Free speech

[TOMANTOR666]

Hi guys, i was just wondering in a proletariat ruled country would there still be freedom of speech. For example could you protest waving Nazi flags saying down with communism. Would this be too damaging to society to allow, or would freedom of speech be completely aloud? thanks~ Tom

[cyu]

In the anarcho-communist society I imagine, yes, that would be permitted (not that it would be accepted everywhere - for example, if people are trying to watch a play, and you're just making noise, then audience members may just show you the exit, one way or another) - but as far as political discussions go, if any political ideas are censored, it just prevents the underlying problems from being solved, and the society would never be able to get beyond them.

I wouldn't expect much Nazism remaining in post-capitalist society though, since I consider their entire ideology to be the reaction of the ruling class to the "threat" of communism - so they tried to come up with something / anything in order to try to fight off the popularity of communists.

In post-capitalist society, no one would be left to fund ridiculous ideologies like Nazism (and many others as well) - and without wealthy backing, it would be just another crappy product without advertising - doomed to the dustbins of history.

[Illegalitarian]

I don't see why we would allow such a thing.

The old "we need to engage them in discussion" and "if we censor them we're just as bad as they are" lines are fairly liberal and have no real place in a revolutionary or post-revolutionary society.

This "keeping people from inciting oppressive attitudes and calling for oppressive actions is oppressive" logic needs to be stamped out of the revolutionary left big time.

No platform for fascists, sorry



I'm not saying we need to punch everyone in the face who disagrees with us, which is where this slippery slope usually ends up wrt liberals, but to allow reactionary right-wing movements to pop up with the explicit attempt of subjugating large portions of the world to oppression and exploitation, or worse, extermination, is simply madness that pays lip-service to a "free society" without understanding what it takes to preserve one.

[flaming bolshevik]

I feel like the love for reactionary ideologies such as Nazism would have died A LONG TIME before communism is reached so yeah you could have freedom of speech but it'll be confined to Revolutionary ideas I guess.

wow I suck at expressing myself :lol:

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege....Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element". -Rosa Luxemburg

A just and fair socialist society cannot operate unless everyone is allowed to express their opinions and air their grievances. People will have conflicts, that is a simple reality. But allowing discussion helps to resolve these conflicts smoothly and bloodlessly. Workers, artists, and all others should be free to express themselves however they wish.

The exception would be the reactionaries, the representatives of the old order, etc. Those who would attempt to bring back the old tyranny of capitalism and plutocracy. We should treat them like we would treat any fascist or war criminal.

[John Nada]

I think there should be free speech under socialist construction, so that if there's bad ideas floating around it can be debated. People can hear different sides and inoculate themselves from reactionary propaganda, and give constructive criticism and suggestions. When communism is reached the few reactionaries left will probably be looked at like someone declaring themselves absolute monarch of the realm in a modern capitalist republic, like the US. It would be mostly harmless. Hell, there will probably be more free speech under socialism than ever in history. The whole,"You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater," argument came from repression of anti-war US socialists during WWI.

There's already limits on free speech under capitalism. Libel, slander, fraud, espionage, conspiracy and sedition are all illegal in many countries. Yet for some reason in many countries fascist tend to get a free pass on this that socialist don't. They can say hate speech that if focused on an individual, would at least be grounds for a lawsuit, onto whole oppressed groups. The get the advantage of hiding behind patriotism and religion. This should never be allowed anymore than that make themselves look like a lone drunk fool. I don't see how advocating for genocide(fascism) is somehow less harmful than conspiring to commit murder.

[Comrade #138672]

"Free speech" is meaningless when fascists are allowed to abuse it to intimidate and oppress. Obviously it is not the case that everything goes. This would be absurd.

[BIXX]

If you want free speech, expect consequences from free people who recognize how shit you are. Meaning that if a fascist is spewing their rhetoric then someone would hopefully bash their head in.

[Bala Perdida]

Yeah. People can exercise their 'right' to free speech. Others will exercise their ability to puch them in the face. Or throw a bottle. Free speech or no free speech. Laws or no laws.

[consuming negativity]

"you can say what you want but we might kill you for it" is not free speech

it's actually like the exact opposite lmfao

fucking edgy lolcommies, jesus christ

if our awesome socialist society can be overthrown by some stupid teenager pretending he knows shit about fuck, then we deserve to be overthrown

[Bala Perdida]

Never suggested the physical agitators won't suffer repercussions. Just saying if 'dangerous speech' happens in a different society like it does in this one, then an 'aggressive reaction' will happen like it does in this one. It probably won't even be applied by the new regime. If people don't like it, obviously some are less likely to put up with it.

[consuming negativity]

Never suggested the physical agitators won't suffer repercussions. Just saying if 'dangerous speech' happens in a different society like it does in this one, then an 'aggressive reaction' will happen like it does in this one. It probably won't even be applied by the new regime. If people don't like it, obviously some are less likely to put up with it.

So then you're just backpedaling and trying to lean back on a tautology to pretend you weren't jumping on the bandwagon? Allow me to make my position crystal clear: it is never acceptable, under any circumstances, to hit someone out of anger for expressing themselves. Ever. No matter how stupid or wrong they are (or you think they are). Antifascism and self defense and the like are one thing: we cannot allow people to start slaughtering us or other innocent people in the streets over their fucked up ideologies. But I am unable to tolerate physical violence against anyone for speaking their mind and/or trying to engage in intelligent discourse. It is extremely disconcerting that the supposed revolutionary left, when asked about freedom of speech, say "talk shit, get hit" like a bunch of fucking try-hard teenagers.

[Illegalitarian]

So then you're just backpedaling and trying to lean back on a tautology to pretend you weren't jumping on the bandwagon? Allow me to make my position crystal clear: it is never acceptable, under any circumstances, to hit someone out of anger for expressing themselves. Ever. No matter how stupid or wrong they are (or you think they are). Antifascism and self defense and the like are one thing: we cannot allow people to start slaughtering us or other innocent people in the streets over their fucked up ideologies. But I am unable to tolerate physical violence against anyone for speaking their mind and/or trying to engage in intelligent discourse. It is extremely disconcerting that the supposed revolutionary left, when asked about freedom of speech, say "talk shit, get hit" like a bunch of fucking try-hard teenagers.

No one is suggesting that we beat down the ebil revisionists or slaughter the religious, or just plain old punch someone we disagree with in the face. We are specifically talking about antifascism, quelling dangerous agitation for racial/sex/gender etc based violence or any such people trying to organize to do such.


I hate to quote him on this issue since it kind of hurts my case, but as Stalin said, ideas are every bit as dangerous as guns. We wouldn't allow our enemies [those who pose a legitimate threat of violence and death against others] to have guns, why let them have ideas?

Which that sounds a bit harsh, but you get the picture.

[consuming negativity]

We are specifically talking about antifascism, quelling dangerous agitation for racial/sex/gender etc based violence or any such people trying to organize to do such.

In this case then we aren't in disagreement. But I don't know if you've been reading the same thread I have, but I get the feeling you're using a "we" that is not all-encompassing there.

[Loony Le Fist]

...
It is extremely disconcerting that the supposed revolutionary left, when asked about freedom of speech, say "talk shit, get hit" like a bunch of fucking try-hard teenagers.

Yes, I'm concerned about the ugly seed of authoritarianism. It appears to be your concern here as well.

EDIT: Though to be clear, fascism is a rather ugly ideology. It seems to truly taint the mind. Are we to allow that seed of authoritarianism to flourish as well?

[Redistribute the Rep]

There's a huge difference between saying something and trying to organize a fascist movement

[Illegalitarian]

Obviously we're not talking about murdering someone for popping off with some far-right shitty nonsense.

[Bala Perdida]

Murder seems unnecessary in a revolutionary society, unless the fascist is a violent insurgent. Although I thought that people responding aggressively to speech implied that the speech was militant slander. Like racists trying to hold a rally in an ethnic enclave. I didn't mean saying "I like apples" and because I like oranges I'm gonna hit you. Lashing out for simplicity on that level is obviously authoritarianism, which itself deserves a violent reaction. In some sense at least. Overthrowing something never seems like a peaceful act,. If not employed, than violence is usually used as a leverage.

[BIXX]

Coming from a position of having seen the violence of racists fascists etc in person I'm not really interested in letting them feel safe with their shitty views. Free speech but expect free action.

[cyu]

I think there might be a general fear of just how convincing fascist ideas are... witness how they quickly took over Germany.

I would disagree with that view though. I think if you spend enough time in discussion at revleft or with other leftists, eventually you'll become much more sure of the strength of your ideas, and will have less fear of the supposed "virulency" of fascist ideas.

I would say there isn't any inherent strength in fascist ideas, and that their takeover of Germany was not due to the ideas themselves. Instead, it was due to the media was structured. Given an unfree mass media, any ideas of questionable quality, be they fascist ones, religious ones, or pseudo-communist ones, would appear convincing. But the power isn't to be found in the ideas themselves, but the power is in the structure of the mass media.

Without the backing of the mass media, fascist ideas would never have taken over Germany, just as capitalist ideas would never have taken over various nations today.

If you truly believe your own ideas are weak, and could be destroyed by stronger opposing ideas, then indeed you may need censorship. It's like discovering a germ for a disease that you can't cure, so you can only resort to quarantine.

However, if you have enough understanding of why your opponent's ideas are wrong, then in fact you do want everyone to be exposed to those ideas, just so you can publicly debunk them. It is indeed like inoculation. If you still don't feel confident enough, you might consider what some vaccines do - introduce a weakened form of the virus, in order to build counter-measures against something that isn't dangerous anyway. If the opposing ideology contains memes ABCDEFG, you don't necessarily have to teach their entire ideology. You might just debunk, say, memes C and E, which would mean the rest of the ideology would be "inoperable" in case anybody ever encounters the whole thing "in the wild".

[Illegalitarian]

I think there might be a general fear of just how convincing fascist ideas are... witness how they quickly took over Germany.

I would disagree with that view though. I think if you spend enough time in discussion at revleft or with other leftists, eventually you'll become much more sure of the strength of your ideas, and will have less fear of the supposed "virulency" of fascist ideas.

I would say there isn't any inherent strength in fascist ideas, and that their takeover of Germany was not due to the ideas themselves. Instead, it was due to the media was structured. Given an unfree mass media, any ideas of questionable quality, be they fascist ones, religious ones, or pseudo-communist ones, would appear convincing. But the power isn't to be found in the ideas themselves, but the power is in the structure of the mass media.

Without the backing of the mass media, fascist ideas would never have taken over Germany, just as capitalist ideas would never have taken over various nations today.

If you truly believe your own ideas are weak, and could be destroyed by stronger opposing ideas, then indeed you may need censorship. It's like discovering a germ for a disease that you can't cure, so you can only resort to quarantine.

However, if you have enough understanding of why your opponent's ideas are wrong, then in fact you do want everyone to be exposed to those ideas, just so you can publicly debunk them. It is indeed like inoculation. If you still don't feel confident enough, you might consider what some vaccines do - introduce a weakened form of the virus, in order to build counter-measures against something that isn't dangerous anyway. If the opposing ideology contains memes ABCDEFG, you don't necessarily have to teach their entire ideology. You might just debunk, say, memes C and E, which would mean the rest of the ideology would be "inoperable" in case anybody ever encounters the whole thing "in the wild".


The NSDAP came to power not really because of the media, but because they were the only alternative to the weak post-Empire government that hadn't been completely suppressed. They were an alternative populist movement in a time where non-repressed populism of any kind would have thrived due to the material conditions of Germany at the time. They told Germans what they wanted to hear, in those days.

Which is why fascism is so dangerous: It's a very fluid ideology, it is populist above all else and seeks first and foremost to appeal to the conservative, reactionary sentiments in a society, sentiments that the average person give in to very easily. Until the years go by and all vestiges of the old world die, those sentiments and those movements will both exist extensively, most likely, as we can see in other nations where communist revolutions took place, where the former capitalist class becomes militant and rallies behind anyone who steps up and claims to represent them, as we saw the Spanish Communist Party do in Catalonia to crush the revolution there, as we saw the white forces try and do during the Russian civil war, etc.


With that in mind, we can't very well allow these people to run around rallying people to their racist, counter-revolutionary causes while we kick back and depend on our politics to do the talking for us.

[The Feral Underclass]

So then you're just backpedaling and trying to lean back on a tautology to pretend you weren't jumping on the bandwagon? Allow me to make my position crystal clear: it is never acceptable, under any circumstances, to hit someone out of anger for expressing themselves. Ever. No matter how stupid or wrong they are (or you think they are). Antifascism and self defense and the like are one thing: we cannot allow people to start slaughtering us or other innocent people in the streets over their fucked up ideologies. But I am unable to tolerate physical violence against anyone for speaking their mind and/or trying to engage in intelligent discourse. It is extremely disconcerting that the supposed revolutionary left, when asked about freedom of speech, say "talk shit, get hit" like a bunch of fucking try-hard teenagers.

There are plenty of circumstances in which hitting someone for expressing themselves is acceptable. Political violence is necessary and therefore justified. If someone expresses to me that all gay people should be hung, then hitting them is a perfectly legitimate response. I am under no obligation to pacify myself based on some bullshit liberal morals. It's not my responsibility to protect the "rights" of homophobes and bigots. If they don't want to get hit, they should change their opinions.

[consuming negativity]

There are plenty of circumstances in which hitting someone for expressing themselves is acceptable. Political violence is necessary and therefore justified. If someone expresses to me that all gay people should be hung, then hitting them is a perfectly legitimate response. I am under no obligation to pacify myself based on some bullshit liberal morals. It's not my responsibility to protect the "rights" of homophobes and bigots. If they don't want to get hit, they should change their opinions.

no, not really. maybe a couple, such as during circumstances when someone is saying they want to kill you or you're actually in danger. but for the most part, no, hitting people for expressing themselves is completely unnecessary and is not political violence at all.

>liberal morals
>rights

this is a great canned response to an argument i didn't make :glare:

>if they don't want to get hit, they should change their opinions

:rolleyes:

[Illegalitarian]

If someone is advocating an ideology that calls for violence and death against entire ethnicities, genders, etc, they are inciting genocide and do not need to be left alone to their own device.

That's the only time it's acceptable I'd say.

[motion denied]

If it's a proletarian government, why is one person only (myself, yourself) to decide it?


Anyway, given it's a highly hypothetical and unlikely scenario, proletarian organs would deal with it. My personal reaction? "Look at that dumbass".

[The Feral Underclass]

no, not really. maybe a couple, such as during circumstances when someone is saying they want to kill you or you're actually in danger. but for the most part, no, hitting people for expressing themselves is completely unnecessary and is not political violence at all.

Your conception of political struggle comes from a position of being a liberal, so of course you cannot understand how using violence against people who express hatred for you is political and necessary. It doesn't surprise me at all that you have these opinions.

But for gay people and people of colour, we are constantly beset by prejudice and oppression. Our lives are daily struggles against it. We exist within a conflict for our liberation on a day-to-day basis. Our very existence is political. What you're suggesting is that I should pacify my resistance to that oppression and hatred by permitting it to actualise itself, not just in the world, but in my presence.

Well, no. I'm no going to do that. Gay people, women, people of colour, we're at fucking war every single day and you're telling me that I should just accept that someone has these views...? Fuck that. And fuck you.


>liberal morals
>rights

this is a great canned response to an argument i didn't make :glare:

If your views are not based on some liberal moralism, then what are they based on?


>if they don't want to get hit, they should change their opinions

:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes as much as you want, you're the one defending the rights of homophobes.

[Illegalitarian]

Now, now, no need for that nonsesne. I believe communer is simply underestimating the extremely violent and uncompromising reactionary nature of fascists and those who calm for harm minorities, he's certainly no liberal.

The liberal attitude is one of seeing everything as an intellectual exercise, as if everyone is on the same level of intellectual honesty and open mindedness and will simply "see the light" if we bemoan them enough. It's one of contextless pacifism, not of respecting the rights of people to express themselves freely, at least not alone.

[The Feral Underclass]

Now, now, no need for that nonsesne. I believe communer is simply underestimating the extremely violent and uncompromising reactionary nature of fascists and those who calm for harm minorities, he's certainly no liberal.

You can go fuck yourself as well.

[Illegalitarian]

Way to stick it to the man, epic ownage :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

Way to stick it to the man, epic ownage :rolleyes:

You don't halve talk a load of bollocks.

[consuming negativity]

Your conception of political struggle comes from a position of being a liberal, so of course you cannot understand how using violence against people who express hatred for you is political and necessary. It doesn't surprise me at all that you have these opinions.

But for gay people and people of colour, we are constantly beset by prejudice and oppression. Our lives are daily struggles against it. We exist within a conflict for our liberation on a day-to-day basis. Our very existence is political. What you're suggesting is that I should pacify my resistance to that oppression and hatred by permitting it to actualise itself, not just in the world, but in my presence.

Well, no. I'm no going to do that. Gay people, women, people of colour, we're at fucking war every single day and you're telling me that I should just accept that someone has these views...? Fuck that. And fuck you.

If your views are not based on some liberal moralism, then what are they based on?

Roll your eyes as much as you want, you're the one defending the rights of homophobes.

Did you read anything after the post of mine you quoted?

I can tell you didn't. Because if you had, you'd realize that I'm on your side of this issue.

Don't worry, I don't take it personally that you're pissed off. You should be pissed off. But you should also make an effort to ascertain the entire story before you launch into a rage at someone like that.

[Rafiq]

In principle, free speech is something worth keeping. Communists ought not to fall into this game of backwardness and philistinism - free speech, as far as we're concerned is an achievement. But free speech for the Communists necessarily has similar implications as free speech for the bourgeois - free speech within the confines of the existing order, so long as it does not threaten the rule of the ruling class. Countless times in history including now, "free speech" has been pushed aside when necessary.

As such, when the proletariat is in a position of class dictatorship - there is nothing wrong with internalizing the idea of free speech so long as it does not prove to be an obstacle to their rule. Nothing is so unmalleable - and context is of great importance. The bourgeois order does not permit speech which threatens it, and neither will we - because often speech is not simply 'expressing oneself' - it is violence, it is expressing violence.

No free speech for the class enemy, as a rule - or, to put it more frankly, we ought not to give them a strict legal, or serious platform for their speech. Hypothetically, if they wanted to prattle of their nonsense marginally, who cares? The entire premise of the liberal defense of the sacred right to free speech is that disagreements in speech can necessarily be tied to different interpretations which could be mended by use of reason. But this is not the case - we know what they are, and they know what we are. Even if the bourgeoisie knows that Marxism is true - they wouldn't change for shit. Their interests are real, and rational. So are ours. A good example is this website and how it deals with 'reasonable' reactionaries - sure on a "rational" level they may appear reasonable, but we ought not to give a shit. We KNOW what they're getting at when they say things like "Let's consider whether race is a factor in intelligence" or something like this - we must treat this not for what it claims to be, but what it represents. The fundamental mentality which it represents.

Indeed, of course Communism is not a regression from bourgeois civic values - the point is that any form of civic values in any meaningful sense can only be preserved by Communism, in this age where they are proving to be an obstacle to the sustenance of capitalism.

[MonsterMan]

who gets to decide on whats acceptable or not - ie: at my work, supporting communist ideas would not help your career that's for sure

[cyu]

they were the only alternative to the weak post-Empire government that hadn't been completely suppressed. They were an alternative populist movement in a time where non-repressed populism of any kind would have thrived due to the material conditions of Germany at the time. In times of systems crisis, people in general become much more open to alternative ideas - whether they are sound ideas or deluded ideas. If all other ideas are repressed, the fact that one set of memes becomes dominant, doesn't speak to the strength of those memes, but rather speaks to the power of suppressing all competing memes. Even if it wasn't Fascism that was left alone to flourish, but some other memetic cult (theocracy, for example), the end result would've been the same. In other words, in times of crisis, if all ideologies were repressed, including Fascism, then Fascism would not rise - however, if some type of theocracy were left alone, then that will rise instead.

So I would say targeting any particular ideology is just a game of whack-a-mole. The real solution would be to not allow leftist ideas to be repressed in the first place - using armed take-overs of the mass media, if necessary.


Which is why fascism is so dangerous: It's a very fluid ideology, it is populist above all else and seeks first and foremost to appeal to the conservative, reactionary sentiments in a society, sentiments that the average person give in to very easily. I would say there is nothing "naturally" reactionary or conservative about any section of society, but rather that what they believe is entirely a product of the mass media that feeds them. Raise a kid in an environment where most of the communication has a Catholic bias, and he'll most likely grow up to be Catholic. The same is true of any other ideology, whether Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, even humanist.

Perhaps you believe in the power of Fascism more than I do. I instead believe in the power of the mass media. You may focus on not allowing Fascists to do as they please - and technically as an anarchist, I respect that - it's an admirable goal and I wouldn't want to dissuade you from taking the battle to them on that front. However I would personally choose a different front on which to engage - that is, not allowing capitalists or any other tiny group of people to decide what is "not appropriate" for the mass media - and to help local communities take control of their media outlets, using weapons if necessary.