Individual Liberties in a Socialist State?

[Peachman2000]

I am relatively new to Marxism. I have read the manifesto and other things on the subject, but I have never gotten a clear answer on whether Marxism promotes personal freedoms other than freedom from capitalism and class oppression. So I must ask, does Marxism promote individual liberties? By liberties i mean the basic human rights like Freedom of Speech, The Press, Religion, and to peacefully protest the government.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There is no "socialist state". There is a transitional state in which the proletariat rules, and which is moving toward socialism. But when it gets there, the state will no longer exist. As for "individual liberties", the question we always ask is what liberties, and for who? We will trample all over the liberties of the bourgeoisie and their hangers-on, of course. That is necessary to secure the political supremacy of the proletariat. For the proletariat, however, we expect nothing but the fullest political freedom conditioned only by the interest of the class as a whole (so if a proletarian takes up arms against the workers' state, we will still shoot at him).

Socialists, however, are also defenders of rights for women, rights for homosexuals and transsexuals, for national minorities, democratic rights such as the right to carry weapons, for the proletariat, and trade union rights.

[Peachman2000]

But of society becomes classless, wouldn't there be universal equality? There would be no more bourgeoisie to suppress. At that point wouldn't their be universal liberty?

[tuwix]

Communist don't like a word 'liberty' because it's used very much by neoliberalism and right-wing libertarianism. We prefer to use a word 'freedom'. And Marx was for freedom of speech, freedom of associations and for all that what you describe as individual liberties with exception of the rights for property. Then we must assume that in transitional state they should be preserved.

[Peachman2000]

It is said that in Soviet Russia, Cuba, etc, that the newspapers and press were all under control by the government and not by the people. I understand that these weren't true Marxist governments, but does that mean the opinion is different in Leninism or Maoism?

[Blake's Baby]

What opinion?

Those really weren't 'true Marxist governments', because it's difficult to understand what a 'true Marxist government' might be.

What they were - given the best possible interpretation - was temporary military governments in place to protect the gains of workers' revolutions until it became possible to establish a socialist society.

Many of us however think that they were state-capitalist regimes that only differed in detail from the management of the capitalist economies of the west, and in many cases were more brutal and less 'efficient' (for any given measure of capitalist efficiency).

But if what you're getting at is the censorship and government control, that has more to do with them being beleaguered than anything inherent in Marxist thought. It's difficult to get things critical of the official line published in the west too, you know. I mean, I don't own any newspapers or news channels, so the chances of most people reading/hearing what I've said and written is pretty slim.

[Ele'ill]

So I must ask, does Marxism promote individual liberties? By liberties i mean the basic human rights like Freedom of Speech, The Press, Religion, and to peacefully protest the government.

What are your own thoughts on it? Do you think there can be individual liberties or total freedom under any state regardless of its alleged duration? Do you believe power is ever willingly relenquished? Can there be a Party that encompasses the needs and desires of so many people or is it an empty promise? What trends do you see in formal organization of all types?

[RedWorker]

I am relatively new to Marxism. I have read the manifesto and other things on the subject, but I have never gotten a clear answer on whether Marxism promotes personal freedoms other than freedom from capitalism and class oppression. So I must ask, does Marxism promote individual liberties? By liberties i mean the basic human rights like Freedom of Speech, The Press, Religion, and to peacefully protest the government.

Marxism is not a doctrine, thus it cannot either promote nor 'demote' these things, although the founders of Marxism personally agree with these freedoms. Marx for example regarded death penalty as an atrocity, yet Marxism cannot be said to be either anti- nor pro-death penalty, because it is not a doctrine whose set of holy principles to follow was written up by Marx.

Communists, however, do broadly promote these freedoms, at least against the current government - even Stalinists consider it important to achieve these freedoms within the capitalist state. I've seen Trotskyists and some others (generally on more authoritarian lines than most people here) advocate the suppression of freedom of speech in the workers' state, while many users here would be completely against such a suppression. Suppression of freedom of speech can range from limiting to the same freedom of speech that there is under capitalism today, to tolerating any speech that isn't a threat to fundamental principles, and so on. It doesn't necessarily mean a single-party state like Stalinists would advocate.

Personally, however, I consider the suppression of freedom of speech to be contradictory to the very principles of the workers' state, and any such suppression being allowed would put its very existence in danger; for example, one party alone could seize all power for itself by deeming all others to be exercising 'counterrevolutionary speech'...

It is difficult to imagine how the transition to communist society would be carried out without such principles of freedom being respected. It demands a mass expansion of democracy in order to function. The workers' state would stop existing without this mass democracy.


But of society becomes classless, wouldn't there be universal equality? There would be no more bourgeoisie to suppress. At that point wouldn't their be universal liberty

Yes, Marxism predicts communist society will trigger the gradual end of the state.


It is said that in Soviet Russia, Cuba, etc, that the newspapers and press were all under control by the government and not by the people. I understand that these weren't true Marxist governments, but does that mean the opinion is different in Leninism or Maoism?

There can be no 'true Marxist government', as Marxism is not a doctrine to follow. Marxism explains that a communist society will arise out of certain principles. Furthermore, even if you put the truest Marxist in the corrupted apparatus that Russia and Cuba had become, then the result would only have been the same. Marxism, in fact, explains that that would have been inevitable...; e.g., even if you put a Marxist running the capitalist state, it is still the capitalist state, cannot function as anything but one. Russia in the 1920s may have been able to be saved, though.

[Red Star Rising]

As for "individual liberties", the question we always ask is what liberties, and for who? We will trample all over the liberties of the bourgeoisie and their hangers-on, of course. That is necessary to secure the political supremacy of the proletariat.

Care to elaborate on how and why their rights will be suppressed?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But of society becomes classless, wouldn't there be universal equality? There would be no more bourgeoisie to suppress. At that point wouldn't their be universal liberty?

Yes, as Lenin put it, once there is no longer a state, there will be freedom. Unfortunately this is also the point where it no longer makes sense to talk about "rights" and "liberties, as these are essentially guarantees against government action, and in communism, there is no government or any form of political authority.


It is said that in Soviet Russia, Cuba, etc, that the newspapers and press were all under control by the government and not by the people. I understand that these weren't true Marxist governments, but does that mean the opinion is different in Leninism or Maoism?

Well, first of all that is not true. There were quite a few newspapers and other media in the Soviet Union, Cuba, China etc. that were not published by the government. And of course, if you think you can just print whatever you like in Western democracies, hoo boy are you in for a rude awakening.

But generally, what interests us is not the presence or absence of censorship, but the purpose is serves. Trotskyists, who are Leninists, certainly don't think the censorship in the Soviet Union served the interest of the proletariat (in the mean - there was really no loss if the writings of a right-wing hack like Solzhenitsyn were censored).


Care to elaborate on how and why their rights will be suppressed?

How? Oh, there are methods, ranging from taking away their rationing cards to shooting them. Why? Because the proletariat is the ruling class, and like all ruling classes it will destroy all challenges to its rule. What rights do you want to give the bourgeoisie? Assembly, so that they can organise their Unions of Salvation in peace? Voting, so they can disrupt workers' democracy? Private property?

[Peachman2000]

What rights do you want to give the bourgeoisie? Assembly, so that they can organise their Unions of Salvation in peace? Voting, so they can disrupt workers' democracy?

The proletariat greatly outnumber the bourgeoisie, so disenfranchising them wouldn't be necessary. All we have to do is seize their wealth and their means of production to make them equal among the people. If they have no wealth, they would have no real influence. The people who outnumber them would still hold more influence in elections.

[Marx Da Man]

Marxism is a way of viewing society. It's not a doctrine.
I know for sure that Marx made clear that "personal property" would be of no concern to a socialist state. Personal property is the property the individual interacts with on a daily basis; essentially movable goods that are the property of individuals. Land and any buildings would not count (they would be considered "means of production"). I believe it can be summed up like this: "The socialists don't want to appropriate your watch, just your watch factory."

Socialists want to abolish private property, however (from the research I've done)- property that is to be used, enjoyed, and disposed with by one individual. I suppose that your personal property would technically be community property (because it couldn't be private), but socialists seem to agree that "personal property" doesn't mess with the socialist plan for politics and economics.

As to civil liberties, because the community as a whole would have to own the means of production for the system to be socialism, I think it follows that no individual or group be ostracized from the decision-making process. Direct democracy would be needed, in short.

Why discriminate against religious groups? Marx didn't like religion but I don't know if he would have declared state atheism if he had created a socialist state.

Freedom of the press promotes democracy. You'd need a high level of transparency in order to ensure the democratic system is working well in socialism. I honestly don't know about protest...

If any one on here has noticed any mistakes in my post, please correct me. I'm rather new to Marxism and that sort of thing and I only recently joined this site. I've read the Communist Manifesto and some of Kapital, and also some of Lenin's writings.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The proletariat greatly outnumber the bourgeoisie, so disenfranchising them wouldn't be necessary. All we have to do is seize their wealth and their means of production to make them equal among the people. If they have no wealth, they would have no real influence. The people who outnumber them would still hold more influence in elections.

This is an extremely schematic way of approaching the problem.

As long as capitalism has not been overthrown globally, the former bourgeoisie possess international connections, personal ties and influence, and workers who have gone over to the bourgeoisie, either because they occupied a higher position than other workers in capitalism (the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy) or because they have not broken with bourgeois ideology. In a revolutionary situation, these will form the core of the social-democratic or right-wing "socialist" opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat (as the Mensheviks and Esers did in Russia). Why should the workers allow these people any access to the decision-making process? The transitional society is not one of "equality", but of proletarian domination.



I know for sure that Marx made clear that "personal property" would be of no concern to a socialist state. Personal property is the property the individual interacts with on a daily basis; essentially movable goods that are the property of individuals. Land and any buildings would not count (they would be considered "means of production"). I believe it can be summed up like this: "The socialists don't want to appropriate your watch, just your watch factory."

Socialists want to abolish private property, however (from the research I've done)- property that is to be used, enjoyed, and disposed with by one individual. I suppose that your personal property would technically be community property (because it couldn't be private), but socialists seem to agree that "personal property" doesn't mess with the socialist plan for politics and economics.

Marx never talked about "the socialist state", for one thing. And the few passages in which he does mention "personal property" make it clear that communists will not need to abolish personal property, as capitalism has already abolished it in all but name.

And if you think that the proletarian dictatorship will let the former bourgeoisie keep their villas, their yachts, and so on, you have a very peculiar view of the transitional period.

[tuwix]

It is said that in Soviet Russia, Cuba, etc, that the newspapers and press were all under control by the government and not by the people. I understand that these weren't true Marxist governments, but does that mean the opinion is different in Leninism or Maoism?

The truth is that Leninism and Maoism doesn't have much to do with Marxism.