Political Dissent After the Revolution

[The Teacher]

Suppose that all is said and done and capitalism has been smashed, society reorganized along the lines of your favorite -ism. However, there is a small but vocal group of people arguing to return things to the way they were before. They are not advocating violence or having a counter-revolution but they are expressing their opinion and taking their case to the people.

What do you think should be the proper response?

[Broletariat]

Laughter

[Old Mole]

Why would anyone care? If people likes to pretend that they want feudalism back, does anyone care? Isnt it an absurdity?

[maskerade]

they would've all died during the revolution, silly.

[Ocean Seal]

What do you think should be the proper response?
Step 1: Call them a Fringe Movement
Step 2: Say that what they say goes against the family
Step 3: Call them unpatriotic
Step 4: Sit back and watch as their activity has no effect on us.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I really doubt anyone would go from working a few days a week, for 2-4 hours, to wanting to go back to 5-6 days a week for 8-12 hours. This is completely ignoring all other facts such as improved lifestyle, less stress, etc.

[freya4]

I think they would be treated like people who advocate feudalism in today's capitalist society. Their ideas would be looked at as laughable, ridiculous and impossible, to the point where they would never be taken seriously enough to be given a platform. I am assuming this to be, of course, a time period a while after the revolution, in which socialism has been firmly established. A chaotic and fragile society soon following or during the revolution is a different story...

[The Teacher]

Is this to say that the counter revolutionaries would not be crushed? What if their ideas got popular? To say that society will be such a utopia that no one would consider something else is kind of wishful thinking. The fact is there are a lot of people who have it better now then they would in a society of economic equals.

And what if this occurs just after the revolution? Does the response change?

[El Louton]

We educate the children.

[Broletariat]

Is this to say that the counter revolutionaries would not be crushed? What if their ideas got popular? To say that society will be such a utopia that no one would consider something else is kind of wishful thinking. The fact is there are a lot of people who have it better now then they would in a society of economic equals.

And what if this occurs just after the revolution? Does the response change?

They would be crushed, under a torrent of ridicule.

[Blake's Baby]

... The fact is there are a lot of people who have it better now then they would in a society of economic equals...

The fact is you're talking shit (not unfortunately for the first time).

Even the most elementary calculations would show that the majority of the world's population would be better off than it currently is if we just divided up capitalism as we have it equally ($56 trillion divided by 6 billion = $9,000 each, substantially increasing the income of the majority of the world's population).

Then factor in the unnecessary labour that is currently given over to military spending; banking and finance; policing, border controls, and numerous other forms of government bureaucracy; advertising; and you have another vast increase in productive capacity that will be able to directly benefit people. Who knows what the accummulated effect is? Even if it's only double (in other words by working efficiently without the 'drag' of capitalism we double our productive capacity - personally I think it will be much more than that) it would give a family of four a combined income of $72,000 of 'effective dollars' (at what I consider a very low exchange rate of 'effective dollars' as I say).

The economic calculation doesn't really do it though because money would have no meaning. This is just a hypothetical 'if we could have the situation as exists now, equalised, then remove war, banking and bureaucracy' which isn't really what the revolution is.

So what you're hypothesising is that a bunch of people who are better off and freer under socialism decide that they want to go back to being exploited again, because a few people who well-off under capitalism agitate for it, but in a situation where there are no vested interests controlling the press to put that agenda.

Just doesn't seem very likely.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Suppose that all is said and done and capitalism has been smashed, society reorganized along the lines of your favorite -ism. However, there is a small but vocal group of people arguing to return things to the way they were before. They are not advocating violence or having a counter-revolution but they are expressing their opinion and taking their case to the people.

What do you think should be the proper response?

It would be like the difference between someone calling for the restoration of a European monarchy - if it's right after the revolution as reactionaries are actively organizing for a restoration, someone discussing how things were better under the king would have been taken very seriously, now people who wish for a monarchy in the US or a return to one in France or wherever are just marginalized crazies.

If there was a revolution and democratic control over society and work then if someone said, "things were better before" just in passing I'm sure the response would just be other people arguing back and saying, "what are you crazy?". But if someone right after a revolution was in a workplace and trying to win people over to counter-revolution at a time when there was active counter-revolution going on, it would have to be taken more seriously.

[The Teacher]

So what you're hypothesising is that a bunch of people who are better off and freer under socialism decide that they want to go back to being exploited again, because a few people who well-off under capitalism agitate for it, but in a situation where there are no vested interests controlling the press to put that agenda.

Just doesn't seem very likely.

I never said that. Here in America there are plenty of people who enjoy the fact that they have more than everyone else. Those people won't be happy when everyone else has the same amount of economic power.

[Blake's Baby]

... what you're hypothesising is that a bunch of people who are better off and freer under socialism decide that they want to go back to being exploited again, because a few people who well-off under capitalism agitate for it, but in a situation where there are no vested interests controlling the press to put that agenda...


I never said that. Here in America there are plenty of people who enjoy the fact that they have more than everyone else. Those people won't be happy when everyone else has the same amount of economic power.

Yeah you did:


... The fact is there are a lot of people who have it better now then they would in a society of economic equals...

When I demonstrated that 'a lot' actually means 'comparatively few'.

So either you're talking about workers who want to return to being exploited, as I said, or you're talking about a small number of bourgeoises who want to go back to the period when they had the power and wealth. However (as I also stated above) these people wouldn't have the same means to get their point accross as they used to.

There would be no more Fox News, no more London Times, no more Daily Express or whatever vile reactionary newspapers you have in the USA. The previous owners could not be a 'vocal minority' advocating a return to capitalist exploitation and wage slavery because they would have no hold on the media to be able to agitate for a return to exploitation and wage slavery. They would at best, I suspect, be a very quiet minority because they'd find that most people would be unwilling to give them a platform for their counter-revolutionary views.

[The Teacher]

First of all. There are people who are extremely poor and also extremely anti-commnist. Those people are not going to be happy with the revolution regardless of the way it increases their lives.

Second, there are almost nine million millionaire (or richer) families in the USA. Counting the entire household, thats tens on millions of people.

[The Teacher]

And why wouldn't they be able to get their views out there? Do you suggest banning media that doesn't comply with the new policy?

Are you suggesting that a post-revolutionary world will be so perfect that there will be no discontent? That there will be no crisis or power struggles that make people second guess it

[Forward Union]

I dunno, what do we do now about the vocal minority peacefully campaigning for a return to feudalism...

[Blake's Baby]

And why wouldn't they be able to get their views out there? Do you suggest banning media that doesn't comply with the new policy? ...

Where do these media come from?

How do the previous owners of media companies employ the hundreds of thousands of people to write, print and distribute their newspapers, make their television programmes, run their studios and all the rest, without the corporations to do it?

There will be no media empires. Rupert Murdoch will have no more say in what happens in the media than Eileen Scoggs (formerly living in Shitheap Cresent, Crapsville). Rather less than Eileen Scoggs, who as a worker gets to turn up and complain about stuff at her workers' council.

The thing is you're worrying about a few million when I reckon there's like 5 billion Eileen Scoggses.

0.1% of the population might be considered to be 'worse off' under socialism. If you don't count the fact that societal improvements generally will benefit them too. But in gross terms, yes perhaps 0.1% of the world's population might be worse off. Big f***ing deal.


Are you suggesting that a post-revolutionary world will be so perfect that there will be no discontent? That there will be no crisis or power struggles that make people second guess it

I'm assuming that it'll be so perfect there will be little discontent, and the discontent that exists will be put into practical proposals to improve things for everyone, rather than a few bourgeois acting like toddlers at bedtime, yes.

[The Teacher]

So the tens of millions of formerly wealthy people (in certain countries) will just go happily along with this? And the people who are intractibly anti-communist and refuse to participate in this new society? What happens to them?

[Blake's Baby]

I posted this in an edit above while you were typing:

The thing is you're worrying about a few million when I reckon there's like 5 billion Eileen Scoggses.

0.1% of the population might be considered to be 'worse off' under socialism. If you don't count the fact that societal improvements generally will benefit them too. But in gross terms, yes perhaps 0.1% of the world's population might be worse off. Big f***ing deal.

End of edit.

As to the next questions you're asking - why do you do that by the way? You ask a question, start getting some answers, then ask two more questions, then ask two more... do you never think that maybe you should try and assimilate what people are telling you before asking yet more questions? - anyway, on the subject of poor non-communists...

They learn, primarily through interacting with their fellow workers in the workers' councils, that what they've been taught about communism is in fact mostly lies, and that it's really quite sensible.

[Thirsty Crow]

So the tens of millions of formerly wealthy people (in certain countries) will just go happily along with this? And the people who are intractibly anti-communist and refuse to participate in this new society? What happens to them?
You know what, I'm not much of a moralist, but it's goddamn shameful to ask what will become with poor anti-communist capitalists, given a hypothetical revolution, when nowadays the important question is what will become with the billions of dispossesed proletarians. It really betrays the perspective from which you create your political outlook.

To answer your questions: I don't care if they will go along happily with this. If they refuse to "participate in" this new society may then starve to death (since they'd be beyond performing labour, as it seems) as would any proletarian who'd refuse to participate in this farce that we call "capitalist society".
Seriously, what kind of a question is this?? How do we accomodate for the interests of the people who would command other people's labour, who would exercise power over the broad layers of those excluded from participating in the decision making process the results of which are of vital importance for their own lives?

We just fucking don't, that's how.

And whoever would express the anguish of such people in terms of "an individuals' right to X"/"right to individuality or dissent" has no idea whatsoever about "individuality" and its formation since he/she would therefore posit an exclusive power basis for the formation of a individuality, i.e. it would turn out that individuality and personality is only possible where one person dominates others.

I could go on a long rant but I'll stop here.

[jake williams]

I dunno, what do we do now about the vocal minority peacefully campaigning for a return to feudalism...
To be totally honest I'm not sure what we should do with the vocal minority semi-peacefully campaigning for a return to feudalism - the "ecofeminists", the hardcore "localist" types and so on.

[Broletariat]

The Teacher really just sounds like s/he's trying to get someone to say "we will disembowel then and place the severed heads of their children inside their stomach and film their reactions just for fun."

Just sounds like a provocateur at this point.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that they should all be put to death. They are all clearly diseased, and with a disease which is disgusting in its consequences upon a human being, so much so that we must be consumed by pity in watching them, and realize that this continual perversion is quite simply not right. Allowing these reactionaries to continue to suffer it would undermine all claims to dignity and morality on our part, as after all one must love one's enemy, and would taint the species. However, they are diseased in a manner which shall make them incapable of giving proper consent to their euthanization, and as such this responsibility must pass on to their guardian, namely the Party.

You may ask what 'right' have we to take human life this way. Well, we'd be in control, we'd make the rules, we would not need your O.K. This much must be accepted if we are to make any further progress in the debate. Genocide is the Party's way of life, it's a fact I will not hide; however, the millions we will kill only to sterilize, and euthanasia's not homicide. The Party will not tolerate imperfection, and we will impede the spread of the infection.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Suppose that all is said and done and capitalism has been smashed, society reorganized along the lines of your favorite -ism. However, there is a small but vocal group of people arguing to return things to the way they were before. They are not advocating violence or having a counter-revolution but they are expressing their opinion and taking their case to the people.

This begs the question, logically, if capital has been 'smashed' successfully, meaning, there are no longer any bourgeois-democratic nations but a federation of Socialist states or something, why would they want to? Or are we talking about society past the Socialist stage and we are straight up under Communism, I again ask, logically, what reason would they have to do so?


What do you think should be the proper response?

Hypothetically, I think it would be best to address their points and concerns, both ideologically (debate with them and prove their arguments are wrong and their grievances misplaced) and materially (make sure the material needs, grievances or concerns are met) but stress the ideological imperative to continue on the 'road to Communism'. In this way the needs of the people are met and any remanent bourgeois delusions are crushed. The idea of rehabilitation/reducation camps and so forth come to mind and seem like a good idea, in my opinion, if done correctly. Assuming we're talking about innocent worker's grievances and not reactionaries or counter-revolutionaries trying to spread dissent, subtly provoke a counter-revolution, etc.


Is this to say that the counter revolutionaries would not be crushed? What if their ideas got popular? To say that society will be such a utopia that no one would consider something else is kind of wishful thinking. The fact is there are a lot of people who have it better now then they would in a society of economic equals.

I really don't see it as being wishful thinking, I think it has to do with logic and what would be their material motive for doing so. Pointing out the benefits of Socialism doesn't equate to wishful thinking. To assume otherwise in my opinion, seems to suggest that some among us may be Masochistic or have class Stockholm syndrome.


And what if this occurs just after the revolution? Does the response change?

Well duh, of course it does.

[Princess Luna]

Let them speak their mind and then disprove them though debate and action, but for the love of god don't arrest them and suppress there message, doing so will make them seem like victims and increase their support.

[Dumb]

I never said that. Here in America there are plenty of people who enjoy the fact that they have more than everyone else. Those people won't be happy when everyone else has the same amount of economic power.

And that group, despite high media visibility, is a small sliver of U.S. society, let alone of the world.

[Dumb]

First of all. There are people who are extremely poor and also extremely anti-commnist. Those people are not going to be happy with the revolution regardless of the way it increases their lives.

Second, there are almost nine million millionaire (or richer) families in the USA. Counting the entire household, thats tens on millions of people.

Your numbers are a bit off. According to the 2010 World Wealth Report, there are ten million millionaire families on this entire planet (~2.8 million of which are in the U.S.).

If we assume 3.0 people per household (which is rather generous), that gives us 30 million people belonging to the millionaire caste. This caste controls roughly $39 trillion in assets.

The rich, the millionaires, are not nearly as pervasive as a proportion of the population as one would think. Indeed, the wealth of the world is concentrated in even fewer hands than you seem to realize; we're talking about 0.3-0.4% of the worldwide population.

[Old Mole]

Let them speak their mind and then disprove them though debate and action, but for the love of god don't arrest them and suppress there message, doing so will make them seem like victims and increase their support.
No it wont, that is a highly un-materialistic thing to say (though, I agree, that arresting them is totally unnecessary). I do not know who will debate, arrest etc. who, but I'm sure that the pro-caps (if any) will be sufficiently suppressed by the freed people of the world. If we are talking about fighting capitalism when its still partially existant and the proletariat has the upper hand I can only quote something said in Sorbonne'68:
" HUMANITY WON’T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST CAPITALIST IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST BUREAUCRAT "

[Forward Union]

So the tens of millions of formerly wealthy people (in certain countries) will just go happily along with this? And the people who are intractibly anti-communist and refuse to participate in this new society? What happens to them?

If the extreme minority who currently manage the means of production would seek to crush democracy and rebuild their industrial tyranny's. I would try to kill them. In the same way the Bourgeoisie dealt with the old Feudal lords, Kings and Barons who wanted to put an end to rise of free commerce and return to their old Manorial system of production and exchange. But the last time I looked out of my window, I didn't see Feudalism posing much of a threat. Imagine if a self-proclaimed king peacefully requested that people end the market economy, and simply pay him a large percentage of their income, in return for him 'protecting' their estate, on the basis of assumed divine rule, do you think people would even consider the proposal?. Equally, if people were asked to surrender their decision making power, high standards of living, and vast amounts of recreational time, for a return to industrial Tyranny, longer hours, less pay, and precariousness, I can see how such a political platform would have any base of support.

If the Bourgeoisie try to subjugate people by force then as I said before, I don't see any question about what the response should be.

What if people don't participate in the new society? I dunno, what happens when people don't participate in this or any other society? They probably get pretty lonely and hungry?

[The Teacher]

Let them speak their mind and then disprove them though debate and action, but for the love of god don't arrest them and suppress there message, doing so will make them seem like victims and increase their support.

And the winner is....

Someone on this site is using their brain. Yes, let them say whatever they want! Then use common sense to put up a counter argument. Anything else plays into their hands.

BTW, I was just curious about how people felt about this. Freedom of speech and all that. Zero-something was at least honest enough to admit that he's a sociopath.

[The Teacher]

Your numbers are a bit off. According to the 2010 World Wealth Report, there are ten million millionaire families on this entire planet (~2.8 million of which are in the U.S.).

If we assume 3.0 people per household (which is rather generous), that gives us 30 million people belonging to the millionaire caste. This caste controls roughly $39 trillion in assets.

The rich, the millionaires, are not nearly as pervasive as a proportion of the population as one would think. Indeed, the wealth of the world is concentrated in even fewer hands than you seem to realize; we're talking about 0.3-0.4% of the worldwide population.

I believe that my numbers are correct. They come from a study done in the US in '09 and '10. It may be a difference in how assets are measured. I'll try to find those reports and post a link.

[ZeroNowhere]

And the winner is....

Someone on this site is using their brain. Yes, let them say whatever they want! Then use common sense to put up a counter argument. Anything else plays into their hands.
Congratulations, you got the answer that you wanted in the first place. What's the next question, miss?

I love pop quizzes.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Someone on this site is using their brain. Yes, let them say whatever they want! Then use common sense to put up a counter argument. Anything else plays into their hands.

I don't think the correct response should be just let reactionaries/counter-revolutionaries do/say whatever they want.


Zero-something was at least honest enough to admit that he's a sociopath.

"You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves."-Joseph Stalin.

As for 'freedom of speech' why? Freedom for whom? To say/do what?

[Old Mole]

So the tens of millions of formerly wealthy people (in certain countries) will just go happily along with this? And the people who are intractibly anti-communist and refuse to participate in this new society? What happens to them?
I really wonder about what you grasp socialism to be, you are talking about "political dissent" as if socialism requires everyone to become members of one political party (the swedish social democrats tried to force all the workers into this, are you a soc-dem or not?). And you also seem to believe in the liberal myth of socialism as "equal misery for all". If you are a socialist then surely it should be self-evident that we have enough resources for good lifes for everyone.

[Princess Luna]

I don't think the correct response should be just let reactionaries/counter-revolutionaries do/say whatever they want.



"You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves."-Joseph Stalin.

As for 'freedom of speech' why? Freedom for whom? To say/do what?

Why- Because you can change people's views with debate and logic, but not with a gun. If someone put a pistol to your head and told you to become a Fascist, would you do it? you may pretend to be one to save your life, but most likely you would grow to despise fascism even more.

whom- everybody, but mostly i am concerned with working class people whose only crime is being misguided

to say what- Because in a true socialist society the television, radio, printing etc.. would all be controlled by the workers, we don't have to let them have a soap box to stand on, if someone wants to order a shit load of Milton books from another country and give them out free on the street let him/her, but that doesn't mean our printers have to produce his works, nor our bookstores stock them.

[Forward Union]

And the winner is....

Someone on this site is using their brain. Yes, let them say whatever they want! Then use common sense to put up a counter argument. Anything else plays into their hands.

BTW, I was just curious about how people felt about this. Freedom of speech and all that. Zero-something was at least honest enough to admit that he's a sociopath.

Did you read my reply? Freedom of speech is fine. Public opinion is far, far to the left of mainstream political discourse if you actually look at the polls. For example, the vast majority of people in the UK opposed the war in Iraq entirely, without qualification. Yet mainstream political debate was focused on side issues, such as whether Soldiers had enough armour, healthcare etc, whether the strategy being deployed was 'the right one', if we should stay for as long as it takes, or have a programme of withdrawal etc. Questioning the actual basis of the war, or considering the intervention to be an act of imperialism were political questions that weren't allowed to be raised, and yet it seemed those were the kinds of questions public opinion was asking. So I think 'Freedom of speech' in a genuine, communist sense, would be quite radically different to the Bourgeois liberal version.

As for the debate about using violence or logical argument to 'convince people' of an ideological point. You are all completely wrong, and all in opposition to basic Marxist 'historical materialism'. Public opinion is neither changed by violence, nor by logical argument. But by changes in production relations and technology. People believe in things that are convenient for themselves to believe in, that justify their actions or position. Feudalism fell, not because of argument, but because industry was just too efficient for the Feudal structure. The traders and merchants had more actual power than the so called kings had on paper, and eventually 'politics' shifted to reflect that fact. Thus new belief systems that justified this new economic system became dominant.

Equally, if the workers took control of the means of production, I would expect a similar natural shift in political discourse. A free press would be so far left of what is considered the normal political parameters. If mad industrialists turned up, asking people to be their wage slaves again, they would have quite alot of their work ahead of them. That's why they wouldn't argue. In all likelihood they would try to subjugate people by force, as they currently do, and why there is a well understood need for the use of violence in defence of these changes. Indeed, the same parallels can be seen with the change from Feudalism to Capitalism. See: English Civil war, French Revolution, American War of Independence etc.

[robbo203]

Suppose that all is said and done and capitalism has been smashed, society reorganized along the lines of your favorite -ism. However, there is a small but vocal group of people arguing to return things to the way they were before. They are not advocating violence or having a counter-revolution but they are expressing their opinion and taking their case to the people.

What do you think should be the proper response?


They can of course continue expressing their opinion if they so wish. There would be no state to surpress them but, by the same token, there would be no leverage , no economic power, they could exercise to induce, cajole or compel others to follow them down the road back to the system of economic slavery we call capitalism.

People will give freely according to their abilities and take freely according to their needs and no system that puts a price on goods and services can ever outcompete such a free society.

I suspect that, soon enough, the vocal minority you speak of will tire of the fruiltless task to which they have commited themselves - as fruitless and pointless as Canute ordering the waves to retreat. Soon enough they will realise that, while they may have lost the privileged parasitic status they had under capitalism, they have gained a whole world and a fresh way of looking at the world that far surpasses the trashy ideology that money can buy you happiness.

And that is the point of life (if there is one) , isnt it - happiness? Can anyone be truly be happy in capitalist world that pits one against another and wastes our precious short time on this earth in the relentless pursuit of a vacuous consumerism? I think not. If nothing else, a communist world will give our erstwhile millionaires a sense of security and inner peace they can today only dream of

[Hit The North]

And the winner is....



The idea that we can say before-hand how dissent in a post-revolutionary situation can be handled is ridiculous and idealistic. Much will depend on how the dissent manifests itself; how the revolution stands internationally; and a myriad of real, concrete conditions that we cannot anticipate. In other words, it is a political question, not a philosophical one.

One thing is sure, classes do not make revolutions just so they can back-slide into what was originally opposed.

[robbo203]

The idea that we can say before-hand how dissent in a post-revolutionary situation can be handled is ridiculous and idealistic. Much will depend on how the dissent manifests itself; how the revolution stands internationally; and a myriad of real, concrete conditions that we cannot anticipate. In other words, it is a political question, not a philosophical one.

One thing is sure, classes do make revolutions just so they can back-slide into what was originally opposed.

Except that The Teacher was suggesting dissent would be nonviolent. If that is indeed the case I dont think it is unreasonable to suppose that such diseent would be treated in the manner most people here seem to imagine would happen - basically to tolerate and ignore it. It will eventually die out of its own accord. In the absence of a state what else might one expect?

If dissent took a violent form then obviously a different response would be required....

[Hit The North]

Except that The Teacher was suggesting dissent would be nonviolent. If that is indeed the case I dont think it is unreasonable to suppose that such diseent would be treated in the manner most people here seem to imagine would happen - basically to tolerate and ignore it. It will eventually die out of its own accord. In the absence of a state what else might one expect?

If dissent took a violent form then obviously a different response would be required....

You're quite right. The Teacher has asked a narrow hypothetical question in order to get a narrow, hypothetical answer.

Should have kept my mouth shut.

[Thirsty Crow]

BTW, I was just curious about how people felt about this. Freedom of speech and all that. Zero-something was at least honest enough to admit that he's a sociopath.


I
"You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves."-Joseph Stalin.


The two of you are very funny indeed :laugh:

Seriously, go back and read that post (whose literary and stylistic quality is quite good as there is a potential mock poem to be found there - "Genocide is the Party's way of life/it's a fact I will not hide/ however, the millions we will kill only to sterilize/and euthanasia's not homicide" :laugh:) carefully and think about it being a serious answer.

[The Teacher]

I don't think the correct response should be just let reactionaries/counter-revolutionaries do/say whatever they want.



"You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves."-Joseph Stalin.

As for 'freedom of speech' why? Freedom for whom? To say/do what?

Freedom for everyone to say anything they want. Is that so radical?

[Blake's Baby]

You have utterly ignored (as per usual) the questions I put to you earlier. How are these disgruntled ex-capitalists going to get their message accross? What free communal printing works is going to publish their reactionary drivel? How will they persuade anyone to take them seriously enough to disseminate this anti-haman crap?

If you think the press is free now, try persuading Fox or the National Enquirer to give you space for your views. They won't. After the revolution, you can at least talk to the workers' council at the printworks but I doubt they'll be amenable. Why should they publish stuff that goes against their interests and the interests of everyone else?

[bcbm]

You have utterly ignored (as per usual) the questions I put to you earlier. How are these disgruntled ex-capitalists going to get their message accross? What free communal printing works is going to publish their reactionary drivel? How will they persuade anyone to take them seriously enough to disseminate this anti-haman crap?

If you think the press is free now, try persuading Fox or the National Enquirer to give you space for your views. They won't. After the revolution, you can at least talk to the workers' council at the printworks but I doubt they'll be amenable. Why should they publish stuff that goes against their interests and the interests of everyone else?

have you heard of "blogs?"

[Blake's Baby]

Ah, good point well made. I tend to forget that we have this new internet thingy, even when I'm using it.

Still don't see how that's going to convince everyone who is free to go back to being slaves though.