Freedom of Speech

[Sinister Intents]

I can't stand the anarchists that are so clingy to the liberal/bourgeois conception of freedom of speech. Yay, good for you anarkiddo for giving platform and freedom of discourse for the bourgeois swine and reactionary scum. "But if there isn't freedom of speech, it isn't anarchist because anarchists are about freedom." Well, news flash: Freedom of speech is a liberal idea that gives freedom of speech to your enemy. A consistent socialist/communist should oppose freedom of speech because it's a liberal idea. Not to mention in capitalist society the haute-bourgeoisie have greater freedom of speech because they have the wealth to sway and manipulate opinions. Entire marketing campaigns can be constructed to sway public opinion in favor of ruling class ideas.

Alright, I typed this on short notice, so let's discuss.

[mushroompizza]

Uhhhh... if you are an anarchist and don't believe in government, then who would enforce the censorship you want? And if the liberal capitalist wanted to protect their interests they wouldn't support freedom of speech because it allows Lefties like us to talk. Come on man just accept others ideas, you don't have to like them, just let them say it. Just look at the Anti-Fascism page's philosophy, it says if you silence Fascists their ideas are seen as dangerous and people will be drawn by the taboo.

[Antiochus]

Youre naive hippie, the liberal capitalists as u call them crush public demonstrations and strikes all the time. Anyone is "for" FoS as long as the relations of power allow their views to dominate.

But lambasting FoS as some burg. ideology is totally asinine and counterproductive.


Written from phone

[Rudolf]

Who are these anarchists you speak of? I've not met any that would not be willing to violently confront reactionaries meeting, speaking and organising.


Uhhhh... if you are an anarchist and don't believe in government, then who would enforce the censorship you want? And if the liberal capitalist wanted to protect their interests they wouldn't support freedom of speech because it allows Lefties like us to talk. Come on man just accept others ideas, you don't have to like them, just let them say it. Just look at the Anti-Fascism page's philosophy, it says if you silence Fascists their ideas are seen as dangerous and people will be drawn by the taboo.

Except fascists publicly expressing their reactionary views have an aim to intimidate. Refusing to silence them helps build fear amongst the sections of the working class that are their immediate targets. More than that it gives the fash confidence when they go without being confronted. They develop a feeling of strength.

What's ridiculous is the moment you challenge a reactionary for being a reactionary they're quick to jump to "free speech" as a defense like somehow that's a shield stopping me from calling them out.

[mushroompizza]

Youre naive hippie, the liberal capitalists as u call them crush public demonstrations and strikes all the time. Anyone is "for" FoS as long as the relations of power allow their views to dominate.

But lambasting FoS as some burg. ideology is totally asinine and counterproductive.


Written from phone

True, but hey they shut down protests for fascists too, it just seems that with the dying fascist movement more police censorship is against lefties.

[Sinister Intents]

Excuse me, I drank too much coffee and I'm incredibly shaky and have zero focus.

When you support freedom of speech, you're literally giving opportunists a platform to spew their ideas that go contrary to the idea of communism. Liberalism is the antithesis of socialism. To support free speech in a revolutionary situation allows for counterrevolutionaries to go against proletarian interests, and allows the ruling class to have a way of supporting their rule against the proletarians. The proletariat must usurp state power and crush the opposition.

[Sinister Intents]

Lenin roughly said: "While the state exists, there will be no freedom; when there is no state there will be freedom." You can have your democracy after the revolution.

[BIXX]

Just bash assholes.

Yeah. I believe in freedom of speech, but that also means that I believe in the consequences of that- if I say something fucked up then someone bricks me. I think this is a good idea. Fuck everything els.e

[Sinister Intents]

Just bash assholes.

Yeah. I believe in freedom of speech, but that also means that I believe in the consequences of that- if I say something fucked up then someone bricks me. I think this is a good idea. Fuck everything els.e

I'd prefer "freedom of speech" Between anti-capitalists, but that isn't freedom of speech at all, that's only allowing certain groups to have a platform for political discourse. A multi-party system can be erected that allows for specific groups to have a say, while suppressing reactionary and bourgeois sentiment. Certainly all fascists and counterrevolutionaries that seek to destroy proletarian hegemony will be dealt with in a conducive manner. Authoritarian measures will be a necessity, and so will be a violent revolution a necessity.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Just bash assholes.

Yeah. I believe in freedom of speech, but that also means that I believe in the consequences of that- if I say something fucked up then someone bricks me. I think this is a good idea. Fuck everything els.e

You have a weird fascination with bricks.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Just bash assholes.

Yeah. I believe in freedom of speech, but that also means that I believe in the consequences of that- if I say something fucked up then someone bricks me. I think this is a good idea. Fuck everything els.e

Agreed.

I believe strongly in the freedom to speak one's mind. I also think that if some average person says something stupid, he shouldn't automatically be sent to gulag or anything.

Of course, I also believe that fascists are scum and should be confronted at every turn. Fascists don't hold rallies to express their views (everyone already knows what those views are). They hold rallies as a form of intimidation, to terrorize the very people they'd round up and burn in the ovens if they were in power.

Does that contradict my views on freedom of speech? I don't think so. Speech has consequences, and sometimes consequences are a tire iron to the back of the head.

[Creative Destruction]

Keep in mind that you could not enjoy the advantages of a free press without tolerating its inconveniences. You could not pluck the rose without its thorns! And what do you lose in losing a free press? A free press is the omnipresent open eye of the popular spirit ... It is the merciless confessional that a people makes to itself, and it is well known that confession has the power to redeem. It is the intellectual mirror in which a people beholds itself, and self-examination is the first condition of wisdom

guess who

[Creative Destruction]

Lenin roughly said: "While the state exists, there will be no freedom; when there is no state there will be freedom." You can have your democracy after the revolution.

well, thanks for reminding us why Lenin was awful.

[G4b3n]

Actual anarchists regard freedom of speach as a liberal construct that works almost exclusively in favor of the exploiters in bourgeois society. Disregard the anarcho liberals and don't strawman.

[Sinister Intents]

Actual anarchists regard freedom of speach as a liberal construct that works almost exclusively in favor of the exploiters in bourgeois society. Disregard the anarcho liberals and don't strawman.

Indeed, but I've cone across too many liberals and became disillusioned

[#FF0000]

Indeed, but I've cone across too many liberals and became disillusioned

yer gonna find a lot of marxists with dumb politics too. don't get disillusioned over people with stupid ideas repping certain ideas.

[#FF0000]

Also it's kind of dumb and useless to talk about "freedom of speech" in the abstract here. Do you support freedom of speech right now, in the world we live in? In a post-revolutionary society? During a revolution? Context is important.

[oneday]

This seems like a thorny issue for revolutionaries. I think we can all agree that in the end, we want open discussion and critical views in the post revolutionary world, otherwise how can there be true democratic collective control?

We probably also all agree that the bourgeois notion of freedom of speech basically entails the propagation of bourgeois ideology through media conglomerates, advertising and even the decisions as to what products are chosen to be produced. The distribution of the power to influence ideology is highly tilted in favor of the bourgeoisie at all times. In Western bourgeois democracies there is a great deal of tolerance for competing views in such places as youtube, but the influence that can be made there in favor of working class politics is small. The 'medium is the message' type of argument could also be applied there as well.

I believe the main difference of opinions among us would be as to how to transition away from the bourgeois notion of 'freedom of speech' (basically the wealthy owners control the speech) and towards a more participatory model. Am I fairly correct?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Freedom of speech is part of what is often called 'negative freedom', that is, a freedom from arbitrary coercion in order to do what one wishes. These types of freedoms came about from the progression of the bourgeois. That's not a slight against it, mind you. This is one of the freedoms won through struggle from the progressive bourgeois revolutions of the 18th century.

'Positive freedoms', which is the possession of resources and power to fulfill one's own potential, have been built up almost exclusively through the struggles of the working class.

A proper socialist society would both strengthen 'negative freedoms' and further establish and greatly expand 'positive freedoms'.

The entry on the Marxists.org Encyclopedia says it better than I ever could:

"A socialist society that has been established from a capitalist society will strengthen “negative freedoms”, while ushering in real “positive freedoms” across the board, ensuring equal and free access to social services by all. The fullest development of positive freedom is impossible however without a further development of negative freedom – people cannot be forced to be free"



"Free activity for the Communists is the creative manifestation of life arising from the free development of all abilities of the whole person"


-Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
The German Ideology (Ch. 3abs) (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03abs.htm)

[#FF0000]

I hate the concept of "positive" and "negative" freedoms. They're just illusions of language and don't exist. Any positive freedom can be expressed as a negative freedom, and vice versa. God I hate those concepts. Ugh. Now I'm throwing a tantrum. Thanks a lot.

[oneday]

A consistent socialist/communist should oppose freedom of speech because it's a liberal idea.

That statement seems fraught with peril. If I'm not mistaken socialism/communism were really outgrowths of liberalism to begin with, trying to fulfill the original promises of the French Revolution (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) which seemed to not be fulfilled by capitalism. As others have pointed out, Marx was an advocate of a society with freedom of speech, and a socialist society would expand the scope of 'negative freedoms' such as freedom of speech.

#FF0000 has a great point about context, hopefully the main point of contention is during a revolution, and the consolidation phase.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I hate the concept of "positive" and "negative" freedoms. They're just illusions of language and don't exist. Any positive freedom can be expressed as a negative freedom, and vice versa. God I hate those concepts. Ugh. Now I'm throwing a tantrum. Thanks a lot.

Hate the concept if you want, but it exists. Simply denying it will not negate it.

[#FF0000]

Hate the concept if you want, but it exists. Simply denying it will not negate it.

I mean, it exists as a rhetorical device in that people will use it to try to explain the world. It doesn't exist in that it's nonsensical and falls apart under scrutiny.

i'm so cranky now.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

i'm so cranky now.

....You need a nap? :confused:

[#FF0000]

no one talks about positive and negative freedom when u sleep...

[BIXX]

You have a weird fascination with bricks.
Pppfffttttt whhhhaaa

Yes.

[Bala Perdida]

As I said before and many basically said before me. Go ahead and exercise your 'right' to free speech, but don't be surprised if I exercise my ability to punch you in the face. For more info, check out my sig. TFU what up!

[Palmares]

Pppfffttttt whhhhaaa

Yes.

Got a favourite?

http://www.masonrymagazine.com/10-02/art/Borchelt_Figure-1.gif

This is a favourite with the kids:

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/05/21/mp5.jpg
(Made up of alot of very small "bricks" mind you)

[1xAntifa]

Can I stick my two bits worth in. It appears that we're getting lost in theory here. I see the problem here as being I think, a lack of definition of which 'free speech' is being argued about. Tackling 'free speech' in toto is too big an elephant for too little gain at this point in time.

Bear with me here as I'm making it up as I go along. I'm not big on theory or doctrinal purity so please excuse any gaffes, I don't intend offence.

What are we looking for here? Philosophically satisfying answers or practical solutions?Do we see boneheads spouting garbage down at the pub as the problem here, or are we talking about the highly-paid 'commentators' on every channel putting out the same propaganda aka fox and Murdoch, cnn etc that control the public discourse?

Are we recognising, and policing, the existing boundaries of 'free speech' such as hate speech, vilification, slander, liable, obscenity, dissent, "national security" that exist in law, or are we simply throwing up our hands in despair at the flood-tide of fascist hate that is out there at the moment where-ever you look, Are we decrying the notion of 'free speech' per se rather than the distorted hate model that is accepted as the norm?

If our objection is to the local bonehead with minimal power to disseminate the hate, then those people are easily countered...with fists if necessary.Problem solved, well no.

The bigger bugga-boo is the corporatised propaganda machines spewing out their diatribes of hate that have hegemony over the public discourse. These are the real bastards, these are the ones peddling hate-speech as 'free speech' when it clearly is not. It is this 'free speech' that creates our bonehead friends and thus the strategic target.

What needs to be shut down is the hegemonic reign of hate-speech masquerading as free speech.

Opinions?:)

[consuming negativity]

of course we are in favor of freedom of speech

even the fucking government recognizes a difference between free speech and inciting violence against minority groups

there is also a huge difference between a bar fight over foul language and incarceration over dissent against the state; conflating the two is nonsensical

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

of course we are in favor of freedom of speech


Speak for yourself.

[1xAntifa]

of course we are in favor of freedom of speech

even the fucking government recognizes a difference between free speech and inciting violence against minority groups

there is also a huge difference between a bar fight over foul language and incarceration over dissent against the state; conflating the two is nonsensical

Not quite getting what you're trying to say here, maybe I'm a bit slow. Where did conflating a bar fight and getting jugged for dissent come from? :confused:

I thought I was talking about the existing limits on free speech, and in a round about way, suggested identifying the particular discourses that are un-acceptable, rather than blanket condemnations of free speech as such. :unsure:

Once I grasp what you've actually said, I'll try to answer your criticism.:)

[Antiochus]

Yeah idk, these 'opponents' to freedom of speech seem like wannabe contrarians. The point of socialism is to expand to the working class the rights afforded to the bourgeoisie, not to restrict those rights altogether. I mean, if you fear FoS so much because it can be "manipulated" by the elite, why not fear democracy for the same idiotic reason?

And quoting Lenin saying "you can have your democracy after" might sound like a nice "zinger!" but its an absolute farce if you actually look at what happened after Lenin died. Yeah, the Soviet people really got their "democracy after".

[#FF0000]

Speak for yourself.

you don't think freedom of speech would exist in a stateless and classless society?

[mushroompizza]

Look at the progress Freedom of Speech has made in the USA, it was slow but at least now blacks are legally equal. The Nazis had censorship and we all now they were great folks.

[Bala Perdida]

Look at the progress Freedom of Speech has made in the USA, it was slow but at least now blacks are legally equal. The Nazis had censorship and we all now they were great folks.

Are you being sarcastic? It's hard to tell at this point.

[BIXX]

Yeah idk, these 'opponents' to freedom of speech seem like wannabe contrarians. The point of socialism is to expand to the working class the rights afforded to the bourgeoisie, not to restrict those rights altogether. I mean, if you fear FoS so much because it can be "manipulated" by the elite, why not fear democracy for the same idiotic reason?

And quoting Lenin saying "you can have your democracy after" might sound like a nice "zinger!" but its an absolute farce if you actually look at what happened after Lenin died. Yeah, the Soviet people really got their "democracy after".
I agree about the Lenin thing but FOS is just weak pandering to liberal moralism. If you believe in freedom of speech you believe in freedom of consequence, hence my brick fetish. But I don't really call that freedom of speech so much as what people did before anyone ever thought about 'freedoms'.

[#FF0000]

These threads usually just bring around a lot of verbal radicalism w/ no actual serious discussion of the issue. Y'all would be real, real mad if the state started cracking down on meetings and enforcing the old "criminal syndicalism" laws for posting on this site.

[VivalaCuarta]

In class society there is no freedom in general. In capitalist society the only real freedom is freedom of buying and selling. He who has more to sell and can buy more, has more freedom. Freedom of speech included.

The question is, freedom of speech for what class? For what sex? For what nationality? Who is limiting the freedom of speech, for whom?

So long as the capitalist class rules, its repressive apparatus will be used against the workers. When the workers rule, so long as the capitalist class is capable of regaining power, the workers state must oppress the capitalists, deny them all sorts of things, including speech, movement, life, etc. In periods of civil war it will be necessary for the workers dictatorship to deny all sorts of freedoms to counterrevolutionaries of every class.

Nevertheless freedom of speech is very useful to the working class, both under capitalist rule and after the revolution. For genuine Marxists, neither the hypocritical liberalism of the bourgeoisie nor the reactionary indifference to democratic rights on the part of some "radicals" is the correct policy. Our program is a program of action for the working class, not of ethical imperatives for the bourgeoisie or the people "in general." To resist the bourgeois state's attacks on democratic rights, including freedom of the press. To build up the workers press, and free it from the stupefying control of the labor traitors. And once in power, to allow every current that does not take up arms against the revolution to have its say. Any leftist who calls on the bourgeois state to institute sanctions against reactionary speech is a traitor to the workers, because these anti-democratic powers will be directed against the workers tomorrow.

Trotsky took up this question in a good little essay in 1938, "Freedom of the Press and the Working Class (https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm)."

Added: For another interesting example, check out this article from The Internationalist, "Zionist Flack and 'WMD' Fabricator Jailed in Government Witchhunt: Free Judith Miller! (http://www.internationalist.org/freejudithmiller0507.html)"

[Vogel]

I can't stand the anarchists that are so clingy to the liberal/bourgeois conception of freedom of speech. Yay, good for you anarkiddo for giving platform and freedom of discourse for the bourgeois swine and reactionary scum. "But if there isn't freedom of speech, it isn't anarchist because anarchists are about freedom." Well, news flash: Freedom of speech is a liberal idea that gives freedom of speech to your enemy. A consistent socialist/communist should oppose freedom of speech because it's a liberal idea. Not to mention in capitalist society the haute-bourgeoisie have greater freedom of speech because they have the wealth to sway and manipulate opinions. Entire marketing campaigns can be constructed to sway public opinion in favor of ruling class ideas.

Alright, I typed this on short notice, so let's discuss.

So we should oppose and shut down anything that doesn't conform our world view? That's authoritarian. You have a very astute view of how capitalism corrupts free speech, yet you attack free speech for being corrupted over those who corrupted it. I understand you may hate them equally, but the thread is titled free speech.

[Bala Perdida]

Why would anyone argue against freedom of speech as an accessory of the state. It's not like we're for 'dissenters' being jailed for saying the government sucks. I'm for individuals and groups of people not taking other people's bullshit, not for cracking down on people who say bad things about the education system. Basically all governments with restrictions on FoS still have hyper reactionary cultures and still uphold racism, sexism, and many other types of bigotry. People regularly even get encouraged to perpetuate those attitudes in such things in those countries, it's even systematically enforced. We aren't in favor of censorship, we're in favor of retaliation. We're also tired of people saying we have to respect all points of view, even if they are aggressive and violent towards us. For gods sake, I remember my teacher in high school being an apologist for Henry Ford's anti-semitism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Freedom of speech is one of the freedoms the socialists have wrested from the bourgeoisie. Now obviously, it has limits. We have no reasons to test or push some of these limits, when it comes to false advertising for example. On the other hand, when the state tries to limit things like political speech or speech relating to sex, we have every reason to oppose any extension of the police powers of the bourgeois state. Some people delude themselves into thinking the state is going to use restrictions on free speech to punish racists, homophobes etc. - it won't, not with any effect at least. That's because the class interest of the bourgeoisie does not align with anything we might think of as "progressive".

And the "brick to the head" approach, while doubtlessly making some people's dicks feel long and hard, has its problems as well. Within the workers' movement, it's called gangsterism. The Stalinisted parties of the interwar period and the British WRP after the war were notorious for such practices, as is the entirety of modern social democracy.

When it comes to the workers' state, of course, some restriction of freedom of speech is to be expected during a civil war. Anyone spreading enemy propaganda might end up sentenced to life in front of a firing squad for example.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Lenin roughly said: "While the state exists, there will be no freedom; when there is no state there will be freedom." You can have your democracy after the revolution.

That's no democracy at all, then.

Freedom of speech is important for 95% of groups. The one exception is fascists who, as history has shown plenty of times, will shut down freedom of speech and far worse very quickly when coming to power, and so it is in the interest of everyone to simultaneously shut down opportunities for them to gain power, and to also counter their dangerous arguments everywhere.

However, the problem with opposing freedom of speech as a communist is that we have to recognise we are in the significant minority of people who are communists; the overwhelming majority of the population are not. Forming ideas about freedom of speech from this - highly academic - basis, is that we are constructing ideas essentially spontaneously, rather from any concrete actions that we have experienced.

In a genuinely revolutionary period, one would suspect that the majority of people (workers) would hold either sympathetic, or actively socialist, ideas, and at that point we would surely encourage freedom of speech of all, since at that point it becomes clear that we are winning the argument.

So, for me, there is no point at which 'freedom of speech' (and by this I mean the right to express a personal, or group, opinion on any topic that does not contain or encourage prejudice or discrimination of any kind) is not something we should, as a fundamental principle of socialism, encourage and model positively when discussing and debating with others.

Sadly, I think that this idea that it is somehow 'communist' to attempt to limit the freedom of speech of people with whom we disagree, but who are nonetheless merely presenting their opposing ideas in a way that is not discriminatory/prejudiced against defined social groups, is borne out of a lack of engagement with concrete actions, and with real people in contemporary society. It is a total dead end of a strategy that I think has more to do with an attempt to carry on the defunct, out-dated ideas that originated in Russia in the early and middle part of the last century. It is certainly not an idea that will gain any traction in contemporary society. And I for one am very glad for this.

[Antiochus]

I think regarding FoS, we should take the approach of the Capitalists. What I mean by that is that being supportive of the British crown in the U.S during the 1780s would probably have gotten you tarred. In Revolutionary France, maybe your head would have been lopped off or at least your property confiscated. But once the monarchists were decisively shut down, there was simply no need censor them at that point, they could say whatever they liked and no one cared because it fell on deaf ears.

The Capitalists will have to be silenced, initially, but to apply that to every strata of society is so absolutely stupid. Hate speech is already censored (at least in theory), so what exactly do you want to "broaden". Campesina Fuerte keeps saying she will "beat" anyone she deems out of line, so what happens when someone deems you out of line and kills you? These slogans you people use are so worthlessly not applicative in any real setting.

Anyway, freedom of speech isn't about collecting a few ideas everyone agrees with and parroting them endlessly. Its precisely to protect views that are unorthodox and not necessarily "approved" (that isn't to say there are limits, as stated above). These very ideas you all espouse (Anarchism, Marxism etc...) are inherently minority views that require FoS to propagate and flourish. In scientific field, virtually every view that is taken for granted today was once a minority view that may have been deemed dangerous.

[BIXX]

And the "brick to the head" approach, while doubtlessly making some people's dicks feel long and hard, has its problems as well. Within the workers' movement, it's called gangsterism. The Stalinisted parties of the interwar period and the British WRP after the war were notorious for such practices, as is the entirety of modern social democracy.

Claiming its for some macho bullshit reason kinda ignores the history of ultraviolence by oppressed people as a way to resist yo.

[Sinister Intents]

Freedom of speech is one of the freedoms the socialists have wrested from the bourgeoisie. Now obviously, it has limits. We have no reasons to test or push some of these limits, when it comes to false advertising for example. On the other hand, when the state tries to limit things like political speech or speech relating to sex, we have every reason to oppose any extension of the police powers of the bourgeois state. Some people delude themselves into thinking the state is going to use restrictions on free speech to punish racists, homophobes etc. - it won't, not with any effect at least. That's because the class interest of the bourgeoisie does not align with anything we might think of as "progressive".

And the "brick to the head" approach, while doubtlessly making some people's dicks feel long and hard, has its problems as well. Within the workers' movement, it's called gangsterism. The Stalinisted parties of the interwar period and the British WRP after the war were notorious for such practices, as is the entirety of modern social democracy.

When it comes to the workers' state, of course, some restriction of freedom of speech is to be expected during a civil war. Anyone spreading enemy propaganda might end up sentenced to life in front of a firing squad for example.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say freedom of speech is to be suppressed. It will become a necessity for the workers' state to oppose and suppress the counterrevolutionaries and opportunists.

[Sinister Intents]

There will need to be a strong party at the head of the state, the communist party will have to be the leading party, and the workers' state must exert its hegemony, it must become a force of violence to combat the counterrevolutionaries and the political opportunists. There will need to be the suppression of civil liberties for a time to defend the transitional state while the revolution spreads globally.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Mistress Sinistra;2826691]There will need to be a strong party at the head of the state,

Why?


the communist party will have to be the leading party,

Why?


and the workers' state must exert its hegemony,

What do you mean by this and why?


it must become a force of violence to combat the counterrevolutionaries and the political opportunists.

Why? You humourless stalinoid. Because you can't handle other socialists having different views to you?


There will need to be the suppression of civil liberties for a time to defend the transitional state while the revolution spreads globally.

Why? All that happens is that if revolution doesn't spread as you wished, you are left as the tyrannical dictator of a workers' state, and you are in no position to 'give back' people's basic rights and freedoms. This is such bullshit, you silly stalinite.

[BIXX]

And this is why I think your politics are shit, SI.

You're proletarian state is going to contribute to the same horrors that the beginning of capitalism, feudalism, and slave societies brought about- the utter destruction of those who resist civilization. This is what you want SI- and often times those resisters are those who you claim to care about in the thread about bigotry.

[BIXX]

Also I feel that your politics are based on what you feel will offend the most people.

[Sinister Intents]

The vanguard party is necessary to provide leadership for the proletariat and help provide directionality and push the revolution forward. The party would be run by democratic centralism which is where all communist party members partake in discussions regarding policy and they follow the direction of the vanguard party. The communist party is the party of the proletariat, the proletariat must maintain its hegemony and consistently attack any possible opposition from opportunists and counterrevolutionaries. It will be a violent and bloody civil war and the party will help lead the proletariat towards their goals. Communism isn't an end, it's to be achieved down the road and the dictatorship of proletarian transition is where the proletariat maintains its control over the means of production and the party of the proletariat maintains control. As Marx and Engels have shown it, it is necessity for the proletariat to take the reigns of the state to ensure that they're the dominant class and carry out the revolution, when all class distinctions are gone the state and class system will no longer be a necessity and will wither away, it will transform into a purely administrative function, rather than being an organ of class rule. Currently we live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the proletarian dictatorship is where the majority, the oppressed and marginalized people have taken over and abolished private ownership in favor of collective ownership of the means of production.

Of course other socialists can have their views, but the petit-bourgeois and haute-bourgeoisie, and reactionaries like fascists must be opposed. Their opposition will need to be crushed. There can only be a platform for the socialists, and this would include the anarchists and soc dems, it would be restrictive of the enemy. The suppression of civil liberties would only be important insofar as it would be an extremely volatile time, a revolution is going to be violent, it is going to need to be violent. If we don't oppose the bourgeoisie and carry out class warfare against them and the reactionaries, and consistently oppose them, then we may not make progress. There needs to be direct action taken against the oppressors and it needs to be maintained.

[#FF0000]

You're not really saying anything of substance here. Just grandstanding.

"We need to oppose the bourgeoisie"

well yeah, obviously. That isn't the disagreement in this thread, though, is it?

[Sinister Intents]

I'm just trying to explore this position, and honestly I'm trying to Judy develop a better opinion on it. I'm trying to exercise my knowledge essentially, also nice insult PC

[#FF0000]

Well, don't try to explore a political position by talking like some caricature.

[Sinister Intents]

And this is why I think your politics are shit, SI.

You're proletarian state is going to contribute to the same horrors that the beginning of capitalism, feudalism, and slave societies brought about- the utter destruction of those who resist civilization. This is what you want SI- and often times those resisters are those who you claim to care about in the thread about bigotry.


Also I feel that your politics are based on what you feel will offend the most people.

Thanks for the insult, you're so kind. Also, I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm actually not a proponent of Stalinism, but for the sake of exploring this position, I decided to take this route. It's for my own benefit. I'm trying to gain a better knowledge going against freedom of speech. I'm literally not against freedom of speech, anarkiddo. I get sick of your backhanded insults and your shitty aggro personality

Also what is an anti civver that is an anti communist doing on a forum for revolutuonary leftists?

[Sinister Intents]

Well, don't try to explore a political position by talking like some caricature.

It helps me remember stuff! If it makes me laugh, or illicits some other response I tend to remember it better. So really, this is actually going backwards rather than forwards. Also PC can consider himself blocked. Have any good literature for this? I haven't done a proper google search.

[consuming negativity]

we do not live under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

[Sinister Intents]

we do not live under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

I've seen it referred to as such somewhere before, but I think there's better terminology, it just didn't come to mind while I was typing.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Also I feel that your politics are based on what you feel will offend the most people.

This is pretty rich coming from an anti-civver

[Creative Destruction]

we do not live under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

Yeah, we do.

[The Disillusionist]

Also I feel that your politics are based on what you feel will offend the most people.

Says the person whose primary solution to most forms of disagreement is a brick to the head? :laugh:


Anyway, a society that can't handle universal free speech is a society that is going to fail, because no matter how hard you try to censor, you will only give your opponent a platform to stand on while also exercising tyrannical authority yourself. In my mind, a truly strong society would be one that freely allows all forms of free speech, while fostering an atmosphere that would make hate speech sound absolutely ridiculous. Rather than causing fascist ideas to fester underground in the atmosphere of turmoil that they often thrive in, and thus letting them continue to be a problem, why not actually bring them out into the open and publicly refute them with logic and reason? Why not show people why your ideas are better, rather than assuming that you can just force people to be free through censorship... I mean, that's a contradiction in itself...

[Sewer Socialist]

we do not live under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

What do you mean; why not?

[BIXX]

This is pretty rich coming from an anti-civver

It isn't really that offensive though when you actually engage in conversation with me. But seeing as people see it and immediately think of groups like DGR its impossible to talk to them about it.

Also, I'm not saying that because of the politic SI is spitting out but becauseof their attitudes even when I agreed with them.


Says the person whose primary solution to most forms of disagreement is a brick to the head? :laugh:

God damnit why is every thread now about my brick fetish

Then again its better than 90% of normal threads so its cool I guess.

[Sea]

I can't stand the anarchists that are so clingy to the liberal/bourgeois conception of freedom of speech. Yay, good for you anarkiddo for giving platform and freedom of discourse for the bourgeois swine and reactionary scum. "But if there isn't freedom of speech, it isn't anarchist because anarchists are about freedom." Well, news flash: Freedom of speech is a liberal idea that gives freedom of speech to your enemy. A consistent socialist/communist should oppose freedom of speech because it's a liberal idea. Not to mention in capitalist society the haute-bourgeoisie have greater freedom of speech because they have the wealth to sway and manipulate opinions. Entire marketing campaigns can be constructed to sway public opinion in favor of ruling class ideas.

Alright, I typed this on short notice, so let's discuss.I think you're certainly on the right track, but it must be kept in mind that freedom itself is a social construct. It has not existed for all times and has really only gained popularity among the masses in the present epoch, as ironic as that is. We need to abandon what we have been taught about this so-called freedom, and absolutely no regard should be given the bourgeois conception of freedom when making political decisions or policies. There is therefore no reason to oppose stuffing shit-smeared rags into fascists' mouths to stifle them. Aside from maybe giving them pinkeye.

Everything that constitutes a violation of one's freedom of speech can be found elsewhere and is therefore no confirmation of the existence of any such freedom or the validity of freedom as a concept. The inconvenience of not being able to express an opinion, the fact that somebody chose to interfere in something you were going to do, and all the other things that make up a violation of freedom can be found acted out in situations where freedom is not relevant to the action. The same is true for letting speech flow unobstructed - all the real, physical events that allow one to exercise ones alleged freedom are not unique.

We must question, it follows, the validity of the concept of freedom itself. Is it really a sacred right given from above as the founding fathers believed, or is it simply a set of ordinary conditions fetishized beyond reason that capitalists have a material interest in securing? I am inclined to think the latter.

well, thanks for reminding us why Lenin was awful.Tell me which of those two points you find to be awful and why:

1. There won't be any freedom as long as states exist.
2. We can have freedom only in a stateless society.

They seem sensible to me. See the following, taken from near the beginning of ch. 2 of The State and Revolution, a work of Lenin's that seems pretty damn germane to the topic at hand:
In capitalist society, under the conditions most favorable to its development, we have more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always bound by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation and consequently always remains, in reality, a democracy for the minority, only for the possessing classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains just about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. The modern wage slaves, owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, are so much crushed by want and poverty that "democracy is nothing to them," "politics is nothing to them"; that, in the ordinary peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participating in social and political life.
Youre naive hippie, the liberal capitalists as u call them crush public demonstrations and strikes all the time. Anyone is "for" FoS as long as the relations of power allow their views to dominate.

But lambasting FoS as some burg. ideology is totally asinine and counterproductive.


Written from phoneI don't care if you wrote that on your phone. You could have wrote it from guantanamo bay and it still wouldn't be any excuse. Shame on you.

[Antiochus]

LOL!

Ok so lets see, you make some post apparently criticizing my critique of those who label FoS as some sort of stupid idealist world view that we can easily put aside until we want it back by claiming that my comment is "inexcusable" even if it was written from Guantanamo Bay, a notorious prison where many people are jailed BECAUSE of their violation of FoS. Good one.

Again, your very rants are proof that you speak much and say nothing. If someone were to curtail your ability to write these nifty 'metaphors' about stuffing people's mouth with shit you would be pretty angry.

And the Leninist logic you people follow is so fucking laughable.


1. There won't be any freedom as long as states exist.
2. We can have freedom only in a stateless society.

This is like stating that there will be murders as long as there are weapons and any attempt to limit murders is just some pointless exercise until we can reach that point (no state) that no one here knows when we will reach on the broken promise of "you'll have freedom later". Please, its such a little Stalinist conception. And what if the Revolution doesn't spread? Oh thats right, you end up with a shithole dictatorship that can fall back on the "we'll we still need the state, so fuck you" line to repress workers.

[Sinister Intents]

LOL!

*hugs*


Ok so lets see, you make some post apparently criticizing my critique of those who label FoS as some sort of stupid idealist world view that we can easily put aside until we want it back by claiming that my comment is "inexcusable" even if it was written from Guantanamo Bay, a notorious prison where many people are jailed BECAUSE of their violation of FoS. Good one.

The curtailment of freedom of speech becomes a necessity for the proletarian state because their must be opposition to the counterrevolutionaries and opportunists. The reactionaries and the former masters will certainly want to ascertain their rule, and/or attempt to maintain their rule. The reactionaries simply just want to benefit their own class interests much like the bourgeoisie will try to defend their own interests. The actual revolutionaries, and proletarians will certainly have Freedom of Speech because they will need to have a platform for political discourse, they will need to discuss policies and rules. There cannot be freedom of speech for the people that simply want to maintain their social status, or to gain for themselves and their associations a social status over other groups. The proletariat must usurp control of the state and turn it into an administrative function and defend the collective ownership of the means of production. The bourgeoisie and their creatures will put up a bloody fight, it will not be a peaceful revolution because the ruling class will want to maintain and justify their rule through force. When the proletariat as a class usurps the state and takes over the means of production, socializing the means of production, they will need to maintain their hegemony. The proletarian state is a reconciliator of classes, when they obtain workers' control class distinctions will begin to fade, and the proletariat must defend their hegemony in order for class distinctions to fade entirely. Once all class distinctions disappear, so does the necessity of the state.


Again, your very rants are proof that you speak much and say nothing. If someone were to curtail your ability to write these nifty 'metaphors' about stuffing people's mouth with shit you would be pretty angry.

And the Leninist logic you people follow is so fucking laughable.


Are you so sure? Are you sure you're not the one with the biases here? How much Marx and Engels have you actually read? I've been reading them so much more, and what M and E say, and what Lenin and other Marxists have said, combined with my experiences, the Marxist methodology clicked for me and I see it as nothing to oppose.


This is like stating that there will be murders as long as there are weapons and any attempt to limit murders is just some pointless exercise until we can reach that point (no state) that no one here knows when we will reach on the broken promise of "you'll have freedom later". Please, its such a little Stalinist conception. And what if the Revolution doesn't spread? Oh thats right, you end up with a shithole dictatorship that can fall back on the "we'll we still need the state, so fuck you" line to repress workers.

This shows exactly your weak understanding of these conceptions.^^^ It isn't Stalinist logic, Stalin helped bring the idea of Socialism in One Country to fruition. Besides there are some decent Marxist-Leninists out there, and some really terrible ones, this goes the same for other Marxists, Left Coms, and Anarchists of varying tendency. While the state exists there will not be freedom because the proletarian state must defend its hegemony, this state ensures that the proletarian defends its control of the means of production and other capital, everything becomes socialized as in the property of the whole rather than being privately owned by the few. Resources, productive facilities and businesses, as well as other capital become collectively owned. The proletarian state also takes over governance, it becomes governance of the whole, the state transforms into an administrative function rather than being a tool of class division and dominance. The state transforms from a maintainence of private ownership and bourgeois rule, to becoming the assurance that the proletariat will maintain collective ownership and collective governance. It, the proletariat, becomes the eliminator of minority rule.

What determines if the revolution will spread is class consciousness, and the bourgeoisie, the most conscious of classes, the conscious minority that rules, has setup and maintains so many systems of division, and maintains the dominance of the minority of owners over the majority of workers. Proletarians need to educate, agitate, and organize. The proletariat of the world needs to be united and aligned, they need to be brought to the truth and brevity of the reality we live in. We cannot predict when or if the proletariat will be able to work on a large scale as a whole, internationally, to attempt to usurp control from the bourgeoisie. If a proletarian mass movement is formed, and the proletariat is class conscious, it can then take on the necessary role of attacking the bourgeois state, and becoming the class to eliminate all class systems and destroying the bourgeois state for the freedom and emancipation of all from the rule of the bourgeoisie.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I guess its easier for people to sit on their asses and go "ew, Lenin" than to actually write out an honest criticism

[#FF0000]

that's another long post of strung-together buzzwords and catchphrases with obvious facts thrown in as if they're profound observations.

"There's gonna be repression during a revolution or civil war"

well yeah no shit

[Redistribute the Rep]

She's learning, like a lot of other users on this forum. No need to be a DICK.

I mean you're not even presenting an alternative viewpoint or anything

[Sinister Intents]

that's another long post of strung-together buzzwords and catchphrases with obvious facts thrown in as if they're profound observations.

"There's gonna be repression during a revolution or civil war"

well yeah no shit

Lol, how will discussing it nor help my point of view? It only contradicts the anarchists really, who think that they can just create communism/anarchy over night by destroying the state

Besides I'm beginning to create the background to my current beliefs and exercise is good, my views are changing

[#FF0000]

The point is there can't really be an alternate viewpoint to this, because these posts boil down to saying "the proletariat should win" dressed up in jargon and verbal radicalism.

If someone wants to explore ideas, that's fine, but one needs to be able to express them in their own words if they actually understand them.

EDIT:
Lol, how will discussing it nor help my point of view?

cuz this looks like more an exercise in using jargon than in understanding ideas.


It only contradicts the anarchists really, who think that they can just create communism/anarchy over night by destroying the state
I think we both know that anarchists don't think they can create a communist society "overnight" -- just that it must be stateless from the start.

[Sinister Intents]

The point is there can't really be an alternate viewpoint to this, because these posts boil down to saying "the proletariat should win" dressed up in jargon and verbal radicalism.

If someone wants to explore ideas, that's fine, but one needs to be able to express them in their own words if they actually understand them.

I'm sure I'll get there eventually, So what do you think I should do on stead?

I've been reading every day, right not I'm reading Engels Origin of the Family, I cringed when I read the word Aryan. .. but then I read the foot notes and such

[#FF0000]

So what do you think I should do on stead?

Communicate clearly and not like you're trying to write a front-page article for the APL's rag.

[Sinister Intents]

Communicate clearly and not like you're trying to write a front-page article for the APL's rag.

Sure, but then I feel like I'm back at square one basically. I'm good at using the vernacular I know, so I pretty much should elaborate on my points in a more unique way? I could start saying shit like CEOs, bankers, and such in stead of haute-bourgeoisie, and basically I just need to elaborate better and expand upon my vocabulary?

[consuming negativity]

What do you mean; why not?

you're not the only person who responded to my post but you're the only one on page four so you're the only one i'm going to quote

to understand our society as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is to imply that our current laws are dictated to us by the bourgeoisie. this "change from above" is exactly the opposite of what actually exists. our laws are not dictated to us by the bourgeoisie - it is the proletariat that allows for the existence of capitalism and the bourgeoisie by accepting our current conditions. and it is exactly this fact that allows for the proletariat to, eventually, throw off our chains - because in actuality, we have all of the power due to our relation to the means of production as the working class. all of the concessions to us in order to maintain capitalist society are because we have demanded them.

with this in mind, how could anyone see our current society as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? is the problem a misunderstanding of what is meant by the term "dictatorship" or did i satisfactorily explain my position?

[oneday]

to understand our society as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is to imply that our current laws are dictated to us by the bourgeoisie. this "change from above" is exactly the opposite of what actually exists. our laws are not dictated to us by the bourgeoisie - it is the proletariat that allows for the existence of capitalism and the bourgeoisie by accepting our current conditions. and it is exactly this fact that allows for the proletariat to, eventually, throw off our chains - because in actuality, we have all of the power due to our relation to the means of production as the working class. all of the concessions to us in order to maintain capitalist society are because we have demanded them.

with this in mind, how could anyone see our current society as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? is the problem a misunderstanding of what is meant by the term "dictatorship" or did i satisfactorily explain my position?

Of course is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. I can't post links, but watch the latest Elizabeth Warren interview on the Daily Show. Of course she is only a reformer type and supports capitalism, and thinks raising the minimum wage will somehow fix everything or something.

However, she states that the game is rigged and every single lever of power is controlled by ruling class interests. No law is passed or decision made without the consent of these interests. She just goes on and on about how the control is completely absolute.

How can you not call it a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?

The proletariat just goes along with it because the bourgeoisie spends huge amounts of money spreading legitimizing ideology.

[Redistribute the Rep]

That's, like, victim blaming.

By dictatorship they mean a monopoly on political power. Held by none other than the bourgeoisie

[oneday]

to understand our society as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is to imply that our current laws are dictated to us by the bourgeoisie. this "change from above" is exactly the opposite of what actually exists. our laws are not dictated to us by the bourgeoisie - it is the proletariat that allows for the existence of capitalism and the bourgeoisie by accepting our current conditions. and it is exactly this fact that allows for the proletariat to, eventually, throw off our chains - because in actuality, we have all of the power due to our relation to the means of production as the working class. all of the concessions to us in order to maintain capitalist society are because we have demanded them.

with this in mind, how could anyone see our current society as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? is the problem a misunderstanding of what is meant by the term "dictatorship" or did i satisfactorily explain my position?

And your argument makes little sense with the common view of how power works. Of course the mass could overthrow every government, miltary junta, emperor, or dictator in the form of a person or a class if they got together. When we speak of who holds the power we don't speak of some potential future power, we speak of who is in charge now.

And it is definitely the bourgeoisie.

[consuming negativity]

it isn't blaming anyone, it's just the truth. if we had no power over our situation, revolution would be impossible. the bourgeoisie might think itself powerful, and the proletarians might think themselves powerless, but that's only a result of the alienation caused by living under hierarchical social conditions in a capitalist society. they only can exercise power and tell us what to do because we either believe their exercising of power be legitimate or because we believe we are powerless to stop them. we may - you and i - right now be powerless to stop them, that's true. but the proletariat as a class wields all of the power. once we realize it - and organized, ask for something that the bourgeoisie cannot fold on - that is when revolution happens. the state can no longer function as an intermediary and so we seize it and enforce our demands on the bourgeoisie in class dictatorship.

in fact, not only would revolution be impossible if i were wrong, but the entire illusion of democracy would be entirely unnecessary. there would be no need for the ruling class to run for office and lie to the workers. they wouldn't have to convince us that everything is going the best that it could be, that unions are bad, that communists are evil, and that we really need to lose 20 pounds. we're the ones who elect the politicians, who run their campaigns, and who push them to the right or the left depending on what sort of policies we want. the problem with bourgeois democracy is not the democracy part... it's the bourgeois part. the fact that the state can only act in the interests of capitalism, even when this means giving concessions to the proletarians. it has no choice in the matter - the bourgeoisie has no choice in the matter. if the state does anything else it will cease to exist, for the reasons i stated above. that is in no way, shape, or form a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. or anything close to it.

[Redistribute the Rep]

the fact that the state can only act in the interests of capitalism, even when this means giving concessions to the proletarians. it has no choice in the matter - the bourgeoisie has no choice in the matter. if the state does anything else it will cease to exist, for the reasons i stated above. that is in no way, shape, or form a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. or anything close to it.

Regardless of whether the bourgeoisie has a choice in the matter, they hold a monopoly on political power. This would be like saying patriarchy doesn't exist because men don't have choice but to concede some rights for women.

[consuming negativity]

in a dictatorship of the proletariat, will the bourgeoisie be able to organize and force us to give concessions to them? why on earth would something like that be possible in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? you can say that they "hold a monopoly on political power", but what does that even mean if it looks like this? what kind of real power can be taken at any time? power is the ability to force other people to do something they don't want to do - the bourgeoisie do not have a monopoly on this in any sense. they can't force us but as far as we'll allow them to force us, while we can destroy the system any time we actually wanted to. but we don't want to, as a group, and so it continues. most people actually believe that private property is legitimate, even if they're dissatisfied with how things are going... right now. the only people having a capitalist system imposed on us are people who think that capitalism is illegitimate, and it is being done so not by the bourgeoisie alone, but by the rest of society, who do think that capitalism is legitimate and/or who are satisfied by the constantly re-negotiated status quo.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well, I would dispute non capitalists supporting capitalism as evidence that the bourgeoisie don't have a monopoly on power. I would say, in fact, it only substantiates the magnitude of their power. Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony comes to mind:


In the Marxist tradition, the Italian writer Antonio Gramsci elaborated the role of ideology in creating a cultural hegemony, which becomes a means of bolstering the power of capitalism and of the nation-state. Drawing on Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince, and trying to understand why there had been no Communist revolution in Western Europe, while it was claimed there had been one in Russia, Gramsci conceptualised this hegemony as a centaur, consisting of two halves. The back end, the beast, represented the more classic, material image of power, power through coercion, through brute force, be it physical or economic. But the capitalist hegemony, he argued, depended even more strongly on the front end, the human face, which projected power through 'consent'. In Russia, this power was lacking, allowing for a revolution. However, in Western Europe, specifically in Italy, capitalism had succeeded in exercising consensual power, convincing the working classes that their interests were the same as those of capitalists. In this way revolution had been avoided.

And you didn't respond to my analogy. Does patriarchy not exist because some women don't oppose men ruling them?

[consuming negativity]

Well, I would dispute non capitalists supporting capitalism as evidence that the bourgeoisie don't have a monopoly on power. I would say, in fact, it only substantiates the magnitude of their power. Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony comes to mind:

And you didn't respond to my analogy. Does patriarchy not exist because some women don't oppose men ruling them?

my argument wasn't that the bourgeoisie have no power, it was that they have power primarily through tricking people into believing that their rule was legitimate or that the people actually have no power, which is the argument being made there. but regardless, that isn't "a monopoly on political power".

i didn't respond to the analogy because it didn't make a lot of sense to me. patriarchy is not just the rule of men over women; at least not in modern feminist usage. a product of a patriarchal society may be the rule of men over women, but there's a lot more to it than that. there are plenty of women who have power over men in our society and yet, ultimately, it is still patriarchal.

[John Nada]

in a dictatorship of the proletariat, will the bourgeoisie be able to organize and force us to give concessions to them? why on earth would something like that be possible in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? you can say that they "hold a monopoly on political power", but what does that even mean if it looks like this? what kind of real power can be taken at any time? power is the ability to force other people to do something they don't want to do - the bourgeoisie do not have a monopoly on this in any sense. they can't force us but as far as we'll allow them to force us, while we can destroy the system any time we actually wanted to. but we don't want to, as a group, and so it continues. most people actually believe that private property is legitimate, even if they're dissatisfied with how things are going... right now. the only people having a capitalist system imposed on us are people who think that capitalism is illegitimate, and it is being done so not by the bourgeoisie alone, but by the rest of society, who do think that capitalism is legitimate and/or who are satisfied by the constantly re-negotiated status quo.The bourgeoisie and proletariat aren't the only two classes. There's the petite-bourgeoisie, intellectuals, lumpenproletariat, labor aristocracy, peasantry, nobility, landlords, ect.. Some aren't present in some countries(no peasants and lords in the US), many will die out, but they exist at present.

Many of those other classes do have a material reason to support capitalism. The petite-bourgeoisie, for example, can have a shot at joining the club of the haute-bourgeoisie just by their position at the middle. Higher-paid worker can become petite-bourgeoisie or even bourgeoisie.

None of the classes are homogenous. There's different industries and trades, different regions and nations, different levels of capitalist development and differences in power. These often clash in conflict.

So far, the bourgeoisie have been able to maintain capitalism. They are a small class that uses the proletariat larger size against it. It's much easier to break off small pieces one by one than to take it all at once. So they crush this revolt, conquer that country, pay off these groups. A glorified middleperson that makes deals, constantly under crises.

How can such a small class have dictatorial control? Through the superstructure, the institutions and culture built over the base, the mode of productions and productive relations. Real power isn't when you have to use force people to do something, but when you don't need to because they already will.

Attempts to say, deny free speech, are a sign of weakness on part of the rulers. When rule is solidified and unchallenged, such restrictions are pointless.

[consuming negativity]

The bourgeoisie and proletariat aren't the only two classes. There's the petite-bourgeoisie, intellectuals, lumpenproletariat, labor aristocracy, peasantry, nobility, landlords, ect.. Some aren't present in some countries(no peasants and lords in the US), many will die out, but they exist at present.

Many of those other classes do have a material reason to support capitalism. The petite-bourgeoisie, for example, can have a shot at joining the club of the haute-bourgeoisie just by their position at the middle. Higher-paid worker can become petite-bourgeoisie or even bourgeoisie.

None of the classes are homogenous. There's different industries and trades, different regions and nations, different levels of capitalist development and differences in power. These often clash in conflict.

So far, the bourgeoisie have been able to maintain capitalism. They are a small class that uses the proletariat larger size against it. It's much easier to break off small pieces one by one than to take it all at once. So they crush this revolt, conquer that country, pay off these groups. A glorified middleperson that makes deals, constantly under crises.

How can such a small class have dictatorial control? Through the superstructure, the institutions and culture built over the base, the mode of productions and productive relations. Real power isn't when you have to use force people to do something, but when you don't need to because they already will.

Attempts to say, deny free speech, are a sign of weakness on part of the rulers. When rule is solidified and unchallenged, such restrictions are pointless.

except that capitalism tends toward the accumulation and further concentration of wealth, meaning that the overwhelming majority of class mobility is downward (into the proletariat) rather than upward (into the bourgeoisie). the labor aristocracy and other privileged sections of the proletariat might believe that it is in their interests to support capitalism, but this isn't actually true. it is an illusion. a product of delusional thinking and the real impoverishment of the world's working class. and moreover, it just proves my point that it is not just the bourgeoisie but also elements of the working class which support the continuation of capitalism.

if someone is already going to do something, you're not controlling them or exerting influence in any way. to have no effect on the way events unfold is the exact opposite of power. which is not to say that the bourgeoisie has no effect, but rather, that influence should correctly be considered the exertion of power.

[John Nada]

except that capitalism tends toward the accumulation and further concentration of wealth, meaning that the overwhelming majority of class mobility is downward (into the proletariat) rather than upward (into the bourgeoisie). the labor aristocracy and other privileged sections of the proletariat might believe that it is in their interests to support capitalism, but this isn't actually true. it is an illusion. a product of delusional thinking and the real impoverishment of the world's working class. and moreover, it just proves my point that it is not just the bourgeoisie but also elements of the working class which support the continuation of capitalism.Of course. It reminds me of gambling. You know you're going to lose most the time, yet keep playing on that very small chance of winning.

The bourgeoisie only exists in relation to other classes. Naturally it's impossible for them to rule if the other classes won't follow. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie needs underlings from the other classes. An upper strata of workers serves as intermediary. Petite-bourgeoisie are a larger class that sees themselves as future business partners and are a large pool of bureaucrats. Proletariat have no choice but to work or die.

The other classes have power, but it must be through the bourgeoisie as a class under capitalism. Yet at the same time the bourgeoisie gobbles up the other classes. Peasants' land gets taken for agribusinesses. Petite-bourgeoisie's shops get driven out of business by scale of industry, and in middle management they're competing against themselves for power. The labor aristocracy gets pushed down back into the proletariat due to recessions. Lumpens get thrown into prison. The bourgeoisie need the other classes and gives plenty of promises, yet must grow at their expense.

Which leaves the proletariat. The one class that modern society needs no matter what. They exploit no one and will never leave. Other classes will try to become the new bourgeoisie, or if not will organically become one. A dictatorship of the proletariat is a contradiction. Rule of those who are exploited and can't exploit. Members of the old class will try to restore capitalism, but cannot anymore than restore the nobility. The DoTP by definition can only exist as a class in relation to the exploiting class, so it will wither away when none are left.
if someone is already going to do something, you're not controlling them or exerting influence in any way. to have no effect on the way events unfold is the exact opposite of power. which is not to say that the bourgeoisie has no effect, but rather, that influence should correctly be considered the exertion of power.If they're going to follow you're orders anyway, you're in charge of them. If the bourgeoisie reach a point where no matter what happens their power reigns, they can sit back and rule. The coast is clear, there's no need to micromanage. In fact to do so is a burden. The voluntary actions are well within their parameters. It's a stage with the props, a script, and a director.

It like how horses are trained. It's called breaking them. There beaten till there spirit is broken, then they follow the commands.

[Futility Personified]

The freedom for a reactionary to say something should be restricted, either with the gun or with the mob. It's a charming thing to say we have it, when we are watched and infiltrated whenever organisation actually takes place. Should we have it in a post-capitalist society? Of course! Should someone who is pro-markets in a revolutionary society be allowed to go on about it? That's down to the workers to shut them up.

In a revolutionary society, if things have been done right what need for a capitalist idea propagation is there anyway?

[Creative Destruction]

you're not the only person who responded to my post but you're the only one on page four so you're the only one i'm going to quote

to understand our society as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is to imply that our current laws are dictated to us by the bourgeoisie. this "change from above" is exactly the opposite of what actually exists. our laws are not dictated to us by the bourgeoisie - it is the proletariat that allows for the existence of capitalism and the bourgeoisie by accepting our current conditions. and it is exactly this fact that allows for the proletariat to, eventually, throw off our chains - because in actuality, we have all of the power due to our relation to the means of production as the working class. all of the concessions to us in order to maintain capitalist society are because we have demanded them.

with this in mind, how could anyone see our current society as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? is the problem a misunderstanding of what is meant by the term "dictatorship" or did i satisfactorily explain my position?

lol. what society are you living in? the entire system is based on whoever has the most money can increase their share of power and impact on legislation. the net neutrality situation was a good example of that: nothing was actually done about it -- despite extremely intense grassroots efforts -- until a large section of the bourgeoisie campaigned for it. healthcare: most Americans want universal healthcare, but that wasn't even considered from the start because that would've demolished a part of the bourgeoisie that makes up 18% of the country's GDP.

what allows the proletariat to throw off our chains is our ability, if we organize as a class, to refuse and transform the system. that says nothing of the current state of things in which the bourgeoisie does indeed dictate, and not the working class.

[Creative Destruction]

my argument wasn't that the bourgeoisie have no power, it was that they have power primarily through tricking people into believing that their rule was legitimate or that the people actually have no power, which is the argument being made there. but regardless, that isn't "a monopoly on political power".

it absolutely is a monopoly on political power. just because they may do it in ways of trickery doesn't make it anything less than what it is. you seem to be saying that just because it's an, ostensibly, tenuous dictate, then it's not a monopoly at all, but that's not what the definition of what a monopoly is. the terms have no consideration of how tenuous a monopoly is; as long as it's a monopoly on power, it is until something happens to make it not.

[Sea]

LOL!

Ok so lets see, you make some post apparently criticizing my critique of those who label FoS as some sort of stupid idealist world view that we can easily put aside until we want it back by claiming that my comment is "inexcusable" even if it was written from Guantanamo Bay, a notorious prison where many people are jailed BECAUSE of their violation of FoS. Good one. Gitmo is a prison camp for people who speak freely? Sorry, I was always under the impression that there was a bit more to it than that.
Again, your very rants are proof that you speak much and say nothing. If someone were to curtail your ability to write these nifty 'metaphors' about stuffing people's mouth with shit you would be pretty angry.

And the Leninist logic you people follow is so fucking laughable.



This is like stating that there will be murders as long as there are weapons and any attempt to limit murders is just some pointless exercise until we can reach that point (no state) that no one here knows when we will reach on the broken promise of "you'll have freedom later". Please, its such a little Stalinist conception. And what if the Revolution doesn't spread? Oh thats right, you end up with a shithole dictatorship that can fall back on the "we'll we still need the state, so fuck you" line to repress workers.And you propose, as an alternative, that we somehow magically obtain freedom while states still exist? That is ridiculous, and it goes against all the basic tenants of both anarchist and communist thought. In case you didn't know, anarchism and communism are two political ideologies which hold that the state is an institute of class oppression. If class oppression is what we are trying to get free from, we cannot have freedom when states exist. That is what Lenin's quote is saying. Here's a quote from a well-known anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin, that says the exact same thing in different words:
Where the state begins, individual liberty ceases, and vice versa.You seem to be reading a sinister pretext into Lenin's quote that does not exist. The quote of Lenin's that you are hung up on is from section 4, chapter 5 of his work The State and Revolution. If you read the surrounding text you will find that, like Bakunin, Lenin is butting forth the notion that a stateless, classless society is the only sort of society that can be free, and he begins in that section talking about the ultimate decay of the state. The former point is such a basic part of radical politics, so universally agreed upon, that both sides of the anarchist-communist divide uphold it firmly. I do not see why you have such trouble understanding it.

And what does Stalin have to do with it? Please explain to me how the conception is "Stalinist". The work in question was published in 1917; Stalin did not become general secretary until 1922, and Stalin was only a child if he as born at all when Bakunin said his piece. The idea that you can't have freedom if you have a state goes back well before Stalin's birth. Is Bakunin a "Stalinist" now also? The content of his quote is the same as Lenin's. Furthermore, no, you can't advance to statelessness if revolution doesn't spread. It is funny to see you throw the term "Stalinist" around while you seem to be advocating "Statelessness in One Country".

Edit: Sorry if some of this sounds condescending. I don't know how much you know, so I'm trying to make it as easy for you to understand as possible. I'm a condescending asshole.

[consuming negativity]

lol. what society are you living in? the entire system is based on whoever has the most money can increase their share of power and impact on legislation. the net neutrality situation was a good example of that: nothing was actually done about it -- despite extremely intense grassroots efforts -- until a large section of the bourgeoisie campaigned for it. healthcare: most Americans want universal healthcare, but that wasn't even considered from the start because that would've demolished a part of the bourgeoisie that makes up 18% of the country's GDP.

what allows the proletariat to throw off our chains is our ability, if we organize as a class, to refuse and transform the system. that says nothing of the current state of things in which the bourgeoisie does indeed dictate, and not the working class.

bribing politicians through campaign donations does not equate to class dictatorship. that would be like me saying we live in a proletarian dictatorship because we can go on strike if we want to change things. the only reason a class conflict can even exist is because there is no dictatorship; the position of the proletariat in society is such that it prevents class dictatorship, as has been the case for all revolutionary classes throughout history. the reason we can form a dictatorship of the proletariat and destroy class society is because the bourgeoisie, unlike the working class, does not actually serve any purpose. that we are vital to the production process means that we always have power, whereas owners contribute absolutely nothing to the production process. the power they wield has no actual backing in reality, except that which is provided by the working class.

[Denver_Anarchist]

wow I read the starting post and all I can say is WTF. Not well thought out. Not cogent in it's logical premise. Emotional, at least it sounded so. Wow I can't even rap my head around wear to start. I am reminded of the learics of a song "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." No freedom of speech? really, because it can be used against us? I guess the ends justify the means to some anarchist and leftist but not to me. I will not become like the bourgeoisie or act like them to defeat them. Just my 2 cents

[Creative Destruction]

bribing politicians through campaign donations does not equate to class dictatorship. that would be like me saying we live in a proletarian dictatorship because we can go on strike if we want to change things. the only reason a class conflict can even exist is because there is no dictatorship; the position of the proletariat in society is such that it prevents class dictatorship, as has been the case for all revolutionary classes throughout history. the reason we can form a dictatorship of the proletariat and destroy class society is because the bourgeoisie, unlike the working class, does not actually serve any purpose. that we are vital to the production process means that we always have power, whereas owners contribute absolutely nothing to the production process. the power they wield has no actual backing in reality, except that which is provided by the working class.

you, again, have the wrong definition in mind when you're talking about "dictatorship." you're taking it to be an immovable object for which there can be no opposition, but that's not true. a monopoly on political power is only the monopoly on oppressive violence, and the bourgeoisie has that. it, again, says nothing about whether it can or can't be overthrown.

and you're wrong that the bourgeoisie serves no purpose. in a capitalist society, they do. since they hold the majority of wealth, they're the ones who invest in and drive the economy, as well has procuring a profit in order to reinvest or use at their leisure. that's a purpose. just because it can change in the future does not negate the present situation of things, which is that is the function they serve and that they do, in fact, have a monopoly on political power. power is not an ought or we could have proposition. it's a real thing grounded in material circumstances, and with the way things are, they have the power and the working class does not. if we did, then there would be a proletarian dictatorship already. it's really that simple.

[Sinister Intents]

wow I read the starting post and all I can say is WTF. Not well thought out. Not cogent in it's logical premise. Emotional, at least it sounded so. Wow I can't even rap my head around wear to start. I am reminded of the learics of a song "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." No freedom of speech? really, because it can be used against us? I guess the ends justify the means to some anarchist and leftist but not to me. I will not become like the bourgeoisie or act like them to defeat them. Just my 2 cents

BTW I love anarchist literature! I also used to think the same way as you, what yiu need to do is understand that the revolution must come from the proletariat, and they must take control as a class so that the majority maintains control over what belongs to everyone. You agree that all private property must be abolished and all capital; land, natural resources, businesses abd factories, they all must be socialised and controlled by those that work and utilize them. The point of the proletarian transitional state is to achieve anarchy, in which anarchy cannot be achieved over night.

[BIXX]

BTW I love anarchist literature! I also used to think the same way as you, what yiu need to do is understand that the revolution must come from the proletariat, and they must take control as a class so that the majority maintains control over what belongs to everyone. You agree that all private property must be abolished and all capital; land, natural resources, businesses abd factories, they all must be socialised and controlled by those that work and utilize them. The point of the proletarian transitional state is to achieve anarchy, in which anarchy cannot be achieved over night.
This explains a lot about your time as an anarchist. You really don't understand it at all do you? Every post is just a bunch of sentences that one memorizes to be a good leftist.

[Sinister Intents]

This explains a lot about your time as an anarchist. You really don't understand it at all do you? Every post is just a bunch of sentences that one memorizes to be a good leftist.

No, I exactly what anarchism is, and not all anarchists are the same. Cut your flaming trash, I understand what I'm talking about

[consuming negativity]

you, again, have the wrong definition in mind when you're talking about "dictatorship." you're taking it to be an immovable object for which there can be no opposition, but that's not true. a monopoly on political power is only the monopoly on oppressive violence, and the bourgeoisie has that. it, again, says nothing about whether it can or can't be overthrown.

and you're wrong that the bourgeoisie serves no purpose. in a capitalist society, they do. since they hold the majority of wealth, they're the ones who invest in and drive the economy, as well has procuring a profit in order to reinvest or use at their leisure. that's a purpose. just because it can change in the future does not negate the present situation of things, which is that is the function they serve and that they do, in fact, have a monopoly on political power. power is not an ought or we could have proposition. it's a real thing grounded in material circumstances, and with the way things are, they have the power and the working class does not. if we did, then there would be a proletarian dictatorship already. it's really that simple.

the term dictator comes from the roman dictators which were given full control of the state and armed forces for six months at a time during times of crisis. they could change laws at will, fire people from the government, and act against the will of the senate (if they really wanted to).

>monopoly on political power is only the monopoly on oppressive violence

lol, wow.

>they have the power and the working class does not. if we did, then there would be a proletarian dictatorship already

alright, so then why do they spend so much money on election campaigns? why is it that their media is constantly trying to trick us? if they had a complete monopoly on power, they wouldn't need to give a fuck about what we think. the bourgeoisie is not even united as a class. but regardless of that, they can never hold a complete monopoly on power within the system because the same tactics that can be used to reject the system can be used to force the system to do what we want it to do. in reform or revolution, rosa luxemburg predicted that it would be successive large-scale reforms that would embolden the working class into overthrowing the entirety of capitalism.

[Sewer Socialist]

wow I read the starting post and all I can say is WTF. Not well thought out. Not cogent in it's logical premise. Emotional, at least it sounded so. Wow I can't even rap my head around wear to start. I am reminded of the learics of a song "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." No freedom of speech? really, because it can be used against us? I guess the ends justify the means to some anarchist and leftist but not to me. I will not become like the bourgeoisie or act like them to defeat them. Just my 2 cents

Firstly, it is wrong to say that there is "no" freedom of speech; there is some freedom of speech in a revolutionary period. I think this is under

It isn't that things are justified, or right or wrong; they are necessary. The bourgeoisie is not wrong to restrict freedom of speech. On the contrary: they restrict that which threatens them, and it is perfectly understandable that they would like to do so. The reason we would like to restrict some speech is because not everything is an equally valid point of view. The right to speech is not just about the right to having ideas; it has real consequences.

Bourgeois and right-wing ideology are not simply a matter of perspective. They are provably incorrect, provably damaging in the real world, and we are right.

The idea that it is wrong to take power only serves those who already hold it. It isn't really an anti-power sentiment, but one that conserves the present state of things.

You can condemn the person with their boot on your face all you want, but it won't remove the boot.

[Creative Destruction]

>they have the power and the working class does not. if we did, then there would be a proletarian dictatorship already

alright, so then why do they spend so much money on election campaigns? why is it that their media is constantly trying to trick us? if they had a complete monopoly on power, they wouldn't need to give a fuck about what we think.

that's just not true. it's completely false. you're, again, saying that just because they have an ostensibly tenuous dictatorship, then they have none at all, when that is not what is meant by a class dictatorship or a dictatorship at all. it's a descriptor of the current state of things, not what could be.

your conception of what class dictatorship is so completely off the mark, and you're immovable from the position, that this is a fruitless conversation. you don't understand what these terms mean and you don't understand the concepts behind them.

[Cumulus]

For a socialist to do away with freedom of speech is hypocritical. Here we are discussing this very topic because we have the freedom to discuss it. If the dictatorship of the proletariat goes corrupt, who's to stop them? If you need to silence any criticism of your cause to make people follow it, maybe it isn't such a worthy cause after all. One might argue that the proletariat is stupid and needs to be guided. If this is the case, then we no longer have a dictatorship of the proletariat at all.

Socialism was born of free speech, and socialists should protect it to their dying breath.

[John Nada]

wow I read the starting post and all I can say is WTF. Not well thought out. Not cogent in it's logical premise. Emotional, at least it sounded so. Wow I can't even rap my head around wear to start. I am reminded of the learics of a song "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." No freedom of speech? really, because it can be used against us? I guess the ends justify the means to some anarchist and leftist but not to me. I will not become like the bourgeoisie or act like them to defeat them. Just my 2 cents"Free speech" in a capitalist society is a sham. Isn't "can be" but is or will. No need to do away with it, it's not there for 80% of the world in the first place. Rupert Murdock has more free speech than billions of people due to ownership of media. Your job can fire you and let you starve for your "free speech" that pisses them off. Go to a protest and suddenly your "right to free speech" disappears in a cloud of tear gas and a hail of rubber bullets. Overtly advocating the overthrow of the government will at least put you in LE cross-hairs. Shit hits the fan, the human mask comes off and the capitalist dictatorship becomes bare for all to see, as it is with oppressed people all the time. And this is assuming they're in a capitalist "democracy". It's free speech for the rich.

And if the worst thing about the "new boss", the dictatorship of the proletariat, is you can't advocate reactionaries ideologies like fascism, that's a step up.
For a socialist to do away with freedom of speech is hypocritical. Here we are discussing this very topic because we have the freedom to discuss it. If the dictatorship of the proletariat goes corrupt, who's to stop them? If you need to silence any criticism of your cause to make people follow it, maybe it isn't such a worthy cause after all. One might argue that the proletariat is stupid and needs to be guided. If this is the case, then we no longer have a dictatorship of the proletariat at all.

Socialism was born of free speech, and socialists should protect it to their dying breath.Irony.:lol: Although this is an international forum, where some might not have US style "free speech".

Socialism, as an ideology, was forged when capitalist censored and repressed socialist. "Free speech" is a bourgeois(capitalist) democratic right not granted by God, but something fought for and constantly in jeopardy(assuming it's there in the first place in some countries). In the context of here and now, under capitalism, it's progressive. No leftist should fight to put restrictions on it under capitalism, in fact such reforms should be fought for in the mean time. Nevertheless I won't shed a tear on fascists not having that right.

And yes, I do think that a world without poverty and oppression is worthy cause. Infinity better than a capitalist dictatorship where people can say what they want(sometimes) but starve. Though this thread is kind of "out there" for the layperson new to this.

Just a suggestion, that both of you say the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat(working class) or even an anarchist society, is going to be a "new boss"(of themselves) who's corrupt and "thinks the proletariat(themselves in charge) are too stupid and need to guide(themselves),' says you both are new to this. It's a dictatorship of a class, not a dictator. The US has a new President every 4-8, they could've even been from a working class backround. Yet it's the dictatorship of bourgeoisie(capitalist, rich) as a class. Sometimes a new mask comes on or drops off.

[Cumulus]

"Free speech" in a capitalist society is a sham. Isn't "can be" but is or will. No need to do away with it, it's not there for 80% of the world in the first place. Rupert Murdock has more free speech than billions of people due to ownership of media. Your job can fire you and let you starve for your "free speech" that pisses them off. Go to a protest and suddenly your "right to free speech" disappears in a cloud of tear gas and a hail of rubber bullets. Overtly advocating the overthrow of the government will at least put you in LE cross-hairs. Shit hits the fan, the human mask comes off and the capitalist dictatorship becomes bare for all to see, as it is with oppressed people all the time. And this is assuming they're in a capitalist "democracy". It's free speech for the rich.

And if the worst thing about the "new boss", the dictatorship of the proletariat, is you can't advocate reactionaries ideologies like fascism, that's a step up.Irony.:lol: Although this is an international forum, where some might not have US style "free speech".

Socialism, as an ideology, was forged when capitalist censored and repressed socialist. "Free speech" is a bourgeois(capitalist) democratic right not granted by God, but something fought for and constantly in jeopardy(assuming it's there in the first place in some countries). In the context of here and now, under capitalism, it's progressive. No leftist should fight to put restrictions on it under capitalism, in fact such reforms should be fought for in the mean time. Nevertheless I won't shed a tear on fascists not having that right.

And yes, I do think that a world without poverty and oppression is worthy cause. Infinity better than a capitalist dictatorship where people can say what they want(sometimes) but starve. Though this thread is kind of "out there" for the layperson new to this.

Just a suggestion, that both of you say the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat(working class) or even an anarchist society, is going to be a "new boss"(of themselves) who's corrupt and "thinks the proletariat(themselves in charge) are too stupid and need to guide(themselves),' says you both are new to this. It's a dictatorship of a class, not a dictator. The US has a new President every 4-8, they could've even been from a working class backround. Yet it's the dictatorship of bourgeoisie(capitalist, rich) as a class. Sometimes a new mask comes on or drops off.
It's not supposed to be a dictatorship of an individual or an oligarchy, but that's the kind of thing that might happen without free speech. As for the fact that nobody today has perfect freedom of speech, that's beside the point. Freedom of speech is not binary - there are many levels. Yes, speech is suppressed today, it cannot be said that there is no freedom of speech whatsoever. You write with disdain about how the speech of socialists today is suppressed. What of the speech of the people's advocates under a dictatorship of the proletariat? Without the right for the proletariat to complain, how can it even be considered its dictatorship?

[Comrade Jacob]

I agree with freedom of speech in principle but I also believe in ruthless suppression of reactionaries.
Let them talk don't let them do anything else.

[Cumulus]

I agree with freedom of speech in principle but I also believe in ruthless suppression of reactionaries.
Let them talk don't let them do anything else.
I think you've got the idea, there. Provided that they are peaceful, everyone should be allowed to speak. However, ruthless suppression of the reactionaries will not convince them to join you, and might encourage others to join their cause. You risk the wrath of the Streisand effect if you suppress them. It is debate that we need. Put them on television and tear apart their arguments. Treat them with respect, but not their ideas. Not all of these reactionaries would be against the socialists because of greed, but because of distrust. Prove to them that you are their friend.