Is freedom of speech a right you axiomatically defend?

[Black Sheep]

Is it?

And why.

[Obs]

Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas or ideas which are outside the class conception. In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for the uniting the proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare against the exploiters.

[Broletariat]

No, because "right" is an idealistic concept that is completely removed from the real world.

[Sixiang]

Along with the above two posts, I'm gonna have to quote Marx on this one:


And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

[Black Sheep]

Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas or ideas which are outside the class conception. In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for the uniting the proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare against the exploiters.
Okay,morality is class'related and determined,so i ask: is freedom of speech something which you'd allow/deny on your ideological enemies
a)who are socialists of a different branch
b)who are reactionary


No, because "right" is an idealistic concept that is completely removed from the real world.
Strange, since communism is founded on the upholding of every person's right to satisfaction of biological needs.

[PhoenixAsh]

Everybody should be autonomous. Period. Any form of imposed hierarchy is abject and should be opposed.

People who claim morality should be defined to serve the purpose are arguing that the goal justifies the means. They should be watched and disposed of as a power group immediately when possible because they are the oppressors of tomorrow.

And before you know it they will burn women, children and puppies because they argue it serves the abolition of the burgeoisie and counter revolution. These are the people who will not flinge to sent fellow revolutionaries to their deaths in camps and prisons or are submitted to torture because they do not agree with their preconceived notions of how the revolution should look, how the post revolutionary world should function and who will define who does and does not belong in that society and how people should behave and act.

[Broletariat]

Strange, since communism is founded on the upholding of every person's right to satisfaction of biological needs.

I'm not sure where you get that notion.

Every person may get their satisfaction of biological needs under communism, but that's not the basis or anything.


Everybody should be autonomous. Period.

Autonomous to what degree? Where do we place the limits to autonomy?


Any form of imposed hierarchy is abject and should be opposed. Do you think the hierarchies in production should be abolished? That there should be no interns below doctors and that they should just go to operating straight away?


People who claim morality should be defined to serve the purpose are arguing that the goal justifies the means. They should be watched and disposed of as a power group immediately when possible because they are the oppressors of tomorrow. For someone who would probably claim to be anti-authoritarian, you do seem to have a type of purge in mind.


And before you know it they will burn women, children and puppies because they argue it serves the abolition of the burgeoisie and counter revolution. These are the people who will not flinge to sent fellow revolutionaries to their deaths in camps and prisons or are submitted to torture because they do not agree with their preconceived notions of how the revolution should look, how the post revolutionary world should function and who will define who does and does not belong in that society and how people should behave and act.Yes you've exposed us, I secretly want to kill women children and puppies and I express it through my desires to end hate-speech :rolleyes:

[Black Sheep]

I'm not sure where you get that notion.

Every person may get their satisfaction of biological needs under communism, but that's not the basis or anything.
That's my basis.

Do you have a different one?
Maybe the cosmic satisfaction of promoting the next chapter in the dialectic play?

[Obs]

Okay,morality is class'related and determined,so i ask: is freedom of speech something which you'd allow/deny on your ideological enemies
a)who are socialists of a different branch
b)who are reactionary
a) As long as their disunity isn't acutely harmful to class struggle.
b) Never.


Strange, since communism is founded on the upholding of every person's right to satisfaction of biological needs.
Is freedom of speech a biological need?

[Decolonize The Left]

Okay,morality is class'related and determined,so i ask: is freedom of speech something which you'd allow/deny on your ideological enemies
a)who are socialists of a different branch
b)who are reactionary

It depends on the context of the situation and the community making the decision. There's no reason to declare now how things will be...


Strange, since communism is founded on the upholding of every person's right to satisfaction of biological needs.

No it isn't, this 'foundation' is entirely idealistic and worthless. Communism is founded upon the material reality of the working class. This material reality is one of exploitation and oppression, and it is in our interest as a class to change this reality.

- August

[Broletariat]

That's my basis.

Do you have a different one?
Maybe the cosmic satisfaction of promoting the next chapter in the dialectic play?
My basis is the fact that I'm a worker and it's in my material interests for Communism to become established, the working class has the capacity for great self-organisation and struggle, and can carry out the revolution independent of any guidance from outside the class.

[Demogorgon]

Don't try to defend things axiomatically when you can avoid it and speaking of rights in abstract is pretty meaningless, however to deal with free speech-experience tells us that restriction of it doesn't lead to happy results and in cases where it is being used to allegedly silence former rulers it always gets turned on others who are not connected with them at all but who the new powers fell the need to shut up.

So to those of you keen to suppress freedom of speech-who is vested with the authority to decide what is and isn't allowed and what happens when your particular branch of socialism is deemed to in fact be reactionary?

[Broletariat]

Don't try to defend things axiomatically when you can avoid it and speaking of rights in abstract is pretty meaningless, however to deal with free speech-experience tells us that restriction of it doesn't lead to happy results and in cases where it is being used to allegedly silence former rulers it always gets turned on others who are not connected with them at all but who the new powers fell the need to shut up.

So to those of you keen to suppress freedom of speech-who is vested with the authority to decide what is and isn't allowed and what happens when your particular branch of socialism is deemed to in fact be reactionary?

I'm pretty sure no one here is going to advocate for repression of speech from above, but from working-class organisations built from the ground up.

[Demogorgon]

I'm pretty sure no one here is going to advocate for repression of speech from above, but from working-class organisations built from the ground up.
Oh? And how is that going to be enforced exactly? By people simply trying to force others to keep quiet? What happens when different organisations disagree with what is to be banned?

When you ban something you have a mechanism to enforce that ban or you don't have the ban at all. So specify how the enforcement is to be made and if you mean vigilante action or similar, say so.

Really though, talking about any kind of "bottom up" repression of speech opens up a whole can of worms. What happens to people who simply spoke against the ban? What happens-and it will happen over and over-where people are falsely accused of having said a banned thing? How is any kind of bottom up organisation going to happen at all when people are so busy second guessing what they may or may not be allowed to say they are afraid to organise for fear of breaking some rule?

This is not an abstract argument. It is simply what happens when you start banning simple speech.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm pretty sure no one here is going to advocate for repression of speech from above, but from working-class organisations built from the ground up.
You do realise how many Stalinists we have kicking about here, right? Council Communists they ain't.

[Black Sheep]

No it isn't, this 'foundation' is entirely idealistic and worthless. Communism is founded upon the material reality of the working class. This material reality is one of exploitation and oppression, and it is in our interest as a class to change this reality.
The opposition to exploitation and oppression IS an idealist position.
Materialism comes into play when deciding how to manifest and embody this idea and goal.
There's no material reason to end exploitation (except from specieist ones).
The notion of emancipation is an idea and a goal.

I'm not asserting that there's anything material in freedom of speech,but the above bugged me.


My basis is the fact that I'm a worker and it's in my material interests for Communism to become established, the working class has the capacity for great self-organisation and struggle, and can carry out the revolution independent of any guidance from outside the class.
Yes,and through struggle you can achieve communism, a society where everyone can satisfy effectively and abundantly your biological+ needs,which is a good to have goal.
How does that contradict what i say?
I'm not trying to strip materialism from the picture,nor do i name communism a class-independent ideology.

[Obs]

You do realise how many Stalinists we have kicking about here, right? Council Communists they ain't.

That's right, Marxist-Leninists don't believe the working class should seize power. "Stalinist" is also a completely valid and useful term to describe one particular ideology.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's right, Marxist-Leninists don't believe the working class should seize power.
I've no doubt that they do, I just don't think that their program leaves much room for the sort of democratic organisations suggested by Broletariat. I mean, you're the one who opened with "freedom is a bourgeois prejudice"...


"Stalinist" is also a completely valid and useful term to describe one particular ideology.
Actually, I meant to include the Maoists and Hoxhaists in that as well.

[Broletariat]

Oh? And how is that going to be enforced exactly? By people simply trying to force others to keep quiet? What happens when different organisations disagree with what is to be banned?

You're starting to sound a lot like Capitalists I debate with when they start asking me questions like "How will the tips be put on the ends of shoestrings under Communism."

I'm not a psychic so I can't really tell you. My guess would be that working-class members fighting in working-class interests (Communists) aren't going to ban Communism, or homosexuality, or anything like that. I would hazard to say that they would lean more to ending uninstitutionalised homophobia, racism, etc.


When you ban something you have a mechanism to enforce that ban or you don't have the ban at all. So specify how the enforcement is to be made and if you mean vigilante action or similar, say so.Yea like I said I can't really predict the future organisation of the world and stuff sorry.


Really though, talking about any kind of "bottom up" repression of speech opens up a whole can of worms. What happens to people who simply spoke against the ban? What happens-and it will happen over and over-where people are falsely accused of having said a banned thing? How is any kind of bottom up organisation going to happen at all when people are so busy second guessing what they may or may not be allowed to say they are afraid to organise for fear of breaking some rule?

This is not an abstract argument. It is simply what happens when you start banning simple speech.I really think you're being overdramatic here, I don't think it's too hard to imagine a world in which people don't go around calling black people niggers, and homosexuals fags that also allows people to express viewpoints that are not harmful to society.


Yes,and through struggle you can achieve communism, a society where everyone can satisfy effectively and abundantly your biological+ needs,which is a good to have goal.
How does that contradict what i say?
I'm not trying to strip materialism from the picture,nor do i name communism a class-independent ideology.

It contradicts what you said, because you said "communism is founded on the upholding of every person's right to satisfaction of biological needs." is the basis and I said "the working class has the capacity for great self-organisation and struggle, and can carry out the revolution independent of any guidance from outside the class. " is the basis. "The upholding of every person's right to satisfaction of biological needs." is a result of Communism, not the reason for it.

[RadioRaheem84]

My guess would be that working-class members fighting in working-class interests (Communists) aren't going to ban Communism, or homosexuality, or anything like that. I would hazard to say that they would lean more to ending uninstitutionalised homophobia, racism, etc.

This sounds about right. Once things systemically change, they will socially change too. Even when I was a staunch liberal, I still used negative ethnic and homophobic slurs, but once I learned about the social and economic conditions that produce hatred, racism, etc. I slowly but surely eradicated these words from my vocabulary. I learned to empathize with these groups and it ended a lot of prejudice I had before, it not all.

Point is, a revolution must be one of not only systemic change, but social too. Once the process begins on the latter, there will be sort of like a social repression of racist or capitalist views. Those views will be heavily marginalized, much like any true understanding of economic and social conditions (things that would help greatly reduce racism in the States) are marginalized in the public discourse.

People will be rather intolerant toward ideas that spring from anything remotely elitist, classist, racist or homophobic. Laws might be enacted for their banning, I don't know, but it would be done in a democratic fashion.

[Broletariat]

Laws might be enacted for their banning, I don't know, but it would be done in a democratic fashion.

I think you had it more right to say that it will be socially enacted and not legally enacted.

[Zanthorus]

The opposition to exploitation and oppression IS an idealist position.

You'll have to explain in greater detail how ethical propositions logically entail the idea that finite is infinite or that the idea alienates itself in external nature. Engels was spot on here I think: "The superstitition that philosophical idealism is pivoted round a belief in ethical, that is, social, ideals, arose outside philosophy, among the German philistines, who learned by heart from Schiller’s poems the few morsels of philosophical culture they needed. No one has criticized more severely the impotent “categorical imperative” of Kant — impotent because it demands the impossible, and therefore never attains to any reality — no one has more cruelly derided the philistine sentimental enthusiasm for unrealizable ideals purveyed by Schiller than precisely the complete idealist Hegel (see, for example, his Phenomenology)." (Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy)

Engels also gave quite a good explanation of materialist ethics in Anti-Duhring. We know that there are classes which struggle and have opposing interests. These interests may be manifest in certain ethical rules, and these ethical rules will be class specific. For example, a worker who crosses a picket line will be regarded by their striking co-workers as a scab, whereas an apologist for capital would support them on the basis of the idea of the 'freedom of labour'. In general, in order for workers to struggle effectively, they will have to obey certain rules and maintain solidarity with their co-workers. These rules are the basis of our (Communist) ethics, not a set of eternal principles plucked from the sky.

[PhoenixAsh]

Autonomous to what degree? Where do we place the limits to autonomy?

When it starts to limit the autonomy of another.



Do you think the hierarchies in production should be abolished? That there should be no interns below doctors and that they should just go to operating straight away?

I reject the authority of property and ownership through wage slavery. As you can see above the autonomy of the intern would possibly infringe on the autonomy of the patient.




For someone who would probably claim to be anti-authoritarian, you do seem to have a type of purge in mind.

Yes...from power.



Yes you've exposed us, I secretly want to kill women children and puppies and I express it through my desires to end hate-speech :rolleyes:


...we has this debate before...the outcome --->



Originally Posted by obs
Burn the prick for all I care - and his wife and his kids and his pet dog and its puppies too.

Simply put the argument goes like this....

All is moral which advances the revolution and class warfare. Everything a worker does is class warfare. Everything a worker does is not moral or amoral. Everything is permitted in class warfare. See quoted argument.

[Broletariat]

When it starts to limit the autonomy of another.

So do you think hate-speech does not limit the autonomy of another in the way of emotional damage? Or do you think people should just get over it.




...we has this debate before...the outcome --->



Simply put the argument goes like this....

All is moral which advances the revolution and class warfare. Everything a worker does is class warfare. Everything a worker does is not moral or amoral. Everything is permitted in class warfare. See quoted argument.

Last I checked my username was Broletariat not Obs.

[Sixiang]

You'll have to explain in greater detail how ethical propositions logically entail the idea that finite is infinite or that the idea alienates itself in external nature. Engels was spot on here I think: "The superstitition that philosophical idealism is pivoted round a belief in ethical, that is, social, ideals, arose outside philosophy, among the German philistines, who learned by heart from Schiller’s poems the few morsels of philosophical culture they needed. No one has criticized more severely the impotent “categorical imperative” of Kant — impotent because it demands the impossible, and therefore never attains to any reality — no one has more cruelly derided the philistine sentimental enthusiasm for unrealizable ideals purveyed by Schiller than precisely the complete idealist Hegel (see, for example, his Phenomenology)." (Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy)

Engels also gave quite a good explanation of materialist ethics in Anti-Duhring. We know that there are classes which struggle and have opposing interests. These interests may be manifest in certain ethical rules, and these ethical rules will be class specific. For example, a worker who crosses a picket line will be regarded by their striking co-workers as a scab, whereas an apologist for capital would support them on the basis of the idea of the 'freedom of labour'. In general, in order for workers to struggle effectively, they will have to obey certain rules and maintain solidarity with their co-workers. These rules are the basis of our (Communist) ethics, not a set of eternal principles plucked from the sky.
I think we have a winner.

[PhoenixAsh]

So do you think hate-speech does not limit the autonomy of another in the way of emotional damage? Or do you think people should just get over it.

I think emotional damage is something that results from a lot of speech. Not just hate speech.

What do you define as hate-speech?




Last I checked my username was Broletariat not Obs.

Yeah...and last time I checked I did not specifically post my first post in reply to you...now did I?

[Broletariat]

I think emotional damage is something that results from a lot of speech. Not just hate speech.

What do you define as hate-speech?

Speech from hate.




Yeah...and last time I checked I did not specifically post my first post in reply to you...now did I?

You quoted what I said and then proceeded to respond to that subject, it looked a lot like you were talking to me.

[Tim Finnegan]

So do you think hate-speech does not limit the autonomy of another in the way of emotional damage? Or do you think people should just get over it.
"Hate-speech", as it is somewhat unsatisfactorily known, is not problematic just because it causes emotional harm (which, as hindsight20/20 notes, is hardly a unique property of hate-speech), but because it re-enforces social divisions, and, specifically, systems of domination that do limit the autonomy of individuals within society. If I call a South Asian person a "Paki", for example, that may be no more emotionally damaging than if I called them some other, non-ethnic slur, but is additionally problematic in that it re-enforces the domination of whites over South Asians in British society.

[NGNM85]

I absolutely, emphatically defend the right to free speech,a position historically endorsed in Anarchist literature. I really don't think it is possible to overstate it's importance.

[Agent Ducky]

I think it depends on the definition of free speech...

[NGNM85]

I think it depends on the definition of free speech...

There's only one definition.

[Agent Ducky]

I personally would fight for it until the end. I think taking away people's rights to free speech is one of the simplest tools available to oppress everyone.

The only reason I was confused about definitions is that I was reading other people's posts and I got confused.

[PhoenixAsh]

Speech from hate.

as long as it does not lead to action...or call to action. The real problem with this kind of speech is that it really only is psychologically harmful is the threat of action, enforcement or reenforcement of existing or upcoming inequality. It is that threat which causes psychological damage and grants inferiority and superiority which can be attributed to hate speech in particular....but not exclusively.




You quoted what I said and then proceeded to respond to that subject, it looked a lot like you were talking to me.I did? Where exactly in the post did you see a quote?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2049366&postcount=6

[Imposter Marxist]

Freedom? Yes, but for WHOM and WHY?

[Red_Struggle]

Freedom? Yes, but for WHOM and WHY?

I think that's a good way to put it when arguing with capitalists. Freedom for whom in the name of whom is what needs examining, in my opinion. It wouldn't make sense to allow fascists freedom of organizations, as their interests have nothing in common with the proletariat. Same goes for conservatives. It's the workers who are the bearers of freedom under proletarian dictatorship, through their unions, councils, vanguard party, etc..

[FarewellSlavianka]

The oppression of one's right to have a point of view is hypocritical to Marxist thought. It's not fair to free the people from their chains only to give them new ones. I will defend the right to free speech to the death, but not the misuse of that right to scapegoat minorities and workers. When it comes down to it though, true freedom will not exist until true Communism is established in the world.

[MarxSchmarx]

"Freedom of speech" already presupposes something from which "speech" must be "freed". Most often that something is a state. So it's actually something of a loaded question - either way you are accepting the legitimacy of a state that has a monopoly on using force to change people's behaviour and subjugates the individual.

But let me give you the benefit of the doubt. I think it's important to make clear what entity we want to grant us "freedom of speech" - is it something that a "worker's/transitional period" state should recognize? Is it sometimes desirable for a bourgeois state to not recognize certain kinds of speech as "free" like, say, hate speech? Or is it something like say our union or even revleft?

We need to make clear our unstated assumptions. I do not support the "freedom" of nazis, for example, to disrupt leftist meetings. Nor am I particularly amused with the idea that a Christian televangelist should have a "right" to give a sermon to a Mosque saying everyone is destined for Hell and islam is a filthy religion etc... In those senses, I don't support "freedom of speech". But nor do I support the bourgeois state's imprisonment of people for flying the Nazi flag or making a website that claims the holocaust was fake. So in that sense, I support "freedom of speech".

So there is a need to make clear precisely what we mean when we ask such loaded questions. Absent clarifications and delineation of the scope, they are basically meaningless posturing.

[Demogorgon]

You're starting to sound a lot like Capitalists I debate with when they start asking me questions like "How will the tips be put on the ends of shoestrings under Communism."

I'm not a psychic so I can't really tell you. My guess would be that working-class members fighting in working-class interests (Communists) aren't going to ban Communism, or homosexuality, or anything like that. I would hazard to say that they would lean more to ending uninstitutionalised homophobia, racism, etc.

Yea like I said I can't really predict the future organisation of the world and stuff sorry.

That is a cop out and you know it. You have defended a specific position, the banning of the expression of certain points of view. To then refuse to answer questions on it implications on the grounds that you can't make predictions is running away from the issue.

You have said you want to ban the expression of views that you do not like, so how are these views banned and what happens when you find the particular views you hold are also banned?


I really think you're being overdramatic here, I don't think it's too hard to imagine a world in which people don't go around calling black people niggers, and homosexuals fags that also allows people to express viewpoints that are not harmful to society.

No it's not. But that is a world where it becomes socially unacceptable to say those things. As it already is in many places today. That is different from actually banning saying those things.

As for being over-dramatic, I am not. Believe it or not, there are actually real world examples of freedom of speech being repressed. I am simply describing what happens when it is.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Society needs free speech to function in a transparent manner, however people might want to limit speech in certain contexts, IE fire in a theater, fighting words, pornography around children, etc. One good practical example of this, media shouldn't be able to lie and call themselves a news channel at the same time... they could do one or the other, but not both at once. Context is critical.


What should be the Communist position? In a Capitalist society we need free speech to disseminate our ideas and criticize the system. In a Communist society, it doesn't matter because there's no reason you'd need to categorically ban any kind of speech. But for reasons i already stated, in both cases, you would want to ban certain kinds of speech in certain contexts.

[Obs]

I've no doubt that they do, I just don't think that their program leaves much room for the sort of democratic organisations suggested by Broletariat. I mean, you're the one who opened with "freedom is a bourgeois prejudice"...
I was quoting Lenin mostly for provocative value, but arright. The concept of "total freedom" is a bourgeois prejudice because it necessitates human interaction removed from the context of class struggle, which is impossible until classes have been abolished. This is not the case under the dictatorship of the proletariat, wherein the proletariat must oppress the bourgeoisie and their allies into extinction.



Actually, I meant to include the Maoists and Hoxhaists in that as well.
Ah, so it's just a vague term for any socialist you disagree with.