Lenin and Stalin on Freedom of speech

[elijahcraig]

Much is made over Stalin's quote not allowing our enemies to have guns, so why should we allow them to have ideas? As if it is totalitarian, etc. RAF has it in his signature.

I like this quote from Lenin on the same subject:

"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government [...] allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinion calculated to embarrass the government?"

Agree or disagree?

Stalin and Lenin agreed here.

And what should be the penalty of those who oppose the workers' socialist state (a question for the realists here).

[Roses in the Hospital]

"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."
AJ Liebling

Freedom of press itself isn't a threat. It's when people start believing in it that it becomes a threat. We can't have a proper democracy when people would rather believe some shaby tabloid than the government. The paradox is that we can't truly have a democracy without freedom of speech either...

[Eastside Revolt]

Being a powerdrunk pothead I completely dissagree.

"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government [...] allow itself to be criticized?"

An advanced socialist state should most definitly allow itself to be criticized. Because ideas although as lethal as arms, are by nature creative. Seeing as a socialist state is eventually supposed to whither away, and historically we have never seen this succesfully achieved; we are going to need to be creative in order to get that done.

The most advanced societies have always been the most liberal, such as allowing women to have positions of influence.

[antieverything]

This is always framed using the term "enemies" which is simply misleading. What about the "common" people? Hell, they should not only be given access to ideas but also to weapons!!!

[Vinny Rafarino]

An advanced socialist state should most definitly allow itself to be criticized

I don't think any of us evil "Stalinists" would disagree with you at all.

Once an "advanced" socialist state is acheived, there will no longer be a need to "censor" the masses.

What we disagree on is what is to be done while the socialist state is still "primative".

[redstar2000]

"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government [...] allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinion calculated to embarrass the government?"

Agree or disagree?

I've always suspected that Lenin's "secret vice" was idealism...and this statement is certainly evidence to support that suspicion.

What government? Run by who? Under what historical circumstances? What is meant by "pernicious"? And what is meant by "embarrassment"?

Come on, Elijah, this is just a piece of opportunistic crap formulated to "justify" Lenin's repression of his critics from the left!

It's not even argument; it's just rhetorical questions to which the "answer" is already "known".

Ideas are "much more fatal things than guns"?

Only to idealists.


And what should be the penalty of those who oppose the workers' socialist state (a question for the realists here).

The definition of a "realist" presumably being anyone who accepts the obsolete Leninist anachronism of a "workers' socialist state".

Very well, why not give public crucifixion a try? :lol:

An anachronistic regime should have anachronistic punishments, right?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Come on, Elijah, this is just a piece of opportunistic crap formulated to "justify" Lenin's repression of his critics from the left!

Oh, RedStar, my idealist friend.


Ideas are "much more fatal things than guns"?

Only to idealists.

Are you seriously opposing this statement?

[h&s]

As soicialism, communism, or anarchism are there to serve the people of the country and no-one else, the people should be allowed to say what they want about us.
The press shouldn't be censored, but people like Murdoch should not be allowed to use it to swing elections.
At the end of the day we want to serve the people, so if they want to critisise us let them.

[elijahcraig]

As soicialism, communism, or anarchism are there to serve the people of the country and no-one else, the people should be allowed to say what they want about us.
The press shouldn't be censored, but people like Murdoch should not be allowed to use it to swing elections.
At the end of the day we want to serve the people, so if they want to critisise us let them.

I don't think any of this is talking about censoring the working class, we are talking about censoring people who actively oppose the revolution. Look at the US Interests Section in Havana for example. They actively aid and use terrorism to subvert the revolution, and Castro has come down on these "dissidents" HARD. If he allows them to spew their propaganda publicly, while privately and secretely using US-funded aid, etc., then this is not "censoring the people" but merely fighting the opposition. The same goes for all revolutions.

[h&s]

Yeah, but after a revolution we try to eliminate all classes so that the only class is the working class.
This means that there would be no-one to censor as the working class can say what they want.
Outsiders, like those from the U$ would be censored, but I can see nothing wrong with that, as they should have nothing to do with us.

[elijahcraig]

As RAF explained earlier in this thread:


Once an "advanced" socialist state is acheived, there will no longer be a need to "censor" the masses.

What we disagree on is what is to be done while the socialist state is still "primative".

[elijahcraig]

I also don't see the possibility of a classless society while large outside nations remain capitalist. Just unrealistic to think that.

[h&s]

But surely it is our ultimate goal?
If we do not try and create a classless society any revolution would just fail.

Censorship between stages is necesary, just like authoritarian rule, but is just a short stage.

[elijahcraig]

We aim to create a socialist state after we destroy the capitalist one, which eventually, hopefully, turns into a classless society.

The subject here isn't about classlessness, it is about what to do in the midst of the revolution, when the state is 'primitive'.

The Marxist stance on this issue is that you don't have the "right" to free speech in the time of revolution, it being the most, in Engels words, authoritative point of all. It is also the Marxist stance that after the revolution, when a socialist society is well underway, there is no reason why the masses cannot critique the government in a constructive manner. Even then, though, we have the stand that any operations funded by the US government or any capitalist (I used the US Interests Section in Havana as an example) nation, group, etc., will be dealt with extreme measures, be it imprisonment, deportation, or execution.

[h&s]

Yeah, I can't argue with that.
I just have to emphasise that we should try and keep the transition period as short as possible.

[elijahcraig]

There has to be a lot of education, re-education, and preparation first. Not to mention a long bout with world capitalism which would ensue.

[Scottish_Militant]

The first thing that springs to mind here is the question of why this little troll (yes YOU elijahcraig) was let out of it's cage amongst the masses, but that is for another thread

Anyway, I don't see what you are trying to get at with this thread. You have taken a very selective Lenin quote to try and 'prove' that Lenin was 'big and tough', I pressume this was to show that you are also 'big and tough' and you 'dont take no shit', am I right?

My first point would be that Lenin never settlet for 'bitesized' theory, whatever he is saying here has obviously been part of a long speech or article, thus why did you not feel comfartable enough to provide us with it?

Could it be that in all, Lenin is not simply saying "kill everyone who disagrees with us" I know you want to try and make him sound as moronic as yourself, but having read many of Lenin's works I am in a far better position than you to draw the conclusions of Lenin's theory, but then again, my pet rabbit is too....

You base all your posts on a kind of boastfulness about 'what will happen to you all when I am in power', the tragic thing is we are still a long way from achieving socialism, and when we do (if we do in our lifetimes) there is simply no way that a gibbering little prick like yourself is going to get any sort of power whatsoever, your dream is to be a "communist dictator", well I hate to tell you but thats an oxymoron, why not just be a right winger, you'll find more people who like you.

I'm afraid I simply cannot take you seriously at all, your threads are as much a comedy as your person

But then again I am a 'trot moron' :lol:

[elijahcraig]

The first thing that springs to mind here is the question of why this little troll (yes YOU elijahcraig) was let out of it's cage amongst the masses, but that is for another thread

I often admire the immense irony there has to be on a board that uses the name of a Stalin-supporting socialist and bans and restricts Stalin-supporters, while giving Trots and Anarchists administrating jobs.


Anyway, I don't see what you are trying to get at with this thread. You have taken a very selective Lenin quote to try and 'prove' that Lenin was 'big and tough', I pressume this was to show that you are also 'big and tough' and you 'dont take no shit', am I right?

No, I am attempting to align the viewpoints of Stalin and Lenin, actually Trotsky would agree as well.


My first point would be that Lenin never settlet for 'bitesized' theory, whatever he is saying here has obviously been part of a long speech or article, thus why did you not feel comfartable enough to provide us with it?

It’s not needed. Though you can easily find quotes like this by looking through Lenin’s views, it’s not “selective quoting,” as he said and acted on these views many times.


Could it be that in all, Lenin is not simply saying "kill everyone who disagrees with us" I know you want to try and make him sound as moronic as yourself, but having read many of Lenin's works I am in a far better position than you to draw the conclusions of Lenin's theory, but then again, my pet rabbit is too....

OOOO, you’ve read Lenin, OMG, I have never done that.

Just shut the fuck up if you can’t debate without the nonsense, fucking ****.

Lenin DID imprison or kill everyone who opposed the state during the revolution. THAT’S why the Anarchists hate him.


You base all your posts on a kind of boastfulness about 'what will happen to you all when I am in power', the tragic thing is we are still a long way from achieving socialism, and when we do (if we do in our lifetimes) there is simply no way that a gibbering little prick like yourself is going to get any sort of power whatsoever, your dream is to be a "communist dictator", well I hate to tell you but thats an oxymoron, why not just be a right winger, you'll find more people who like you.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that I am at all involved in this equation. I have said nothing which says “I will be in power,” or that crap. TAT makes posts regarding Anarchism in the same way I make posts on Leninism. There really is no difference except that we have two different ideologies.

[redstar2000]

Lenin DID imprison or kill everyone who opposed the state during the revolution. THAT’S why the Anarchists hate him.

Ah, to the heart of the matter.

Few would disagree with any efforts, no matter how rigorous, made to repress the enemies of the revolution on the right...but you (and evidently Lenin) wish to repress your enemies on the left.

Otherwise they might "embarrass your government" by "perniciously" pointing out the vast abyss that lies between your party's promises and what you actually deliver.

And we can't have that, can we? :o


...there is no reason why the masses cannot critique the government in a constructive manner.

"Constructive" critique: The proposed statue of the Great Leader is too small; it should be at least three times as tall! :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Ah, to the heart of the matter.

Few would disagree with any efforts, no matter how rigorous, made to repress the enemies of the revolution on the right...but you (and evidently Lenin) wish to repress your enemies on the left.

Otherwise they might "embarrass your government" by "perniciously" pointing out the vast abyss that lies between your party's promises and what you actually deliver.

And we can't have that, can we?

I think we all know where this debate is leading. I think that repression of ALL enemies of the party is a necessity, not to stop them from “pointing out the vast abyss that lies” etc etc, but in order for the revolution to have a chance of succeeding, instead of falling into the hands of morons and opportunists.

[redstar2000]

I think that repression of ALL enemies of the party is a necessity, not to stop them from "pointing out the vast abyss that lies" etc etc, but in order for the revolution to have a chance of succeeding, instead of falling into the hands of morons and opportunists.--emphasis added.

Yes, the enemies of the party were indeed repressed...and guess what? All the revolutions "fell into the hands" of morons and opportunists anyway.

It turned out that morons and opportunists were leading the party(s). :o

How about that, Elijah?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

There really is nothing to say besides, guard against revisionists in the party much more harshly.

There is NO alternative to this strategy if you want a revolution to succeed.

[Daymare17]

Redstar2000 i must say it is very sad that you believe the bourgeois and Stalinist slanders of Bolshevism. Lenin took energetic and ruthless action against the bourgeoisie. Of course they, and their representatives want to slander his ideas. On the other hand, the Stalinists, the representatives of the old totalitarian bureaucracies of the East want to turn him into a cult figure, and use him to give 'ideological covering' for their maniacal repressions against the workers.

As I have said many times it is necessary to rescue the real history and traditions of Bolshevism from all slanders and distortions. Here (http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/) is a good book which does just that (sorry for posting the link in every other thread)

[redstar2000]

. Lenin took energetic and ruthless action against the bourgeoisie.

Indeed he did...and had he confined his "shit list" to representatives of the bourgeoisie, the aristocracy, and the clergy, a great deal of 20th century controversy on the left would never have taken place. From the time of Marx, it's been axiomatic that the purpose of the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" was the suppression of the old ruling class.

Unfortunately, Lenin's fecal roster was much more extensive and grew to include both many workers as well as anarchists...who in no legitimate sense were "bourgeois".

Had Lenin had any intention of promoting proletarian power in Russia, he could easily have done so by supporting the "Workers' Opposition" platform at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921). Instead, he united with both Stalin and Trotsky to defeat that proposal and to stop any future proposals of that nature by outlawing organized opposition within the Bolshevik Party itself.

Ever since then it's been understand in Leninist circles that "the party runs the show", period. And, the leadership "runs the party", exclamation point!

It may be "sad"...but it's true.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Guerrilla22]

I feel that is absolutely vital to be able to express one's ideas, but the fact of the matter is today's media outlets are nothing more than voice pieces for the elitist that own them. That's the problem with capitalist societies, they claim to have freedom of speech and the press, when in fact the press is being dominated by the wealthy few and only reflects the opinion's of those who have managed the monopolize the media.

[CommieBastard]

The only people who fear questions are those who have no replies.

By which i mean, Lenin betrayed himself in the quote you give as the brutal dictator that he was. If you cannot justify WHY you are having so many numbers of people shot dead, or having certain resources redistributed, then the only logical course of action is to prevent people from asking the question.
Whether Lenin originally intended the censoring of the press to be only to prevent pernicious lies from enemies or not is neither here nor there. Once you have begun censoring there is no mechanism by which to prevent the censorship from going 'out of control' (by which i mean, above and beyond the original goals). The reason is that when you stop people hearing anything, they have no way of knowing what they are not hearing, they lose any concept of the bounds of their own ignorance. The only sensible means to halt these destructive concepts is to meet them with rational arguments and empirical evidence which show them to be the nonsense they are. As soon as censorship becomes involved you are essentially admitting that you do not have a rational argument or empirical evidence to back up your own views, and are no better, if not worse, than the pernicious liars and enemies of the revolution.

[redstar2000]

Once you have begun censoring there is no mechanism by which to prevent the censorship from going 'out of control' (by which I mean, above and beyond the original goals).

I disagree...and cite this board as a practical example of the contrary.

We do censor this board...sometimes in a very drastic fashion -- posts deleted, member banned, ip address blocked, etc. And it's done quickly...without a vote even being taken.

The other day some shithead registered as a Nazi...and within three hours, he was gone.

What is going on here? We have a broad consensus of complete intolerance for Nazi shit.

On the other hand, suppose I used my "powers" to randomly delete somebody's posts that I thought were just stupid or even banned the poor bastard. You wouldn't need an internet connection to hear the howls of outrage and the calls for my head. :o

This is very much the kind of attitude I expect to see in a post-revolutionary society. The class enemy and his lackeys will face instant repression because that's what the revolutionary proletariat wants. But controversies within the proletariat must indeed be subject only to argument and evidence...and then decided by all.

We actually spend a fair amount of energy in the Commie Club debating these questions; e.g., so-and-so posted these comments...don't they really belong in Opposing Ideologies or should that person be banned? Eventually, a consensus emerges or a vote is taken...and that's what determines what action is implemented.

Lenin thought that any view that contradicted his own was "counter-revolutionary" by definition.

But in a real "dictatorship of the proletariat", it is the workers as a class that decide the range of "legitimate options".

I'm sure that will be occasionally frustrating for "hard-liners" like me (:P)...the working class is more "tolerant" than I am.

But if I want an idea removed from the list of legitimate options, I can only try to convince the class to agree with me. If I yield to the temptation to impose my own view, then I would indeed take the first step towards being "another Lenin/Stalin/Mao", etc.

And I don't think, in any event, that I would be allowed to get away with that shit.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[CommieBastard]

I disagree...and cite this board as a practical example of the contrary

I think this board is a perfect example. I myself used to bother opposing censorship here, not that it did much good. For one thing though, this board is not a society, and the censorship is not universal, so if one wanted to read about nazi views, there are still places to go, and those who censor this board cannot stop that.

However, even within this board censorship presents its problems. For those not a part of the censorship process it is impossible to tell what particular kinds of information are or are not being censored, that is to say, we can never know about the things we dont know. On this board the censorship, as you say, is considerably less insidious than in Lenins Russia, because it is possible to have a system of near direct democracy, whereby anyone who wants to, and agrees enough with certain people's views, can become a part of the censorship process, and thus find out exactly what is or isnt allowed.

Fact of the matter is we are doing nobody, especially ourselves, a favour by censoring Nazis. By doing it we affirm their beleifs, helping ensure they never get out of the irrational hole they are in (something we as 'left wingers' should be attempting to do, after all, its not their fault they've been brainwashed into beleiving bullshit). What is more, we reduce our exposure to their arguments, which may make us feel better, but we would do better to argue with them, in order to better develop our views and arguments against them.

In a post-revolutionary society if you censor such arguments, you would similarly be preventing people from forming mature views and arguments aganst them. So when fascist arguments DO get through to people they would be more likely to be convinced, due to their lack of knowledge as to what makes such views so horribly wrong.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What many authoritarians fail to understand is that the most dangerous enemies of the revolution are NOT those who openly attack it.

The most dangerous enemies of the revolution are those who seek to subvert it to their own ends. You don't honestly believe that a would-be aristocrat who wishes to enslave the working class will announce his intentions openly, do you? On the contrary! He will be the most zealous flag waver, the most vocal supporter of socialism and liberty. He will not spread any propaganda to sway the people to his true views. Instead, he will spread socialist propaganda, which declares the exact opposite of what he wishes to achieve. And when he finally makes it to the top of the Party heirarchy and unleashes his brutal dictatorship, he will keep telling the people that they are "free" and that they have all the power.

The most heinous form of slavery is the one that masquarades as freedom.

Restricting freedom of speech will achieve nothing. The enemies of socialism will simply change their outside appearence and continue as before. We should not silence the capitalists; we should expose their idiocy and their true intentions for all to see.

[bobby]

Had Lenin had any intention of promoting proletarian power in Russia, he could easily have done so by supporting the "Workers' Opposition" platform at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921). Instead, he united with both Stalin and Trotsky to defeat that proposal and to stop any future proposals of that nature by outlawing organized opposition within the Bolshevik Party itself.

Do you have any links or information on this I could look at?


And when he finally makes it to the top of the Party heirarchy and unleashes his brutal dictatorship, he will keep telling the people that they are "free" and that they have all the power.

This sounds a bit like a fantasy novel. You are being a bit unrealistic.

Although I like your phrase:



The most heinous form of slavery is the one that masquarades as freedom.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This sounds a bit like a fantasy novel. You are being a bit unrealistic.
Unrealistic? I was basically describing what Stalin did. It's not "unrealistic" at all - it has already happened.


Although I like your phrase:

The most heinous form of slavery is the one that masquarades as freedom.
Thank you. As a side note, this is the reason why I despise libertarians more than any other political group, and certainly more than conservatives: because they wish to spread oppression, exploitation and misery in the name of "freedom".

[bobby]

Unrealistic? I was basically describing what Stalin did. It's not "unrealistic" at all - it has already happened.

Stalin was not:


You don't honestly believe that a would-be aristocrat who wishes to enslave the working class will announce his intentions openly, do you?

I wasn't aware Stalin was a "would-be aristocrat."


Thank you. As a side note, this is the reason why I despise libertarians more than any other political group, and certainly more than conservatives: because they wish to spread oppression, exploitation and misery in the name of "freedom".

O the doublespeak, I hate Rand-followers especially.

[redstar2000]

I myself used to bother opposing censorship here, not that it did much good.


Fact of the matter is we are doing nobody, especially ourselves, a favour by censoring Nazis.

Perhaps your stomach is stronger than mine.

But more likely you simply haven't read enough about what the Nazis really did...and would most certainly do again if they ever got the chance.

Your error (and one that's not uncommon) is that you think of discourse as "ideas competing in the intellectual marketplace"...with no consideration of what those ideas would mean if actually implemented in the real world.

In a university environment, it's easy to think of ideas as "pure" and "disconnected" from reality.


So when fascist arguments DO get through to people they would be more likely to be convinced, due to their lack of knowledge as to what makes such views so horribly wrong.

They will never have the chance to "get through" to people if we can help it.

In fact, it would not surprise me to see open Nazis summarily executed...just for being Nazis!

We are not fooling around here.


And when he finally makes it to the top of the Party hierarchy and unleashes his brutal dictatorship, he will keep telling the people that they are "free" and that they have all the power.

A good reason not to permit a hierarchy, party or state.


The enemies of socialism will simply change their outside appearance and continue as before. We should not silence the capitalists; we should expose their idiocy and their true intentions for all to see.

Their ideas are already available; there is no reason to allow them to continue to speak...about anything.

-------------------------------


Do you have any links or information on this I could look at?

You want to go to http://www.marxists.org

The speeches of Lenin and Trotsky at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) are at that site as well as the Workers' Opposition proposal by Alexandra Kollontai.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[bobby]

You want to go to http://www.marxists.org

The speeches of Lenin and Trotsky at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) are at that site as well as the Workers' Opposition proposal by Alexandra Kollentai.

I'll have a look. Thanks.