Freedom of Press

[Chewillneverdie]

I was just wondering if Communism is against freedom of the press. Che was even against it after awhile, Stalin kept all the papers under his eyes in the Soviet Union am i correct? Do any of you agree with that? personally i believe that it should be a basic right to print whatever you want for the public. Tell me if i got any of my info wrong please

[peaccenicked]

What is freedom of the press. Freedom for millionaire to pollute peoples minds with pro capitalist nonsense.


Now over to Lenin.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...1917/nov/04.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/04.htm)

[Slobo Is God]

Freedom of the press leads to Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. No true Socialist society can tolerate freedom of the press.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Freedom of the press is not good, spreads desease

[peaccenicked]

Freedom of the press would be ok if it meant all groups had equal distribution rights and no news producer was purely based on profit.

[Jesus Christ]

as long as the workers have full control of the news, then there should be no problem, opinions should be heard

[SonofRage]

I am big believer in a free press but it must extend to everyone. Right now in the US there is only a handul of companies controlling all the mass media. This is not a free press. Small independent papers like Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.org) can't be expected to compete.

[Chewillneverdie]

but even the right wingers need to have a say in a new government, we dont wanna totalitatian system do we?

[peaccenicked]

Even right wingers should be heard but now they have complete dominance over the distribution and advertising of media.

[truthaddict11]

"freedom of speech" is a bourgeosie term created to give protection to the capitalist class, true "freedom of speech" has never existed and probally never will even in communism and anarchism. i am completely against giving racists, homophobes, misogynics, religious assholes, ect any platform for "free speech". i dont see anything "tolitarian" about that.

[marxstudent]

Freedom of press is a beautiful thing. Yes capitalist propaganda is produced and yet there are people out there like AK Press that are allowed to distribute information as well. It evens out- anyone can do anything and that's how it should be.

[BuyOurEverything]

Freedom of the press only applies if you own one.

[(*]

With free press you are free to report something, and you are free to not report something.

[redstar2000]

...but even the right wingers need to have a say...

Why?

They've had their say for the last couple of centuries and probably most of this one as well.

I think that's plenty!

The only I thing I want to hear from the right-wingers after the revolution is "I plead guilty".

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

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

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 10:54 PM
"freedom of speech" is a bourgeosie term created to give protection to the capitalist class, true "freedom of speech" has never existed and probally never will even in communism and anarchism. i am completely against giving racists, homophobes, misogynics, religious assholes, ect any platform for "free speech". i dont see anything "tolitarian" about that.
The problem with this line of thinking is that those in power can start labeling people as being "anti-revolutionary" and silence dissent. If we are not confident that our ideas can win out over racism and hate when all sides can get their view out, then what are our ideas really worth?

[redstar2000]

If we are not confident that our ideas can win out over racism and hate when all sides can get their view out, then what are our ideas really worth?

More than theirs...by a wide margin. The very fact that a proletarian revolution has taken place is a vindication of our ideas compared to theirs.

The struggle over ideas does not take place in some "Platonic" realm or "virtual marketplace".

Reactionary ideas have material consequences...homophobic ideas, for example, lead directly to murder of homosexuals.

Not every homophobe is a killer, but some are. That's a fact.

Why then should their homophobic ideas be circulated publicly? Or at all? Do we want to find ourselves in the absurd position of saying "it's ok to advocate killing gay people" but "it's not ok to actually do it"?


The problem with this line of thinking is that those in power can start labeling people as being "anti-revolutionary" and silence dissent.

I agree...this is a "clear and present danger". Thus we cannot "relax" after the revolution and "trust our leaders" to manage things...power must be in the hands of the whole working class.

When someone says that "such and such an idea is counter-revolutionary", our alertness must increase sharply and the burden of proof must be placed on the person making that assertion.

But is that a "problem" with openly reactionary ideas? In the old USSR, etc., criticism of the party leadership was "counter-revolutionary" by definition. Surely we are not going to fall into that stupidity again.

Yet there's no way to place a "revolutionary spin" on racism, sexism, homophobia, religion, etc. All of that old shit reeks of exploitation and oppression...there's absolutely no reason to "tolerate" it.

I'm not saying, keep in mind, that we should go out and "shoot everyone who disagrees with us".

I am saying that they've had their say, their historical track record is unmistakable, and their era is over!

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

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

[peaccenicked]

I was not talking about the extreme right, though Chomsky reckons that they should be heard, I disagree with him on that, I was thinking more of those deluded souls who have static views of human nature and cannot lose commodity fetishism who moan all the time about the laziness of the working class.
They are addicted to that sort of stuff. Would you cut them off immediately or gradually wean them off it. I wonder if we should ban Protest warriors, too.
I ll go with the majority on that, it might come down to degrees of offensiveness.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 10:05 AM
Why?
Because repression against workers is something we should avoid. If a confused worker is just spouting right-wing crap, not actively taking up arms against the revolution, they should be allowed to speak. Suppression of the working class is the path to Stalinism.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

If a group of people want to stage a pro-life rally, or protest against pollution, even if the government feels differerently on it, I am fine with that. However, people having an anti-immigration rally, an anti-jewish protest, or a white power march, is totally unacceptable.

[redstar2000]

If a confused worker is just spouting right-wing crap, not actively taking up arms against the revolution, they should be allowed to speak.

Very well...let him address his remarks to the "targets" of his disdain. He may speak of his opinions about gays to a fraternity of San Francisco leather-bar patrons.

After he gets out of the hospital, he may wish to re-evaluate his position. :lol:


Suppression of the working class is the path to Stalinism.

I don't think Spanish anarchists ever lost much sleep over shooting a pro-fascist "confused worker".

I further don't think it is likely that we will "drift" into Stalinism "by accident" or by "excessive zeal". I think in order for a revolution to be diverted into a Stalinist path, there has to be a conscious group that "wants" that to happen...because they believe that it's "historically necessary".

And I think we should be pretty "repressive" against them too. We know the language; we know what it means; we know where talk of "authority", "leadership", "discipline", etc. leads...why should we "tolerate" that crap?

Their goal is to re-build class society...and that is, in my view, just as reactionary as someone who wants to go back to capitalism or outlaw abortions.

If we have to shoot a few Stalin-wannabes to secure working class power, I have no problem with that at all.


I was thinking more of those deluded souls who have static views of human nature and cannot lose commodity fetishism, who moan all the time about the laziness of the working class.

If I understand you correctly, you're speaking of people who express nostalgia for the old order. I don't think we should publish that kind of stuff...but I see little harm in it otherwise.

It would be foolish of us to demand "verbal enthusiasm" from everyone--on pain of punishment of some sort for failure to make the correct mouth-movements. People will always gripe and ***** about one thing or another...it usually doesn't mean anything.

I'm speaking more of those who have a pretty clear ideological bias and who want to publicize that. Someone who privately finds homosexuality "disgusting" can simply avoid their company; someone who wants to print a newspaper called Queers Should Be Stoned to Death is a counter-revolutionary...and should be suppressed.

Once in a while there might be a "border-line" case...ideas which could be construed as counter-revolutionary but might possibly not actually be so. Some people are "hyper-sensitive" and might read more into an incautious statement than is really there.

Normally, that's not a problem. Reactionary ideas, a product of the old order, have had a long time to mature and form a pretty coherent whole. The guy who thinks that "most workers are lazy" will almost always go on to add that "dark skinned workers are the laziest of all". The guy who thinks "you are what you buy" will evidence the same approach in other matters...suggesting to women, for example, that they should go with him because of "what he can do for them".

I think it's really a question of "how do we define the public sphere of legitimate discourse?". Every society does that...and communist society will do it, too.

That's not "totalitarian"--it's just common sense.

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

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

[Chewillneverdie]

but EVERYONE should have a say, if you want the black panthers to speak the other extremist have to speak also. I dont like the thought, but the US lets the left wingers speak dont they? Dont give me all that shit about Sherman Austin. He also talked against fighting back with guns and shit, i know it was for a good cause, but it was against the government. If we lived in Soviet Russia, we woulda been shot or sent to Siberia and I HATE THE COLD!

[redstar2000]

If we lived in Soviet Russia, we woulda been shot or sent to Siberia and I HATE THE COLD!

I hate the cold, too! :o

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

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

[Red Flag]

Free Press is neccessary in any free civilization, because by silencing a certain idiology you open the doors for all idiologies to be silenced.

[Hate Is Art]

free press should be allowed as long as you get rid of the capitilists making the papers and have the made by people who aren't in it to supress the workers or to make people believe what they [the capitilists] want to believe

[Chewillneverdie]

ive got a new and amazingly complex idea to you guys. If there is a paper with a capitalist author, DONT READ IT! amazing isnt it. Shit, if the paper was all communist i wouldnt read it anyway. Where the hell would the funnies be? I NEED MY GDAMN BEATLE BAILEY. I have a feeling someone is going to say" why read about that slave to cappies" or something like that

[redstar2000]

Without wishing to offend, it seems to me that some of you folks are really not thinking very clearly about this question at all.

You're treating "free speech" as if it were some "universal sacred value"...completely disconnected from the real world.

Why do you think bourgeois revolutionaries in the 18th and 19th centuries put forward the idea of "free speech" in the first place?

They lived in an era when speech was severely restricted. In order to criticize pre-capitalist governments and economic policies (as well as religious obscurantism), they needed "free speech".

We need it now, in order to criticize capitalism and its various characteristics and manifestations.

But "free speech" is a tool of struggle...not some kind of over-arching "Platonic virtue".

We know (or should know) this because the bourgeoisie has often thrown "free speech" to the dogs in order to suppress the left. I don't think there's a capitalist country in the world where communists and/or anarchists have not been thrown in prison for "speech-crime".

Certainly not the United States!

Communist society will have its own version of "free speech"...with its own practical restrictions and exceptions.

To attempt to "play fair" with the class enemy is just foolishness.

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

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

[Hate Is Art]

agreed!

[(*]

what we need is freedom from the press

[Al Creed]

Originally posted by (*@Dec 23 2003, 12:23 PM
what we need is freedom from the press
You know, that is an excellent point.

People are too easily swayed by "the Press." People are not given any room to think about what they read, and to form their own opinion on the subject. Instead, we are told that "THIS IS THE WAY YOU SHOULD THINK, STUPID!" Luckily, there are some (like the people who post on this board) that read the news objectively, and then form thier own opinions. Newspapers and the *shudder* TV news should be more objective. Instead of speading propaganda, the News should perform its' intended purpose - Provide apolitical, unbiased, news. Then, the individual can take that piece, and decided his opinion on said news piece,or if it affects him at all. There should be forum for Opinion, of course, but not in the News.

***

I agree with RedStar, "Freedom of Speech" is a tool of struggle, and once there is no longer any serious struggle, having the tools of Struggle seems pointless. There is a fine line between "Freedom of Speech," and "Opinion," I think.

Freedom of Speech is resistance to a set system of beliefs and values. Freedom of Speech grants the individual immunity from any kind of oppression they might endure.

Opinion is a feeling or a belief or an idea on a certain issue. However, it is not a form of resistance, as an opinion is just something you have inside, and you debate amongst your peers.

[Red Flag]

Silencing people's voice just because you disagree with them is facist, regardless if they are cappies or not.

[Chewillneverdie]

touche redflag. Raven, if you dont like what it says, put it down