Freedom of opinion?

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

How far should a workers'/socialist/communist government go in allowing the freedom of speech for those who oppose them?

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

It should depend on the circumstances. No revolution has been conducted without some suppression of the reactionaries. Even the right's beloved American Revolution was successful in part because Patriots constantly attacked the Loyalists, subjected them to public humiliation, and even tortured or killed them in some circumstances.

I'm not saying that wanton brutality and torture is acceptable; it is not. It does more to harm a revolution than to save it. Even so, we'd be fools to allow the bourgeoisie to propagandize against the emancipation of the working class in the middle of a crisis.

I think that a council-based solution in which ordinary people with dissenting opinions have the right to voice their opinions and concerns in a moderately controlled environment is a decent solution until the new society is relatively stable. At this point, freedom of speech must be recognized as an unalienable right, and all restrictions must be cast off.

[Brotto Rühle]

It's up to the class, via it's organs of power, to allow or disallow whatever. I encourage "free speech" of the proletarian class.

[G4b3n]

It depends on the material conditions. It is an issue to be voted upon by the institutions that represent the organized working class.

[Brotto Rühle]

It depends on the material conditions. It is an issue to be voted upon by the institutions that represent the organized working class.If the organs only represent the class, they are not organs of proletarian class rule.

[G4b3n]

If the organs only represent the class, they are not organs of proletarian class rule.

By "represent" I mean comprised of workers for workers with a horizontal power structure. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

[A Psychological Symphony]

There should be no repression of ideas or speech. The workers are to be freed not controlled :reda:

[liberlict]

'Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?' --- Stalin

I don't know if that quote is genuine but it always cracks me up.

[Brutus]

'Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?' --- Stalin

I don't know if that quote is genuine but it always cracks me up.

If it is, then Stalin in a massive liberal.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Some ideas simply aren't acceptable under proletarian rule. Just like you're not allowed to express an openly negationist view or show support for national socialism in Europe (even though you can still get away with it if you're not a total idiot), or at least in most countries.

So if the liberal 'democracies' of Europe are willing to ban beliefs, why wouldn't we be? Bourgeois principles go against the interests of the working class, it would only be logical to not allow political action (including pamphlets, rallies,...) if it is seen as harmful to the majority of the population.

[A Psychological Symphony]

Some ideas simply aren't acceptable under proletarian rule. Just like you're not allowed to express an openly negationist view or show support for national socialism in Europe (even though you can still get away with it if you're not a total idiot), or at least in most countries.

So if the liberal 'democracies' of Europe are willing to ban beliefs, why wouldn't we be? Bourgeois principles go against the interests of the working class, it would only be logical to not allow political action (including pamphlets, rallies,...) if it is seen as harmful to the majority of the population.

You sure are a true revolutionary using bourgeois Europe to determine what should be acceptable.

Who exactly would be the one "to not allow political action"? Who determines what is "harmful to the majority of the population"? If you are to repress any ideas or speech in a society then that society is not free. If society isn't free then the revolution isn't over!

[The Jay]

This is an incomplete question in my opinion. What is the context that you are talking about here: during revolution, just after, or long after?

If you mean during a revolution then I don't think that perfect free speech will be very plausible since there's likely to be some reactionary violence to the proletariat taking what it views as theirs in an attempt to abolish that very concept. There would likely be a lot of fighting going on at that point so the safety of the opposition could not be guaranteed should they raise up a stink. There would also be a lot of aggression pointed at them personally from the people that they lived better than. Again, I would prefer that such violence be kept to a minimum but I won't have control over it.

In terms of just after the revolution I think that people would be wise to watch what they say; at the same time, I think that there would be more outlets and mechanisms put in place to allow discussion on matters and that hopefully the risk of violent reprisal would be lessened.

If you meant long after then I don't see why there would be any restrictions other than advocating certain horrible things that would obviously be taboo.

[Schumpeter]

It would never happen, far left wing ideology cannot defend itself in the market of ideas.

[The Jay]

It would never happen, far left wing ideology cannot defend itself in the market of ideas.

I didn't know that you sold ideas like you did paper. Please add something worth while next time.

[Schumpeter]

I didn't know that you sold ideas like you did paper. Please add something worth while next time.

That is the motive behind quashing dissent.

[The Jay]

That is the motive behind quashing dissent.

The fact that you said something intentionally controversial given the setting isn't a good example of why people would have their tongues cut out. I didn't advocate any violence against you. What I did was call you out.

[Schumpeter]

The fact that you said something intentionally controversial given the setting isn't a good example of why people would have their tongues cut out. I didn't advocate any violence against you. What I did was call you out.

Ideas are exchanged in a debate, value is exchanged in a market. Of course you didn't understand the analogy as you do not understand what a market is, or what currency represents.

[The Jay]

Ideas are exchanged in a debate, value is exchanged in a market. Of course you didn't understand the analogy as you do not understand what a market is, or what currency represents.

So then you are saying that because Communism sucks that they don't sell their ideas? I don't think that you know what you are talking about. Maybe you should make another thread expanding on this matter in a clearer manner.

[Schumpeter]

So then you are saying that because Communism sucks that they don't sell their ideas? I don't think that you know what you are talking about. Maybe you should make another thread expanding on this matter in a clearer manner.

Marxism and democracy cannot co - exist as Marxism has no ethical basis. Thus any far left ideology based around Marx's work will never realize it's aims.

[The Jay]

Marxism and democracy cannot co - exist as Marxism has no ethical basis. Thus any far left ideology based around Marx's work will never realize it's aims.

Do you have reasons that you're saying this? Could you please elaborate in a complete manner? The reason that I say this is you are not leaving anything to discuss and your manner invokes simple rejection primarily.

[Schumpeter]

Do you have reasons that you're saying this? Could you please elaborate in a complete manner? The reason that I say this is you are not leaving anything to discuss and your manner invokes simple rejection primarily.

Refer to my thread on Karl Marx and his comments on ethics.

[Ember Catching]

"Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist."

— Friedrich Engels in a letter to August Bebel, 1875

[NGNM85]

There are only two positions on free speech; you support it, for views you find, personally abhorrent, or you oppose it. Any Libertarian Socialist must support, and defend free speech.

'Without general elections, without freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, without the free battle of opinions, life in every public institution withers away, becomes a caricature of itself, and bureaucracy rises as the only deciding factor.'
-Rosa Luxemburg

[Comrade #138672]

And there goes Schumpeter again. He does not know how to be a subtle troll. He does not even try to be constructive. He immediately starts throwing his feces at everybody here. That is a sure way to get yourself banned rather quickly.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

You sure are a true revolutionary using bourgeois Europe to determine what should be acceptable.

Who exactly would be the one "to not allow political action"? Who determines what is "harmful to the majority of the population"? If you are to repress any ideas or speech in a society then that society is not free. If society isn't free then the revolution isn't over!

Okay I probably shouldn't have drawn that analogy but I stand by the principle. I agree that the revolution isn't over 'till society is 'free' but if you're going to complain about semantics it's ill-advised to use such ambiguous concepts.

For the record, I was talking about a society undergoing revolution not an actual post revolutionary communist society. However, having to deal with say, a bunch of classical liberals, we should at least be able to defend the communist society from that. I'm not saying we should have them shot or locked up, but we have to avoid this sort of sentiment from growing, under socialism this could be done with legislation or by other means. In fact, repression of opposing ideologies would be fairly unnecessary in a communist society because people's beliefs are drastically affected by the culture they grow up in. Communist ideas and beliefs would be as common as the belief that capitalism is the only way to go, is now.
.

[Ember Catching]

Any Libertarian Socialist must support, and defend free speech.

'Without general elections, without freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, without the free battle of opinions, life in every public institution withers away, becomes a caricature of itself, and bureaucracy rises as the only deciding factor.'
-Rosa Luxemburg
Translation: Any Libertarian Socialist must support, and defend free speech for the reaction, because Libertarian Socialists, like the bourgeoisie, consider struggles in the political arena to take place not between classes, but as "debates" between free and equal individuals; they consider the struggle one of opinions rather than of physical and social forces divided by incurable contradictions. (adapted from the International Communist Party document 'What Distinguishes Our Party')

The proletarian dictatorship has no use for "the free battle of opinions", only the fulfillment of the proletarian historical mission.

[Sabot Cat]

I think it's dangerous to restrict the exchange of ideas, principally because of all of the historical examples wherein that power has been abused. Furthermore, communism is logically and ethically superior to any competing ideology or doctrine, and thus I see no reason why all other ideas must be censored.

[consuming negativity]

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom of opinion. I know I'm being pedantic, but nobody except cartoon villains would seriously support having thought crimes.

As for freedom of speech, I don't really see why people ought not be able to say.whatever is on their mind, as long as they are not inciting violence (ie. racism, fascism), although I doubt any people like that would survive a serious revolution like ours anyway. I don't see this question as particularly important, unless you're a ML who advocates an intermediary socialist state or whatever.

Sent from my VS870 4G using Tapatalk

[Marshal of the People]

There shall be true democracy and freedom of speech in the the councils. All the reactionaries shall be confined to rehabilitative hospitals until they are cured.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think "freedom of opinion," is a pretty silly notion. I mean, I think it'd come down to one simple rule "treat others like you'd want to be treated," aka no racist, homophobic, etc. business aka don't be a dick. Of course people will have the freedom to talk about the latest cool pop thing or rant against some douche was involved in scumbaggery or whatever. At that point though I think it'd probably be a non-issue, tbh. HArd to tell.

[Brutus]

There shall be true democracy and freedom of speech in the the councils. All the reactionaries shall be confined to rehabilitative hospitals until they are cured.

True democracy is rule of the people, so therefore rule of all classes. I, as a communist, don't want that, I want democracy for the proletariat. Yet democracy for the proletariat isn't really democracy- it's proletarian dictatorship.

[blake 3:17]

The proletarian dictatorship has no use for "the free battle of opinions", only the fulfillment of the proletarian historical mission.

WTF? I don't need to wonder why folks are put off Marxism when this teleological bullshit is right at hand. Friggin worse than other fundamentalisms.

[RedWaves]

Freedom of speech don't exist, not even on the internet.


The minute you offend someone, you get a ban on a forum or you get fired from your job or whatever.


In western society, this is totally true. It don't matter what you do, if you offend the wrong person, bam you're fucking gone. You're fired from your job, your banned on the internet, or whatever. It's a fact.

You have freedom of speech until you offend somebody.


Look at that Duck Dynasty "controversy" in that light. You might get fired cause oh no you said something about the Gays. Or even if you're a football player like Chris Kluwe you might even get cut from the team for sticking up and defending them. You could even be a musician and then you have to worry about getting fucked with by record companies cause oh no you said something about George W Bush like the Dixie Chicks.

It don't fucking matter what you say or do, if you offend or defend, freedom of speech don't exist, and it especially don't exist on the internet when you get bullied and stomped on for having a different opinion, but meanwhile people like Alex Jones and David Icke can spout the most inane retarded bullshit out of their asses and they get paid for it, and become filthy rich from exploiting people's paranoia and fear.

[Ember Catching]

WTF? I don't need to wonder why folks are put off Marxism when this teleological bullshit is right at hand. Friggin worse than other fundamentalisms.
Is that what the working class is put off by? The great irony here is that almost every single sect and tendency laying claim to the legacy of Marx and Engels in fact revises scientific socialism, and thus history, stripping the revolutionary doctrine of its very fundamentals and reducing it to a husk increasingly devoid of any communistic content.

Who knows, maybe if you engaged in some "teleological bullshit", the proletariat would fucking welcome it.

[Marshal of the People]

True democracy is rule of the people, so therefore rule of all classes. I, as a communist, don't want that, I want democracy for the proletariat. Yet democracy for the proletariat isn't really democracy- it's proletarian dictatorship.

What will we do with the undesirables then. Do you support the Nazi and Soviet methods?

[Remus Bleys]

What will we do with the undesirables then. Do you support the Nazi and Soviet methods?
didnt you literally just say you would want to lock up all reactionaries in a hospital?
Why doesn't their vote count?

[NGNM85]

Freedom of speech don't exist, not even on the internet.


The minute you offend someone, you get a ban on a forum or you get fired from your job or whatever.


In western society, this is totally true. It don't matter what you do, if you offend the wrong person, bam you're fucking gone. You're fired from your job, your banned on the internet, or whatever. It's a fact.

You have freedom of speech until you offend somebody.


Look at that Duck Dynasty "controversy" in that light. You might get fired cause oh no you said something about the Gays. Or even if you're a football player like Chris Kluwe you might even get cut from the team for sticking up and defending them. You could even be a musician and then you have to worry about getting fucked with by record companies cause oh no you said something about George W Bush like the Dixie Chicks.

It don't fucking matter what you say or do, if you offend or defend, freedom of speech don't exist, and it especially don't exist on the internet when you get bullied and stomped on for having a different opinion, but meanwhile people like Alex Jones and David Icke can spout the most inane retarded bullshit out of their asses and they get paid for it, and become filthy rich from exploiting people's paranoia and fear.

Christ...

Look, I don't mean to be a dick, but you clearly haven't grasped the concept of censorship. Phil whatshisfuck getting dropped from his tv show, for saying a bunch of reactionary crap, does not constitute censorship. Chris Klue getting kicked off the Vikings for standing up for gay rights is hella fucked up, but still doesn't constitute censorship. I have no idea where you're going with the Dixie Chicks. I know that had a legal battle with their label, Sony, because they ripped them off, but that happened way before Natalie Maines criticized the Bush administration. So, none of these events qualify as; `censorship.' None of these statements, including the deeply bogus comments by the Duck Dynasty patriarch, are prohibited by law, there is absolutely no possibility, whatsoever, that any of these individuals will face criminal charges for making these statements. For fucks' sake; President Bush personally defended the Dixie Chicks, and their right to criticize him. I really don't mean to lay into you, here, I'm trying really hard, but this kind of thing just really irritates me, especially from a fellow American. There are a lot of things wrong with this country, we're way behind the other Western nations by basically every social indicator, the US govt. is the most prolific sponsor, and perpetrator, of international terrorism, etc., etc., but one of the few silver linings is the United States has the broadest parameters for legally protected speech on earth. Generations of radicals have experienced repression, been brutalized, even killed, for their beliefs, many members of this forum, today, live in countries where they live with the prospect of being arrested, and criminally charged, if they say the wrong thing. So, please, please exercise a little more care with your words, ok?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I voted everything besides violent opposition. As in civil disobedience, rallies, protests, etc. Censorship is vial and cowardly. But of course we cannot allow physical opposition by, say, right wing paramilitaries, right?

Also I must say I am impressed. Most of you seem to support free speech, and that gives me more faith in this site. I was honestly worried that most of you would vote to crush the opposition like Stalin Round Two. So it seems most of us are on the same page to an extent. :grin:

[The Intransigent Faction]

True democracy is rule of the people, so therefore rule of all classes. I, as a communist, don't want that, I want democracy for the proletariat. Yet democracy for the proletariat isn't really democracy- it's proletarian dictatorship.

False equivalency. "The rule of all classes" doesn't even really make sense.
Democracy is autonomous self-government by a majority, which is antithetical to oligarchy. Capitalism is economic oligarchy.

[Remus Bleys]

False equivalency. "The rule of all classes" doesn't even really make sense.
Democracy is autonomous self-government by a majority, which is antithetical to oligarchy. Capitalism is economic oligarchy.
okay.
but the bourgeois democracy is called bourgeois democracy for a reason. If you took all of the wage-laborers and unemployed persons of the world and had them all decide what economic system they should follow who do you think they would pick - and lets just pretend for a single moment that what i just described was itself not bourgeois-democratic idealism at its finest - socialism or some bourgeois politician?

[Brutus]

What will we do with the undesirables then. Do you support the Nazi and Soviet methods?

Define "undesirables". Why would I support Nazi and Soviet methods? Even if I did, it wouldn't matter anyway because the proletariat as a whole will decide what to do with "undesirables", as you put it.

[Ember Catching]

I think it's dangerous to restrict the exchange of ideas, principally because of all of the historical examples wherein that power has been abused.If I were an anarchist like you, I too would be concerned by the ominous threat posed by the revolutionary prohibition of free speech, not least because the proletariat is morally corruptible, but rather because the proletariat, if it is to ever secure its own emancipation, will necessarily have to suppress every liberty of every social group that seeks to obstruct the fulfillment of its historical mission. It is categorically reactionary to impose limitations on proletarian authority, in this case to discriminate between what constitutes its "abuse" and what doesn't. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat enthusiastically exercises all the authority available to it, because it doesn't doubt itself or mask its own purpose by making any pretense whatsoever of freedom for the reaction: with the utmost tyranny it heralds the dawn of a free species.
Furthermore, communism is logically and ethically superior to any competing ideology or doctrine, and thus I see no reason why all other ideas must be censored.History did not wait for acknowledgement of the "logical and ethical superiority" of the present mode of production before it overthrew the previous one — that was fought for, tooth and nail, by a class in whose interest it necessarily was to do so, which was determined by its position in the productive process. The counter-revolution will likewise announce itself not after the Bilderberg Group convenes to carefully consider the pros and cons of overthrowing all capitalist conditions of production, but rather at the instant the production of surplus-value is threatened by the ascendancy of the proletariat to the state. The unconditional censorship of all class enemies is admittedly a minor task demanded of the dictatorship in the context of a wider revolutionary terror, but it remains necessary to ensure nobody is swayed by the agitation of the reaction.

[NGNM85]

Is that what the working class is put off by? The great irony here is that almost every single sect and tendency laying claim to the legacy of Marx and Engels in fact revises scientific socialism, and thus history, stripping the revolutionary doctrine of its very fundamentals and reducing it to a husk increasingly devoid of any communistic content.

Who knows, maybe if you engaged in some "teleological bullshit", the proletariat would fucking welcome it.

Fucking unbelievable. I don't know what's more incredible, that you would slander the names of Marx, and Engels by attributing your bullshit to them, or that you think anyone will find this claim pursuasive. What I want to know is whether you're ignorant enough to actually believe this, or if you just think everyone else is too ignorant to see through it.

[Remus Bleys]

Fucking unbelievable. I don't know what's more incredible, that you would slander the names of Marx, and Engels by attributing your bullshit to them, or that you think anyone will find this claim pursuasive. What I want to know is whether you're ignorant enough to actually believe this, or if you just think everyone else is too ignorant to see through it.
so like chicken$hit made this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2705011&postcount=22)
now do you seriously want to say that, you of all people, the anarcho-bernsteinist, are more in the line of marx and engels than chicken$hit or for those who realize censorship would be a necessity?

[Marshal of the People]

didnt you literally just say you would want to lock up all reactionaries in a hospital?
Why doesn't their vote count?

We would cure them in the special hospitals not kill them or exile them from society as some people would do.

[Marshal of the People]

Define "undesirables". Why would I support Nazi and Soviet methods? Even if I did, it wouldn't matter anyway because the proletariat as a whole will decide what to do with "undesirables", as you put it.

There would be a constitution to protect everyone from torture, murder etc.

[Remus Bleys]

We would cure them in the special hospitals not kill them or exile them from society as some people would do.
You didnt answer the quesiton. It seems what you are suggesting is that their is a democracy but only for those you ideologically agree with, and would put your political enemies in a mental institution (like seriously, a hospital?). I am asking you why does not their vote count in your perfect true democracy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We would cure them in the special hospitals not kill them or exile them from society as some people would do.

That you think pathologising the opposition is the way to go just shows how empty your own position really is. Instead of asking why your politics doesn't gel with certain people, you instead seek to steal the authority of medical professionals in order to prop up your own ideology.


There would be a constitution to protect everyone from torture, murder etc.

Except the ones that have been classified as "politically insane". Then one is free to torment them in any number of ways, for as long as it is "necessary". After all, it's "for their own good", isn't it?

[Marshal of the People]

You didnt answer the quesiton. It seems what you are suggesting is that their is a democracy but only for those you ideologically agree with, and would put your political enemies in a mental institution (like seriously, a hospital?). I am asking you why does not their vote count in your perfect true democracy.

I really don't see the problem with that. The people put in those special hospitals would be there because their beliefs are detrimental to society. They would be kept in the hospitals until they are re-educated and cured.

[Remus Bleys]

I really don't see the problem with that. The people put in those special hospitals would be there because their beliefs are detrimental to society. They would be kept in the hospitals until they are re-educated and cured.
then thats not really democracy, is it? Thats not really "freedom of opinion" is it?
also again these mental hospitals don't really seem like an effective way at all.

[Marshal of the People]

then thats not really democracy, is it? Thats not really "freedom of opinion" is it?
also again these mental hospitals don't really seem like an effective way at all.

Would you let brain dead people vote?

They would be effective eventually the patients would discover that they were wrong and would let go of their selfish and reactionary ways and become good and valued members of society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Would you let brain dead people vote?

People who disagree with you politically aren't brain dead, you disgusting wannabe dictator.


They would be effective eventually the patients would discover that they were wrong and would let go of their selfish and reactionary ways and become good and valued members of society.

Or they'll eventually die from being constantly tortured- I mean, being mentally treated.

[Marshal of the People]

People who disagree with you politically aren't brain dead, you disgusting wannabe dictator.



Or they'll eventually die from being constantly tortured- I mean, being mentally treated.

Where did I say they would be tortured? And I used brain dead people as an example.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where did I say they would be tortured?

It's implied in what you say. You want to treat opponents of your politics as mental patients, despite the fact that "political disagreement" is not a valid diagnosis. Therefore any so-called "treatment" said opponents receive would be thoroughly un-medical and would be nothing more than torture.


And I used brain dead people as an example.

It's still a shit example. Brain dead people are incapable of voting in the first place and therefore the issue of voting rights is irrelevant. However, people with different political opinions are generally capable of voting.

Want to try again?

[Marshal of the People]

It's implied in what you say. You want to treat opponents of your politics as mental patients, despite the fact that "political disagreement" is not a valid diagnosis. Therefore any so-called "treatment" said opponents receive would be thoroughly un-medical and would be nothing more than torture.



It's still a shit example. Brain dead people are incapable of voting in the first place and therefore the issue of voting rights is irrelevant. However, people with different political opinions are generally capable of voting.

Want to try again?

It would be like a school. Patients Would be treated and released when the have learnt about how the society works (communism).

[consuming negativity]

If I were an anarchist like you, I too would be concerned by the ominous threat posed by the revolutionary prohibition of free speech, not least because the proletariat is morally corruptible, but rather because the proletariat, if it is to ever secure its own emancipation, will necessarily have to suppress every liberty of every social group that seeks to obstruct the fulfillment of its historical mission. It is categorically reactionary to impose limitations on proletarian authority, in this case to discriminate between what constitutes its "abuse" and what doesn't. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat enthusiastically exercises all the authority available to it, because it doesn't doubt itself or mask its own purpose by making any pretense whatsoever of freedom for the reaction: with the utmost tyranny it heralds the dawn of a free species.


We would cure them in the special hospitals not kill them or exile them from society as some people would do.

What is with all of this creepy authoritarian bullshit? And you both have the audacity to speak as though the other is "the reason that the proletariat doesn't want to listen to us". Let me give you both a hint: the vast majority of people don't really want to side with someone who asserts that they are either mentally ill* or dangerous to society** for not presently agreeing with you about every minutiae of your political theory. Perhaps the idea that, in both of your ideal worlds, there would be no discussion because your debate partner would be locked up in a prison or a hospital (see: a prison) for disagreeing with you [or not being as educated as you in the first place] is why the vast majority of people (of any class) don't want to listen to your nonsense.

*Also, I find this thought to be a bit ableist. There is nothing wrong with being mentally ill, and one does not have to be mentally ill in order to have bad opinions.

**Yeah, because we can win a violent revolution against the most powerful states in history, but what's going to stop us is reactionaries who probably won't be alive telling people who are living in a situation where their needs are met better than ever before that they should go back to being poor and exploited.

[liberlict]

What is with all of this creepy authoritarian bullshit? And you both have the audacity to speak as though the other is "the reason that the proletariat doesn't want to listen to us". Let me give you both a hint: the vast majority of people don't really want to side with someone who asserts that they are either mentally ill* or dangerous to society** for not presently agreeing with you about every minutiae of your political theory. Perhaps the idea that, in both of your ideal worlds, there would be no discussion because your debate partner would be locked up in a prison or a hospital (see: a prison) for disagreeing with you [or not being as educated as you in the first place] is why the vast majority of people (of any class) don't want to listen to your nonsense.




:laugh::laugh:

[Marshal of the People]

The hospitals would be nice places. The patients would have access to books, movies, television, food, private quarters and so on. The patients would learn about communism, altruism, democracy and such and will be released back into society once they accept and absorb it all.

[Remus Bleys]

The hospitals would be nice places. The patients would have access to books, movies, television, food, private quarters and so on. The patients would learn about communism, altruism, democracy and such and will be released back into society once they accept and absorb it all.
there is a certain amount of irony that the democratist would reject democracy in the name of democracy in order to get people to agree with them so they can have democracy.

[Marshal of the People]

there is a certain amount of irony that the democratist would reject democracy in the name of democracy in order to get people to agree with them so they can have democracy.

So would you support fascists and conservatives having a say in how the world is run.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

So would you support fascists and conservatives having a say in how the world is run.
Doesn't matter what they say, just ignore them and if they go against us, punish them.

Except the fascists, those can die. I mean, Americans love to spread the overpopulation myth, so if anyone has to die, let them be the ones instead of poor people.

[Marshal of the People]

Doesn't matter what they say, just ignore them and if they go against us, punish them.

Except the fascists, those can die. I mean, Americans love to spread the overpopulation myth, so if anyone has to die, let them be the ones instead of poor people.

Why kill anyone? In the hospitals they are away from society and can be cured.

[Queen Mab]

Let me give you both a hint: the vast majority of people don't really want to side with someone who asserts that they are either mentally ill* or dangerous to society** for not presently agreeing with you about every minutiae of your political theory. Perhaps the idea that, in both of your ideal worlds, there would be no discussion because your debate partner would be locked up in a prison or a hospital (see: a prison) for disagreeing with you [or not being as educated as you in the first place] is why the vast majority of people (of any class) don't want to listen to your nonsense.

The vast majority of people don't really want to side with someone who advocates the communisation of property. So I guess we have to junk that too, right?

Communists "have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole". The idea that the working class is fundamentally opposed to the suppression of opinions that advocate their continued slavery is garbage. Liberal nonsense.

When the proletariat is in power it will be outright war between us and the forces of reaction. Claiming that there will be no censorship, something that has been used in every single war and revolution in history, is fantastical.

[NGNM85]

so like chicken$hit made this post

I concede Chicken$hit made that post. Of course, I never suggested otherwise. He also said a lot of other things. The fact that he produced one, (admittedly, accurate) quote from Engels, in the midst of that avalanche of bullshit, does not, in any way, validate all of the other nonsense he said.


...now do you seriously want to say that, you of all people, the anarcho-bernsteinist...

This is total horseshit. What's worse is I'm pretty sure you know that. When you, incorrectly, accused me of being pro-life, (twice, no less) which you still haven't corrected, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, that, perhaps, you simply misunderstood. Now, Ed Miliband recently made that same bogus accusation, using that exact phrase, which suggests you read that post, too. However, if you read that post, you almost certainly read my response, in which I quoted Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution; `Can we oppose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, its final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not.
"The practical daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class struggle and working in the direction of the final goal--the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labor. For Socialist Democracy, there is an indissoluble tie between social reforms and revolution. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its goal.' This is, in fact, the position I have always held, and Ed Miliband knows that. I think you know that, too. On which case you are a liar, or this is just a puerile attempt to bait me, in either case, it begs the question as to why you think anyone should take you seriously? Also, as an aside, what's particularly funny about this (baseless) accusation, is that I'm actually much more pessimistic about the possibility of advancing the interests of the working class via parliamentary means, thus; further from the reformist position, than Marx, and Engels.


...are more in the line of marx and engels than chicken$hit or for those who realize censorship would be a necessity?

Again,I was not referring specifically to that particular quote, or even just to his remarks concerning censorship, but, rather, the totality of his remarks, however,in a nutshell; yes. I'm really a Marxian, as opposed to being a Marxist (Even the man, himself, said; `I am not a Marxist.') but, yes, in some respects I'm, philosophically, closer to Marx, and Engels than Chicken$hit. I stand by that, and would be happy to demonstrate it.

[liberlict]

Why hasn't anybody brought up the idea of reeducation camps? Ideological rehabilitation for the unindoctrinated.

[Sinister Intents]

Why hasn't anybody brought up the idea of reeducation camps? Ideological rehabilitation for the unindoctrinated.

Sounds like a terrible thing that should not be used by socialists. Forced reeducation would be terrible, but if people are willing to learn things then it should be available to those that are willing.

[Marshal of the People]

Why hasn't anybody brought up the idea of reeducation camps? Ideological rehabilitation for the unindoctrinated.

My special hospitals are designed to educate fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, capitalists, conservatives etc. and help them become good citizens. They would be a nice safe place to live while the patient is in the process of treatment.

[Rurkel]

I don't think that "fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, capitalists, conservatives" would appreciate these nice little safe places to live at all. At least, people like chicken$hit don't subscribe to "people oppose communist politics because they are insane" concepts.

And I don't want to touch the chicken$hit vs. NGNM85 debate with a footpole.

[Marshal of the People]

I don't think that "fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, capitalists, conservatives" would appreciate these nice little safe places to live at all. At least, people like chicken$hit don't subscribe to "people oppose communist politics because they are insane" concepts.

And I don't want to touch the chicken$hit vs. NGNM85 debate with a footpole.

They wouldn't have a choice. But they will be grateful in the end because they will be happier and smarter.

[Sinister Intents]

My special hospitals are designed to educate fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, capitalists, conservatives etc. and help them become good citizens. They would be a nice safe place to live while the patient is in the process of treatment.

Will they be forced into it? Would they recieve electroshock therapies and such? I think the reactionaries would protest this so much unfortunately, but the ones willing to change will surely change

[Marshal of the People]

Will they be forced into it? Would they recieve electroshock therapies and such? I think the reactionaries would protest this so much unfortunately, but the ones willing to change will surely change

No torture just excersises in altruism, sharing and kindness with the other patients along with reading literature and watching educational films.

[Sinister Intents]

No torture just excersises in altruism, sharing and kindness with the other patients along with reading literature and watching educational films.

Sounds good :) How would we get them to agree to it? What of the ones that disagree and or get violent?

[Sabot Cat]

I don't think the state should use psychiatric institutions to enforce political ideology. It's just another way of oppressing dissidents whilst corrupting the science of psychology if the USSR's "sluggish schizophrenia" nightmare is anything like what you're describing. Censorship and "rehabilitation" will just drive those with countervailing viewpoints underground, while making people even more reluctant to be candid with their psychological professionals. Sorry if this at all what you're suggesting, but I can see how the entire project would be corrupted easily as it has been before in history. I'm welcome to counterpoints, as I don't think you're trying to be anything but benevolent.

[consuming negativity]

The vast majority of people don't really want to side with someone who advocates the communisation of property. So I guess we have to junk that too, right?

Communists "have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole". The idea that the working class is fundamentally opposed to the suppression of opinions that advocate their continued slavery is garbage. Liberal nonsense.

When the proletariat is in power it will be outright war between us and the forces of reaction. Claiming that there will be no censorship, something that has been used in every single war and revolution in history, is fantastical.

What a silly example. Of course I don't want to get rid of the communization of property - it's a good idea that ought to be defended. Sending anyone that "the proletariat" (see: most likely, some arbitrary group of clowns saying that they represent me) deems to not be communist enough (see: anarchists, according to the person I was responding to) to a mental hospital "or" prison is fucking lunacy. I advocate good ideas that would lead to the benefit of humanity, not weird totalitarian wet dreams about forcing schizophrenic people to have to bunk with someone's idiot ancap cousin.

If you really can't tell the difference, that's your problem. I'm not going to be buddy buddy with someone who wants to lock me up for not agreeing with them. In fact, I really wouldn't give such a person the time of day, let alone listen to what else they think about politics. It is actually extremely offensive to me that what you people are suggesting is that locking me up is a benefit to my social class. Shocker, this isn't an unpopular opinion among any self-respecting demographic of people. And no, having it doesn't suddenly make me some wide-eyed liberal yuppie.

Everything you say about war censorship is completely irrelevant to the point because it wasn't what I was addressing, but I think that the idea that during a war you're going to be shooting at the enemy is sort of a given. Similarly to how nobody wants to listen to the opinions of the capitalist apologists shooting at them, nobody wants to listen to the opinions of some commissar with a gun on them sending them off to a "hospital" against their will.

[Queen Mab]

What a silly example. Of course I don't want to get rid of the communization of property - it's a good idea that ought to be defended.

So why did you bring up an argumentum ad populum? People under bourgeois cultural hegemony generally don't support communism. If you want to make concessions to that then we should give up on the idea of revolution altogether.



Sending anyone that "the proletariat" (see: most likely, some arbitrary group of clowns saying that they represent me) deems to not be communist enough (see: anarchists, according to the person I was responding to) to a mental hospital "or" prison is fucking lunacy.

The wonderful thing about proletarian dictatorship is that there will be independent organs of working class power able to decide these questions themselves. People like me and chicken$hit won't have anything to do with it.


If you really can't tell the difference, that's your problem. I'm not going to be buddy buddy with someone who wants to lock me up for not agreeing with them. In fact, I really wouldn't give such a person the time of day, let alone listen to what else they think about politics. It is actually extremely offensive to me that what you people are suggesting is that locking me up is a benefit to my social class. Shocker, this isn't an unpopular opinion among any self-respecting demographic of people. And no, having it doesn't suddenly make me some wide-eyed liberal yuppie.

Yawn. If you're opposed to the self-emancipation of the proletariat, then yes your opinions will be suppressed. Is there anything else to discuss? Frankly I couldn't care if reactionaries find that offensive.


Everything you say about war censorship is completely irrelevant to the point because it wasn't what I was addressing, but I think that the idea that during a war you're going to be shooting at the enemy is sort of a given. Similarly to how nobody wants to listen to the opinions of the capitalist apologists shooting at them, nobody wants to listen to the opinions of some commissar with a gun on them sending them off to a "hospital" against their will.

Shooting someone is necessarily censorship. The dead can't speak.

If Neo-Nazis turned up at a workplace and started spreading racist, sexist literature, would you let them exercise their right to free speech? Apparently you don't want to be that 'commissar with a gun' attacking their freedom.

Your position is even more reactionary than our current bourgeois dictatorships, which have hate speech laws.


I advocate good ideas that would lead to the benefit of humanity

Such an idealist statement explains why you are tying yourself up in reactionary knots, I think.

[NGNM85]

If Neo-Nazis turned up at a workplace and started spreading racist, sexist literature, would you let them exercise their right to free speech? Apparently you don't want to be that 'commissar with a gun' attacking their freedom.

Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you can proselytize anywhere you want. Even in publicly owned workplaces, one would expect there would be rules against that sort of thing. However, if people want to preach, or whatever, in a public park, or something, I see no problem with that.

What I find puzzling about arguments like this is that it implies that neo-nazism is so incredibly attractive, so alluring, that workers must be protected from it's siren song. I don't find that remotely persuasive. That seems to be obviously false.


Your position is even more reactionary than our current bourgeois dictatorships, which have hate speech laws.

The US doesn't, yet we don't have an epidemic of neo-nazism.

Like a wise man once said; `to fight freedom of the press, one must maintain the thesis of the permanent immaturity of the human race... If the immaturity of the human race is the mystical ground for opposing freedom of the press, then certainly censorship is a most reasonable means of hindering the human race from coming of age.'

[Queen Mab]

Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you can proselytize anywhere you want. Even in publicly owned workplaces, one would expect there would be rules against that sort of thing. However, if people want to preach, or whatever, in a public park, or something, I see no problem with that.


You're adopting the liberal distinction between the public sphere (free) and the private workplace (unfree) that has been used to violently suppress workers for centuries. If there are no restrictions on speech, there are no restrictions on speech anywhere.


What I find puzzling about arguments like this is that it implies that neo-nazism is so incredibly attractive, so alluring, that workers must be protected from it's siren song. I don't find that remotely persuasive. That seems to be obviously false.

There will be no need to 'protect' workers. Workers themselves will recognise reactionary propaganda as counter to their interests and will silence it.


The US doesn't, yet we don't have an epidemic of neo-nazism.

There are more factors regulating the numbers of Neo-Nazis than the presence/absence of hate speech laws. But one can reasonably argue that if there were stronger laws there would probably be less Nazis.


Like a wise man once said; `to fight freedom of the press, one must maintain the thesis of the permanent immaturity of the human race... If the immaturity of the human race is the mystical ground for opposing freedom of the press, then certainly censorship is a most reasonable means of hindering the human race from coming of age.'

Marx wrote that in 1842 (before he became a communist) in the context of censorship by a feudal-aristocratic state. I don't think it's relevant to the discussion of free speech under a proletarian dictatorship.

[Marshal of the People]

Sounds good :) How would we get them to agree to it? What of the ones that disagree and or get violent?

The hospitals would be like schools where you learn about altruism, socialism (communism, anarchism, socialism), cooperation, sharing, kindness, etc. You would be forcibly sent to one if you commit crimes due to your views, preach hatred and promote your views.

[Marshal of the People]

I don't think the state should use psychiatric institutions to enforce political ideology. It's just another way of oppressing dissidents whilst corrupting the science of psychology if the USSR's "sluggish schizophrenia" nightmare is anything like what you're describing. Censorship and "rehabilitation" will just drive those with countervailing viewpoints underground, while making people even more reluctant to be candid with their psychological professionals. Sorry if this at all what you're suggesting, but I can see how the entire project would be corrupted easily as it has been before in history. I'm welcome to counterpoints, as I don't think you're trying to be anything but benevolent.

They would be sent to a hospital if they commit crimes (like hate speech for example) due to their views or promote their views.

[Sinister Intents]

The hospitals would be like schools where you learn about altruism, socialism (communism, anarchism, socialism), cooperation, sharing, kindness, etc. You would be forcibly sent to one if you commit crimes due to your views, preach hatred and promote your views.


They would be sent to a hospital if they commit crimes (like hate speech for example) due to their views or promote their views.

Seems wrong to me, I agree with what Red Rose said. I think this is a bit of a bad idea to send them to reeducation facilities, or places called 'hospitals.' Would they really be hospitals, or would they be like concentration camps to send those deemed inferior, plus I think when socialism is achieved a lot of these people will be leftists of some kind, and the reactionaries will be a minority that will be fading away.

[Marshal of the People]

Seems wrong to me, I agree with what Red Rose said. I think this is a bit of a bad idea to send them to reeducation facilities, or places called 'hospitals.' Would they really be hospitals, or would they be like concentration camps to send those deemed inferior, plus I think when socialism is achieved a lot of these people will be leftists of some kind, and the reactionaries will be a minority that will be fading away.

I guess your right. But we will have to do something with the fascists, conservatives and LOLbertarians who stick to their ways, what do you suggest?

[Sinister Intents]

I guess your right. But we will have to do something with the fascists, conservatives and LOLbertarians who stick to their ways, what do you suggest?

I think they're going to have to be dealt with in a collective matter, what ever the community, commune, et cetera decides upon will be done unto them or for them whether it be sending them to a place to be reeducated if they agree to that, but something can only be done if they're willing to change. In general they'll have to face facts and realize capitalism failed, and it will always fail, their beliefs are failures and they must learn for themselves and take it onto themselves to learn about socialism, and learn how to be in society. If they're not willing to learn and they try organizing against the socialist society they'll have to be dealt with, if they get violent we'll use violent means to eliminate them swiftly and mercilessly.

[consuming negativity]

So why did you bring up an argumentum ad populum? People under bourgeois cultural hegemony generally don't support communism. If you want to make concessions to that then we should give up on the idea of revolution altogether.

I didn't. The people I quoted both brought it up against each other and I turned it around on them.


Yawn. If you're opposed to the self-emancipation of the proletariat, then yes your opinions will be suppressed. Is there anything else to discuss? Frankly I couldn't care if reactionaries find that offensive.

Do you or do you not think that anarchists (to pre-empt you, it is obvious that I'm not talking about the ayncaps) should be thrown in cages under the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? The person I was responding to would say "yes". If you don't agree with them, why argue their position?


Shooting someone is necessarily censorship. The dead can't speak.

If Neo-Nazis turned up at a workplace and started spreading racist, sexist literature, would you let them exercise their right to free speech? Apparently you don't want to be that 'commissar with a gun' attacking their freedom.

Of course I wouldn't. I am not a fucking neo-Nazi nor do I sympathize with them. It's like you can't understand that not allowing neo-Nazis to harass people at their workplace is completely different than sending anarchists to reeducation camps for "being reactionaries".

[NGNM85]

You're adopting the liberal distinction between the public sphere (free) and the private workplace (unfree) that has been used to violently suppress workers for centuries. If there are no restrictions on speech, there are no restrictions on speech anywhere.

Nonsense. First; if the means of production are publicly owned, and controlled by the workers, themselves, there is no suppression, in fact, it should be logistically impossible. A worker-owned enterprise would have to have rules, workers would still be expected to uphold a certain level of professionalism, they would be expected to do their work, etc.

Second, much like RedWaves, you seem to have some confusion about `free speech.' First of all, `free speech' does not mean unregulated speech. Certain types of expression, such as pornography, for example, are regulated, in terms of who can access it, and where they can display it. Also, there are some types of speech that should never be tolerated, that fall outside the parameters of free speech, things like yelling; `Fire!' in a crowded theater, or explicit death threats.


There will be no need to 'protect' workers. Workers themselves will recognise reactionary propaganda as counter to their interests and will silence it.

I very much doubt that. However, beyond that, if said workers recognize white supremacist propaganda as reactionary bullshit, it begs the question as to why they would need to violently suppress it, if nobody finds it persuasive. An immediate, violent reaction suggests some kind of immanent threat, which would not be the case. You can't argue that reactionary speech must be annihilated, immediately, at all costs, and that such speech doesn't represent a serious threat.These propositions are mutually incompatible.


There are more factors regulating the numbers of Neo-Nazis than the presence/absence of hate speech laws. But one can reasonably argue that if there were stronger laws there would probably be less Nazis.

That doesn't follow. For example, in Germany, which, by far, has been the most aggressive in cracking down on white supremacist groups, the neo-nazi subculture is much larger, much more organized, and energetic. I think heavy-handed repression is often, actually, counterproductive. For one thing, it forces hate groups to become more subtle, and sophisticated. I remember an interview with Nick Griffin, chairman of the BNP, talking about how they had been forced to tailor their approach, how they had adopted a more conservative, mainstream appearance. I truly believe, from my experience, that these assholes will marginalize themselves at the very first opportunity. In the United States, they let their freak flag fly, they walk around in full regalia, and people see them for the mutants they are. Also, groups under siege often pull together, reinforcing solidarity.


Marx wrote that in 1842 (before he became a communist) in the context of censorship by a feudal-aristocratic state. I don't think it's relevant to the discussion of free speech under a proletarian dictatorship.

I disagree.

It's also worth mentioning that Marx, and Engels model, their sole example, of the form, and structure of the d.o.t.p. was the Paris commune, a direct democracy, with recallable delegates, etc., that's quite a bit different from what you, and chicken$hit are proposing. That sounds more like a gulag.

[Ember Catching]

Fucking unbelievable. I don't know what's more incredible, that you would slander the names of Marx, and Engels by attributing your bullshit to them, or that you think anyone will find this claim persuasive. What I want to know is whether you're ignorant enough to actually believe this, or if you just think everyone else is too ignorant to see through it.
What in the fuck does an anarchoid deviationist care about "the names of Marx and Engels"? That you deny the revolutionary dictatorship is slander enough. There is no "ignorance" in admitting the historical truth that the triumphant Stalinist counter-revolution, as the social and ideological reflex of revolutionary degeneration, did more to put the working class off the revolutionary doctrine than a reaffirmation of basic communist principles could ever hope to — there is only ignorance in the opposite formulation, which, unless you are a historical revisionist, must then be your formulation.

Let me give you both a hint: the vast majority of people don't really want to side with someone who asserts that they are dangerous to society** for not presently agreeing with you about every minutiae of your political theory. Perhaps the idea that, in both of your ideal worlds, there would be no discussion because your debate partner would be locked up in a prison [...] for disagreeing with you [or not being as educated as you in the first place] is why the vast majority of people (of any class) don't want to listen to your nonsense. [...] **Yeah, because we can win a violent revolution against the most powerful states in history, but what's going to stop us is reactionaries who probably won't be alive telling people who are living in a situation where their needs are met better than ever before that they should go back to being poor and exploited.
On the contrary, I see the stagnation of the modern communist movement as necessarily rooted in the opportunistic reaction, constituted in "socialism in one country" and "anti-fascism", of the Third International to the degeneration of the world revolution. Believe it or not, there was in fact a time when great sections of the European proletariat accepted without reservation that the establishment of its totalitarian dictatorship necessarily constituted its historical mission, which it gloriously moved to fulfill in Germany and Russia. The violent establishment of revolutionary dictatorship through civil war provoked, and will necessarily provoke in all future revolutions, the most decidedly savage counter-revolution: any claim to the contrary denies the historical lessons of the defeated world revolution — lessons taught by Reichswehr, Freikorps, Stahlhelm, White Army and Allied bullets, among countless others — and any praxis predicated on this denial will necessarily serve the counter-revolution in its hour of need.

The people put in those special hospitals would be there because their beliefs are detrimental to society. They would be kept in the hospitals until they are re-educated and cured.
This merely contributes to the anti-historical notion that the overthrow of capitalist production depends on generalized acknowledgement of the "logical and ethical superiority" of communism: it therefore amounts to the same downright idealism for which I already called out a participant in this thread. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat unapologetically suppresses all its opponents not on account of the perceived absurdity, unhealthiness or invalidity of their opinions, but rather because all its opposition inevitably serves the counter-revolution of a class whose interests are always antithetical to communist interests and thus the emancipation of the proletariat, and human emancipation more generally — a class hell-bent on jamming shut the floodgates of world history.

... I quoted Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution; `Can we oppose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, its final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The practical daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class struggle and working in the direction of the final goal--the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labor. For Socialist Democracy, there is an indissoluble tie between social reforms and revolution. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its goal.' This is, in fact, the position I have always held ...
That position is by no means admirable. Historically, Social Democracy was an opportunistic trend within the proletarian movement that effected the treacherous divorce "between means and ends, tactics and principles, and immediate and ultimate objectives, leading inevitably back to electoralism and democratism in politics, and to reformism in the social field" which, in lockstep with the terrorists of the reaction, crushed the November Revolution in a display of sectarianism truly worthy of its place in the history books. For decades the bourgeoisie have been mobilizing their forces in a grand coalition against the working class, subjugating it by lengthening the term of the working day, week, year and life: i.e. increasing the rate of exploitation, bringing the relationship of wage labor to a head, pressing class antagonisms to their maximum extent, and expanding and intensifying the class war on the bourgeois front. Incidentally, Social Democracy today no longer makes any illusions about its support for bourgeois forms of property and domination. Why could that be? Why indeed.

Sending anyone that "the proletariat" (see: most likely, some arbitrary group of clowns saying that they represent me) deems to not be communist enough (see: anarchists, according to the person I was responding to) to prison is fucking lunacy.
The Party is no "arbitrary" cadre of claimants to proletarian interests — on the contrary, it is the necessary organic expression of the proletarian will to rule: political power cannot be conquered without the transformation of all proletarian social efforts into the unified overarching struggle for proletarian emancipation, and thus communists reject as the vehicles of revolutionary struggle all organs and methods which in any way fractionate the proletariat, recognizing that only a Party whose programme conforms exactly to the proletarian historical mission — a Party which transmits the revolutionary doctrine to the laboring class and co-ordinates every aspect of revolutionary struggle, international borders notwithstanding — can constitute the proletarian centralizing organ indispensable to communism. There is no cause for shame in admitting such a Party's seizure of power during civil war will necessarily constitute establishment of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, only shame in denial.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That position is by no means admirable. Historically, Social Democracy was an opportunistic trend within the proletarian movement that effected the treacherous divorce "between means and ends, tactics and principles, and immediate and ultimate objectives, leading inevitably back to electoralism and democratism in politics, and to reformism in the social field" which, in lockstep with the terrorists of the reaction, crushed the November Revolution in a display of sectarianism truly worthy of its place in the history books. For decades the bourgeoisie have been mobilizing their forces in a grand coalition against the working class, subjugating it by lengthening the term of the working day, week, year and life: i.e. increasing the rate of exploitation, bringing the relationship of wage labor to a head, pressing class antagonisms to their maximum extent, expanding and intensifying the class war on the bourgeois front. Incidentally, Social Democracy today no longer makes any illusions about its support for bourgeois forms of property and domination. Why could that be? Why indeed.
When Luxemburg wrote Reform or Revolution, "Social-Democrat" was the accepted term for revolutionary Marxist socialists - since in fact the association of socialism with democratic activity by the workers themselves, rather than utopian and religious schemes, was due to Marxism. The paragraph NGNM85 quotes doesn't say what they think it says (that "socialists" should support Obama), but that's neither here nor there.

And yes, it is absurd to make a fetish out of democracy and the freedom of opinion (and in particular, when it comes to protecting the proletarian dictatorship, no freedom is to be allowed, period). But at the same time, anyone who does not think that there is One Invariant Communist Program (amen) that should never be changed in response to changing circumstances - i.e. anyone who does not treat Marxism as a religion rather than as a science - should appreciate the necessity of democratic discussion within the Party, within reasonable limits.

[Remus Bleys]

When Luxemburg wrote Reform or Revolution, "Social-Democrat" was the accepted term for revolutionary Marxist socialists - since in fact the association of socialism with democratic activity by the workers themselves, rather than utopian and religious schemes, was due to Marxism. The paragraph NGNM85 quotes doesn't say what they think it says (that "socialists" should support Obama), but that's neither here nor there.

And yes, it is absurd to make a fetish out of democracy and the freedom of opinion (and in particular, when it comes to protecting the proletarian dictatorship, no freedom is to be allowed, period). But at the same time, anyone who does not think that there is One Invariant Communist Program (amen) that should never be changed in response to changing circumstances - i.e. anyone who does not treat Marxism as a religion rather than as a science - should appreciate the necessity of democratic discussion within the Party, within reasonable limits.
Invariance does not mean the party always had correct theory or that marx Engels and Lenin were always right - anyone who thinks that is an idiot. Invariance means that because capitalism is invariant the correct critique and correct theory are invariant. This correct program or theory is invariant not because marxism is a religion but because capitalism is invariant.
I would actually agree with free discussion within the Party (to a limit of course) but I don't think something serious would necessarily come off this discussion as democracy would still not be used to determine what results from this discussion, and some things need not be discussed. To call discussion democratic is laughable.

[NGNM85]

The paragraph NGNM85 quotes doesn't say what they think it says (that "socialists" should support Obama), but that's neither here nor there.

I understood the pamphlet just fine. Second, that's not an accurate paraphrase, that's extremely misleading, at best. If you have some question about my views, on this, or any other subject; ask. Don't presume to speak for me. You are not authorized to act as my representative.

[Ember Catching]

When Luxemburg wrote Reform or Revolution, "Social-Democrat" was the accepted term for revolutionary Marxist socialists - since in fact the association of socialism with democratic activity by the workers themselves, rather than utopian and religious schemes, was due to Marxism. The paragraph NGNM85 quotes doesn't say what they think it says (that "socialists" should support Obama), but that's neither here nor there.
Communist endonyms and exonyms notwithstanding, the quoted extract expresses an opportunistic tendency predicated on the misconception that "[t]he practical daily struggle for reforms" constitutes "the only means of engaging in the proletarian class struggle": it is a formulation whose historical practice shamefully betrayed the world revolution in an effective substitution of organizational interests for communist interests. This historical tendency, which we label 'Social Democracy' by matter of convention, is a gradualist disease.

But at the same time, anyone who does not think that there is One Invariant Communist Program (amen) that should never be changed in response to changing circumstances - i.e. anyone who does not treat Marxism as a religion rather than as a science - should appreciate the necessity of democratic discussion within the Party, within reasonable limits.
I initially made a reference to the "invariant revolutionary doctrine" in my previous post, which I must concede was a misnomer and has since been amended accordingly: I reaffirm that the revolutionary doctrine — i.e. "Marxism", the necessary theoretical conclusions of scientific socialism, of History — may vary precisely inasmuch as it reaffirms, doesn't augment, doesn't reduce, doesn't revise the Marxist programme, which brings us back to your original point. Rejection of programmatic invariance is a criticism that doesn't stand up to History: there has never been, and indeed there never will be, any change in circumstance necessitating deviation of communist praxis from "the transformation of all proletarian social efforts into the unified overarching struggle for proletarian emancipation" — to deny this formulation is to deny communism as the necessary conciliator of all antagonisms, to admit defeat before class struggle has even concluded, to toe the line of the reaction. As long as there is a State to speak of, the Marxist programme must remain pure and invariant.

In the organic centralist Party the "reasonable limits" of "democratic discussion" are not arbitrarily disregarded, as would be true for fetishists of an organizational form, but are in fact well-defined: democracy is permitted to the extent that it cannot in any way compromise the historical continuity of communism — that this necessarily corresponds to undemocratic internal organization is no accident, as the Party must select all its organs according to how competently and ardently they represent communist interests, and this process of selection must not be jeopardized.

[NGNM85]

This piece, by Hal Draper, perfectly illustrates why the interpretation of the;`dictatorship of the proletariat', being presented by Chicken$hit, Remus Bleys, and The Unknown Zero, is fundamentally bogus;

http://marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article2.htm

[DoCt SPARTAN]

I mean I came in to left-wing politics for total freedom(unlike the world today)...so would support freedoms to all people.

[Sinister Intents]

I mean I came in to left-wing politics for total freedom(unlike the world today)...so would support freedoms to all people.

Sounds good, so how do you feel about the freedom of Nazi's and fascists under socialism? Do you think they would need to be suppressed?

[NGNM85]

Sounds good, so how do you feel about the freedom of Nazi's and fascists under socialism? Do you think they would need to be suppressed?

Neo-nazis. Let's not give these losers more credit than they deserve.

Again, I would ask why you see this as such a serious threat. White supremacists are not suppressed, in any sense, in the United States, yet they are socially, and politically irrelevent, and impotent, even more so than the radical left, which is really saying something. Furthermore; this reactionary nonsense has almost no apppeal to young people, today, and, as such, is doomed to be even more irrelevent than it presently is.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

Sounds good, so how do you feel about the freedom of Nazi's and fascists under socialism? Do you think they would need to be suppressed?
I mean they can't be lynching blacks people at racist rallies or committing hate crimes, I don't think it would be that much of a counter-revolutionary set back. Unless they really create problem. Like a threat to the people or something, Then action will be done to stop terrorism.

[Ember Catching]

This piece, by Hal Draper, perfectly illustrates why the interpretation of the;`dictatorship of the proletariat', being presented by Chicken$hit, Remus Bleys, and The Unknown Zero, is fundamentally bogus;
Like Marx and Engels, and therefore contrary to Blanqui, I understand socialism can only be achieved through the immanent movement of the exploited class in whose interest it is to overthrow the present conditions of production — through communism — and not by the conspiracy of any militant cadres. The Party is the political organization of the revolutionary proletariat-for-itself, the organic expression of the proletarian will to rule, and, foremost, the centralizing organ shown to be necessary for "the transformation of all proletarian social efforts into the unified overarching struggle for proletarian emancipation" — if it doesn't consolidate and refine the proletarian movement then it cannot be considered the Party. The organic growth of the Party embodies the "constitution of the proletariat into a class" (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) — the Party is therefore a leader and at one at the same time an aspect of the proletariat, its revolutionary configuration — not a band of putschists — and its seizure of power through outright civil war will necessarily inaugurate the proletarian revolutionary dictatorship.


"What leaps to the eye is Engels’ assumption that ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ has no special meaning other than the establishment of the “rule” of the working class. “Every” real working-class party stands for it: this statement can make no sense to anyone who believes that there is some special “theory of proletarian dictatorship” in Marx and Engels, involving special notions about “dictatorial” measures."

There's no doubting the validity of Draper's observations here — that is to say, I've always accepted Marx's and Engels' own conceptions of proletarian dictatorship as fundamentally a sort of revolutionary "state of emergency" without any totalitarian trappings. But the revolutionary doctrine isn't religious scripture, and has of course undergone developments since Marx and Engels departed this world.


"[Engels] was explaining the relationship between the governmental form (democratic republic) and the class content of the state (dictatorship of the proletariat). The Paris Commune [...] had shown in revolutionary practice that a workers’ state (dictatorship of the proletariat) could and probably would be based on the forms of the democratic republic."

This brings us to one of the doctrinaire developments in question:


"This is translated into a fundamental Marxist thesis: the revolution is not a problem of forms of organization. On the contrary, the revolution is a problem of content, a problem of the movement and action of revolutionary forces in an unending process, which cannot be theorized and crystallized in any scheme for an immutable "constitutional doctrine"."

— Amadeo Bordiga, The Democratic Principle, 1922

Democracy isn't the only means of, paraphrasing Marx, subordinating the state to society (Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875), yet the left persistently alleges that it is, and the consequences of this have been catastrophic for the proletarian movement.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Invariance does not mean the party always had correct theory or that marx Engels and Lenin were always right - anyone who thinks that is an idiot. Invariance means that because capitalism is invariant the correct critique and correct theory are invariant. This correct program or theory is invariant not because marxism is a religion but because capitalism is invariant.

Alright, but this is empty: the correct theory is the correct theory. How it usually works is that "the invariant program" functions in Bordigist circles in the same manner as "anti-revisionism" does in other tendencies. Of course it is wrong to deviate from the communist program, or to revise Marxism in the sense in which Bernstein revised Marxism. But to enshrine any particular formulation as the one entirely correct expression of the communist program is dogmatism, and as an old revisionist once said, "dogmatism is like dung, one can make anything out of it, including revisionism".


I would actually agree with free discussion within the Party (to a limit of course) but I don't think something serious would necessarily come off this discussion as democracy would still not be used to determine what results from this discussion, and some things need not be discussed. To call discussion democratic is laughable.

How would the results be decided, then? The chief thing is to allow the social weight of the revolutionary strata of the proletariat decide party questions - I fail to see how this is possible if not through internal democracy.


Communist endonyms and exonyms notwithstanding, the quoted extract expresses an opportunistic tendency predicated on the misconception that "[t]he practical daily struggle for reforms" constitutes "the only means of engaging in the proletarian class struggle": it is a formulation whose historical practice shamefully betrayed the world revolution in an effective substitution of organizational interests for communist interests. This historical tendency, which we label 'Social Democracy' by matter of convention, is a gradualist disease.

Well, today it is. In fact, even "gradualism" might be too charitable, since most sots-dem parties have no socialist pretensions whatsoever in this period. But that is not what Luxemburg is advocating; she is advocating participation in struggles for reform in order to draw the proletariat toward the maximum communist program. Eberts and Noskes had no need for the maximum program; indeed they had no need for the minimum one either.


I initially made a reference to the "invariant revolutionary doctrine" in my previous post, which I must concede was a misnomer and has since been amended accordingly: I reaffirm that the revolutionary doctrine — i.e. "Marxism", the necessary theoretical conclusions of scientific socialism, of History — may vary precisely inasmuch as it reaffirms, doesn't augment, doesn't reduce, doesn't revise the Marxist programme, which brings us back to your original point. Rejection of programmatic invariance is a criticism that doesn't stand up to History: there has never been, and indeed there never will be, any change in circumstance necessitating deviation of communist praxis from "the transformation of all proletarian social efforts into the unified overarching struggle for proletarian emancipation" — to deny this formulation is to deny communism as the necessary conciliator of all antagonisms, to admit defeat before class struggle has even concluded, to toe the line of the reaction. As long as there is a State to speak of, the Marxist programme must remain pure and invariant.

Take the independence of Poland, for example. Was this a demand of a large part of the proletariat? It was. Was it justified? Certainly (there are also reactionary demands by the proletariat, "British jobs for British workers" for example). Yet at one point it became necessary to disregard this demand, to reject the exercise of the right to self-determination in the specific case of Poland in WWI for strategic reasons. I don't see how this constituted "toeing the line of the reaction". The chief aim of the Marxist socialist movement - the violent smashing of the bourgeois state apparatus and the socialisation of the means of production - defines the movement itself, and can't be changed without "changing the subject", so to speak. But in the course of class struggle, strategic concerns dictate emphasizing or deemphasizing certain demands etc. etc.


In the organic centralist Party the "reasonable limits" of "democratic discussion" are not arbitrarily disregarded, as would be true for fetishists of an organizational form, but are in fact well-defined: democracy is permitted to the extent that it cannot in any way compromise the historical continuity of communism — that this necessarily corresponds to undemocratic internal organization is no accident, as the Party must select all its organs according to how competently and ardently they represent communist interests, and this process of selection must not be jeopardized.

That said, who will decide on the competence and ardent spirit of the candidates for certain organs? An individual or committee setting themselves apart from the party - or the cadres of the party, presumably militant communists themselves?


Again, I would ask why you see this as such a serious threat. White supremacists are not suppressed, in any sense, in the United States, yet they are socially, and politically irrelevent, and impotent, even more so than the radical left, which is really saying something. Furthermore; this reactionary nonsense has almost no apppeal to young people, today, and, as such, is doomed to be even more irrelevent than it presently is.

"So what if a black person or two is murdered? Nazis are people and deserve rights." - what a grotesquely schematic, populist notion. Communists are not "a party of the entire people". Communists take sides. Our side is the side of the proletariat and the oppressed.

[tooAlive]

Man, guess I had you guys pegged the wrong way this whole time. I actually started to believe you were for a completely state-less society with even more freedom than we have now. But mental hospitals for the opposition? Hah!

What a joke.

In case you haven't been paying attention, roughly 50% of Venezuela's population voted for the opposition (against communism) in these past elections. Who knows what the number would have been had they agreed to the recount. You guys are gonna need a lot of hospitals...

Anyways, riddle me this: If communism is so great, why would suppressing other opposing ideologies even be necessary? That's like having a girlfriend but not letting her go outside because you're afraid she'll see another guy better looking than you.

Are you inadvertently saying that capitalism appeals more to the proletariat than communism?

[tooAlive]

Also, tell me -- Under full blown communism, would you lefties allow us reactionary righties to have our own forum, like we allow you to have under our capitalism?

It has however occurred to me to start a rehabilitation center for recovering communists to teach them about the benefits of the free market, but there doesn't seem to be much of a profit motive at the moment to pursue the idea. (kidding)

[Future]

The suppression of ideas, expression, and speech goes against everything Anarchism is about.

"With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards." - Noam Chomsky


'Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?' --- Stalin

I don't know if that quote is genuine but it always cracks me up.

Oh my sides! I can't breathe! I just looked it up and it is totally legit. Oh shit thank you so much for this quote. :laugh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Man, guess I had you guys pegged the wrong way this whole time. I actually started to believe you were for a completely state-less society with even more freedom than we have now. But mental hospitals for the opposition? Hah!

What a joke.

So wait, you're smearing all of us with this shit on the basis of one idiot's rantings? Did you not see me heavily criticising that kind of authoritarian shitheadedness?


In case you haven't been paying attention, roughly 50% of Venezuela's population voted for the opposition (against communism) in these past elections. Who knows what the number would have been had they agreed to the recount. You guys are gonna need a lot of hospitals...

Anyways, riddle me this: If communism is so great, why would suppressing other opposing ideologies even be necessary? That's like having a girlfriend but not letting her go outside because you're afraid she'll see another guy better looking than you.

That was kind of my point. Pity you seemed to have ignored it in favour of making trollish "gotchas".

[argeiphontes]

Anyways, riddle me this: If communism is so great, why would suppressing other opposing ideologies even be necessary? That's like having a girlfriend but not letting her go outside because you're afraid she'll see another guy better looking than you.

Are you inadvertently saying that capitalism appeals more to the proletariat than communism?

That's a good point, and a fun analogy. What people don't realize is that a (functioning) communist society would just be like the inverse of this society. Here, you have freedom of speech and a small minority of people expressing opposing views. They never get any traction and their views don't matter to the society at large. The hegemony of the capitalist system opposes them, and reproduces itself in the normal ways that a society reproduces itself, what sociologists call "social reproduction."

In communism, it would just be the inverse. There would be a small minority agitating for capitalism (and other things, fascism, etc.) but they would never get any traction outside of small groups. There would be no need to repress anybody. Society would just be reproduced through its institutions. This kind of normalcy exists in every society. There was capitalism in feudalism but it didn't turn into capitalism, or even threaten the system, until some conditions were met.

If there was a constant need to actively repress people, who actually were gaining traction and growing in number, then there would be some problem with the new society. A society that can't achieve stability won't last. You're familiar with the Soviet Union, I take it.

[tooAlive]

So wait, you're smearing all of us with this shit on the basis of one idiot's rantings? Did you not see me heavily criticising that kind of authoritarian shitheadedness?

That was kind of my point. Pity you seemed to have ignored it in favour of making trollish "gotchas".

My apologies if you took offense. To be fair, I did read your posts and took note of (and liked) your intelligent remarks.

Although unfortunately yours was pretty much the only voice of reason I could take not of, as it was drowned out by a lot of what you yourself called, "authoritarian shitheadedness."

[Sinister Intents]

Also, tell me -- Under full blown communism, would you lefties allow us reactionary righties to have our own forum, like we allow you to have under our capitalism?

It has however occurred to me to start a rehabilitation center for recovering communists to teach them about the benefits of the free market, but there doesn't seem to be much of a profit motive at the moment to pursue the idea. (kidding)

No you reactionaries wouldn't be allowed to have a forum, but you'd probably make it anyway and it'd be kept for educational purposes or gotten rid of for being counterrevolutionary bullshit. The capitalists monitor this internet forum heavily, and there are probably tabs on every individual that uses this forum thanks to the NSA's bullshit.

A rehabilitation center for recovering communists? Funny, very funny, because I need to have a mind diseased with capitalism to be happy right. Because everyone needs to be a greedy cappie pig right?

[Sinister Intents]

Question for you TooAlive: Would you like the people who would kill you for your skin color, religion and other reasons to have freedom of opinion, would you like the fascists and nazi's to have freedom of opinion?

[tooAlive]

No you reactionaries wouldn't be allowed to have a forum, but you'd probably make it anyway and it'd be kept for educational purposes or gotten rid of for being counterrevolutionary bullshit.

Well then, so much for being anarchists and advocates of freedom.

I don't mean to make another blanket statement about leftists, but one thing I've noticed in most of you guys is that "freedom" typically means imposing your beliefs on everyone else.


The capitalists monitor this internet forum heavily, and there are probably tabs on every individual that uses this forum thanks to the NSA's bullshit.

What makes you think that I, as a free-market advocate, would approve of such monitoring like that done by the NSA? Funny you mention it though, it's America's left (the Democrats) that don't seem to mind it.


A rehabilitation center for recovering communists? Funny, very funny, because I need to have a mind diseased with capitalism to be happy right. Because everyone needs to be a greedy cappie pig right?

I guess that depends on if you think the greedy pigs are inherent to only capitalism.

[Skyhilist]

I don't feel that I can vote on this poll, because you haven't defined what you mean by free speech.

Does free speech mean that someone can legally say something, or does it mean that they have the right to say something with no repercussions?

Reactionary people are likely going to say bigoted and reactionary things regardless, so I think just making it a law that they couldn't would miss the point. However, should reactionaries expect that there wont be an consequences for the things they say? For example, should fascists be allowed to freely hold a rally without worrying about being run out of town and/or fought? Absolutely not. Injurious language and expression must be combated directly and cannot be allowed to go on with no consequences.

[tooAlive]

Question for you TooAlive: Would you like the people who would kill you for your skin color, religion and other reasons to have freedom of opinion, would you like the fascists and nazi's to have freedom of opinion?

As sick, disgusting and flat out wrong as their opinion may be, they have the right to have them. Taking action upon them is a different story, however.

Killing a person isn't justified simply because you deem them undesirable.

[Sinister Intents]

Well then, so much for being anarchists and advocates of freedom.

Not really, I don't support the freedom of those that wish to take it away.


I don't mean to make another blanket statement about leftists, but one thing I've noticed in most of you guys is that "freedom" typically means imposing your beliefs on everyone else.

Not really, I don't impose any of my beliefs on anyone, I've had that happen to me before, I wouldn't force my beliefs onto someone, if you don't like other people's opinions then maybe this isn't the best place for you.


What makes you think that I, as a free-market advocate, would approve of such monitoring like that done by the NSA? Funny you mention it though, it's America's left (the Democrats) that don't seem to mind it.

Free market is a pipe dream. A lot of people care about the NSA's bullshit, I'd rather they not exist. The democrats aren't left at all... The democrats are center right and espouse the same shit as the Rapeublicans just in a different way to make themselves seem different.


I guess that depends on if you think the greedy pigs are inherent to only capitalism.

Greed will always exist, it will not disappear, if anything socialism will alleviate the greedy and they will have nothing to be greedy.

[Sinister Intents]

As sick, disgusting and flat out wrong as their opinion may be, they have the right to have them. Taking action upon them is a different story, however.

Killing a person isn't justified simply because you deem them undesirable.

If the fascists and capitalists decide to use force, we'll use force back against them and pound them into oblivion. They cannot be allowed to maintain there bigoted shit under socialism. They will need to be reeducated, but only if they're willing, and most likely they'll be willing to learn and adapt to socialism.

[tooAlive]

Not really, I don't support the freedom of those that wish to take it away.

Then you don't support freedom at all.

Freedom is a two way street. If you can't let other drive down the other side, you're no better than them for not letting you drive down yours.


Not really, I don't impose any of my beliefs on anyone, I've had that happen to me before, I wouldn't force my beliefs onto someone, if you don't like other people's opinions then maybe this isn't the best place for you.

See above statement.



Free market is a pipe dream. A lot of people care about the NSA's bullshit, I'd rather they not exist. The democrats aren't left at all... The democrats are center right and espouse the same shit as the Rapeublicans just in a different way to make themselves seem different.

Isn't communism another pipe dream?

I'd at least argue that we're much, much closer to achieving something much closer to free markets than we are of ever seeing true global communism.


Greed will always exist, it will not disappear, if anything socialism will alleviate the greedy and they will have nothing to be greedy.

Alleviate the greed of money, perhaps. But you even said greed will always exist. And socialism won't cure that. People will be envious of others' abilities, looks, charisma, talents, friends, life, ect...

[tooAlive]

If the fascists and capitalists decide to use force, we'll use force back against them and pound them into oblivion. They cannot be allowed to maintain there bigoted shit under socialism. They will need to be reeducated, but only if they're willing, and most likely they'll be willing to learn and adapt to socialism.

There you go again.

That's nothing more than intolerance. Calling them out for bigotry?


1. bigotry; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Does that attitude seem familiar to you?

[Sinister Intents]

There you go again.

You're nothing more than intolerance. Calling them out for bigotry?



Does that attitude seem familiar to you?

I'm sorry you think my intolerance of intolerance is intolerant.

[tooAlive]

And again, more contradictions.


They cannot be allowed to maintain there bigoted shit under socialism.

Who will stop them? The state? I thought you guys didn't have one of those.

[tooAlive]

I'm sorry you think my intolerance of intolerance is intolerant.

I just think it's funny, really.

You want to censor the other side for claiming they do the exact thing you're doing now. :laugh:

Remember in that other thread where I said that leftists were constantly contradicting themselves? Well, this is one of those times.

[Sinister Intents]

Then you don't support freedom at all.

Freedom is a two way street. If you can't let other drive down the other side, you're no better than them for not letting you drive down yours.

Lol, I do support freedom, not the freedom of them to be intolerant assholes, not the freedom of them to espouse and attempt to spread their beliefs. I don't think the community/commune/industrial union will tolerate serial rapists being free to rape either. They'll have to conform to the new order of things, and I don't think anyone will be forced when the revolution takes place, revolution is thought put into motion, and the revolution starts with you. Let go of your intolerance if they exist, let go of your pro capitalist beliefs.


Isn't communism another pipe dream?

I'd at least argue that we're much, much closer to achieving something much closer to free markets than we are of ever seeing true global communism.

No not at all. Free market is an oxymoron, I go to a business college and recognize this immediately by how capitalism is talked about. Laissez faire capitalism will become worse than capitalism that has state intervention.


Alleviate the greed of money, perhaps. But you even said greed will always exist. And socialism won't cure that. People will be envious of others' abilities, looks, charisma, talents, friends, life, ect...

Let us get rid of money because money truly does not need to exist. The world produces more than enough to satisfy peoples' needs and wants. Socialism will ensure that this resource distribution issue will be solved, a system of accounts can be easily created and the world will be taken care of.

[Sinister Intents]

And again, more contradictions.
Who will stop them? The state? I thought you guys didn't have one of those.

Not a contradiction, the community/commune/collective/ et cetera will decide what is to be done about people who espouse reactionary beliefs. They will have be given the choice to be educated or they can stew in their own juices and suffer with their reactionary beliefs. No one will force them to change, they will have to make that change themselves.


I just think it's funny, really.

You want to censor the other side for claiming they do the exact thing you're doing now. :laugh:

Remember in that other thread where I said that leftists were constantly contradicting themselves? Well, this is one of those times.

Lol, still not a contradiction though. Are you attempting to argue that fascists and socialists are the same in some way?

[tooAlive]

Lol, I do support freedom, not the freedom of them to be intolerant assholes, not the freedom of them to espouse and attempt to spread their beliefs. I don't think the community/commune/industrial union will tolerate serial rapists being free to rape either. They'll have to conform to the new order of things, and I don't think anyone will be forced when the revolution takes place, revolution is thought put into motion, and the revolution starts with you. Let go of your intolerance if they exist, let go of your pro capitalist beliefs.

What makes you think rapists, killers, thugs, thiefs, ect.. should have the freedom to commit crimes against others?

That's not what freedom is about.


No not at all. Free market is an oxymoron, I go to a business college and recognize this immediately by how capitalism is talked about. Laissez faire capitalism will become worse than capitalism that has state intervention.

How so? Our capitalism already has state intervention, and it's my opinion that things get worse as state intervention increases.

[Marshal of the People]

So wait, you're smearing all of us with this shit on the basis of one idiot's rantings? Did you not see me heavily criticising that kind of authoritarian shitheadedness?
Such strong words ÑóẊîöʼn if I didn't know better I would think you hated me. Seriously you obviously hate me for some reason, why?

[tooAlive]

Not a contradiction, the community/commune/collective/ et cetera will decide what is to be done about people who espouse reactionary beliefs. They will have be given the choice to be educated or they can stew in their own juices and suffer with their reactionary beliefs. No one will force them to change, they will have to make that change themselves.

What if the community decides to stone the reactionaries to death? Is there a judiciary system to protect them, or laws that serve them in any way?


Lol, still not a contradiction though. Are you attempting to argue that fascists and socialists are the same in some way?

Intolerance to intolerance is a contradiction in itself.

And yes, I'd argue that socialists and fascists both share the same statist qualities. "Our ideas are so good they should be mandatory."

[Sinister Intents]

Such strong words ÑóẊîöʼn if I didn't know better I would think you hated me. Seriously you obviously hate me for some reason, why?

MotP its better to ignore people posting like that, so ignore it if you can, its more constructive to debate the capitalist who is posting at the moment

[tooAlive]

Such strong words ÑóẊîöʼn if I didn't know better I would think you hated me. Seriously you obviously hate me for some reason, why?

Because your ideas bring your movement down and degrade your ideology even further.

Wanting to throw all who think differently into an asylum implies your inferiority to the other movements for the fear of them overthrowing you.

Much like the capitalist that doesn't want to compete fairly in the free market and opts for trying to destroy his competition using unfair tactics (like bribing government officials, ect..).

[Marshal of the People]

Because your ideas bring your movement down and degrade your ideology even further.

Wanting to throw all who think differently into an asylum implies your inferiority to the other movements for the fear of them overthrowing you.

Much like the capitalist that doesn't want to compete fairly in the free market and opts for trying to destroy his competition using unfair tactics (like bribing government officials, ect..).

I would never do that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My apologies if you took offense. To be fair, I did read your posts and took note of (and liked) your intelligent remarks.

Although unfortunately yours was pretty much the only voice of reason I could take not of, as it was drowned out by a lot of what you yourself called, "authoritarian shitheadedness."

Communer was another voice against such nonsense. And perhaps others had nothing to add that was not already said.


No you reactionaries wouldn't be allowed to have a forum, but you'd probably make it anyway and it'd be kept for educational purposes or gotten rid of for being counterrevolutionary bullshit.

I think a lot of leftists here are looking at the problem the wrong way, and thus falling for the typical capitalist-sympathiser rhetorical ploy that attempts to paint socialism as tyranny. If there is a dictatorship of the proletariat or a global communist society, then who's going to listen to a scattered minority of powerless reactionaries whining impotently on the internet?

[tooAlive]

I would never do that.

Which one, the mental asylum part or the bribing of government officials to destroy a competitor? Or both?

[Marshal of the People]

Which one, the mental asylum part or the bribing of government officials to destroy a competitor? Or both?
Neither.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Such strong words ÑóẊîöʼn if I didn't know better I would think you hated me. Seriously you obviously hate me for some reason, why?

I don't hate you, I hate the creepy authoritarianism you spout which you have yet to retract.

[Sinister Intents]

What makes you think rapists, killers, thugs, thiefs, ect.. should have the freedom to commit crimes against others?

That's not what freedom is about.



How so? Our capitalism already has state intervention, and it's my opinion that things get worse as state intervention increases.

How are you defining freedom? Do you feel free? Do you have evidence of your freedom? I don't want some reactionary to try to exert authority over me, and I don't wish to exert authority on someone else or be an authority figure. All authority is illegitimate. People who commit crimes such as those stated will be dealt with by a communal police type force.

Doesn't matter capitalism is disgusting all around and it needs to be gotten rid of in favor of a significantly more democratic economic system, and that being socialism.


What if the community decides to stone the reactionaries to death? Is there a judiciary system to protect them, or laws that serve them in any way?

Intolerance to intolerance is a contradiction in itself.

And yes, I'd argue that socialists and fascists both share the same statist qualities. "Our ideas are so good they should be mandatory."

I highly doubt something so cruel and disturbing would happen to the reactionaries, like I said they'll adapt to socialist society, at least the majority of them. People grow, people adapt. Their would be a system put in place that would ensure the safety of all proletarians, but it wouldn't be a state, it would be something wholely direct democratic. The state is an organ of class rule and socialism seeks to eliminate all classes. All people will thus become proletarians. We don't seek to create a new barbaric capitalism in any way. We don't hold statist views like the fascists and nationalists, we're all internationalist or antinationalist. I think you're horribly confused on many points.

[Sinister Intents]

Which one, the mental asylum part or the bribing of government officials to destroy a competitor? Or both?

I don't think you know what socialism is at all.

[Marshal of the People]

I don't hate you, I hate the creepy authoritarianism you spout which you have yet to retract.
What authoritarianism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What authoritarianism?

The whole "putting political opponents into mental hospitals/re-education facilities" rubbish.

[tooAlive]

I don't think you know what socialism is at all.

I think you're missing all my points. :laugh:

[Sinister Intents]

Because your ideas bring your movement down and degrade your ideology even further.

Wanting to throw all who think differently into an asylum implies your inferiority to the other movements for the fear of them overthrowing you.

Much like the capitalist that doesn't want to compete fairly in the free market and opts for trying to destroy his competition using unfair tactics (like bribing government officials, ect..).

Provide some damn evidence of this lofty claim.

We don't advocate any of what you're saying.

[Sinister Intents]

I think you're missing all my points. :laugh:

No, not at all. I see your points, I just realize socialism is better.

[Sinister Intents]

The whole "putting political opponents into mental hospitals/re-education facilities" rubbish.

I already discussed that with MotP earlier in this thread.

[tooAlive]

Provide some damn evidence of this lofty claim.

We don't advocate any of what you're saying.

I was referring to Marshal's ideal of rehabilitation hospitals for reactionaries.

I'm at least glad not all of you share his same sentiments. It's a bit refreshing.

[tooAlive]

I don't think you know what socialism is at all.

There's about a billion different definitions for this word. You and I have chosen to define it differently. That's all.

[Sinister Intents]

I was referring to Marshal's ideal of rehabilitation hospitals for reactionaries.

I'm at least glad not all of you share his same sentiments. It's a bit refreshing.

Did you read my posts addressing what he was saying? I got what he was saying, but I think I explained to him pretty well.

[Sinister Intents]

There's about a billion different definitions for this word. You and I have chosen to define it differently. That's all.

Yeah, well their is the correct definition, and then there is the definition that is wrong, maybe its right on some points, but the definition you use is completely wrong!

[tooAlive]

Did you read my posts addressing what he was saying? I got what he was saying, but I think I explained to him pretty well.

Yes, I did. You saw through him trying to sugarcoat his idea of concentration camps for nonbelievers saying they were schools.

My comments were addressed at him, and those that support the ideas of those "schools."


Yeah, well their is the correct definition, and then there is the definition that is wrong, maybe its right on some points, but the definition you use is completely wrong!

If you ask on this forum, I'm sure you'd have a few different varying definitions as well. ;)

[Sinister Intents]

Yes, I did. You saw through him trying to sugarcoat his idea of concentration camps for nonbelievers saying they were schools.

My comments were addressed at him, and those that support the ideas of those "schools."



If you ask on this forum, I'm sure you'd have a few different varying definitions as well. ;)

No, not really, the reactionaries who hold on to there beliefs would have the choice of either not going to these places or going to them. They wouldn't be concentration camps in any sense and they would be places of education and healthcare, not places to indoctrinate, harm, force them into things, kill them, or anything negative. We're not fucking fascists.

Not really my definition is pretty congruous with the other leftists on this forum, lest they be anti immigration, but then I don't think they're really socialists if they're anti immigration or anti worker.

[tooAlive]

No, not really, the reactionaries who hold on to there beliefs would have the choice of either not going to these places or going to them. They wouldn't be concentration camps in any sense and they would be places of education and healthcare, not places to indoctrinate, harm, force them into things, kill them, or anything negative. We're not fucking fascists.

Not really my definition is pretty congruous with the other leftists on this forum, lest they be anti immigration, but then I don't think they're really socialists if they're anti immigration or anti worker.

I don't support that at all. Not that I support socialism any more, but those "learning centers" even less. That's a can of worms.

You may be nice and kind hearted, but then there's others like Marshal who have other more extreme ideas. And in such a society, I doubt the "reactionaries" would have much protection.

If you're doing that, then you have to allow capitalist schools as well. Let the people go to each and make up their mind about what they prefer.

[Sinister Intents]

I don't support that at all. Not that I support socialism any more, but those "learning centers" even less. That's a can of worms.

You may be nice and kind hearted, but then there's others like Marshal who has other more extreme ideas. And in such a society, I doubt the "reactionaries" would have much protection.

If you're doing that, then you have to allow capitalist schools as well. Let the people go to each and make up their mind about what they prefer.

Those "learning centers" would also provide other positive services, they'd essentially be schools, but they may be attached to hospitals for extreme cases. It's not something disgusting, and the people would have the choice of going there or not as I stated, they wouldn't be concentration camps. They'd be equipped for education and healthcare which would be completely free. If you think I'm advocating mass murder, genocide, or mass indoctrination, or some other forceful, coercive means then you're an asshole. Marshal is fine, he's a young socialist, and so am I technically, I'm 21. We all have a lot to learn about socialism, some are more studied than others, Marshall wouldn't be a monster trying to kill people or using them for sinister intentions. The reactionaries would be protected from the same harm the revolutionaries would be protected from by themselves and by the community/ commune/ et cetera. The reactionaries wouldn't be coerced or forced, we seek not to rule and not be ruled as socialists, and I treat others the way they treat me. If you're kind to me I'll be kind back, but if you're an asshole I may choose whether or not I'm going to be an asshole back.
Capitalist schools are solely about indoctrination, and raising the children to be well groomed cogs for the capitalist machine. They'll only learn what makes them good employees so that they can normalize the capitalist system and see nothing wrong with it because they're forced to see it as natural. Fuck capitalism, fuck authority.

[tooAlive]

Those "learning centers" would also provide other positive services, they'd essentially be schools, but they may be attached to hospitals for extreme cases. It's not something disgusting, and the people would have the choice of going there or not as I stated, they wouldn't be concentration camps. They'd be equipped for education and healthcare which would be completely free. If you think I'm advocating mass murder, genocide, or mass indoctrination, or some other forceful, coercive means then you're an asshole. Marshal is fine, he's a young socialist, and so am I technically, I'm 21. We all have a lot to learn about socialism, some are more studied than others, Marshall wouldn't be a monster trying to kill people or using them for sinister intentions. The reactionaries would be protected from the same harm the revolutionaries would be protected from by themselves and by the community/ commune/ et cetera. The reactionaries wouldn't be coerced or forced, we seek not to rule and not be ruled as socialists, and I treat others the way they treat me. If you're kind to me I'll be kind back, but if you're an asshole I may choose whether or not I'm going to be an asshole back.
Capitalist schools are solely about indoctrination, and raising the children to be well groomed cogs for the capitalist machine. They'll only learn what makes them good employees so that they can normalize the capitalist system and see nothing wrong with it because they're forced to see it as natural. Fuck capitalism, fuck authority.

I'm sorry, but mass-murder, genocide and indoctrination, among other things is exactly what comes to mind when you say "learning centers for reactionaries" that speak out against the revolution or whatever. It's not like it hasn't happened before.


Marshal is fine, he's a young socialist, and so am I technically, I'm 21. We all have a lot to learn about socialism, some are more studied than others, Marshall wouldn't be a monster trying to kill people or using them for sinister intentions.

Funny you say that, considering it's your own forum username. :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, not really, the reactionaries who hold on to there beliefs would have the choice of either not going to these places or going to them. They wouldn't be concentration camps in any sense and they would be places of education and healthcare, not places to indoctrinate, harm, force them into things, kill them, or anything negative. We're not fucking fascists.

I'm not even comfortable with this, to be perfectly honest. At least with the notion of places/institutions specifically for reactionaries, even if they're "voluntary". How long until that becomes "encouraged", then "compelled", then "forced at gunpoint"? And who gets to define what a "reactionary" is?

No, the best way to fight reaction is not to messily chop away at symptoms but to sever it at the root, by destroying the social and economic conditions which give rise to it. This means fully socialising the means of production, rebuilding infrastructure in line with that and creating new social institutions that are universally relevant.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm not even comfortable with this, to be perfectly honest. At least with the notion of places/institutions specifically for reactionaries, even if they're "voluntary". How long until that becomes "encouraged", then "compelled", then "forced at gunpoint"? And who gets to define what a "reactionary" is?

No, the best way to fight reaction is not to messily chop away at symptoms but to sever it at the root, by destroying the social and economic conditions which give rise to it. This means fully socialising the means of production, rebuilding infrastructure in line with that and creating new social institutions that are universally relevant.

I see entirely what you're saying, I'll keep this in mind thanks!!!

[Sinister Intents]

I'm sorry, but mass-murder, genocide and indoctrination, among other things is exactly what comes to mind when you say "learning centers for reactionaries" that speak out against the revolution or whatever. It's not like it hasn't happened before.



Funny you say that, considering it's your own forum username. :lol:

Look at what Noxion said, I agree that these centers would be bad, just not looking at it right I guess.

That's why I picked that haha

[tooAlive]

I see entirely what you're saying, I'll keep this in mind thanks!!!

Maybe I should make another account pretending to be a marxist so that others will actually take the things I say into consideration. :rolleyes:

[Sinister Intents]

Maybe I should make another account pretending to be a marxist so that others will actually take the things I say into consideration. :rolleyes:

Making a sock puppet would get both accounts banned potentially, and you're facade of Marxism would be seen through eventually, especially considering you consider Cuba to be something other than state capitalist

[tooAlive]

Making a sock puppet would get both accounts banned potentially, and you're facade of Marxism would be seen through eventually, especially considering you consider Cuba to be something other than state capitalist

Not necessarily. ;)

And I wouldn't let you know those things.. I'd play along and condemn its state-capitalist and bourgeoise-esque dictators pretty convincingly.

[Sinister Intents]

Not necessarily. ;)

And I wouldn't let you know those things.. I'd play along and condemn its state-capitalist and bourgeoise-esque dictators pretty convincingly.

I don't recomend creating a sock puppet at all, you could just use that same account and see how it goes with you attemping to be a socialist. Maybe that could be a thread you start

[tooAlive]

I don't recomend creating a sock puppet at all, you could just use that same account and see how it goes with you attemping to be a socialist. Maybe that could be a thread you start

Heh, as much fun as that would be, I don't really have the time to do that.

I'll just continue to pop up from time to time and debate different points.. No sock puppet or anything. :)

[Sinister Intents]

Heh, as much fun as that would be, I don't really have the time to do that.

I'll just continue to pop up from time to time and debate different points.. No sock puppet or anything. :)

Good idea!! Keep debating, keep learning, keep improving yourself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe I should make another account pretending to be a marxist so that others will actually take the things I say into consideration. :rolleyes:

Don't take this the wrong way, but whatever the logic of your statements, your rhetoric is grating to most of the ears on this board, including mine to be honest. I suggest you learn some more about Marxism etc, because even if you don't agree with it after that, then at least you'll be better able to frame your arguments when articulating your disagreement.

[tooAlive]

Don't take this the wrong way, but whatever the logic of your statements, your rhetoric is grating to most of the ears on this board, including mine to be honest. I suggest you learn some more about Marxism etc, because even if you don't agree with it after that, then at least you'll be better able to frame your arguments when articulating your disagreement.

No offense taken.

My knowledge of Marxism isn't as in-depth as most of yours is, so I'm sure there are a few disconnects here and there when debating topics. Especially since I have to constantly position my arguments according to your views, and not my actual opinions (I.E, Cuba being state-capitalist vs. socialist).

I also wouldn't expect my arguments to be well received here anyways, but I'm sure that's a given with any "reactionary" that dare venture to these forums.

Have a good night. :)