs, as fucked up as they are. What does imprisoning a crazy racist motherfucker who hasnt done anything except say racist bullshit accomplish?

[Stephen Colbert]

Just because freedom of speech is tolerated and allowed doesnt mean people need to exercise it. ie fascists, racists. thats my opinion

edit: so much for libertarian socialist...

[727Goon]

I personally believe that freedom of speech and political expression are healthy in a revolutionary society. However I also feel that certain groups should be monitored. For example you don't want certain groups taking advantage of an unstable political situation. If there are extreme counter-revolutionary measures being taken we may need to take certain readical measures to prostect the revolution.

Obviously certain groups should be monitored, but I don't think they should be imprisoned because of their politics alone. But how does censoring the internet in Cuba help the revolution at all? It strikes me as elitist and totalitarian to prevent the working class from viewing stupid political ideas.

[727Goon]

Just because freedom of speech is tolerated and allowed doesnt mean people need to exercise it. ie fascists, racists. thats my opinion

edit: so much for libertarian socialist...


Obviously I agree with this, I just dont think fascist or racists should necessarily be thrown in jail for their fucked up opinions. And can someone explain to me why its necessary for Cuba to censor the internet and ban political parties?

[RadioRaheem84]

Do they imprison people for holding racist beliefs in Cuba? I assumed it wouldve taken actual counter revolutionary organizing activities to merit a stint in jail? Also, what nation can and does uphold the ideals behind freedom of speech?

[KC]

You have to put the idea of "freedom of speech" in its proper context. States pursue and advance their own interests, which includes the preservation of the prevailing social order, its own perpetuation as well as its various class interests. States are amoral entities. They are only concerned with the idea of "freedom" or "liberty" insomuch as they are tools of realpolitik. Thus, in an event where a state is more consolidated, where power is highly centralized in the state and where not only violence but even the threat of violence are no longer required by the state to maintain order, "freedoms" take on a new level (also, as an aside, the concept of freedom itself is laid bare in all its contradiction - the less power you have, the more "freedom" you have).

This is why you see countries like the United States or the "western" countries speak so highly of their "freedoms". This is no coincidence. Yet even the most consolidated states must deal with certain situations by either the threat of violence or violence outright. In an event where the state perceives its interests to be threatened it will react accordingly, and to such an extent deemed necessary to do away with the threat completely and leave no residual seeds of discontent.

Thus, even the most consolidated states resort to violence in certain situations. This is the state laid bare, and how it has been known throughout history (and is still known throughout the vast majority of the globe).

So to ask whether or not we support freedom of speech isn't really a question that I can take seriously. The answer is always "it depends". As we support class struggle and socialist revolution, we cannot say that we fully support or oppose freedom of speech, for in certain situations it is absolutely necessary to stifle freedom of speech in order to fight and succeed.

[727Goon]

Do they imprison people for holding racist beliefs in Cuba? I assumed it wouldve taken actual counter revolutionary organizing activities to merit a stint in jail? Also, what nation can and does uphold the ideals behind freedom of speech?

I'm not sure, all I know is that they ban political parties and censor the internet. What nation can and does uphold the ideals behind socialism? I suppose zapatista territories are the best example of both, but just because they have never been accomplished on a large scale doesnt mean they arent worth striving for.

[727Goon]

You have to put the idea of "freedom of speech" in its proper context. States pursue and advance their own interests, which includes the preservation of the prevailing social order, its own perpetuation as well as its various class interests. States are amoral entities. They are only concerned with the idea of "freedom" or "liberty" insomuch as they are tools of realpolitik. Thus, in an event where a state is more consolidated, where power is highly centralized in the state and where not only violence but even the threat of violence are no longer required by the state to maintain order, "freedoms" take on a new level.

This is why you see countries like the United States or the "western" countries speak so highly of their "freedoms". This is no coincidence. Yet even the most consolidated states must deal with certain situations by either the threat of violence or violence outright. In an event where the state perceives its interests to be threatened it will react accordingly, and to such an extent deemed necessary to do away with the threat completely and leave no residual seeds of discontent.

Thus, even the most consolidated states resort to violence in certain situations. This is the state laid bare, and how it has been known throughout history (and is still known throughout the vast majority of the globe).

So to ask whether or not we support freedom of speech isn't really a question that I can take seriously. The answer is always "it depends". As we support class struggle and socialist revolution, we cannot say that we fully support or oppose freedom of speech, for in certain situations it is absolutely necessary to stifle freedom of speech in order to fight and succeed.

What post revolutionary situations do you think there would be where its absolutely necessary to stifle freedom of speech?

[KC]

What post revolutionary situations do you think there would be where its absolutely necessary to stifle freedom of speech?I would say, for example, that an open civil war as was experienced in Russia would be grounds for not only stifling freedom of speech but killing the opposition who have taken up arms. Their collaborators should also be dealt with accordingly.

[ContrarianLemming]

As far as I can tell from the responses in this thread, people are currently more free with there opinions in todays political climate then in a socialist one! How repulsive!

[727Goon]

I would say, for example, that an open civil war as was experienced in Russia would be grounds for not only stifling freedom of speech but killing the opposition who have taken up arms. Their collaborators should also be dealt with accordingly.


Obviously your going to kill the opposition who've taken up arms, but I'm talking about a post revolutionary situation.

[KC]

Obviously your going to kill the opposition who've taken up arms, but I'm talking about a post revolutionary situation.

That depends on what you mean by "post-revolutionary". In a communist society (and I am guessing that is what you are referring to) the concept of "freedom" is equally as superfluous as the concept of the state.

Then again, I don't know why you'd ask me a question like that which seems to have little or no relevance whatsoever - everyone here would agree on that.

[Nuvem]

Freedom of speech is a very strange topic among leftists. You get the Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, and even many Independent Socialists such as myself claiming that restricting speech and expression can be acceptable under certain situations, and on the other side there are the ultra-Libertarians (I reject the idea of "ultra-leftists"; we're all far-left, others are simply more libertarian) such as Council Communists, Left Communists, Libertarian Socialists and the numerous Anarchist tendencies typically arguing against any form of restriction on freedoms of expression.

Despite what many hard-liner politicians may say (and this goes for left, right, center, authoritarian, libertarian, every tendency everywhere gets this sort), law and social policy is all about exceptions to the rule. A woman cannot legally get an abortion after the 1st trimester, except for when the pregnancy is a threat to her own life. Civilians are not allowed to kill another person, unless there is a reasonable argument for defense of self and kin. Nearly all laws have exceptions of some kind.

In a post-revolutionary Leftist society, the issue of freedom of expression ( I say expression because speech is just one small facet of the many forms of communication) is no different. Freedom of expression should be a general right of the populace, but exceptions must be made. Words and ideas are a very powerful thing, and if those who seek to use them with malign intent insist upon feeding venom to the hungry minds of the foolish and young, they must be stopped.

To the thread poster, I pose this hypothetical. You picture Marcos as your avatar, an idol of mine as well; suppose the EZLN succeeded in liberating Chiapas from the rest of Mexico and forming an independent people's state there. Suppose people not of Native American descent in the region begin spewing anti-Native racist propaganda and organizing against the hereditary natives, now the racial majority in this newly-formed political organ and therefore threatening the stability of the entire region. Is the problem to be ignored, the agitators allowed to meet, to organize and to act openly?

Closer to home, take a look at the KKK, the Aryan Nation and similar racist/Fascist organizations. Post-revolution, would it be acceptable to allow them to operate in the lands which have been liberated in the people's name, in the name of egalitarianism, equality and acceptance? Similarly, during and after the Russian Revolution, the Monarchist newspapers were repressed. In explanation, Lenin proclaimed that, "if the Monarchists had the right to repress the Communist papers...do we not have the right to repress the Monarchist papers?"

Groups that are blatantly and openly counter-revolutionary or reactionary must not be allowed to strengthen the reaction via the spread of propaganda. Fascists and racists must not be allowed to fester and grow like some sickening boil on the face of a nation, lest the situation degenerate to something similar to modern day Russia, with Nazbols being elected to the Duma and running wild in the streets, having Nazi-style demonstrations, killing minorities and beating immigrants.

In most matters I'm actually considered fairly libertarian, but I will say openly and honestly that freedoms of expression must be revoked for certain groups for the security of the revolution. You would not sit by and watch a Fascist preach Aryan dialectics to your younger sibling, nor should you allow them to do so in your nation.

[ContrarianLemming]

In most matters I'm actually considered fairly libertarian,

god fucking help us.

[KC]

Why are you even posting if you're not going to contribute? Why don't you go troll Chit-Chat or something? Stop whining.

[ContrarianLemming]

Why are you even posting if you're not going to contribute? Why don't you go troll Chit-Chat or something? Stop whining.

It's just sort of bothersome to see such blatant ideas about freedom of speech being this thing only people who agree with us get.

[NGNM85]

This was already covered to death in this thread; http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-deny-them-t138381/index.html

Personally, I think freedom of speech is the most fundamental feedom, and is essentially sacrosanct. However, I'm an Anarchist. This is a major bone of contention.

[KC]

It's just sort of bothersome to see such blatant ideas about freedom of speech being this thing only people who agree with us get.

How about adding to the discussion and saying what you disagree with, then?

[ContrarianLemming]

How about adding to the discussion and saying what you disagree with, then?

Forgive me if I do not partake in your authoritarian circle jerk but you don't need an argument for freedom of speech, you need one against it

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, on the one hand I'm not sure that there's ever been a society in modern times that has allowed complete freedom of speech...even in the USA, the supposed bastion of the ideal, there are significant restrictions. Besides legal restrictions, there are also private restrictions...you're only going to get your message heard by a significant audience if it's considered acceptable within the medium you're working in (although that has changed somewhat with the Internet).

On the other hand, former so-called "socialist" states have had many instances of grotesque violations of their citizens privacy and suppression of expression, including peaceful protests. Which I think is totally unacceptable.

(I'm not a Leninist/Maoist/Stalinoid, but I just thought that I'd comment.

[Nuvem]

This is one of the problems with ultra-libertarian utopianism and idealism. Philosophically, I am inclined to agree that freedom of expression should be considered "sacrosant", as much as I dislike the taste of that word. It tastes of religion.
However, I am pragmatic and I am fully aware of the power of reaction. It crushed the Paris Commune, it brought Spain to its knees and dragged it into nearly 40 years of quasi-Fascist dictatorship. Would restricting the freedoms of expression for the Spanish Nationalists have crippled popular support for them? No. But in nations in which revolution is successful, there cannot be allowed for there to be a platform for Nationalists, Monarchists, Fascists or any sort of bigots.

I am far too pragmatic and not idealistic enough to believe that the revolution alone will be enough to destroy these ideas. Racism, sexism, nationalism, homophobia, xenophobia- these are all traits deeply trenched in tradition, and are not obliterated easily. Those who hold them do so dogmatically, and they can and will pass these ideas on to their children, usually successfully. Fascists basically run as gangs, converting lost, confused young people to their ranks by making promises, giving them a family and pointing their finger at the enemy, usually immigrants and minorities.
Most people have not reached a point of moral evolution at which they can accept these things as false and incorrect, and reactionaries will mislead them into believing otherwise. Not only does this contribute to social unrest and injustice, but it can even constitute a major threat to the revolution. Sometimes idealism has to take a back seat to pragmatism when the enemy is not someone or something you can just shoot. You can't storm the palace of Fascism, you can't seize the capital of Homophobia. These are not tangible enemies that can be destroyed by revolutionary force of arms, they must be repressed and gradually filtered out of society through a good system of education and the teaching of acceptance towards diversity.

Perhaps Anarchists and Left Communists find this too abrasive or forward, but I would not suffer a Fascist to live, let alone speak his mind. Too often ultra-libertarian idealism plays the Devil's advocate and coddles the rights of the very people who seek to revoke those rights entirely and to destroy the revolution...and us.

[KC]

Forgive me if I do not partake in your authoritarian circle jerk but you don't need an argument for freedom of speech, you need one against it

Then stop spamming the thread if you're not interested in discussing the topic.

[ContrarianLemming]

This is one of the problems with ultra-libertarian utopianism and idealism.You begin your post critcizing freedom of speech with a perjoritive term against libertarian socialists, great, lets see where we go with this.

Seriously, what the hell is Idealism? Because I know you don't mean it in it's proper philosophical form, ergo, the opposite of materialism. It just seems like a buzzword used to basically say "those other socialists who are unrealistic"


I am inclined to agree that freedom of expression should be considered "sacrosant", as much as I dislike the taste of that word. It tastes of religion.
However, I am pragmatic and I am fully aware of the power of reaction. It crushed the Paris Commune, it brought Spain to its knees and dragged it into nearly 40 years of quasi-Fascist dictatorship. Would restricting the freedoms of expression for the Spanish Nationalists have crippled popular support for them? No. But in nations in which revolution is successful, there cannot be allowed for there to be a platform for Nationalists, Monarchists, Fascists or any sort of bigots.the examples you point out have little to do with freedom of speech, Franco took Spain not with words but with guns! Fascists cannot destroy our society with words, they can do so with guns, and that is where we shall fight them.

In our world today, fascists are free to speak and spread propaganda and hate and racism. You know somethin I noticed? No one takes them seriously, neither should we.

What makes you think fascists will be more influencial in revolution, a far more egalitarian society, then now. In fact it's morel ikely that they will very far less powerful, even compared to the speck they are today.

Or maybe we should stop dilly dallying around with the word fascist and just say what we mean! All ideologies which do not preach socialism are a threat. Which sounds rather familiar.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There wasn't really "freedom of speech" in Republican-controlled Spain, anyway...one wrong statement and you were liable to find yourself in an NKVD-sponsored torture chamber. :rolleyes:

Needless to say, you weren't allowed to be a Fascist either.

[ContrarianLemming]

There wasn't really "freedom of speech" in Republican-controlled Spain, anyway...one wrong statement and you were liable to find yourself in an NKVD-sponsored torture chamber. :rolleyes:

Needless to say, you weren't allowed to be a Fascist either.

It is not a climate of freedom or justice which givs fascists breathing room and power, it is one of desperation and death.

[KC]

It is not a climate of freedom or justice which givs fascists breathing room and power, it is one of desperation and death.

If you're going to use a completely empty and meaningless definition of "fascist" then sure. If you're actually interested in the real question at hand, then no.

[NGNM85]

Well, on the one hand I'm not sure that there's ever been a society in modern times that has allowed complete freedom of speech...even in the USA, the supposed bastion of the ideal, there are significant restrictions. Besides legal restrictions, there are also private restrictions...you're only going to get your message heard by a significant audience if it's considered acceptable within the medium you're working in (although that has changed somewhat with the Internet).


I'm going to have to go and disagree with you, there. The United States has the most progressive policy on free expression in the world, strangely enough, it's way more progressive than Western European countries. You can say or print virtually anything, from Neo-Nazi literature, to an instruction manual on how to make explosives from household items. There are laws involving companies and intellectual property rights, as well as restrictions on advertizing. Really the only thing that applies to us as private citizens is speech that presents "Immenant Lawless Action." For example, threatening to kill someone, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, which sort of makes sense.

[ContrarianLemming]

If you're going to use a completely empty and meaningless definition of "fascist" then sure. If you're actually interested in the real question at hand, then no.

So fascists are most prominant in freer nations?

So Germany's economy was doing how good exactly in the 1930's? How about Italy? Or Yugoslavia, lets have a look at them, they had no major racial problems before the major stagnation, it's no coincendence that they simaltaniously had 70% unemployment when they began being ruled by a Nazi sympatiser (Croatia) or an actual former SS member (I forget wihch nation, possibly Bosnia).

In ever case, bare absolutely none, the rise authoritarianism is linked right beside inequality in political rights and justice, in wealth etc.

[KC]

I'm going to have to go and disagree with you, there. The United States has the most progressive policy on free expression in the world, strangely enough, it's way more progressive than Western European countries. You can say or print virtually anything, from Neo-Nazi literature, to an instruction manual on how to make explosives from household items. There are laws involving companies and intellectual property rights, as well as restrictions on advertizing. Really the only thing that applies to us as private citizens is speech that presents "Immenant Lawless Action." For example, threatening to kill someone, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, which sort of makes sense.You apparently don't know much about freedom of speech in the US, then.




So Germany's economy was doing how good exactly in the 1930's? How about Italy? Or Yugoslavia, lets have a look at them, they had no major racial problems before the major stagnation, it's no coincendence that they simaltaniously had 70% unemployment when they began being ruled by a Nazi sympatiser (Croatia) or an actual former SS member (I forget wihch nation, possibly Bosnia).

In ever case, bare absolutely none, the rise authoritarianism is linked right beside inequality in political rights and justice, in wealth etc.

This applies to extremists of all stripes, including communists.

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm going to have to go and disagree with you, there. The United States has the most progressive policy on free expression in the world, strangely enough, it's way more progressive than Western European countries. You can say or print virtually anything, from Neo-Nazi literature, to an instruction manual on how to make explosives from household items. There are laws involving companies and intellectual property rights, as well as restrictions on advertizing. Really the only thing that applies to us as private citizens is speech that presents "Immenant Lawless Action." For example, threatening to kill someone, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, which sort of makes sense.


This is true, thank you for pointing it out, the US has de jure stronger personal freedom then the UK, easy, but theres a lot of de facto problems in that regard, where you can say whatever you want, but the ideas that reach most Americans ears is always going to be of capitalism.

But I'm not saying it's any easier to do so in the Kor germany.

[Optiow]

As far as I am concerned, people should have freedom of speech. That is a given right, available to everyone. If we suppress freedom of speech, we will be denying the people their own rights.

How, then, can we call ourselves communists when we oppress the people?

[Nuvem]

The Spanish example had nothing to do with freedom of speech, I was merely speaking about the power of reaction.

No one takes Fascists seriously? Have you seen the current state of affairs in Russia, where they're being elected to the Duma? What about Austria, where two of the most powerful parties are openly Nationalist? Or in Italy, where the Black Shirts have essentially returned and now have consent from the Italian government to patrol the streets and make reports as a crime-deterring force? Maybe it's not taken seriously in America, but in other places the threat of Fascism is a stark reality.

As for "idealism", I don't use that word to mean the philosophical opposite of materialism or in any dialectical sense. I use it to mean that the ultra-libertarian far-left is overly idealistic and lacks pragmatism, which is probably why they've never succeeded in making any decisive blow against the "enemy" or liberating any significant population from the governance of those who oppose the Left. The supposedly authoritarian Marxist-Leninists and Maoists conjointly secured nearly 1/3 of the globe for Communism, and while virtually all of these were degenerated worker's states and fell to revisionism, it's more than Anarchists, Council or Left Communists can claim.

The contradiction astonishes me. Anarchists will happily throw themselves into Nazi demonstrations, bats swinging, rocks flying, shouting anti-Fascist quips and proudly stomping out Fascism in their community, and then they'll turn around and argue for the Nazi's rights and protect their freedoms of expression. Are we to destroy the Fascist enemy with guns when he shows his face but allow him to publish Aryan supremacist papers and distribute propaganda around our society, or organize in the streets and counter-demonstrate our rallies, marches or parades? When he's marching around town waving a Wehrmacht flag and throwing the Roman Salute, counter-demonstrate and attack him; when he's writing articles, organizing party activity and youth recruitment organizations, protect his rights of expression! It's ludicrous and it's letting idealism get in the way of pragmatism. Fascism begins as a tiny blot on the political radar, then it grows like a sickness to massive proportions, usually driven to power by youth (most of the Black Shirts in Italy were under 25, most of the early Nazi party under 30 by 1922).
I'm not content to scare the rat into its hole and let it dig tunnels under my yard, I want to kill it at its source.

[Os Cangaceiros]

to an instruction manual on how to make explosives

Not always true, actually. I can't remember the name of the website, but some guy who ran a leftwing website got (successfully, as I recall) prosecuted for posting instructions for making explosives on his website. In addition the feds still file obscenity charges against certain adult companies.

Besides, my point was not that the U.S. has an overly Draconian system in regards to freedom of speech; it's certainly more free than Western Europe. My point was just that freedom of speech is curtailed somewhat, even here. I think that freedom of speech is always a matter of degree.

[ContrarianLemming]

No one takes Fascists seriously? Have you seen the current state of affairs in Russia, where they're being elected to the Duma? What about Austria, where two of the most powerful parties are openly Nationalist? Or in Italy, where the Black Shirts have essentially returned and now have consent from the Italian government to patrol the streets and make reports as a crime-deterring force? Maybe it's not taken seriously in America, but in other places the threat of Fascism is a stark reality.Right, it's a problem in the most repressive nations, Italy probibly being among the most corrupt western European nation, and perhaps least free - with Protugal.


As for "idealism", I don't use that word to mean the philosophical opposite of materialism or in any dialectical sense.So you meant it as an insult, I thought so.


I use it to mean that the ultra-libertarian far-left is overly idealistic and lacks pragmatismFirst, I've never met an anarchist idealist, you might have noticed how anarchists never call themselves that, it's just arrogance where you apply this nonsense to thousands of people where it makes Marxism seems "intellectual" and "realistic" where anarchists are "utopian" and "idealistic", why? Can you find an ideolgical reason that is actually part of the ideology? oh wait, anarchists don't have theory either!

But I've come to learn what Leninists mean when they say "pragmaticsm" what they mean is all power to the party, and when they say "idealism" they mean direct democracy, you know, those things Lenin preached.


, which is probably why they've never succeeded in making any decisive blow against the "enemy" or liberating any significant population from the governance of those who oppose the Left. The supposedly authoritarian Marxist-Leninists and Maoists conjointly secured nearly 1/3 of the globe for Communism, and while virtually all of these were degenerated worker's states and fell to revisionism, it's more than Anarchists, Council or Left Communists can claim.Wait wait, for communism? I have yet to see democratic centralism in practice in any country ever in history, so it seems Leninism was infact never implemented at all.


Anarchists will happily throw themselves into Nazi demonstrations, bats swinging, rocks flying, shouting anti-Fascist quips and proudly stomping out Fascism in their community, and then they'll turn around and argue for the Nazi's rights and protect their freedoms of expression.right, maybe because you can't tell that "anarchists" is a lot of people with different views, and as diverse as any other group. So your generalizations are as lovely as mine but it's not fitting, I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in "bats flying" and other nonsense.


It's ludicrous and it's letting idealism get in the way of pragmatism. theres that magic word again, devoid of any meaning in relation to anarchism, what is it? Even if we stick with your original definition is doesn't apply, it's just an insult, slander, sectarianism,

and I've spent the last god damn hour watching a Michael Parenti lecture on American imperialism and I couldn't be more riled up, THIS is what republicans feel like when they watch O'Rly. It's awful, I really dislike myself like this :(

edit: disregard my own nonsense, lets hug, I'm watching Chomsky and I feel mellow.
hugs!

[ContrarianLemming]

Seriously, watch the first 10 minutes of this video and feel your heart getting loud http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzOgpMWnVs

[RadioRaheem84]

This was already covered to death in this thread; http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-deny-them-t138381/index.html

Personally, I think freedom of speech is the most fundamental feedom, and is essentially sacrosanct. However, I'm an Anarchist. This is a major bone of contention.

No nation state can or has upheld the ideals behind freedom of speech.

Stop with all the liberal idealist shit on this thread. Read the facts of history and wake up!

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm going to have to go and disagree with you, there. The United States has the most progressive policy on free expression in the world, strangely enough, it's way more progressive than Western European countries. You can say or print virtually anything, from Neo-Nazi literature, to an instruction manual on how to make explosives from household items. There are laws involving companies and intellectual property rights, as well as restrictions on advertizing. Really the only thing that applies to us as private citizens is speech that presents "Immenant Lawless Action." For example, threatening to kill someone, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, which sort of makes sense.

What a joke! Apparently you've never heard of COINTELPRO or have read Parenti on how the US only gives off the perception of freedom of speech just because they'll let Klan members have newsletters. It's much more nuanced than that NGN. Leftist views are heavily marginilized and this is a conscious effort. What propaganda is to the US is the bludgeon in the third world. So how can you call it progressive?

[ContrarianLemming]

What a joke! Apparently you've never heard of COINTELPRO or have read Parenti on how the US only gives off the perception of freedom of speech just because they'll let Klan members have newsletters. It's much more nuanced than that NGN. Leftist views are heavily marginilized and this is a conscious effort. What propaganda is to the US is the bludgeon in the third world. So how can you call it progressive?

He didn't call it progressive, nor did he say it was free, which two have failed to note. He said that the US is more progressive then western Europe in freedom of speech, which is reasonable. It's not necessarily freer though.

[fa2991]

The suppression of racism and fascism are getting talked about a lot, but I can't see that anyone has really answered the OP's original question. Sure, fascists are worth suppressing, but the entire internet isn't a fascist institution, yet Cuba prevents its citizens from accessing it. I've also heard that it's illegal to give Cubans unapproved books. Such restrictions aren't a question of suppressing fascism, they're just a question of cutting off access to information. Why do so many Leninists seem to think that these extreme measures are necessary?

[RadioRaheem84]

He didn't call it progressive, nor did he say it was free, which two have failed to note. He said that the US is more progressive then western Europe in freedom of speech, which is reasonable. It's not necessarily freer though.

No, he said the US has the most progressive policy on free speech in the world. More so than western Europe. Did you not read what he wrote?

That's pretty much denying that there is a systemic process of keeping dissident voices marginalized for the benefit of major moneyed interests and giving off the appearence of free speech. The policies as of late ( and of yester year) seem regressive not progressive.

And c'mon there are some aspects of European TV where I am floored at some of thongs that are said to power. George Galloway for one. Not that it does that much good over there in those capitalist societies but I would love to see someone like that on American TV (not just Bill Maher).

[AK]

From the thread that NGN reminded us of:

Fascists and NAZIs don't make public speeches for the sake of the exchange of ideas or idle discussion and debate. Typically they make speeches and have rallies in order to "put people in their place" and intimidate the working class. Recently in Los Angeles, neo-nazis from Detroit were allowed to make a speech advocating the forced re-location of Latino immigrants. Why would Detroit NAZIs want to come to LA for this speech? Were they hoping to attract people Los Angelenos to their cause? Would it be worth it to get a devotee who lived clear across the country? No, they went to LA because there is a large Latino population.

In the 80s and 90s neo-Nazis also famously tried to have marches through a Jewish enclave in the US.

It is not simply a case of "bad ideas" with NAZIs and fascists, they want to intimidate workers and that is why they should be opposed and shouted-down whenever they show up.

Also, there is no such thing as real free-speech in the abstract. No one would be able to make a speech advocating the rape of a child without being shouted down... yet people always seem to want to allow fascists to be able to freely advocate genocide or forced relocation of minorities or the elimination of all our rights? A child being raped, while awful, is objectively not as horrible as what the fascists advocate.
I obviously support denying fascists to right to a platform - they shouldn't be allowed to stage mass rallies like what the Nazi party held or form some sort of armed group. And whilst I may not necessarily agree with the denial of freedom of speech - the above post gives us all some insight as to why some people want to deny reactionaries their freedom of speech, and the rationale behind it.

Anyhow, if fascists ever manage to hold large meetings, rallies or protests, I hope the working class kicks some fascist ass.

[NGNM85]

No, he said the US has the most progressive policy on free speech in the world. More so than western Europe. Did you not read what he wrote?

Exactly. That's because it happens to be true. Canada has laws against publishing 'false news', England is way behind, perhaps you heard of the McLibel case? France, has laws forbidding certain kinds of speech, the Faurisson trial, is a great example. Germany is way more regressive. A number of western European countries still have blasphemy laws. You can go down the list. This is one of the only areas where the US is way ahead of the curve. The United States has the most progressive free speech policy in the world. You can say or publish just about anything.

[Qayin]

The United States has the most progressive free speech policy in the world. You can say or publish just about anything.
Which doesn't matter because the Capitalist class controls all major sources of information, they don't give a fuck about some Klansmens newspaper. Whoa I can print holocaust denial info or Conspiracy Theories what freedom!


So much fucking liberalism in this thread.

Fascists want freedom of speech? Fuck them.
This utopian nonsense isn't for the revolutionary left.
If you call denying Fash and complete counter-revolutionary shit a platform "repression" I think your on the wrong website.

[Ned Kelly]

Mao said that freedom of speech should be denied to reactionary and imperialist agents. He was of course, right. Castro is right and this is how it should be.

[Qayin]

Mao said that freedom of speech should be denied to reactionary and imperialist agents. He was of course, right. Castro is right and this is how it should be.
baaaabaaaa

four legs good two legs better

[Ned Kelly]

Mate, I'm not a sheep. Just stating that I believe the path set out by Mao is right, and that Castro is right.

[AK]

baaaabaaaa

four legs good two legs better
Why would you even bother engaging in discussion with someone who has such a laughable username?
That's right guys, it is really the people who want to revise ML theory that are the primary enemy :mad:

I can't take fervent anti-revisionists seriously.

[Zanthorus]

Freedom of speech is a very strange topic among leftists. You get the Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, and even many Independent Socialists such as myself claiming that restricting speech and expression can be acceptable under certain situations, and on the other side there are the ultra-Libertarians (I reject the idea of "ultra-leftists"; we're all far-left, others are simply more libertarian) such as Council Communists, Left Communists, Libertarian Socialists and the numerous Anarchist tendencies typically arguing against any form of restriction on freedoms of expression.

You quite frankly don't know what you're talking about. Left-Communists are not more "libertarian" than the rest.

[Ned Kelly]

Why would you even bother engaging in discussion with someone who has such a laughable username?
That's right guys, it is really the people who want to revise ML theory that are the primary enemy :mad:

I can't take fervent anti-revisionists seriously.
Judge totally based on my username, great :bored:. Although, yes, it admittedly does give off the wrong vibe. I'd support a broad front of all left forces in order to free Australia from the shackles of U.S imperialism.

[Salmonella]

I think everyone has the rights to their opinions, but somewhere there is a border. But to execute someone for their opinions is to wrong for me.

As someone said in the thread.


Should a racist have "the freedom of speech"? How about a Fascist? I'm inclined to say screw their freedom of speech.

In USA is it okay to say "go home nigger" etc, and according to the americans, that is freedom of speech and no racism. You know, the "worlds largest democracy" would never be racist! :rolleyes:

[AK]

Judge totally based on my username, great :bored:. Although, yes, it admittedly does give off the wrong vibe.
The vibe it gives off seems to be one that makes you sound like you think it is revisionism which is the ultimate evil or something like that.

I'd support a broad front of all left forces in order to free Australia from the shackles of U.S imperialism.
We have our own imperialism, too:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/etim-n02.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/nbea-j21.shtml

[Wanted Man]

Why would you even bother engaging in discussion with someone who has such a laughable username?
That's right guys, it is really the people who want to revise ML theory that are the primary enemy :mad:

I can't take fervent anti-revisionists seriously.

Maybe he just doesn't like studying for tests.

No "fervent anti-revisionists" are saying that revisionism is "the primary enemy". However, it's certainly true that people who claim to "renew" Marxism by declaring the end of class struggle, the idea that the USSR could achieve communism on its own by the 1980s, that a peaceful transition to socialism is possible in the rest of the world, and that you can genuinely and permanently be friends with imperialism, are proposing a dead end for the working class of the world.

What anti-revisionists do is contesting distortions like the ones above, because they lead us on a dead end to fight the actual "primary enemy". Nothing wrong with that.

[AK]

No "fervent anti-revisionists" are saying that revisionism is "the primary enemy".
This was pretty much sorted out in mine and fuckrevision's last exchange of dialogue. Their name seems to give off the vibe that revisionism is a bigger threat than anything else.

[4 Leaf Clover]

So are most of you authoritarian communists against freedom of speech and political expression? Why? I know in Cuba there are banned political parties and shit, and the internet is censored. I find it pretty elitist to think that the working class has to be protected from stupid political ideas by a state, especially in a revolutionary climate.

of course i support freedom of speech

i would even allow western media to be read , after all any communist party or intellectual should be able to respond to libertarian hypocrite yellow pages crap


but what i dont support is capitalist "freedom"

as i read in someone's signature , under fascism you are starving for freedom , under libertarianism you are free to starve

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly. That's because it happens to be true. Canada has laws against publishing 'false news', England is way behind, perhaps you heard of the McLibel case? France, has laws forbidding certain kinds of speech, the Faurisson trial, is a great example. Germany is way more regressive. A number of western European countries still have blasphemy laws. You can go down the list. This is one of the only areas where the US is way ahead of the curve. The United States has the most progressive free speech policy in the world. You can say or publish just about anything.

There is no such thing as freedom detached from the socio-economic reality, NGN. Free speech isn't a right enjoyed by everyone in our society. You keep insisting it's this abstract right and that the US has the most progressive policy on the matter, which is patently absurd.

The further left you go to the conservative-liberal spectrum in the States, the more difficult it is to gain real exposure. We are consistently and strenuously excluded by the ever increasing concentration of the media. This is conscious and systemic! Right Wingers, no matter how idiotic have the biggest platforms of all! So it's not public demand that brings about these voices but corporate sponsors that like their pro-capitalist rants. Hence, those that align themselves with big capital will have more freedom of speech than those who criticize it.

People on the left are "free" to talk to each other, host events, but these events will be monitored by "Red Squads", have their phones tapped, heavily marginalized and cost people their professions if they go beyond the acceptable measure of critique. We can print newsletters and chat on revleft, but we mostly have to keep our views to ourselves or we'll reap heavy losses at our places of work. Try being a trade union advocate and gathering up people at your workplace and see how far that goes.

Free Speech in the states is a commodity that is mainly afforded to those who can afford it. It is nothing more than a situational 'freedom' in a capitalist country. It exists in a social and class context. When we get lambasted in the news for protesting CIA or Army recruitment on campus it shows the ideological and opportunist nature of our opponents in the media who make us look like the anti-free speech crowd for not letting them recruit young people. Same when Ann Coluter comes to speak on campus. Protesting her vile drivel is like "protesting free speech". This type of freedom of speech has NO connection to the human suffering caused by the said groups subservient to power, NO connection to class relations, AND WORSE OFF, NO connection to the reality that the US Military and CIA aid in suppressing free speech abroad. Not to mention, Ann Coulter is a vocal supporter of both and a mega horn for power. So in essence, these groups have more free speech rights because they have more money and more power. The whole "free speech" show is a sham, NGN.

Haven't you ever read Manufacturing Consent or Democracy for the Few by Chomsky, Ed Herman and Parenti?

The mantra of free speech in the US is: thus far but no further.

I still do not get how you're allowed to troll around on this forum spilling such outrageous liberal bile. Even someone in here tried to back you up (Contrarian Lemming) yet still couldn't save your ass.

[bricolage]

There is a big difference between denying a group or person freedom of speech and denying them access to a platform from which to propagate it, eg. I'm sure even hardened no platformists if they met a lone fascist at their work place would try and engage in ideas with them but this doesn't mean they wouldn't shut down any march said fascist/fascist group tried to organise.

This is also a distinction that is missing in most states today and so governments and interested parties can bleat on about freedom of speech by not censoring newspapers etc ignoring the fact that you need money, contacts, machinery etc to set up a newspaper and so this freedom is only available to the most wealthy. In this respect anyone maybe able to say what they want but only those in the higher bands of society will be able to say it through a medium/platform with a mass audience.

Despite all this freedom of speech remains an abtsract concept.

[Reznov]

Obviously certain groups should be monitored, but I don't think they should be imprisoned because of their politics alone. But how does censoring the internet in Cuba help the revolution at all? It strikes me as elitist and totalitarian to prevent the working class from viewing stupid political ideas.

I agree with you. Who cares if what they think? In a post-revolutionary climate, most people should be Socialists and will think that these guys are idiots.

Locking them away will give their group ammo and make us seem scared of them and provide international fuel for them to use against the current Socialist government they are in.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's unbelievable that no one has addressed one of the questions that OP has posed. Instead, you guys went on a rant about fascists and their rights (confusing two terms: freedom of speech and freedom of gathering).
My view on fascists within the context of this problem: It is crucial to understand that the only fertile soil for this kind of mental deviations is the soil of social unrest probably caused by material factors, such as economic crises. And when we speculate on a "post-revolutionary" situation, we should also keep in mind that the very conditions which would lead to a successful revolution would also seriously marginalize the possible influence of the extreme right. That being said, I think fascists they should be granted their freedom of speech, in the sense that they shouldn't be imprisoned when they make a political statement in the company of their neighbours whou could report this as a kind of "thought crime". But their right of gathering and organizing should be curbed, and anyone capable of obtaining material support for an enactment of their wet dreams should be closely monitored.

[RadioRaheem84]

Locking them away will give their group ammo

If most people would be socialist in a post-revolutionary society and would find them idiots than who would be giving them ammo if not international saboteurs in the first place? Most counter revolutionary groups do not form organically. They're usually assisted, aided or even created by outside groups. I could understand groups that were protesting the government's mistreatment of left-dissidents but we're talking about fascists and right wingers. They're used as a measure of class warfare by imperialists.

I suggest reading Killing Hope by William Blum. You will be absolutely floored at the level imperialists use the abstract concept of free speech to foment counter revolutionary actions in nations around the world. Read Ch. 15 on Western Europe alone! Fronts within fronts within fronts.

[Kayser_Soso]

In a post revolutionary climate the majority of people should be socialists, so their beliefs should not be taken seriously by the masses.

I see no need to imprison someone just because of their political beliefs, as fucked up as they are. What does imprisoning a crazy racist motherfucker who hasnt done anything except say racist bullshit accomplish?


Yes I forgot, after a socialist revolution, so many people become socialists and nobody ever embraces ideas that engender the re-establishment of capitalism. What does it mean when you say the majority of people would be socialist? Why? Because the non-socialist part was killed off? Because they were convinced or persuaded? It is unrealistic to think that the majority of people are going to sit down and try to master economic theories relevant to our movement, and who is right to force it on them so long as they work for the good of the revolution with their daily activity?

The thing is, that people who bring down socialism from the inside don't always do so because they are anti-socialist or evil or whatever. Sakharov is a good example of this- the guy considered himself a socialist, and seems to think that socialism was a good thing. The problem is that his dissidence was seized upon by those who had ulterior motives. Individuals, because of the inevitable limitations on their ability to gather and process information, often wonder, "why must we do X?" If a suitable answer isn't provided, they may become useful tools of those who wish to manipulate them and break down the system.

The thing is that freedom of speech is most valuable, most effective, to those who have the means to distribute that speech. Take a look at the bookstore some time, in the politics section. You will often see books by learned experts, professors usually, on topics like war, the Middle East, etc. There are usually fewer copies, they often have modest covers, and they are published by university presses or what have you. Occupying the most shelf-space, and the most prominent displays, are the books which cover the same subjects, but are written by idiot pundits who have no idea what they are talking about. These books are funded by ultra-rich think-tanks, and they are written by teams of ghost-writers. Our professor with his real expertise cannot compete, especially when the same pundit has a radio show, a TV show, and is a frequent guest on the talk show circuit.

He has freedom of speech, and yet it is almost worthless. Likewise a homeless Russian person dying on the street(yes, this happens today all the time) can scream and shout all he wants about the terrible system, about Putin, Medvedev, etc. Yet it does nothing for him.

So we have a quandry about free speech. On one hand, we don't want to be locked up and/or shot for saying controversial things- on the other hand, even the iron-clad free speech rights in the US mean nothing without the influence which comes from money and means of production.

If the means of dissemination of speech belong to the people, we can have public forums to debate various issues. If these means are maintained by the party, reactionaries may voice their opinions but they will be continually shouted down by the majority. Is this fair? Well it is no more unfair than the current media situation. Is it censorship? Not if we define censorship as an action of the state. For example, I often have to point out to various racists that antifa groups protesting their gatherings does not constitute censorship. The state allows them to have their meeting and even provides police protection to them. But it also provides the right of others to protest it.

[Thirsty Crow]

If the means of dissemination of speech belong to the people, we can have public forums to debate various issues. If these means are maintained by the party, reactionaries may voice their opinions but they will be continually shouted down by the majority. Is this fair? Well it is no more unfair than the current media situation. Is it censorship? Not if we define censorship as an action of the state.
Reactionaries may voice their opinion if they'd like to. This is freedom of speech, and not censorship (which would mean a formal ban on expressing certain views in public).

Butto return to that other thing that I forgot when submitting my previous post...how could/would a revolutionary explain the facts regarding the Cuban government? I'm genuinely interested in what pro-Cuba folks have to say on this one.

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent post, Kayser. Has everyone forgotten what actually happens to someone who breaks the barrier in the States and starts to gain a wide audience disseminating information against the system? It is then that you will feel the brunt of the State and the Establishment come down on you.

Doesn't COINTELPRO mean anything to anyone anymore. The death of Fred Hampton?

[RadioRaheem84]

how could/would a revolutionary explain the facts regarding the Cuban government? I'm genuinely interested in what pro-Cuba folks have to say on this one. Wait, you don't think Cubans have honest discussions about the problems facing their nation? Aren't there speeches about corruption all the time in the National Assembly? Did they not just set up a corruption agency?

[4 Leaf Clover]

It's unbelievable that no one has addressed one of the questions that OP has posed. Instead, you guys went on a rant about fascists and their rights (confusing two terms: freedom of speech and freedom of gathering).
My view on fascists within the context of this problem: It is crucial to understand that the only fertile soil for this kind of mental deviations is the soil of social unrest probably caused by material factors, such as economic crises. And when we speculate on a "post-revolutionary" situation, we should also keep in mind that the very conditions which would lead to a successful revolution would also seriously marginalize the possible influence of the extreme right. That being said, I think fascists they should be granted their freedom of speech, in the sense that they shouldn't be imprisoned when they make a political statement in the company of their neighbours whou could report this as a kind of "thought crime". But their right of gathering and organizing should be curbed, and anyone capable of obtaining material support for an enactment of their wet dreams should be closely monitored.

i dont agree, i think , that their fascist opinion should be forbiden as well ,a and i think they should be imprisoned and offered rehabilitation over education in prisons

the hard-core ones who refuse to change , could be shot as far as im concerned

it is the same way how reactionary ideologies survived in Socialist Yugoslavia.... Government didn't deal with them radically , so reactionaries only hidden themselves , subtly spreaded their ideas and waited for right moment to go out of their foxholes and plague Yugoslavia again with 19 century shit

[Thirsty Crow]

Wait, you don't think Cubans have honest discussions about the problems facing their nation? Aren't there speeches about corruption all the time in the National Assembly?
What I was aiming at was the fact that Cuban citizens are not granted access to world wide web, i.e. the internet (in fact, OP states that sources of information on the internet are censored).

[RadioRaheem84]

Well its not like total suppression does anything to curb right wing ideals when you're a socialist nation in a sea of imperial dominance. Michael Parenti noted how he would speak to Soviet intellectuals who enamored with the States. According to him, they loved Marlboro Cigarettes, Ronald Reagan and the South in the Civil War. To them America could do no wrong and insisted that the stats used against the US were fabricated.

With the fall of the wall and the end of the USSR, we actually saw what the Soviets were holding back though as a wave of fascist ultra-violence swept through the former blocs.

It should also be noted that openly fascistic scum like Alexander Solzhenitsyn are praised in the West for being denied their free speech and are paraded as the 'democratic' opposition. Yeltsin for crying out loud was the "Democrat" under siege by the "brutal suppressive Commie hardliners".

[RadioRaheem84]

What I was aiming at was the fact that Cuban citizens are not granted access to world wide web, i.e. the internet (in fact, OP states that sources of information on the internet are censored). Well, revleft is censored at my job and I noticed it was too at the Sony store I went to to use free internet. Strangely enough, the reason given on the blocked page was: Hateful Website.

Not to say that this is in anyway comparable to total censorship in Cuba but I am trying to illustrate the idea isn't alien here in the States either.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, revleft is censored at my job and I noticed it was too at the Sony store I went to use free internet. Strangely enough, the reason given on the blocked page was: Hateful Website.

Not to say that this is in anyway comparable to total censorship in Cuba but I am trying to illustrate the idea isn't alien here in the States either.
Of course it isn't, I ain't one of them guys who believe that the "Western world" is impecable in its practice of tolerance, free speech etc.

[RadioRaheem84]

It should also be noted that as capitalism keeps hitting more and more bumps on the road, free speech will become more narrowly defined. Leftism is already reaching the status of being "terrorist" talk in the States and the media is using this as a class weapon to tilt the debate further to the right. Liberals end up being "the left" while we look increasingly more like outright subverts akin to terrorists.

If we're rubbed out from discourse altogether, then what does free speech really entail except an empty concept used by those who only believe in the freedom to exploit.

[Kayser_Soso]

Reactionaries may voice their opinion if they'd like to. This is freedom of speech, and not censorship (which would mean a formal ban on expressing certain views in public).

Butto return to that other thing that I forgot when submitting my previous post...how could/would a revolutionary explain the facts regarding the Cuban government? I'm genuinely interested in what pro-Cuba folks have to say on this one.


Let us ask about Cuba one important question, whether one considers it socialist or not- "Does Cuba exist in a vacuum?" Like the USSR, China, Albania, or any state which, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else here considers it to have been socialist, through off the bonds of capital and declared itself to be on the road to socialist construction, Cuba's revolution was met almost immediately with force and reaction. Castro has survived something like 600 assassination attempts. Cuba has has dealt with everything from economic sabotage, via the blockade and direct action, as well as terrorism and an attempted invasion.

Let us compare this to the US. What realistic threat has there been, for say the last 100 years, to the US government(which is the bodyguard of the ruling class)? The US has no neighbor which might invade it. It is safe from overseas invasion. It does not have ethnic struggles on par with Yugoslavia, or religious struggles like Northern Ireland(yes, I am aware this is also partially an ethnic struggle but Yugoslavia's struggle can also be called religious). The US has not been blockaded, it has not faced sanctions, it has not been carpet bombed, nor has it faced a realistic threat of any of these things. It's currency is still more or less reliable, and it has until recently enjoyed top status. In summary, the stability of the US government, and thereby the ruling class, is so strong that it can actually permit thousands of yahoos the right to organize militias on their own private land, with military style weapons, all the while threatening revolution against the government. Insofar as they never actually break a law, they are not arrested or shut down; they are only monitored.

Nonetheless, it's curious to note what happened to this right when a few planes were crashed into three buildings. What would happen to that right if the country were torn apart in some civil war, or if there was an ongoing active insurgency?

Cuba's situation on the other hand, is nowhere near this. We could complain about Cuba not providing full free speech on par with the US(actually many nations, including Western ones, do not allow as much leeway as the US in this respect), but then again why stop there? If Cuba were to allow free speech on par with the US tomorrow, why not allow citizens to form their own private militias based on their own political beliefs, just like in the US? Why give one right and not another? And why not let someone own private property? Why not let someone get capitalist investment from abroad and then buy his way into industry? You see where this treadmill gets us?

The question is not whether the censorship in Cuba is right or wrong. Once we start condemning something like this in Cuba, we are playing the bourgeoisie's game- we are looking at things metaphysically, in a vacuum, and we are blaming the victim and glorifying the aggressor by default. If the bad guys are the Cuban Communists for not allowing this or that, ignoring the role the US plays in this, then the US is automatically "better" or has the moral high ground whether we say it or not: US has free speech, Cuba doesn't. End of story.

There is a very pertinent quote here, relevant to the entire history of real-world socialism. Unfortunately I forgot it entirely, so I am going to paraphrase. Let us go back to zero, to the beginning of workers struggle, where it began. Did workers, angered by their alienation and exploitation immediately start to kill, seize, and use violence against their exploiters? No, they usually protest peacefully or by otherwise non-violent means(not out of principle but practical reality). What was the response? Violence and repression, on par with that which was necessary to expropriate the working class in the first place. What was the response to actual revolution? More violence and bloodshed. For a successful revolution in Russia and Mongolia, the revolutions in Bavaria, Hungary, and Spain were crushed.

So who struck first? Lenin, Stalin, or world reaction? Are we so uncritical of received knowledge that we accept the idea that what went on in the USSR was the result of various leaders' "paranoia" or megalomania? Are we going to accept the idea that all of this went on in a vacuum, as though the overwhelming pressure brought against the revolution since before there ever was a revolution had no effect on the actions of these people? It's simply preposterous.

The aggressor attempts to create such suffering and difficult within the victim country- then blames the conditions in that country on those in charge, as though his constant sabotage, attacks, blockades, and invasions have nothing to do with the conditions within the nation. They force their enemies, socialist or otherwise, to bottle up and defend their fortress, then they blame them for the conditions in that fortress, as if it were the original whim of the occupants- absolutely absurd.

As Marx said, men do make history, but they do not do it by their will alone.

[Thirsty Crow]

i dont agree, i think , that their fascist opinion should be forbiden as well
And here the term "totalitarian" becomes justified.
And once you usher in the practice of an authority which has the power to decide what is criminal in someone's thoughts...the possibilities are endless.
When are people like you going to understand that such brtual practices are unproductive, annd perhaps counter-productive?

[Kayser_Soso]

For those who find the above post a little TL/DR, let me simplify. Regardless of your view of what constitutes socialism, there is no country which declared itself on the road to socialism(i.e. had a revolution) which did not almost immediately(if not before the revolution was entirely successful in the country) face blockade, invasion, assassinations, terrorism, etc. Imagine the following scenario.

You buy a house on my block, I don't like you. I begin to vandalize your house daily. I break in, I take things. Pretty soon you start to realize that the only way to stop this is if you are actually at home(say you own a gun and maybe some bats which your family can wield), because in our scenario there are either no police or they are entirely on my side. So you stay home, virtually every hour, guarding your property. You can't work, it's a pain in the ass to get the necessities of life you need, you can't even shower or shave or sleep enough. Eventually your vigilance will fail- you'll shout at your own family members, maybe even accidentally shoot one thinking it's me or one of my thugs who harrass you at night. For the sake of closure, say you finally go crazy and move.

Is it at all logical for me to then declare that you were a paranoid nutcase, that you ran your house like a prison, that you were inherently violent and evil? Even if there is a kernal of truth in any of those accusations(i.e. maybe you actually WERE prone to overreacting or paniced out of some personal failing sometimes), is it really YOUR fault for the way your house was run? Would it have been that way had I just let you live in peace? Of course not. So who is primarily to blame?

[Kayser_Soso]

And here the term "totalitarian" becomes justified.
And once you usher in the practice of an authority which has the power to decide what is criminal in someone's thoughts...the possibilities are endless.
When are people like you going to understand that such brtual practices are unproductive, annd perhaps counter-productive?


There is a difference between criminalizing one's thoughts and limiting one's speech, or even better- not providing a platform for one's speech. Look at it this way- we live in a society of private property. If a capitalist decides my product, say music, will not turn a profit, he won't hire me and thus not let me use his means of production, the studio and the CD-presses and what-not. Did he censor me? Not really. He denied me the use of his property, which is a platform via which I can express my opinions. The effect is very similar to censorship. If no capitalist will give me a record contract, I am effectively censored. I may publish my own CD, but it will never reach an audience the way it would were it played on the radio constantly as well as on MTV and what-not.

A future socialist society can allow all kinds of reactionary thought(reactionary thoughts often come very naturally because they are, after all, reactions), because thought alone does little. However, a socialist society is not obligated to provide a platform for reactionary speech(though for the sake of debunking it, sometimes it should). Right now the powers that be think that Glenn Beck should be given a big platform(which they own), whereas they would never give such a platform to a Marxist-Leninist. If the people take the means of production in regards to the press, they are not obligated to provide a platform for Mr. Beck. They could, but only insofar as it suits their purposes. (Oh yes, we will have a use for Beck's rhetoric in the future, as a monument to the stupidity of late bourgeois ideology and populism).

EDIT: One more thing(I promise). There is no such thing as absolute free speech, not even in America. Never has been, never will be. Free speech has always been limited to some extent or another for the public good, that opinion differing from country to country. The US chooses mainly only to limit it at slander, libel, and things like shouting fire in a crowded theatre or threats and sedition(even then it's hard to convict). Germany on the other hand, thinks it is in the public interest to limit the speech of Neo-Nazis, though personally I don't think they're doing much of a good job of it. Turkey limits free speech about things like Mustafa Kemal, and it limits attempts to convert people to other religions. Poland banned socialist symbols. Likewise, a socialist society will have to find that point where it too limits free speech, insofar as such a thing is necessary.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

GOING BACK to the OP's question, I (a sort of Maoist) think that free speech is a complicated subject. Of course racism, homophobia, etc. should be restricted. However, I do believe that non-hateful and non-threatening views should be allowed. I think someone has already mentioned Ann Coulter and posed the question - is protesting that protesting free speech? Of course not.

[Peace on Earth]

The issue I have with any restriction on speech lies with who is deciding what types of speech should be banned. Stating your opinion, no matter how inflamatory, racist, idiotic, or ridiculous it is should be the right of all people.

I don't agree with the cold view of some revolutionaries who claim that restricting freedoms in the name of the revolution is a just action. What type of revolution would it be if it is based off the restriction of freedoms of someone based soley on their opinion? The better solution is to counter the opposing views as best you can and, if you make your point well enough, people won't flock to the counter-revolutionary side.

[Volcanicity]

The issue I have with any restriction on speech lies with who is deciding what types of speech should be banned. Stating your opinion, no matter how inflamatory, racist, idiotic, or ridiculous it is should be the right of all people.

I don't agree with the cold view of some revolutionaries who claim that restricting freedoms in the name of the revolution is a just action. What type of revolution would it be if it is based off the restriction of freedoms of someone based soley on their opinion? The better solution is to counter the opposing views as best you can and, if you make your point well enough, people won't flock to the counter-revolutionary side.
How can you build a better society if you let racists,and homophobes,spout their bullshit.You will never change a hardline neo-nazis views by simply talking to them.

[4 Leaf Clover]

And here the term "totalitarian" becomes justified.
And once you usher in the practice of an authority which has the power to decide what is criminal in someone's thoughts...the possibilities are endless.
When are people like you going to understand that such brtual practices are unproductive, annd perhaps counter-productive?

totalitarian is the term invented by liberals to put equation between fascism and communism

fascism is criminal in communists thoughts , and that is all that matters for us

we don't want to put ban on people wearing pink jeans , we want to put ban on people and actions that lead to reaction and that propagate "old ideas"

[Kayser_Soso]

First of all, this idea of "rights" is something tainted with bourgeois thought. On a foundation of these bourgeois ideas we develop our own, proletarian concept of rights. That being said, I just pointed out that no liberal society has ever advocated absolute free speech, and none ever will. There is no compelling reason why socialist society should, only insofar as the fact that eventually whatever law there is would become useless because there is after some point no way in which propaganda could somehow eliminate socialism as a mode of production once it is finally victorious.

Till such time, a certain amount of restrictions, for a number of reasons, will be inevitable. Some of them will be the same kind we know today. For example, is there any compelling reason why we should enshrine the right to yell fire in a crowded theater? Of course not.

On the other hand, it is not necessary to ban reactionary speech, once the bourgeoisie and their lackeys have either been eliminated, forced out, expropriated, disarmed, and denied their political rights. We may first allow them to say whatever they want in public- if they want to shout on the streetcorner about how great capitalism is- let them, it does no more than the poor Russian I alluded to earlier, who now has freedom of speech but not freedom to live.

They need not be deprived of the right to speak, but rather deprived of the platform and means of disseminating their message, which would now be in the hands of the proletariat and the party charged with the propagation of socialist thought. In the same way that Fox news will sometimes let some far leftist on for the purpose of distorting their argument and embarrassing them via a shouting match, these reactionaries would occasionally be allowed the right to speak their piece in the public forum, but whereas Bill O'Reilly shouts his opponents down, our commentators and supporters merely counter with objective facts and reality. In capitalist media culture- facts and reality mean nothing. Enough people saying something strongly and loudly enough, and packaging their "product" in the most marketable way, is enough to equate to "truth" in modern society(read Idiot America for some principles similar to this).

Imagine the following:

Instead of teaching useless bullshit in dull ways- schools teach critical thinking and useful, practical things, most of all history education is revolutionized so that it is actually exciting and interesting. Kids learn how to think, not what to think.

Instead of media ruled by know-nothing commentators, facts are presented and ordinary people have access to public media.

Those who express reactionary views are given a certain minimum of access to this public forum, in various forms, but their claims will be challenged, in print, on TV, radio, etc. But they will not be challenged the way liberals attempt to fight conservative punditry. They will be asked and compelled to defend their claims, and justify them. Reactionary narratives and claims aren't based on facts, so as long as they are denied the ability to control the debate, they will inevitably embarrass themselves as every conservative inevitably does anytime they are unable to frame and control a debate.

In this way the "right to free speech" of reactionaries is not infringed upon, but the state is under no obligation to provide a right to access to the media(the means of dissemination) to every idea on an equal basis.

[RadioRaheem84]

Red Phoenix WordPress has a great article on the subject. Read on:


As any well rounded Marxist knows, liberalism is an opportunistic ideology that calls for unprincipled peace bringing about political degeneration within society. This liberalistic principle of “freedom of speech,” or the idea that everybody is able to be wrong, is in itself wrong. When it comes down to it, there is no place for mere opinions in relation to scientific doctrine, and in some societies, these “unpopular beliefs” may be a matter of life and death.

http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/communism-versus-american-exceptionalism/

[NGNM85]

There is no such thing as freedom detached from the socio-economic reality, NGN. Free speech isn't a right enjoyed by everyone in our society. You keep insisting it's this abstract right and that the US has the most progressive policy on the matter, which is patently absurd.

You’re completely hopeless.

It absolutely does have the most progressive free speech laws, which should be painfully obvious.


The further left you go to the conservative-liberal spectrum in the States, the more difficult it is to gain real exposure. We are consistently and strenuously excluded by the ever increasing concentration of the media. This is conscious and systemic! Right Wingers, no matter how idiotic have the biggest platforms of all! So it's not public demand that brings about these voices but corporate sponsors that like their pro-capitalist rants. Hence, those that align themselves with big capital will have more freedom of speech than those who criticize it.

Jesus Christ… No, they have the same amount of free speech they just have a bigger megaphone. You do not have the right to be on primetime television. That is not a violation of your free speech or any other right that you have.


People on the left are "free" to talk to each other, host events, but these events will be monitored by "Red Squads",[/quoted]

You’re using really dated terminology, but yes, there are occasionally government inflitrators in radical groups, or at large events.

[QUOTE=RadioRaheem84;1829961]have their phones tapped, heavily marginalized and cost people their professions if they go beyond the acceptable measure of critique.

I assume you’re talking about university faculty, in which case there’s pretty wide latitude. Bill Ayers is a professor, Chomsky is a professor.


We can print newsletters and chat on revleft, but we mostly have to keep our views to ourselves or we'll reap heavy losses at our places of work. Try being a trade union advocate and gathering up people at your workplace and see how far that goes.

That isn’t a violation of your freedom of speech. You can preach white supremacy at work, if you’re so inclined, legally, but you will get fired. You are, presumably, not being paid to espouse your ideology, you are there to do what your employer pays you to do.


Free Speech in the states is a commodity that is mainly afforded to those who can afford it. It is nothing more than a situational 'freedom' in a capitalist country. It exists in a social and class context.

When we get lambasted in the news for protesting CIA or Army recruitment on campus it shows the ideological and opportunist nature of our opponents in the media who make us look like the anti-free speech crowd for not letting them recruit young people.

The whole point of protesting military recruitment is to highlight opposition to the military policies, that is the reason, and that’s what needs to be emphasized.

Also, free speech also applies to people you happen to dislike.


Same when Ann Coluter comes to speak on campus. Protesting her vile drivel is like "protesting free speech".

Nobody should be trying to prevent her from speaking. The point should be to contest what she says.


This type of freedom of speech has NO connection to the human suffering caused by the said groups subservient to power, NO connection to class relations, AND WORSE OFF, NO connection to the reality that the US Military and CIA aid in suppressing free speech abroad. Not to mention, Ann Coulter is a vocal supporter of both and a mega horn for power. So in essence, these groups have more free speech rights because they have more money and more power. The whole "free speech" show is a sham, NGN.

You’re just bouncing all over the map. If you think less free speech is the solution to our problems then your math sucks.


Haven't you ever read Manufacturing Consent or Democracy for the Few by Chomsky, Ed Herman and Parenti?

I wasn’t going to bring it up, but since you did;

“The…Supreme Court decision formulated a libertarian standard which, I believe, is unique in the world. In Canada, for example, people are still imprisoned for promulgating ‘false news,’ recognized as a crime in 1275 to protect the king.

In Europe, the situation is still more primitive. England has only limited protection for freedom of speech, and even tolerates such a disgrace as a law of blasphemy. “
-Chomsky, “Containing the Threat of Democracy”

Although, again. This is essentially stating the obvious.

Yes, I have read “Manufacturing Consent”, I also have the documentary based on it.


The mantra of free speech in the US is: thus far but no further.

Further than in any other Western country, or any other country, period.


I still do not get how you're allowed to troll around on this forum spilling such outrageous liberal bile. Even someone in here tried to back you up (Contrarian Lemming) yet still couldn't save your ass.

The concept of freedom of speech came out of Liberalism, (Along with secular government, human rights, democracy, etc.) however it’s not strictly a ‘liberal’ concept, nor does believing in it define one as a ‘liberal.’ Liberalism was a major influence on the early Anarchists, like Bakunin, etc. They share the belief in the sanctity of freedom of speech as the most fundamental human right, and that goes right up to modern day. I believe Contrarian Lemming is merely being consistent with this tradition, nicely summarized by Chomsky; “With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions, you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards.

[Qayin]

Nobody should be trying to prevent her from speaking. The point should be to contest what she says.And we don't do this already? Why cant you admit your a liberal, you aren't an anarchist if you drop the class struggle as you clearly are doing.

Did the Bourgeois give the Church and Royalty freedom of speech?

[Peace on Earth]

How can you build a better society if you let racists,and homophobes,spout their bullshit.You will never change a hardline neo-nazis views by simply talking to them.
The goal isn't always to convert those with discriminatory views. Many people are too far "over the edge," I'll say, to change their minds about the subject. However, by spreading a counter-message of peace and equality, therein lies the chance to make sure others don't fall prey to the racist or homophobic mindsets.

A society isn't much better if there are groups of people deciding what can be said. At some times, certain ideas are considered ridiculous or even hateful. I take a lot of flak for calling American soldiers imperialist thugs. For some, this is hateful speech, and many would like to have me silenced.

It's a slippery slope when we start deciding what is hateful speech and what isn't.

[NGNM85]

And we don't do this already? Why cant you admit your a liberal, you aren't an anarchist if you drop the class struggle as you clearly are doing.
Did the Bourgeois give the Church and Royalty freedom of speech?

You're not an Anarchist if you're opposed to freedom of speech. I didn't say anything about class because it just detracts from the issue. That we have an exploitive economic system, that our government acts in the interests of the elites (Of which it is comprised.) to the detriment of the working class is not an argument for less freedom of speech.

[ContrarianLemming]

You're not an Anarchist if you're opposed to freedom of speech. I didn't say anything about class because it just detracts from the issue. That we have an exploitive economic system, that our government acts in the interests of the elites (Of which it is comprised.) to the detriment of the working class is not an argument for less freedom of speech.

anarchists who say "fuck there freedom of speech" are indeed in the wrong camp.

[Kayser_Soso]

The anarchist love of liberal values and the failure to see how this works back to an endorsement of liberalism is astounding. As I said before, there is not, nor has there ever been, absolute free speech. Nor will there be. If someone comes to work and preaches White supremacy, and is then fired, he has faced repercussions for his speech. He will inevitably realize that in one way or another, or by one agent or another, his freedom of expression is limited by society.

[Thirsty Crow]

L
Cuba's situation on the other hand, is nowhere near this. We could complain about Cuba not providing full free speech on par with the US(actually many nations, including Western ones, do not allow as much leeway as the US in this respect), but then again why stop there? If Cuba were to allow free speech on par with the US tomorrow, why not allow citizens to form their own private militias based on their own political beliefs, just like in the US? Why give one right and not another? And why not let someone own private property? Why not let someone get capitalist investment from abroad and then buy his way into industry? You see where this treadmill gets us?

The question is not whether the censorship in Cuba is right or wrong. Once we start condemning something like this in Cuba, we are playing the bourgeoisie's game- we are looking at things metaphysically, in a vacuum, and we are blaming the victim and glorifying the aggressor by default. If the bad guys are the Cuban Communists for not allowing this or that, ignoring the role the US plays in this, then the US is automatically "better" or has the moral high ground whether we say it or not: US has free speech, Cuba doesn't. End of story.

First of all, I completely agree withyour primary assumption, that historical actions need to be contextualized.
What I don't agrre with, or better yet, what I don't understand, is how could someone insist on "why stopping there" and advocate the right to bear arms (which is a historically determined phenomenon pertinent to the situation of the States; that would mean just that, metaphysical insistence on "copy-paste" of the American Bill of Rights) or the right to organize along these lines. And as far as private property is concerned, again I don't see why should someone mentally produce an a priori connection between the right to own property privately and the rightto speak one's mind freely (or, for that mater, use the internet as source of information).
I don't accept this treadmill precisely because it reeks of metaphysical bullshit, tinged with economic interests in the form of an ideology. I tend to regard the issue or rights differently.
And I don't agree that raising this issue amounts to blaiming the victim of imperialism and gloryfing the aggressor by default. The rhetoric of "natural rights" is, as you state correctly, the playing field of the bourgoisie, but I think that we as socialists shouldn't be afraid of entering the game and wrecking everything, and setting our own rules and terms of debate.

In this respect I just asked for an explanation for this fact of everyday life in Cuba. I didn't a priori condemn the Cuban authorities nor did I state that "Western liberal democracies" should be held in high esteem in relation to these matters.
I just want to know how this ban has any positive effect on the conditions of the Cuban working class (I don't have an informed opinion, yet).

[Kayser_Soso]

First of all, I completely agree withyour primary assumption, that historical actions need to be contextualized.
What I don't agrre with, or better yet, what I don't understand, is how could someone insist on "why stopping there" and advocate the right to bear arms (which is a historically determined phenomenon pertinent to the situation of the States; that would mean just that, metaphysical insistence on "copy-paste" of the American Bill of Rights) or the right to organize along these lines. And as far as private property is concerned, again I don't see why should someone mentally produce an a priori connection between the right to own property privately and the rightto speak one's mind freely (or, for that mater, use the internet as source of information).

I am not talking about "copy-pase" of the US bill of rights, but if Cuba should be condemned for not having a certain right on par with that of the US, where does one draw the line only with one right?



I don't accept this treadmill precisely because it reeks of metaphysical bullshit, tinged with economic interests in the form of an ideology. I tend to regard the issue or rights differently.

It became metaphysical as soon as people here started complaining about free speech in Cuba relative to other countries, as if Cuba's position was determined by their will alone.



And I don't agree that raising this issue amounts to blaiming the victim of imperialism and gloryfing the aggressor by default. The rhetoric of "natural rights" is, as you state correctly, the playing field of the bourgoisie, but I think that we as socialists shouldn't be afraid of entering the game and wrecking everything, and setting our own rules and terms of debate.

But it is essentially blaming the victim. Socialist states are accused of being obsessed with security, as if the threats are imaginary. Look how the US reacts to the most paltry threats and the slightest provocation. Now consider what socialist nations have had to deal with, and still deal with.



In this respect I just asked for an explanation for this fact of everyday life in Cuba. I didn't a priori condemn the Cuban authorities nor did I state that "Western liberal democracies" should be held in high esteem in relation to these matters.

I cannot comment on everyday life in Cuba but I have visited a Cuban embassy once and noticed that there didn't seem to be a trace of fear in the secretary who met with us; the conversation was so plain that one would never get the idea that they were dealing with Cawmunists.



I just want to know how this ban has any positive effect on the conditions of the Cuban working class (I don't have an informed opinion, yet).

The benefits or detriments of such a thing would pale in comparison to things like economic policy, foreign relations, etc.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Post-revolutionary societies often have freedoms, in this case freedom of speech for example, written into their constitutions and guarenteed as rights for their citizens. What usually happens is that such rights are subordinated to the defence of the revolution, so that in Cuba for example, the populace has freedom of speech except for when they use this to denounce the revolution, to denounce state-assigned 'heroes' and so on.

Now, I don't have a problem in certain situations of stifling certain peoples' ability to verbally organise against the revolution - the miami exiles, for example.

The problem, however, comes when anti-revolutionary chatter, however minor, is almost dogmatically denounced. When I was in Cuba - despite seeing many good things -, one of the more depressing things was that even ordinary people, my age, who had no interest in agitating against Socialism, would only mutter their grumblings against Socialism for fear of being heard/seen to talk against the revolution. This seemed to occur especially in Havana City. In the outer parts of Havana province, where there was less police presence and less population density, people seemed happier to speak more openly.

This is the sort of restriction on 'freedom of speech' that I don't like, where ordinary people, who may be for or against Socialism but aren't going to rise up against it, are too scared to raise their issues with the current political leadership.

[Thirsty Crow]

The benefits or detriments of such a thing would pale in comparison to things like economic policy, foreign relations, etc.
Yet I am of the opinion that there ought to be clearly discernible benefits for the working class (i.e. for the population of Cuba since, supposedly, there are no antagonistic classes left) in order that any governmental decision may be condoned. Just that, not a comparison, not moan ing about civil rights etc. just an honest question which seeks to establish the very grounding logic behind the fact.



I cannot comment on everyday life in Cuba but I have visited a Cuban embassy once and noticed that there didn't seem to be a trace of fear in the secretary who met with us; the conversation was so plain that one would never get the idea that they were dealing with Cawmunists.

Oh, I was still talking about the issue of internet access.

[Kayser_Soso]

Yet I am of the opinion that there ought to be clearly discernible benefits for the working class (i.e. for the population of Cuba since, supposedly, there are no antagonistic classes left) in order that any governmental decision may be condoned. Just that, not a comparison, not moan ing about civil rights etc. just an honest question which seeks to establish the very grounding logic behind the fact.


First of all, it would be incorrect to say there are no antagonistic classes in Cuba. Antagonistic classes can't just be abolished via revolution, and they can actually spring up some time after a revolution for a number of reasons.

Suppose for example that some new invention comes out which is vital to economic development all over the world. It would also be important to the development of our hypothetical new socialist country, where let us assume that antagonistic classes have indeed been wiped out. Let us go even further and assume that most political decisions are made via direct democratic vote as well. The capitalist nations, who still have an advantage in wealth, pay their new super-technicians(this is what we'll call them) a great deal of money, and they enjoy a high status throughout the capitalist world. Now we have a problem as to what we should pay them in the socialist country, because on one hand we need them and don't want them poached away, but on the other hand we don't want to lavish so many privileges on such people that they will evolve into a privileged class.

To look at a more realistic example, look at the dominance of ex-KGB personnel in modern-day Russia, which goes back for quite some time(Hoxha actually wrote about this in Imperialism and the Revolution, written long before the collapse of the USSR). We can easily come out and criticize the status and privileges KGB personnel had in the USSR, but we also have to remember the nature of the business they were in. If they were just paid the same as any factory laborer, it would be easy for the enemy to buy them off and the security of the state would be compromised. On the other hand, the USSR over-compensated for this and they eventually became part of a ruling class which began to arise after 1956. New NEP-men, military officers, intellectuals, KGB guys, enterprise managers, and so on, constituted this ruling class. In some cases, these individuals were not necessarily anti-Soviet or anti-socialism(so long as they benefited from the system). Many of them, like the intellectuals had some legitimate complaints about the way society was going and the lack of self-criticism within the system. Their views and desires may have been different, but on the whole these groups formed a class of people which either wittingly or unwittingly, continually caused the fragile socialist system to degenerate futher and further.

Ok this went way off the mark though. To answer what you said about working class benefits- the freedom of speech which you refer to could EASILY be granted to the working class via the collapse of the Cuban government. However, that benefit gained would become virtually worthless when compared with the benefits lost.

[RadioRaheem84]

You’re completely hopeless.

It absolutely does have the most progressive free speech laws, which should be painfully obvious.

What a fucking idiot you are! Every capitalist state has their reason for being more or less restrictive on free speech, and the US also has it's reasons. It's no different than any other capitalist nation.


Jesus Christ… No, they have the same amount of free speech they just have a bigger megaphone. You do not have the right to be on primetime television. That is not a violation of your free speech or any other right that you have.

No they fucking do not. How the fuck do the most blatantly right wing imbeciles like Glenn Beck get a bigger audience in the States? Do you really think it's because of supply and demand? The point is that the concentration of wealth goes along with the concentration of the media airwaves to limit the free speech of individuals against big capital. I am not even talking about rights, I am talking about the obvious conscious marginalization of left wing voices in the press.

Damn, son, you must have the tastiest liberal kool-aid I ever did see.


You’re using really dated terminology, but yes, there are occasionally government inflitrators in radical groups, or at large events.

Dated? Ah, so the US has become a more tolerant society to radical left wing views? :rolleyes:


I assume you’re talking about university faculty, in which case there’s pretty wide latitude. Bill Ayers is a professor, Chomsky is a professor.

What about Bill Ayers? He is a liberal progressive. Chomsky has talked about plenty of times he was harassed and wanted off campus by college administrators. Michael Parenti, was hounded off most of the campuses he was at.

Right Wingers like David Horowitz and others have compiled lists of any professors that exhibit "anti-American" tendencies.

Also, do you not even understand the ideological paradigm of many top universities. I attended one and found that it was much tougher to even be left progressive than trendy pro-establishment liberal.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081208_hedges_best_brightest/


That isn’t a violation of your freedom of speech. You can preach white supremacy at work, if you’re so inclined, legally, but you will get fired. You are, presumably, not being paid to espouse your ideology, you are there to do what your employer pays you to do.

Way to change the scenario from trad union activism to white supremacism as if they're the same when dealing with work conditions. The trade union activist would get fired for trying to mobilize workers in an effort to get more of the piece of the profits. But of course he should shut up and do as he is told on the job for the owner of property has the right to terminate him for being insubordinate to the rules of capital.

Are you saying that our ideology is supposed to stop at the workplace?


The whole point of protesting military recruitment is to highlight opposition to the military policies, that is the reason, and that’s what needs to be emphasized.


Military policies which are tied to political and economic interests in the US. Opposition to our protests always come in the name of protect the right and free speech of the military to spread their imperial propaganda. It flies in the face of the reality of the situation on the ground NGN; that people are dying due to their policies.


Also, free speech also applies to people you happen to dislike.

Again, protesting Ann Coulter from speaking at a public forum is the same as protesting the policies of the military and the ruling class which she enthusiastically supports. Again, you're ignoring the reality that what she promotes and advocates is death and destruction.


Nobody should be trying to prevent her from speaking. The point should be to contest what she says.

I don't know how you don't see that not wanting her on campus is the best way to contest her drivel by letting her know that her shit is useless and not needed at a place of learning.


You’re just bouncing all over the map. If you think less free speech is the solution to our problems then your math sucks.

I am not against free speech you annoying little moron. I am against the abstract concept of it and the selective use of it by the capitalist countries. I am trying to show the hypocrisy of the system and it's "progressive" policy of free speech that you enjoy to tout.


“The…Supreme Court decision formulated a libertarian standard which, I believe, is unique in the world. In Canada, for example, people are still imprisoned for promulgating ‘false news,’ recognized as a crime in 1275 to protect the king.

In Europe, the situation is still more primitive. England has only limited protection for freedom of speech, and even tolerates such a disgrace as a law of blasphemy. “
-Chomsky, “Containing the Threat of Democracy”

Where I am in disagreement with Chomsky is merely trivial in comparison to how you are totally in disagreement with his whole thesis that free speech in capitalist societies is rather selective and class bound.


Further than in any other Western country, or any other country, period.

Each state has their own reasons for limiting free speech in ways they see fit to dominate class power. It has a lot to do with just how much dominance they have as well. The US is extremely concentrated in terms of the media, the position is secured and they can thus allow voices to operate more freely knowing that there ascent to the top would be much harder.

Plus, Chomsky himself dismantles that argument that our news outlets are somehow more dissident than any other country's news media. He uses the example of Watergate and how that became the biggest scandal that toppled power because Nixon used it as a tool to trample the right of the Democratic Party. This was seen as a big achievement for the establishment press. But Chomsky takes them to school saying that under COINTELPRO, the rights of legal parties were trampled all the time and that Nixon killing scores of innocent people in illegal raids on Cambodia was not a justified enough move for his impeachment by the establishment.

There is your free speech, NGN.



The concept of freedom of speech came out of Liberalism, (Along with secular government, human rights, democracy, etc.) however it’s not strictly a ‘liberal’ concept, nor does believing in it define one as a ‘liberal.’ Liberalism was a major influence on the early Anarchists, like Bakunin, etc. They share the belief in the sanctity of freedom of speech as the most fundamental human right, and that goes right up to modern day. I believe Contrarian Lemming is merely being consistent with this tradition, nicely summarized by Chomsky; “With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions, you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards.

Wow, Chomsky has some liberal views? Well then since he is the standard on Anarchism it must be true? Look, many, many, and I mean many Anarchists have contention with Chomsky over a host of issues and one of those issues is his rather liberal views probably stemming from his position as the most popular anarchist to date.
Either way, he is wrong. No nation or state can abide by the fundamental concepts of freedom of speech in a liberal idealist context.

You're just going off by your moral superiority complex and insisting that the rest of us are "Stalinist" "Fascists" for stating the reality of the situation instead of being trapped and bound by liberal ideals.

NGN, go fuck yourself. I am not Fascist that wants to suppress freedom of speech.

[RadioRaheem84]

How much more are we going to tolerate NGNs moral superiority posts? He doesn't tie anything he says to material/social/class conditions. He keeps going on in circles about the ideal surrounding free speech while ignoring the reality on the ground. Then tells us that denying the way he thinks is akin to Stalinism and Fascism!

Does anyone else in here thinks that you or whatever organization you're affiliated with have the same amount of free speech as corporate backed Glenn Beck? I mean, seriously?

Enough is enough.

[Thirsty Crow]

Ok this went way off the mark though. To answer what you said about working class benefits- the freedom of speech which you refer to could EASILY be granted to the working class via the collapse of the Cuban government. However, that benefit gained would become virtually worthless when compared with the benefits lost.
Umm, I'm at a loss.
Why should the determining factor in this instance be the collapse of of the Cuban government?

[RadioRaheem84]

You're not an Anarchist if you're opposed to freedom of speech. I didn't say anything about class because it just detracts from the issue. That we have an exploitive economic system, that our government acts in the interests of the elites (Of which it is comprised.) to the detriment of the working class is not an argument for less freedom of speech.

Class is the major issue surrounding free speech, NGN. Especially in capitalist societies.

Secondly, people who understand that the liberal idealist concept of free speech that you tout is a near impossibility are not against freedom of speech.

Goddamn, you have no fucking idea about what you're posting about!

[RadioRaheem84]

anarchists who say "fuck there freedom of speech" are indeed in the wrong camp.

Sorry to interrupt your liberal sentiments, but didn't you have enough of a hard time trying to save NGNs ass last time?

[Thirsty Crow]

H
Does anyone else in here thinks that you or whatever organization you're affiliated with have the same amount of free speech as corporate backed Glenn Beck? I mean, seriously?

Enough is enough.
You really can't quantify a concept like this one.
I have the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
That's the bourgeois trick, legal equality.
Material and cultural conditions render someone's rigth to free speech either worthless (like mine and yours) or rewarding (Mr. Beck).

[Kayser_Soso]

Umm, I'm at a loss.
Why should the determining factor in this instance be the collapse of of the Cuban government?

Whether right or wrong, the Cuban government feels that it is contributing to the security of its system by restricting the flow of propaganda into the country. Opening the floodgates, in conjunction with the rest of the difficulties Cuba faces, could easily lead to the collapse of the current Cuban system. In fact there are those of many political stripes who believe that the blockade itself is preserving what socialism Cuba still has.

[DeadSocietyPoet]

I consider myself a Socialist, and quite honestly, I can say that there is no real reason to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I've never EVER considered that someone saying some stupid/ignorant/arrogant shit should be censored. I want every stupid, racist, arrogant, ignorant, fascist prick to make an ass out of themselves, There's no need for ME to become an ass just to shut up a few dissenting voices.

Censorship is as effective as a screaming match as with a hungry baby. The baby will still be hungry, and you both will look immature.

[Kayser_Soso]

I consider myself a Socialist, and quite honestly, I can say that there is no real reason to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I've never EVER considered that someone saying some stupid/ignorant/arrogant shit should be censored. I want every stupid, racist, arrogant, ignorant, fascist prick to make an ass out of themselves, There's no need for ME to become an ass just to shut up a few dissenting voices.

Censorship is as effective as a screaming match as with a hungry baby. The baby will still be hungry, and you both will look immature.


Liberalism, plain and simple. No liberal society on earth, no matter how progressive, grants absolute free speech.

[iskrabronstein]

That position can be answered much more adequately than simply dismissing it as liberalism.

Have you ever been in the South? Have you seen the Klan march? They're not out looking for a healthy debate on immigration policy - they are enforcing a calculated policy of intimidation and political suppression of minority communities. It's one thing to tolerate fascist speech in a debate, or a political discussion - it is entirely another to allow fascist mobs to march unopposed through unprotected communities. Or have you forgotten that the police often escort fascist demonstrations?

Movements like the Klan, National Anarchists, and White Nationalists are the semi-organized soldiers of reaction, they pose an imminent threat to the communities that we ought to defend, and they should be smashed whenever we have the strength.

[Boboulas]

The whole "ITS LIBURLISMSS" argument is so pathetic. I mean how rampant do people really think racism and fascism are in the world?

Education and promotion of equality and tolerance (something no states fully support) would quickly destroy any mass (hell, any) support for racists or fascists.

The whole argument against free speach is just another tool used to silence oposition whenever it arises.

[RadioRaheem84]

The whole "ITS LIBURLISMSS" argument is so pathetic. I mean how rampant do people really think racism and fascism are in the world?

Education and promotion of equality and tolerance (something no states fully support) would quickly destroy any mass (hell, any) support for racists or fascists.

The whole argument against free speach is just another tool used to silence oposition whenever it arises.

I don't think that anyone in here is arguing against free speech except in the idealist liberal concept which no state can uphold.

[Kayser_Soso]

The whole "ITS LIBURLISMSS" argument is so pathetic.

It's correct though. The idea of free speech in a society originates with liberalism. However, absolute free speech was never envisioned.



I mean how rampant do people really think racism and fascism are in the world?

Pretty damned rampant.



Education and promotion of equality and tolerance (something no states fully support) would quickly destroy any mass (hell, any) support for racists or fascists.

I'm not willing to stake millions of lives on that prediction.



The whole argument against free speach is just another tool used to silence oposition whenever it arises.

See, this is where the liberalism comes in. Liberals speak of freedom in general, without explaining precisely what that freedom would mean. We see countless examples of how people with free speech can't feed themselves, or how inequality in wealth renders some speech silent. Free speech does not exist in bourgeois society in any meaningful sense.

[Qayin]

The anarchist love of liberal values and the failure to see how this works back to an endorsement of liberalism is astounding. As I said before, there is not, nor has there ever been, absolute free speech. Nor will there be. If someone comes to work and preaches White supremacy, and is then fired, he has faced repercussions for his speech. He will inevitably realize that in one way or another, or by one agent or another, his freedom of expression is limited by society.

Spoke out against this actually, they're tons of Liberals in the anarchist movement particularly in North America but that doesnt mean we all are.

Bourgeois crap like the word Democracy and these vague words for freedom are liberal as fuck.

[RedPaladin]

That is the so-called democratic-centralism. Just like the status in PRC mainland: it is said that the goverment authorizes people the freedom of speech, but any idea that is aganst the CPC central(no matter whether it is truly harm to people or not) actually is treated as subversion. People want to speak but have no mouth.

[Volcanicity]

The whole "ITS LIBURLISMSS" argument is so pathetic. I mean how rampant do people really think racism and fascism are in the world?

Education and promotion of equality and tolerance (something no states fully support) would quickly destroy any mass (hell, any) support for racists or fascists.

The whole argument against free speach is just another tool used to silence oposition whenever it arises.
This is bullshit.you vastly underestimate how prevalent racism and fascism is in the world."Education and promotion of equality and tolerance"has and will do nothing,where has it gotten us so far in our so-called "free western world".

[Thirsty Crow]

"Education and promotion of equality and tolerance"has and will do nothing,where has it gotten us so far in our so-called "free western world".
I'd speculate that this has something to do with class struggle, which IMO is an inextricable element of any attempt at something we may call "emancipating education".


That is the so-called democratic-centralism. Just like the status in PRC mainland: it is said that the goverment authorizes people the freedom of speech, but any idea that is aganst the CPC central(no matter whether it is truly harm to people or not) actually is treated as subversion. People want to speak but have no mouth.
No, the term "democratic centralism" refers only to the revolutionary organization, i.e. the party.
The second part of your post highlights an important problem: what's to be done when the "party line" is taken as absolute truth. I have no idea how to combat this possibility.


It's one thing to tolerate fascist speech in a debate, or a political discussion - it is entirely another to allow fascist mobs to march unopposed through unprotected communities. Or have you forgotten that the police often escort fascist demonstrations?

This cannot be stressed enough.

Whether right or wrong, the Cuban government feels that it is contributing to the security of its system by restricting the flow of propaganda into the country. Opening the floodgates, in conjunction with the rest of the difficulties Cuba faces, could easily lead to the collapse of the current Cuban system. In fact there are those of many political stripes who believe that the blockade itself is preserving what socialism Cuba still has.
So, the conclusion we could draw would be along these lines: due to isolation, imperialist pressure and (probably) lack of historical presence and entrenchment of communist ideas (e.g. Cuba's revolution didn't establish a network of soviets; and that is the material aspect of this problem) internet access would jeopardize the existing social, economic and political order?
Or in other words: Cuban working classis drawn and quartered due to economic factors (the before mwentioned isolation and the effect of imperialism) and thus would easily fall prey to ideas promoting capitalist restoration?

[RadioRaheem84]

What is with all of the liberalism seeping into the forum lately?

Since when did revleft host so many idealists arguing for concepts that no nation can or has upheld. It's ridiculous.

Look at the historical record!

We have people actually arguing in here that the United States is the most progressive country for free speech policy and that Glenn Beck and I have the same amount of free speech, only that he has a bigger megaphone?

Mods need to clean house!

[Obs]

I mean how rampant do people really think racism and fascism are in the world?
http://media.cleveland.com/nationworld_impact/photo/arizona-tea-party-protest-immigration-071510jpg-0f82911ac16177f8_large.jpg

[RadioRaheem84]

Originally Posted by Boboulas http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1830925#post1830925)
I mean how rampant do people really think racism and fascism are in the world? Since the fall of the USSR, racism, right wing nationalism and outright fascists have littered the former blocs and spilled over into Western Europe. In the States, there is a growing right wing movement full of fascists, right-libertarians, religious zealots and nationalists. The Middle East is ripe with religious extremism.

No to mention US foreign and domestic policy has shifted pretty damn right ward for the most part making neo-liberal policies the norm for most of the world, exasperating the above mentioned situation.

Right Wing ideals are rampant this day and age and it has coincided with the fall of communism and the marginalization of the left wing.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I don't understand this debate, at all. In any ideal post-revolutionary state, this topic would become irrelevant. First off, in any state where the proletarian united to overthrow the ruling classes, probably doesn't have "rampant right wing ideals", "nationalism and outright facism" or a "marginalized left wing".

Secondly, I'd like to think that there would be worker/community control of media outlets. I'd hope that would entail less "Glenn Becks" poisoning the masses - I mean, if you had the working class running the media, they'd broadcast news that are in the interests of the working class. I don't think facism or racism is in the interest of the working class, rather I think it's in the interest of Glenn Beck's class. Related to this, I assume that most leftists (my self included), view that pro-capitalist and racist sentiments are spread downwards by the capitalist class, in order to weaken leftist support. In a society where no such class exists, why would there be racism? In order to have racism, you must have capitalism.

Finally, I view that council communism/workers councils are the solution to the unequal distribution of power in a capitalist society. It is also the solution to making sure that "glenn beck doesn't have a larger microphone than you". So, I don't think there needs to be a criminalization of racist, facist speech. I think that an ideal state, such sentiments would be left out of actual public discourse, and vocalized by a small minority - in the same way, that in a capitalist society, actual leftist idealogy is kept out of public discourse.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't understand this debate, at all. In any ideal post-revolutionary state, this topic would become irrelevant. First off, in any state where the proletarian united to overthrow the ruling classes, probably doesn't have "rampant right wing ideals", "nationalism and outright facism" or a "marginalized left wing". The right wing groups aren't always organic. They're also influenced with help from the imperial nations. But a nation will always struggle with opposing viewpoints.


Secondly, I'd like to think that there would be worker/community control of media outlets. I'd hope that would entail less "Glenn Becks" poisoning the masses - I mean, if you had the working class running the media, they'd broadcast news that are in the interests of the working class. I don't think facism or racism is in the interest of the working class, rather I think it's in the interest of Glenn Beck's class. Related to this, I assume that most leftists (my self included), view that pro-capitalist and racist sentiments are spread downwards by the capitalist class, in order to weaken leftist support. In a society where no such class exists, why would there be racism? In order to have racism, you must have capitalism.Again, this is if the whole of the Earth has been turned socialist. Since the inception of many socialist nations, not one of them saw one day of peace. From civil war, to counter revolution, to economic blockades, funding oppositionist groups, to supporting revisionist groups of all things, everything and anything to bring down the socialist alternative to the status quo in the world.


Finally, I view that council communism/workers councils are the solution to the unequal distribution of power in a capitalist society. It is also the solution to making sure that "glenn beck doesn't have a larger microphone than you". So, I don't think there needs to be a criminalization of racist, facist speech. I think that an ideal state, such sentiments would be left out of actual public discourse, and vocalized by a small minority - in the same way, that in a capitalist society, actual leftist idealogy is kept out of public discourse. It's not just kept out in some low key manner. Leftists have been imprisoned and killed for subversive activities. We're only just marginalized now because we haven't stepped out there and mobilized like our comrades in past decades. It is then, even when our megaphones are still small as well as our finances, that we will meet the boot of the State.

Again, no state can manage to let subversive voices gain too much credence especially if it's a matter of life and death. Would you a let a nationalist, racist right wing group fester in your new socialist state? Where do those ideals lead if not violence against people of color and leftists?

Why do people think that it would be great to let Neo-Nazis rally in a socialist state because it shows the beauty of the "free speech" ideal? When the practical outcome of having them operate like that in a socialist state would be pretty chaotic and matter of life and death for some? People die or are injured at the hands of their violent outbursts all the time when they march, but the beautiful thing is that free speech was preserved, right? :rolleyes:

The ideal isn't practical. And it's situational for the bourgeoisie. There is a double standard too. They let right wing groups run almost rampant in the States but not leftist groups. Parenti states that this is so because there is some collusion between the state apparatus and the right wing groups. Also, because allowing right wing groups to foment hate against leftist ideals allows the state to sit back and watch leftists get killed without moving a muscle. The killings become just an outright growth of allowing rightists to grow but not leftists. So the US isn't just following the ideal concepts of free speech as some progressive policy but a situational opportunist measure to curb other people's free speech as well.

[Old Man Diogenes]

the concept of "freedom" is equally as superfluous as the concept of the state.

I understand that the concept of the "state" in Communist society would indeed be irrelevant, but why would the concept of freedom?

[Uppercut]

Freedom of speech is essential for the working masses, and they can voice their opinions though their local councils and working organs. Nothing wrong with that.

Religious fanatics, capitalists, old bosses and managers, and racists, however, should be completely barred from airing their views through the working organs. Of course, the good workers can be trained to suppress these reactionary elements through their own will and consciousness, either through the press or through arms.

[The Red Next Door]

i dont agree, i think , that their fascist opinion should be forbiden as well ,a and i think they should be imprisoned and offered rehabilitation over education in prisons

the hard-core ones who refuse to change , could be shot as far as im concerned

it is the same way how reactionary ideologies survived in Socialist Yugoslavia.... Government didn't deal with them radically , so reactionaries only hidden themselves , subtly spreaded their ideas and waited for right moment to go out of their foxholes and plague Yugoslavia again with 19 century shit

Can someone say Slobadan Milosevic?

[The Red Next Door]

How much more are we going to tolerate NGNs moral superiority posts? He doesn't tie anything he says to material/social/class conditions. He keeps going on in circles about the ideal surrounding free speech while ignoring the reality on the ground. Then tells us that denying the way he thinks is akin to Stalinism and Fascism!

Does anyone else in here thinks that you or whatever organization you're affiliated with have the same amount of free speech as corporate backed Glenn Beck? I mean, seriously?

Enough is enough.

I know a batch of Kool Aid that need to be chill and cool, in the refrigerator of reactionaries.

[The Red Next Door]

Should it even matter because, we are gonna kill them anyway, when they try to fight against the revolution. I say fuck their freedom of speech. They would not give it to us, if they were in control. so the only right they have is a bullet in their heads.

[727Goon]

So do you support the execution of people because of their political beliefs alone?

[The Red Next Door]

So do you support the execution of people because of their political beliefs alone?
No, i am saying we have to kill them and suppress them anyway, because no way in hell, they are gonna let us live PEACEFULLY.

[727Goon]

Well obviously if they have any authority, but if we are the majority I see no reason for censorship or banning political parties, at least on the basis of politics alone.

[The Red Next Door]

Well obviously if they have any authority, but if we are the majority I see no reason for censorship or banning political parties, at least on the basis of politics alone.

I agree to what radio and the others said.

[The Red Next Door]

I think this would answer your question why we are against Nazi and other reactionary pigs having a platform, I hope you didn't eat anything or about to. This is gonna be disturbing as hell, but got to do what you have to. To make it clear to people why they should be no tolerated enjoy the show. http://robert-lindsay.blogspot.com/2007/08/russian-neo-nazi-beheading-video.html?zx=b5c5250d007ad9de

[Barry Lyndon]

Why do people think that it would be great to let Neo-Nazis rally in a socialist state because it shows the beauty of the "free speech" ideal? When the practical outcome of having them operate like that in a socialist state would be pretty chaotic and matter of life and death for some? People die or are injured at the hands of their violent outbursts all the time when they march, but the beautiful thing is that free speech was preserved, right? :rolleyes:

This.

For nearly 50 years, nationalist and fascist slogans, flags, literature, and symbols were banned in the Socialist Federated Republic of Yugoslavia, because of the mass slaughter that had occurred at the hands of the Nazi-allied Ustashe(Croatian fascists), and other fascist factions during World War II. This was the case throughout Eastern Europe during the Cold War. For this, liberals and anti-communist leftists denounced these countries 'repression' or 'culture'(just like their fetishization of the 'culture' of feudal slave-owning Tibet).
Once 'democracy' came to Eastern Europe, however, we have seen an explosion of racist and fascist organizations there, with xenophobic laws, racist violence, and even ethnic cleansing and genocide in places like Yugoslavia. The former Soviet Union, where 26 million died in World War II at the hands of the Nazi war machine, now has the largest concentration of neo-Nazis in the world(about 40,000 active neo-Nazis in Russia alone).
Neo-nazi groups flower all over the former USSR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnPr3FzBfqw
Africans 'under siege' in Moscow from neo-Nazi thugs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230158.stm

If wanting to clamp down on these groups makes you an 'authoritarian' or against 'democracy', then I guess we could use some more authoritarianism and a little less of this so-called 'democracy'.

[The Red Next Door]

This.

For nearly 50 years, nationalist and fascist slogans, flags, literature, and symbols were banned in the Socialist Federated Republic of Yugoslavia, because of the mass slaughter that had occurred at the hands of the Nazi-allied Ustashe(Croatian fascists), and other fascist factions during World War II. This was the case throughout Eastern Europe during the Cold War. For this, liberals and anti-communist leftists denounced these countries 'repression' or 'culture'(just like their fetishization of the 'culture' of feudal slave-owning Tibet).
Once 'democracy' came to Eastern Europe, however, we have seen an explosion of racist and fascist organizations there, with xenophobic laws, racist violence, and even ethnic cleansing and genocide in places like Yugoslavia. The former Soviet Union, where 26 million died in World War II at the hands of the Nazi war machine, now has the largest concentration of neo-Nazis in the world(about 40,000 active neo-Nazis in Russia alone).
Neo-nazi groups flower all over the former USSR:
TnPr3FzBfqw
Africans 'under siege' in Moscow from neo-Nazi thugs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230158.stm

If wanting to clamp down on these groups makes you an 'authoritarian' or against 'democracy', then I guess we could use some more authoritarianism and a little less of this so-called 'democracy'.

this vids helps more http://robert-lindsay.blogspot.com/2007/08/russian-neo-nazi-beheading-video.html?zx=b5c5250d007ad9de for them to understand,

[Barry Lyndon]

The ideal isn't practical. And it's situational for the bourgeoisie. There is a double standard too. They let right wing groups run almost rampant in the States but not leftist groups. Parenti states that this is so because there is some collusion between the state apparatus and the right wing groups. Also, because allowing right wing groups to foment hate against leftist ideals allows the state to sit back and watch leftists get killed without moving a muscle. The killings become just an outright growth of allowing rightists to grow but not leftists. So the US isn't just following the ideal concepts of free speech as some progressive policy but a situational opportunist measure to curb other people's free speech as well.

Yes, there is a long history of the US federal government teaming up with right wing extremists to attack the radical left. For instance, a part of the FBI's COINTELPRO program against black and Hispanic radicals in the 1960's and 70's included:
"Under the cover of being even-handed and going after violent right-wing groups, the FBI actually gave covert aid to the Ku Klux Klan, Minutemen, Nazis, and other racist vigilantes. These groups received substantial funds, information, and protection-and suffered only token FBI harassment-so long as they directed their violence against COINTELPRO targets. They were not subjected to serious disruption unless they breached this tacit under standing and attacked established business and political leaders."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/COINTELPRO60s_WAH.html

One of the most notorious incidents was the Greenesboro Massacre in North Carolina in 1979, where the local police and FBI agents withdrew protection of an anti-Klan union rally sponsored by the Communist Workers Party(a Maoist group) and allowed a caravan of Neo-Nazis and Klansmen to murder five communists in broad daylight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8hdNHifoZY&feature=related

"In 1979, government operatives played key roles in the massacre of communist labor organizers during a multi-racial anti-Klan march in Greensboro, North Carolina. Heading the KKK/Nazi death squad was Ed Dawson, a long-time paid FBI/police informer in the Klan. Leading the local American Nazi Party branch into Dawson's "United Racist Front" was U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms undercover agent Bemard Butkovich. Though their controlling agencies were fully warned of the Front's murderous plans, they did nothing to protect the demonstrators. Instead, the police gave Dawson a copy of the march route and withdrew as his caravan moved in for the kill. Dawson's sharpshooters carefully picked off key cadre of the Communist Workers Party (CWP), including the president and president-elect of two Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union locals, an organizer at a third local mill, and a leader of AFSCME's organizing drive at a nearby medical center. In the aftermath, the FBI attempted to cover up the government's role and to put the blame on the CWP."


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/COINTELPRO70s_WAH.html

[RadioRaheem84]

How the above stuff isn't obvious to some of our comrades boggles my mind? How deep has the liberal mindset and sentimentality seeped into leftist thought?

[Thirsty Crow]

How the above stuff isn't obvious to some of our comrades boggles my mind? How deep has the liberal mindset and sentimentality seeped into leftist thought?
I think you've got it just half right.
The problem as I see it is the disturbing possibility of political persecution, once such a practice is ushered, to a full extent, in relation to at least two groups of people:

1) revolutionary dissidents; need I say more?

2) liberals and others opposing the new society but unwilling/unable0 to organize a serious/not so serious attempt at coup

This is the other side of the so called repression we're talking about (when it comes to outright militant fascists, we're not dealing with unwarranted repression but protection).

[Barry Lyndon]

How much more are we going to tolerate NGNs moral superiority posts? He doesn't tie anything he says to material/social/class conditions. He keeps going on in circles about the ideal surrounding free speech while ignoring the reality on the ground. Then tells us that denying the way he thinks is akin to Stalinism and Fascism!

Does anyone else in here thinks that you or whatever organization you're affiliated with have the same amount of free speech as corporate backed Glenn Beck? I mean, seriously?

Enough is enough.

I love the way he emphasizes his idiotic liberal drivel in italics, as if that somehow makes it so much more true!!

[The Red Next Door]

I think you've got it just half right.
The problem as I see it is the disturbing possibility of political persecution, once such a practice is ushered, to a full extent, in relation to at least two groups of people:

1) revolutionary dissidents; need I say more?

2) liberals and others opposing the new society but unwilling/unable0 to organize a serious/not so serious attempt at coup

This is the other side of the so called repression we're talking about (when it comes to outright militant fascists, we're not dealing with unwarranted repression but protection).

LOOK http://robert-lindsay.blogspot.com/2007/08/russian-neo-nazi-beheading-video.html?zx=b5c5250d007ad9de

[Thirsty Crow]

OK OK OK!!!
I know that neo-nazis are less than human and I've seen these kinds of videos, so thanks but I won't watch anything like that again.

But can't you read?
I clearly stated that allowing the militant fascists to organize would be a terrible mistake.
But take a step back and read what I wrote.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think you've got it just half right.
The problem as I see it is the disturbing possibility of political persecution, once such a practice is ushered, to a full extent, in relation to at least two groups of people:

1) revolutionary dissidents; need I say more?

2) liberals and others opposing the new society but unwilling/unable0 to organize a serious/not so serious attempt at coup

This is the other side of the so called repression we're talking about (when it comes to outright militant fascists, we're not dealing with unwarranted repression but protection).


Oh I know that comrade. I did not want to cast any doubt on the fact that dissidents do get treated like crap in some socialist nations. This comes from the paranoia of some of the bureaucratic elements that have to deal with imperial counter-revolutionary support.

I would never want to abolish the right to critique the way the revolution is going and think it is a must for the survival of it. Corruption within ranks must be challenged, especially any revisionism.

Liberalism shouldn't be totally criminalized unless it fully advocates economic liberalization of the economy, which in that sense must be effectively marginalized.

Again we should look at the practical outcomes of letting these right and centre-right groups operate to such a level. It leads to unnecessary cessations in the revolutionary process when they start to grow and gain credence. I caution not implementing the full force of the State on these groups as we also felt the brunt of it under liberal democracies, but there should be a limit to where they're allowed to organize.

Remember we're talking about systemic risk. Allowing them (liberals) to fester could lead to allowing dissident voices to become outright counter revolutionary. Especially in a sea of imperial powers just waiting to aid the closest thing to an opposition movement.

[Thirsty Crow]

Again we should look at the practical outcomes of letting these right and centre-right groups operate to such a level. It leads to unnecessary cessations in the revolutionary process when they start to grow and gain credence. I caution not implementing the full force of the State on these groups as we also felt the brunt of it under liberal democracies, but there should be a limit to where they're allowed to organize.

One aspect of a possible solution to this problem, as I see it, is the following: the continuity of revolutionary upheaval. Yeah, I know, easier said than done, far easier. But genuine socialists and workers (of the world!) cannot afford themselves another capitulation in relation to the rightly defamed "socialism in one country" (or "socialism via tank brigade", for that matter).
And the "weakest link in the imperial chain" also seems a bit...funny. I don't wish to come off as eurocewntric or something, but I think that it is fairly important that social revolution occurs in economically advanced countries as well.

Can you speculate on the limit you're talking about (the limit to capitalist-restorationists' organizing)? What criteria would you uphold? Where would you draw the line?

[RadioRaheem84]

Can you speculate on the limit you're talking about (the limit to capitalist-restorationists' organizing)? What criteria would you uphold? Where would you draw the line? Now that is really, really, hard to pin down. I have not the credentials nor the expertise to make that assessment. I guess if I had to I would limit it to academia and small concentrated groups. But again, this is tricky, because what purpose would their ideas serve if not coupled with some desire to practically apply them somehow, so their mobilization would be almost imminent. It's almost diabolical to even allow them to form groups if they cannot do anything with them. Reminds me of the carrot stick liberal democracies impose on us.

Effectively marginalizing them by constantly debating them, showing the historical record of their ideas, and always showing the working classes of the failure and bankruptcy behind liberal ideals is key to holding their groups down without enforcing censorship at the barrel of a gun. They want a platform, then give it to them but always be there with a response. Always remind the people why we crushed them in the first place.

[Thirsty Crow]

Effectively marginalizing them by constantly debating them, showing the historical record of their ideas, and always showing the working classes of the failure and bankruptcy behind liberal ideals is key to holding their groups down without enforcing censorship at the barrel of a gun. They want a platform, then give it to them but always be there with a response. Always remind the people why we crushed them in the first place.
This, deffinately this.
I wouldn+t have a problem with being a functionary of this kind, designated as the "argumentative-verbal hitman" :D

[RadioRaheem84]

Added:

But I do not think that it always a matter of the mind, comrade. We're dealing with the emotional appetite of people here too. Painting walls for the revolution will become boring and lose it's luster after a while. There will not be interesting jobs for everyone who deems themselves creative to go around, so right wing, or liberal ideals will become like music to the ears of some, because it will appeal to their desires for something more, despite the fact that something more in a capitalist society means something less for others.

[Thirsty Crow]

Added:

But I do not think that it always a matter of the mind, comrade. We're dealing with the emotional appetite of people here too. Painting walls for the revolution will become boring and lose it's luster after a while. There will not be interesting for jobs for everyone who deems themselves creative to go around, so right wing, or liberal ideals will become like music to the ears of some, because it will appeal to their desires for something more, despite the fact that something more in a capitalist society means something less for others.
But creativity is not and should not be confined to work alone.
I don't see why anyone wouldn't be granted full access to means of creative expression (and on top of that, I don't see why there couldn't occur a decrease in working hours without the decrease in living standards as well).
Another point: yes,m quite a few jobs would lose luster, as you said, but why shouldn't the more menial and dull jobs be based on the principle of rotation? And why shouldn't we witness an explosion in institutions for education, which would lead to a loosening, and finally breakdown, of the division of labour (after several waves of counter-revolutionary activities are successfully defeated)?
And this: the historical memory should be preserved. In other words, accurate historical analyses and plain facts should be available to anyone.

[RadioRaheem84]

But creativity is not and should not be confined to work alone.
I don't see why anyone wouldn't be granted full access to means of creative expression (and on top of that, I don't see why there couldn't occur a decrease in working hours without the decrease in living standards as well).
Another point: yes,m quite a few jobs would lose luster, as you said, but why shouldn't the more menial and dull jobs be based on the principle of rotation? And why shouldn't we witness an explosion in institutions for education, which would lead to a loosening, and finally breakdown, of the division of labour (after several waves of counter-revolutionary activities are successfully defeated)?
And this: the historical memory should be preserved. In other words, accurate historical analyses and plain facts should be available to anyone.


Absolutely, it's going to take extensive maintenance to keep the revolution going and to have liberal dissident voices from gaining ground due to the deficiencies in the revolution. The overly bloated state-bureaucracies of the past regimes did much to stifle their revolutions with their insistence on everything being by the central planning book.

But the past regimes had to deal with their states operating in state of war for most of their time in existence. Resources were heavily geared toward keeping the revolution alive and dismantling opposition. It's easy to say what could be done or what should been done in their situation, but remember that even under intense blockades and bombardment and infiltration, these States never saw a day of peace or were afforded the luxury of allowing all sorts of free expression and creativity to color their history for liberals abroad.

[Qayin]

Well obviously if they have any authority, but if we are the majority I see no reason for censorship or banning political parties, at least on the basis of politics alone.


Political parties exist when were the majority?
Ok "Anarchist"

[Kayser_Soso]

One reminder about free speech and dissidents. In the USSR there were a lot of dissidents whining about human rights, free speech, etc. Many of them were well-meaning and it is true that if the system had been more open to criticism a lot of problems could have been fixed. But all that talk about human rights gave way to reality- privatization, privatization, privatization. Nearly 20 years later, very little has been done to do anything about "human rights", "democracy", or free speech in these nations, but privatization and consolidation of wealth went on the whole time.

So remember that the allies of capital know better than to openly preach this crap when they are at a disadvantage. They switch to liberal tactics, and talk about all kinds of flowery things until its time to sell off the peoples wealth to a handful of individuals.

[incogweedo]

I think freedom of speech is universal. as in NO MATTER WHAT, a person has the right to say anything they want. Controlling what people can and can't say is oppression; it's wrong when the right does it, and it's still wrong if the left does it. Just because i dont like what somebody says doesn't give me the right to go shut them up for it. the point is, everyone deserves to think for themselves, speak for themselves, and act for themselves.

And i think we all know when the people are oppressed.


tl;dr
Oppression is bad.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

The question of democracy within a socialist state is key. As evident from history, undemocratic one-party rule is extremely prone to degeneration into an oligarchical bureaucracy.

Because, simply put, there can be no solid socialist society without democracy: for what are you going to do if the principle of "what the party says is right" is maintained and the party's bureucrats decide to collude to restore capitalism, as happened in the PRC and elsewhere? Moreover, if you're a genuine communist who criticizes the party's revisionism or opportunism, are you going to be sent away as a "reactionary" or "traitor"?

Yet we do not want to give outright reactionaries the opportunity to propagandize, organize, and work out plans to turn back the clock and restore capitalism...

Then it must be that the rights of workers to speak out -- and even to speak against the party and the ruling regime -- must always be protected in order to have a genuinely democratic system, yet proponents of capitalism must be kept as far away from power as possible at the same time. Establishing the political arrangement of the revolutionary state in such a way as to reconcile these two ends isn't easy; at the same time it is crucial to the revolution's success, less the new system irreparably degenerate.

In short, while calling for the restoration of capitalism and promoting racism or fascism need not be tolerated, openly criticizing the party leadership whenever it behaves in an unjust manner should be permitted to everyone, even if doing so carries the potential of "weakening the revolutionary spirit" or some crap like that. Of course, one danger is that the bureaucracy will bend the stick in its own favor if permitted to distinguish as to who and what is or isn't "reactionary."

IMHO, the socialist systems in the USSR and China could have done significantly better if they had established judicial system completely independent of the party and separate from the other branches of government. This by itself probably wouldn't have sufficed to save these countries from ideological degeneration and the eventual restoration of capitalism given their other objective weaknesses vis-a-vis the capitalist world -- but at least some step in the right direction would then have been made.

[Kayser_Soso]

I think freedom of speech is universal. as in NO MATTER WHAT, a person has the right to say anything they want. Controlling what people can and can't say is oppression; it's wrong when the right does it, and it's still wrong if the left does it. Just because i dont like what somebody says doesn't give me the right to go shut them up for it. the point is, everyone deserves to think for themselves, speak for themselves, and act for themselves.

And i think we all know when the people are oppressed.


tl;dr
Oppression is bad.

Incorrect. Free speech is a recent, bourgeoisie idea- but even considering this nobody has ever granted absolute freedom of speech. The US probably has the most liberal freedom of speech laws in the world, yet it is not absolute. Freedom of speech will always necessarily be limited by the concept of public good.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I think freedom of speech is universal. as in NO MATTER WHAT, a person has the right to say anything they want. Controlling what people can and can't say is oppression; it's wrong when the right does it, and it's still wrong if the left does it. Just because i dont like what somebody says doesn't give me the right to go shut them up for it. the point is, everyone deserves to think for themselves, speak for themselves, and act for themselves.

And i think we all know when the people are oppressed.


tl;dr
Oppression is bad.

That "free speech" would be "universal" is really un-materialist and absurdly idealist, as has been said previously in this thread. It totally ignores material reality and all reason.

Oppression isn't always bad.

Capitalism must be oppressed and annihilated. It isn't some festival where you give everyone flowers and thank them and they leave their positions of power voluntarily. Controlling what people say and do is sometimes necessary, and without controlling what people say and do, there is no revolution, it always entails some form of controlling what people say and do, one way or another.

Some places, like the U.S., also has fairly liberal freedom of speech laws, but a law is just that, laws there to look good; in practice, there is nothing but suppression, idiotic legal-system lawyer nonsense promoting lawsuits, etc.

[COMPLEXproductions]

Would it be safe to say that freedom of expression, or any physical act as well, is the right of all, with the exception of that which oppresses another individual? This seems sound to me, however I'm sure flaws can be seen, and I trust you all to point them out.

[ContrarianLemming]

Would it be safe to say that freedom of expression, or any physical act as well, is the right of all, with the exception of that which oppresses another individual? This seems sound to me, however I'm sure flaws can be seen, and I trust you all to point them out.

No one has the right to anything, laws are social constructs only meaningful when we agree to be consented by them.
If we agree to the idea that one is free to speak, then it is so, and visa versa, in short, what the people agree to in law is necessarily true.
It isn't simply "a right to all", this implies it is an intrinsic right, inherent, there is no such thing, rights are given and taken by your peers - or more often - your rulers.

Freedom of speech can be whatever the locals decide it to be, and how far it goes, which is the finest part of anarchy/stateless communism, it's the descision of the locals, not us. Theres no point debating this perticular subject when it will never be up to us, you can live somewhere in anarchy where you can say what you want, regardless of who you hurt, or you can live in a regulated anarchy, where your freedom is curtailed.

[Thirsty Crow]

Capitalism must be oppressed and annihilated. It isn't some festival where you give everyone flowers and thank them and they leave their positions of power voluntarily. Controlling what people say and do is sometimes necessary, and without controlling what people say and do, there is no revolution, it always entails some form of controlling what people say and do, one way or another.

Yo're deluded if you think that controlling what people say has anything to do with the success of revolution. First of all, how would you organize such a control? A system of ratting out, a whole network of eaves droppers and high tech surveillance? Forget about that, it's not going to happen and it's not going to help in building solidarity and raising class consciousness right now (stating this is desirable). You've learnt practically nothing from history.

As I've stated earlier, organized counter-revolution should be smashed. Violently or not, it depends on the immediate material and cultural conditions. I'd advocate a completely aggressive measures against the extreme right.
But there are a variety of measures that can be taken against the spreadout of ideas promoting capitalist restoration.

One of the most desirable is ditching "socialism in one country" and advancing class struggle and revolutionary upheavals.

[ContrarianLemming]

quick point; I don't see why fascism or capitalist propaganda could possibly be a problem in anarchy - and we are just talking about speech - why would we need to stop them from talking?
When we live in anarchy, we would obviously be far far better off, freer, more democratic, better in almost every way, I don't see the need to silence cranks - and that's what people will consider cranks: capitalists, liberals, they will be the fringe, and a fringe can be ignored, they are powerless, I don't see any reason they would grow without using actual force, this all seems rather moot.

[Thirsty Crow]

quick point; I don't see why fascism or capitalist propaganda could possibly be a problem in anarchy - and we are just talking about speech - why would we need to stop them from talking?
When we live in anarchy, we would obviously be far far better off, freer, more democratic, better in almost every way, I don't see the need to silence cranks - and that's what people will consider cranks: capitalists, liberals, they will be the fringe, and a fringe can be ignored, they are powerless, I don't see any reason they would grow without using actual force, this all seems rather moot.
You're not viewing things realistically.
Lets take Europe for example.
Nowadays, every single country on this continent is capitalist and embedded in capitalist multinational relations.
Supposing that revolution cannot occur simultaneously in different countries, one country should the first to make the leap. And whatever the basis of its economy and model of governance, it will be surrounded by hostile forces which will stop at nothing when it comes to instigating a counter-revolution.
That's the historical and political context one should be aware of when discussing issues like free speech and the right to gathering.

[COMPLEXproductions]

No one has the right to anything, laws are social constructs only meaningful when we agree to be consented by them.
If we agree to the idea that one is free to speak, then it is so, and visa versa, in short, what the people agree to in law is necessarily true.
It isn't simply "a right to all", this implies it is an intrinsic right, inherent, there is no such thing, rights are given and taken by your peers - or more often - your rulers.

Freedom of speech can be whatever the locals decide it to be, and how far it goes, which is the finest part of anarchy/stateless communism, it's the descision of the locals, not us. Theres no point debating this perticular subject when it will never be up to us, you can live somewhere in anarchy where you can say what you want, regardless of who you hurt, or you can live in a regulated anarchy, where your freedom is curtailed.

I believe this reasoning disregards the fact that humans are animals. We are not SOLEY ideological creatures. We have consciousness as a survival mechanism, just as birds have wings and tigers claws. The point of our existence is to continue and perpetuate the on-going cycle known to us as Life. We do this by survival. If something gets in the way of survival, it is bad. No one can tell me what to do if what I do isn't harming anyone. My neighbor cannot tell me what shirt to wear, so neither can the government.

Now, as far as expression, if what I express doesn't harm anyone, then should I be stopped? I am not free in a circumstance such as this.

There is another matter I feel to discuss. Propose, a twisted man decides to flash a group of children. Or outright scream at them. Should there be a punishment? I believe so. Because I believe things that negatively alter the subconscious should be outlawed, unless the individual being affected consciously chooses this.

Also, just because the people decide the laws doesn't mean they can decide every aspect of the lives of those around them.

[ContrarianLemming]

Supposing that revolution cannot occur simultaneously in different countries, one country should the first to make the leap. And whatever the basis of its economy and model of governance, it will be surrounded by hostile forces which will stop at nothing when it comes to instigating a counter-revolution.

I presupposing succesful revolution, international.

[ContrarianLemming]

I believe this reasoning disregards the fact that humans are animals. We are not SOLEY ideological creatures. We have consciousness as a survival mechanism, just as birds have wings and tigers claws. The point of our existence is to continue and perpetuate the on-going cycle known to us as Life. We do this by survival. If something gets in the way of survival, it is bad. No one can tell me what to do if what I do isn't harming anyone. My neighbor cannot tell me what shirt to wear, so neither can the government.

Now, as far as expression, if what I express doesn't harm anyone, then should I be stopped? I am not free in a circumstance such as this.

There is another matter I feel to discuss. Propose, a twisted man decides to flash a group of children. Or outright scream at them. Should there be a punishment? I believe so. Because I believe things that negatively alter the subconscious should be outlawed, unless the individual being affected consciously chooses this.

Also, just because the people decide the laws doesn't mean they can decide every aspect of the lives of those around them.

my post is not an argument against freedom of speech, T support it like a good ultra leftist. It's an argument against the idea that we deserve it, or we meant to have it, or that it's inherent.

[Thirsty Crow]

I presupposing succesful revolution, international.
Well, here's your biggest problem. Simultaneous, international revolution is the brightest ideal, but I am pretty sceptical of ti ever materializing itself due to uneven development of various countries/regions (in both economic and cultural terms).

[COMPLEXproductions]

my post is not an argument against freedom of speech, T support it like a good ultra leftist. It's an argument against the idea that we deserve it, or we meant to have it, or that it's inherent.

Well, I don't see that we DESERVE anything. But I do believe in being allowed to do things under the reasoning of "why not?". If that makes sense.

[COMPLEXproductions]

Well, here's your biggest problem. Simultaneous, international revolution is the brightest ideal, but I am pretty sceptical of ti ever materializing itself due to uneven development of various countries/regions (in both economic and cultural terms).

Would you say that the USA is the major player in the world currently? In terms of global domination and utter ability to manipulate nearly everyone else? If so, then perhaps we needn't have a global revolution in unison. Perhaps we need a revolution in the US. Shoot the capitalist octopus in the head instead of stabbing him in every arm at once. Hit it at the source of modern day global despair.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Would it be safe to say that freedom of expression, or any physical act as well, is the right of all, with the exception of that which oppresses another individual? This seems sound to me, however I'm sure flaws can be seen, and I trust you all to point them out.

One issue would be the preaching of armed insurrection against the new society you'd like to see, as well as counter-revolutionary propaganda in general. Wouldn't that sort of activity trigger a regress?

The overthrown class will naturally be quick to seek its restoration: it will encourage the workers to support its cause through propaganda and by all other possible means. This is why so many communists believe in a transitional "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- and hence the prohibition of the widest possible range of reactionary activities historically.

If so, however, who is that gets to decide what is and isn't dangerous and reactionary? Anarchists and anarcho-communists point out that vanguard parties become oppressive and corrupt, while Trotsky and his supporters blame the "bureaucracy" that governs the "deformed workers' states." Doesn't rule by a corrupt vanguard party with power concentrated in its hands naturally attempt to restrict the freedoms of anyone who challenges its power, rather than only the truly reactionary elements?

The same dilemma that I pointed out earlier.

[Thirsty Crow]

Would you say that the USA is the major player in the world currently? In terms of global domination and utter ability to manipulate nearly everyone else? If so, then perhaps we needn't have a global revolution in unison. Perhaps we need a revolution in the US. Shoot the capitalist octopus in the head instead of stabbing him in every arm at once. Hit it at the source of modern day global despair.
Wow, that would amount to striking the "strogest link in the imperialist chain".

I really woudn't like to speculate on which country/region would, pragmatically speaking, be the best starting point for an international revolution.
But yeah, I guess that a hypothetical revolutionin the States would have a tremendous impact on the international proletariat and other oppressed groups.

[ContrarianLemming]

Would you say that the USA is the major player in the world currently? In terms of global domination and utter ability to manipulate nearly everyone else?

I think that's a given, they are after all, the super power.


If so, then perhaps we needn't have a global revolution in unison. Perhaps we need a revolution in the US. Shoot the capitalist octopus in the head instead of stabbing him in every arm at once. Hit it at the source of modern day global despairthe problem is that capitalism is more like a..some type of amphibious dolphin..anyway European countries would invade, but the US is better then Europe, where you have both Russia and the US. Noam Chomsky suggested the US was the best starting site, sadly it's not the most likely, right now I'd say Spain or France or italy, they have the strongest histories in labour struggle, along with germany perhaps.

seems peculier that the scandinavian nations - often touted as the best places in the world for workers atm - have a pretty weak history of anarchism, I can't think of any noteworthy anarchists from there, or any actions, shame.

welcome to the site btw

[Queercommie Girl]

The orthodox Leninist line on this is very simple: most people in most cases should have the freedom of speech, it's an important part of proletarian democracy.

A socialist state must possess proletarian democracy, it is the only way in which the working class can really hold onto political power. If the working class rules over all of society, then it is unthinkable that workers can't even have the freedom of speech in most cases, so that is also a must.

However, freedom of speech is not unconditional or absolute. People have the freedom of speech as long as they do not use it to directly or indirectly harm the proletarian democratic dictatorship. If they use their freedoms to harm the socialist state, then they are reactionary and their freedoms should be limited, if not taken away.

[Barry Lyndon]

I recall an anecdote about when Fidel Castro was asked by a New York Times reporter about censorship of the press and lack of public criticism of Communism in Cuba. Castro responded that when the New York Times had a Communist on their editorial board, then he would talk to them about 'free speech' and 'free press' in Cuba.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The orthodox Leninist line on this is very simple: most people in most cases should have the freedom of speech, it's an important part of proletarian democracy.

A socialist state must possess proletarian democracy, it is the only way in which the working class can really hold onto political power. If the working class rules over all of society, then it is unthinkable that workers can't even have the freedom of speech in most cases, so that is also a must.

However, freedom of speech is not unconditional or absolute. People have the freedom of speech as long as they do not use it to directly or indirectly harm the proletarian democratic dictatorship. If they use their freedoms to harm the socialist state, then they are reactionary and their freedoms should be limited, if not taken away.

The problem is this - what constitutes harm to the Socialist state?

It is a slippery slope when you make such statements, as a well meaning revolutionary sentiment such as you espouse is extremely vulnerable to hijack by ultra-authoritarians who will employ 'police state' methods and legitimise the terror of ordinary, working class people, for whatever ends.

[RadioRaheem84]

the problem is that capitalism is more like a..some type of amphibious dolphin..anyway European countries would invade, but the US is better then Europe, where you have both Russia and the US. Noam Chomsky suggested the US was the best starting site, sadly it's not the most likely, right now I'd say Spain or France or italy, they have the strongest histories in labour struggle, along with germany perhaps.

seems peculier that the scandinavian nations - often touted as the best places in the world for workers atm - have a pretty weak history of anarchism, I can't think of any noteworthy anarchists from there, or any actions, shame.

Could it be said that the US has the most liberal laws concerning free speech because the left is so heavily marginalized? More so than a lot of other developed nations? I suspect it's more out of appearance to let the legal system maintain free speech in the US, but they'll only allow it because they know the media is concentrated in establishment hands.

Chomsky even gave the example of a Soviet ambassador visiting the States and was floored to find that all the news outlets reported the same basic news. He said that they had to really twist arms to do this in Soviet Russia but in the States it was more organic and systemic.

What I gathered from this is that there is a systemic marginalization of leftist views and we're bombarded with presuppositions that determine our future positions in the US. An editor at NewsWeek will not last long if he starts promoting social policies that hurt third world investments and such. So there is a cultural orthodoxy as well as state mechanisms that keep dissident voices out.

I can't remember the black panther who said so but he pretty much summed it up best by saying that the US is the most successfully repressed society. What he meant is that usually, repression of dissent in third would nations is expressed in brutal force, which means that when marginalization of dissent and propaganda methods are not working, they have to bring out the blugeon.

In the US though, we are quick to believe that Iraq could be a major threat or even Grenada. The level of backward thinking is impressive and the propaganda system is extremely calculated and amazing to see at work.

Take the Cuban Missile Crisis for one. The US was putting nukes in Turkey under the NATO alliance even while the USSR was protesting. Cuba asks for the USSR's protection after the US staged a series of invasions and terrorist attacks on the island. Yet, when the USSR does the same thing for Cuba then all hell breaks loose. But when the US does the exact same thing it's not a big deal. In fact, it's defended by the elites as a means of protecting "democracy", even though Turkey was a pretty repressive nation at the time. The presumption is that the US is a force of good, so there is no need to question them putting nukes on Turkish soil, but the USSR is a force for evil, so when they aid Cuba against imperial attacks then we're on the brink of WWIII.

The same rationale exists even today, even as the public grows more and more cynical.

This is a level of propaganda that is unmatched by any capitalist nation.

[Queercommie Girl]

The problem is this - what constitutes harm to the Socialist state?

It is a slippery slope when you make such statements, as a well meaning revolutionary sentiment such as you espouse is extremely vulnerable to hijack by ultra-authoritarians who will employ 'police state' methods and legitimise the terror of ordinary, working class people, for whatever ends.

Yes, life is difficult, we all know that. But I'd rather take my chances down this line than to intrinsically just "give up" on the efforts to catch reactionaries who wish to sabotage socialism.

Obviously a socialist society is going to be full of problems like this to solve, especially in the beginning. I don't know why some people tend to assume that as soon as we have a successful revolution, then everything would just magically fall into place and workers can all just put up their feet and live "happily ever after" in a post-scarcity paradise.

Yes, there is always going to be the potential chance for the abuse of power, that's just life. As Mao said, the socialist revolution is not an one-off event, not something you just do once and then everything is perfect forever. A socialist revolution is a continuous process, the proletarian masses would always need to be vigilant against the rise of bureaucratism and keep the revolutionary spirit in themselves. In a socialist society revolution is also a way of life.

There is a saying, in a sense the people deserve the kind of government they have. During the slave-lord Shang dynasty in China slaves were regularly used in human sacrifice but it is a fact that back then most slaves voluntarily offered themselves as sacrificial victims and had no consciousness or sense to protest against their condition at all. If workers cannot keep a minimum level of vigilance against the threat of both reactionary sabotage and bureaucratic deformation, then objectively one could say that such workers don't really deserve socialism.

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Genuine Socialism.

"A Revolution that never ceases, a Revolution that carries on forever" -- Mao Zedong

[ContrarianLemming]

Could it be said that the US has the most liberal laws concerning free speech because the left is so heavily marginalized? More so than a lot of other developed nations? I suspect it's more out of appearance to let the legal system maintain free speech in the US, but they'll only allow it because they know the media is concentrated in establishment hands.

Chomsky even gave the example of a Soviet ambassador visiting the States and was floored to find that all the news outlets reported the same basic news. He said that they had to really twist arms to do this in Soviet Russia but in the States it was more organic and systemic.

What I gathered from this is that there is a systemic marginalization of leftist views and we're bombarded with presuppositions that determine our future positions in the US. An editor at NewsWeek will not last long if he starts promoting social policies that hurt third world investments and such. So there is a cultural orthodoxy as well as state mechanisms that keep dissident voices out.

I can't remember the black panther who said so but he pretty much summed it up best by saying that the US is the most successfully repressed society. What he meant is that usually, repression of dissent in third would nations is expressed in brutal force, which means that when marginalization of dissent and propaganda methods are not working, they have to bring out the blugeon.

In the US though, we are quick to believe that Iraq could be a major threat or even Grenada. The level of backward thinking is impressive and the propaganda system is extremely calculated and amazing to see at work.

Take the Cuban Missile Crisis for one. The US was putting nukes in Turkey under the NATO alliance even while the USSR was protesting. Cuba asks for the USSR's protection after the US staged a series of invasions and terrorist attacks on the island. Yet, when the USSR does the same thing for Cuba then all hell breaks loose. But when the US does the exact same thing it's not a big deal. In fact, it's defended by the elites as a means of protecting "democracy", even though Turkey was a pretty repressive nation at the time. The presumption is that the US is a force of good, so there is no need to question them putting nukes on Turkish soil, but the USSR is a force for evil, so when they aid Cuba against imperial attacks then we're on the brink of WWIII.

The same rationale exists even today, even as the public grows more and more cynical.

This is a level of propaganda that is unmatched by any capitalist nation.

well said, again Chomsky talks about this a lot and he really put it well, he described how if anyone was really serious about setting up a dictatorship and they had all the tools, they'd use the American system.
I remember reading about the founding fathers of America, I admired one thing about them: They were honest, or - more accurately - they were explicit, explicitly open about the fact that they wanted a government which appeared to be based on popular rule but was at the same time protecting property from the public. They had their cake and ate it too.
Modern politicans are not so honest, because the modern worker has accese to such infomation now.

It's far superior to the system of say, North Korea of Saudi Arabia, those sort of systems are unstable.

[Kiev Communard]

In my view, freedom of speech is not an absolute category. Historically it has always been relative to the influence the ruling class possessed over the rest of society. So, for instance, in Rental (I use this term to describe all pre-capitalist class societies irrespective of their dominant form of exploitation because in all of them the land rent extracted from the exploited classes was a dominant form of surplus value) society one could have very little of any "freedom of speech" because the ruling class's power almost always rested on its monolithic structure and the supernatural (religious or mythological) explanation of the source of existing order, which always entailed the existence of a sort of unquestionable "sacred" dogma and that surely precludes "freedom of speech" as we currently know it.

In Capitalist society the economic competition between individual capitalists and/or capitalist corporations lead to the political competition between their "democratically elected" representatives which in turn enables the much-lauded "freedom of speech" of Western liberal democracies. However, as everyone knows, when faced with a serious discontent of the masses, the capitalists and their bureaucracy wouldn't hesitate a moment to end this "freedom of speech", establishing the most brutal dictatorships.

As for the freedom of speech and liberty of expression in general after the Socialist Revolution, I believe that in the transitioning society (until the state of post-scarcity economy, which I believe to be possible, is achieved) some restrictions upon the expressions of reactionary sentiments are necessary, but they do not need to be brutal, as this would only discredit the Revolution.

Instead, I think the revolutionaries should practice to their opponents the same kind of "repressive tolerance" the reactionaries administer to the Leftists currently - in a certain way, giving the Right the dose of its own medicine :D. However, one should not hesitate to make use of the harsher means if the reactionaries openly promote racial hatred, preach counter-revolutionary violence or use the freedom of information to spy for the Imperialist governments. In all other cases, the revolutionaries should simply try to use the power of the media taken over by the Revolutionary forces to marginalise the Right, provided that it is thoroughly deprived of its hegemonic control over the means of distribution of information.

[Barry Lyndon]

Yes, life is difficult, we all know that. But I'd rather take my chances down this line than to intrinsically just "give up" on the efforts to catch reactionaries who wish to sabotage socialism.

Obviously a socialist society is going to be full of problems like this to solve, especially in the beginning. I don't know why some people tend to assume that as soon as we have a successful revolution, then everything would just magically fall into place and workers can all just put up their feet and live "happily ever after" in a post-scarcity paradise.

Yes, there is always going to be the potential chance for the abuse of power, that's just life. As Mao said, the socialist revolution is not an one-off event, not something you just do once and then everything is perfect forever. A socialist revolution is a continuous process, the proletarian masses would always need to be vigilant against the rise of bureaucratism and keep the revolutionary spirit in themselves. In a socialist society revolution is also a way of life.

There is a saying, in a sense the people deserve the kind of government they have. During the slave-lord Shang dynasty in China slaves were regularly used in human sacrifice but it is a fact that back then most slaves voluntarily offered themselves as sacrificial victims and had no consciousness or sense to protest against their condition at all. If workers cannot keep a minimum level of vigilance against the threat of both reactionary sabotage and bureaucratic deformation, then objectively one could say that such workers don't really deserve socialism.

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Genuine Socialism.

"A Revolution that never ceases, a Revolution that carries on forever" -- Mao Zedong

Or to quote one of the great bourgeois intellectuals-

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"-Thomas Jefferson

[Tavarisch_Mike]

To have this discussion you must first define what freedom of speech is, because it has a lot of different levels, its unfair to compare whats saying in mass media ore in a regular chat around the dinner table. There seems to be an illusion of that we have absolute freedom of speech today, wich i think is just hillarious, i dont mind restrictions in the media, no, rather the opposite because there is a lot of untrue shit thats written in the pappers without that anyone gives the chance to challange it, and it often doesnt have any sourcess. Its funny, when you want to critize media your suddenly against freedom of speech, contradiction?

In todays capitalist society the best way to get your opinion heard is if you got money, many corporations owns a lot newspappers and tv-channels all acording to the princips of free market, witout regarding how cynial the whole thing is, to have a so called "independent" media when its relaying corporate finances, dont think they will critize theire owners. Look at Rupert Murdoch he owns the biggest news channels in the US, ore Berlusconi during the election campain all the channels just showed his comercials, and now he is both the primeminester and the president of Italy, what a conicidence.

Evry day my freedom of speech is robbed, as soon when i enter my work place, frome now i cant say what i want, i have to watchout and re-think before i speak, and no one is questining this system for being unfaire, as long we have big mouthed knowers who likes to write chronicals about that we should have more ice cream brands, we have true freedom of speech according to liberals.

I dont think anyone here, whos saying that they want some sort of restrictions, are talking about peoples ordinary life. I dont support the idea of executing someone for publicly cursing the weather, people with reactionary opinions that just holds them for themselfes, ore expressing them in privacy, will not face any consequences for that, oppen debates is obvious!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, life is difficult, we all know that. But I'd rather take my chances down this line than to intrinsically just "give up" on the efforts to catch reactionaries who wish to sabotage socialism.

Obviously a socialist society is going to be full of problems like this to solve, especially in the beginning. I don't know why some people tend to assume that as soon as we have a successful revolution, then everything would just magically fall into place and workers can all just put up their feet and live "happily ever after" in a post-scarcity paradise.

Yes, there is always going to be the potential chance for the abuse of power, that's just life. As Mao said, the socialist revolution is not an one-off event, not something you just do once and then everything is perfect forever. A socialist revolution is a continuous process, the proletarian masses would always need to be vigilant against the rise of bureaucratism and keep the revolutionary spirit in themselves. In a socialist society revolution is also a way of life.

There is a saying, in a sense the people deserve the kind of government they have. During the slave-lord Shang dynasty in China slaves were regularly used in human sacrifice but it is a fact that back then most slaves voluntarily offered themselves as sacrificial victims and had no consciousness or sense to protest against their condition at all. If workers cannot keep a minimum level of vigilance against the threat of both reactionary sabotage and bureaucratic deformation, then objectively one could say that such workers don't really deserve socialism.

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Genuine Socialism.

"A Revolution that never ceases, a Revolution that carries on forever" -- Mao Zedong

Well, it's not 'just life' that there may or may not be an abuse of power.

We have had our crack at Socialism, at what I believe was a first wave - the USSR, GDR, early PRC, DPRK and Cuba, and the main lesson seems to be that there is the potential for an abuse of power, for bureaucrats to take power and do some horrendous things to all people, to take the focus away from working class empowerment and towards some sort of State power hegemony.

You cannot just go down the same road and be ambivalent as to the possibility of more abuse of power.

Obviously, we all have different concepts of what freedom of speech is and what it should be, idealistically speaking. However, we must learn from history and ensure that whilst we take the good points from the USSR, early PRC, GDR and Cuba, we also learn from the perils of authoritarianism, unnecessary deaths and abuses of power that were certainly prevelant, at some periods, in these societies.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, it's not 'just life' that there may or may not be an abuse of power.

We have had our crack at Socialism, at what I believe was a first wave - the USSR, GDR, early PRC, DPRK and Cuba, and the main lesson seems to be that there is the potential for an abuse of power, for bureaucrats to take power and do some horrendous things to all people, to take the focus away from working class empowerment and towards some sort of State power hegemony.

You cannot just go down the same road and be ambivalent as to the possibility of more abuse of power.

Obviously, we all have different concepts of what freedom of speech is and what it should be, idealistically speaking. However, we must learn from history and ensure that whilst we take the good points from the USSR, early PRC, GDR and Cuba, we also learn from the perils of authoritarianism, unnecessary deaths and abuses of power that were certainly prevelant, at some periods, in these societies.

We must always learn from history, of course, that's the primary reason for why we study history. But the point I was making is a general philosophical one: there is always going to be the potential for the abuse of power in ANY system. You can minimise the chances of this happening. But you can't ever have a system without any kind of risk of degeneration. Socialism isn't about designing some kind of "perfect" utopian system from the outset and then apply it once in an one-off revolution and then it's "putting up our feet time" and "happily ever after". You can't design a perfect system. This is the significance of the Maoist concept of "continuous revolution". The working class must always be prepared to defend their proletarian democratic system against any possibility of power abuses, bureaucratism etc. Socialism is a continuous and historical process, there doesn't exist a "perfect system" in the abstract. This is also the fallacy "socialist-purists" fall under when they reject an entire socialist state like the USSR and China just because they were deformed in some ways during some parts of their history. Purists just expect "perfection" in one step, but that's never going to happen.

[Apoi_Viitor]

One reminder about free speech and dissidents. In the USSR there were a lot of dissidents whining about human rights, free speech, etc. Many of them were well-meaning and it is true that if the system had been more open to criticism a lot of problems could have been fixed. But all that talk about human rights gave way to reality- privatization, privatization, privatization. Nearly 20 years later, very little has been done to do anything about "human rights", "democracy", or free speech in these nations, but privatization and consolidation of wealth went on the whole time.

So remember that the allies of capital know better than to openly preach this crap when they are at a disadvantage. They switch to liberal tactics, and talk about all kinds of flowery things until its time to sell off the peoples wealth to a handful of individuals.

There is so much wrong with this post. First off, I think it's absurd to blame people who were "whining" about human rights and free speech, for the privatization of Russia. I think that had more to do with Russia being persuaded to follow the "Washington Consensus", than "whiny", liberals.

Also, you fail to mention the numerous human rights violations committed by the USSR (from 1917 until its collapse), in the name of the proletariat. I'm sure all of those liberals had it coming though. What better way to free citizens from the oppressive reign of capitalism, than by sending them to the grave?


The orthodox Leninist line on this is very simple: most people in most cases should have the freedom of speech, it's an important part of proletarian democracy.

A socialist state must possess proletarian democracy, it is the only way in which the working class can really hold onto political power. If the working class rules over all of society, then it is unthinkable that workers can't even have the freedom of speech in most cases, so that is also a must.

However, freedom of speech is not unconditional or absolute. People have the freedom of speech as long as they do not use it to directly or indirectly harm the proletarian democratic dictatorship. If they use their freedoms to harm the socialist state, then they are reactionary and their freedoms should be limited, if not taken away.

Lenin was indeed correct on this issue. To hell with that 76% of the population that voted against him. The Bolsheviks are the only party of the motherland - the only party that supports the proletarian dictatorship. But I mean, he supported freedom of speech - as long as they said what he allowed. That's what free speech is, right? The freedom to say whatever you want, as long the ruling party says its ok.


In the words of the flowery, liberal, pansy, Michael Bakunin:

"Take the most radical revolutionist and place him upon. the all-Russian throne or give him dictatorial power, of which so many of our green revolutionists daydream, and within a year he will have become worse than the Emperor himself."

"The freedom of all is essential to my freedom."

Edit:
This is also the fallacy "socialist-purists" fall under when they reject an entire socialist state like the USSR and China just because they were deformed in some ways during some parts of their history. Purists just expect "perfection" in one step, but that's never going to happen.

Personally, I hate all the liberal, pussies who say Pol Pot's rule was un-socialist. Just because he killed some people, sometimes, in some way, maybe, just a little bit - you can't just expect perfection! Besides,

It's a holiday in Cambodia! It's tough kid, but it's life!

[COMPLEXproductions]

The US might have a very open freedom of speech policy, but that doesn't hold much weight if everything people intake from their schooling to media and television is heavily controlled to suit corporate needs. Manipulation of public opinion is an art they have broken down to a science. When mentality is controlled you don't need to make laws to control what they say. The brainwashing propaganda does the speech controlling for you.

[Qayin]

You're not an Anarchist if you're opposed to freedom of speech. I didn't say anything about class because it just detracts from the issue. That we have an exploitive economic system, that our government acts in the interests of the elites (Of which it is comprised.) to the detriment of the working class is not an argument for less freedom of speech.
Derp lets ignore everything I said. Define it more otherwise we don't have time for your rhetoric.



anarchists who say "fuck there freedom of speech" are indeed in the wrong camp.
Or you can go back to being a social democract/liberal and let us Anarchists speak against the values of the Bourgeois class. Freedom of speech sounds nice but once you define it and put it into context it falls flat on its face. Examples of Anarchists that knew this damn well? Spain.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

We must always learn from history, of course, that's the primary reason for why we study history. But the point I was making is a general philosophical one: there is always going to be the potential for the abuse of power in ANY system. You can minimise the chances of this happening. But you can't ever have a system without any kind of risk of degeneration. Socialism isn't about designing some kind of "perfect" utopian system from the outset and then apply it once in an one-off revolution and then it's "putting up our feet time" and "happily ever after". You can't design a perfect system. This is the significance of the Maoist concept of "continuous revolution". The working class must always be prepared to defend their proletarian democratic system against any possibility of power abuses, bureaucratism etc. Socialism is a continuous and historical process, there doesn't exist a "perfect system" in the abstract. This is also the fallacy "socialist-purists" fall under when they reject an entire socialist state like the USSR and China just because they were deformed in some ways during some parts of their history. Purists just expect "perfection" in one step, but that's never going to happen.

Yes, I think your first emboldened part is clearer than your previous post, i'd agree with that.

I agree that we should fight against liberal-utopianism, there's not going to be a situation - or we can't imagine a state of affairs - whereby there is this Communist utopia, that is simpl something to strive for.

I agree, I don't like the anti-historians who reject the entire USSR, GDR, PRC either from a Trot or liberal-'human rights' perspective. However, we have to accept that, whilst there were magnificent achievements in these countries, in the USSR and PRC in particular there were grave mistakes; not only mistakes but deliberate murder, if we are going to talk about 1930s USSR.

We need to strike a balance, whereby people can openly criticise Socialism and its leadership. I'm not talking about some sort of glasnost here, but ordinary people have to be able to openly express their natural views without fear of reprisal. It is our job to win over the working class. If parts of the working class are not happy, it is our job to win them over, not to simply silence them as opposition under a cloud of name-calling and abuse.

[Victory]

So are most of you authoritarian communists against freedom of speech and political expression? Why? I know in Cuba there are banned political parties and shit, and the internet is censored. I find it pretty elitist to think that the working class has to be protected from stupid political ideas by a state, especially in a revolutionary climate.


Banned Political Parties is part of the dictatorship of the Proletariat. You're analsying Socialism through the eyes of somebody who would support the Capitalist style of democracy, a ruling class democracy.

In the transition from Socialism to Communism, the people need a Vanguard to direct them towards the objective. - Thinking that the people will create a new society with absolutly no leadership is wrong, it won't work.
Without a Vanguard, Communism nor an Anarchist society will ever be achieved.

[ContrarianLemming]

Banned Political Parties is part of the dictatorship of the Proletariat. You're analsying Socialism through the eyes of somebody who would support the Capitalist style of democracy, a ruling class democracy.

In the transition from Socialism to Communism, the people need a Vanguard to direct them towards the objective. - Thinking that the people will create a new society with absolutly no leadership is wrong, it won't work.


If a society truly supported the vangaurd then banning the other political parties wouldn't be necessary, it's just a form of repression, taking away peoples options, because the vangaurd knows best. Workers are to stupid to ever organize without vangaurds, ignoring the historical inaccuracies which say otherwise.

[Queercommie Girl]

Lenin was indeed correct on this issue. To hell with that 76% of the population that voted against him. The Bolsheviks are the only party of the motherland - the only party that supports the proletarian dictatorship. But I mean, he supported freedom of speech - as long as they said what he allowed. That's what free speech is, right? The freedom to say whatever you want, as long the ruling party says its ok.


In the words of the flowery, liberal, pansy, Michael Bakunin:

"Take the most radical revolutionist and place him upon. the all-Russian throne or give him dictatorial power, of which so many of our green revolutionists daydream, and within a year he will have become worse than the Emperor himself."

"The freedom of all is essential to my freedom."


Lenin was not like that. It sounds like you are describing Stalin, not Lenin. Don't forget Lenin operated under circumstances of extreme poverty and a massive civil war. But he did not in principle take away proletarian democracy.



Edit:

Personally, I hate all the liberal, pussies who say Pol Pot's rule was un-socialist. Just because he killed some people, sometimes, in some way, maybe, just a little bit - you can't just expect perfection! Besides,

It's a holiday in Cambodia! It's tough kid, but it's life!

Don't be an extremist, it's rather unsightly. No-one is saying we should support Pol Pot. In fact, AFAIK even the most die-hard orthodox Stalinists and Maoists would not support him.

And as I have said we need to learn from history and objectively recognise that all of the historically existing socialist states were deformed in some ways, some much more severely than others.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, I think your first emboldened part is clearer than your previous post, i'd agree with that.

I agree that we should fight against liberal-utopianism, there's not going to be a situation - or we can't imagine a state of affairs - whereby there is this Communist utopia, that is simpl something to strive for.

I agree, I don't like the anti-historians who reject the entire USSR, GDR, PRC either from a Trot or liberal-'human rights' perspective. However, we have to accept that, whilst there were magnificent achievements in these countries, in the USSR and PRC in particular there were grave mistakes; not only mistakes but deliberate murder, if we are going to talk about 1930s USSR.

We need to strike a balance, whereby people can openly criticise Socialism and its leadership. I'm not talking about some sort of glasnost here, but ordinary people have to be able to openly express their natural views without fear of reprisal. It is our job to win over the working class. If parts of the working class are not happy, it is our job to win them over, not to simply silence them as opposition under a cloud of name-calling and abuse.

I agree. Obviously it would be blind not to objectively recognise all the grave problems and deformations that existed in virtually all of the historically existing socialist states during some parts of their histories.

Hopefully we can learn from our mistakes in the past so the "second round" of socialist revolutions would be of a higher quality than the "first round".

[Decommissioner]

I see it in a sort of simplistic way. I am all for freedom of speech, however I think in a post revolutionary society, certain freedoms (biased news station, propaganda publication) will be repressed. Common sense dictates that the working class (majority being socialist since the revolution has happened) would not allow collective funding towards hate speech.

The problem to me comes if there is a higher body that gets to decide how much freedom of speech is censored, and how lenient or strict they are with it. I don't want a workers state, even if they have good intentions, to decide that certain forms of media and music are "too bourgeois or decadent". Even if something I like is decadent, or repulsive, I would like the right to continue reveling in it and sharing it.

So for me, I see the argument both ways and really cant take a solid opinion on the matter until the situation arrives. Workers councils forming a proletarian government, acting within its own rational self interest? Then yes I can support the restrictions of hate speech placed on bigots as there is no way their influence can infiltrate the media councils. It would be overkill to track down some dude in his basement putting out a hate zine or something, his efforts would be futile.

In the sense of a power higher than myself and immediate workers deciding what is hate speech, what is "bourgeois" (The labeling of activities and art as bourgeois is asinine to me.) and what is acceptable, I am very cautious and would probably take up arms against such factions if I feel the power to decide what is acceptable and what isn't is not within the immediate grasp of workers democracy.

[Queercommie Girl]

Banned Political Parties is part of the dictatorship of the Proletariat. You're analsying Socialism through the eyes of somebody who would support the Capitalist style of democracy, a ruling class democracy.

In the transition from Socialism to Communism, the people need a Vanguard to direct them towards the objective. - Thinking that the people will create a new society with absolutly no leadership is wrong, it won't work.
Without a Vanguard, Communism nor an Anarchist society will ever be achieved.

The vanguard needs to be placed under the full democratic supervision of the working class, otherwise frankly it's better to have no vanguard. Better to not do anything than to do the wrong thing.

We all know what will happen if the vanguard is let loose without democratic supervision and control.

[ContrarianLemming]

I see it in a sort of simplistic way. I am all for freedom of speech, however I think in a post revolutionary society, certain freedoms (biased news station, propaganda publication) will be repressed.

you realize all the news we give it biased, all the news in socialism would be biased, as all news is. Outlawing biased news is hypocritical, our news is extremely biased.


Common sense dictates that the working class (majority being socialist since the revolution has happened) would not allow collective funding towards hate speech. you don't need collective funding.

For the most part the people who are opposed to freedom of speech in this thread haven't even been talking about hate speech, there talking about there opposition, all opposition, and whether or not the opposition should be free.
In other words, most of the debaters in this thread have been adament in there believe that dissent should not be tolerated.

[ContrarianLemming]

Personally, I hate all the liberal, pussies who say Pol Pot's rule was un-socialist. Just because he killed some people, sometimes, in some way, maybe, just a little bit - you can't just expect perfection!
bold mine

Just wondering whether or not anyone else was willing to call this out.

[Nosotros]

Obviously I agree with this, I just dont think fascist or racists should necessarily be thrown in jail for their fucked up opinions. And can someone explain to me why its necessary for Cuba to censor the internet and ban political parties?
It's no wonder that a Fascist would be imprisoned in Cuba, especially considering the history there. I don't see how you can let Fascists roam free in a revolutionary or post revolutionary society if they are going to be subverting that society and trying to spread their spitefull, backward racist bullshit, they are dangerous people.

[ContrarianLemming]

It's no wonder that a Fascist would be imprisoned in Cuba, especially considering the history there. I don't see how you can let Fascists roam free in a revolutionary or post revolutionary society if they are going to be subverting that society and trying to spread their spitefull, backward racist bullshit, they are dangerous people.

In a post revolutionary society, where people are free, equal, where workers control there jobs, communal ownership, moneyless..why do we worry about fascists?

I really want to emphasize my point because no one has countered it, why do we worry about these people? We're going to live in a freaking utopia and you guys actually expect the people are going to take fascists seriously? They're going to be crazy fringe cranks (like now) and I don't see any need to silence there ideas, let them speak! no one will listen.

It is societies in deep poverty, economic recesion, inequality and corruption where fascists take hold and become powerful!

[Queercommie Girl]

If a society truly supported the vangaurd then banning the other political parties wouldn't be necessary, it's just a form of repression, taking away peoples options, because the vangaurd knows best. Workers are to stupid to ever organize without vangaurds, ignoring the historical inaccuracies which say otherwise.

But "society" doesn't just consist of a single class. In the post-revolution era, you can bet the remanents of the capitalist and feudal classes would try in some way to sabotage the new worker's state, like they did in post-1917 Russia.

Therefore "freedom of speech" needs a class line. Most proletarians (which is most of the population) should have the freedom of speech, but we would need to keep a careful eye on every person who belongs to the bourgeois and feudal classes, even if they haven't done anything wrong explicitly yet. So proletarian political parties should be allowed, even if they are say anarchist rather than Marxist-Leninist. But bourgeois and feudal political parties should be banned. That is the essence of the dictatorship of proletarian democracy for you. The sole purpose for the existence of this "dictatorship" is to protect proletarian democracy, not to undermine it.

"Human rights" and "freedom" of course are very important. But the bourgeois is mistaken when they say that these values are "universal" and cut across all class lines. In reality, nothing in society can be independent of class, including "human rights" and "freedom". To give "human rights" and "freedom" to the capitalists and the feudalists is equivalent to taking away "human rights" and "freedom" from the proletariat.

[Qayin]

Personally, I hate all the liberal, pussies who say Pol Pot's rule was un-socialist. Just because he killed some people, sometimes, in some way, maybe, just a little bit - you can't just expect perfection!
I hope your kidding. Pol Pot was scum.



The problem is this - what constitutes harm to the Socialist state?
I dont know..

Fucking Imperialism? The now dis-empowered Bourgeois? Bureaucracy? Capitalist Roaders?




If a society truly supported the vangaurd then banning the other political parties wouldn't be necessary, it's just a form of repression, taking away peoples options, because the vangaurd knows best. Workers are to stupid to ever organize without vangaurds, ignoring the historical inaccuracies which say otherwise.
Your knowledge of what the Vanguard is in theory is just plain wrong. The Vanguard is the organization of the workers, vanguards by definition can be anything to attempts to put itself in the center of a revolutionary movement. The CNT-FAI could be considered a vanguard by that definition.

You even caring about political parties is absurd, your an anarchist remember?





For the most part the people who are opposed to freedom of speech in this thread haven't even been talking about hate speech, there talking about there opposition, all opposition, and whether or not the opposition should be free.
In other words, most of the debaters in this thread have been adament in there believe that dissent should not be tolerated.
Hey lets ignore this whole damn thread when we talk about counter-revolutionaries and fascists, lets ignore everything to maintain a false sense of higher morality.



I really want to emphasize my point because no one has countered it, why do we worry about these people? We're going to live in a freaking utopia and you guys actually expect the people are going to take fascists seriously? They're going to be crazy fringe cranks (like now) and I don't see any need to silence there ideas, let them speak! no one will listen.
Get off Revleft.

[Thirsty Crow]

In a post revolutionary society, where people are free, equal, where workers control there jobs, communal ownership, moneyless..why do we worry about fascists?

I really want to emphasize my point because no one has countered it, why do we worry about these people? We're going to live in a freaking utopia and you guys actually expect the people are going to take fascists seriously? They're going to be crazy fringe cranks (like now) and I don't see any need to silence there ideas, let them speak! no one will listen.


Well, here's your biggest problem. Simultaneous, international revolution is the brightest ideal, but I am pretty sceptical of ti ever materializing itself due to uneven development of various countries/regions (in both economic and cultural terms).
You should accept the label "utterly utopian" for reasons laid out in this post of mine.
Uneven development is something which will not be transcended easily. And we're not going to live in a freaking utopia if there is a unified pro-capitalist bloc bent on reestablishing the global rule of capital.

[ContrarianLemming]

And we're not going to live in a freaking utopia if there is a unified pro-capitalist bloc bent on reestablishing the global rule of capital.

agree, that's a war.


Uneven development is something which will not be transcended easily.

agreed, I don't believe in international revolution.

We're working with different hypoteticals here (i didnt notice) I assuming the world is free and we've star trekked it up.

I'm also pretty liberal with my use of the word utopia, I don't refer to lack of suffering, but simply any prosperious anarchy/commune.
We don't really disagree here, but what most of you were thinking about would have been more along the lines of Russia 1917, with amass of issues to deal with already.

Just a missunderstandin

[Thirsty Crow]

We're working with different hypoteticals here (i didnt notice) I assuming the world is free and we've star trekked it up.

I'm also pretty liberal with my use of the word utopia, I don't refer to lack of suffering, but simply any prosperious anarchy/commune.
We don't really disagree here, but what most of you were thinking about would have been more along the lines of Russia 1917, with amass of issues to deal with already.

Just a missunderstandin
Well, OK. We really don't disagree here, then.
Within your scenario, I don't thin there would be any need for an organized repression of miniscule gropus of sociopaths and psychopaths. Of course, self-defense is an entirely different matter (in the sense of "prosecuting" a violent crime offender or an active saboteur within units of production).

[Apoi_Viitor]

Lenin was not like that. It sounds like you are describing Stalin, not Lenin. Don't forget Lenin operated under circumstances of extreme poverty and a massive civil war. But he did not in principle take away proletarian democracy.



Don't be an extremist, it's rather unsightly. No-one is saying we should support Pol Pot. In fact, AFAIK even the most die-hard orthodox Stalinists and Maoists would not support him.

And as I have said we need to learn from history and objectively recognise that all of the historically existing socialist states were deformed in some ways, some much more severely than others.


Well, I'm glad you responded in a civil manner. I apologize for my crude posts. But, yes I am describing Lenin. He lost the election, then dissolved the government and outlawed opposing political parties.

But, I'm not that critical of Lenin as a person, I mean, he was strongly anti-nationalist and against antisemitism - certainly everything he did was with good intent.

Although, really, the idea of a Vanguard party that censors political expression which is deemed "anti-revolutionary", is just a stepping stone to an oppressive, red bureaucracy. Stalinist Russia was just as freedom deprived as any capitalist society, if not, more so.

EDIT:


I hope your kidding. Pol Pot was scum.

I hope you're kidding. Pol Pot was da man.


Your knowledge of what the Vanguard is in theory is just plain wrong. The Vanguard is the organization of the workers, vanguards by definition can be anything to attempts to put itself in the center of a revolutionary movement. The CNT-FAI could be considered a vanguard by that definition.

I think he was using Lenin's theory of the Vanguard - you know, the one where the masses are too stupid to revolt, they don't know what's in their best interests. So therefore, the intellectual elite that makes up the Vanguard needs to lead them. Because, the masses are like children. You always have to be watching them, making sure that they don't run off into the street or watch inappropriate movies.

I kiss the girls that speak Marcuse.
I kiss the boys that speak Foucault.
I love the kids that know Adorno
and snub their nose at kids who don't.

[Thirsty Crow]

W
Although, really, the idea of a Vanguard party that censors political expression which is deemed "anti-revolutionary", is just a stepping stone to an oppressive, red bureaucracy.
How about some expressions along these lines:

"We support the full restoration of capitalism by any means necessary."

"We support the segregation of non-insert-name-of-an-ethnicity-or-race and their impending deportation. We insert-name should do everything it takes, even violent measures, against the impure insert-name-again who are taking over."

But then again, it's not the political expression that's crucial in this respect, but political organization with clear intents.

[Apoi_Viitor]

How about some expressions along these lines:

"We support the full restoration of capitalism by any means necessary."

"We support the segregation of non-insert-name-of-an-ethnicity-or-race and their impending deportation. We insert-name should do everything it takes, even violent measures, against the impure insert-name-again who are taking over."

But then again, it's not the political expression that's crucial in this respect, but political organization with clear intents.

This.


I see it in a sort of simplistic way. I am all for freedom of speech, however I think in a post revolutionary society, certain freedoms (biased news station, propaganda publication) will be repressed. Common sense dictates that the working class (majority being socialist since the revolution has happened) would not allow collective funding towards hate speech.

The problem to me comes if there is a higher body that gets to decide how much freedom of speech is censored, and how lenient or strict they are with it. I don't want a workers state, even if they have good intentions, to decide that certain forms of media and music are "too bourgeois or decadent". Even if something I like is decadent, or repulsive, I would like the right to continue reveling in it and sharing it.

So for me, I see the argument both ways and really cant take a solid opinion on the matter until the situation arrives. Workers councils forming a proletarian government, acting within its own rational self interest? Then yes I can support the restrictions of hate speech placed on bigots as there is no way their influence can infiltrate the media councils. It would be overkill to track down some dude in his basement putting out a hate zine or something, his efforts would be futile.

In the sense of a power higher than myself and immediate workers deciding what is hate speech, what is "bourgeois" (The labeling of activities and art as bourgeois is asinine to me.) and what is acceptable, I am very cautious and would probably take up arms against such factions if I feel the power to decide what is acceptable and what isn't is not within the immediate grasp of workers democracy.


bold mine

Just wondering whether or not anyone else was willing to call this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Defending Pol Pot is just as absurd as defending the USSR, Cuba, Communist China, or North Korea. But there's a reason that no one called me out for that statement - that's because the left has always been quick to praise oppressive, bureaucratic regimes, as long as they label themselves as "progressive" or "socialist". Hell, I was reading one of Mumia Abu Jamal's books, and in it, he called North Korea, a "genuine, progressive government". You can argue that freedom of speech is biased/uneven in western states (as it is), but at least in America, I can access BBC without the secret police coming to my house....

[Thirsty Crow]

This.
Well, OK then, it seems that we're more or less (more, in fact) in agreement here.

[incogweedo]

That "free speech" would be "universal" is really un-materialist and absurdly idealist, as has been said previously in this thread. It totally ignores material reality and all reason.

Oppression isn't always bad.

Capitalism must be oppressed and annihilated. It isn't some festival where you give everyone flowers and thank them and they leave their positions of power voluntarily. Controlling what people say and do is sometimes necessary, and without controlling what people say and do, there is no revolution, it always entails some form of controlling what people say and do, one way or another.

Some places, like the U.S., also has fairly liberal freedom of speech laws, but a law is just that, laws there to look good; in practice, there is nothing but suppression, idiotic legal-system lawyer nonsense promoting lawsuits, etc.

So you're telling me we should just go around commanding people what to believe, what to say, and how to think?

The Authoritarian Right does not work, neither does the Authoritarian Left.


"Oppression isn't always bad."

O rly? i beg to differ. If we oppress our oppressors, we become the very thing that we hate. Oppressing people leads to uprisings, riots, revolutions. That is why the a lot of Western society looks down upon Communism. They see what Stalin, Castro, and Mao did to individual freedoms and use it as propaganda.


I believe Nobody should have the power to tell you what you can and cannot say.

Now, as for overthrowing capitalists, i understand they are not just going to throw their power away. A peaceful overthrow would be the best approach to a capitalist regime, but i understand sometimes we need to rough them up, but not oppress them after a revolution.

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh no, incogweedo? We would certainly oppress the right of the bourgeoisie to seek exploiting the people. Many "rights" that were enjoyed by a certain class in a liberal democracy would vanish. Why do you assume that oppression is bad and that it only applies in a sinister sense of twisting arms and such for the hell of it? This is the problem with the idealism and the liberalism that has seeped into leftist thought.


The Authoritarian Right does not work, neither does the Authoritarian Left.

Goddamn, why are these new posters so morally smug as if to think that we're just going to be doing the exact same thing to the bourgeoisie that they do to us. As if we're just the other side of the same coin or something. What a right libertarian way of thinking.


So you're telling me we should just go around commanding people what to believe, what to say, and how to think?

Again, why is the assumption that society will be "totalitarian"?

[28350]

Defending Pol Pot is just as absurd as defending the USSR, Cuba, Communist China, or North Korea.

Yeah, not really.



But there's a reason that no one called me out for that statement - that's because the left has always been quick to praise oppressive, bureaucratic regimes, as long as they label themselves as "progressive" or "socialist".


It was pretty clear you were being sarcastic. Don't worry, you're not alone. There are other sarcastic people out there. We speak your language.



You can argue that freedom of speech is biased/uneven in western states (as it is), but at least in America, I can access BBC without the secret police coming to my house....


It is only after reading this statement that I fully acknowledge and accept the fact that I am a tankie.

[incogweedo]

Oh no, incogweedo? We would certainly oppress the right of the bourgeoisie to seek exploiting the people. Many "rights" that were enjoyed by a certain class in a liberal democracy would vanish. Why do you assume that oppression is bad and that it only applies in a sinister sense of twisting arms and such for the hell of it? This is the problem with the idealism and the liberalism that has seeped into leftist thought.



Goddamn, why are these new posters so morally smug as if to think that we're just going to be doing the exact same thing to the bourgeoisie that they do to us. As if we're just the other side of the same coin or something. What a right libertarian way of thinking.



Again, why is the assumption that society will be "totalitarian"?

"we would certainly oppress the right of the bourgeoisie to seek exploiting the people."

great point.


well, why do leftists fight against capitalist, racist, sexist, and fascist? because they are wrong and oppressive on certain groups. So what would make it okay if leftists decided to oppress other certain groups?

And no, we should not let the Right wing (or even Left wing) bourgeoisie exploit the people in anyway. BUT they should be aloud to voice their opinion and any Rightist views they may have, that does not mean we should let then enforce their beleifs. i hope that cleared things up a bit.

"Goddamn, why are these new posters so morally smug as if to think that we're just going to be doing the exact same thing to the bourgeoisie that they do to us."

sorry, im just very passive. and i do not believe in "an eye for an eye" or revenge, seeming Rightists, Fundamentalists, and fascists follow them passionately.

[Qayin]

BUT they should be aloud to voice their opinion and any Rightist views they may have, that does not mean we should let then enforce their beliefs. i hope that cleared things up a bit.
Actually that means the damn same thing. If rightists voice there opinion collectively they will eventually try to make a platform would they not?

[incogweedo]

Actually that means the damn same thing. If rightists voice there opinion collectively they will eventually try to make a platform would they not?

"a platform", can you define more specifically what a platform is?


for now, im going to assume it's some sort of gathering or political party. and i have to say, what's wrong if they want to congregate and share their rightist thoughts with one another? i say they should be aloud to assemble however they want (peacefully that is). BUT again, there has to be a fine line, Breaking a "law" and not breaking a "law". They should have the freedom to say what they want, but as soon as they start exploiting people, that is when they cross the line. What the people (or a governing body) do after that line is crossed should be up to them.

is that clearer?

[Kayser_Soso]

well, why do leftists fight against capitalist, racist, sexist, and fascist? because they are wrong and oppressive on certain groups. So what would make it okay if leftists decided to oppress other certain groups?

What makes it ok? The fact that we are doing it. You make it seem like there is some kind of moral balance between fighting for equality and defending inequality. Revolution is not "fair", somebody loses. The good news is that the dead can't occupy the moral high ground.

[Thirsty Crow]

Revolution is not "fair", somebody loses. The good news is that the dead can't occupy the moral high ground.
Revolution is fair as hell. Somebody loses their privilege and the right and the power to subordinate others. They don't automatically lose their right to breathe or their right to work for a better future within the newly established socialist society.

[Queercommie Girl]

Now, as for overthrowing capitalists, i understand they are not just going to throw their power away. A peaceful overthrow would be the best approach to a capitalist regime, but i understand sometimes we need to rough them up, but not oppress them after a revolution.


No oppression of capitalists? Not even when they actively try to sabotage and overthrow the new worker's state after the revolution like what happened after 1917?

[Queercommie Girl]

O rly? i beg to differ. If we oppress our oppressors, we become the very thing that we hate. Oppressing people leads to uprisings, riots, revolutions. That is why the a lot of Western society looks down upon Communism. They see what Stalin, Castro, and Mao did to individual freedoms and use it as propaganda.


Sorry, but for a Chinese like me, this kind of ethical logic makes no sense. It only makes sense in Western Christianity-derived ethical philosophy, but it is far from an universal logic.

If a robber comes into my house with a gun and the intention to kill me, and I shoot him/her dead first before he/she gets a chance to shoot me, it certainly does not make as bad as the robber just because "I used a gun" and "he also used a gun". Or are you suggesting I should just "turn the other cheek" and "lay down my life" as a sign of "passive resistance" here? :rolleyes: (I can translate the bolded section in your statement as "if we kill those who try to kill us, we become as bad as our killers")

To the hell with "absolute pacifist" bullshit.

Similarly, suppressing capitalists and feudalists who rise up after the revolution doesn't make the worker's government as bad as the capitalist and feudalist exploiters.

[Kayser_Soso]

Revolution is fair as hell. Somebody loses their privilege and the right and the power to subordinate others. They don't automatically lose their right to breathe or their right to work for a better future within the newly established socialist society.

This is easy to conceptualize when we speak about large corporations, CEOs, and the bourgeoisie class at the top. On an individual level, much harder decisions come up. For example, what about a family-run hotel business whose workers believe that their bosses have treated them fairly well? What about well-off religious communities? Revolution leads to a lot of hard decisions.

[Kayser_Soso]

Sorry, but for a Chinese like me, this kind of ethical logic makes no sense. It only makes sense in Western Christianity-derived ethical philosophy, but it is far from an universal logic.

If a robber comes into my house with a gun and the intention to kill me, and I shoot him/her dead first before he/she gets a chance to shoot me, it certainly does not make as bad as the robber just because "I used a gun" and "he also used a gun". Or are you suggesting I should just "turn the other cheek" and "lay down my life" as a sign of "passive resistance" here? :rolleyes: (I can translate the bolded section in your statement as "if we kill those who try to kill us, we become as bad as our killers")

To the hell with "absolute pacifist" bullshit.

Similarly, suppressing capitalists and feudalists who rise up after the revolution doesn't make the worker's government as bad as the capitalist and feudalist exploiters.


Clearly Western liberalism is trumped by this Chinese logic. Western liberalism is full of ideals which simply do not work in the real world. If such liberal softness is shown in the face of reaction, it will lead to slaughter and much worse oppression.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is easy to conceptualize when we speak about large corporations, CEOs, and the bourgeoisie class at the top. On an individual level, much harder decisions come up. For example, what about a family-run hotel business whose workers believe that their bosses have treated them fairly well? What about well-off religious communities? Revolution leads to a lot of hard decisions.

I don't agree with forced collectivisation in every case. After the Chinese revolution in 1949, Mao didn't forcefully collectivise every single aspect of the Chinese economy, small businesses and weak ethnic/national capitalists were not nationalised by force overnight, but gradually over a period of several years.

[Barry Lyndon]

a) The Authoritarian Right does not work, neither does the Authoritarian Left.


b) "Oppression isn't always bad."

O rly? i beg to differ. If we oppress our oppressors, we become the very thing that we hate. Oppressing people leads to uprisings, riots, revolutions. That is why the a lot of Western society looks down upon Communism. They see what Stalin, Castro, and Mao did to individual freedoms and use it as propaganda.


c) I believe Nobody should have the power to tell you what you can and cannot say.

d) Now, as for overthrowing capitalists, i understand they are not just going to throw their power away. A peaceful overthrow would be the best approach to a capitalist regime, but i understand sometimes we need to rough them up, but not oppress them after a revolution.

a) This is what liberals do: equate Fascism with Communism, as two equally evil extremes that they, good neutralists that they are, sit in between.
But it isn't the same. We live in a world with EXTREME poverty, EXTREME racism, EXTREME inequality, EXTREME sexism, etc....and it is going to take EXTREME measures to sweep away such a world and replace it with a new one. To simply equate revolutionaries who are willing to use extreme measures to abolish such conditions and the reactionaries who are willing to use extreme measures to preserve them is preposterous.

b) 'Western societies' do not look down on Communist societies because they are 'oppressive'- the US and European capitalists has been happy to support dictators- Suharto, Pinochet, the Duvaliers, the Somozas, Chiang Kai Shek, even the Nazis- as long as foreign capital is allowed to freely circulate in their countries. They couldn't give a damn how repressive they are, in fact to a certian degree police states are preferred because they can murder or imprison those pesky trade unionists trying to fight for better working conditions and other troublemakers.
'Western societies' hate Communist countries(or for that matter, any anti-imperialist or progressive government) because they deprive them of cheap labor and resources they want to exploit by attempting to create a society based on human need, instead of the profits of foreign corporations and local oligarchs.

c) You may believe, but in the real world some people do have that power. How are you going to deal with it? You can't wish it away.

d) Have you heard of Salvador Allende? He tried to have a peaceful socialist revolution in Chile- he ended up getting overthrown and murdered in a right-wing military coup de tat. In Indonesia Sukarno, not even a socialist but a progressive nationalist-invited the Indonesian Communist Party to join his government. He was promptly overthrown in a military coup de tat supported by the CIA and over a million Communists were massacred.
Even today in Venezuela and Bolivia, peaceful and democratic attempts to transition to socialism have been met by a US-backed failed coup de tat, successionist movements, and multiple assassination plots. The only reason Chavez has survived as long as he has is because he has support of large sections of the Venezuelan military and has built up workers and peasants militia- a revolution that is, in his words, is 'peaceful-but armed'.

The capitalists will never voluntarily give up power. It's not like one day they'll just wake up and say 'You know, your right, I have too much money! My whole way of life is based on exploiting others! Here-take it! Take it all!' Any attempt to destroy or even limit their power must involve violence or at least the credible threat of violence.
"Political power grows from a barrel of a gun"-Mao

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't agree with forced collectivisation in every case. After the Chinese revolution in 1949, Mao didn't forcefully collectivise every single aspect of the Chinese economy, small businesses and weak ethnic/national capitalists were not nationalised by force overnight, but gradually over a period of several years. I agree that every aspect shouldn't probably collectivized. But that is probably because I am growing more Maoist in my MLM beliefs.

As long as the commanding heights are nationalized, I am sure small businesses, very small, can be monitored to ensure compliance. Depending on the makeup of the country, it could be beneficial as Lenin allowed some small businesses during the NEP. But that all depends on the country.

[incogweedo]

Sorry, but for a Chinese like me, this kind of ethical logic makes no sense. It only makes sense in Western Christianity-derived ethical philosophy, but it is far from an universal logic.

If a robber comes into my house with a gun and the intention to kill me, and I shoot him/her dead first before he/she gets a chance to shoot me, it certainly does not make as bad as the robber just because "I used a gun" and "he also used a gun". Or are you suggesting I should just "turn the other cheek" and "lay down my life" as a sign of "passive resistance" here? :rolleyes: (I can translate the bolded section in your statement as "if we kill those who try to kill us, we become as bad as our killers")

To the hell with "absolute pacifist" bullshit.

Similarly, suppressing capitalists and feudalists who rise up after the revolution doesn't make the worker's government as bad as the capitalist and feudalist exploiters.

another great point,

"if a robber comes into my house with a gun and the intention to kill me, and i shoot him/her dead first before he/she gets a chance to shoot me, it certainly does not make as bad as the robber"

very true. Imho, i find it very wrong to kill anyone for almost any reason. But there are certain exceptions to this, one of them being your scenario. it is "okay" to kill if your life/ a loved ones life is put in immediate danger and you must act to save yourself/others.

But lets say you miss and hit the robber in the shoulder, and he escapes. I believe it is wrong to go and try to take revenge, because your life is no longer in danger. that is all im trying to say here.


But i must ask, what do you have in mind for any rightists if there ever is a revolution?

[Qayin]

But i must ask, what do you have in mind for any rightists if there ever is a revolution?

Nothing but if they proceed with any counter-revolution what do you think.

[727Goon]

AMK bringing up the Spanish anarchists is a shitty example, obviously they weren't post revolutionary. I think a better example would be Zapatista communities, I havent heard anything one way or the other regarding freedom of speech there, but I'm relatively certain they dont lock people up just for their politics or have censorship.

[Qayin]

AMK bringing up the Spanish anarchists is a shitty example, obviously they weren't post revolutionary. I think a better example would be Zapatista communities, I havent heard anything one way or the other regarding freedom of speech there, but I'm relatively certain they dont lock people up just for their politics or have censorship.

:laugh:

[Queercommie Girl]

But i must ask, what do you have in mind for any rightists if there ever is a revolution?


I don't believe we should shoot everyone who is potentially a counter-revolutionary, e.g. people from non-proletarian and non-socialist backgrounds.

I don't even believe in forced collectivisation of small businesses like the Stalinists do.

But I do believe the Soviet secret police should keep an eye over potential counter-revolutionary elements. It may technically be a violation of their civil liberties but it can't be helped. The police will never actually interfere with their lives as long as they don't actually become counter-revolutionary.

They would have "freedom of speech" as long as they don't say anything that is counter-revolutionary. Otherwise they can say or do anything they like.

Also, I believe in direct democracy, (one person, one vote) but there should be a basic socialist constitution in a worker's state explicitly stating that any political party that contradicts with the basic tenets of socialism (e.g. worker's democracy, collective ownership of the means of production) would be explicitly banned.

You can create your own anarchist party even if it's not Marxist-Leninist. You can say create a party that primarily focuses on LGBT issues and lifestyles or whatever. You can create a political party on promoting recreational drugs and metal rock music if you like. On these people will have more freedom than they do now under capitalism.

But say you are planning to create a political party which would contradict the basic socialist principle of collective ownership of the means of production, you will be suppressed.

Under socialism collective ownership and proletarian democracy (including within factories and companies themselves) becomes a basic human right, like how the right to private property and fundamental equality before the law is a basic human right under capitalism. In the US today you have freedoms to do a lot of things. But say you wish to create a political party that aims to restore feudalism so that the federal laws of the United States are no longer applied equally to all people because some people are "naturally born superiors", then your party will not be legal. If you want to create a political party to restore slavery of black people, your party will not be legal under US federal law.

Just as feudal parties are illegal under capitalism, so capitalist parties are illegal under socialism.

[the last donut of the night]

I'm going to have to go and disagree with you, there. The United States has the most progressive policy on free expression in the world, strangely enough, it's way more progressive than Western European countries. You can say or print virtually anything, from Neo-Nazi literature, to an instruction manual on how to make explosives from household items. There are laws involving companies and intellectual property rights, as well as restrictions on advertizing. Really the only thing that applies to us as private citizens is speech that presents "Immenant Lawless Action." For example, threatening to kill someone, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, which sort of makes sense.

i'm sure malcolm x would've loved this one

[Queercommie Girl]

^

What is the value of this "freedom" that NGNM85 brags about if I'm a homeless street rat living in downtown New York, or a native American Indian living on a reservation, or someone who has been unemployed for 40 years?

I'd trade this useless "freedom" in a second for the social security and free housing of a totalitarian state like North Korea.

Freedom without Bread is only a useless joke. For socialists, economic equality and prosperity always weighs more heavily than abstract notions of freedom.

Capitalists lie to you when they say political rights are more important than economic rights, and then they use your blind acceptance of their "political rights" to take away your "economic rights".

Capitalist political theory places "freedom" before "economic equality", but socialist political theory places "economic equality" before "freedom".

[RadioRaheem84]

^ Yes. Which still puzzles me as to why NGN bothers to remain on this site if he hates Leninists so much and think we're the flip side of a totalitarian coin along with fascism? His idealism isn't practical and it makes him say sill things like the US has the most progressive free speech rights in the world, as if that says a lot, especially when eliminating the class analysis surrounding the matter.

Next, I was floored when he mentioned that Glenn Beck and I had the same amount of free speech (legally, I guess he is right) but that he just has a bigger megaphone! Well, one wonders just who gave Mr. Beck that large megaphone to blast his nonsense? Or how someone like Mr. Beck can receive so much free speech time if it were not for the corporate friendly rants he spews.

I am at a loss, and was chewed out by the mod Noxion, for getting severely irritated with his idealist, liberal bile derailing the other threads. But of course he is an "imagined" liberal where as I am a "knuckle dragging ideologue".

[Barry Lyndon]

^ Yes. Which still puzzles me as to why NGN bothers to remain on this site if he hates Leninists so much and think we're the flip side of a totalitarian coin along with fascism? His idealism isn't practical and it makes him say sill things like the US has the most progressive free speech rights in the world, as if that says a lot, especially when eliminating the class analysis surrounding the matter.

Next, I was floored when he mentioned that Glenn Beck and I had the same amount of free speech (legally, I guess he is right) but that he just has a bigger megaphone! Well, one wonders just who gave Mr. Beck that large megaphone to blast his nonsense? Or how someone like Mr. Beck can receive so much free speech time if it were not for the corporate friendly rants he spews.

I am at a loss, and was chewed out by the mod Noxion, for getting severely irritated with his idealist, liberal bile derailing the other threads. But of course he is an "imagined" liberal where as I am a "knuckle dragging ideologue".

That's another aspect of liberals- accusing anarchists, Marxists, or even genuine progressives of being 'ideological' when they themselves are some of the most ideologically committed defenders of capitalism around.

[727Goon]

:laugh:

I dont see whats so funny about that but uh whatever.

[Kayser_Soso]

AMK bringing up the Spanish anarchists is a shitty example, obviously they weren't post revolutionary. I think a better example would be Zapatista communities, I havent heard anything one way or the other regarding freedom of speech there, but I'm relatively certain they dont lock people up just for their politics or have censorship.


Perhaps because they don't have people within the community actively trying to bring it down, and backing words with deeds. If they did, they would probably do something about it, and if they had such people and didn't do anything, they would be just plain stupid. But it seems that their standard of living is less than that of Mexico as a whole, which is why it would have been better for them to dedicate themselves to improvements in Mexico rather than just their own land.

[NGNM85]

i'm sure malcolm x would've loved this one

Freedom of speech wasn't completely established in the United States until 1969.

You are either misreading, or not comprehending what I said. If you compare laws governing free expression, the US has the most broad protections for speech in the entire world. That is a fact.

[scarletghoul]

Freedom of speech wasn't completely established in the United States until 1969.

You are either misreading, or not comprehending what I said. If you compare laws governing free expression, the US has the most broad protections for speech in the entire world. That is a fact.
edit: the content of this post has been removed because it was just full of useless swearing and raging at your disgusting liberalism

[The Red Next Door]

ngnm, The democratic party HQ is down street, go to it buster!

[Apoi_Viitor]

ngnm, The democratic party HQ is down street, go to it buster!

Thank you for this contribution....


Freedom of speech wasn't completely established in the United States until 1969.

You are either misreading, or not comprehending what I said. If you compare laws governing free expression, the US has the most broad protections for speech in the entire world. That is a fact.

I don't see what people are arguing about. In THEORY NGN is correct, the US has some of the most liberal laws concerning speech. In practice, well, we all know it's quite different....

[727Goon]

Perhaps because they don't have people within the community actively trying to bring it down, and backing words with deeds. If they did, they would probably do something about it, and if they had such people and didn't do anything, they would be just plain stupid. But it seems that their standard of living is less than that of Mexico as a whole, which is why it would have been better for them to dedicate themselves to improvements in Mexico rather than just their own land.

Then it's not speech, is it? Their standard of living has improved tremendously since their revolution though, its not like they had the means to dedicate themselves to change throughout mexico.

[NGNM85]

ngnm, The democratic party HQ is down street, go to it buster!


This is what I mean. You are so blinded by dogmatism you can't even allow yourself to comprehend what I actually said.

This lack of critical thinking is really depressing.

I can't type slower, so you just have to read slower, or something. If you examine the laws of every country regarding free speech, and compare them, the United States has the most broad protections of any country in the world. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. I didn't say the US has the best government in the world. That's essentially impossible to prove, for starters. I also didn't say the US government is ideal. It most definitely isn't. You are hearing things that I am not saying.

[NGNM85]

I don't see what people are arguing about. In THEORY NGN is correct, the US has some of the most liberal laws concerning speech. In practice, well, we all know it's quite different....

In theory, AND in practice. In the simplest possible terms, you can say or print things in the US that you are not allowed to say or print in any other country.

[Apoi_Viitor]

In theory, AND in practice. In the simplest possible terms, you can say or print things in the US that you are not allowed to say or print in any other country.

Indeed, I could. But you have to understand this in practical terms.

This is a really shitty example. but : I can start a pro-labor newspaper in the US. However, it's incredibly unlikely that I will be able to distribute it to the masses, as newspapers cost capital to create and spread. Now, most newspapers make money from Advertisements, but why would a company want to post in ad in a pro-labor magazine? Similarly, it would be a huge investment for me to even create a newspaper business, requiring money that I just don't have. There is a class of people, that do have the money to create media outlets, but their interests and my interests aren't the same. This can be said for any practical use of free speech. News Organizations have to be concerned with making money (And protecting their own interests), not covering the news. In the words of Howard Zinn, "How much freedom of speech and freedom of assembly you have, depends upon what class you are in."

Basically, you can say whatever you want, but if it's not in the interests of the bourgeois, it won't be heard.

[Kayser_Soso]

Then it's not speech, is it? Their standard of living has improved tremendously since their revolution though, its not like they had the means to dedicate themselves to change throughout mexico.

Maybe it improved for those peasants but it is worse compared to other Mexicans around that area.

[Kayser_Soso]

In theory, AND in practice. In the simplest possible terms, you can say or print things in the US that you are not allowed to say or print in any other country.

Right but...

1. This freedom is not absolute. Nowhere is there, or has there been a society which enshrined absolute freedom of speech.

2. The US has been a dominant country for much of the 20th century, still is today to some extent, and it enjoys an extremely secure position in the world due to geography and its neighbors. For this reason virtually nobody in the world even thinks about bringing down the US militarily either from without or within.

[NGNM85]

Right but...

1. This freedom is not absolute. Nowhere is there, or has there been a society which enshrined absolute freedom of speech.

Nobody has ever really suggested what you're calling 'absolute' freedom of speech. What I'm talking about, what essentially anybody who's advocating 'free speech' is actually advocating, is that self expression is sacrosanct, with the exception of speech that US law refers to as presenting an 'imminant lawless action.' Essentially, explicit death threats, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. That's about the only exception. That is not censorship. Everything else should, and must, be protected.



2. The US has been a dominant country for much of the 20th century, still is today to some extent, and it enjoys an extremely secure position in the world due to geography and its neighbors. For this reason virtually nobody in the world even thinks about bringing down the US militarily either from without or within.

....Yes.

[NGNM85]

Indeed, I could. But you have to understand this in practical terms.

This is a really shitty example. but : I can start a pro-labor newspaper in the US. However, it's incredibly unlikely that I will be able to distribute it to the masses, as newspapers cost capital to create and spread. Now, most newspapers make money from Advertisements, but why would a company want to post in ad in a pro-labor magazine? Similarly, it would be a huge investment for me to even create a newspaper business, requiring money that I just don't have. There is a class of people, that do have the money to create media outlets, but their interests and my interests aren't the same. This can be said for any practical use of free speech. News Organizations have to be concerned with making money (And protecting their own interests), not covering the news. In the words of Howard Zinn, "How much freedom of speech and freedom of assembly you have, depends upon what class you are in."

Basically, you can say whatever you want, but if it's not in the interests of the bourgeois, it won't be heard.

The scenario you describe is essentially what happened. There used to be a lively, populist press, they killed it through advertizing. I assure you, I'm very much aware. However, I'd make two key points; first, that while you have the right to express yourself, you don't necessarily have a right to be on primetime television. Second, that that's the state of things as long as our society continues to be dominated by powerful corporate insterests.

[Kayser_Soso]

Nobody has ever really suggested what you're calling 'absolute' freedom of speech. What I'm talking about, what essentially anybody who's advocating 'free speech' is actually advocating, is that self expression is sacrosanct, with the exception of speech that US law refers to as presenting an 'imminant lawless action.' Essentially, explicit death threats, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. That's about the only exception. That is not censorship. Everything else should, and must, be protected.


This is more or less agreeable except for the "sacrosanct" part is a bit too idealistic for my tastes. Lastly, there is no reason why everything else "must" be protected. Left alone maybe, but the state should not mobilize its resources to protect speech that is reactionary.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is what I mean. You are so blinded by dogmatism you can't even allow yourself to comprehend what I actually said. NGN, I am sure everyone in here is aware that one can in theory say what they want and in practice express themselves in ways they like. But that amounts to a hill of beans when comparing the free speech of one small socialist organization to the giant megaphone of just one man; Glenn Beck. Concentration of the media into the hands of the few is key to marginalizing left views. This is a conscious effort.
Legally, the US allows for freer expression because it's position as a world powers is safe and can afford to allow certain voices to speak freely. But again this means little if those voices are severely marginalized from gaining a large audience.


Freedom of speech wasn't completely established in the United States until 1969.Come again? Why do you narrow it down to this particular year? I mean formal COINTELPRO operations didn't even cease until 1971?


Lastly, what is the point of proving that the US has the most progressive free speech laws than most nations? What does it matter if you don't apply a class analysis to understanding why the most powerful nation has such "progressive" law? Only an idealist liberal would just leave it at that without deconstructing what the free speech policies entail, what they mean to particular class interests, and how they effect the working class.

Just saying what you said doesn't mean anything. That's like saying, in the US we're allowed to start our own revolutionary socialist political party or other are allowed to start Nazi Parties, that is a fact, so there fore the US has the most progressive policy on establishing political parties because they ban Nazi Parties in Germany.

How do you not see that eliminating a class analysis of these matters makes you look really idealist, NGN? I think that is the major gripe people have with your post, not that people are misunderstanding or misreading what you say. They know exactly what you're saying. It's not even a question that the US has very "progressive" free speech policies. But why is that, NGN? And what does that matter for our class and our politics in the long run? Why even bring it up? It doesn't really mean anything.

[The Red Next Door]

NGN, I am sure everyone in here is aware that one can in theory say what they want and in practice express themselves in ways they like. But that amounts to a hill of beans when comparing the free speech of one small socialist organization to the giant megaphone of just one man; Glenn Beck. Concentration of the media into the hands of the few is key to marginalizing left views. This is a conscious effort.
Legally, the US allows for freer expression because it's position as a world powers is safe and can afford to allow certain voices to speak freely. But again this means little if those voices are severely marginalized from gaining a large audience.

Come again? Why do you narrow it down to this particular year? I mean formal COINTELPRO operations didn't even cease until 1971?


Lastly, what is the point of proving that the US has the most progressive free speech laws than most nations? What does it matter if you don't apply a class analysis to understanding why the most powerful nation has such "progressive" law? Only an idealist liberal would just leave it at that without deconstructing what the free speech policies entail, what they mean to particular class interests, and how they effect the working class.

Just saying what you said doesn't mean anything. That's like saying, in the US we're allowed to start our own revolutionary socialist political party or other are allowed to start Nazi Parties, that is a fact, so there fore the US has the most progressive policy on establishing political parties because they ban Nazi Parties in Germany.

How do you not see that eliminating a class analysis of these matters makes you look really idealist, NGN? I think that is the major gripe people have with your post, not that people are misunderstanding or misreading what you say. They know exactly what you're saying. It's not even a question that the US has very "progressive" free speech policies. But why is that, NGN? And what does that matter for our class and our politics in the long run? Why even bring it up? It doesn't really mean anything.


You know, when it come to media in Europe, i think they give a platform for the Left, to be voice based on some reports i seen on DW TV.

[Barry Lyndon]

Freedom of speech wasn't completely established in the United States until 1969.

http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/fred_hampton.jpg

Fred Hampton, chairman of the Chicago chapter of the Black Panther Party, shot 100 times in his bed by Chicago pigs in collaboration with the FBI, December 4, 1969.
No free speech for him I guess........

Or the scores of Black Panthers, Young Lords, American Indian Movement revolutionaries who were brutally murdered or were thrown in a jail cell to rot for life, like Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal.

You are only allowed to be a political 'dissident' in the USA if you follow two criteria:
a) You cannot reach a mass audience.
b) You are a watered-down, Caspar Milquetoast dissenter that doesn't advocate any fundamental redistribution of wealth and the undermining of the power of the capitalist class. You may even be allowed to criticize 'capitalism'(like Micheal Moore), but never under any circumstances even hint at the forcible expropriation of the capitalists.

If you cross the line, well....see above.

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent point, Barry.

I mean was the point NGN was trying to bring up is that we should be more patriotic?

Seriously, I mean what was the point?

[NGNM85]

This is more or less agreeable except for the "sacrosanct" part is a bit too idealistic for my tastes.

It's not really 'idealistic.'


Lastly, there is no reason why everything else "must" be protected. Left alone maybe, but the state should not mobilize its resources to protect speech that is reactionary.

It depends on what kind of society you want to have. If you want a truly free and democratic society it's essential. Nobody has ever gone to jail for supporting the status quo. Hitler was for speech he agreed with, Stalin was for speech he agreed with, etc. That's not a tradition that I find particuularly appealing. The real test is how a society deals with dissent, with speech that is controversial, or antithetical to the status quo. At the very least, it seems to me there's a certain hypocrisy as this argument has historically been used against radicals.

[DaringMehring]

The case against bourgeois "freedom of speech" --- which is really just their freedom to buy speech --- and in favor of democratic free speech, in which all get to have their say, was made by Lenin/Trotsky in 1917, and can be found in "10 days that shook the world."

But there is no case against "freedom of speech" in general (ie that workers should be denied expression in normal circumstances). Anyone who would muzzle a worker in peace time would have a hard time justifying it based on Marxism.

[NGNM85]

NGN, I am sure everyone in here is aware that one can in theory say what they want and in practice express themselves in ways they like. But that amounts to a hill of beans when comparing the free speech of one small socialist organization to the giant megaphone of just one man; Glenn Beck. Concentration of the media into the hands of the few is key to marginalizing left views. This is a conscious effort.

Legally, the US allows for freer expression because it's position as a world powers is safe and can afford to allow certain voices to speak freely. But again this means little if those voices are severely marginalized from gaining a large audience.

I wouldn't say it amounts to 'a hill of beans', but I'd agree with most of that.


Come again? Why do you narrow it down to this particular year?

Good question. The early American colonies subscribed to the English policy of 'seditious libel', that certain speech was criminal, and punished harshly, although not quite as harshly as it used to be. During the revolutionary period dissent was harshly punished, it lightened up a little bit afterwards, but not much. Free speech really wasn't acheived until the 1960's, with the seditious libel law being struck down in '64, and in 1969 the Supreme Court ruled free speech to be protected by the state with the exception of speech which represented an 'imminent lawless action', as I mentioned.

Specifically, the case that finally established free speech in the United States was Brandenburg v. Ohio. Brandenburg was a leader of the Ohio chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, who was arrested for making some inflammatory statements at a rally. He was sentenced, then he appealed, and eventually the case was picked up by the Supreme Court. The court ruled that while his statements were extremely racist, that that was not sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution.


I mean formal COINTELPRO operations didn't even cease until 1971?

A lot of what happened under the COINTELPRO program was totally illegal. Much of the evidence obtained through those tactics was thrown out. That's why a number of the Weathermen got such light sentences, so little of the evidence was actually usable. Then, there was the subsequent Pike/Church committee.



Lastly, what is the point of proving that the US has the most progressive free speech laws than most nations? What does it matter if you don't apply a class analysis to understanding why the most powerful nation has such "progressive" law?

It exists partly because of the liberal Enlightenment ideals that our political system was based on, (The United States is unique in that it's such a young country, thus, it has a more progressive system. Second, it's unusual in that it's a country based on a philosophy.) and because people fought for it.



Only an idealist liberal would just leave it at that without deconstructing what the free speech policies entail, what they mean to particular class interests, and how they effect the working class.

Just saying what you said doesn't mean anything. That's like saying, in the US we're allowed to start our own revolutionary socialist political party or other are allowed to start Nazi Parties, that is a fact, so there fore the US has the most progressive policy on establishing political parties because they ban Nazi Parties in Germany.

They ban other things, too. They have laws criminalizing malicious gossip, defamation, misinformation, etc. It means exactly what I said; that you can say or publish things in the United States that you can't get away with in any other country.


How do you not see that eliminating a class analysis of these matters makes you look really idealist, NGN? I think that is the major gripe people have with your post, not that people are misunderstanding or misreading what you say. They know exactly what you're saying. It's not even a question that the US has very "progressive" free speech policies. But why is that, NGN? And what does that matter for our class and our politics in the long run? Why even bring it up? It doesn't really mean anything.

I brought it up because free speech is the topic being discussed.

I didn't mention any of that because it isn't relevent to the issue. Too much free speech is not the problem with this country. This isn't a sensible argument for less freedom of speech.

[NGNM85]

I mean was the point NGN was trying to bring up is that we should be more patriotic?

Not by a long shot.

[Qayin]

A lot of what happened under the COINTELPRO program was totally illegal. Much of the evidence obtained through those tactics was thrown out. That's why a number of the Weathermen got such light sentences, so little of the evidence was actually usable. Then, there was the subsequent Pike/Church committee.

NGN you talk to much about how the US has progressive free speech, or how the consitution is violated because of "illegal" acts. Arn't you an anarchist? What arn't you getting when we call you a liberal i mean what the hell. The state and ruling class do "illegal" shit all the time its the way its set up, the Bourgeois protect there interests.


It exists partly because of the liberal Enlightenment ideals that our political system was based on, (The United States is unique in that it's such a young country, thus, it has a more progressive system. Second, it's unusual in that it's a country based on a philosophy.) and because people fought for it.

YEAH A LONG FUCKING TIME AGO. Theres been alot of changes in government, new countries, revolutions, ect.

Cuba is younger, based on "philosophies" and clearly has a more progressive system for the working class.


They ban other things, too. They have laws criminalizing malicious gossip, defamation, misinformation, etc. It means exactly what I said; that you can say or publish things in the United States that you can't get away with in any other country.
God bless Merika'


I didn't mention any of that because it isn't relevent to the issue. Too much free speech is not the problem with this country. This isn't a sensible argument for less freedom of speech.
LESS LIBERAL IDEALISM?
WHERE?
gotta go hide.

[Kayser_Soso]

It's not really 'idealistic.'

When you call something "sacrosanct" it is.




It depends on what kind of society you want to have. If you want a truly free and democratic society it's essential.

The Netherlands has a considerably "freer" society than the US and yet it has restrictive speech laws by comparison. It has a higher standard of living as well.



Nobody has ever gone to jail for supporting the status quo.

Except when it changes.



Hitler was for speech he agreed with, Stalin was for speech he agreed with, etc.

Actually Stalin was one of the main architects for the 1936 constitution which guaranteed freedom of speech. The problem was that NKVD morons couldn't tell the difference between idle complaining and anti-Soviet propaganda meant to bring down the government. This was the reason why Stalin sent people like Panteylon Ponomarenko around the country to review and free anyone they wanted at their discretion.

The US constitution's protection of free speech didn't work in the beginning either. It took decades of cases and precedents to make it as functional as it is today.



The real test is how a society deals with dissent, with speech that is controversial, or antithetical to the status quo. At the very least, it seems to me there's a certain hypocrisy as this argument has historically been used against radicals.

It's used against us, so I have no compunction about using it against them. The reason why so many leftist movements fail is that they strangle themselves with over-idealistic abstract concepts, whereas reaction will resort to absolutely anything to win. The thing is you have to crush your enemies and grind them into the dust before you can start basing a new society on any kind of lofty principle.

[LC89]

I don't have any tolerance toward slander/libel. I cannot stand Glenn Beck at ALL.

[Queercommie Girl]

Much of the USA's current positive policies on freedom of speech are the result of proletarian and minority activism within the structure of the US capitalist state, e.g. the Civil Rights movement. These policies are not "given" to the masses from the top, and consequently are not a fundamental element of the bourgeois state.

Also, for socialists, it is a fundamental mistake to just focus on the political super-structure and not the economic basis. This is not to say that Freedom is not important, but it is not the most important thing. The most important thing is economic equality.

[RadioRaheem84]

I wouldn't say it amounts to 'a hill of beans', but I'd agree with most of that.



Good question. The early American colonies subscribed to the English policy of 'seditious libel', that certain speech was criminal, and punished harshly, although not quite as harshly as it used to be. During the revolutionary period dissent was harshly punished, it lightened up a little bit afterwards, but not much. Free speech really wasn't acheived until the 1960's, with the seditious libel law being struck down in '64, and in 1969 the Supreme Court ruled free speech to be protected by the state with the exception of speech which represented an 'imminent lawless action', as I mentioned.

Specifically, the case that finally established free speech in the United States was Brandenburg v. Ohio. Brandenburg was a leader of the Ohio chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, who was arrested for making some inflammatory statements at a rally. He was sentenced, then he appealed, and eventually the case was picked up by the Supreme Court. The court ruled that while his statements were extremely racist, that that was not sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution.



A lot of what happened under the COINTELPRO program was totally illegal. Much of the evidence obtained through those tactics was thrown out. That's why a number of the Weathermen got such light sentences, so little of the evidence was actually usable. Then, there was the subsequent Pike/Church committee.




It exists partly because of the liberal Enlightenment ideals that our political system was based on, (The United States is unique in that it's such a young country, thus, it has a more progressive system. Second, it's unusual in that it's a country based on a philosophy.) and because people fought for it.




They ban other things, too. They have laws criminalizing malicious gossip, defamation, misinformation, etc. It means exactly what I said; that you can say or publish things in the United States that you can't get away with in any other country.



I brought it up because free speech is the topic being discussed.

I didn't mention any of that because it isn't relevent to the issue. Too much free speech is not the problem with this country. This isn't a sensible argument for less freedom of speech.

Well, gee NGNM85, you've convinced me. I am going to throw away my copy of Democracy for the Few by Michael Parenti which completely contradicts nearly everything you just posted.

I didn't know you were such an ardent Constitutionalist. I didn't know you were this patriotic with our national history too. How ideal!

Why do you think that just because no nation practices true free speech or that the United States hypocritically allows it, consciously distorts the meaning, and ferociously denies it to state and class enemies of the establishment that somehow I am making an argument against free speech?

You clearly just exhibited to me what would happen to me if I loss all notions of class and material analysis to issues; I would be pretty idealistic and liberal sounding.

I continue to be floored at how some people on this forum are all;
"dur, NGN, a liberal, really" ?

Yet I give up. You win! Yes, of course the United States has the most progressive policies on free speech because we're a nation founded on liberal enlightenment principles, seditious libel laws were cast down in '69, COINTELPRO cases were thrown out and two Senate Select Committee Reports exposed the dirty stuff. That shows that our nation cleanses itself of impurities. Of course, how did I miss all that you've mentioned? It must have been because I was blinded by looking at the economic and class interests embedded in the system and for having a material outlook.

[RadioRaheem84]

Anyways, lets not get sidetracked by NGNM85's posts anymore. We were having an excellent discussion with the other comrades on the actual dilemmas involving implementing free speech in a socialist society.

I think we should focus on the ideals of free speech and their practical measure in societies; both non-socialist and socialist.

[Queercommie Girl]

Freedom of speech should become universal as long as:

1) It is not counter-revolutionary and reactionary with respect to the basic socialist principles of the worker's state;

2) It does not directly harm another person or other people or hinder the freedom of another person or other people.

There should be no limitations to the freedom of speech based on non-political cultural and moral factors, except when the said speech directly harms another person or other people.

[RadioRaheem84]

There should be no limitations to the freedom of speech based on non-political cultural and moral factors, except when the said speech directly harms another person or other people. This gets tricky as one would think that having alternative views on society would lead a group to advocate for those ideas in practice. Why give certain groups a platform if they cannot do anything concrete with their ideals? Certain groups like liberals, cappies, and nationalists. If these groups are not outright banned then wouldn't their avocation lead to provocation?

I am not saying that it's right to deny them a platform or suppress their free speech but what should be done in this situation?

This problem has led to such a distortion of history for many socialist states. I mean if one examines the historical record of Cuba or even the USSR, infiltration of dissident groups by the West lead many in those nations to be suspicious of any dissident group. As William Blum pointed out in Killing Hope, the penetration was deeper than anyone could even imagine, even in non-Communist countries. Parenti noted that by the late 70 and 80s, when he visited the USSR, the intellectuals there were already right wing and had a fondness for supporting US actions against their own state. The information they received from their Western sources was so tainted that they didn't even believe the US had any poverty and if there was, it was the "blacks".

[Queercommie Girl]

This gets tricky as one would think that having alternative views on society would lead a group to advocate for those ideas in practice. Why give certain groups a platform if they cannot do anything concrete with their ideals? Certain groups like liberals, cappies, and nationalists. If these groups are not outright banned then wouldn't their avocation lead to provocation?

I am not saying that it's right to deny them a platform or suppress their free speech but what should be done in this situation?


However, note that I said non-political alternative views.

What you said here would not be non-political, they would be political, and therefore should be limited.

An example of a non-political alternative view would be a "party" that promotes recreational drugs, or a "party" that promotes Gothic style death metal rock, or a "party" that promotes having sex with animals. These are non-political views, and therefore should not be limited purely due to "moralistic concerns", as long as they still support the basic political tenets of socialism, such as collective ownership and worker's democracy.

My point is that we should not be morally conservative, people can be suppressed for their political views, but no-one should be suppressed purely as a result of their lifestyle, no matter how "weird" it becomes, as long as it does not harm other people directly.