Freedom Of Speech

[waspman]

Lets just say I may be someone who is straddling the fence in terms of my political ideology. I am posting this here because I am unsure of the appropriate place to inquire. Please elaborate the general position most members of the revolutionary left stand on freedom of speech. Please be acute.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Unconditional.

[Ocean Seal]

Lets just say I may be someone who is straddling the fence in terms of my political ideology. I am posting this here because I am unsure of the appropriate place to inquire. Please elaborate the general position most members of the revolutionary left stand on freedom of speech. Please be acute.
The revolutionary left doesn't have a uniform position on the subject, remember that the revolutionary left stretches from Chomsky to Stalin.

[Flying Trotsky]

Absolutely, the freedom of expression (speech, press, etc.) is an inherent right of all people, regardless of class, race, sex, faith, or nationality. The only possible exception I can think of is confronting someone for expressing something is if they're abusing their freedom to infringe on the rights of others. That is, they can say whatever they want, but there's also going to be consequences for, I dunno, doing some kind of racist propaganda campaign...

[thesadmafioso]

Speech must occasionally be regulated when it is harmful to the interests of the proletariat, why should the bourgeoisie be afforded yet another limitless front to combat the progress of the working class? Whenever the opportunity should arise to hinder the ruling class in its access to the venomous pen of the status quo, it is imperative that it be taken to at least some extent. Any channel which may be used to defend the right of privilege and its position within the camp of the bourgeoisie is one which cannot be allowed to exist in a state of absolute freedom, such a necessity is nothing more than a reality of class struggle and revolution.

[waspman]

Excellent answers. My new inquiry is what is the revolutionary left's opinion on who should control the media. In your opinion please tell if you believe it should be private or government controlled. Also if you choose the former, please tell how you would insure that private corporations couldnt cooperate to push an agenda/personal profit. If you choose the latter how would you propose we keep certain individuals in the government from pushing their own agenda/making personal gain.

[waspman]

Speech must occasionally be regulated when it is harmful to the interests of the proletariat, why should the bourgeoisie be afforded yet another limitless front to combat the progress of the working class? Whenever the opportunity should arise to hinder the ruling class in its access to the venomous pen of the status quo, it is imperative that it be taken to at least some extent. Any channel which may be used to defend the right of privilege and its position within the camp of the bourgeoisie is one which cannot be allowed to exist in a state of absolute freedom, such a necessity is nothing more than a reality of class struggle and revolution.

Would the person/people in control of regulating speech/funds not have incredible power? This would essentially strip the current ruling class and put forth a new ruling class. Never the less a ruling class would persist all the same.

[Sensible Socialist]

Excellent answers. My new inquiry is what is the revolutionary left's opinion on who should control the media. In your opinion please tell if you believe it should be private or government controlled. Also if you choose the former, please tell how you would insure that private corporations couldnt cooperate to push an agenda/personal profit. If you choose the latter how would you propose we keep certain individuals in the
No leftist believes the media, or any business, should be privately owned and operated. All media outlets would be operated by the community for the public good, not for ratings or profit.

[Welshy]

In a revolutionary situation, the working class should control the media. In a capitalist society, the state shouldn't control the media as it would use the media to push bourgeois ideologies. Unfortunately in a privately controlled media the capitalists who own those companies do the same anyways. So it's not really of any use for revolutionaries to talk about who should control the media in a capitalist society because the capitalists will use it to their advantage when ever they can. The left has to counter this where/when ever we can.

[thesadmafioso]

Excellent answers. My new inquiry is what is the revolutionary left's opinion on who should control the media. In your opinion please tell if you believe it should be private or government controlled. Also if you choose the former, please tell how you would insure that private corporations couldnt cooperate to push an agenda/personal profit. If you choose the latter how would you propose we keep certain individuals in the

The media should be controlled by the workers and if we are to take this question in the more practical context of the socialist syndicate or a society set on the path to establishing such an institution of government, by the proletariat state. It would be nothing short of sheer irresponsibility to advocate for private ownership over the incredible reach of the media. It is of the utmost importance that this outlet of information be seized by the proletariat so as to facilitate the fostering of a more robust and developed class consciousness, and thus a more advanced society.

[thesadmafioso]

Would the person/people in control of regulating speech/funds not have incredible power? This would essentially strip the current ruling class and put forth a new ruling class. Never the less a ruling class would persist all the same.

Would you not prefer a revolutionary vanguard party of the worker possessing this power as opposed to the entrenched figures of wealth and aristocratic clout? It is not a question of a new ruling class being created so much as it is a provisional organ of proletariat rule taking the place of the void left by this process. When you consider the tremendous amount of damage which is done to society by cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie it really isn't hard to come to this conclusion. Unlimited speech can have dire consequences for the international proletarian, and it is simply foolish to deny the existence of that fact.

Free speech would be allowed to exist in a limitless fashion once the stage of communism is reached, but until that time it would regretfully be necessary to ensure the quality of speech through such measures.

[RGacky3]

Unconditional freedom of speach, which is not the case under capitalism where speech is for sale.

[waspman]

Would you not prefer a revolutionary vanguard party of the worker possessing this power as opposed to the entrenched figures of wealth and aristocratic clout? It is not a question of a new ruling class being created so much as it is a provisional organ of proletariat rule taking the place of the void left by this process. When you consider the tremendous amount of damage which is done to society by cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie it really isn't hard to come to this conclusion. Unlimited speech can have dire consequences for the international proletarian, and it is simply foolish to deny the existence of that fact.

Free speech would be allowed to exist in a limitless fashion once the stage of communism is reached, but until that time it would regretfully be necessary to ensure the quality of speech through such measures.


My post refers to a hypothetical situation in which Communism has already been set into place not in a revolutionary situation. What type of free speech would you infringe upon? Also another inquiry of mine is lets suppose in this hypothetical world communism has taken a worldwide stand. How would you respond to homogenous populations such as the Japanese? Would you put forth multiculturalism in populations such as this or allow them to remain homogenous if it was the proletariat's wish?

[thesadmafioso]

My post refers to a hypothetical situation in which Communism has already been set into place not in a revolutionary situation. What type of free speech would you infringe upon. Also another inquiry of mine is lets suppose in this hypothetical world communism has taken a worldwide stand. How would you respond to homogenous populations such as the Japanese? Would you put forth multiculturalism in populations such as this or allow them to remain homogenous if it was the proletariat's wish?

If a threat to workers democracy exists than a situation is still revolutionary to a point where a similar methodology must be applied so as to ensure the solvency of the gains made by the initial movement, meaning my original post is still relevant enough to not be discounted.

Any speech which refuses to accept the aims of communism and of the proletariat is speech which is harmful the the historical progression of the Marxist dialectic, and thus it needs to be regulated if it ever looks to reach a point wherein it poses a material threat to the proletariat and the realization of its goals. For instance, if you were to have a reactionary organization publishing a paper advocating for regression back to the constricted limits of capitalist society, that speech would constitute a material threat to the working class and its movement. The impact may not be direct, but speech in the political context is primarily undertaken to encourage action. And as capitalism is responsible for an immense span of suffering and death across the globe for the proletariat, speech which advocates such should be treated in a fashion which accounts for the gravity of taking such a stance.

And as for your hypothetical, it is not necessary to impose multiculturalism so long as discrimination based upon nationality or other comparable factors is not being undertaken. If a society begins to devolve to such a point, then intervention would obviously be demanded.

[waspman]

If a threat to workers democracy exists than a situation is still revolutionary to a point where a similar methodology must be applied so as to ensure the solvency of the gains made by the initial movement, meaning my original post is still relevant enough to not be discounted.

Any speech which refuses to accept the aims of communism and of the proletariat is speech which is harmful the the historical progression of the Marxist dialectic, and thus it needs to be regulated if it ever looks to reach a point wherein it poses a material threat to the proletariat and the realization of its goals. For instance, if you were to have a reactionary organization publishing a paper advocating for regression back to the constricted limits of capitalist society, that speech would constitute a material threat to the working class and its movement. The impact may not be direct, but speech in the political context is primarily undertaken to encourage action. And as capitalism is responsible for an immense span of suffering and death across the globe for the proletariat, speech which advocates such should be treated in a fashion which accounts for the gravity of taking such a stance.

And as for your hypothetical, it is not necessary to impose multiculturalism so long as discrimination based upon nationality or other comparable factors is not being undertaken. If a society begins to devolve to such a point, then intervention would obviously be demanded.

What kind of intervention would you propose? Also, what of "affirmative action" IF Communism has come to fruition. In this hypothetical we are living in a classless society. Would you keep people with higher scores of certain ethnic backgrounds from obtaining certain jobs or promotions, or attending universities in favor of other people who happen to have lower scores? I understand many people of revleft including I believe race is a social construct, but what if Europeans/Asians/Jewish people continue to put education to a higher regard and still outscore other races? What if it is proven that race isnt a social construct but an honest genetical one. Would you want a forced "blending" of the different races in order to ensure complete fairness?

[thesadmafioso]

What kind of intervention would you propose? Also, what of "affirmative action" IF Communism has come to fruition. In this hypothetical we are living in a classless society. Would you keep people with higher scores of certain ethnic backgrounds from obtaining certain jobs or promotions, or attending universities in favor of other people who happen to have lower scores? I understand many people of revleft including I believe race is a social construct, but what if Europeans/Asians/Jewish people continue to put education to a higher regard and still outscore other races? What if it is proven that race isnt a social construct but an honest genetical one. Would you want a forced "blending" of the different races in order to ensure complete fairness?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1079/887295065_419b11f6a8.jpg

[waspman]

Im unfamiliar with the Panda metaphor. Elaborate.

[thesadmafioso]

Im unfamiliar with the Panda metaphor. Elaborate.

http://www.sciencenmore.com/kittens.jpg

[waspman]

Thank you for your ever so insightful posts. They have truly answered my questions. I am now an enlightened and forever a changed man.

[waspman]

bump

[#FF0000]

What if it is proven that race isnt a social construct but an honest genetical one. Would you want a forced "blending" of the different races in order to ensure complete fairness?

What if the world was made of pudding!? What then?

[waspman]

What if the world was made of pudding!? What then?
That is a childish response. Prove to me your viewpoint, this is a serious forum not a place to talk shit to someone.

[Jimmie Higgins]

this is a serious forum not a place to talk shit to someone.:lol: You are new to this forum.


What if it is proven that race isnt a social construct but an honest genetical one. Would you want a forced "blending" of the different races in order to ensure complete fairness? Well race is a social constuct because racial classification and categorization are constantly changing throughout history. So yeah, you might as well be asking about how tides would be effected on Pudding-Earth.

Second, fears of "forced blending" are really fears of not being able to enforce racial segregation or prevent inter-racial-marriages. The only times there have been "forced" inter-racial relationships in history are cases of rape when slave-owners raped their slaves or soldiers raped the people they were occupying or taking-over. And in these cases, the problem isn't the blending, the problem is the force part. There have never been laws forcing people who did not want to associate from associating or marrying... you might say what about busing or integrated schools - well I think the people being bussed and the people facing harassment to go to a well funded and equipped school wanted to be there. But there have, in fact been many laws outlawing mixed racial marriages and even laws outlawing white and black servants from talking or sharing housing. So integration is historically natural and normal while segregation is actually historically forced and constructed.

[#FF0000]

That is a childish response.


I think you missed my point. There's no reason to ask "what-ifs" here because it's pretty well established that race is a social construct, and that "Nuture" tends to override "nature".

[beeman]

I think you missed my point. There's no reason to ask "what-ifs" here because it's pretty well established that race is a social construct, and that "Nuture" tends to override "nature".

Its actually not very well established that nurture overrides nature. As a matter of fact it is an enormous ongoing debate. It is your opinion that nurture overrides nature but the fact is we do not know yet and probably wont know for an extremely long time specifically.

[#FF0000]

Its actually not very well established that nurture overrides nature. As a matter of fact it is an enormous ongoing debate. It is your opinion that nurture overrides nature but the fact is we do not know yet and probably wont know for an extremely long time specifically.

Of course it's an ongoing debate but recent findings definitely support the nurture side of things.

[beeman]

Of course it's an ongoing debate but recent findings definitely support the nurture side of things.

Well by all means, please show me these "recent findings"

[#FF0000]

Well by all means, please show me these "recent findings"

I actually found a few studies where it turned out that genetics was beaten out by environmental factors. I'll just post the one related to IQ for now, but I'll drop some more if you want.

Unfortunately I've only got an article -about- the study, (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970731&slug=2552392), which I'm kind of ambivalent about, since IQ is a pretty worthless number to me as well, but hey whatever.

[beeman]

I actually found a few studies where it turned out that genetics was beaten out by environmental factors. I'll just post the one related to IQ for now, but I'll drop some more if you want.
which I'm kind of ambivalent about, since IQ is a pretty worthless number to me as well, but hey whatever.


Well, according to your forum rules I am not allowed a rebuttal, or to cite any studies which support the "nature" side of the argument.

[RGacky3]

Yes you are.