The Revolutionary Hypocrisy

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Since my introduction to Marxist-Leninism, I have agreed on almost every point- from the exploitation of the worker to use-value economics.

However, especially recently, I have come to question certain aspects of the Revolutionary Process. Specifically, if the ultimate aim of Revolution is to foster greater freedoms and individual rights, is it not hypocrisy to silence dissenters while facilitating revolution? The aim of the ideology is to free the mind and body. How then, can the repression of individuals who differ in ideology be justified.

Many have said that it is necessary to do so for the revolution to take it's course. However, I say that this is the most intolerable violation of the ideals which we Communists uphold.

We fight for freedom, but in doing so perpetuate repression.

Within capitalism, the system is maintained, despite dissenters, through government. To be clear, I'm not suggesting the establishment of government as an instrument of maintaining social order (hahahaha)... but is there not a way, when government is abolished to allow dissenters freedom of thought within society.

We admit that there is much to learn. Are there any ideas as to how the repression of thought during the Revolution could be avoided?

"Democracy in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal education, foreshadow the next higher plane of society to which experience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be a revival, in a higher form, of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes."
Origins of Family, Engels

Knowledge is a necessity. Equality in RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES is necessary. Once the dust of revolution settles, we can not find that we ourselves are tyrants.

[ckaihatsu]

---





[In] a world revolutionary political environment all you'd *really* have to do is be political -- this would apply to everyone, across-the-board. So as we're used to seeing sensationalistic / shock journalism *these* days from the bourgeois media, in the interests of conditioning us as to what is *currently* considered "anti-social" behavior, we might similarly have *revolutionary* political journalism that exposes the most egregious counter-revolutionary sentiments lingering on the outskirts of a world-revolutionary-worker-controlled mainstream societal disposition.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Yes, but things like the gulags and other forceful repressions of ideas... I think that THAT sort of thing is hypocrisy

[piet11111]

As long as the end justifies the means i have no problem denying our class enemy's rights like free speech.

Think of how bizarre it would have been if the spanish anarchists allowed the fascists to operate a newspaper in the area's they controlled and the anarchists where helping them with supplying ink and paper.
Is that the kind of thing you would want us to do during a revolution ?

I would rather wear the label of hypocrite then to do such a thing

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

As long as the end justifies the means i have no problem denying our class enemy's rights like free speech.

Think of how bizarre it would have been if the spanish anarchists allowed the fascists to operate a newspaper in the area's they controlled and the anarchists where helping them with supplying ink and paper.
Is that the kind of thing you would want us to do during a revolution ?

I would rather wear the label of hypocrite then to do such a thing

Marx would consider you a revisionist traitor to the cause. Repression of speech and though in order to attain increased freedom is the highest form of hypocrisy. We need to work WITH those we don't agree with and recognise that we don't know everything

[piet11111]

Marx would consider you a revisionist traitor to the cause. Repression of speech and though in order to attain increased freedom is the highest form of hypocrisy. We need to work WITH those we don't agree with and recognise that we don't know everything



Think of how bizarre it would have been if the spanish anarchists allowed the fascists to operate a newspaper in the area's they controlled and the anarchists where helping them with supplying ink and paper.
Is that the kind of thing you would want us to do during a revolution ?

Well ?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Well ?

We wouldn't supply ink and paper, but we certainly wouldn't stop them from speaking. The only reason the current revolutionary movement is here now is because it is tolerated. It is a MOVEMENT OF THE PEOPLE. Are we so conceited as to think we are perfect? Isn't the point of revolution to increase personal freedoms?

[piet11111]

We wouldn't supply ink and paper

Now why is that i wonder ?
Denying ink and paper is effectively denying them their right to freedom of free speech so how is it that by inserting this tiny step all of a sudden censorship is alright in your eyes.

Seems that by my flatout refusal to allow the class enemy any form of free speech i am still less of a hypocrite then you are with your soft censorship.

edit: just FYI its late here and i am going to bed any posts you make wont be getting a reply for quite a while.

[gorillafuck]

Specifically, if the ultimate aim of Revolution is to foster greater freedoms and individual rights, is it not hypocrisy to silence dissenters while facilitating revolution? The aim of the ideology is to free the mind and body.
The "Ultimate Aim" is liberation from the domination and exploitation inherent in the current social and economic system, not just "greater individual rights". Freeing the mind and individual is only one aspect of that.

There's a difference between the freedom of the oppressor and the freedom of the subjugated. I support free speech for the subjugated and exploited class. I don't support free speech for the bourgeoisie and former bourgeoisie.


Marx would consider you a revisionist traitor to the cause. Repression of speech and though in order to attain increased freedom is the highest form of hypocrisy. We need to work WITH those we don't agree with and recognise that we don't know everything
Marx didn't even know the term "revisionist".

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

The "Ultimate Aim" is liberation from the domination and exploitation inherent in the current social and economic system, not just "greater individual rights". Freeing the mind and individual is only one aspect of that.

There's a difference between the freedom of the oppressor and the freedom of the subjugated. I support free speech for the subjugated and exploited class. I don't support free speech for the bourgeoisie and former bourgeoisie.


Marx didn't even know the term "revisionist".

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I didn't mean that greater individual rights are the only component of revolution (of course)... I mean that if you admit that they are essential, stifling them in the course of the revolution sets a damned bad precedent doesn't it?

If we are to give freedom of speech to the oppressed, the oppressor also deserves them. We call for equality for ALL INDIVIDUALS, even those fighting against equality. Obviously Marx didn't know the term revisionist, but this sort of hypocrisy directly contradicts what he was fighting for.

We work against the internal contradictions of the capitalist system, but in this regard we fall pray to contradictions ourselves.

As the ushers of a new age of humanity, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than those who oppressed us. In fighting an "evil", we should not become perpetrators of that "evil" ourselves.

[gorillafuck]

If we are to give freedom of speech to the oppressed, the oppressor also deserves them. We call for equality for ALL INDIVIDUALS, even those fighting against equality. Obviously Marx didn't know the term revisionist, but this sort of hypocrisy directly contradicts what he was fighting for.
He never said the bourgeoisie should be allowed the same political freedoms as the working class.

How can you get a society where people don't have the power to subjugate or exploit one another if we think that the bourgeoisie should be given just as much freedom as the working class?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

He never said the bourgeoisie should be allowed the same political freedoms as the working class.

How can you get a society where people don't have the power to subjugate or exploit one another if we think that the bourgeoisie should be given just as much freedom as the working class?

I thought we agreed that basic human rights should be given to all. The bourgeoisie have been stripped of their political and economic power by the upheaval of the people. Class consciousness has developed. What HARM is there in allowing them to speak? The people have already openly rejected their ideals.

[gorillafuck]

I thought we agreed that basic human rights should be given to all. The bourgeoisie have been stripped of their political and economic power by the upheaval of the people. Class consciousness has developed. What HARM is there in allowing them to speak? The people have already openly rejected their ideals.
Have you ever listened to media that's controlled by war profiteers and corporations? It's just lies, and they have a monopoly over communication and information. Of course corporate controlled media needs to be dismantled.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Have you ever listened to media that's controlled by war profiteers and corporations? It's just lies, and they have a monopoly over communication and information. Of course corporate controlled media needs to be dismantled.

Yes, corporate media should be dismantled. We have already established that the revolution is well underway and the bourgeois have lost the source of their economic and political power. I still think that it is hypocrisy to throw them in labor camps or prevent them from speaking and writing to the general populace at all. WHO KNOWS? Maybe we could learn something from them (a rarity to be sure but...). We no longer have anything to fear from them at that point.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Even counter-revolutionary ideals. We cannot be the same oppressive masters as the capitalists.

[The Red Next Door]

You are silly; why should we allow harmful ideas that kill? Read a fucking history book.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

You are one retarded red; why should we allow harmful ideas that kill? Read a fucking history book.

If things get to ugly, we step in. Refusal to open the population to the full extent of human knowledge can only be a detriment.

The ideas have already been discredited. Ethically, we can not keep the information from the people.

To support emancipation of the mind, yet keep ideas on a leash is an internal contradiction. A contradiction very similar in composition to those destroying capitalism as it exists today.

Historically, ideas have been hidden, and look at the results. We are the next age of human development. We must hold ourselves to higher standards. It is not important what the bourgeois say... only what the precedent will do for the future of mankind. To begin a new age of humanity with oppression on our minds and hypocrisy on our tongues is despicable.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

"Democracy in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal education, foreshadow the next higher plane of society to which experience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be a revival, in a higher form, of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes."
Origins of Family, Engels

Knowledge is a necessity. Equality in RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES is necessary.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You are one retarded red; why should we allow harmful ideas that kill? Read a fucking history book.

Who are we?

I've become extremely sickened by the idea purported amongst many on the left that it is the job of some vanguard party of 'enlightened, professional revolutionaries' to repress, maim and kill 'because that is what is best for the working class'.

The job of a revolutionary party or movement is to provide leadership and experience where it is needed, to educate and agitate, to foster revolution and to empower the working class. It is NOT to drag the working class along to whichever ideology the vanguard party attaches itself to. It is precisely this sort of attitude that led to the somewhat imperfect nature of the 1917 revolution and it's deformity and eventual degeneration.

Russian Communism is history. Capitalism will, one day, be history. It will not be replaced by top-down Communism, but by working class empowerment.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Who are we?

I've become extremely sickened by the idea purported amongst many on the left that it is the job of some vanguard party of 'enlightened, professional revolutionaries' to repress, maim and kill 'because that is what is best for the working class'.

The job of a revolutionary party or movement is to provide leadership and experience where it is needed, to educate and agitate, to foster revolution and to empower the working class. It is NOT to drag the working class along to whichever ideology the vanguard party attaches itself to. It is precisely this sort of attitude that led to the somewhat imperfect nature of the 1917 revolution and it's deformity and eventual degeneration.

Russian Communism is history. Capitalism will, one day, be history. It will not be replaced by top-down Communism, but by working class empowerment.

Exactly. In my opinion, is not the job of the vanguard to repress. It is the job of the vanguard to lead the people.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I didn't mean that greater individual rights are the only component of revolution (of course)... I mean that if you admit that they are essential, stifling them in the course of the revolution sets a damned bad precedent doesn't it?

If we are to give freedom of speech to the oppressed, the oppressor also deserves them. We call for equality for ALL INDIVIDUALS, even those fighting against equality. Obviously Marx didn't know the term revisionist, but this sort of hypocrisy directly contradicts what he was fighting for.

We work against the internal contradictions of the capitalist system, but in this regard we fall pray to contradictions ourselves.

As the ushers of a new age of humanity, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than those who oppressed us. In fighting an "evil", we should not become perpetrators of that "evil" ourselves.





If things get to ugly, we step in. Refusal to open the population to the full extent of human knowledge can only be a detriment.

The ideas have already been discredited. Ethically, we can not keep the information from the people.

To support emancipation of the mind, yet keep ideas on a leash is an internal contradiction. A contradiction very similar in composition to those destroying capitalism as it exists today.

Historically, ideas have been hidden, and look at the results. We are the next age of human development. We must hold ourselves to higher standards. It is not important what the bourgeois say... only what the precedent will do for the future of mankind. To begin a new age of humanity with oppression on our minds and hypocrisy on our tongues is despicable.





Who are we?

I've become extremely sickened by the idea purported amongst many on the left that it is the job of some vanguard party of 'enlightened, professional revolutionaries' to repress, maim and kill 'because that is what is best for the working class'.

The job of a revolutionary party or movement is to provide leadership and experience where it is needed, to educate and agitate, to foster revolution and to empower the working class. It is NOT to drag the working class along to whichever ideology the vanguard party attaches itself to. It is precisely this sort of attitude that led to the somewhat imperfect nature of the 1917 revolution and it's deformity and eventual degeneration.

Russian Communism is history. Capitalism will, one day, be history. It will not be replaced by top-down Communism, but by working class empowerment.


Besides my already-expressed take on politically anti-social behavior at post #2, I'll add that it's unkind, and even disingenuous, to imply a possibility of the-vanguard-run-amuk in this day and age. I think the denizens of the world are far more educated and sophisticated than the population of just a few generations ago, in the midst of world nationalist imperialisms and their respective lockdowns on people's identities and access to information and knowledge.

We're *currently* living in the age of the Information Revolution, and it changes the whole landscape -- just look at WikiLeaks, for example.... The net is indeed a 'second superpower' when information give-and-take is now as fluid as water from faucets. So this argument containing a veiled accusation of revolutionary elitism just doesn't fly.

Additionally, this stuff is *not* brain surgery or rocket science, as the saying goes. Neither is it some kind of flowery creative writing of self-expression -- in other words, there's surprisingly little ambiguity in the realm of politics, once someone has a grasp of it. Certain kinds of speech *obviously* represent a political camp of sectionalism of some kind, one that would readily deny the rights of speech and political activity to those it scapegoats. It's bad enough that the bourgeoisie currently exercises monopoly control over the major means of mass communication -- it *sucks* that political conditions can possibly *get worse* from that point -- there's no need to allow such elasticity when we already know where it ends up.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Besides my already-expressed take on politically anti-social behavior at post #2, I'll add that it's unkind, and even disingenuous, to imply a possibility of the-vanguard-run-amuk in this day and age. I think the denizens of the world are far more educated and sophisticated than the population of just a few generations ago, in the midst of world nationalist imperialisms and their respective lockdowns on people's identities and access to information and knowledge.

We're *currently* living in the age of the Information Revolution, and it changes the whole landscape -- just look at WikiLeaks, for example.... The net is indeed a 'second superpower' when information give-and-take is now as fluid as water from faucets. So this argument containing a veiled accusation of revolutionary elitism just doesn't fly.

Additionally, this stuff is *not* brain surgery or rocket science, as the saying goes. Neither is it some kind of flowery creative writing of self-expression -- in other words, there's surprisingly little ambiguity in the realm of politics, once someone has a grasp of it. Certain kinds of speech *obviously* represent a political camp of sectionalism of some kind, one that would readily deny the rights of speech and political activity to those it scapegoats. It's bad enough that the bourgeoisie currently exercises monopoly control over the major means of mass communication -- it *sucks* that political conditions can possibly *get worse* from that point -- there's no need to allow such elasticity when we already know where it ends up.

Bourgeoisie monopoly over mass communication would be abolished right at the beginning of the revolution. It would not be relevant. Are you saying that just because certain individuals controlled communication in the past, it becomes necessary to take away their rights in the future? Completely irrelevant. I'm merely showing that oppression of thought and ideas is exactly what we're fighting against. It is ETHICALLY wrong to oppress thought and ideas ourselves.

YOU'VE IGNORED THAT IT'S AN INTERNAL CONTRADICTION, MY STRONGEST ARGUMENT, AND ONE SUPPORTED BY MARX. This leads, as we all know, to systematic collapse.

We also don't "know" where allowing freedom of speech for a broken, weak group that has lost the support of the people economically and politically will lead us. What are you trying to get it? Will the bourgeoisie suddenly manage to re-brainwash the proletariat? Will class consciousness necessary for revolution be removed by an organization that the population already knows to be exploitative liars? I think not.

But the former bourgeoisie do have their rights. In fact, many join the party eventually historically...

[ckaihatsu]

Bourgeoisie monopoly over mass communication would be abolished right at the beginning of the revolution. It would not be relevant.


Okay.





Are you saying that just because certain individuals controlled communication in the past, it becomes necessary to take away their rights in the future? Completely irrelevant.


You're being vague here -- what kind of individuals, exactly, and what kinds of political messages were they communicating?

Your insistence on addressing political matters at the level of the *individual* is causing you to miss the forest for the trees. Politics is *never* about individual individuals -- by its definition / nature it is about *mass policy*, and should be discussed in those terms.

So, to be clear, it's not so much about what this-or-that *individual* is saying -- it's about the *message* that is being said, from wherever and whomever. Elitist and sectionalist kinds of political advocacy should not be tolerated, as a matter of public policy, no matter who it's coming from.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Okay.





You're being vague here -- what kind of individuals, exactly, and what kinds of political messages were they communicating?

Your insistence on addressing political matters at the level of the *individual* is causing you to miss the forest for the trees. Politics is *never* about individual individuals -- by its definition / nature it is about *mass policy*, and should be discussed in those terms.

So, to be clear, it's not so much about what this-or-that *individual* is saying -- it's about the *message* that is being said, from wherever and whomever. Elitist and sectionalist kinds of political advocacy should not be tolerated, as a matter of public policy, no matter who it's coming from.

When I said individual I was referring to the bourgoisie. Sorry for the ambiguity.

Before I address your "never be tolerated" idea which has no base in and actually contradicts Marxism, please address the internal contradiction argument that I've raised.

[Impulse97]

I'm gonna have to side with the OP and ELG here. Why repress the opposition? What power will they have if they are known to be frauds? Would you reinstate a landlord you ousted for another after you found out he was a fraud and a liar? Why would you do that? Why go back to a way of life you know is deeply flawed and hurtful to humanity?

It's illogical and so are the authoritarian arguments.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[ckaihatsu]

When I said individual I was referring to the bourgoisie. Sorry for the ambiguity.

Before I address your "never be tolerated" idea which has no base in and actually contradicts Marxism, please address the internal contradiction argument that I've raised.




Are you saying that just because certain individuals controlled communication in the past, it becomes necessary to take away their rights in the future? Completely irrelevant. I'm merely showing that oppression of thought and ideas is exactly what we're fighting against. It is ETHICALLY wrong to oppress thought and ideas ourselves.


The problem with your 'internal contradiction' argument is that it assumes a material political equivalency of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary positions. If we're being political *right now* and can validly determine what kinds of politics are revolutionary and what kinds are counter-revolutionary, then so can anyone else, potentially, at any time.

Would *we* want to tolerate, or, worse, *legitimize*, any advocacy of counter-revolutionary positions? Of course not. So, by extension, why should *anyone else* tolerate or legitimize counter-revolutionary positions?

[Impulse97]

Would *we* want to tolerate, or, worse, *legitimize*, any advocacy of counter-revolutionary positions? Of course not. So, by extension, why should *anyone else* tolerate or legitimize counter-revolutionary positions?

We don't have to support it in fact we should promote against it. But, they should at least be allowed to think as they please. We are harmful to every Capitalist society yet they (for the most part) let us be and think as we please.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[ckaihatsu]

We don't have to support it in fact we should promote against it.


Okay.





But, they should at least be allowed to think as they please.


Buddabubuddabubuddadabadabuhbadabadabaduh -- *what* -- ????

Are you implying that I advocate mass lobotomies for those convicted of being counter-revolutionary????





We are harmful to every Capitalist society yet they (for the most part) let us be and think as we please.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:


What the *fuck* is this??!!! Fucking revolutionary "original sin" because of historical Stalinism???

And, as a self-proclaimed "Guevarist-Luxembourgist" what the fuck do *you* care about how "harmful" revolution is to capitalist society -- ??? (Jeeeeee-zus!!)

Finally, *no one* "lets" us "be and think as we please" -- I found this ability, myself, at a fairly early age and didn't seek out permission for it....

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Okay.

Buddabubuddabubuddadabadabuhbadabadabaduh -- *what* -- ????

Are you implying that I advocate mass lobotomies for those convicted of being counter-revolutionary????

What the *fuck* is this??!!! Fucking revolutionary "original sin" because of historical Stalinism???

And, as a self-proclaimed "Guevarist-Luxembourgist" what the fuck do *you* care about how "harmful" revolution is to capitalist society -- ??? (Jeeeeee-zus!!)

Finally, *no one* "lets" us "be and think as we please" -- I found this ability, myself, at a fairly early age and didn't seek out permission for it....

Good Sir, with all due respect in your lust for revolution, you seem to have lost sight of it's inherent humanity. The bourgeoisie will try to stop the revolution, of course, but as a new stage of society Socialism inherently strives for greater freedoms and greater equality for all individuals. Obviously if a counter-revolution is literally being organized we'll intervene. But if former bourgeois disagree with our policy, let them dissent. Let them speak. We have nothing to fear. They have already sold us the rope with with to hang the system.If they don't think we're doing something right, by all means say it! We could even learn something.

The spirit of the revolution seems to have been lost on you. This is a massive social upheaval of all that we know of and for the people. The people are the basis of bourgeois power and control. They hold power because they exploit the labor of proletariat. You seem to ignore that this power is gone.

If we're striving towards greater democracy, it is counter-intuitive to silence and kill off opposition. Is that truly democratic at all?

Remember that over the course of a bloody, violent revolution, we must hold onto our ideals. Once the dust settles, we cannot be tyrants.

[ckaihatsu]

Good Sir, with all due respect in your lust for revolution,


My "lust" for revolution -- ??!!! How *dare* you. This characterization and slight on my motivations is entirely unjustified and is quite an indulgence on your part.





you seem to have lost sight of it's inherent humanity.


No, not at all -- I take exception to this as well.





The bourgeoisie will try to stop the revolution, of course, but as a new stage of society Socialism inherently strives for greater freedoms and greater equality for all individuals.


If this is your politics then it's far short of being revolutionary on a proletarian basis. One cannot be for usurping the bourgeoisie while touting bourgeois ideals -- *vague*, *abstract* ideals -- of "greater freedoms" and "greater equality".... Why not be more concrete in your statements?





Obviously if a counter-revolution is literally being organized we'll intervene. But if former bourgeois disagree with our policy, let them dissent. Let them speak. We have nothing to fear. They have already sold us the rope with with to hang the system.If they don't think we're doing something right, by all means say it! We could even learn something.


I'm not quite sure what you're insinuating about my proposals, but you seem to be saying that I'm implying something. To be clear, please see my blog entry for a definitive model of what I advocate. The *means* of potentially getting to it would certainly be beyond just me as one individual.





The spirit of the revolution seems to have been lost on you.


Whatever. Again I resent these rather forward and presumptuous characterizations of my politics that you're recklessly putting forward.





This is a massive social upheaval of all that we know of and for the people. The people are the basis of bourgeois power and control. They hold power because they exploit the labor of proletariat. You seem to ignore that this power is gone.


The power of the bourgeoisie is *gone*, according to you? If so, then do please enlighten us with your understanding of the world's current political order as it *is*....





If we're striving towards greater democracy, it is counter-intuitive to silence and kill off opposition. Is that truly democratic at all?


Again, more assumptions on your part and expressions of bourgeois idealism ("democracy", "democratic")....





Remember that over the course of a bloody, violent revolution, we must hold onto our ideals. Once the dust settles, we cannot be tyrants.


That's quite a cautionary tone, directed at those of us who are nowhere near the corridors of power. You might consider saving some of that preaching for those who are *currently* exercising actions of authority and official violence....

[Thirsty Crow]

Good Sir, with all due respect in your lust for revolution, you seem to have lost sight of it's inherent humanity. The bourgeoisie will try to stop the revolution, of course, but as a new stage of society Socialism inherently strives for greater freedoms and greater equality for all individuals.
And you don't seem to understand the historically validated dynamics of revolutionary upheaval(s) and the dynamics of class interest and its expression.

It is reasonable to assume that this process (revolutionary) will be uneven - it won't result in a peaceful and global establishment of a new kind of society. It will proceed piecemeal, country after country, alongside severe repression on behalf of the bourgeoisie.
It is also illusory to expect that the vast majority will come off as rock solid supporters of socialism. If anything, the revolutionary process will usher in first a period of insecurity (with regard to the meaning of the present moment in history) and transition - and here the bourgeoisie should not be allowed to make a stand and initiate counter-revolution. I'm not saying that only the Party line should be enodrsed, very far from it. I'm only saying that workers themselves have a right to refuse to print outright calls for restoration, slander and lies, and when this is coupled by some more violent tactics (such as collaborating with the Facist scum incorporated in covert gangs in order to spread fear in more remote areas) - you get the picture. The truth of class interest is that the bourgeoisie will most probably stop at nothing when trying to reverse the course of revolution, including being funded by yet-capitalist powers (just look at the history of the CIA in Latin America) and explicitly endorsing the Fascist option.

Historically, it was precisely this Fascist option that was favoured, consciously, by the bourgeoisie when it faced a possible proletarian revolution (just look at German NS and Italian Fascists' rise to power - it was on the broken back of militant workers' mass organizations that it took place).
Sorry to say, but your comments on the historical example of Spanish communists and anarchists facing Fascism are just idealistic nonsense. You really don't seem to understand what kind of polarization and opposition does a revolutionary situation entail.

Now, I wouldn't advocate any single repressive act within the prolatarian camp itself. No violence between various workers' organizations, full stop. I would add - no higher governing body composed of a single rganization's members which would be granted the power of deciding where the threat lies and acting upon it. Dealing with Fascists and bourgeois sympathizers should also be a matter of autonomous communities in which they would operate.
Also, I surely wouldn't advocate extremely repressive measures against individuals expressing their views openly. It's organized power aimed at restoring the conditions favourable to bourgeois class interests that must be fought.

[Hit The North]

The only reason the current revolutionary movement is here now is because it is tolerated.

The only reason it is tolerated is because it is impotent. Soon as it becomes even a vague threat, the ruling class will attempt to destroy it through slanderous media, bribery or personal assassination. Look at the manner in which the media has treated Julian Assange or reacted to the vigorous student demonstrations against the hike in university fees in the UK. Any threat to the existing order is instantly met with force and propaganda. The bourgeois freedom of free speech exists only as long as dissent remains within the realm of speech. Any further and it is recategorised as sedition. Of course, no genuine movement of protest remains only at the talking stage. In the end, political struggle is about taking on power.


Isn't the point of revolution to increase personal freedoms?
The point of revolutions is to impose the interests and will of one class against another. A workers revolution, by the workers themselves, representing the majority of the population, will ensure greater personal liberty than the present system. However, some liberties, such as a right to private ownership of the means of production, will, by necessity, disappear. Does this mean the workers should suppress speech which is in favour of a return to private property? It would depend on the circumstances. Is the revolution besieged by hostile capitalist forces? How secure and thorough is the collectivisation of the means of production?

At the end of the day, the revolutions success will rely upon how far it demonstrates itself as a superior mode of production to what went before and to provide, therefore, a superior mode of existence for the vast majority. This success alone will guarantee that the institution of private property will assume the form of a historical curiosity - a necessary, but irrational, step in the movement toward a truly human society.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I feel that we have very different interpretations of what Marx intended. Yes, we cannot allow counter-revolutionaries to regain control. But when there is no threat, we should not be oppressive.

I concede that the revolutionary process requires some violence... as a necessity.

But we must limit that violence. Agreed?

[ckaihatsu]

---





The only reason it is tolerated is because it is impotent. Soon as it becomes even a vague threat, the ruling class will attempt to destroy it through slanderous media, bribery or personal assassination.





[LaborTech] Fox News Suggests NYC Union Killed Little Boy


This is pretty unbelievable, even for Fox News:
http://chattahbox.com/us/2011/01/01/fox-news-suggests-nyc-union-killed-little-boy/

Now, what happens is that the Fox News headline, "NYC Union Has Blood
On Its Hands," will get spread through countless RSS feeds and news
readers and will appear on probably thousands of sites. Even if people
don't read the article, which has no grounding in reality, people
everywhere will be left with yet another negative impression of
unions. It's a slick propaganda machine the right/Fox has going.

If your blood pressure is low enough, go read some of the comments on
the Fox News hit piece:

http://nation.foxnews.com/wrongful-death/2010/12/31/nyc-union-have-blood-0n-its-hands.

There has always been anti-union sentiment on the Internet to be
sure. But if you're like me, you might have noticed it getting
ratcheted up several notches lately.

The right has a good segment of middle class Americans foaming at the
mouth at the mention of unions. This is what we are up against. Is
there an antidote to this unsettling, growing swarm of union-hating
Americans that the right is gladly feeding? I don't know but I do know
we can't sit back and do nothing. Seems like we should at least try to
get a coordinated communication plan to work off of and push the
strategy as hard as we can. Creating and implementing such a plan
would be a huge task. But this is a battle for our survival. If the
right succeeds as painting unions as the bad guys even to our own
members and thereby undermining our solidarity, the very principal
which gives us our strength, there's not a lot of hope for us.

--
Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc.
http://prometheuslabor.com
413-572-1300

Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet
http://communicateordie.com

--


One of the central issues of this failure to clean the snow was the privatization of
snow removal in disasters. This is something that the public workers unions need
to broadcast to get the real story out. The Chief newspaper is a good source
for news and info about public workers but it's articles are not quickly available unless
you are a subscriber. Unfortunately they have yet to tell the story from
the point of view of NYC labor and get it out to counter the corporate privatization
agenda and their broad media machine. This is a national story but again the national
unions have been silent as far as I know.

In Solidarity,
Steve


Michael Bloomberg's Privatization Of Public Services Behind Failure To Clear Snow In NYC

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2010/12/31/michael-bloomberg-killed-a-baby-in-the-snow-because-he-is-a-pro-union-thug.aspx


Michael Bloomberg Killed a Baby in the Snow Because He Is a Pro-Union Thug

Posted Friday, December 31, 2010 12:46 PM | By Tom Scocca

So now, on the secondhand say-so of unidentified New York employees, the story is that what really went wrong with New York's blizzard response was that disgruntled unionized sanitation workers staged a work slowdown. Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe's right-wing-affirmative-action pundit, is on Twitter exulting over the brain-death of a Queens infant as "Another victim of public-sector unionism."

"Can New York's Sanitation Dept. union bosses be prosecuted for manslaughter?" Jacoby asks.

Not unless Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets prosecuted first, they can't. New York was unprepared for the blizzard because the mayor and top administrators ignored blizzard warnings for an entire day. Whatever else turns out to have gone wrong, it was the mayor's refusal to call a snow emergency—and his seeming confusion about what it even would have meant to call one—that set the city up for failure from the very beginning.

According to the New York Times' account of the Bloomberg administration's bumbling storm management, sanitation department employees aren't even supposed to be the ones to make or break the plowing effort:
For years, an integral role in the city’s best blizzard response plans was filled not by municipal workers but by private contractors and construction crews, ready with front-end loaders, tow trucks, pickup trucks and Bobcat vehicles that can move snow from the tightest urban grids.

Yet as the blizzard approached, the first calls from city officials for help went out around 9 a.m. on Sunday — nearly 30 hours after the Weather Service had raised its warning to a winter storm watch, and more than 24 hours after Mr. Doherty, the veteran sanitation commissioner, sensed that a blizzard was well on its way, he said.

(Now who will be cynical enough to go on Twitter and say it was the ineffectiveness of public-private partnerships that left the baby brain-dead?)

Unless Michael Bloomberg was an active conspirator in the plan to sabotage the storm response, the union-thugs-crippled-the-city story makes no sense. No factual sense, that is. As a piece of propaganda—featherbedding union goons laughing while taxpayers die in the snowdrifts—it makes perfect sense, and it will never die. Hacks like Jeff Jacoby will repeat it as gospel truth down through the years till the sun blows up into a red giant and engulfs the Earth. (That one, they'll blame on the tenured astrophysics professors at public universities.)

[piet11111]

Lets look at Venezuela where the media is firmly in control of the Bourgeois how is that working out in your opinion ExUnoDisceOmnes ?

[Q]

Denying ink and paper is effectively denying them their right to freedom of free speech
1. Welcome to the digital age.
2. Are the capitalists denying us freedom of speech because they don't give us ink and paper?

Somewhat bizarre logic.

[Q]

You are one retarded red; why should we allow harmful ideas that kill? Read a fucking history book.

Ideas don't kill people. People kill people.

People can get agitated by ideas, this is true. But the wrong way to deal with that is to ban ideas. For two reasons:

1. You force ideas into the underground, where they linger on to pop up at some point again in the future.
2. Advocating state bans is a big can of worms. Are we actually to rely on the capitalist state to ban fascist groups for example? This puts of the initiative away from the working class. And how do we know these laws won't be used against us?

For this reason it is better to tackle reactionary ideas head on by debating them. This way we can tackle the bullshit and keep the initiative on our side.

Where fascist groups actually form a threat for meetings and individual comrades, we should form self-defense committees (and not, for example, rely on the police to protect us).

[Q]

Exactly. In my opinion, is not the job of the vanguard to repress. It is the job of the vanguard to lead the people.

To be honest, your emphasis on democracy doesn't make you sound like a Marxist-Leninist (aka Stalinist) at all. You might want to review that label you put onto yourself.

[Thirsty Crow]

I feel that we have very different interpretations of what Marx intended.First of all, I don't really care about "what Marx intended" with respect to this specific practice of struggling against counter-revolution. Marx is not a god nor a demigod. He may have thought that revolutionaries should allow Fascists to organize rallies within liberated area (he could not have, for obvious reasons, but let's assume he could), and I wouldn't agree. You wish to get together under Fascist banners and communicate freely your hateful ideas? OK, and enjoy a baton to the head afterwards you scum.
I fail to see how a public display of hatred could be accomodated under the category of "free speech".


Yes, we cannot allow counter-revolutionaries to regain control. But when there is no threat, we should not be oppressive. Yes, of course, the point is not to foster a culture of fear and paranoia. But we should clearly realize that threats will persist as long as the revolutionary process does not encompass much of the planet as a whole.
And may I add that it is...well, strange at best, that you did not acknowledge any of the practical points I raised in the previous post?


I concede that the revolutionary process requires some violence... as a necessity.But one should never mistake this phenomenon for "blood-thirsty authoritarianism that aims at a total defeat of any kind of human right". That's the ideological spin you will have to get accustomed to if you wish to get/remain active.
If anything, this violence we're discussing is purely defensive.


But we must limit that violence. Agreed?
Yes, of course.
But I don't seem to understand your focus here. Instead of pointing at the horrid history of violence within the proletarian camp, you keep obssessing with the human rights of Fascists. Yeah, it's nice to be able to pose off as someone occupying a higher moral ground, but the reality of the dynamkics of revolution and counter-revolution poses much more serious problems than a possible negation of a Fascists right to free speech.

[Impulse97]

Are you implying that I advocate mass lobotomies for those convicted of being counter-revolutionary????

No, simply that you allow them the same freedoms that you want for the working class. Let them spout their lies. Talk has gotten the left nowehere why would you think that their talk would get them anywhere? They have been proven to be frauds, I doubt the masses are as dumb as you seem to think they are. That they're gonna revert back the instant some conservative starts talking because they are obviously incapable of realizing that we just fought a revolution to overthrow the lies that the conservatives are spreading.



And, as a self-proclaimed "Guevarist-Luxembourgist" what the fuck do *you* care about how "harmful" revolution is to capitalist society -- ??? (Jeeeeee-zus!!)

I don't give two shits how harmful it is during the revolution. After it though they should be granted the same freedoms as us as long as it does not go beyond words.



Finally, *no one* "lets" us "be and think as we please" -- I found this ability, myself, at a fairly early age and didn't seek out permission for it....

True but, there is a government who can repress your ideas and jail you for your words should they so choose. Why sink to the capitalists level? Let them speak. When it turns to action, crush them. They are doing the same to us, we are speaking and survive, yet we act and they crush us.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

And you don't seem to understand the historically validated dynamics of revolutionary upheaval(s) and the dynamics of class interest and its expression.

It is reasonable to assume that this process (revolutionary) will be uneven - it won't result in a peaceful and global establishment of a new kind of society. It will proceed piecemeal, country after country, alongside severe repression on behalf of the bourgeoisie.
It is also illusory to expect that the vast majority will come off as rock solid supporters of socialism. If anything, the revolutionary process will usher in first a period of insecurity (with regard to the meaning of the present moment in history) and transition - and here the bourgeoisie should not be allowed to make a stand and initiate counter-revolution. I'm not saying that only the Party line should be enodrsed, very far from it. I'm only saying that workers themselves have a right to refuse to print outright calls for restoration, slander and lies, and when this is coupled by some more violent tactics (such as collaborating with the Facist scum incorporated in covert gangs in order to spread fear in more remote areas) - you get the picture. The truth of class interest is that the bourgeoisie will most probably stop at nothing when trying to reverse the course of revolution, including being funded by yet-capitalist powers (just look at the history of the CIA in Latin America) and explicitly endorsing the Fascist option.

Historically, it was precisely this Fascist option that was favoured, consciously, by the bourgeoisie when it faced a possible proletarian revolution (just look at German NS and Italian Fascists' rise to power - it was on the broken back of militant workers' mass organizations that it took place).
Sorry to say, but your comments on the historical example of Spanish communists and anarchists facing Fascism are just idealistic nonsense. You really don't seem to understand what kind of polarization and opposition does a revolutionary situation entail.

Now, I wouldn't advocate any single repressive act within the prolatarian camp itself. No violence between various workers' organizations, full stop. I would add - no higher governing body composed of a single rganization's members which would be granted the power of deciding where the threat lies and acting upon it. Dealing with Fascists and bourgeois sympathizers should also be a matter of autonomous communities in which they would operate.
Also, I surely wouldn't advocate extremely repressive measures against individuals expressing their views openly. It's organized power aimed at restoring the conditions favourable to bourgeois class interests that must be fought.

Thank you for the useful post. I'm sorry if I was disrespectful, I was angry because of a misunderstanding of what you meant. I thought you were talking about the late revolution and after the revolution...

I think that we're coming from different perspectives. I'm thinking in terms of what we should do mid-late revolution or after the revolution. This is after business is solidly collectivized and the Bourgeois are no longer an economic threat. You seem to be thinking in terms of early revolution. I completely agree that what is necessary is necessary in the early revolution.

I absolutely agree that repression should be used when necessary in case of violence or extreme threat from capitalists.

However, we also shouldn't "sink to the capitalist's level" as an earlier poster put it.

I agree that the workers have the right to refuse to spread bourgeois lies in publications, etc.

I understand revolutionary dynamics and the fact that the situation must often dictate our actions. However, as a rule, we should use as little violence and repression as possible. This I hope you agree with.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Ideas don't kill people. People kill people.

People can get agitated by ideas, this is true. But the wrong way to deal with that is to ban ideas. For two reasons:

1. You force ideas into the underground, where they linger on to pop up at some point again in the future.
2. Advocating state bans is a big can of worms. Are we actually to rely on the capitalist state to ban fascist groups for example? This puts of the initiative away from the working class. And how do we know these laws won't be used against us?

For this reason it is better to tackle reactionary ideas head on by debating them. This way we can tackle the bullshit and keep the initiative on our side.

Where fascist groups actually form a threat for meetings and individual comrades, we should form self-defense committees (and not, for example, rely on the police to protect us).

Well said. You get where I'm coming from. For a while I thought that my beliefs were unorthodox and reconsidered some things...

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Here is my analysis of the contradictions within the revolutionary process.

We have a choice between two contradictions:
1: Allow those who are vehemently opposed to us to share their ideas, while simultaneously fighting against them. This may undermine our position, but it is better to discredit ideals than lock them away.
2: While our system brings power to a class that advocates increased rights to speech and freedom from oppression of all sorts, we oppress those who oppose us during the end of and after the revolutionary process.

In my opinion, the second is the more detrimental. Why? The oppression of ideas could spread into the new society that comes out of the revolution. This would create a long term detriment in which the ruling ideology (not necessarily ruling class) oppresses other ideologies. This creates a system of division which should create... ideological antagonisms within the system. Marx himself said that such contradictions, causing antagonisms, weaken a system. This is the flaw in capitalism. We can not allow such a trend to become a permanent fixture in socialist society because it would WEAKEN THE SOCIETY.

The first is preferable because (although it may cause SOME SMALL risks) by the end of the revolution capitalist ideals will be largely discredited. The bourgeoisie, having no motive to be the minority any longer, will cease to be. Thus, this contradiction WILL NOT carry on into society.

In summation, looking at the long term affects of each contradiction, the first is preferable. We must allow the free flow of ideas DURING THE LATE STAGES OF THE REVOLUTION.

[ckaihatsu]

Here is my analysis of the contradictions within the revolutionary process.


What you consider to be "contradictions" are, in fact, *not* contradictions. The existence of the class contradiction in human society does not mean that *revolutionary activity* contains a microcosm of this overall, class, contradiction. Rather, revolutionary activity is whole in its own right and aids the working class in its struggle against the ruling class.

Once the ruling class, based on the class division, is overcome, there *are* no more class antagonisms at that point because the class division would no longer exist -- classes would no longer exist.





I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

A vanguard is certainly needed *for* a revolution simply because it would be the ultimate centralization of mass political power that the world has ever seen -- far moreso than current bourgeois institutions like the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or whatever. A vanguard would accurately reflect the minute-by-minute interests of the mass working class, similar to the several Marxist news sites in existence today.

I'd imagine that most of the routine political issues of the day, even going into a revolutionary period, could be handled adeptly by these existing organizations and organs -- however, the tricky part is in carrying out specific, large-scale campaigns that are under time pressure. This is where the world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.

Just as it's easier to travel in elevators than in cars we should *strive* for a vertical consolidation of militant labor groupings as part of a worldwide proletariat offensive. This tight centrality and focus would enable the vanguard to manuever much more quickly and effectively against the class enemy's mobilizations, no matter where and when they take place, worldwide.

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

What you consider to be "contradictions" are, in fact, *not* contradictions. The existence of the class contradiction in human society does not mean that *revolutionary activity* contains a microcosm of this overall, class, contradiction. Rather, revolutionary activity is whole in its own right and aids the working class in its struggle against the ruling class.

Once the ruling class, based on the class division, is overcome, there *are* no more class antagonisms at that point because the class division would no longer exist -- classes would no longer exist.

They aren't contradictions UNTIL THEY'RE CARRIED OUT OF THE REVOLUTION and implemented in common societal interactions. I guess that they're less of contradictions and more of class antagonisms coming from a Marxian point of view...

[piet11111]

1. Welcome to the digital age.
2. Are the capitalists denying us freedom of speech because they don't give us ink and paper?

Somewhat bizarre logic.

Paper and ink in the context of the spanish civil war.
Replace with servers and broadband internet where appropriate.

2 They don't have to as almost all of us are unable to start up our own tv/radio station or our own free newspaper.

[thriller]

Paper and ink in the context of the spanish civil war.
Replace with servers and broadband internet where appropriate.

2 They don't have to as almost all of us are unable to start up our own tv/radio station or our own free newspaper.

Well, the bourgeoisie make nothing. We wouldn't have the servers and data lines WITHOUT the working class. Yeah...

Anyhoot, to quote Debs: “When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. we will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known.”

Communism is about the ending of class oppression. Sure Marx talked of the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working class would be the dominant class. However that means the working class would become a conscious unified group, and obviously a majority. When that happens, I don't see how there would be a NEED to suppress bourgeoisie ideas and newspapers (or what have you), because it would be such a small, dwindling group.
If communism is really what WE say it is, who would turn back to the capitalist system? Maybe the capitalists, but they are such a small group, they would have nothing. 5% of the worlds population owns 50% of the wealth. Once the 95% takes back their half, the capitalists will be forced to join the working class.
If we do believe that communism will be a better society FOR ALL, I don't see how the ruling class can stand a chance.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Well, the bourgeoisie make nothing. We wouldn't have the servers and data lines WITHOUT the working class. Yeah...

Anyhoot, to quote Debs: “When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. we will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known.”

Communism is about the ending of class oppression. Sure Marx talked of the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working class would be the dominant class. However that means the working class would become a conscious unified group, and obviously a majority. When that happens, I don't see how there would be a NEED to suppress bourgeoisie ideas and newspapers (or what have you), because it would be such a small, dwindling group.
If communism is really what WE say it is, who would turn back to the capitalist system? Maybe the capitalists, but they are such a small group, they would have nothing. 5% of the worlds population owns 50% of the wealth. Once the 95% takes back their half, the capitalists will be forced to join the working class.
If we do believe that communism will be a better society FOR ALL, I don't see how the ruling class can stand a chance.

In the late revolution, they really aren't a threat anymore

[piet11111]

Anyhoot, to quote Debs: “When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. we will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known.”

The important part for us right now is When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats at that moment in time i would support freedom of speech for everyone including the class enemy but clearly we are nowhere near that point.


Communism is about the ending of class oppression. Sure Marx talked of the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working class would be the dominant class. However that means the working class would become a conscious unified group, and obviously a majority. When that happens, I don't see how there would be a NEED to suppress bourgeoisie ideas and newspapers (or what have you), because it would be such a small, dwindling group.

Sure when we are at that point we would no longer need to oppress the bourgeois but you need only look at Venezuela today to see a clear cut example where they do need to be oppressed.


If communism is really what WE say it is, who would turn back to the capitalist system? Maybe the capitalists, but they are such a small group, they would have nothing. 5% of the worlds population owns 50% of the wealth. Once the 95% takes back their half, the capitalists will be forced to join the working class.
If we do believe that communism will be a better society FOR ALL, I don't see how the ruling class can stand a chance.

That obviously is the desirable result but the ruling class comes from a position of power and a struggle is unavoidable.
The best example of why i firmly believe free speech for the class enemy is unacceptable is yet again Venezuela where the media cheered on the coup against Chavez and played a very important role but fortunately the people managed to defeat the coup.

[thriller]

The important part for us right now is When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats at that moment in time i would support freedom of speech for everyone including the class enemy but clearly we are nowhere near that point.


Well we sure as hell are not going to reach that point if we continue to clutch each others throats.


Sure when we are at that point we would no longer need to oppress the bourgeois but you need only look at Venezuela today to see a clear cut example where they do need to be oppressed.

Sorry, but I don't believe anyone ever NEEDS to oppressed. If I NEEDED to be oppressed in the revolution because I disagreed with "party officials" or "working class leaders", the revolution would then be a war for fascism, not freedom.

[Thirsty Crow]

Sure Marx talked of the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working class would be the dominant class. However that means the working class would become a conscious unified group, and obviously a majority. When that happens, I don't see how there would be a NEED to suppress bourgeoisie ideas and newspapers (or what have you), because it would be such a small, dwindling group.

Well, here's your problem (bolded part).
It seems that you're ignoring the sheer divergence of the economic process, its relations of production, and the impact this bears upon the formation of human subjectivities (and this formation is always a dynamic process). You are also ignoring the issue of ideological hegemony. In other words, no, I don't think it will ever be possible that the entire working class, however we define it, will possess a rock solid class consciousness prior to the first act of seizing political and economical power.
For example, you're ignoring the role of the small proprietor, of the middle manager and clerks, of all those "in-between" positions that do not offer a possibility of clear cut class identification.
And consider the social and political context of a country that has undergone a socialist revolution, but is surrounded by capitalist countries. Then, no matter how small this reactionary group may be, we could expect various attempts at direct or indirect destruction of gains brought on by the revolution.

[Jose Gracchus]

Those things "attackings" and "damaging" are illegal in any state as a matter of criminal regulations as a matter of course. That's entirely different from disallowing liberals from publishing blogs or tracts. Talking about things isn't the same thing as actually damaging them, and there are clear methodological and practical reasons to differentiate between the two.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Those things "attackings" and "damaging" are illegal in any state as a matter of criminal regulations as a matter of course. That's entirely different from disallowing liberals from publishing blogs or tracts. Talking about things isn't the same thing as actually damaging them, and there are clear methodological and practical reasons to differentiate between the two.

I feel as if comparison between our policy and that of currently existing states is a non-issue. There is a reason that we call for revolution.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll continue to maintain that what counts is the extant *politics* at any given point in time -- I think comrades are getting caught up in the *mechanics* of communication a little too much.... Assuredly the *politics* will still be there, in some kind of person-to-person way, no matter how easy or difficult communication may be for any group.

If a larger portion of a society feels that certain messages being expressed are societally (politically) inappropriate, then it's up to them to address such (elitist, sectionalist) messages with their own statements and arguments, in whatever forums, with the possibility of taking actions on that expressed, common basis.

[28350]

retarded
Not okay.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Not okay.

Especially when it arises from a misunderstanding of the argument :cool:

[Pretty Flaco]

We should destroy our enemies arguments with words, not with bullets.

[Across The Street]

I haven't read every post yet, just wanted to get some thoughts out.

Do the people proposing full-on censorship of ideas realize we are partially in the current mess we are in due to that very censorship. Of course there will be state repression, but I for one would like to see as little blood shed as possible. With large enough numbers of people taking to the streets and changing their ways, we won't even need much violence for people to come together and start reorganizing society from the ground up. As most of you know, mass movements are the key. Honestly, this isn't romanticizing the struggle, nor is it downplaying the need for self-defense on a community by community basis. Some people seem to need a rethinking of social change, because we aren't in the times of the soviets, nor are we in the times of the previous fascist governments. We are fighting against a new, pervasive, all-consuming beast of a much more dangerous nature. I feel like i'm ranting, so I'll just leave it at this, social upheaval begins in the mind.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't think the concept of state repression of expression causing a social "chilling effect" against expression is ridiculous. The fact is the common person is typically under enormous pressures of false consciousness and indoctrination to not express their political rights and to use their cognition intelligently in public and freely. I think that all due measures should be taken to lead to free participation and enthusiasm in the masses, to achieve their awakening from being, as Rosa Luxembourg said, "degraded by centuries of bourgeois class rule."

[Across The Street]

The expression of what exactly?
Your first sentence doesn't really relate to what I wrote.

[#FF0000]

You aren't really saying anything that anybody disagrees with. We shouldn't respond to some dumb fascists with nothing but dumb ideas and some dumb friends who think like they do with the force of God's fist or anything.

But, yeah, if there's a real threat to Worker's control, then it gets stomped the fuck out without hesitation. Folks can have rights so long as they're not fixing to take them away.

[Thirsty Crow]

You aren't really saying anything that anybody disagrees with. We shouldn't respond to some dumb fascists with nothing but dumb ideas and some dumb friends who think like they do with the force of God's fist or anything.

But, yeah, if there's a real threat to Worker's control, then it gets stomped the fuck out without hesitation. Folks can have rights so long as they're not fixing to take them away.

What about real threats to real communities in the form of clandestine gangs?
I fail to see how people refuse to acknowledge the fact that dumb fascists and their friends almost always go hand in hand with clubs, bats and other tools which may not pose a serious treath to workers' control, but rather to the well being of certain groups and individuals.

[#FF0000]

What about real threats to real communities in the form of clandestine gangs?
I fail to see how people refuse to acknowledge the fact that dumb fascists and their friends almost always go hand in hand with clubs, bats and other tools which may not pose a serious treath to workers' control, but rather to the well being of certain groups and individuals.

If they're going around with clubs, then do something, obviously. I'm just saying if their only thing is posting racist youtube comments and listening to terrible music, then whatever.

[Jose Gracchus]

The expression of what exactly?
Your first sentence doesn't really relate to what I wrote.

I wasn't commenting in reply.