Free Speech

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

I have noticed that often people in this forum reffer to free speech in a negative light, why exactly is this? ......Mark!

[Marxist in Nebraska]

The question is somewhat vague. Can you give examples of individuals who are attacking free speech, or what context or situation free speech is being attacked?

[Hampton]

I don't know if this is what you mean but, I think it might be something like free speech is a bad thing when it allows dirty nazis and racists to express themselves and push their hate agenda when they all should be wiped from the earth. But that's just a guess.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

sory cant give n e examples, i think Marxist in Nebraska is on the right idea

[Jesus Christ]

are you referring to how people here believe that religion and opposing political ideas should be supressed?

[Saint-Just]

"Freedom" is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term "freedom of criticism" contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old. - V.I. Lenin

Yes, I think you are talking about suppressing free speech in terms of many member's view that bourgeois and reactionary ideas must be destroyed for society to progress.

[truthaddict11]

in a communist society

racist speech will not be tolrelated
anti-sematic speech will not be tolrelated
misogynic speech will not be tolrelated
homophobic speech will not be tolrelated

EDIT- added homophobia

[Hawker]

I say let people say what they want,because personally I don't give a rats *** what they say.If I'm ruler of a country ,lets say I'm not popular with the people and they say stuff about me and all that crap,still I don't care.Whether you like it or not I'm staying.If you don't like me,I don't care if you like me I still don't care.Give the people free speech and let em' lay that heavy weight off their shoulder.

If it's a cult that broadcasts messages of this and that,and people get drawn into their cult is it my fault that I gave them free speech,no it's their fault for being stupid enough to believe the cults garbage.Therefore there maybe some strings attached to every idea,but that's life.Just like when we walk we waste energy,to make paper we have to chop down trees,etc.I'm afraid to say that,that's just the vicious cycle of faith.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 01:35 AM
I say let people say what they want,because personally I don't give a rats *** what they say.If I'm ruler of a country ,lets say I'm not popular with the people and they say stuff about me and all that crap,still I don't care.Whether you like it or not I'm staying.If you don't like me,I don't care if you like me I still don't care.Give the people free speech and let em' lay that heavy weight off their shoulder.

If it's a cult that broadcasts messages of this and that,and people get drawn into their cult is it my fault that I gave them free speech,no it's their fault for being stupid enough to believe the cults garbage.Therefore there maybe some strings attached to every idea,but that's life.Just like when we walk we waste energy,to make paper we have to chop down trees,etc.I'm afraid to say that,that's just the vicious cycle of faith.
so you dont care if people make racist speech?

[Hawker]

I 've already given you that answer and yes I do care that people do make racist speeches,but that's the price we pay for free speech.There are always strings attached to everything we do.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 01:51 AM
in a communist society

racist speech will not be tolrelated
anti-sematic speech will not be tolrelated
misogynic speech will not be tolrelated
Anti-semitism is racism.

I would also not tolerate any bourgeois and reactionary ideas in a socialist society.

[commieboy]

Man...think of it like this, we dont want to hear the nazis talking about their political views....Alot of people dont want us leftists talking about ours. So we have to let the nazis talk, because they're letting us. They have a right to say what ever they want...as we do too.

[truthaddict11]

under communism Nazis will not have the right to free speech nor will anyone else making hateful speech. Is that so hard to comprehend?

[Bianconero]

I agree with Chairman Mao. Bourgeois/capitalist ideas need to be oppressed. It is that simple. And don't fool yourself. The reactionaries are doing the same thing with us right now. In any so - called 'third world' country communist ideas are oppressed. It is either them or us.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Sep 20 2003, 03:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Sep 20 2003, 03:25 PM)
[email protected] 20 2003, 01:51 AM
in a communist society

racist speech will not be tolrelated
anti-sematic speech will not be tolrelated
misogynic speech will not be tolrelated
Anti-semitism is racism.

I would also not tolerate any bourgeois and reactionary ideas in a socialist society. [/b]
First this, and then Liberal Socialism/Anarchism will be banned, Mao, we need to draw the line somewhere, so freaks like you cant wind up supressing every other view besides ur glorious Maoism.

Nazi pukes will say what they want, well just guard they ass and make sure they dont do anything, also, we can let the majority of ppl(because we dont brainwash, therefore, they think for themselves to beat up the Nazis, I dont fancy many Fascists will be around once the wind goes our side&#33;

IF counterrevolutionaries openly plot to overthrow socialsm or destroy free speech, then that MUST be supressed, basically the same thing goes for "democratic"(Fascist) countreis now, i.e. Communism is banned and made criminal-like.

So only radical counter revolutonaries should be stopped, there is the line, no crossing it, or it will be treason on the part of the accuser, that would work, id fancy.

We would certainly allow critics to tear down our system with words, thats what would make us stronger, instead of cappie ads on billboards, politics of all sides can post what they think, and the ppl can make up their own minds, lets completley disregard ourselves, and think only of the ppl, because our hope for success in democracy, lies in them

[commieboy]

[QUOTE]
wait....so in a communist country you speak ill of it and you get shot?

sounds a little to me like fascism, why not just throw in a book burning and extermination of capitalists too?

How could you consider yourself anybetter than the fascists if you supress the feelings of the people under your rule? I say if they have a problem....leave the country, or speak with officials and try and make a compramize. how intelligent do you look when someone says somthing you dont agree with and instead of explain why your right, you just fucking kill them or take away their rights&#33; Everyone has a right to say what ever they feel&#33; Even Nazis are allowed to say what they feel&#33; You cant just let eveyone one else be able to speak and not the national socialists...i thought eveyone had equal rights in a communistic country?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

you dont eliminate any question of your power....now thats fucked up.

[praxis1966]

I agree with Commieboy, but would like to add this. Consider this analogy put forth to Malcom X by Elijah Muhammed when giving Malcom the position of National Minister. (Keep in mind I&#39;m paraphrasing here.)

Muhammed dumped a bottle of ink into a glass water and in so doing said this, "Here is a glass of filthy water. Present this and only this to the people and they will drink it, if they&#39;re thirsty." He then poured another glass of water, this time without the ink. "Now, show them this and let the people make their own decision. They will naturally choose the clean water."

The point is, when presented with two dichotomal ideologies, the people will naturally choose the one which is more pure. One that is free of emotional appeals and fallacious reasoning. In other words, the best way to fight errant ideologies is through the presentation of an alternative which is logically sound and benefits the largest amount of people.

[pedro san pedro]

surely there are moral codes which will reamin fairly constant, so people who are breaking these can be quietened. rasicm, homophobia etc will always be veiwed as wrong.
i dont like censorship of ideas, but somethings are hurtful, and a vast majority will agree these are wrong.

[truthaddict11]

its not fascist or authoritorian to supress the speech of racists, homophobes, misogynics and fascists. that kind of speech NO ONE has the "right" to express.

[pedro san pedro]

well said

[commieboy]

But what alot of you dont understand is that all those homophobes and rascists dont want to hear the stuff we say, they dont want to hear us talking about tolerance and peaceful things...but we still can. They can find our views about capitalists hateful, and cruel. So it&#39;s either everyone gets the right, or no one....and thats just bullshit.

[truthaddict11]

things will be different under communism and that type of speech will not be tolerated. Racists and Fascists dont deserve the right to speech or to organize and they wont get that right under communism. Rascist, Homophobic, Misogynic, and Fascist speech should not be tolerated in any situation. "Tolerance" of rasicsts is unacceptable.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Here is the big question, should there be any limit to free speech?, even if it undermines the current system?

Thats a touchy question, but i say yes and no, there need to be limits to the limits(if any), and basically draw the line, if its an armed insurection, it cant be tolerated, even if it is ONE step b4 an armed rebellion of the accused, it can still be permitted, only when something is harmfull to our way of life, should it be restricted, thats basically how i feel, but radical dissent is more than ok, its even prefered, cause that is what will foster our democracy and our socialism

[truthaddict11]

lets say we are in a communist society and I am a white supremesist I decide to publish a white pride newspaper calling for the deaths of all niggers spics fags and jews and talk about the supiriority of the white race and call women second class citizens. and praise fascism.

you are going to allow that? I am not in an armed revolution against the society

I dont think so

What if it was a counter-revolutionary paper and I was an old boss and I was calling for the return to capitalism?


I certainly dont think that speech would be tolerated in communism

[kylie]

Why not persecute those who try to stir up support for capitalism, or give racist speeches, etc? Firstly these people don&#39;t even deserve freedom, considering how they are advocating systems that inevitably result in the death of innocent people, and the exploitation of the majority. Secondly the freedom lost by not allowing people to encourage or advocate the right wing ideologies and traits is much less than that lost if counter-revolution was to occur.
Also remember there is only a need to do this under socialism, not communism. During socialism, capitalism would still be a threat, due to large organised supporters of it, ie capitalist countries. So therefore it is neccessary to have these strict measures, as while they arent the ideal conditions for us to live under, its better than risking counter-revolution back to capitalism. But socialism is not permanent. Its just a transitional stage. Once communism was to be achieved, one of its pre-conditions being world revolution would mean the threat of counter-revolution vastly reduced. There would not be a bourgeiosie, a very important influence on peoples perceptions, and opinions. No longer would capitalist countries be relied on for certain resources, no longer would there be capitalist properganda being produced on a industrial scale, and due to the de-centralised nature of communism, the act of counter-revolution itself would be very hard to pull off. There may still for a short time be individuals, or small groups, but i dont see how they could do any significant damage to a truly communist society.

[RED CHARO]

I support free speach....
In defence of the iron curtain
You must remember that in the socialist countrys that exist, the west destroys the local economy and people will bee in the &#39;selling off&#39; game for there best intrest, i.e privitization, and not for youraverage citizen (as Marx states), possibly we have not yet seen the communist utopia....

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I have to agree with what Elijah Muhammad said, as quoted by Comrade praxis1966. I do not think the suppression of reactionary ideas is necessary so long as we can provide an alternative with sufficient means to reach everyone.

The dangers of repression or censorship:

1. Who gets to decide what will be censored? Who is to stop the censors from acting in personal interests or prejudices?

2. Repression makes repugnant ideas forbidden, but there is a dark temptation to explore that which is forbidden. By attacking rightist ideas, we legitimize them and show a certain intimidation if we are not willing for them to speak out and make fools of themselves. To sqeulch debate, it may appear that we cannot argue with them, reducing the validity of our ideas to some while raising the status of rightist ideas.

As opposed to embracing oppression, I suggest that we put forward articulate propagandists to show that the rightist spectrum moves from foolish to genocidal and that it is in no interest of the working class to support them. With education against fascism and the like, and not legitimizing them by attacking them to preempt their bullshit, these ideas will wither and die on their own.

[commieboy]

if you start killing people who feel differntly, you&#39;re nothing more than a fascists, taking advatage of your position of authority. you&#39;re turning your amry and police into your own little gestapo&#33;

You cant silence everything, you will never silence the people aslong as they are alive. If you start taking away freedom of speech, you&#39;ve become fascist

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 02:42 PM
if you start killing people who feel differntly, you&#39;re nothing more than a fascists, taking advatage of your position of authority. you&#39;re turning your amry and police into your own little gestapo&#33;

You cant silence everything, you will never silence the people aslong as they are alive. If you start taking away freedom of speech, you&#39;ve become fascist
tell what "freedoms and rights" do fascists and racists deserve? NONE and they wont get that the right to "free speech" in communism, the people will supress these scumbags there will be no need for police and courts to deal with them.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 12:09 PM
lets say we are in a communist society and I am a white supremesist I decide to publish a white pride newspaper calling for the deaths of all niggers spics fags and jews and talk about the supiriority of the white race and call women second class citizens. and praise fascism.

you are going to allow that? I am not in an armed revolution against the society

I dont think so

What if it was a counter-revolutionary paper and I was an old boss and I was calling for the return to capitalism?


I certainly dont think that speech would be tolerated in communism
Yes, they should have a right to publish racist shit, i dont have to beleive in it, but id die in a second for thier right to say it&#33;

If u strip speech from the Fascists, then Cappies, then Middle Class, then Anarchism, then Socialism, until all thats left is "THE PARTY" and its beleif, thats where we WILL fail, its guaranteed, we DONT want a landslide into Animal Farm, wed be just as bad as the opressor, and that cannot be tolerated&#33;

But feel free to crtizise their free speech, with ur free speech, speech can go both ways you know. Killing them is an easy way out, argue with them, not kill em, or restrict them

[Ragefan3189]

I havn&#39;t really read through the entire thread but I know in the first post he mentioned people see freedom of speech as a negative light. I am not really sure why anyone would believe that because a lot of what is on the board would be repressed by The System if the First Amendment didn&#39;t exist. People mentioning racism, homosexuality, political advocacies besides the ones that exist in the US, religion, and especially how people feel about the government and why it sucks. So, I believe there should be no negative light unless you believe you should be silenced by the government. That is how i feel, if you feel differently than no offense intended. It&#39;s just my opinion.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 06:14 PM
Yes, they should have a right to publish racist shit, i dont have to beleive in it, but id die in a second for thier right to say it&#33;

If u strip speech from the Fascists, then Cappies, then Middle Class, then Anarchism, then Socialism, until all thats left is "THE PARTY" and its beleif, thats where we WILL fail, its guaranteed, we DONT want a landslide into Animal Farm, wed be just as bad as the opressor, and that cannot be tolerated&#33;

But feel free to crtizise their free speech, with ur free speech, speech can go both ways you know. Killing them is an easy way out, argue with them, not kill em, or restrict them
I will second that. I think if a truly open dialogue is opened, rightists (so long as they are stripped of their demagoguery and their bombast) will fall on their faces for their lack of logic. By revealing the poverty of their philosophy, we will embarrass them into irrelevance and oblivion.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Yes, definatley, they will quickly change their thoughts when they hear 1000 counter arguments, moreover, to win SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE(which cannot be controlled by gov&#39;t), most closet Nazis will conform to avoid social, and mental dissapproval. No matter how much Free Speech you give, ppl will hold ideas, and will not take to kindly to Fascsits(even if the gov&#39;t allows them to speek up, so it really does not need to be controled by the gov&#39;t, things will work themselves out.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Lets get a few things straingt here. First off, this bourgeois sickness that is called free speach is currently in place, there is nothing we can do about it. Second of all the party will actively surpress and condemn ANY and all acts of racism and fascism with swift elimination of the offending party. You may counter with the fact that "freedom of speech guarantees the right for the people to actively form a revolt" Wrong. Look where it has gotten socialism today.

Free speech allows fascists to infiltrate the youth of society when they at at their most vulnerable and socially akward, just after puberty. This is a time when every person is dealing with SEVERE amygdalic and hormonal changes. They feel "alone", they feel "misunderstood" they feel the need to be surrounded by people that give them comfort, people that hug them with words.

The root of the bourgeois youth brainwashing runs deep, if left to its own devices, one army of fascists will simply be replaced with another. We must stop this trend from re-inventing itself. It is OUR JOB as enlightened socialists, communists and anarchists to mould the new model of man into the direction that will be beneficial to humanity.

Under democratic centralism within a new socialist state, extreme suppression of the bourgeoisie (fascists and racists are included most appropriately) until the time when the appropriate model of man is produced.

Let me tell you this comrades, if you think for one second a nazi would think twice about condemning ALL communists to death if they succeded in their plan then you are dreamers.

If you chose to allow fascists and racists to have ANY platform of expression (again, they specifically target the youth for previous mentioned reasons) then YOU have forgotten the faces of every single person that was slaughtered in the name of fascism. YOU have forgotted every black man that has swung by his neck for being "uppity". You have forgotten the face of every Jew that was placed in an oven ALIVE. YOU have forgotten that fascist and racists rely on YOU supporting the ideology of "free speech" to aid them in their quest to warp the minds of out children with their filth. They rely on YOUR inability to waver from your bourgeois conditioning long enough to fight back with the intensity of true communist on a mission to serve the people.

DO NOT FORGET THESE FACES COMRADES.

Forgetting their faces is allowing another homosexual to be beaten to death. Forgetting their faces is allowing another black man to be lynched in front of his children. Forgetting their faces will allow another palestinian child to never see his/her father&#39;s face again because he was gunned down in the name of "democracy". Forgetting their faces will allow EVERY HUMAN BEING that is threatened by fascism and racism on this planet to live in fear, and perhaps even murdered for nothing more than being the "wrong colour, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or political ideology" in front of the wrong people.

You must remember, once communism is established, there will be no need to suppress any person&#39;s right to speak their minds as their minds will have been cleansed of this rotting, stinking disease that threatens ALL of manking, including YOU.

Edit:

I was real fired up on this one so please excuse the rant.

[Invader Zim]

I believe that racism is a desease which should be stamped out, ASAP. However I am not nieve enough to believe that you actually can. If someone says to you that they hate "niggers and gooks", then how are you going to prove that they said it? If it requiered only a few peoples word against another persons word, then that would have many problems, it would turn into a "witch hunt". Also it begs the question what would you do with racists? Send them to a shrink, imprison them, just shoot the fuckers? The latter makes us as bad as them and the other two would be very expensive. Not to mention it is an impossible task to abolish racism, as all people, when you get right down to it, have a fear of what they do not understand and fear breads hatred. People fear what is different, therefor racism is inevevitable. However those who act upon their racist views by commiting crimes of hate and joining Nazi partys, should be punished very severly, large amounts of community service and possibly jail sentances for repeat offenders.

To those who believe that freespeach is a "bourgeois" consept, I suggest they review the history of the bourgeoisie and feudalists etc, and see that infact generally those with views which differ from the bourgeois view point, were at best ignored or scorned and at worst punished by death and torture. As many people on this site believe (wrongly) that the bourgeoisie and capitalists are the same the same thing do explain to me, considering the bourgeoisie&#39;s traditional scorn of freedom of speach, how freedom of speach is bourgeoisie trait?

Another thing is that the only reason why you are posting on a socialist board like this one, and not being tortured and imprisoned, is because of your country allows freedom of speach. So how can it be a bad thing?

[CompadreGuerrillera]

The thing is, i KNOW the Fascsits would stop at nothing to supress us, we need to be different from them, not the same way, it doesnt matter agaisnt who, ur stripping speech from, ur stripping it. Even if it is the most racist, nationalist scum on the face of the earth, he still must speek his mind.

It is our job as enlightened socialists to recognize this, trust me a landslide will start from those in power soon restriciting everything else even anarchism and left socialism. It happened with the Soviets, with the CHinese, we shouldnt make those mistakes twice.

Youth can do whatever they want, they can chose for themselves they dont need our guidence, they can join Fascists if they like. It is what will foster debate, and continue a true Socialist Democracy, what u just gonna wait till all the old fascists die off?, so ur gonna censor their books too? then what?

It needs to stop with us. A true democratic society wont need to censor anything, because with the ppl on its side, it will be nearly invincible against propaganda from other powers.(corruption is another thing, which democracies succumb to and deteriorate)

RAF, lemme guess u read the RCP&#39;s draft programme? it talks about centralist democracy, BUT it also talks about limitless free speech, unless threatened directly with arms and violence.

Our true power over propaganda from outside sources(which is the primary source of our troubles in the beginning,), will be checked by a strong volunteer Partisan Army, and other orgs that sponsor free speech, that will be more than enough to stomp Fascsit politics, well need the Army for Fascsits OUTSIDE of our new Socialist state(all this hypothetical, this example is even more prevelant for a situation in which the revolution happens outside the US)

[Red Flag]

Freedom is Freedom is Freedom...

You cant say freedom, unless your a nazi..thats bullshit..

everyone has to be free

and if your anti nazi, your free to speak an anti nazi message, etc..

[truthaddict11]

I have to agree with Comrade RAF that those who threaten the Proletariat, and those who spread hate speech dont deserve the luxury of "free speech". It is a liberal fallacy to think that this speech should be tolerated.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 23 2003, 11:54 PM
Freedom is Freedom is Freedom...

You cant say freedom, unless your a nazi..thats bullshit..

everyone has to be free

and if your anti nazi, your free to speak an anti nazi message, etc..
my basic opinions sumed up nicely, combat their free speech, with YOUR free speech

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 04:57 AM
I have to agree with Comrade RAF that those who threaten the Proletariat, and those who spread hate speech dont deserve the luxury of "free speech". It is a liberal fallacy to think that this speech should be tolerated.
So you sre aloud freedom of speech in this system of government, but you would deny it to the capitalist in a socialist system of government, and I thought we were supposed to be better than they are...

[Saint-Just]

Those of you who are Marxists should consider class struggle. We should use the concept of class struggle in all of our thought.

We wish to get rid of the bourgeois class and their ideas. It is not about allowing them freedom. Their freedom is our slavery. We must get rid of their ideas to make us free. Their thought is worthless, decadent and outmoded.

You are right that the simple fact we hold power and the economic relations we impose will change people and their ideas. However, in class struggle that is simply not enough, ultimately it is that situation that we will only need to perpetuate to keep their ideas suppressed. However, as long as the bourgeois class and its ideas do exist we will need to work to get rid of them.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

I agree with chairman mao, those that have the wrong views should not be allowed to express them.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 01:38 AM

So you sre aloud freedom of speech in this system of government, but you would deny it to the capitalist in a socialist system of government, and I thought we were supposed to be better than they are...
history proves otherwise on how we dont have "free speech" in america.

[redstar2000]

It would be helpful if some of the folks here could get past "freedom of speech" as an abstraction...since there&#39;s never been any such thing and I rather doubt there ever will be any such thing.

Every social order (class society) of which we have record regards certain kinds of speech as unforgivably offensive.

The details vary widely, but everybody does it.

For example, our own capitalist ruling class rarely bothers to engage in formal censorship of our views because we don&#39;t have the money to play the mass media game.

But there have been plenty of lefties who&#39;ve gone to prison for "speech crime"...see the Sherman Austin story in the ezine for a recent example.

Instead of pretending that we will be "different", it would be more useful to discuss exactly what we will consider "speech crime" and how we will deal with it.

It&#39;s not necessary, by the way, to shoot or imprison people for "speech crime"...simply depriving them of access to the media may well suffice.

Or, many punishments may be quite brief and informal; an open racist might be introduced to a couple of large men of color and "strongly advised" of the unacceptability of his views. When he gets out of the hospital, he may still be a racist in his head, but he will have presumably absorbed a knowledge of the dangerous consequences of expressing such views.

The net result will be a decrease in public racism.

The same methods could be applied to any speech that we found to be unforgivably offensive.

In the matter of "pro-capitalist" speech, I would suggest a distinction be made. There will undoubtedly be people who "had it good" in the old order and, being deprived of their wealth and prestige, will wax nostalgic about "things as they used to be". I not only see this as relatively harmless, it could even be encouraged.

Imagine a memoir by the former Lady Rich***** published side-by-side with a memoir by her former servants. The more she was free to reveal her real views about "the good old days", the greater the contrast between her views and the views of her servants...and the plainer and clearer the real gains of the revolution.

And further, nostalgia is not dangerous to us; in fact, it reinforces the demoralization of the old ruling class. Let them celebrate "their glorious past" all they wish...it just makes it all the clearer that it is the past.

It is those who agitate and organize for counter-revolution who are really dangerous; while it&#39;s unlikely that they could ever muster sufficient support to threaten the revolution&#39;s existence, they could cause material damage and loss of life.

Now and then, it may be regrettably necessary to publicly shoot a few of those bastards. (Long prison terms are expensive, demoralizing to our people, and the imprisoned counter-revolutionary always looks forward to being released by the counter-revolution itself.)

It&#39;s occurred to me that one of the most shattering blows to the morale of the active counter-revolution is to take away his children...forever. After this happens a few times, with appropriate publicity, I think few will want to take that risk in order to bring back capitalism. (After the kids grow up, some may wish to contact their fathers; if dad has been behaving himself, then it&#39;s ok. If he hasn&#39;t, then "the address of this person cannot be found".)

All of which is to say that you don&#39;t need a vanguard party, a special secret police, giant labor camps, etc. You need to determine pretty clearly what you want to prevent, what you want to discourage, and how to keep the power to do this in the hands of the working class itself.

It&#39;s not that big of a deal.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Sep 24 2003, 02:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (truthaddict11 @ Sep 24 2003, 02:47 PM)
[email protected] 24 2003, 01:38 AM

So you sre aloud freedom of speech in this system of government, but you would deny it to the capitalist in a socialist system of government, and I thought we were supposed to be better than they are...
history proves otherwise on how we dont have "free speech" in america. [/b]
well the fact you havent been arested and beaten kind of makes a good case against that. Also the fact that vast amounts of anti establishment art, literiture music is widly available, also makes a good case. But I do admit Redstar has a point.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Enigma+Sep 24 2003, 01:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Sep 24 2003, 01:21 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 02:47 PM

[email protected] 24 2003, 01:38 AM

So you sre aloud freedom of speech in this system of government, but you would deny it to the capitalist in a socialist system of government, and I thought we were supposed to be better than they are...
history proves otherwise on how we dont have "free speech" in america.
well the fact you havent been arested and beaten kind of makes a good case against that. Also the fact that vast amounts of anti establishment art, literiture music is widly available, also makes a good case. But I do admit Redstar has a point. [/b]
all because I personally havent been arrested doesnt mean that the US isnt guilty of taking away speech. Look at world war 1 many dissenters and labor activists such as Eugene Debs were arrested. And Chicago during the Haymarket Riot. Tell me how the US is not guilty of subversion of speech.

[Vinny Rafarino]

we need to be different from them, not the same way


that&#39;s what Ghandi and Dr. King said too. They were wrong and they paid with their lives. As did thousands (Millions in India) of their followers.

Pacifism will only lead to one thing, the opressors opressing you much EASIER than before.


I&#39;m sorry but I am not in this game to make lives EASIER on fascists and racists.


Hippies be gone&#33;

[CompadreGuerrillera]

ok, two things, were not deffending the US, as it CERTAINLY DOES NOT allow total free speech, its a given, but heres no.2

WERE NOT HIPPIES, we support violent revolution just as much as you, its just we wish to let all ppl speek freely, instead of become Military Dictators. you dont get it, Social Democracy will eliminate Fascism by itself, sit and watch it, in a society thats not BRAINWASHED, Fascism will not thrive, theres a cool analogy to this, that i can give to you if u like(right now im tired).

Military Dominance in the surrounding areas, will reinforce us as a "strong" society. therefore, enemies will be more hesistant to drop their propaganda in our society.

Also, if ALL ppl could chose their own mind and speek freely, Fascism and Conservatism wouldnt grow, we DONT NEED TO RESTRICT THEM&#33; The society will restrict them by ITSELF.

However if u reinforce this by laws and restrictions ppl will see you as "not pure" and therefore be resistant, and conservatism will grow, i promise you.

For example in school when i get punished with detention for cussing with another kid, thats not gonna get me to stop it, when i see ppl&#39;s cd players get taken away, its not gonna stop them, in other words, if ppl dont make a big deal of something, it wont be a big deal.

The ppl reflect the authority, if its a democratic authority ppl will conform by choice to it, if its a forcefull authoritarian society, the ppl will not.

"if there is hope it lay in the proles"-1984
dont forget that&#33;

and dont snap at me, what next ur gonna censor my ass huh?

[Vinny Rafarino]

If you are not a pacifist or hippy then obviously I was not targeting you with that comment. I was tageting HIPPIES.



Social Democracy will eliminate Fascism by itself

Prove it.


Also, if ALL ppl could chose their own mind and speek freely, Fascism and Conservatism wouldnt grow, we DONT NEED TO RESTRICT THEM&#33; The society will restrict them by ITSELF.


That statement goes against logic and therefore is not true.



However if u reinforce this by laws and restrictions ppl will see you as "not pure" and therefore be resistant, and conservatism will grow, i promise you.


again, against the laws of logic, evolutionary psyhology, and sociology, therefore false.




For example in school when i get punished with detention for cussing with another kid, thats not gonna get me to stop it, when i see ppl&#39;s cd players get taken away, its not gonna stop them, in other words, if ppl dont make a big deal of something, it wont be a big deal.



Individual psychology is completely different from sociology and macro evolutionary psychology. This statement has no relevance to the discussion.




"if there is hope it lay in the proles"-1984
dont forget that&#33;



What does Orwell&#39;s fiction have to do with anything?



and dont snap at me, what next ur gonna censor my ass huh?


Did I ever mention that I would "censor" you? Ever? Even once? Ever? (in the whole 24 HOURS I have been a mod)

This is a bad attempt to bring unecessary favour to your cause by "hinting" that I would abuse my moderation powers. Funny, It&#39;s only been one day and someone has already used the "will you censor me" excuse against me when their argument became weak.

EDIT

SP

[Xvall]

Or, many punishments may be quite brief and informal; an open racist might be introduced to a couple of large men of color and "strongly advised" of the unacceptability of his views. When he gets out of the hospital, he may still be a racist in his head, but he will have presumably absorbed a knowledge of the dangerous consequences of expressing such views.

LMAO.

I fucking love you, man.

[apathy maybe]

The two opposing views so far that I have read seem to be,
1) Free speech is great except where it involves racism and right-wingers (and people who generally oppose the "System")
2) Free speech is great and everyone should have the right to say what they think. People are smart enough (or will be) not to listen the racists.

Now my view is that free speech is completely necessary. People don&#39;t have to listen or agree with what people say. Who was it that said "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it"? If we ban all those outrages things those on the far right say, we must also ban everything those on the far left say. And as I am on the far left, I say NO&#33;

[Vinny Rafarino]

The problem is not that people won&#39;t listen to them. The problem is that people DO listen to them. IN GREAT QUANTATIES.



Who was it that said "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it"?


Every bourgeoisie cashing their cheques written with the blood of the proletariat.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

well, i admit i go against logic, but logic hasnt really made that much of a difference, many times things will surprise you. different wars were fought on impulse and illogical thinking, it got them victory. So thats not really a great argument. Logic is irrelevant when ur talking about something illogical in the first place--Revolution&#33; does that mean we wont do it? NO&#33;

OK ur turning this into a personal attak, i wasnt accusing YOU of wanting to censor me, just the type of society you want in the future--a non-democratic Communist state, which im not totally against, its better than cappitalism.

Orwell&#39;s fiction has to do wiht everything&#33; Its up to the people to decide&#33; The people are our future. If the people dont want YOUR ideas, they dont have to listen to them, if they dont liek mine they dont have to listen to them, they should however have the right to challange anyone they want.

I wasnt replying against u, i dont think, someone else snapped at someone. I dont know who, and i fully support ur moderater position, so dont go accusing me because my argument was "weak"

I really do hope that you dont take THIS the wrong way too

[JohnTheMarxist]

Here is my thought on the subject. If there were a successful revolution in America, socialists would run the schools so we would be able to teach acceptance and we would begin to destroy inequality thus lowerign the need for racism. Also, there would no longer be right wing fascist spin in the news media so that would also cut down on racism. There would not be much need for discrimination any longer and the only people preachign it would be left over elitists trying to stir the pot. I say let them chatter but dont let them hold government office or give them a prime time tv spot. But we don&#39;t need to go overboard gooing on purges and the like, that is just crazy and does not work.

[truthaddict11]

the thing is John, is that these groups have had these ideals and influenced people greatly by them long before the invention of mass media. so simply not allowing them to broadcast is not stoping them from spreading their hate.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 07:31 AM
Here is my thought on the subject. If there were a successful revolution in America, socialists would run the schools so we would be able to teach acceptance and we would begin to destroy inequality thus lowerign the need for racism. Also, there would no longer be right wing fascist spin in the news media so that would also cut down on racism. There would not be much need for discrimination any longer and the only people preachign it would be left over elitists trying to stir the pot. I say let them chatter but dont let them hold government office or give them a prime time tv spot. But we don&#39;t need to go overboard gooing on purges and the like, that is just crazy and does not work.
I agree with you John.

&#39;socialists would run the schools&#39;

This equals censorship. In addition we would have to make sure all our teachers are teachings socialist ideas. We would also have to re-write the textbooks to suit the working-class view of the world.

&#39;there would no longer be right wing fascist spin in the news media &#39;

This equals censorship of the media.

&#39;but dont let them hold government office

Common sense, but still it goes against traditional western liberal ideas.

[JohnTheMarxist]

I am fine with all of that Chairman Mao :D ...liberals are just a tool for the elite.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

To the pro-"free" speech liberals.
To allow ideas that threaten the rule of the proletariat is not acceptable. The only group that is deserving of freedom is the working class, all of you who seek to maintain freedom to oppress others will soon find that it will accomplish nothing of liberating the people. Freedom is freedom from oppression, it is not freedom to oppress. The bourgeoisie and all reactionary factions must be suppressed by putting an end to the publishing and printing of any reactionary literature and by illegalizing the assembly of any faction that seeks to restrict the rule of the proletariat, because they are the ones who are truly a threat to freedom.

If you suggest that we allow people to make public their racist, misigynistic, sexist, or nationalistic ideas of how people should live and how they should be governed, then you would also be giving the message that these ideas are tolerable. And any ideas that rival those of the people and their interests are not tolerable&#33;

I deas that counter the rule of the people do not desrve consideration, as they are undemocratic and would be accepted only by those benefiting from them, who would be benefiting individualy. Individual benefit at the expense of the people&#39;s mighty rule is, again, not acceptable.

I&#39;m sorry if I&#39;m being a tad repetitive, by the way, but at least you see my point.

[Xvall]

I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it

Yeah. I gotta say. I don&#39;t always agree with that quote, and I am one who is usually seen by other people as a &#39;liberal&#39;. But with certain cases (Fascists, for example), it is more to me like: &#39;I disagree with what you say, and I think you should be shot&#39;. Hmm.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 05:13 AM
well, i admit i go against logic, but logic hasnt really made that much of a difference, many times things will surprise you. different wars were fought on impulse and illogical thinking, it got them victory. So thats not really a great argument. Logic is irrelevant when ur talking about something illogical in the first place--Revolution&#33; does that mean we wont do it? NO&#33;

OK ur turning this into a personal attak, i wasnt accusing YOU of wanting to censor me, just the type of society you want in the future--a non-democratic Communist state, which im not totally against, its better than cappitalism.

Orwell&#39;s fiction has to do wiht everything&#33; Its up to the people to decide&#33; The people are our future. If the people dont want YOUR ideas, they dont have to listen to them, if they dont liek mine they dont have to listen to them, they should however have the right to challange anyone they want.

I wasnt replying against u, i dont think, someone else snapped at someone. I dont know who, and i fully support ur moderater position, so dont go accusing me because my argument was "weak"

I really do hope that you dont take THIS the wrong way too
I said your argument was weak because it is, that is a fact. Nothing personal mate.


Please explain how revolution is illogical.


Orwell&#39;s fiction has about as much to do with real politics as Pee Wee&#39;s Playhouse. Please excuse me if I write it off as such.

[Sabocat]

...but...but...Pee Wee&#39;s playhouse was an allegory for the U&#036; in the 20th century.....don&#39;t you get it? Cowboy Curtis was Reagan.

Jeez....it&#39;s so obvious. :lol:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 24 2003, 11:01 PM
The two opposing views so far that I have read seem to be,
1) Free speech is great except where it involves racism and right-wingers (and people who generally oppose the "System")
2) Free speech is great and everyone should have the right to say what they think. People are smart enough (or will be) not to listen the racists.

Now my view is that free speech is completely necessary. People don&#39;t have to listen or agree with what people say. Who was it that said "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it"? If we ban all those outrages things those on the far right say, we must also ban everything those on the far left say. And as I am on the far left, I say NO&#33;
Like I said, comarde, ideas that counter the rule by the people do not deserve consideration, because they are only beneficial to selfish, reactionary, counter revolutionary bastards whose ideas are destructive and have no place in socialist politics. I don&#39;t mean to be sectarian and intolerant of opposing views, but we cannot accept the presence of ideas that seek to remove power from the people. Opposing views are fine, as long as they respect that what is best for the working class is what must be done. "Personal liberties" that force the government to yield to individual gain at the expense of the rights of equality of the people will not be present in socialism. This includes freedom to fight the people&#39;s will in favor of racial, class (other than the proletariat), religous, or gender domination.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

thx, comrade RAF for turning my posts into a personal attack, i dont mind my posts being weak, but i think when u turn my weak arguments into a personal attack, thats pretty weak itself <_< , lets just drop it and continue a conversation instead of a flame war.

one other thing, how is free speech weak? I think purging it and supressing it because you feel "threatened", is weaker than just fighting back with your own free speech

who decides who is a threat to the proletariat? us? or the proletariat? i think we should leave the proletariat to decide who is a threat to them. If they feel Stalinist Authoritarianism(or stuff like it) is threatening and not some backwater conservatives, then thats the people&#39;s desicion, its not for us(rulers) to decide, its up for the people, otherwise were just as bad as the enemy.

When the school systems are controled by the ppl, and when the ppl arent brainwashed, the students will not become conservative, they will think, so they will not become Fascsits easily. Fascism will thin out over generations of education(un-corrupted), this also means most Authoritarian concepts will not be popular either, THEREFORE, Fascism, Capitalism, Stalinism, and others will become less popular, and no longer a threat

I do agree with u all on the point that NOW Fascism is a threat, but in the future, it prolly wont

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 05:49 PM
who decides who is a threat to the proletariat? us? or the proletariat? i think we should leave the proletariat to decide who is a threat to them. If they feel Stalinist Authoritarianism(or stuff like it) is threatening and not some backwater conservatives, then thats the people&#39;s desicion, its not for us(rulers) to decide, its up for the people, otherwise were just as bad as the enemy.
Comrade, what we are trying to establish is a society in which democracy reigns, obviously. Allowing groups to preach against democracy, which is rule by the people, is pointless. What do they hope to achieve? It&#39;s the equivalent of trying to abolish the U&#036; constitution within the U&#036; "democratic" system.

A socialist society should not respect the presence of factions that seek to destroy its basic foundation, which is that power belongs in the hands of the working class. What is a threat to the proletariat is anything that chalenges its rule, and therefore anything that seeks to abolish socialism.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

I fully understand your point, and i agree with it to an extent, but if ppl who preach against democracy are censored or supressed, then were defeating our own democracy, a dictatorship would not allow anti-authoritarian principles, and a democracy should allow anti-democratic principles beacause it is a democracy. Lets look at the U.S.(supposadley a democracy, would allow communists, whereas Nazi Germany didn&#39;t. Although this is a shitty example, we as a democracy should allow all to speek freely, even if they are openly against our government

[Vinny Rafarino]

Okay friend, this is getting tiresome.



thx, comrade RAF for turning my posts into a personal attack, i dont mind my posts being weak, but i think when u turn my weak arguments into a personal attack, thats pretty weak itself , lets just drop it and continue a conversation instead of a flame war.



If you think I have made any personal attacks at you then you are simply paranoid. Here is a listing of all of my comments to you that you have called "personal attacks";


Did I ever mention that I would "censor" you? Ever? Even once? Ever? (in the whole 24 HOURS I have been a mod)

This is a bad attempt to bring unecessary favour to your cause by "hinting" that I would abuse my moderation powers. Funny, It&#39;s only been one day and someone has already used the "will you censor me" excuse against me when their argument became weak.


Notice here I point out that is argument is weak. Would anyone classify that as a "personal attack"? No it simply means that your argument IS WEAK.



I said your argument was weak because it is, that is a fact. Nothing personal mate.


Please explain how revolution is illogical.


Orwell&#39;s fiction has about as much to do with real politics as Pee Wee&#39;s Playhouse. Please excuse me if I write it off as such.



Notice here I even tell him that there is nothing personal, It&#39;s simply a matter of a weak (and very thin) argument he posed against free speech. Period. Grow a thicker skin mate.



So since you accuse me of "a flame war", I would like to know EXACTLY where the flames are. The fact is that you are attempting to divert (again) some sort of public agreement to your statements by making unfounded accusations against me. It&#39;s called MUD SLINGING. There is no possible way anyone is going to buy the fact that I have started a "flame war" with you based on the posts I have made to you in this thread. Get over it, you&#39;re wrong.


Now back to busines (I assume you will drop this "personal attack" nonsense once and for all now.





one other thing, how is free speech weak? I think purging it and supressing it because you feel "threatened", is weaker than just fighting back with your own free speech


What makes you think I alone "feel threatened" by free speech? It is EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US that should feel threatened. Why? Because the bourgeois has been using this as a tool to advance their filth for generations while SUPPRESSING US.




who decides who is a threat to the proletariat? us? or the proletariat? i think we should leave the proletariat to decide who is a threat to them. If they feel Stalinist Authoritarianism(or stuff like it) is threatening and not some backwater conservatives, then thats the people&#39;s desicion, its not for us(rulers) to decide, its up for the people, otherwise were just as bad as the enemy.



That is decided by Marx&#39;s vision and the Communist party. Period. (by the way, there is no such thing as "stalinism")




When the school systems are controled by the ppl, and when the ppl arent brainwashed, the students will not become conservative, they will think, so they will not become Fascsits easily. Fascism will thin out over generations of education(un-corrupted), this also means most Authoritarian concepts will not be popular either, THEREFORE, Fascism, Capitalism, Stalinism, and others will become less popular, and no longer a threat



This is your answer to Fascism? Thin my friend. Very, very thin.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I fully understand your point, and i agree with it to an extent, but if ppl who preach against democracy are censored or supressed, then were defeating our own democracy, a dictatorship would not allow anti-authoritarian principles, and a democracy should allow anti-democratic principles beacause it is a democracy. Lets look at the U.S.(supposadley a democracy, would allow communists, whereas Nazi Germany didn&#39;t. Although this is a shitty example, we as a democracy should allow all to speek freely, even if they are openly against our government


I think that we should have no tolerance towards reactionaries and their oppressive ideology. As a democracy, we cannot allow those with undemocratic ideas to spread their nonsense. What kind of democracy is this that allows individuals to chalenge the majority&#39;s rule? A capitalist one? Like I said, comrade, what is the use of tolerating ideas that do not benefit the people as a whole? It is a democracy, isn&#39;t it&#33;? So why should ideas that uphold individual prosperity at the expense of the majority be accepted? The people preaching these ideas are obviously not interested in the welfare of the people as a whole, and threfore do not belong in socialist politics&#33; The point here, lad, is to wield power in the name of the people as a whole.

[redstar2000]

who decides who is a threat to the proletariat?


That is decided by Marx&#39;s vision and the Communist party. Period.

Which illustrates the sterility of discussions framed in this way.

What a choice&#33; "Free speech" for Nazis or nothing can be said without the expressed or implied approval of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party--and "Marx&#39;s vision" doesn&#39;t have a vote there, by the way.

Does it take a "rocket scientist" to conclude that both "choices" are flatly unacceptable?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

I don&#39;t understand why logic is used as an arguement. many things that are logical are not true. And many things that are true are illogical.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

ok RAF whatever, im not accusing YOU as a FUCKING INDIVIDUAL DAMNIT, im talking about your ideal society, or what i think ur ideal society is, im using YOU as a plural, this damed language doesnt have that,(WHEN I WAS REFERRING TO"FEEL THREATENED"

god damn. just drop it and talk like a fucken normal person, shit, im getting kinda pissed off, ill drop all that other shit, if you drop yours.

FUCK&#33;

Now that that is overwith, lets talk like civilized ppl liek everyone else is.

[BuyOurEverything]

I don&#39;t understand why logic is used as an arguement. many things that are logical are not true. And many things that are true are illogical.

Ya so how about you give me all your money and I&#39;ll make sure you go to heaven. I know it&#39;s not logical but it&#39;s true.
That statement is completely false. Give me one example of a logical statement that is not true and I will prove that it is not logic that is flawed but your version of logic.

Anyways, oppressing people with dissenting views is counter productive as is just increases the opposition and as someone said, who decides what is oppressed and what is not? As a government, we need to indocrinate the people to the truth in the school system and explain the logical flaws with capitalism and facism. We need to make the people believe that facists, racists and capitalists are just a bunch of crazies and discredit them, that way they can talk all they want but no one will believe them. As to the argument that right wing people could print a newspaper full of facist lies, where precisely, in a communist society, would they get the money or means of mass producing a newspaper? The news would come from a government funded (but not controlled) news orginization (such as the CBC). As to the argument that right wing ideas were spread before they had mass communication, during that time, nobody had mass communication. In this case, we would and they wouldn&#39;t. We just need to change what is accepted by society and what is not. Exactly the same thing happens today, people see a cult blow up a building, they think the cult people are crazies. They see the US military blow up a building, they think they&#39;re heroes (this may be a bad example as there is dissent to that but I&#39;m sure you know what I&#39;m driving at.) Direct oppression of people with misguided views is not only detrimental but unneccesarly. Simply discredit them and nobody will belive them.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Sep 24 2003, 11:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (truthaddict11 @ Sep 24 2003, 11:48 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 02:47 PM

[email protected] 24 2003, 01:38 AM

So you sre aloud freedom of speech in this system of government, but you would deny it to the capitalist in a socialist system of government, and I thought we were supposed to be better than they are...
history proves otherwise on how we dont have "free speech" in america.
well the fact you havent been arested and beaten kind of makes a good case against that. Also the fact that vast amounts of anti establishment art, literiture music is widly available, also makes a good case. But I do admit Redstar has a point.
all because I personally havent been arrested doesnt mean that the US isnt guilty of taking away speech. Look at world war 1 many dissenters and labor activists such as Eugene Debs were arrested. And Chicago during the Haymarket Riot. Tell me how the US is not guilty of subversion of speech. [/b]
That is true, but you cannot deny that the USA does afford you the right to freedom of speach to a large extent. But I conseed you are correct that tthe USA does have a poor record. But if compaired to Hitler or say Mugabi...

[apathy maybe]

"Give me one example of a logical statement that is not true and I will prove that it is not logic that is flawed but your version of logic."

Umm lets see, is the Universe infinite? I would think so logicly. But most pysics people seem to think not. Or what about the lier paridox?

[The Feral Underclass]

free sppech to all except nazis, spit..... fascists, spit.....and stalinists, spit...... :ph34r:

[BuyOurEverything]

[QUOTE]Umm lets see, is the Universe infinite? I would think so logicly.[QUOTE]

Well of course, who can argue with that logic? That&#39;s not even logic that&#39;s just some random statement and your opinion. Obviously you don&#39;t know what logic is, which would explain a lot.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What a choice&#33; "Free speech" for Nazis or nothing can be said without the expressed or implied approval of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party--and "Marx&#39;s vision" doesn&#39;t have a vote there, by the way.

Does it take a "rocket scientist" to conclude that both "choices" are flatly unacceptable


Then you have made the choice to be one of the background hack. One of the fence straddlers that cannot make a decision one way or the other. I thought it would be bang easy for you Hack....Nazi&#39;s ot Marxism...Hmmmmm....Which one do I choose? Golly it&#39;s such a tough choice Monty....Can I just keep the cash? Okay...okay.....Uhhhhhhhh....Curtain number three Monty&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Damn, fascism. Now we&#39;re fucked proper.

I understand your fear my man, you are getting on in years you know.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 05:22 PM
[QUOTE]Umm lets see, is the Universe infinite? I would think so logicly.[QUOTE]

Well of course, who can argue with that logic? That&#39;s not even logic that&#39;s just some random statement and your opinion. Obviously you don&#39;t know what logic is, which would explain a lot.
I do know what logic is, and I also stand by my claim that not all logical things are true and not all true things are logical.
Even if I can&#39;t just think of any examples at the moment.

[redstar2000]

Then you have made the choice to be one of the background hack. One of the fence straddlers that cannot make a decision one way or the other.

I did make a decison; I said your "choices" were flatly unacceptable.

Exactly what part of "flatly unacceptable" don&#39;t you understand, squire?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[CompadreGuerrillera]

then what is acceptable redstar?, plz explain your viewpoint

[redstar2000]

The problem lies, as I indicated earlier, in trying to apply an abstraction to the realities of material human existence.

To a capitalist, anyone who advocates socialism, communism, or anarchism "has no right" to "free speech"...such views are "unacceptable".

To a Leninist socialist, anyone who criticizes their monopoly (actual or desired) of political/economic power "has no right" to "free speech"...such views are "unacceptable".

To a consistent communist, anyone who advocates taking power out of the hands of the working class and giving it to a "vanguard elite" "has no right" to "free speech"...such views are unacceptable.

That doesn&#39;t mean that capitalists, Leninists, or communists might not grant some limited form of "freedom of speech" temporarily to their respective opponents...especially if they do not feel "threatened" at the moment.

What it does mean is that it is not a matter of abstract principle that is decisive here, or even all that influential...what decides are the real class interests of the contending groups.

When the sheep-herder declares that the "communist" party (he means Leninist) will decide what is acceptable, he&#39;s expressing the class interests of his own proposed new ruling elite. When I tell him to shove it, I&#39;m expressing the class interests of the working class at large...who have neither desire nor need for a group of new "red" bosses.

When both of us agree that the Nazis should be smashed wherever they are found, we express the various class interests of the groups we represent: both of us know that the Nazis would kill both of us if they had the chance...and therefore we do not intend to give them the chance to spread ideas that are a deadly threat to both of us.

"Freedom of speech" is a meaningless abstraction. Freedom to say what, to who, under what real circumstances...those are the serious questions.

Very serious&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

QUOTE (BuyOurEverything @ Sep 28 2003, 05:22 PM)
[QUOTE]Umm lets see, is the Universe infinite? I would think so logicly.[QUOTE]

Well of course, who can argue with that logic? That&#39;s not even logic that&#39;s just some random statement and your opinion. Obviously you don&#39;t know what logic is, which would explain a lot.

I do know what logic is, and I also stand by my claim that not all logical things are true and not all true things are logical.
Even if I can&#39;t just think of any examples at the moment.

Well your claim is false.

As for those people who oppose free speach for right wingers, how would you decide what speach was punishable? Would you start with a set of rigid rules or would you have a comitee decide? How would you make sure this was evenly enfoced as speach can be interpereted differently by different people.