Free press in a socialist/communist society

[Neoteropoeos]

My query relates to the freedom of the press and by extension the freedom of speech in a socialist society, and I was surprised not to find deeper consideration of this issue in left-wing literature; I would be grateful indeed to anyone who could point me in the direction of a particular left-wing theorist who has delved into this matter (except for Gramsci, maybe; he's a bit unreadable, I've found!).
Assuming the existence of a functioning socialist state (without bourgeois parliamentary democracy, but rather based, for example, on a system of workers' councils with delegates to a centralized assembly), how would the press, or media, be able to remain free? I mean, how would a variety of newspapers with a variety of journalists cover a variety of political opinions without the media in the country being reduced to state propaganda, as happened in the USSR and Cuba (as well as other countries, I'm not sure; I presume China, and probably Vietnam and Laos as well)? As newspapers and magazines are usually either set up to make money for an individual or party, or to spread the word about a revolutionary political organization (as in, not to report the news for the news' sake), how would such a society be able to allow freedom of speech in the press, when newspaper owners would not be expecting to make a profit from their work, as the state can hardly be expected to finance a publication which holds views contrary to the official party line, and presumably newspapers/magazines should not be bought and sold in the typical capitalistic way in a revolutionary society.
Sorry for being so long-winded, but I felt it was necessary to explain what I have already considered on the topic!

[The Idler]

Here's a recent article on what Marx thought
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100191832/marx-hated-press-freedom-er-i-dont-think-so-he-was-its-most-passionate-champion/

[Neoteropoeos]

Here's a recent article on what Marx thought
An interesting article from a most unlikely source (I had no idea The Telegraph's readers would take to such an article); however, accepting that freedom of the press is ideal in a revolutionary society, my question was rather how it could be feasible.

[exeexe]

Well first of all since its a communist society or the aim is a communist society there would be no state and if there was a state you would kill it.
So in regards to if a newspaper should be biased toward a state-kind-of-structure is bullshit. If there was a state and a newspaper would be printing state friendly papers, you can consider that newspaper to not be on our side.

Then, since socialism is intensely against nazism and fascism and other things like sexism, there would be no freedom of the press like we know of it today. There would be a lot of freedom but you cant call it freedom of the press. We would have to invent a new word for it.

The same thing goes for freedom of speech.

Then in a money based society the newspaper would be run either through people buying the newspaper or people donating to it - so you can always boy cut it if you didnt like it. And even in a non money based society you can boy cut it. Just dont do voluntary work for it.

[bropasaran]

Being that it would practically impossible for an individual to amass wealth and to finance any type of propaganda on his own, media will be produced by various affinity organizations, similar like the many journals that were circulated during the Spanish Revolution, e.g. a bunch of people interested in health get together, make journal issues with various texts about health, pool means (/funds) print and distribute it.

There will be no state or official party line.

Total freedom of press will be proclaimed as a right:

"H. Individual rights.

...

4. Unlimited freedom of propaganda, speech, press, public or private assembly, with no other restraint than the natural salutary power of public opinion. Absolute freedom to organize associations even for allegedly immoral purposes including even those associations which advocate the undermining (or destruction) of individual and public freedom."

Mikhail Bakunin, Revolutionary Catechism
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm

[Neoteropoeos]

Well first of all since its a communist society or the aim is a communist society there would be no state and if there was a state you would kill it.
So in regards to if a newspaper should be biased toward a state-kind-of-structure is bullshit. If there was a state and a newspaper would be printing state friendly papers, you can consider that newspaper to not be on our side.
Then, since socialism is intensely against nazism and fascism and other things like sexism, there would be no freedom of the press like we know of it today. There would be a lot of freedom but you cant call it freedom of the press. We would have to invent a new word for it.
The same thing goes for freedom of speech.
Then in a money based society the newspaper would be run either through people buying the newspaper or people donating to it - so you can always boy cut it if you didnt like it. And even in a non money based society you can boy cut it. Just dont do voluntary work for it.
I think my question could apply both to a state (of affairs) in the socialist stage, before communism has been fully realized, or in a fully-fledged communist society. Therefore, obviously the vanguard party in charge of a 'workers' state' in Marxist-Leninist theory would want to use the press to publish the news from their perspective; however, my concern is that the official party publication might become the only story the people are given, as in a non-monetary-based society, I don't see what incentive there would be for prospective newspaper founders (there is the point that the unrepresented would want to make themselves heard, but newspapers/magazines are a lot of work and not enterprises one would take up without receiving some form of payment).
Additionally, I was not talking necessarily about fascists wanting to publish their opinions (though surely they would in the early stages of a revolution, presumably in a communist society, there would be no reason for people to turn to fascism; therefore thought would be reined in by societal circumstances), but surely different tendencies would want to express their views in the media; a communist society surely doesn't involve everyone prescribing to exactly the same viewpoint with no freedom of thought.

[exeexe]

Total freedom of press will be proclaimed as a right:

If some newspaper proclaimed "lets kill all the (insert a religious population here), would you just let that newspaper alone?

[bropasaran]

There are two principle that can be applied. One is that all speech should be free up to the point of direct involvement in harm (e.g. someone is about to use a gun and I tell him "shoot"); the second principle is that some speech should be free, but some of it, that we don't like, even though it is not involved in harm- shouldn't- and we're going to ban it. The second principle was applied also by Hitler and Stalin, and in general, people who are for the second principle differ from them only in degree- not to go argumentum ad hitlerum, maybe differing in degree from them is cool, I prefer to differ from them in kind, it's a value judgement.

As Rosa Luxemburg said- freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Freedom is not freedom if it is a privilege.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

No free press, no free expression, no free anything. There will be no freedom for anyone. Outright banning is rarely the adequate response, as this tends to be have undesirable results, but rather to alter the social atmosphere in such a way that such speech becomes entirely impossible simply due to its social context and consequence. Of course there won't be any free press or samizdats or what-ever; it will all be crushed and destroyed, squeezed until it is all united in a single monumental desire and goal, and all semblance of plurality rejected as the folly it always was and will be.

[Remus Bleys]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/05.htm Lenin deals nicely with the subject here.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Freedom of speech?

Sure, for the workers. The Peasants. The Downtrodden. The majority of the world, in other words. They deserve to be heard, because after all their voices have been silenced for centuries under the oppressive shadow of Capital.

But reactionaries and fascists? Tyrants who wish to impose their will on the liberated society? Bourgeoisie who wish to reclaim their privilege over the workers? I think not. They've been hogging the microphone for far too long.

[Sea]

My query relates to the freedom of the press and by extension the freedom of speech in a socialist society, and I was surprised not to find deeper consideration of this issue in left-wing literature; I would be grateful indeed to anyone who could point me in the direction of a particular left-wing theorist who has delved into this matter (except for Gramsci, maybe; he's a bit unreadable, I've found!).
Assuming the existence of a functioning socialist state (without bourgeois parliamentary democracy, but rather based, for example, on a system of workers' councils with delegates to a centralized assembly), how would the press, or media, be able to remain free? I mean, how would a variety of newspapers with a variety of journalists cover a variety of political opinions without the media in the country being reduced to state propaganda, as happened in the USSR and Cuba (as well as other countries, I'm not sure; I presume China, and probably Vietnam and Laos as well)? As newspapers and magazines are usually either set up to make money for an individual or party, or to spread the word about a revolutionary political organization (as in, not to report the news for the news' sake), how would such a society be able to allow freedom of speech in the press, when newspaper owners would not be expecting to make a profit from their work, as the state can hardly be expected to finance a publication which holds views contrary to the official party line, and presumably newspapers/magazines should not be bought and sold in the typical capitalistic way in a revolutionary society.
Sorry for being so long-winded, but I felt it was necessary to explain what I have already considered on the topic!
Being that it would practically impossible for an individual to amass wealth and to finance any type of propaganda on his own, media will be produced by various affinity organizations, similar like the many journals that were circulated during the Spanish Revolution, e.g. a bunch of people interested in health get together, make journal issues with various texts about health, pool means (/funds) print and distribute it.

There will be no state or official party line.

Total freedom of press will be proclaimed as a right:

"H. Individual rights.

...

4. Unlimited freedom of propaganda, speech, press, public or private assembly, with no other restraint than the natural salutary power of public opinion. Absolute freedom to organize associations even for allegedly immoral purposes including even those associations which advocate the undermining (or destruction) of individual and public freedom."

Mikhail Bakunin, Revolutionary Catechism
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htmThis reply goes for both of you:

For a society born out of capitalism, "public opinion" is neither desirable nor natural. Well, of course it's "natural" in the sense that it is not supernatural -- all things that are, are natural. But, it does not flow freely from "nature", as it is an artifact of the existing social order, that at least some of us are fighting against! Freedom is a made-up term. Liberty is meaningless outside the context of its violation. We are not fighting for freedom, we are fighting to obsolete the concepts of "free" and "unfree". Communists are not superstitious. Bakunin's absurd drivel about protecting the freedom of "even those associations which advocate the undermining (or destruction) of individual and public freedom" is a good example of why freedom is a silly concept.

But, keep in mind, we are not boogeymen either. We will not chase after you for owning a printing press. We reject freedom as a concept, for one because there is no evidence that such a thing exists! Freedom is a concept introduced by idealist philosophy, and when questioned it becomes evident that it is an empty term. We reject "freedom" for the same reason that we reject faith in god, for the same reason we don't believe in ghosts, for the same reason we don't throw salt over our shoulders for good luck, etc. Not because we want to make you unfree. We don't believe in a lack of freedom any more than we believe in bad luck!

The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates the existing social morality in all its manifestations. Sound familiar?
Freedom of speech?

Sure, for the workers. The Peasants. The Downtrodden. The majority of the world, in other words. They deserve to be heard, because after all their voices have been silenced for centuries under the oppressive shadow of Capital.

But reactionaries and fascists? Tyrants who wish to impose their will on the liberated society? Bourgeoisie who wish to reclaim their privilege over the workers? I think not. They've been hogging the microphone for far too long.How romantic. :rolleyes:

[bropasaran]

This reply goes for both of you:

For a society born out of capitalism, "public opinion" is neither desirable nor natural. Well, of course it's "natural" in the sense that it is not supernatural -- all things that are, are natural. But, it does not flow freely from "nature", as it is an artifact of the existing social order, that at least some of us are fighting against! Freedom is a made-up term. Liberty is meaningless outside the context of its violation. We are not fighting for freedom, we are fighting to obsolete the concepts of "free" and "unfree". Communists are not superstitious. Bakunin's absurd drivel about protecting the freedom of "even those associations which advocate the undermining (or destruction) of individual and public freedom" is a good example of why freedom is a silly concept.

But, keep in mind, we are not boogeymen either. We will not chase after you for owning a printing press. We reject freedom as a concept, for one because there is no evidence that such a thing exists! Freedom is a concept introduced by idealist philosophy, and when questioned it becomes evident that it is an empty term. We reject "freedom" for the same reason that we reject faith in god, for the same reason we don't believe in ghosts, for the same reason we don't throw salt over our shoulders for good luck, etc. Not because we want to make you unfree. We don't believe in a lack of freedom any more than we believe in bad luck!
How can there be violation of liberty if it doesn't exist?


We are not fighting for freedom
And what are "you" fighting for?

[RedWorker]

No free press, no free expression, no free anything. There will be no freedom for anyone. Outright banning is rarely the adequate response, as this tends to be have undesirable results, but rather to alter the social atmosphere in such a way that such speech becomes entirely impossible simply due to its social context and consequence. Of course there won't be any free press or samizdats or what-ever; it will all be crushed and destroyed, squeezed until it is all united in a single monumental desire and goal, and all semblance of plurality rejected as the folly it always was and will be.

Don't count me and many other leftists in your "revolution".

[Sea]

How can there be violation of liberty if it doesn't exist?For the same reason that there can be heresy against a god that doesn't exist. Liberty isn't something that just stands on its own, there is a whole damn intellectual framework attached. Included in this framework is a list of things that violate said liberty. Liberty is an abstraction that doesn't exist in itself. Such qualifications are enabled by the fact that it can refer to concrete things, events, mentalities and so on. These things can be real. Proponents of the idea of liberty can pull out of their ass any number of ways in which various actually-existing things relate to the concept itself - whether something violates liberty, whether some action exercises liberty, etc. For liberty to be exercised, one must take an action that would be condemned had one not the liberty to take said action. This is what I mean when I say that liberty is meaningless if it cannot be violated. Such a concept that must retain the possibility of its own violation in order to be valid is, of course, meaningless in the context of a communist (or anarchist if you prefer) society, and is a reflection of the origins of the concept and its popularization by bourgeois revolutionaries fighting against monarchism. So, when I say that liberty is meaningless outside the context of its violation, I mean that it is relative. This is a problem because it allows the grand idea of liberty to take on any meaning, and it denies it even the possibility of being a concretely defined thing. This allows the concept to get into absurd contortions against itself, as I expressed in my criticism of what Bakunin said.

Obviously I cannot believe that liberty is this or that, because I do not believe that liberty is! I am merely criticizing the concept of liberty, and exploring the absurdities lurking within it.

And what are "you" fighting for?I'm fighting boredom.

[Neoteropoeos]

For a society born out of capitalism, "public opinion" is neither desirable nor natural. Well, of course it's "natural" in the sense that it is not supernatural -- all things that are, are natural. But, it does not flow freely from "nature", as it is an artifact of the existing social order, that at least some of us are fighting against! Freedom is a made-up term. Liberty is meaningless outside the context of its violation. We are not fighting for freedom, we are fighting to obsolete the concepts of "free" and "unfree". Communists are not superstitious. Bakunin's absurd drivel about protecting the freedom of "even those associations which advocate the undermining (or destruction) of individual and public freedom" is a good example of why freedom is a silly concept.
But what about Rousseau's volonté générale? Surely even after a revolution of the masses, the masses still must be heard! Also, in my opinion at least, freedom is not a made-up term, as we are 'condemned to be free'; freedom is an inherent quality within us when we are born - or rather the lack of an inherent quality, reason. Could it be then that a revolutionary society would give man with a purpose in life, to work for the common good, thus robbing him of his liberty and enslaving him?

[Remus Bleys]

Don't count me and many other leftists in your "revolution".

What makes you think anyone did? Its painfully obvious that the left wing of capital and social Democrats will all oppose proletarian revolution under the deceitful cry of "FREEDOM!" Is not such demagoguery what you make fun of conservatives for?
And you, poster above me - what about Rosseau? Who cares what he had to think?

[Neoteropoeos]

Well, Rousseau's work strongly influenced Marx and some have even considered him the first socialist theorist; certainly, he contributed significantly to revolutionary theory, and therefore I think that his work especially should be considered when discussing a topic like this, which considers the positions of public opinion and individual opinion in a (post-)revolutionary society.

[Sea]

Neoteropoeos, I'd quote you normally but this forum is still semi-broken. Anyway, I did not argue that the voice of the masses should not be heard in a "mass revolution". In fact, I never said anything about the masses.

What do you mean by "mass revolution" anyway? Populism? Menshevism?

edit: kickass, new avatar time

sorry Edwin

[Neoteropoeos]

I took your comment on '"public opinion" [being] neither desirable nor natural' as a vanguardist comment on the undesirability of the public (or masses) having an opinion in a socialist society, especially when you said that 'the revolutionary despises public opinion'; if I have misinterpreted you, please explain.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Here's a recent article on what Marx thought
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100191832/marx-hated-press-freedom-er-i-dont-think-so-he-was-its-most-passionate-champion/

Wow, my IQ dropped after reading those comments

[Sea]

Wow, my IQ dropped after reading those commentsMine dropped from 142 down to a lowly 159.

[Thirsty Crow]

T We reject freedom as a concept, for one because there is no evidence that such a thing exists!
No, we don't. At least not some of us.


Freedom is a concept introduced by idealist philosophy, and when questioned it becomes evident that it is an empty term.Apart from figuring in all sorts of idealist systems, it can be used as a perfectly good concept also.


We reject "freedom" for the same reason that we reject faith in god, for the same reason we don't believe in ghosts, for the same reason we don't throw salt over our shoulders for good luck, etc.Then one long gone man must have been a believer in ghosts when speaking about the free association of producers and the "enlargement" of the sphere of freedom as opposed to that of necessity (referring to actual process of production of useful stuff) in communism. Also check out my sig.

Seriously, get your shit together.

[Sea]

No, we don't. At least not some of us.If freedom exists, it exists, 'some of us' has nothing to do with it. When something exists it does not only exist for some people. The realization of freedom (by some people and not others) is something entirely different.
Apart from figuring in all sorts of idealist systems, it can be used as a perfectly good concept also.I'd love a demonstration.
Then one long gone man must have been a believer in ghosts when speaking about the free association of producers and the "enlargement" of the sphere of freedom as opposed to that of necessity (referring to actual process of production of useful stuff) in communism. Also check out my sig.Obviously you're talking about Marx, but even the mighty Marx did not have the power to simply say the word and make something so. Marx did not invent the concept of freedom himself, he appropriated and altered the concept that was passed down to him by others.
Also check out my sig.

Seriously, get your shit together.Free association means unfettered, unrestricted association. In this case it specifically means association that is not restricted by capital. Remember what I said about freedom being a valid concept only in the context of its violation?

To support, as we do, free association does not even require that we accept the concept of freedom, because freedom is not our end goal. To assert otherwise is playing silly games with semantics and grammar.

[Thirsty Crow]

If freedom exists, it exists, 'some of us' has nothing to do with it. When something exists it does not only exist for some people.You're fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.

My argument is that freedom might be useful as a concept. Not that it exists as if it were a simple noun denoting a physical object like "apple".

In this sense, I'd go back to Marx (which I kinda did with this lazy paraphrasing; but am too tired now at 2 AM to dig quotes and expand upon this) for a demonstration of the usefulness of the concept - again, not "that it exists".


The realization of freedom (by some people and not others) is something entirely different.
I wouldn't even agree with your formulation here; freedom isn't something that is realized. What's realized is the class programme and a newly founded state of affairs then might be talked about also using this concept. But okay this is really nitpicking, I suppose I would have any fundamental objections to this formulation.



Marx did not invent the concept of freedom himself, he appropriated and altered the concept that was passed down to him by others.Free association means unfettered, unrestricted association. In this case it specifically means association that is not restricted by capital. Remember what I said about freedom being a valid concept only in the context of its violation? Well this goes without saying that other, ideological uses of the concept need to be mercilessly fought against - what you called the context of the concept's violation. And frankly, no I didn't catch that what you said about the context of violation, not really.

What I do find completely wrongheaded is this idea of communists shunning the concept altogether and effectively saying "hey we don't wanna have anything to do with this shit, here let liberals play with it".

[Sea]

You're fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.

My argument is that freedom might be useful as a concept. Not that it exists as if it were a simple noun denoting a physical object like "apple".

In this sense, I'd go back to Marx (which I kinda did with this lazy paraphrasing; but am too tired now at 2 AM to dig quotes and expand upon this) for a demonstration of the usefulness of the concept - again, not "that it exists". Oh, I get that. By "if freedom exists..." I mean "if freedom is a valid concept describing an actually-existing (even if hypothetical) state of affairs..." but that's longer to type and I thought it was pretty clear what I meant.
I wouldn't even agree with your formulation here; freedom isn't something that is realized. What's realized is the class programme and a newly founded state of affairs then might be talked about also using this concept. But okay this is really nitpicking, I suppose I would have any fundamental objections to this formulation.I completely agree. My polemics in this thread are directed against those vulgar communists and especially anarchists who reduce to proletarian revolution to some sort of vague struggle for freedom. And those who do the reverse.
Well this goes without saying that other, ideological uses of the concept need to be mercilessly fought against - what you called the context of the concept's violation. And frankly, no I didn't catch that what you said about the context of violation, not really. No biggie, I usually don't read the threads I post in either.
What I do find completely wrongheaded is this idea of communists shunning the concept altogether and effectively saying "hey we don't wanna have anything to do with this shit, here let liberals play with it".This I disagree with. Obviously we shouldn't be snobby about it, but the concept of freedom as something abstract and overarching is something that we would be foolish to take seriously. This is, of course, different from using the word 'free' to describe some quality belonging to an actually-existing state of affairs (free association, etc).

[Thirsty Crow]

My polemics in this thread are directed against those vulgar communists and especially anarchists who reduce to proletarian revolution to some sort of vague struggle for freedom.And those who do the reverse.
If one were to see this as advancing and acting upon a class programme (which is much more than a set of policy-like measures), then I'd have no problem saying that this is also a struggle for freedom for the working class.


No biggie, I usually don't read the threads I post in eitherI gotta defend myself, I did read that post of yours I responded to, but not very attentively :lol:


This I disagree with. Obviously we shouldn't be snobby about it, but the concept of freedom as something abstract and overarching is something that we would be foolish to take seriouslyThen the right course would be to make it different, and not something abstract and overarching, and not let bourgeois ideologists monopolize it. Bringing the concept down to earth, among human beings and their relations, where it belongs.

[RedWorker]

We have shown how the press law expresses a right and the censorship law a wrong. The censorship itself, however, admits that it is not an end in itself, that it is not something good in and for itself, that its basis therefore is the principle: "The end justifies the means." But an end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end, and could not the press also adopt the principle and boast: "The end justifies the means"?
The censorship law, therefore, is not a law, it is a police measure; but it is a bad police measure, for it does not achieve what it intends, and it does not intend what it achieves.
(source (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1842/free-press/ch05.htm))