Freedom of press in socialists or communists socie

[Monty Cantsin]

Basically I believe a armed workers revolution to be a democratic election. A forceful change in government can not take place if it is not accepted in some way shape or form by the average person.

One of my Leninists friends feels that dictatorship of the proletariat means a dictatorship in the general sense of the word. But I feel even after the revolution you should allow left wing parties to practise fully and even leave some right wing press in place.

To paraphrase Marx and Engle from the German ideology ‘the ideas of the ruling class, are the ruling ideas of society’ thus if proletariat democracy comes into reality, why would one care about law abiding dissent press? If they moved toward forceful methods by all means you have a legitimate reason to punish them.

One of my biggest problems with Lenin is he banned such parties as the Mensheviks and didn’t allow Julius Martov to join the government. If you don’t allow some opposition parties you allow you’re self to sink into Stalinism.

So basically I feel that allowing right wingers to write crap about the government you legitimize it and give it more power then just the initial ‘wining the battle for democracy’. What do you think?

[fuerzasocialista]

Well, I'll tell you this: I value freedom of the press however, in some latin american countries, journalists seriously abuse it. Those that sympathize with the right wing use their articles to not only critique a leftist government but also to serve as a propaganda tool for the right. Due to the lack of education existent in some countries, this can be a factor. Even if a country was sunk into an economical hell but a right wing government and then brought back to life by a left wing one(example), the journalists will go ahead and say how much better off we were under the previous government and so forth. And the problem? People start believing it. I feel that after a revolution, right winged press should be curtailed to a point. Perhaps if they are respectful, they might not need to be restricted at all. But that doesn't seem feasible.

[Monty Cantsin]

if workers are in power they would have control over the mass media thus small right wing print shops wouldnt be much of a problem.

like i said before the ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas of society. socialists morals, image and ideas would be in the main stream.

[redstar2000]

One of my biggest problems with Lenin is he banned such parties as the Mensheviks and didn’t allow Julius Martov to join the government.

To be fair about this, the Mensheviks were not banned in the parts of Russia where the Bolsheviks had power until they openly joined the counter-revolutionary "governments" in the "white" controlled parts of Russia.

On the other hand, the Mensheviks, even while they were legal, were not permitted to win majorities in any soviets after early 1918.

Also, Martov was not excluded by Lenin; Martov walked out of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and went into exile in Europe of his own accord. (Of course, we don't know what kinds of pressures were exerted against Martov behind the scenes -- publicly, Lenin said he was disappointed that Martov refused to participate.)

As to the main topic of the thread, I am opposed to "free speech" for reactionaries...and that would certainly include "freedom of the press" for those bastards.

The Myth of "Free Speech" (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083205107&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

"Free Speech" for Reactionaries? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083860068&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

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

[YKTMX]

Bravo for that little piece of magnanimity Red.

Anyway, here's my two cents on the question in hand.

Some of the more orthodoyx Leninist on here might purely dismiss "free press" as a bourgeois concept and to some degree this is true. The "free press" as it exists today is in fact merely a means to distribute the ideas and values of the ruling class, this is quite clear and undeniable. Any "disagreements" between the press (for example in Britain over the Iraq War) are merely expressions of disagreements in the ruling class itself. The liberal theory of the "free press" is that it creates an atmosphere of "discussion and debate". Maybe it does, but discussion and debate about what?

The point is that the media picks and chooses the things it wants to highlight and then it "debates them". For instance, the coverage of the Febuary 15th demonstration was quite extensive, but what was the cover of most of the right wing press? "Blair tells protestors they are wrong".

Now, some of you may suggest that readers who disagree with the views of their readership will merely reject the ideas and buy a diffirent newspaper, and that this means that the "free press" is really democratic. Is this true though?

Consider the 1987 general election and the Sun's famous attack on Kinnoch. Now, the Sun was a Tory paper at this time, however, most of it's readership were working class Labour voters. Labour lost that election. The day after the Sun bragged that "It was the sun wot won it". If it was, what consequences does this have for the theory of a "free press" because the people at the Sun obviously WERE NOT taking their political stance to satisfy their readership. So, ultimately, when they ran that headline who's interests and views were they representing? The answer quite clearly is Rupert Murdoch. One Australian man directly affected the outcome of a "democratic" British election. How did he achieve the "right" to do this. He became a buisnessman and bought a newspaper.

This is the case for all national newspaper, they are owned and influenced by the major members of the ruling class. Any attempt to downplay this influence is like suggesting that Henry Ford had no say in what type of cars Ford produced.


So, anyway, what does that mean for Socialism. The capitalist conception of a free press is a fraud, just like all other tenets of their system (elections, fair days pay etc) and thus must be dispensed with after the revolution. After the revolution, the working class will control all power and all ideas in society. All information disseminated will theirs and directed to them. The "free press" under socialism will consist of a press that is free from individual coercion and privelige and begins to discuss the "ideas" and values of the new society.

[DaCuBaN]

Freedom of the press? Bollocks if you ask me. Freedom of the press in our world means that you have sufficient moeny to fund a press and employ 'writers' of your choice for it.

This doesn't apply to communism

What's needed is a medium, just like Che-Lives, to spread the thoughts and opinions of anyone who wishes it known.

The problem lies in the moderation of such mediums. Whilst many would say 'no free speech for reactionaries' - I would disagree. Indeed they more often than not do harm rather than good, but to repress?

We become as bad as that which we all despise.

[Monty Cantsin]

ok so i got burned, i can accept that. i still dont agree with the free press ideas.

[redstar2000]

Whilst many would say 'no free speech for reactionaries' - I would disagree. Indeed they more often than not do harm rather than good, but to repress?

We become as bad as that which we all despise.

We are as "bad"...at least if we're communists.

"Taking sides" in the class struggle is not a matter of a "higher moral commitment" to an "abstract good"...it's a matter of one side wins and the other side loses.

Of course, either side may appeal to "moral values" as a matter of propaganda and agitation.

The capitalists do so all the time...and we know they are lying.

I have a rather strong bias against lying as a strategy...not because it's "immoral" but because it's ineffective.

I think we should tell the working class the truth...even when it seems "unpopular" or may be "embarrassing" for us. I think that's the core of a winning strategy in the long run.

In the "information age" more than ever, the truth will out. Let's tell it from the beginning -- "warts and all".

The more our reputation grows as the only political current where people always tell the truth, the more people will listen to what we have to say.

An important part of that truth is that we favor the unqualified victory of the working class and the unmitigated defeat of the ruling class and its lackeys.

Not only will the old ruling class be deprived of all their "rights"...they'll be damn lucky if they escape summary execution.

I know that sounds "harsh"...but go back and read what happened to the workers of Paris after the Commune was defeated by the French army.

You'll see what I'm getting at.

:redstar2000:

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

[Hate Is Art]

How about in Cuba? Castro banned the free press there then you get Moron's who go around spreading lies and saying there is no freedom in the country and then the country is left (in the eyes of many) looking bad. That is the situation we would have created, executing Jorno's is hardly gonna do much for our cause either. So maybe a heavily restricted and edited free press?

Or as DaCuban said some kind of medium other then newspapers and magazines.

[fuerzasocialista]

There are many factors to look at here:

1. If a revolution is to take place and is successful, where does that leave the opposition if there is one?
2. What do you do with these reactionaries?
3. Does the press now become property of the state?
4. Level of education of the masses(I can't stress this enough)?
5. Will the U$ funnel money to the reactionaries so they can launch a propaganda blitz when the smoke settles (Example: Radio Marti)?

These are some things to look at in deciding to whether or not restrict the press. My feeling is that if a revolution occurs, anyone opposing it will be forced out of the country by the people, by the masses.

[Raisa]

I dont think we really have to restrict the press or anything.It is unessesacry and they are going to say what they want to say reguardless if you hear it or not.
Let them say their shit in the open where it can clearly become desputed.

[Maksym]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 8 2004, 09:39 AM
How about in Cuba? Castro banned the free press there then you get Moron's who go around spreading lies and saying there is no freedom in the country and then the country is left (in the eyes of many) looking bad. That is the situation we would have created, executing Jorno's is hardly gonna do much for our cause either. So maybe a heavily restricted and edited free press?

Or as DaCuban said some kind of medium other then newspapers and magazines.
It does not really matter since the Capitalist press will make up a lie if they cannot find a fact. I would not be surprised if your fact about Cuba is actually a lie.

[commiecrusader]

to ban certain element of the press is to encourage a resentment to the new way of running things. if say in the UK Labour stopped any form of opposition media, then what would happen? a whole load of bad shit.

same would happen if it happened in the U$, except that it already did kind of in the last election but less blatantly, and look at the resentment that stirred up.

[socialistfuture]

i think freedom of the press is very important - if a socialist society was worth of existing it should be able to withstand critism and dissent. if it is totalitarian and needed force to exist - maybe it isnt worth of existing. after all do communists/socialists not need the support of the people? if they do not have it the only way the revolution could happen would be by force in which case it is a communist prison - not a communist state. tho of course for those communists who do not seek to replace the state but simply to destroy it it is a different story.

basically if we do not have the truth on our side - we do not deserve to have any form of control. we must be honest and not by a 1984/animal farm type society - we (well I) want a free society with freedom of expression and a strong connection with nature as its basis.

freedom of speech and freedom of press are essential to a free society.

[commiecrusader]

damn right. once the revolution has happened, everyone will be able to see for themselves that the new way is better than the old. therefore it doesnt matter a bit if bourgeois people try to propogate a reverse revolution or whatever, cos no one will care what the little richy dicks say cos they can see for themselves that this is better. let the opposition try and fail i say. with truth, there is nothing to hide.

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that there is a good deal of confusion in this discussion.

Perhaps I can illustrate this with a possible scenario...

Imagine that a revolution has just taken place. The armed working class has taken over all the workplaces. The old ruling class government has been smashed; the old army and police have been dissolved; the material wealth of the old ruling class has been seized.

Things are very disorganized...even chaotic. People are trying to organize themselves into a functioning communist society...but it's hard and there are difficulties.

Now, in the midst of this turmoil, some of you folks suggest that we should give the remnants of the old ruling class a "voice" and even a "press".

For what purpose?

Do we "need" or even "want" their "advice" about anything?

Should they have access to the public discourse, will these reactionaries have anything helpful to say?

Or would they use that voice to lie about and slander our whole project? Would they use it for the purpose of arousing opposition to everything we want to do?

In fact, won't they constantly agitate for the restoration of capitalism?

Do we need that?

Some of you folks seem to think the "only" alternative is some kind of "state secret police" to suppress pro-capitalist dissent.

But that's not true. Power is in the hands of the armed workers...why can't they also take care of this matter as well?

The presses are in their hands; why can't they simply refuse to print capitalist or other reactionary shit? Likewise for radio and television.

Even the internet service providers are now in the hands of the workers; why should they permit pro-capitalist sites to use their services?

Because of a "commitment" to an abstraction like "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press"?

Let me ask you this: how much "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press" has the capitalist class ever given us?

Is there some reason that we supposed to be "morally obligated" to "play fair" with the class enemy?

What is it?

The capitalist class has terrorized its working class opponents for...getting on towards a couple of centuries now. And things will probably be even worse (and maybe a lot worse) in the coming decades.

And you want to "make nice" with those bastards?

NO!

:redstar2000:

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

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 8 2004, 08:39 AM
How about in Cuba? Castro banned the free press there then you get Moron's who go around spreading lies and saying there is no freedom in the country and then the country is left (in the eyes of many) looking bad. That is the situation we would have created, executing Jorno's is hardly gonna do much for our cause either. So maybe a heavily restricted and edited free press?

Or as DaCuban said some kind of medium other then newspapers and magazines.
Thats pathetic. Are you saying policies should be decided on wether they please the capitalist nations. That is very week.

[socialistfuture]

a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie to use some zack de la lyrics - we dont want some 1984 or bullshit society. if there is no freedom of press u got a dodge system.

who wants a repeat of some of the shit that went down in the USSR?

utopia's end up as fucked up dictatorships with the rulers doing anything to hold on to power - we want a more free society that is worth fighting for - no need to cencor the ppl who will be taking part in this. fuck black propaganda (lies) -

[PRC-UTE]

The right wing can publish all the crap they want. But they can't hire any labour to do it! They can write it, print it, distribute it, etc. . . all on their own!

Might change their tune. I'd love to see that Bill O'Reilly forced to do real work. I wonder if he'd still put down immigrant labour after he busted a gut working. :lol: Bastard.

[commiecrusader]

Redstar, I think you missed the point most of us were making. In a Communist society, or whatever left wing society, it doesn't matter what the fuck cappies say, because they will be able to see for themselves that the right wing or cappie statements are bullshit. And since the revolution will be by the masses, for the masses, and the masses will control all means of airing a view at the initial stage anyway, how are the right-wing people gonna spread their views anyway?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 04:57 PM
Redstar, I think you missed the point most of us were making. In a Communist society, or whatever left wing society, it doesn't matter what the fuck cappies say, because they will be able to see for themselves that the right wing or cappie statements are bullshit. And since the revolution will be by the masses, for the masses, and the masses will control all means of airing a view at the initial stage anyway, how are the right-wing people gonna spread their views anyway?
This is not very clear to me...but it almost appears that you're saying what I have said in different worlds.

If (1) the working class effectively controls access to all the media; and (2) the capitalist class is deprived of their wealth...making it impossible to hire people to spread their views; then you have effectively suppressed "free speech" for reactionaries...without ever saying that you're doing that.

I can live with that. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 04:57 PM
Redstar, I think you missed the point most of us were making. In a Communist society, or whatever left wing society, it doesn't matter what the fuck cappies say, because they will be able to see for themselves that the right wing or cappie statements are bullshit. And since the revolution will be by the masses, for the masses, and the masses will control all means of airing a view at the initial stage anyway, how are the right-wing people gonna spread their views anyway?
This is not very clear to me...but it almost appears that you're saying what I have said in different worlds.

If (1) the working class effectively controls access to all the media; and (2) the capitalist class is deprived of their wealth...making it impossible to hire people to spread their views; then you have effectively suppressed "free speech" for reactionaries...without ever saying that you're doing that.

I can live with that. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 04:57 PM
Redstar, I think you missed the point most of us were making. In a Communist society, or whatever left wing society, it doesn't matter what the fuck cappies say, because they will be able to see for themselves that the right wing or cappie statements are bullshit. And since the revolution will be by the masses, for the masses, and the masses will control all means of airing a view at the initial stage anyway, how are the right-wing people gonna spread their views anyway?
This is not very clear to me...but it almost appears that you're saying what I have said in different worlds.

If (1) the working class effectively controls access to all the media; and (2) the capitalist class is deprived of their wealth...making it impossible to hire people to spread their views; then you have effectively suppressed "free speech" for reactionaries...without ever saying that you're doing that.

I can live with that. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

The "free speech" question seems to be one that comes up here a lot.


One position is that any oppinion which does not agree with the revolutionary aims should be suppressed. The problem with this position is that it's ultimately pointless.


In any post-revolutionary, anarcho-socialist or communanarchic or any tennable worker's state, a certain level of freedom is inevitable.

In fact it's required.

The only way such a society would work is that there not be any class structure of state institutions.

With that in mind, who would enforce "broadcast standards" or "press censorship"?

The obvious anwser is "the people", but which people?

If anyone sees a program or reads a paper they believe is "reactionary" or "bourgeois", they go to the writer or producer and beat them up? Clearly such a society would not last very long. Some sort of consensus is required.

But... do you call a special meeting of the entire collecitve every time someone disagrees? And how do you decide? Maybe the complainant does think it's reactionary propaganda, but someone else thinks it's legitimate critisism.

Who's to say?

Honest disagreements are a common day occurence, and ultimately that's the problem, beccaue in the end, some sort of codified rules would have to be formed. Otherwise we face the Periclean problem all over again, and whomever can "prove their case" better (i.e., whomever is the better speaker) will win. It is simple impossible to run such a sytem without continual abuses by people who either "don't like" the defendent, or honestly think he is attacking communist society. From a pragmatic sense, the end result is identical: endless meetings and discussions on the press and it's freedoms. No anarchic society can function when too much of it's time is being spent on, ultimately, trivial matters such as "press censorship" and "media intent". So to save time, we must legislate.

But once we codify "press rules" we face another problem. Because the only way that any even remotely prebiscitarian society can operate is if there is a minimmum of legalization.

Once the "laws of the land" start being codified, someone needs to be on hand to "interpret" them, and someone else to "verify" them, and someone else to "update" and "examine" them from time to time. With every new law, you risk the reintroduction of the class system.

Now, that's not to say that nothing should be understood to be sancrasanct. But the critical difference is that obvious laws are just that.

Everyone knows what murder is and how not to do it.
Everyone knows what beating your spouse is and how not to do it.
Ensuring that one's publications are "politically acceptable".... much harder.

Certainly the current FCC issues with CBS and Clear Channel have shown us that when it comes to the media, intent and context are never quite clear.

So... we're left with a complicated legal formula outlining exactly what can and cannot be said that.... mostly works. Nothing in this area is clear cut, so we'd need an army of bureacrats "specially trained" in interpretation.

"The people" simply do not have the time to compare every issue of the daily worker or the people's gazette to tell whether or not if fits with article 134 of the "People's Broadcast Practices".

Furthermore, once such things become legalized, they will start to change as well. Societies tend to swing back and forth, and any majoritarian or plebiscitarian society will do so more than a republican or capito-statist one. Therefore, it is indeed quite possible that once the precedent has been laid out, a charismatic demagogue can rile the people into believing that Joe Shrugg's latest editorial on agriculture policy is an attack on the foundations of communism. After all no one can really say that it isn't, the laws are pretty complicated and well.... no one really likes that Joes Shrugg...

So what do we do?
Arrest him?
Execute him?

Even in a blatantly obvious case: Wilhelm Shmidt and the Kill the Jews Quartterly... what do we do?

Punishement and "corrections" in a communist society is always difficult, but when it comes to punnishing ideas or the promulgation thereof, it's much tougher.

Some might say we "take away their means of publication", but such a practice would turn the censorship into a joke. Mr. Shmidt would just open a new paper and then a new one and.... Eventually he would simply distribute it among his friends and fellow idealogues, who were probably the only ones reading it to begin with...

It is remarkably easy to open a printing-press or broadcast station, and much easier to simply start a web site. The ISPs would be controlled by the workers of course, but as anyone working NT will tell you, the internet is nearely impossible to control. Censoring websites is a full time job.

Do we want the resources and labour of the collective going to that? Funding rooms of IT personal crawling the internet in search of "reactionary" propaganda?

And when the come upon something they don't like... we're right back where we started with a massive "rule book" and "law code" needing even more full time staff to explain and "interpret".

It isn't worth it.

Capitalist society has not played fair, but in post-revolutionary society...who gives a damn. Concerns about "tit for tat" and "getting them back" are entirely petty.

The bouregoisie are no longer in controll, who cares what they did when they were.

No one denies that the press is a powerfull medium, and propaganda a powerfull tool, but, in the end, it is far more dangerous to post-revolutionary society to try and muzzle that tool than it is to simply oppose it.

The simple fact is that after a successful revolution, the vast majority of people will be far better off and the only way to combat reactionary lies is not to try and legislate them away, but to actually show that they are lies. Ultimately, you'd have to do that anyway.

[LSD]

The "free speech" question seems to be one that comes up here a lot.


One position is that any oppinion which does not agree with the revolutionary aims should be suppressed. The problem with this position is that it's ultimately pointless.


In any post-revolutionary, anarcho-socialist or communanarchic or any tennable worker's state, a certain level of freedom is inevitable.

In fact it's required.

The only way such a society would work is that there not be any class structure of state institutions.

With that in mind, who would enforce "broadcast standards" or "press censorship"?

The obvious anwser is "the people", but which people?

If anyone sees a program or reads a paper they believe is "reactionary" or "bourgeois", they go to the writer or producer and beat them up? Clearly such a society would not last very long. Some sort of consensus is required.

But... do you call a special meeting of the entire collecitve every time someone disagrees? And how do you decide? Maybe the complainant does think it's reactionary propaganda, but someone else thinks it's legitimate critisism.

Who's to say?

Honest disagreements are a common day occurence, and ultimately that's the problem, beccaue in the end, some sort of codified rules would have to be formed. Otherwise we face the Periclean problem all over again, and whomever can "prove their case" better (i.e., whomever is the better speaker) will win. It is simple impossible to run such a sytem without continual abuses by people who either "don't like" the defendent, or honestly think he is attacking communist society. From a pragmatic sense, the end result is identical: endless meetings and discussions on the press and it's freedoms. No anarchic society can function when too much of it's time is being spent on, ultimately, trivial matters such as "press censorship" and "media intent". So to save time, we must legislate.

But once we codify "press rules" we face another problem. Because the only way that any even remotely prebiscitarian society can operate is if there is a minimmum of legalization.

Once the "laws of the land" start being codified, someone needs to be on hand to "interpret" them, and someone else to "verify" them, and someone else to "update" and "examine" them from time to time. With every new law, you risk the reintroduction of the class system.

Now, that's not to say that nothing should be understood to be sancrasanct. But the critical difference is that obvious laws are just that.

Everyone knows what murder is and how not to do it.
Everyone knows what beating your spouse is and how not to do it.
Ensuring that one's publications are "politically acceptable".... much harder.

Certainly the current FCC issues with CBS and Clear Channel have shown us that when it comes to the media, intent and context are never quite clear.

So... we're left with a complicated legal formula outlining exactly what can and cannot be said that.... mostly works. Nothing in this area is clear cut, so we'd need an army of bureacrats "specially trained" in interpretation.

"The people" simply do not have the time to compare every issue of the daily worker or the people's gazette to tell whether or not if fits with article 134 of the "People's Broadcast Practices".

Furthermore, once such things become legalized, they will start to change as well. Societies tend to swing back and forth, and any majoritarian or plebiscitarian society will do so more than a republican or capito-statist one. Therefore, it is indeed quite possible that once the precedent has been laid out, a charismatic demagogue can rile the people into believing that Joe Shrugg's latest editorial on agriculture policy is an attack on the foundations of communism. After all no one can really say that it isn't, the laws are pretty complicated and well.... no one really likes that Joes Shrugg...

So what do we do?
Arrest him?
Execute him?

Even in a blatantly obvious case: Wilhelm Shmidt and the Kill the Jews Quartterly... what do we do?

Punishement and "corrections" in a communist society is always difficult, but when it comes to punnishing ideas or the promulgation thereof, it's much tougher.

Some might say we "take away their means of publication", but such a practice would turn the censorship into a joke. Mr. Shmidt would just open a new paper and then a new one and.... Eventually he would simply distribute it among his friends and fellow idealogues, who were probably the only ones reading it to begin with...

It is remarkably easy to open a printing-press or broadcast station, and much easier to simply start a web site. The ISPs would be controlled by the workers of course, but as anyone working NT will tell you, the internet is nearely impossible to control. Censoring websites is a full time job.

Do we want the resources and labour of the collective going to that? Funding rooms of IT personal crawling the internet in search of "reactionary" propaganda?

And when the come upon something they don't like... we're right back where we started with a massive "rule book" and "law code" needing even more full time staff to explain and "interpret".

It isn't worth it.

Capitalist society has not played fair, but in post-revolutionary society...who gives a damn. Concerns about "tit for tat" and "getting them back" are entirely petty.

The bouregoisie are no longer in controll, who cares what they did when they were.

No one denies that the press is a powerfull medium, and propaganda a powerfull tool, but, in the end, it is far more dangerous to post-revolutionary society to try and muzzle that tool than it is to simply oppose it.

The simple fact is that after a successful revolution, the vast majority of people will be far better off and the only way to combat reactionary lies is not to try and legislate them away, but to actually show that they are lies. Ultimately, you'd have to do that anyway.

[LSD]

The "free speech" question seems to be one that comes up here a lot.


One position is that any oppinion which does not agree with the revolutionary aims should be suppressed. The problem with this position is that it's ultimately pointless.


In any post-revolutionary, anarcho-socialist or communanarchic or any tennable worker's state, a certain level of freedom is inevitable.

In fact it's required.

The only way such a society would work is that there not be any class structure of state institutions.

With that in mind, who would enforce "broadcast standards" or "press censorship"?

The obvious anwser is "the people", but which people?

If anyone sees a program or reads a paper they believe is "reactionary" or "bourgeois", they go to the writer or producer and beat them up? Clearly such a society would not last very long. Some sort of consensus is required.

But... do you call a special meeting of the entire collecitve every time someone disagrees? And how do you decide? Maybe the complainant does think it's reactionary propaganda, but someone else thinks it's legitimate critisism.

Who's to say?

Honest disagreements are a common day occurence, and ultimately that's the problem, beccaue in the end, some sort of codified rules would have to be formed. Otherwise we face the Periclean problem all over again, and whomever can "prove their case" better (i.e., whomever is the better speaker) will win. It is simple impossible to run such a sytem without continual abuses by people who either "don't like" the defendent, or honestly think he is attacking communist society. From a pragmatic sense, the end result is identical: endless meetings and discussions on the press and it's freedoms. No anarchic society can function when too much of it's time is being spent on, ultimately, trivial matters such as "press censorship" and "media intent". So to save time, we must legislate.

But once we codify "press rules" we face another problem. Because the only way that any even remotely prebiscitarian society can operate is if there is a minimmum of legalization.

Once the "laws of the land" start being codified, someone needs to be on hand to "interpret" them, and someone else to "verify" them, and someone else to "update" and "examine" them from time to time. With every new law, you risk the reintroduction of the class system.

Now, that's not to say that nothing should be understood to be sancrasanct. But the critical difference is that obvious laws are just that.

Everyone knows what murder is and how not to do it.
Everyone knows what beating your spouse is and how not to do it.
Ensuring that one's publications are "politically acceptable".... much harder.

Certainly the current FCC issues with CBS and Clear Channel have shown us that when it comes to the media, intent and context are never quite clear.

So... we're left with a complicated legal formula outlining exactly what can and cannot be said that.... mostly works. Nothing in this area is clear cut, so we'd need an army of bureacrats "specially trained" in interpretation.

"The people" simply do not have the time to compare every issue of the daily worker or the people's gazette to tell whether or not if fits with article 134 of the "People's Broadcast Practices".

Furthermore, once such things become legalized, they will start to change as well. Societies tend to swing back and forth, and any majoritarian or plebiscitarian society will do so more than a republican or capito-statist one. Therefore, it is indeed quite possible that once the precedent has been laid out, a charismatic demagogue can rile the people into believing that Joe Shrugg's latest editorial on agriculture policy is an attack on the foundations of communism. After all no one can really say that it isn't, the laws are pretty complicated and well.... no one really likes that Joes Shrugg...

So what do we do?
Arrest him?
Execute him?

Even in a blatantly obvious case: Wilhelm Shmidt and the Kill the Jews Quartterly... what do we do?

Punishement and "corrections" in a communist society is always difficult, but when it comes to punnishing ideas or the promulgation thereof, it's much tougher.

Some might say we "take away their means of publication", but such a practice would turn the censorship into a joke. Mr. Shmidt would just open a new paper and then a new one and.... Eventually he would simply distribute it among his friends and fellow idealogues, who were probably the only ones reading it to begin with...

It is remarkably easy to open a printing-press or broadcast station, and much easier to simply start a web site. The ISPs would be controlled by the workers of course, but as anyone working NT will tell you, the internet is nearely impossible to control. Censoring websites is a full time job.

Do we want the resources and labour of the collective going to that? Funding rooms of IT personal crawling the internet in search of "reactionary" propaganda?

And when the come upon something they don't like... we're right back where we started with a massive "rule book" and "law code" needing even more full time staff to explain and "interpret".

It isn't worth it.

Capitalist society has not played fair, but in post-revolutionary society...who gives a damn. Concerns about "tit for tat" and "getting them back" are entirely petty.

The bouregoisie are no longer in controll, who cares what they did when they were.

No one denies that the press is a powerfull medium, and propaganda a powerfull tool, but, in the end, it is far more dangerous to post-revolutionary society to try and muzzle that tool than it is to simply oppose it.

The simple fact is that after a successful revolution, the vast majority of people will be far better off and the only way to combat reactionary lies is not to try and legislate them away, but to actually show that they are lies. Ultimately, you'd have to do that anyway.

[Comfort]

we need free speech and freedom of press, that way we have an opposition to keep us in line. not all right wing ideals are bad and not all left wing ideals are good. the best way to keep a governments integrity is to allow critisism. we don't like it when we are suppressed so why should we force that upon others. free speech and press should be a simple matter of true freedom. i like what socialistfuture had to say "if a socialist society was worth existing it should be able to withstand critisism and dissent". absolutely.

[Comfort]

we need free speech and freedom of press, that way we have an opposition to keep us in line. not all right wing ideals are bad and not all left wing ideals are good. the best way to keep a governments integrity is to allow critisism. we don't like it when we are suppressed so why should we force that upon others. free speech and press should be a simple matter of true freedom. i like what socialistfuture had to say "if a socialist society was worth existing it should be able to withstand critisism and dissent". absolutely.

[Comfort]

we need free speech and freedom of press, that way we have an opposition to keep us in line. not all right wing ideals are bad and not all left wing ideals are good. the best way to keep a governments integrity is to allow critisism. we don't like it when we are suppressed so why should we force that upon others. free speech and press should be a simple matter of true freedom. i like what socialistfuture had to say "if a socialist society was worth existing it should be able to withstand critisism and dissent". absolutely.

[commiecrusader]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 01:23 AM
This is not very clear to me...but it almost appears that you're saying what I have said in different worlds.

If (1) the working class effectively controls access to all the media; and (2) the capitalist class is deprived of their wealth...making it impossible to hire people to spread their views; then you have effectively suppressed "free speech" for reactionaries...without ever saying that you're doing that.

I can live with that. :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I can see where you're coming from lol. But to me what you seemed to suggest was actively seeking out to stop opposition from publicising views. What I mean is that in the 'chaotic aftermath of a revolution', cappies won't be able to get near the means to broadcast views, not because people actively want to stop them expressing themselves, but because the workers will not want to lose control of important areas. And following this, when everything has settled down a bit, no ammount of right-wing rhetoric will blind people to the absolute supremacy of a left-wing world over a right-wing one, so the cappies can preach as much as they like.

And I too think socialistfuture summed it up perfectly.

[commiecrusader]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 01:23 AM
This is not very clear to me...but it almost appears that you're saying what I have said in different worlds.

If (1) the working class effectively controls access to all the media; and (2) the capitalist class is deprived of their wealth...making it impossible to hire people to spread their views; then you have effectively suppressed "free speech" for reactionaries...without ever saying that you're doing that.

I can live with that. :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I can see where you're coming from lol. But to me what you seemed to suggest was actively seeking out to stop opposition from publicising views. What I mean is that in the 'chaotic aftermath of a revolution', cappies won't be able to get near the means to broadcast views, not because people actively want to stop them expressing themselves, but because the workers will not want to lose control of important areas. And following this, when everything has settled down a bit, no ammount of right-wing rhetoric will blind people to the absolute supremacy of a left-wing world over a right-wing one, so the cappies can preach as much as they like.

And I too think socialistfuture summed it up perfectly.

[commiecrusader]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 01:23 AM
This is not very clear to me...but it almost appears that you're saying what I have said in different worlds.

If (1) the working class effectively controls access to all the media; and (2) the capitalist class is deprived of their wealth...making it impossible to hire people to spread their views; then you have effectively suppressed "free speech" for reactionaries...without ever saying that you're doing that.

I can live with that. :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I can see where you're coming from lol. But to me what you seemed to suggest was actively seeking out to stop opposition from publicising views. What I mean is that in the 'chaotic aftermath of a revolution', cappies won't be able to get near the means to broadcast views, not because people actively want to stop them expressing themselves, but because the workers will not want to lose control of important areas. And following this, when everything has settled down a bit, no ammount of right-wing rhetoric will blind people to the absolute supremacy of a left-wing world over a right-wing one, so the cappies can preach as much as they like.

And I too think socialistfuture summed it up perfectly.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:50 PM
I can see where you're coming from lol. But to me what you seemed to suggest was actively seeking out to stop opposition from publicising views. What I mean is that in the 'chaotic aftermath of a revolution', cappies won't be able to get near the means to broadcast views, not because people actively want to stop them expressing themselves, but because the workers will not want to lose control of important areas.
Ah Radio Rebelde!
My feelings on who gets to broadcast are deep. You must draft some sort of document, ie.) constitution as to the rights of broadcasters, but if the rules are to authoritative then the bureaucracy penalizes smaller broadcasters and individuals more than larger broadcasters who can find better representation. Of course all of this would be state owned, but still workers who identify with a larger station are going to defend it with whatever means are at their disposal.

I would follow the path of Thomas Paine rather than that of Stalin to be sure, sorry to bring up a sore point, yes I know that was a far cry from any pure form of Marxism, but it does point to how too much bureacracy can create a black market. OF course under Stalin the bureacrats who were being bribbed became a higher social class, so they had nothing to do with any spirit of the Revolution.

So what means do we use to be sure there is not corruption on the part of the gatekeeper, in theory these are always nice guys, but in reality anyone who's gone through a difficult border can attest to the reality, that sadistic bastards take gatekeeper positions to gain heigtened degrees of power.

So how would we counterbalance that. Looking at the mayhem that became the Iranian state after the Revolution where all true Communists were executed and a sour Islamic state took it's place, we can see the darkness of controls of censorship based on what is Revolutionary and what is Counter Revolutionary, I also point to the battles against Anarchists in Russia after the Russian Revolution.

There is a lot to be said for freedom of speech, when I even proposed stronger controls on conditions for sex workers and performers in pornography I was struck down by those who wished no controls, some on this board even sided pro Child Pornography. So this is difficult.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:50 PM
I can see where you're coming from lol. But to me what you seemed to suggest was actively seeking out to stop opposition from publicising views. What I mean is that in the 'chaotic aftermath of a revolution', cappies won't be able to get near the means to broadcast views, not because people actively want to stop them expressing themselves, but because the workers will not want to lose control of important areas.
Ah Radio Rebelde!
My feelings on who gets to broadcast are deep. You must draft some sort of document, ie.) constitution as to the rights of broadcasters, but if the rules are to authoritative then the bureaucracy penalizes smaller broadcasters and individuals more than larger broadcasters who can find better representation. Of course all of this would be state owned, but still workers who identify with a larger station are going to defend it with whatever means are at their disposal.

I would follow the path of Thomas Paine rather than that of Stalin to be sure, sorry to bring up a sore point, yes I know that was a far cry from any pure form of Marxism, but it does point to how too much bureacracy can create a black market. OF course under Stalin the bureacrats who were being bribbed became a higher social class, so they had nothing to do with any spirit of the Revolution.

So what means do we use to be sure there is not corruption on the part of the gatekeeper, in theory these are always nice guys, but in reality anyone who's gone through a difficult border can attest to the reality, that sadistic bastards take gatekeeper positions to gain heigtened degrees of power.

So how would we counterbalance that. Looking at the mayhem that became the Iranian state after the Revolution where all true Communists were executed and a sour Islamic state took it's place, we can see the darkness of controls of censorship based on what is Revolutionary and what is Counter Revolutionary, I also point to the battles against Anarchists in Russia after the Russian Revolution.

There is a lot to be said for freedom of speech, when I even proposed stronger controls on conditions for sex workers and performers in pornography I was struck down by those who wished no controls, some on this board even sided pro Child Pornography. So this is difficult.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:50 PM
I can see where you're coming from lol. But to me what you seemed to suggest was actively seeking out to stop opposition from publicising views. What I mean is that in the 'chaotic aftermath of a revolution', cappies won't be able to get near the means to broadcast views, not because people actively want to stop them expressing themselves, but because the workers will not want to lose control of important areas.
Ah Radio Rebelde!
My feelings on who gets to broadcast are deep. You must draft some sort of document, ie.) constitution as to the rights of broadcasters, but if the rules are to authoritative then the bureaucracy penalizes smaller broadcasters and individuals more than larger broadcasters who can find better representation. Of course all of this would be state owned, but still workers who identify with a larger station are going to defend it with whatever means are at their disposal.

I would follow the path of Thomas Paine rather than that of Stalin to be sure, sorry to bring up a sore point, yes I know that was a far cry from any pure form of Marxism, but it does point to how too much bureacracy can create a black market. OF course under Stalin the bureacrats who were being bribbed became a higher social class, so they had nothing to do with any spirit of the Revolution.

So what means do we use to be sure there is not corruption on the part of the gatekeeper, in theory these are always nice guys, but in reality anyone who's gone through a difficult border can attest to the reality, that sadistic bastards take gatekeeper positions to gain heigtened degrees of power.

So how would we counterbalance that. Looking at the mayhem that became the Iranian state after the Revolution where all true Communists were executed and a sour Islamic state took it's place, we can see the darkness of controls of censorship based on what is Revolutionary and what is Counter Revolutionary, I also point to the battles against Anarchists in Russia after the Russian Revolution.

There is a lot to be said for freedom of speech, when I even proposed stronger controls on conditions for sex workers and performers in pornography I was struck down by those who wished no controls, some on this board even sided pro Child Pornography. So this is difficult.

[redstar2000]

If anyone sees a program or reads a paper they believe is "reactionary" or "bourgeois", they go to the writer or producer and beat them up?

It might come to that...at least in the early days.

When Nazis in San Francisco opened the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore" (early 80s), people did not demonstrate or go to the Board of Supervisors and ask for some statute to shut it down or hire lawyers to find some technicality in the city code that could be used against the Nazis, etc.

They just burned it to the ground.

That was the end of the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore".


But... do you call a special meeting of the entire collecitve every time someone disagrees? And how do you decide? Maybe the complainant does think it's reactionary propaganda, but someone else thinks it's legitimate criticism.

Well, I think you must give people some credit for common sense. If a particular individual or small group are "always *****ing"...then people will simply ignore their complaints.

I think it might work, on a larger scale, much in the way that "ban threads" work on this board. In the past, some people were always wanting to ban this or that guy...and after a while, people grew weary of it. On the other hand, some bans were clearly justified...I recall one hapless individual that accumulated a vote of 27-0 in favor of a ban in less than 24 hours.


Otherwise we face the Periclean problem all over again, and whomever can "prove their case" better (i.e., whomever is the better speaker) will win.

I prefer this option to any form of "codified rules"...for precisely the reasons you outlined.

In matters of controversy among the people, it's a grave error -- in my opinion -- to decide such matters "legally"...that is, according to some kind of "code". To have formal codes and try to enforce them would simply be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I think it's much better if people informally work out, over time, what the range of "legitimate opinion" is.

It will be different in different places...though perhaps not on "major issues".

And much of it might well be left up to the media collective involved. Imagine a daily newspaper collective involving 200 or so people. One of them submits an article that is or could be construed to be marginally "pro-capitalist". A small fuss is raised.

He does it again and then once more. And his pro-capitalist bias becomes clearer and even strident.

A big fuss erupts...and by a vote of 116 to 62, he's out on his ass. Can he find another newspaper collective that will have him? Are there people who would be willing to work with him on a new paper? Would paper workers be willing to supply him with newsprint? Would workers who manufacture mainframe computers be willing to give him & his new collective one? How about presses? How about electricity? How about building space?

Sure, he could argue his views on the internet...though even then if people find out who he is, he could discover that no internet service collective would be willing to connect him.

He could even become something of a "social pariah"...few might even be willing to speak to him, much less socialize with him.

After 1865, anyone in the U.S. who publicly advocated the restoration of slavery would have been in pretty serious trouble...without breaking a single law.

I don't think I've ever read of such a case.

What I expect on the part of reactionaries is not an open expression of their views, but rather an advocacy of ideas that, if implemented, would re-establish the foundations of class society.

Watch out for people who consistently advocate greater centralization, new and larger bureaucracies, placing more power in the hands of "qualified" people, re-introducing "market mechanisms", "professionalizing" organs of repression or defense, etc. (And they'll blubber a lot about "freedom of religion" too!)

We don't need any of that crap and I don't see why we should permit it.


Capitalist society has not played fair, but in post-revolutionary society...who gives a damn. Concerns about "tit for tat" and "getting them back" are entirely petty.

It's not simply a matter of "class spite".

The reason that the capitalist class has never "played fair" with us is because they want to win.

Our motivation is exactly the same. If making it difficult or impossible for reactionary ideas to get a "fair hearing" will help us win -- and I think it will -- then I'm for it.


We need free speech and freedom of press; that way we have an opposition to keep us in line.

But "we" are not a "government" or a "ruling party". Communist society doesn't have those things.


Not all right wing ideals are bad and not all left wing ideals are good.

Well, I've read some "lefties" who do indeed have some pretty bad "ideals".

But "good" right-wing "ideals"???

Examples?


The best way to keep a government's integrity is to allow criticism.

I repeat: we are not a government. Power in communist society rests in the people as a whole.

And they will criticize all the time! :lol:


Of course all of this would be state owned...

"Ownership" is a concept that does not apply in communist society; trusteeship would be a better word.

If a broadcasting collective began to broadcast reactionary ideas, the electrical workers could and probably would "pull the plug"...revoking the trusteeship, as it were.


So this is difficult.

I think the biggest difficulty in this whole question is that it tends to be raised abstractly rather than in real-world practical terms.

And when it is raised in practical terms, some people seem to have difficulties seperating out the routine assumptions of class society from what would be far more likely to be the routine assumptions of classless society.

A new world is really that...not just the old world with a fresh coat of red paint.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

If anyone sees a program or reads a paper they believe is "reactionary" or "bourgeois", they go to the writer or producer and beat them up?

It might come to that...at least in the early days.

When Nazis in San Francisco opened the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore" (early 80s), people did not demonstrate or go to the Board of Supervisors and ask for some statute to shut it down or hire lawyers to find some technicality in the city code that could be used against the Nazis, etc.

They just burned it to the ground.

That was the end of the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore".


But... do you call a special meeting of the entire collecitve every time someone disagrees? And how do you decide? Maybe the complainant does think it's reactionary propaganda, but someone else thinks it's legitimate criticism.

Well, I think you must give people some credit for common sense. If a particular individual or small group are "always *****ing"...then people will simply ignore their complaints.

I think it might work, on a larger scale, much in the way that "ban threads" work on this board. In the past, some people were always wanting to ban this or that guy...and after a while, people grew weary of it. On the other hand, some bans were clearly justified...I recall one hapless individual that accumulated a vote of 27-0 in favor of a ban in less than 24 hours.


Otherwise we face the Periclean problem all over again, and whomever can "prove their case" better (i.e., whomever is the better speaker) will win.

I prefer this option to any form of "codified rules"...for precisely the reasons you outlined.

In matters of controversy among the people, it's a grave error -- in my opinion -- to decide such matters "legally"...that is, according to some kind of "code". To have formal codes and try to enforce them would simply be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I think it's much better if people informally work out, over time, what the range of "legitimate opinion" is.

It will be different in different places...though perhaps not on "major issues".

And much of it might well be left up to the media collective involved. Imagine a daily newspaper collective involving 200 or so people. One of them submits an article that is or could be construed to be marginally "pro-capitalist". A small fuss is raised.

He does it again and then once more. And his pro-capitalist bias becomes clearer and even strident.

A big fuss erupts...and by a vote of 116 to 62, he's out on his ass. Can he find another newspaper collective that will have him? Are there people who would be willing to work with him on a new paper? Would paper workers be willing to supply him with newsprint? Would workers who manufacture mainframe computers be willing to give him & his new collective one? How about presses? How about electricity? How about building space?

Sure, he could argue his views on the internet...though even then if people find out who he is, he could discover that no internet service collective would be willing to connect him.

He could even become something of a "social pariah"...few might even be willing to speak to him, much less socialize with him.

After 1865, anyone in the U.S. who publicly advocated the restoration of slavery would have been in pretty serious trouble...without breaking a single law.

I don't think I've ever read of such a case.

What I expect on the part of reactionaries is not an open expression of their views, but rather an advocacy of ideas that, if implemented, would re-establish the foundations of class society.

Watch out for people who consistently advocate greater centralization, new and larger bureaucracies, placing more power in the hands of "qualified" people, re-introducing "market mechanisms", "professionalizing" organs of repression or defense, etc. (And they'll blubber a lot about "freedom of religion" too!)

We don't need any of that crap and I don't see why we should permit it.


Capitalist society has not played fair, but in post-revolutionary society...who gives a damn. Concerns about "tit for tat" and "getting them back" are entirely petty.

It's not simply a matter of "class spite".

The reason that the capitalist class has never "played fair" with us is because they want to win.

Our motivation is exactly the same. If making it difficult or impossible for reactionary ideas to get a "fair hearing" will help us win -- and I think it will -- then I'm for it.


We need free speech and freedom of press; that way we have an opposition to keep us in line.

But "we" are not a "government" or a "ruling party". Communist society doesn't have those things.


Not all right wing ideals are bad and not all left wing ideals are good.

Well, I've read some "lefties" who do indeed have some pretty bad "ideals".

But "good" right-wing "ideals"???

Examples?


The best way to keep a government's integrity is to allow criticism.

I repeat: we are not a government. Power in communist society rests in the people as a whole.

And they will criticize all the time! :lol:


Of course all of this would be state owned...

"Ownership" is a concept that does not apply in communist society; trusteeship would be a better word.

If a broadcasting collective began to broadcast reactionary ideas, the electrical workers could and probably would "pull the plug"...revoking the trusteeship, as it were.


So this is difficult.

I think the biggest difficulty in this whole question is that it tends to be raised abstractly rather than in real-world practical terms.

And when it is raised in practical terms, some people seem to have difficulties seperating out the routine assumptions of class society from what would be far more likely to be the routine assumptions of classless society.

A new world is really that...not just the old world with a fresh coat of red paint.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

If anyone sees a program or reads a paper they believe is "reactionary" or "bourgeois", they go to the writer or producer and beat them up?

It might come to that...at least in the early days.

When Nazis in San Francisco opened the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore" (early 80s), people did not demonstrate or go to the Board of Supervisors and ask for some statute to shut it down or hire lawyers to find some technicality in the city code that could be used against the Nazis, etc.

They just burned it to the ground.

That was the end of the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore".


But... do you call a special meeting of the entire collecitve every time someone disagrees? And how do you decide? Maybe the complainant does think it's reactionary propaganda, but someone else thinks it's legitimate criticism.

Well, I think you must give people some credit for common sense. If a particular individual or small group are "always *****ing"...then people will simply ignore their complaints.

I think it might work, on a larger scale, much in the way that "ban threads" work on this board. In the past, some people were always wanting to ban this or that guy...and after a while, people grew weary of it. On the other hand, some bans were clearly justified...I recall one hapless individual that accumulated a vote of 27-0 in favor of a ban in less than 24 hours.


Otherwise we face the Periclean problem all over again, and whomever can "prove their case" better (i.e., whomever is the better speaker) will win.

I prefer this option to any form of "codified rules"...for precisely the reasons you outlined.

In matters of controversy among the people, it's a grave error -- in my opinion -- to decide such matters "legally"...that is, according to some kind of "code". To have formal codes and try to enforce them would simply be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I think it's much better if people informally work out, over time, what the range of "legitimate opinion" is.

It will be different in different places...though perhaps not on "major issues".

And much of it might well be left up to the media collective involved. Imagine a daily newspaper collective involving 200 or so people. One of them submits an article that is or could be construed to be marginally "pro-capitalist". A small fuss is raised.

He does it again and then once more. And his pro-capitalist bias becomes clearer and even strident.

A big fuss erupts...and by a vote of 116 to 62, he's out on his ass. Can he find another newspaper collective that will have him? Are there people who would be willing to work with him on a new paper? Would paper workers be willing to supply him with newsprint? Would workers who manufacture mainframe computers be willing to give him & his new collective one? How about presses? How about electricity? How about building space?

Sure, he could argue his views on the internet...though even then if people find out who he is, he could discover that no internet service collective would be willing to connect him.

He could even become something of a "social pariah"...few might even be willing to speak to him, much less socialize with him.

After 1865, anyone in the U.S. who publicly advocated the restoration of slavery would have been in pretty serious trouble...without breaking a single law.

I don't think I've ever read of such a case.

What I expect on the part of reactionaries is not an open expression of their views, but rather an advocacy of ideas that, if implemented, would re-establish the foundations of class society.

Watch out for people who consistently advocate greater centralization, new and larger bureaucracies, placing more power in the hands of "qualified" people, re-introducing "market mechanisms", "professionalizing" organs of repression or defense, etc. (And they'll blubber a lot about "freedom of religion" too!)

We don't need any of that crap and I don't see why we should permit it.


Capitalist society has not played fair, but in post-revolutionary society...who gives a damn. Concerns about "tit for tat" and "getting them back" are entirely petty.

It's not simply a matter of "class spite".

The reason that the capitalist class has never "played fair" with us is because they want to win.

Our motivation is exactly the same. If making it difficult or impossible for reactionary ideas to get a "fair hearing" will help us win -- and I think it will -- then I'm for it.


We need free speech and freedom of press; that way we have an opposition to keep us in line.

But "we" are not a "government" or a "ruling party". Communist society doesn't have those things.


Not all right wing ideals are bad and not all left wing ideals are good.

Well, I've read some "lefties" who do indeed have some pretty bad "ideals".

But "good" right-wing "ideals"???

Examples?


The best way to keep a government's integrity is to allow criticism.

I repeat: we are not a government. Power in communist society rests in the people as a whole.

And they will criticize all the time! :lol:


Of course all of this would be state owned...

"Ownership" is a concept that does not apply in communist society; trusteeship would be a better word.

If a broadcasting collective began to broadcast reactionary ideas, the electrical workers could and probably would "pull the plug"...revoking the trusteeship, as it were.


So this is difficult.

I think the biggest difficulty in this whole question is that it tends to be raised abstractly rather than in real-world practical terms.

And when it is raised in practical terms, some people seem to have difficulties seperating out the routine assumptions of class society from what would be far more likely to be the routine assumptions of classless society.

A new world is really that...not just the old world with a fresh coat of red paint.

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

It might come to that...at least in the early days.

When Nazis in San Francisco opened the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore" (early 80s), people did not demonstrate or go to the Board of Supervisors and ask for some statute to shut it down or hire lawyers to find some technicality in the city code that could be used against the Nazis, etc.

They just burned it to the ground.

That was the end of the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore".

While such actions are warrented and even nescessary durring any revolution, once society has calmed they become dangerous if too repeated or extreme.

While "burning down" a bookstore or its equivalent might work in the short run, there are two obvious problems I forsee.

Firstly, even "spur of the momment" protests such as the one you outlined need general approval ultimately. If my "Nazi bookstore" were burned down I know I would complain to someone. Now, in any post-revolutionary society, I would more than likely be laughed out of the room, but there is still a consensus being made.

What complicates the matter, is that most of the "grey issues" won't be as clear-cut as bookstores names after famous Nazis. They will be concerns that really do require some consideration. It is in these cases that the risk of demagoguery or biggotry or even simple ideological disagreements really emerge.

It is quite possible that mass movements will emerge spontaneously just as you theorize, but the problem is that those mass movements will not nescessarily reflect the views of the collective as a whole, nor nescessarily be correct in their analysis of the facts.

Now, I am not suggesting that the "Adolf Hitler Memorial Shrine" is not deserving of some serious vandalism, but I am suggesting that the "Center for Critical Sociology" is not. And that while such an institution could be a cover for reactionary subversion, it is not nescessarily and there is a critical danger that if "bookstore burnings" are condoned by a society, any organization, location, or individual could come under fire for trivial or even illusionary reasons.

The second problem I see with "spur of the momment" censorship is that it inevitably leads to unequal justice. That is, if I put up my "reactionary" library in one area it may illicit an instant response, but if I put it up a mile down the road, it won't. This is a rather abstarct principle, but it's an important one in any just society. There has to be a sense of an equally applicable society, for people to trust that society and believe it's protecting them.

From a more "down to earth" perspective, "reactionaries" will simply learn to "hide better" or learn what neighbourhoods will more easily "put up" with them.


Well, I think you must give people some credit for common sense. If a particular individual or small group are "always *****ing"...then people will simply ignore their complaints.

Yes and no.

Complaints stemming from similar motives or interpretations will not nescessarily always come in from the same person, nor will the source of such complaints always be evident.

Hey, I heard from Bob who heard from Caron who heard from etc.... that Don Lucienne is distributing a reactionary publication!

Now such problems may diminish as the size of collectives shrink, but in any reasonably sized community "things get around" and people cannot be on hand to empiracly verify everything they hear.

Furthermore, even someone's first or second complaint could be disastreous if they are incorrect in their assesment. Likewise, persuasive enough individuals could probably remain convincing even if they had indeed "always *****ing".


[b]I think it might work, on a larger scale, much in the way that "ban threads" work on this board. In the past, some people were always wanting to ban this or that guy...and after a while, people grew weary of it. On the other hand, some bans were clearly justified...I recall one hapless individual that accumulated a vote of 27-0 in favor of a ban in less than 24 hours.

Sometimes it would work, sometimes it wouldn't.

It is still dangerous to trust in the long term, and espcially when it affects people so directly.


I prefer this option to any form of "codified rules"...for precisely the reasons you outlined.

In matters of controversy among the people, it's a grave error -- in my opinion -- to decide such matters "legally"...that is, according to some kind of "code". To have formal codes and try to enforce them would simply be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I think it's much better if people informally work out, over time, what the range of "legitimate opinion" is.

It will be different in different places...though perhaps not on "major issues".

In many ways this option is as dangerous as "codified rules", although for markedly different reasons.

The danger of codified "press rules" is the introduction of a bureacratic class and all that goes with it, the danger of "press rules" without codification is chaos.

Differing standards across tiny areas, vastly differnt restrictions in a single community.

While perhaps conforming to some sense of "local attitudes", in any reasonaly advanced civilization, it's wholly untennable.

"Local attitudes" simply do not exist in such an "interconnected world" and while I'm loathe to use such "buzzwords", the fact is that without some sort of standardization, the "loosest rules" go, as it were. That is, the region or area that is the most permissive will simply become home to those who wish to publish or print things that would alternately be excluded. This means that, no matter what the "legitimate opinion" in any other area is, those residence will be subject to what comes out of the "looser" one.

So basically we're back where we started, except that instead of the whole collective agreeing on a set of rules, now whichever part of the collective is the most "liberal" will choose these rules for everyone. This is a less inclusive scenario in which all of the earlier problems still persist.

Because with each precedent set, be it in a "community wide" standard or the pradigm I outlined above, some sort of record must be kept (if only for comparitive or schollarly purposes) and eventually something very much like a "law code" will develop. Precent turns to practice, practice turns to regulation. In the end, it's the same problems all over again.


And much of it might well be left up to the media collective involved. Imagine a daily newspaper collective involving 200 or so people. One of them submits an article that is or could be construed to be marginally "pro-capitalist". A small fuss is raised.

He does it again and then once more. And his pro-capitalist bias becomes clearer and even strident.

A big fuss erupts...and by a vote of 116 to 62, he's out on his ass.


Personally, I have no problem with that scenario, but you see that is basic journalistic censorship, which must happen be it a communist paper or a fascist one. What is censored will change, but selective publication is unavoidable.


Can he find another newspaper collective that will have him? Are there people who would be willing to work with him on a new paper? Would paper workers be willing to supply him with newsprint? Would workers who manufacture mainframe computers be willing to give him & his new collective one? How about presses? How about electricity? How about building space?

Sure, he could argue his views on the internet...though even then if people find out who he is, he could discover that no internet service collective would be willing to connect him.


That's where the issue gets more contentious.

It doesn't take that much to circulate a "pamphlet" or "newletter", and yes, the internet is always an option.

As for the question you ask, I think you are taking a rather "monlithic" view of society. You assume that all the "mainframe computer" manufacturers and all the "paper workers" and all the electricity provers and all the potential journalists agree with the decision to kick him "out on his ass".

As I recall, the vote was 116 to 62.

That means fully 35% of his fellow workers disagreed with his firing, and that's only among those who were actually there. People outside may not have heard the "full story", or even if they did i,t may have heard a distorted version, and many others, like the 62, may simply disagree.

Granted, it is possible that most of those 35% simply didn't think he should be fired at that time but that his ideas were generally wrong, but it is almost certain that some of them didn't.

What if only 10 of the 62 didn't? He has 10 potential workers right there.

As far as the basic supplies he'd need, I think you'd find it would be pretty easy. There's always someone who you can convince if you're persuasive enough, he managed to convince 62 of his old comrades and they knew the context.



He could even become something of a "social pariah"...few might even be willing to speak to him, much less socialize with him.


He could even become something of a "social pariah"...few might even be willing to speak to him, much less socialize with him.

I find that even more unlikely.

Certainly, his friends wouldn't abandon him over that, by that time they probably already knew about his oppinions. Furthemore, in life people rarely seem to base associations on politics. He might find some new enemies, but in any pluralistic society he might find some new friends as well. Quite possibly people who agree with him and are looking for like minded individuals.

Such a public "booting" would turn him into a bit of a "minor celebrity" and celebrity is always "sexy", for fifteen minutes at least.


What I expect on the part of reactionaries is not an open expression of their views, but rather an advocacy of ideas that, if implemented, would re-establish the foundations of class society.

Watch out for people who consistently advocate greater centralization, new and larger bureaucracies, placing more power in the hands of "qualified" people, re-introducing "market mechanisms", "professionalizing" organs of repression or defense, etc. (And they'll blubber a lot about "freedom of religion" too!)

We don't need any of that crap and I don't see why we should permit it.

Because you really can't outline what is and what isn't permissable in a few paragraphs.

Once you get "down and dirty" you find that real honest disagreements are far more complex.


It's not simply a matter of "class spite".

The reason that the capitalist class has never "played fair" with us is because they want to win.

Our motivation is exactly the same. If making it difficult or impossible for reactionary ideas to get a "fair hearing" will help us win -- and I think it will -- then I'm for it.

Yes, but we are discussing a world in which we have already "won".

The fight may never be "over", but it will certainly have calmed.

In this environment, the kind of censorship you propose would do more damage to communist aims than it would to reactionary ones. Rightists will still be able to communicate their ideas, be it through surrupticious documents or through plain old-fasion conversation.

The risk of either bureacracy or chaos is far more pronounced than that of a few articles about "market mechanisms" or "professionalizing".

The so-called "chilling effect" is as dangerous, if not more so, in a communist societ than in a capitalist one.


I think the biggest difficulty in this whole question is that it tends to be raised abstractly rather than in real-world practical terms.

I disagree.

From an abstract perspective, good is good, bad is bad, right is right, and wrong is wrong.
"Reactionary" dogma should not be allowed ever![/i]

But... in the "real world" it is not that easy to differentiate between "reactionary" and "critical". From a pragmatic perspective, such absolutes quickly fade into delusions.


A new world is really that...not just the old world with a fresh coat of red paint.

Exactly right.

But to maintain that "new world", we must be able to ensure that while rightists don't gain the "upper hand" they also don't "scare" us into hurting ourselves.

The dangers of "reactionaries" in a functional post-revolutionary environment will be severly limited, their "cries" won't have much resonance.

Let's not give them more credit than they deserve.

[LSD]

It might come to that...at least in the early days.

When Nazis in San Francisco opened the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore" (early 80s), people did not demonstrate or go to the Board of Supervisors and ask for some statute to shut it down or hire lawyers to find some technicality in the city code that could be used against the Nazis, etc.

They just burned it to the ground.

That was the end of the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore".

While such actions are warrented and even nescessary durring any revolution, once society has calmed they become dangerous if too repeated or extreme.

While "burning down" a bookstore or its equivalent might work in the short run, there are two obvious problems I forsee.

Firstly, even "spur of the momment" protests such as the one you outlined need general approval ultimately. If my "Nazi bookstore" were burned down I know I would complain to someone. Now, in any post-revolutionary society, I would more than likely be laughed out of the room, but there is still a consensus being made.

What complicates the matter, is that most of the "grey issues" won't be as clear-cut as bookstores names after famous Nazis. They will be concerns that really do require some consideration. It is in these cases that the risk of demagoguery or biggotry or even simple ideological disagreements really emerge.

It is quite possible that mass movements will emerge spontaneously just as you theorize, but the problem is that those mass movements will not nescessarily reflect the views of the collective as a whole, nor nescessarily be correct in their analysis of the facts.

Now, I am not suggesting that the "Adolf Hitler Memorial Shrine" is not deserving of some serious vandalism, but I am suggesting that the "Center for Critical Sociology" is not. And that while such an institution could be a cover for reactionary subversion, it is not nescessarily and there is a critical danger that if "bookstore burnings" are condoned by a society, any organization, location, or individual could come under fire for trivial or even illusionary reasons.

The second problem I see with "spur of the momment" censorship is that it inevitably leads to unequal justice. That is, if I put up my "reactionary" library in one area it may illicit an instant response, but if I put it up a mile down the road, it won't. This is a rather abstarct principle, but it's an important one in any just society. There has to be a sense of an equally applicable society, for people to trust that society and believe it's protecting them.

From a more "down to earth" perspective, "reactionaries" will simply learn to "hide better" or learn what neighbourhoods will more easily "put up" with them.


Well, I think you must give people some credit for common sense. If a particular individual or small group are "always *****ing"...then people will simply ignore their complaints.

Yes and no.

Complaints stemming from similar motives or interpretations will not nescessarily always come in from the same person, nor will the source of such complaints always be evident.

Hey, I heard from Bob who heard from Caron who heard from etc.... that Don Lucienne is distributing a reactionary publication!

Now such problems may diminish as the size of collectives shrink, but in any reasonably sized community "things get around" and people cannot be on hand to empiracly verify everything they hear.

Furthermore, even someone's first or second complaint could be disastreous if they are incorrect in their assesment. Likewise, persuasive enough individuals could probably remain convincing even if they had indeed "always *****ing".


[b]I think it might work, on a larger scale, much in the way that "ban threads" work on this board. In the past, some people were always wanting to ban this or that guy...and after a while, people grew weary of it. On the other hand, some bans were clearly justified...I recall one hapless individual that accumulated a vote of 27-0 in favor of a ban in less than 24 hours.

Sometimes it would work, sometimes it wouldn't.

It is still dangerous to trust in the long term, and espcially when it affects people so directly.


I prefer this option to any form of "codified rules"...for precisely the reasons you outlined.

In matters of controversy among the people, it's a grave error -- in my opinion -- to decide such matters "legally"...that is, according to some kind of "code". To have formal codes and try to enforce them would simply be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I think it's much better if people informally work out, over time, what the range of "legitimate opinion" is.

It will be different in different places...though perhaps not on "major issues".

In many ways this option is as dangerous as "codified rules", although for markedly different reasons.

The danger of codified "press rules" is the introduction of a bureacratic class and all that goes with it, the danger of "press rules" without codification is chaos.

Differing standards across tiny areas, vastly differnt restrictions in a single community.

While perhaps conforming to some sense of "local attitudes", in any reasonaly advanced civilization, it's wholly untennable.

"Local attitudes" simply do not exist in such an "interconnected world" and while I'm loathe to use such "buzzwords", the fact is that without some sort of standardization, the "loosest rules" go, as it were. That is, the region or area that is the most permissive will simply become home to those who wish to publish or print things that would alternately be excluded. This means that, no matter what the "legitimate opinion" in any other area is, those residence will be subject to what comes out of the "looser" one.

So basically we're back where we started, except that instead of the whole collective agreeing on a set of rules, now whichever part of the collective is the most "liberal" will choose these rules for everyone. This is a less inclusive scenario in which all of the earlier problems still persist.

Because with each precedent set, be it in a "community wide" standard or the pradigm I outlined above, some sort of record must be kept (if only for comparitive or schollarly purposes) and eventually something very much like a "law code" will develop. Precent turns to practice, practice turns to regulation. In the end, it's the same problems all over again.


And much of it might well be left up to the media collective involved. Imagine a daily newspaper collective involving 200 or so people. One of them submits an article that is or could be construed to be marginally "pro-capitalist". A small fuss is raised.

He does it again and then once more. And his pro-capitalist bias becomes clearer and even strident.

A big fuss erupts...and by a vote of 116 to 62, he's out on his ass.


Personally, I have no problem with that scenario, but you see that is basic journalistic censorship, which must happen be it a communist paper or a fascist one. What is censored will change, but selective publication is unavoidable.


Can he find another newspaper collective that will have him? Are there people who would be willing to work with him on a new paper? Would paper workers be willing to supply him with newsprint? Would workers who manufacture mainframe computers be willing to give him & his new collective one? How about presses? How about electricity? How about building space?

Sure, he could argue his views on the internet...though even then if people find out who he is, he could discover that no internet service collective would be willing to connect him.


That's where the issue gets more contentious.

It doesn't take that much to circulate a "pamphlet" or "newletter", and yes, the internet is always an option.

As for the question you ask, I think you are taking a rather "monlithic" view of society. You assume that all the "mainframe computer" manufacturers and all the "paper workers" and all the electricity provers and all the potential journalists agree with the decision to kick him "out on his ass".

As I recall, the vote was 116 to 62.

That means fully 35% of his fellow workers disagreed with his firing, and that's only among those who were actually there. People outside may not have heard the "full story", or even if they did i,t may have heard a distorted version, and many others, like the 62, may simply disagree.

Granted, it is possible that most of those 35% simply didn't think he should be fired at that time but that his ideas were generally wrong, but it is almost certain that some of them didn't.

What if only 10 of the 62 didn't? He has 10 potential workers right there.

As far as the basic supplies he'd need, I think you'd find it would be pretty easy. There's always someone who you can convince if you're persuasive enough, he managed to convince 62 of his old comrades and they knew the context.



He could even become something of a "social pariah"...few might even be willing to speak to him, much less socialize with him.


He could even become something of a "social pariah"...few might even be willing to speak to him, much less socialize with him.

I find that even more unlikely.

Certainly, his friends wouldn't abandon him over that, by that time they probably already knew about his oppinions. Furthemore, in life people rarely seem to base associations on politics. He might find some new enemies, but in any pluralistic society he might find some new friends as well. Quite possibly people who agree with him and are looking for like minded individuals.

Such a public "booting" would turn him into a bit of a "minor celebrity" and celebrity is always "sexy", for fifteen minutes at least.


What I expect on the part of reactionaries is not an open expression of their views, but rather an advocacy of ideas that, if implemented, would re-establish the foundations of class society.

Watch out for people who consistently advocate greater centralization, new and larger bureaucracies, placing more power in the hands of "qualified" people, re-introducing "market mechanisms", "professionalizing" organs of repression or defense, etc. (And they'll blubber a lot about "freedom of religion" too!)

We don't need any of that crap and I don't see why we should permit it.

Because you really can't outline what is and what isn't permissable in a few paragraphs.

Once you get "down and dirty" you find that real honest disagreements are far more complex.


It's not simply a matter of "class spite".

The reason that the capitalist class has never "played fair" with us is because they want to win.

Our motivation is exactly the same. If making it difficult or impossible for reactionary ideas to get a "fair hearing" will help us win -- and I think it will -- then I'm for it.

Yes, but we are discussing a world in which we have already "won".

The fight may never be "over", but it will certainly have calmed.

In this environment, the kind of censorship you propose would do more damage to communist aims than it would to reactionary ones. Rightists will still be able to communicate their ideas, be it through surrupticious documents or through plain old-fasion conversation.

The risk of either bureacracy or chaos is far more pronounced than that of a few articles about "market mechanisms" or "professionalizing".

The so-called "chilling effect" is as dangerous, if not more so, in a communist societ than in a capitalist one.


I think the biggest difficulty in this whole question is that it tends to be raised abstractly rather than in real-world practical terms.

I disagree.

From an abstract perspective, good is good, bad is bad, right is right, and wrong is wrong.
"Reactionary" dogma should not be allowed ever![/i]

But... in the "real world" it is not that easy to differentiate between "reactionary" and "critical". From a pragmatic perspective, such absolutes quickly fade into delusions.


A new world is really that...not just the old world with a fresh coat of red paint.

Exactly right.

But to maintain that "new world", we must be able to ensure that while rightists don't gain the "upper hand" they also don't "scare" us into hurting ourselves.

The dangers of "reactionaries" in a functional post-revolutionary environment will be severly limited, their "cries" won't have much resonance.

Let's not give them more credit than they deserve.

[LSD]

It might come to that...at least in the early days.

When Nazis in San Francisco opened the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore" (early 80s), people did not demonstrate or go to the Board of Supervisors and ask for some statute to shut it down or hire lawyers to find some technicality in the city code that could be used against the Nazis, etc.

They just burned it to the ground.

That was the end of the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore".

While such actions are warrented and even nescessary durring any revolution, once society has calmed they become dangerous if too repeated or extreme.

While "burning down" a bookstore or its equivalent might work in the short run, there are two obvious problems I forsee.

Firstly, even "spur of the momment" protests such as the one you outlined need general approval ultimately. If my "Nazi bookstore" were burned down I know I would complain to someone. Now, in any post-revolutionary society, I would more than likely be laughed out of the room, but there is still a consensus being made.

What complicates the matter, is that most of the "grey issues" won't be as clear-cut as bookstores names after famous Nazis. They will be concerns that really do require some consideration. It is in these cases that the risk of demagoguery or biggotry or even simple ideological disagreements really emerge.

It is quite possible that mass movements will emerge spontaneously just as you theorize, but the problem is that those mass movements will not nescessarily reflect the views of the collective as a whole, nor nescessarily be correct in their analysis of the facts.

Now, I am not suggesting that the "Adolf Hitler Memorial Shrine" is not deserving of some serious vandalism, but I am suggesting that the "Center for Critical Sociology" is not. And that while such an institution could be a cover for reactionary subversion, it is not nescessarily and there is a critical danger that if "bookstore burnings" are condoned by a society, any organization, location, or individual could come under fire for trivial or even illusionary reasons.

The second problem I see with "spur of the momment" censorship is that it inevitably leads to unequal justice. That is, if I put up my "reactionary" library in one area it may illicit an instant response, but if I put it up a mile down the road, it won't. This is a rather abstarct principle, but it's an important one in any just society. There has to be a sense of an equally applicable society, for people to trust that society and believe it's protecting them.

From a more "down to earth" perspective, "reactionaries" will simply learn to "hide better" or learn what neighbourhoods will more easily "put up" with them.


Well, I think you must give people some credit for common sense. If a particular individual or small group are "always *****ing"...then people will simply ignore their complaints.

Yes and no.

Complaints stemming from similar motives or interpretations will not nescessarily always come in from the same person, nor will the source of such complaints always be evident.

Hey, I heard from Bob who heard from Caron who heard from etc.... that Don Lucienne is distributing a reactionary publication!

Now such problems may diminish as the size of collectives shrink, but in any reasonably sized community "things get around" and people cannot be on hand to empiracly verify everything they hear.

Furthermore, even someone's first or second complaint could be disastreous if they are incorrect in their assesment. Likewise, persuasive enough individuals could probably remain convincing even if they had indeed "always *****ing".


[b]I think it might work, on a larger scale, much in the way that "ban threads" work on this board. In the past, some people were always wanting to ban this or that guy...and after a while, people grew weary of it. On the other hand, some bans were clearly justified...I recall one hapless individual that accumulated a vote of 27-0 in favor of a ban in less than 24 hours.

Sometimes it would work, sometimes it wouldn't.

It is still dangerous to trust in the long term, and espcially when it affects people so directly.


I prefer this option to any form of "codified rules"...for precisely the reasons you outlined.

In matters of controversy among the people, it's a grave error -- in my opinion -- to decide such matters "legally"...that is, according to some kind of "code". To have formal codes and try to enforce them would simply be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I think it's much better if people informally work out, over time, what the range of "legitimate opinion" is.

It will be different in different places...though perhaps not on "major issues".

In many ways this option is as dangerous as "codified rules", although for markedly different reasons.

The danger of codified "press rules" is the introduction of a bureacratic class and all that goes with it, the danger of "press rules" without codification is chaos.

Differing standards across tiny areas, vastly differnt restrictions in a single community.

While perhaps conforming to some sense of "local attitudes", in any reasonaly advanced civilization, it's wholly untennable.

"Local attitudes" simply do not exist in such an "interconnected world" and while I'm loathe to use such "buzzwords", the fact is that without some sort of standardization, the "loosest rules" go, as it were. That is, the region or area that is the most permissive will simply become home to those who wish to publish or print things that would alternately be excluded. This means that, no matter what the "legitimate opinion" in any other area is, those residence will be subject to what comes out of the "looser" one.

So basically we're back where we started, except that instead of the whole collective agreeing on a set of rules, now whichever part of the collective is the most "liberal" will choose these rules for everyone. This is a less inclusive scenario in which all of the earlier problems still persist.

Because with each precedent set, be it in a "community wide" standard or the pradigm I outlined above, some sort of record must be kept (if only for comparitive or schollarly purposes) and eventually something very much like a "law code" will develop. Precent turns to practice, practice turns to regulation. In the end, it's the same problems all over again.


And much of it might well be left up to the media collective involved. Imagine a daily newspaper collective involving 200 or so people. One of them submits an article that is or could be construed to be marginally "pro-capitalist". A small fuss is raised.

He does it again and then once more. And his pro-capitalist bias becomes clearer and even strident.

A big fuss erupts...and by a vote of 116 to 62, he's out on his ass.


Personally, I have no problem with that scenario, but you see that is basic journalistic censorship, which must happen be it a communist paper or a fascist one. What is censored will change, but selective publication is unavoidable.


Can he find another newspaper collective that will have him? Are there people who would be willing to work with him on a new paper? Would paper workers be willing to supply him with newsprint? Would workers who manufacture mainframe computers be willing to give him & his new collective one? How about presses? How about electricity? How about building space?

Sure, he could argue his views on the internet...though even then if people find out who he is, he could discover that no internet service collective would be willing to connect him.


That's where the issue gets more contentious.

It doesn't take that much to circulate a "pamphlet" or "newletter", and yes, the internet is always an option.

As for the question you ask, I think you are taking a rather "monlithic" view of society. You assume that all the "mainframe computer" manufacturers and all the "paper workers" and all the electricity provers and all the potential journalists agree with the decision to kick him "out on his ass".

As I recall, the vote was 116 to 62.

That means fully 35% of his fellow workers disagreed with his firing, and that's only among those who were actually there. People outside may not have heard the "full story", or even if they did i,t may have heard a distorted version, and many others, like the 62, may simply disagree.

Granted, it is possible that most of those 35% simply didn't think he should be fired at that time but that his ideas were generally wrong, but it is almost certain that some of them didn't.

What if only 10 of the 62 didn't? He has 10 potential workers right there.

As far as the basic supplies he'd need, I think you'd find it would be pretty easy. There's always someone who you can convince if you're persuasive enough, he managed to convince 62 of his old comrades and they knew the context.



He could even become something of a "social pariah"...few might even be willing to speak to him, much less socialize with him.


He could even become something of a "social pariah"...few might even be willing to speak to him, much less socialize with him.

I find that even more unlikely.

Certainly, his friends wouldn't abandon him over that, by that time they probably already knew about his oppinions. Furthemore, in life people rarely seem to base associations on politics. He might find some new enemies, but in any pluralistic society he might find some new friends as well. Quite possibly people who agree with him and are looking for like minded individuals.

Such a public "booting" would turn him into a bit of a "minor celebrity" and celebrity is always "sexy", for fifteen minutes at least.


What I expect on the part of reactionaries is not an open expression of their views, but rather an advocacy of ideas that, if implemented, would re-establish the foundations of class society.

Watch out for people who consistently advocate greater centralization, new and larger bureaucracies, placing more power in the hands of "qualified" people, re-introducing "market mechanisms", "professionalizing" organs of repression or defense, etc. (And they'll blubber a lot about "freedom of religion" too!)

We don't need any of that crap and I don't see why we should permit it.

Because you really can't outline what is and what isn't permissable in a few paragraphs.

Once you get "down and dirty" you find that real honest disagreements are far more complex.


It's not simply a matter of "class spite".

The reason that the capitalist class has never "played fair" with us is because they want to win.

Our motivation is exactly the same. If making it difficult or impossible for reactionary ideas to get a "fair hearing" will help us win -- and I think it will -- then I'm for it.

Yes, but we are discussing a world in which we have already "won".

The fight may never be "over", but it will certainly have calmed.

In this environment, the kind of censorship you propose would do more damage to communist aims than it would to reactionary ones. Rightists will still be able to communicate their ideas, be it through surrupticious documents or through plain old-fasion conversation.

The risk of either bureacracy or chaos is far more pronounced than that of a few articles about "market mechanisms" or "professionalizing".

The so-called "chilling effect" is as dangerous, if not more so, in a communist societ than in a capitalist one.


I think the biggest difficulty in this whole question is that it tends to be raised abstractly rather than in real-world practical terms.

I disagree.

From an abstract perspective, good is good, bad is bad, right is right, and wrong is wrong.
"Reactionary" dogma should not be allowed ever![/i]

But... in the "real world" it is not that easy to differentiate between "reactionary" and "critical". From a pragmatic perspective, such absolutes quickly fade into delusions.


A new world is really that...not just the old world with a fresh coat of red paint.

Exactly right.

But to maintain that "new world", we must be able to ensure that while rightists don't gain the "upper hand" they also don't "scare" us into hurting ourselves.

The dangers of "reactionaries" in a functional post-revolutionary environment will be severly limited, their "cries" won't have much resonance.

Let's not give them more credit than they deserve.

[redstar2000]

While such actions are warrented and even necessary during any revolution, once society has calmed, they become dangerous if too repeated or extreme.

I agree...there's always a tension between "not far enough" and "too far". Most likely, public opinion will oscillate. Sometimes reactionaries might be "tolerated" and sometimes, if they really piss people off, they might be summarily shot.

I'd probably be on the "tolerant" side myself...as long as they didn't make a public nuisance of themselves.


What complicates the matter, is that most of the "grey issues" won't be as clear-cut as bookstores named after famous Nazis. They will be concerns that really do require some consideration. It is in these cases that the risk of demagoguery or bigotry or even simple ideological disagreements really emerge.

Well, these risks are more or less with us always...we would argue against them as best we could, but unless we either do nothing on this issue or erect a bureaucracy to deal with it...those are risks we'd have to take.

If power is really to be in the hands of the people, then I don't see how we can "set things up in advance" so that they can't "misuse" it or "make mistakes".

In fact, I'd say it's certain that they will misuse it or make mistakes...from time to time.


Now, I am not suggesting that the "Adolf Hitler Memorial Shrine" is not deserving of some serious vandalism, but I am suggesting that the "Center for Critical Sociology" is not. And that while such an institution could be a cover for reactionary subversion, it is not necessarily, and there is a critical danger that if "bookstore burnings" are condoned by a society, any organization, location, or individual could come under fire for trivial or even illusionary reasons.

Yes, that could happen. And it would indeed be a shame if a group of harmless scholars were pilloried (or worse) for no real reason.

You or I and certainly many others would, I think, rise to the defense of those unjustly accused of reactionary subversion...and there would be a "big fuss".

And who knows how it would turn out?

But isn't that the nature of human societies...even classless ones? I simply cannot imagine the "abolition of controversy".


The second problem I see with "spur of the moment" censorship is that it inevitably leads to unequal justice.

I agree...and see no possible way any "code" would not have the same consequence. "Perfect justice" is a philosophical concept...on Earth, we're lucky to even get close.


From a more "down to earth" perspective, "reactionaries" will simply learn to "hide better" or learn what neighbourhoods will more easily "put up" with them.

I have no problem with this outcome. The "deeper" they hide, the less harm they can do.

And should a certain neighborhood develop a "rep" for "tolerance of reactionaries", then most others will simply move away. It will risk becoming a "pariah neighborhood" and others will begin to mull over the possibility of cutting off essential services to them.

That "reactionary neighborhood" could even find itself under military attack by surrounding neighborhoods who'd "had enough".


...the danger of "press rules" without codification is chaos.

Perhaps...but I think the risk of "chaos" is far preferable to the risk of an all-powerful "Ministry of Publications".


That is, the region or area that is the most permissive will simply become home to those who wish to publish or print things that would alternately be excluded. This means that, no matter what the "legitimate opinion" in any other area is, those residences will be subject to what comes out of the "looser" one.

Well, how will people respond to that? Will they just "accept it"? Or will they figure out ways to struggle against the "looser" areas? Perhaps even violent ways?

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that I "know" the answer to that question...if people's general consciousness finds all reactionary ideas deeply repugnant, then they will "carry the battle to the enemy". On the other hand, if they are convinced that "tolerance" is a "moral virtue", then they won't.

And the "looseness" will spread...like rot.


Because with each precedent set, be it in a "community wide" standard or the paradigm I outlined above, some sort of record must be kept (if only for comparitive or schollarly purposes) and eventually something very much like a "law code" will develop. Precedent turns to practice, practice turns to regulation. In the end, it's the same problems all over again.

People are free to choose between precedents and thus change practice as they deem appropriate.

Once something has been institutionalized, it's far more difficult to change.


As for the question you ask, I think you are taking a rather "monlithic" view of society. You assume that all the "mainframe computer" manufacturers and all the "paper workers" and all the electricity providers and all the potential journalists agree with the decision to kick him "out on his ass".

Not "all", just a majority in the various collectives.

Of course, he might find other "potential journalists" who shared his ideas...but without the physical means of production, they couldn't do much.


As far as the basic supplies he'd need, I think you'd find it would be pretty easy. There's always someone who you can convince if you're persuasive enough, he managed to convince 62 of his old comrades and they knew the context.

Possibly.

There is always a range of possible outcomes to most realistic scenarios.

But let's say you're right and he is able to organize the production and distribution of a mildly reactionary new paper. Well, people will see it. And they'll react to its presence.

If the reaction is mostly hostile, then ways will be sought to stop it...just as we would seek ways to stop the erection of the "Adolph Hitler Memorial Shrine".

In the context of communist society, any expressed view that would suggest the restoration of capitalism is going to generate considerable outrage.

I expect the first issue of that paper will also be its last issue.


Because you really can't outline what is and what isn't permissable in a few paragraphs.

Once you get "down and dirty" you find that real honest disagreements are far more complex.

No, I can't "write a code" and don't want to.

But what I can do and did was offer an outline of "what to watch out for"...the details must be left to the individual collectives and the general society to handle on a "case-by-case" basis.


Yes, but we are discussing a world in which we have already "won".

I don't think we can say that we've "won" until after one or better two centuries of communism have passed.

When we reach the point that anyone who advocated reactionary ideas would simply reveal himself to be a crackpot...then we can be as "tolerant" as you like. It won't make any difference.

But I think the first five or ten decades are going to be tough -- and since we don't want a state-apparatus to impose our views at gunpoint, we need to be all the more active in arousing people to sharply struggle against and suppress reactionary ideas.


But...in the "real world" it is not that easy to differentiate between "reactionary" and "critical".

We must do the best we can to make that distinction. If we fail or, worse, don't even bother trying, then our prospects become very dim indeed.

Things might possibly still turn out ok...but I would feel the urge to hold onto my old currency -- there could come a time when it will be money again.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

While such actions are warrented and even necessary during any revolution, once society has calmed, they become dangerous if too repeated or extreme.

I agree...there's always a tension between "not far enough" and "too far". Most likely, public opinion will oscillate. Sometimes reactionaries might be "tolerated" and sometimes, if they really piss people off, they might be summarily shot.

I'd probably be on the "tolerant" side myself...as long as they didn't make a public nuisance of themselves.


What complicates the matter, is that most of the "grey issues" won't be as clear-cut as bookstores named after famous Nazis. They will be concerns that really do require some consideration. It is in these cases that the risk of demagoguery or bigotry or even simple ideological disagreements really emerge.

Well, these risks are more or less with us always...we would argue against them as best we could, but unless we either do nothing on this issue or erect a bureaucracy to deal with it...those are risks we'd have to take.

If power is really to be in the hands of the people, then I don't see how we can "set things up in advance" so that they can't "misuse" it or "make mistakes".

In fact, I'd say it's certain that they will misuse it or make mistakes...from time to time.


Now, I am not suggesting that the "Adolf Hitler Memorial Shrine" is not deserving of some serious vandalism, but I am suggesting that the "Center for Critical Sociology" is not. And that while such an institution could be a cover for reactionary subversion, it is not necessarily, and there is a critical danger that if "bookstore burnings" are condoned by a society, any organization, location, or individual could come under fire for trivial or even illusionary reasons.

Yes, that could happen. And it would indeed be a shame if a group of harmless scholars were pilloried (or worse) for no real reason.

You or I and certainly many others would, I think, rise to the defense of those unjustly accused of reactionary subversion...and there would be a "big fuss".

And who knows how it would turn out?

But isn't that the nature of human societies...even classless ones? I simply cannot imagine the "abolition of controversy".


The second problem I see with "spur of the moment" censorship is that it inevitably leads to unequal justice.

I agree...and see no possible way any "code" would not have the same consequence. "Perfect justice" is a philosophical concept...on Earth, we're lucky to even get close.


From a more "down to earth" perspective, "reactionaries" will simply learn to "hide better" or learn what neighbourhoods will more easily "put up" with them.

I have no problem with this outcome. The "deeper" they hide, the less harm they can do.

And should a certain neighborhood develop a "rep" for "tolerance of reactionaries", then most others will simply move away. It will risk becoming a "pariah neighborhood" and others will begin to mull over the possibility of cutting off essential services to them.

That "reactionary neighborhood" could even find itself under military attack by surrounding neighborhoods who'd "had enough".


...the danger of "press rules" without codification is chaos.

Perhaps...but I think the risk of "chaos" is far preferable to the risk of an all-powerful "Ministry of Publications".


That is, the region or area that is the most permissive will simply become home to those who wish to publish or print things that would alternately be excluded. This means that, no matter what the "legitimate opinion" in any other area is, those residences will be subject to what comes out of the "looser" one.

Well, how will people respond to that? Will they just "accept it"? Or will they figure out ways to struggle against the "looser" areas? Perhaps even violent ways?

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that I "know" the answer to that question...if people's general consciousness finds all reactionary ideas deeply repugnant, then they will "carry the battle to the enemy". On the other hand, if they are convinced that "tolerance" is a "moral virtue", then they won't.

And the "looseness" will spread...like rot.


Because with each precedent set, be it in a "community wide" standard or the paradigm I outlined above, some sort of record must be kept (if only for comparitive or schollarly purposes) and eventually something very much like a "law code" will develop. Precedent turns to practice, practice turns to regulation. In the end, it's the same problems all over again.

People are free to choose between precedents and thus change practice as they deem appropriate.

Once something has been institutionalized, it's far more difficult to change.


As for the question you ask, I think you are taking a rather "monlithic" view of society. You assume that all the "mainframe computer" manufacturers and all the "paper workers" and all the electricity providers and all the potential journalists agree with the decision to kick him "out on his ass".

Not "all", just a majority in the various collectives.

Of course, he might find other "potential journalists" who shared his ideas...but without the physical means of production, they couldn't do much.


As far as the basic supplies he'd need, I think you'd find it would be pretty easy. There's always someone who you can convince if you're persuasive enough, he managed to convince 62 of his old comrades and they knew the context.

Possibly.

There is always a range of possible outcomes to most realistic scenarios.

But let's say you're right and he is able to organize the production and distribution of a mildly reactionary new paper. Well, people will see it. And they'll react to its presence.

If the reaction is mostly hostile, then ways will be sought to stop it...just as we would seek ways to stop the erection of the "Adolph Hitler Memorial Shrine".

In the context of communist society, any expressed view that would suggest the restoration of capitalism is going to generate considerable outrage.

I expect the first issue of that paper will also be its last issue.


Because you really can't outline what is and what isn't permissable in a few paragraphs.

Once you get "down and dirty" you find that real honest disagreements are far more complex.

No, I can't "write a code" and don't want to.

But what I can do and did was offer an outline of "what to watch out for"...the details must be left to the individual collectives and the general society to handle on a "case-by-case" basis.


Yes, but we are discussing a world in which we have already "won".

I don't think we can say that we've "won" until after one or better two centuries of communism have passed.

When we reach the point that anyone who advocated reactionary ideas would simply reveal himself to be a crackpot...then we can be as "tolerant" as you like. It won't make any difference.

But I think the first five or ten decades are going to be tough -- and since we don't want a state-apparatus to impose our views at gunpoint, we need to be all the more active in arousing people to sharply struggle against and suppress reactionary ideas.


But...in the "real world" it is not that easy to differentiate between "reactionary" and "critical".

We must do the best we can to make that distinction. If we fail or, worse, don't even bother trying, then our prospects become very dim indeed.

Things might possibly still turn out ok...but I would feel the urge to hold onto my old currency -- there could come a time when it will be money again.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

While such actions are warrented and even necessary during any revolution, once society has calmed, they become dangerous if too repeated or extreme.

I agree...there's always a tension between "not far enough" and "too far". Most likely, public opinion will oscillate. Sometimes reactionaries might be "tolerated" and sometimes, if they really piss people off, they might be summarily shot.

I'd probably be on the "tolerant" side myself...as long as they didn't make a public nuisance of themselves.


What complicates the matter, is that most of the "grey issues" won't be as clear-cut as bookstores named after famous Nazis. They will be concerns that really do require some consideration. It is in these cases that the risk of demagoguery or bigotry or even simple ideological disagreements really emerge.

Well, these risks are more or less with us always...we would argue against them as best we could, but unless we either do nothing on this issue or erect a bureaucracy to deal with it...those are risks we'd have to take.

If power is really to be in the hands of the people, then I don't see how we can "set things up in advance" so that they can't "misuse" it or "make mistakes".

In fact, I'd say it's certain that they will misuse it or make mistakes...from time to time.


Now, I am not suggesting that the "Adolf Hitler Memorial Shrine" is not deserving of some serious vandalism, but I am suggesting that the "Center for Critical Sociology" is not. And that while such an institution could be a cover for reactionary subversion, it is not necessarily, and there is a critical danger that if "bookstore burnings" are condoned by a society, any organization, location, or individual could come under fire for trivial or even illusionary reasons.

Yes, that could happen. And it would indeed be a shame if a group of harmless scholars were pilloried (or worse) for no real reason.

You or I and certainly many others would, I think, rise to the defense of those unjustly accused of reactionary subversion...and there would be a "big fuss".

And who knows how it would turn out?

But isn't that the nature of human societies...even classless ones? I simply cannot imagine the "abolition of controversy".


The second problem I see with "spur of the moment" censorship is that it inevitably leads to unequal justice.

I agree...and see no possible way any "code" would not have the same consequence. "Perfect justice" is a philosophical concept...on Earth, we're lucky to even get close.


From a more "down to earth" perspective, "reactionaries" will simply learn to "hide better" or learn what neighbourhoods will more easily "put up" with them.

I have no problem with this outcome. The "deeper" they hide, the less harm they can do.

And should a certain neighborhood develop a "rep" for "tolerance of reactionaries", then most others will simply move away. It will risk becoming a "pariah neighborhood" and others will begin to mull over the possibility of cutting off essential services to them.

That "reactionary neighborhood" could even find itself under military attack by surrounding neighborhoods who'd "had enough".


...the danger of "press rules" without codification is chaos.

Perhaps...but I think the risk of "chaos" is far preferable to the risk of an all-powerful "Ministry of Publications".


That is, the region or area that is the most permissive will simply become home to those who wish to publish or print things that would alternately be excluded. This means that, no matter what the "legitimate opinion" in any other area is, those residences will be subject to what comes out of the "looser" one.

Well, how will people respond to that? Will they just "accept it"? Or will they figure out ways to struggle against the "looser" areas? Perhaps even violent ways?

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that I "know" the answer to that question...if people's general consciousness finds all reactionary ideas deeply repugnant, then they will "carry the battle to the enemy". On the other hand, if they are convinced that "tolerance" is a "moral virtue", then they won't.

And the "looseness" will spread...like rot.


Because with each precedent set, be it in a "community wide" standard or the paradigm I outlined above, some sort of record must be kept (if only for comparitive or schollarly purposes) and eventually something very much like a "law code" will develop. Precedent turns to practice, practice turns to regulation. In the end, it's the same problems all over again.

People are free to choose between precedents and thus change practice as they deem appropriate.

Once something has been institutionalized, it's far more difficult to change.


As for the question you ask, I think you are taking a rather "monlithic" view of society. You assume that all the "mainframe computer" manufacturers and all the "paper workers" and all the electricity providers and all the potential journalists agree with the decision to kick him "out on his ass".

Not "all", just a majority in the various collectives.

Of course, he might find other "potential journalists" who shared his ideas...but without the physical means of production, they couldn't do much.


As far as the basic supplies he'd need, I think you'd find it would be pretty easy. There's always someone who you can convince if you're persuasive enough, he managed to convince 62 of his old comrades and they knew the context.

Possibly.

There is always a range of possible outcomes to most realistic scenarios.

But let's say you're right and he is able to organize the production and distribution of a mildly reactionary new paper. Well, people will see it. And they'll react to its presence.

If the reaction is mostly hostile, then ways will be sought to stop it...just as we would seek ways to stop the erection of the "Adolph Hitler Memorial Shrine".

In the context of communist society, any expressed view that would suggest the restoration of capitalism is going to generate considerable outrage.

I expect the first issue of that paper will also be its last issue.


Because you really can't outline what is and what isn't permissable in a few paragraphs.

Once you get "down and dirty" you find that real honest disagreements are far more complex.

No, I can't "write a code" and don't want to.

But what I can do and did was offer an outline of "what to watch out for"...the details must be left to the individual collectives and the general society to handle on a "case-by-case" basis.


Yes, but we are discussing a world in which we have already "won".

I don't think we can say that we've "won" until after one or better two centuries of communism have passed.

When we reach the point that anyone who advocated reactionary ideas would simply reveal himself to be a crackpot...then we can be as "tolerant" as you like. It won't make any difference.

But I think the first five or ten decades are going to be tough -- and since we don't want a state-apparatus to impose our views at gunpoint, we need to be all the more active in arousing people to sharply struggle against and suppress reactionary ideas.


But...in the "real world" it is not that easy to differentiate between "reactionary" and "critical".

We must do the best we can to make that distinction. If we fail or, worse, don't even bother trying, then our prospects become very dim indeed.

Things might possibly still turn out ok...but I would feel the urge to hold onto my old currency -- there could come a time when it will be money again.

:redstar2000:

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

[redtrigger]

The capitalists do so all the time...and we know they are lying.

I have a rather strong bias against lying as a strategy...not because it's "immoral" but because it's ineffective.

I think we should tell the working class the truth...even when it seems "unpopular" or may be "embarrassing" for us. I think that's the core of a winning strategy in the long run.

In the "information age" more than ever, the truth will out. Let's tell it from the beginning -- "warts and all".

The more our reputation grows as the only political current where people always tell the truth, the more people will listen to what we have to say.


This is one of the most profound statements I have read thusfar on this site. Honesty is always the best policy. If people realize you are not going to dupe them, then they will join you. It is the essence of men to follow greatness. Greatness comes though deeds not words. The people will follow action.

Second of all if a revolution succeeds then it is because the majority willed it. So the majority (communists, socialists, etc.) came to power then the capitalists would be the minority. Without money they are powerless, let them write their papers, in the end the best will be left standing with banner proudly waving.

Third, all things must end. It is thus that light cannot exist without dark, and joy cannot exist without pain. If there is a rise there will be a fall. Even the communist world, though not yet in existence is already doomed to fall to another ideaology.

[redtrigger]

The capitalists do so all the time...and we know they are lying.

I have a rather strong bias against lying as a strategy...not because it's "immoral" but because it's ineffective.

I think we should tell the working class the truth...even when it seems "unpopular" or may be "embarrassing" for us. I think that's the core of a winning strategy in the long run.

In the "information age" more than ever, the truth will out. Let's tell it from the beginning -- "warts and all".

The more our reputation grows as the only political current where people always tell the truth, the more people will listen to what we have to say.


This is one of the most profound statements I have read thusfar on this site. Honesty is always the best policy. If people realize you are not going to dupe them, then they will join you. It is the essence of men to follow greatness. Greatness comes though deeds not words. The people will follow action.

Second of all if a revolution succeeds then it is because the majority willed it. So the majority (communists, socialists, etc.) came to power then the capitalists would be the minority. Without money they are powerless, let them write their papers, in the end the best will be left standing with banner proudly waving.

Third, all things must end. It is thus that light cannot exist without dark, and joy cannot exist without pain. If there is a rise there will be a fall. Even the communist world, though not yet in existence is already doomed to fall to another ideaology.

[redtrigger]

The capitalists do so all the time...and we know they are lying.

I have a rather strong bias against lying as a strategy...not because it's "immoral" but because it's ineffective.

I think we should tell the working class the truth...even when it seems "unpopular" or may be "embarrassing" for us. I think that's the core of a winning strategy in the long run.

In the "information age" more than ever, the truth will out. Let's tell it from the beginning -- "warts and all".

The more our reputation grows as the only political current where people always tell the truth, the more people will listen to what we have to say.


This is one of the most profound statements I have read thusfar on this site. Honesty is always the best policy. If people realize you are not going to dupe them, then they will join you. It is the essence of men to follow greatness. Greatness comes though deeds not words. The people will follow action.

Second of all if a revolution succeeds then it is because the majority willed it. So the majority (communists, socialists, etc.) came to power then the capitalists would be the minority. Without money they are powerless, let them write their papers, in the end the best will be left standing with banner proudly waving.

Third, all things must end. It is thus that light cannot exist without dark, and joy cannot exist without pain. If there is a rise there will be a fall. Even the communist world, though not yet in existence is already doomed to fall to another ideaology.

[LSD]

I agree...there's always a tension between "not far enough" and "too far". Most likely, public opinion will oscillate. Sometimes reactionaries might be "tolerated" and sometimes, if they really piss people off, they might be summarily shot.

"Perfect justice" is a philosophical concept...on Earth, we're lucky to even get close.

While I acknowledge that "perfect justice" is unacheivable, I must point out that it still must be attempted. You're concerned about the first "few decades" of communist society, well nothing erodes faith in a society like blatant injustice.

Granted no society has ever achieved full equlity of law, indeed most have not even attempted to, but when a society oppenly states that it has no intention to, people quicly stop trusting that society.

If I know that my rights are subject to the whim and mood of a few "hotheads" down the road, I know I wouldn't feel to safe.

I'm not suggesting that we need "laws", I am suggesting that we need collective wide consensus; not for "every little thing", but certainly for the important ones.

Murder, rape, assault...censorship?

Issues that are either so important or so complex that they cannot be left up to random chance must be worked out to some degree. But since I agree with you that any such attempt will pobably lead to exactly the bureacratic outcome I outlined, I must oppose any attempt at external censorship.


Well, these risks are more or less with us always...we would argue against them as best we could, but unless we either do nothing on this issue or erect a bureaucracy to deal with it...those are risks we'd have to take.

If power is really to be in the hands of the people, then I don't see how we can "set things up in advance" so that they can't "misuse" it or "make mistakes".

In fact, I'd say it's certain that they will misuse it or make mistakes...from time to time.

Of the two options you give, I would eagerly choose the former.

Doing nothing, on this issue, is precisely what I am advocating.

While we cannot "prevent" mistakes, we can and must minimize them.


Yes, that could happen. And it would indeed be a shame if a group of harmless scholars were pilloried (or worse) for no real reason.

You or I and certainly many others would, I think, rise to the defense of those unjustly accused of reactionary subversion...and there would be a "big fuss".

And who knows how it would turn out?


Unfortunately, I can predict.

"Big fuss" or not, since we've agreed not to impose a bureacracy and to still attempt censorship, I can guarantee that it will happen again.

Other unjustified attacks (and, yes, worse) will happen again and again and again.

With no guidelines, but with the sense of "righeousness" that can only come with social approval, such activities will become commonplace.

Now, will this make the "reactionaries" go "deeper undergroud"? Probably.
But will it make honest critics, schollars, and journalists afraid to speak? Certainly.

The "reactionaries" you aim to stop are, in effect, part of a counter-revolutionary movement, aiming to reshape society as they see fit. They are willing to deal with some beatings and burnings.

An honest worker who studies social-behaviorism in his spare time is not.

He will shut-up and "conform" while the "reactionary" will just "keep on tickin'".

The only thing achieved, besides some sense of acomplishment for the participants, is a few burned books and a lot of scared people. This is the kind of chaos I'm concerned about. Not the kind that can be worked with and shaped, but the kind that leaves half of society terrified and the other half the reason why.


Perhaps...but I think the risk of "chaos" is far preferable to the risk of an all-powerful "Ministry of Publications".

Both scenarios have risks, but the problem with a chaotic outcome is that, sooner of later, people want an end to it. If chaotic enforcement goes on for a few years eventually enough people will get "fed up" and things will change.

After living under constant threat of "mob censorship", they will run straight into the hands of a bureacracy.


have no problem with this outcome. The "deeper" they hide, the less harm they can do.

And should a certain neighborhood develop a "rep" for "tolerance of reactionaries", then most others will simply move away. It will risk becoming a "pariah neighborhood" and others will begin to mull over the possibility of cutting off essential services to them.

That "reactionary neighborhood" could even find itself under military attack by surrounding neighborhoods who'd "had enough".

Well, how will people respond to that? Will they just "accept it"? Or will they figure out ways to struggle against the "looser" areas? Perhaps even violent ways?

So what are we left with? Civil war?

Everytime one area is more "leftist" than another they invade to make sure "reactionaries" can't "take root"?

Neighbourhood against neighbourhood is as bad as mob against mob, it's the same "spur censorship" as before only know both on a larger scale and it's now about ideas.

If people living on one end of the street believe that someone should be designated to manage water reclamation, but the people on the other end disagree, what happens? Fight to the death?

Violence may sometimes be warrented, but for a society to function in the long term, it must be discouraged unless acsolutely impossible.

If rightists are collecting weapons and plan on forming a "government", violence is justified to stop them. But if one neighbourhood is "looser" than another?

You are just expanding the fear to a greater level.

In this scenario, every area will vie to be the "most leftist". No one will want to be killed for living in a "looser" area, so they will begin accusing the "next town over" and real critisism or analysis of anything becomes impossible without risking a violent response.

Nothing is more corrosive to a civilization than when its citizens are afraid to question it.


But let's say you're right and he is able to organize the production and distribution of a mildly reactionary new paper. Well, people will see it. And they'll react to its presence.

If the reaction is mostly hostile, then ways will be sought to stop it...just as we would seek ways to stop the erection of the "Adolph Hitler Memorial Shrine".

In the context of communist society, any expressed view that would suggest the restoration of capitalism is going to generate considerable outrage.

I expect the first issue of that paper will also be its last issue.

Why? Because "reaction is mostly hostile"?

Reaction from whom?

Most people? Many people? A few people?

How many does it take before it's acceptable to "burn it to the ground"?

What if only a handfull of people find this "new paper" to be "reactionary"? They certainly believe they are "defending communism". So, do we punish them, or simply chuckle it off with a wink, well...boys will be boys.

The "imperfect justice" you mentioned, well this is where it starts to really matter. Once people discover that they can go around burning anything they disagree with, it is unlikely they will stop.

Certainly, no one will go tearing down to local hinge factory, but then again it was never in any danger. The schollars, the journalists, hell, even the residential neighbourhoods, however, will all have to watch out that they fit with the view of "leftism" that the more outspoken and activist individuals take. A de facto police force is formed, as most people don't go around burning and destroying, there will be a select few that will "have" to do it for them. Not people appointed by anyone, but merely the people who have the ideological outlook and preexisting temperment to be the ones who would do it anyway.

Militias enforcing "anarchism" at the end of a flame-thrower. So much for "classless".


When we reach the point that anyone who advocated reactionary ideas would simply reveal himself to be a crackpot...then we can be as "tolerant" as you like. It won't make any difference.

But I think the first five or ten decades are going to be tough -- and since we don't want a state-apparatus to impose our views at gunpoint, we need to be all the more active in arousing people to sharply struggle against and suppress reactionary ideas.

Yet, such an "apparatus" is inevitable to develop, albeit in a "roving militia" sense.

There may be no "law code", but in many ways that only increases the power of those who take it upon themselves to "protect everyone else".

Their whims and their attitudes will be the standard by which ideas are judged. And while this may seem to be an extreme solution, it is practically inevitable when you try to deal with an issue as complex as press or ideological censorship by "trusting common sense".

Common sense has proven to be a remarkably fickle and temporal creature, and while it can usually be trusted on simple matters, treating it as the arbiter in indeological judgements and ideological analysis is ultimately suicide.


We must do the best we can to make that distinction. If we fail or, worse, don't even bother trying, then our prospects become very dim indeed.

Our prospects are even dimmer if we start "punshing" those who speak out. The chilling effect is very real and very dangerous. A society in which people are terrified to be "ideologically wrong" and assault is just a comment away is not a society that will last very long.

You may be able to keep people in line, and you might be able to "maintain" the achievements of the revolution, but the spirit of that revolution will be long-dead. And the next revolution will be just around the corner.

No one wants to live in an enviroment where they are terrified to speak or to critisize. Many will rise up. Not "reactionaries", but regular people who are tired of the fear and anxiety. It may be possible to suppress them all, but a society that has to resort to such measures is not one I would want to be a part of, and is not one that can call itself communist.

You can chill a people's speech, but, in the end, you really don't want to.

I'd button up, it looks like it's going to be a cold winter.

[LSD]

I agree...there's always a tension between "not far enough" and "too far". Most likely, public opinion will oscillate. Sometimes reactionaries might be "tolerated" and sometimes, if they really piss people off, they might be summarily shot.

"Perfect justice" is a philosophical concept...on Earth, we're lucky to even get close.

While I acknowledge that "perfect justice" is unacheivable, I must point out that it still must be attempted. You're concerned about the first "few decades" of communist society, well nothing erodes faith in a society like blatant injustice.

Granted no society has ever achieved full equlity of law, indeed most have not even attempted to, but when a society oppenly states that it has no intention to, people quicly stop trusting that society.

If I know that my rights are subject to the whim and mood of a few "hotheads" down the road, I know I wouldn't feel to safe.

I'm not suggesting that we need "laws", I am suggesting that we need collective wide consensus; not for "every little thing", but certainly for the important ones.

Murder, rape, assault...censorship?

Issues that are either so important or so complex that they cannot be left up to random chance must be worked out to some degree. But since I agree with you that any such attempt will pobably lead to exactly the bureacratic outcome I outlined, I must oppose any attempt at external censorship.


Well, these risks are more or less with us always...we would argue against them as best we could, but unless we either do nothing on this issue or erect a bureaucracy to deal with it...those are risks we'd have to take.

If power is really to be in the hands of the people, then I don't see how we can "set things up in advance" so that they can't "misuse" it or "make mistakes".

In fact, I'd say it's certain that they will misuse it or make mistakes...from time to time.

Of the two options you give, I would eagerly choose the former.

Doing nothing, on this issue, is precisely what I am advocating.

While we cannot "prevent" mistakes, we can and must minimize them.


Yes, that could happen. And it would indeed be a shame if a group of harmless scholars were pilloried (or worse) for no real reason.

You or I and certainly many others would, I think, rise to the defense of those unjustly accused of reactionary subversion...and there would be a "big fuss".

And who knows how it would turn out?


Unfortunately, I can predict.

"Big fuss" or not, since we've agreed not to impose a bureacracy and to still attempt censorship, I can guarantee that it will happen again.

Other unjustified attacks (and, yes, worse) will happen again and again and again.

With no guidelines, but with the sense of "righeousness" that can only come with social approval, such activities will become commonplace.

Now, will this make the "reactionaries" go "deeper undergroud"? Probably.
But will it make honest critics, schollars, and journalists afraid to speak? Certainly.

The "reactionaries" you aim to stop are, in effect, part of a counter-revolutionary movement, aiming to reshape society as they see fit. They are willing to deal with some beatings and burnings.

An honest worker who studies social-behaviorism in his spare time is not.

He will shut-up and "conform" while the "reactionary" will just "keep on tickin'".

The only thing achieved, besides some sense of acomplishment for the participants, is a few burned books and a lot of scared people. This is the kind of chaos I'm concerned about. Not the kind that can be worked with and shaped, but the kind that leaves half of society terrified and the other half the reason why.


Perhaps...but I think the risk of "chaos" is far preferable to the risk of an all-powerful "Ministry of Publications".

Both scenarios have risks, but the problem with a chaotic outcome is that, sooner of later, people want an end to it. If chaotic enforcement goes on for a few years eventually enough people will get "fed up" and things will change.

After living under constant threat of "mob censorship", they will run straight into the hands of a bureacracy.


have no problem with this outcome. The "deeper" they hide, the less harm they can do.

And should a certain neighborhood develop a "rep" for "tolerance of reactionaries", then most others will simply move away. It will risk becoming a "pariah neighborhood" and others will begin to mull over the possibility of cutting off essential services to them.

That "reactionary neighborhood" could even find itself under military attack by surrounding neighborhoods who'd "had enough".

Well, how will people respond to that? Will they just "accept it"? Or will they figure out ways to struggle against the "looser" areas? Perhaps even violent ways?

So what are we left with? Civil war?

Everytime one area is more "leftist" than another they invade to make sure "reactionaries" can't "take root"?

Neighbourhood against neighbourhood is as bad as mob against mob, it's the same "spur censorship" as before only know both on a larger scale and it's now about ideas.

If people living on one end of the street believe that someone should be designated to manage water reclamation, but the people on the other end disagree, what happens? Fight to the death?

Violence may sometimes be warrented, but for a society to function in the long term, it must be discouraged unless acsolutely impossible.

If rightists are collecting weapons and plan on forming a "government", violence is justified to stop them. But if one neighbourhood is "looser" than another?

You are just expanding the fear to a greater level.

In this scenario, every area will vie to be the "most leftist". No one will want to be killed for living in a "looser" area, so they will begin accusing the "next town over" and real critisism or analysis of anything becomes impossible without risking a violent response.

Nothing is more corrosive to a civilization than when its citizens are afraid to question it.


But let's say you're right and he is able to organize the production and distribution of a mildly reactionary new paper. Well, people will see it. And they'll react to its presence.

If the reaction is mostly hostile, then ways will be sought to stop it...just as we would seek ways to stop the erection of the "Adolph Hitler Memorial Shrine".

In the context of communist society, any expressed view that would suggest the restoration of capitalism is going to generate considerable outrage.

I expect the first issue of that paper will also be its last issue.

Why? Because "reaction is mostly hostile"?

Reaction from whom?

Most people? Many people? A few people?

How many does it take before it's acceptable to "burn it to the ground"?

What if only a handfull of people find this "new paper" to be "reactionary"? They certainly believe they are "defending communism". So, do we punish them, or simply chuckle it off with a wink, well...boys will be boys.

The "imperfect justice" you mentioned, well this is where it starts to really matter. Once people discover that they can go around burning anything they disagree with, it is unlikely they will stop.

Certainly, no one will go tearing down to local hinge factory, but then again it was never in any danger. The schollars, the journalists, hell, even the residential neighbourhoods, however, will all have to watch out that they fit with the view of "leftism" that the more outspoken and activist individuals take. A de facto police force is formed, as most people don't go around burning and destroying, there will be a select few that will "have" to do it for them. Not people appointed by anyone, but merely the people who have the ideological outlook and preexisting temperment to be the ones who would do it anyway.

Militias enforcing "anarchism" at the end of a flame-thrower. So much for "classless".


When we reach the point that anyone who advocated reactionary ideas would simply reveal himself to be a crackpot...then we can be as "tolerant" as you like. It won't make any difference.

But I think the first five or ten decades are going to be tough -- and since we don't want a state-apparatus to impose our views at gunpoint, we need to be all the more active in arousing people to sharply struggle against and suppress reactionary ideas.

Yet, such an "apparatus" is inevitable to develop, albeit in a "roving militia" sense.

There may be no "law code", but in many ways that only increases the power of those who take it upon themselves to "protect everyone else".

Their whims and their attitudes will be the standard by which ideas are judged. And while this may seem to be an extreme solution, it is practically inevitable when you try to deal with an issue as complex as press or ideological censorship by "trusting common sense".

Common sense has proven to be a remarkably fickle and temporal creature, and while it can usually be trusted on simple matters, treating it as the arbiter in indeological judgements and ideological analysis is ultimately suicide.


We must do the best we can to make that distinction. If we fail or, worse, don't even bother trying, then our prospects become very dim indeed.

Our prospects are even dimmer if we start "punshing" those who speak out. The chilling effect is very real and very dangerous. A society in which people are terrified to be "ideologically wrong" and assault is just a comment away is not a society that will last very long.

You may be able to keep people in line, and you might be able to "maintain" the achievements of the revolution, but the spirit of that revolution will be long-dead. And the next revolution will be just around the corner.

No one wants to live in an enviroment where they are terrified to speak or to critisize. Many will rise up. Not "reactionaries", but regular people who are tired of the fear and anxiety. It may be possible to suppress them all, but a society that has to resort to such measures is not one I would want to be a part of, and is not one that can call itself communist.

You can chill a people's speech, but, in the end, you really don't want to.

I'd button up, it looks like it's going to be a cold winter.

[LSD]

I agree...there's always a tension between "not far enough" and "too far". Most likely, public opinion will oscillate. Sometimes reactionaries might be "tolerated" and sometimes, if they really piss people off, they might be summarily shot.

"Perfect justice" is a philosophical concept...on Earth, we're lucky to even get close.

While I acknowledge that "perfect justice" is unacheivable, I must point out that it still must be attempted. You're concerned about the first "few decades" of communist society, well nothing erodes faith in a society like blatant injustice.

Granted no society has ever achieved full equlity of law, indeed most have not even attempted to, but when a society oppenly states that it has no intention to, people quicly stop trusting that society.

If I know that my rights are subject to the whim and mood of a few "hotheads" down the road, I know I wouldn't feel to safe.

I'm not suggesting that we need "laws", I am suggesting that we need collective wide consensus; not for "every little thing", but certainly for the important ones.

Murder, rape, assault...censorship?

Issues that are either so important or so complex that they cannot be left up to random chance must be worked out to some degree. But since I agree with you that any such attempt will pobably lead to exactly the bureacratic outcome I outlined, I must oppose any attempt at external censorship.


Well, these risks are more or less with us always...we would argue against them as best we could, but unless we either do nothing on this issue or erect a bureaucracy to deal with it...those are risks we'd have to take.

If power is really to be in the hands of the people, then I don't see how we can "set things up in advance" so that they can't "misuse" it or "make mistakes".

In fact, I'd say it's certain that they will misuse it or make mistakes...from time to time.

Of the two options you give, I would eagerly choose the former.

Doing nothing, on this issue, is precisely what I am advocating.

While we cannot "prevent" mistakes, we can and must minimize them.


Yes, that could happen. And it would indeed be a shame if a group of harmless scholars were pilloried (or worse) for no real reason.

You or I and certainly many others would, I think, rise to the defense of those unjustly accused of reactionary subversion...and there would be a "big fuss".

And who knows how it would turn out?


Unfortunately, I can predict.

"Big fuss" or not, since we've agreed not to impose a bureacracy and to still attempt censorship, I can guarantee that it will happen again.

Other unjustified attacks (and, yes, worse) will happen again and again and again.

With no guidelines, but with the sense of "righeousness" that can only come with social approval, such activities will become commonplace.

Now, will this make the "reactionaries" go "deeper undergroud"? Probably.
But will it make honest critics, schollars, and journalists afraid to speak? Certainly.

The "reactionaries" you aim to stop are, in effect, part of a counter-revolutionary movement, aiming to reshape society as they see fit. They are willing to deal with some beatings and burnings.

An honest worker who studies social-behaviorism in his spare time is not.

He will shut-up and "conform" while the "reactionary" will just "keep on tickin'".

The only thing achieved, besides some sense of acomplishment for the participants, is a few burned books and a lot of scared people. This is the kind of chaos I'm concerned about. Not the kind that can be worked with and shaped, but the kind that leaves half of society terrified and the other half the reason why.


Perhaps...but I think the risk of "chaos" is far preferable to the risk of an all-powerful "Ministry of Publications".

Both scenarios have risks, but the problem with a chaotic outcome is that, sooner of later, people want an end to it. If chaotic enforcement goes on for a few years eventually enough people will get "fed up" and things will change.

After living under constant threat of "mob censorship", they will run straight into the hands of a bureacracy.


have no problem with this outcome. The "deeper" they hide, the less harm they can do.

And should a certain neighborhood develop a "rep" for "tolerance of reactionaries", then most others will simply move away. It will risk becoming a "pariah neighborhood" and others will begin to mull over the possibility of cutting off essential services to them.

That "reactionary neighborhood" could even find itself under military attack by surrounding neighborhoods who'd "had enough".

Well, how will people respond to that? Will they just "accept it"? Or will they figure out ways to struggle against the "looser" areas? Perhaps even violent ways?

So what are we left with? Civil war?

Everytime one area is more "leftist" than another they invade to make sure "reactionaries" can't "take root"?

Neighbourhood against neighbourhood is as bad as mob against mob, it's the same "spur censorship" as before only know both on a larger scale and it's now about ideas.

If people living on one end of the street believe that someone should be designated to manage water reclamation, but the people on the other end disagree, what happens? Fight to the death?

Violence may sometimes be warrented, but for a society to function in the long term, it must be discouraged unless acsolutely impossible.

If rightists are collecting weapons and plan on forming a "government", violence is justified to stop them. But if one neighbourhood is "looser" than another?

You are just expanding the fear to a greater level.

In this scenario, every area will vie to be the "most leftist". No one will want to be killed for living in a "looser" area, so they will begin accusing the "next town over" and real critisism or analysis of anything becomes impossible without risking a violent response.

Nothing is more corrosive to a civilization than when its citizens are afraid to question it.


But let's say you're right and he is able to organize the production and distribution of a mildly reactionary new paper. Well, people will see it. And they'll react to its presence.

If the reaction is mostly hostile, then ways will be sought to stop it...just as we would seek ways to stop the erection of the "Adolph Hitler Memorial Shrine".

In the context of communist society, any expressed view that would suggest the restoration of capitalism is going to generate considerable outrage.

I expect the first issue of that paper will also be its last issue.

Why? Because "reaction is mostly hostile"?

Reaction from whom?

Most people? Many people? A few people?

How many does it take before it's acceptable to "burn it to the ground"?

What if only a handfull of people find this "new paper" to be "reactionary"? They certainly believe they are "defending communism". So, do we punish them, or simply chuckle it off with a wink, well...boys will be boys.

The "imperfect justice" you mentioned, well this is where it starts to really matter. Once people discover that they can go around burning anything they disagree with, it is unlikely they will stop.

Certainly, no one will go tearing down to local hinge factory, but then again it was never in any danger. The schollars, the journalists, hell, even the residential neighbourhoods, however, will all have to watch out that they fit with the view of "leftism" that the more outspoken and activist individuals take. A de facto police force is formed, as most people don't go around burning and destroying, there will be a select few that will "have" to do it for them. Not people appointed by anyone, but merely the people who have the ideological outlook and preexisting temperment to be the ones who would do it anyway.

Militias enforcing "anarchism" at the end of a flame-thrower. So much for "classless".


When we reach the point that anyone who advocated reactionary ideas would simply reveal himself to be a crackpot...then we can be as "tolerant" as you like. It won't make any difference.

But I think the first five or ten decades are going to be tough -- and since we don't want a state-apparatus to impose our views at gunpoint, we need to be all the more active in arousing people to sharply struggle against and suppress reactionary ideas.

Yet, such an "apparatus" is inevitable to develop, albeit in a "roving militia" sense.

There may be no "law code", but in many ways that only increases the power of those who take it upon themselves to "protect everyone else".

Their whims and their attitudes will be the standard by which ideas are judged. And while this may seem to be an extreme solution, it is practically inevitable when you try to deal with an issue as complex as press or ideological censorship by "trusting common sense".

Common sense has proven to be a remarkably fickle and temporal creature, and while it can usually be trusted on simple matters, treating it as the arbiter in indeological judgements and ideological analysis is ultimately suicide.


We must do the best we can to make that distinction. If we fail or, worse, don't even bother trying, then our prospects become very dim indeed.

Our prospects are even dimmer if we start "punshing" those who speak out. The chilling effect is very real and very dangerous. A society in which people are terrified to be "ideologically wrong" and assault is just a comment away is not a society that will last very long.

You may be able to keep people in line, and you might be able to "maintain" the achievements of the revolution, but the spirit of that revolution will be long-dead. And the next revolution will be just around the corner.

No one wants to live in an enviroment where they are terrified to speak or to critisize. Many will rise up. Not "reactionaries", but regular people who are tired of the fear and anxiety. It may be possible to suppress them all, but a society that has to resort to such measures is not one I would want to be a part of, and is not one that can call itself communist.

You can chill a people's speech, but, in the end, you really don't want to.

I'd button up, it looks like it's going to be a cold winter.

[Xvall]

Just wanted to comment on one thing:


1. If a revolution is to take place and is successful, where does that leave the opposition if there is one?

From historical examples, the opposition tends tp flee with all the money they can in the wake of a proletarian revolution.

[Xvall]

Just wanted to comment on one thing:


1. If a revolution is to take place and is successful, where does that leave the opposition if there is one?

From historical examples, the opposition tends tp flee with all the money they can in the wake of a proletarian revolution.

[Xvall]

Just wanted to comment on one thing:


1. If a revolution is to take place and is successful, where does that leave the opposition if there is one?

From historical examples, the opposition tends tp flee with all the money they can in the wake of a proletarian revolution.

[Comfort]

no government? we could do our best and then we will return to fiefdoms and the like.

[Comfort]

no government? we could do our best and then we will return to fiefdoms and the like.

[Comfort]

no government? we could do our best and then we will return to fiefdoms and the like.

[Subversive Pessimist]

My view of this, taken from:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30972

"Of all the "basic human rights", freedom of speech is put on a prominent place, and is the biggest desire of all intellectuals.

This essay plans to lay out some opinions that support the limitation on the freedom of speech. Of course, I welcome all criticisms. If the moderator does not like this essay, feel free to edit or delete it, I don't mind at all. It will be ironic of me to write an essay supporting the limitation on the freedom of speech and ask the moderator not to censor it. Also, the essay is not a satire, it is an opinion.


First, we all agree that absolute freedom of speech does not exist. The famous "you cannot falsely yell fire in a theater" is clear evidence that speech that endangers or libels other people is prohibitted. But I am not talking about those kinds of limitations on speech: those limitations are agreed by everyone and is enforced by law, whether in America or in any other place. Therefore I will focus on those speech that are allowed by law. By "allowed by law", I mean there'll be no legal procedures, no sentencing, no fines.

Now, you will ask, if the speech is legal, then it should be spread freely. It is a sacred human right. If it is legal, what you say should not be interferred. That is the point I want to investigate.

Let's first talk about human acts. There are a lot of acts that are legal. But amongst those acts, some are harmful to society. It's just that those harms are not as evidence and immediate as the ones through illegal acts. Or, some harms are just as immediate as illegal ones, but there's no laws yet to prohibit it. For example, cooking. Cooking needs the burning of fuel, and burning creates carbon dioxide in the air, and hydrogen gets reduced as a result. Now is cooking illegal? Of course not. But, if there's an excess production of carbon dioxide, such as too many cars, turning on lights in empty business buildings, etc. Will those be harmful to human society? Of course they will. This example illustrates that even if something is perfectly legal, it can still be harmful to society if done in excess. And that's the reason there are so many environmental groups trying to stop the waste of energy.

NOw, let's get back to speech. I believe you know what my opinion is now. I believe in the system of human society, there contains a large amount of harmful speech and harmful information. But their harm is not very immediate and direct, so there's no law prohibiting them, and there's no need to prohibit them. But interferrence is a must, that is, interferrence of harmful speech outside the legal system is a necessary precondition for the defence of human social system.

Especially, there exists a method, a method to massively infuse into a society certain kinds of speech or information that is legal within that society, but very harmful to the society. This method can be elaborated into a big systematic project. So that you can collapse and destroy a country's system from the outside. For example the USSR, it's not collapsed by war or by nuclear bombs, it's collapsed by the the continual injection of harmful information.

Then, why can't a country fight back using the same method? The reason is that human soceity has always been a society where one class rides on top of another class. This has been a tradition that is deeply rooted in the system. Socialism, other the other hand, is a relatively new system. And a new system of course lacks tradition. In other words, when people enter a socialist system, it takes a long time for their mindset to leave the old system. So the socialist system lacks a tradition, or a root if you will. So it's very much like a tree that has not solidly grasped the soil yet, and is very easily knocked down. Therefore it is critical to enforce information control. As time goes on and the new system becomes a not-so-new-system, as it gains its own tradition and its own root and its own grasp of soil, then it can relax such control, because it is strong enough to withstand some wind.

Now, let's go a step further. Imagine someone invents a new drug in his lab, is that illegal? Of course not. But if he starts to advertise his drugs in society and sell them, without testing, without approval by any agencies, is that illegal? At least in America, that is absolutely illegal. Even if his drugs proves to be good and effective, it's still illegal. Because in order to massively spread a new drug, there must be a legal procedure of approval.

Now, imagine for a moment that there's a "mind" laboratory, and someone invents a new "ideological drug" in that lab. That drug supposedly will solve certain social problems of human societies. Is that illegal? Of course not. But if he starts to spread his drug without testing, can it be potentially harmful to society? Of course. Therefore anyone has the right to experiment in the ideological lab, but to massively spread something into society without testing is a quite different thing. The spreading of a thought among scholars is one thing, the spreading of a thought through society using the media is quite another thing.

If a social scientist suddenly stops a person and asks: "why should you respect your parents?" and tell that person that some advanced nations do not have the tradition of respecting their parents. This question would be very difficult to answer, it involves philosophy, behaviorial science, etc. And that person who respects his parents may not really have an answer. So after a few discussions with the scientist, he starts to think: "maybe the scientist is right. WHy should I treat my parents so well? There's no reason!". From that point on, the seed of destruction has been planted in his family.

In fact, we do not have answers to many questions of our soceity. But the society does not stop going because we have no answers. We continue to research the unknown, and therefore any kind of opinions can be raised. But selling your products from the ideological lab before reliability testing can create social disasters. Very much like selling defective cars. If someone says there is no need to respect your parents, and says the respect for parents is conditional. It's entirely possible that his reasoning would be sound and correct. But if he starts to spread his views with the help of the media, and people start to read "we don't need to respect our parents" on the newspapers everyday, the harm done is evident.

Especially for the hardworking, poor workers of China: they did not learn too much from books. So when they listen to certain scholars who are well versed in the art of rhetoric and argumentation, they'll be very easily convinced. And if those rhetoritians and argumentationists massively control the media, I believe the harm is great.

In reality, most of China's intellectuals complain about lack of freedom of speech. What they are reallyh complaining about is not that they can't say stuff after dinner in their houses, if they do, no one will know and they will be safe. What they are complaning about is that they don't have control of media tools such as newspapers, TV's, radios. They wish to spread their "products" to society. But they have not proven that their products have passed reliability testing.

In conclusion: I believe we cannot view the non-judicial limitation of the freedom of speech as a violation of human rights."

[Subversive Pessimist]

My view of this, taken from:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30972

"Of all the "basic human rights", freedom of speech is put on a prominent place, and is the biggest desire of all intellectuals.

This essay plans to lay out some opinions that support the limitation on the freedom of speech. Of course, I welcome all criticisms. If the moderator does not like this essay, feel free to edit or delete it, I don't mind at all. It will be ironic of me to write an essay supporting the limitation on the freedom of speech and ask the moderator not to censor it. Also, the essay is not a satire, it is an opinion.


First, we all agree that absolute freedom of speech does not exist. The famous "you cannot falsely yell fire in a theater" is clear evidence that speech that endangers or libels other people is prohibitted. But I am not talking about those kinds of limitations on speech: those limitations are agreed by everyone and is enforced by law, whether in America or in any other place. Therefore I will focus on those speech that are allowed by law. By "allowed by law", I mean there'll be no legal procedures, no sentencing, no fines.

Now, you will ask, if the speech is legal, then it should be spread freely. It is a sacred human right. If it is legal, what you say should not be interferred. That is the point I want to investigate.

Let's first talk about human acts. There are a lot of acts that are legal. But amongst those acts, some are harmful to society. It's just that those harms are not as evidence and immediate as the ones through illegal acts. Or, some harms are just as immediate as illegal ones, but there's no laws yet to prohibit it. For example, cooking. Cooking needs the burning of fuel, and burning creates carbon dioxide in the air, and hydrogen gets reduced as a result. Now is cooking illegal? Of course not. But, if there's an excess production of carbon dioxide, such as too many cars, turning on lights in empty business buildings, etc. Will those be harmful to human society? Of course they will. This example illustrates that even if something is perfectly legal, it can still be harmful to society if done in excess. And that's the reason there are so many environmental groups trying to stop the waste of energy.

NOw, let's get back to speech. I believe you know what my opinion is now. I believe in the system of human society, there contains a large amount of harmful speech and harmful information. But their harm is not very immediate and direct, so there's no law prohibiting them, and there's no need to prohibit them. But interferrence is a must, that is, interferrence of harmful speech outside the legal system is a necessary precondition for the defence of human social system.

Especially, there exists a method, a method to massively infuse into a society certain kinds of speech or information that is legal within that society, but very harmful to the society. This method can be elaborated into a big systematic project. So that you can collapse and destroy a country's system from the outside. For example the USSR, it's not collapsed by war or by nuclear bombs, it's collapsed by the the continual injection of harmful information.

Then, why can't a country fight back using the same method? The reason is that human soceity has always been a society where one class rides on top of another class. This has been a tradition that is deeply rooted in the system. Socialism, other the other hand, is a relatively new system. And a new system of course lacks tradition. In other words, when people enter a socialist system, it takes a long time for their mindset to leave the old system. So the socialist system lacks a tradition, or a root if you will. So it's very much like a tree that has not solidly grasped the soil yet, and is very easily knocked down. Therefore it is critical to enforce information control. As time goes on and the new system becomes a not-so-new-system, as it gains its own tradition and its own root and its own grasp of soil, then it can relax such control, because it is strong enough to withstand some wind.

Now, let's go a step further. Imagine someone invents a new drug in his lab, is that illegal? Of course not. But if he starts to advertise his drugs in society and sell them, without testing, without approval by any agencies, is that illegal? At least in America, that is absolutely illegal. Even if his drugs proves to be good and effective, it's still illegal. Because in order to massively spread a new drug, there must be a legal procedure of approval.

Now, imagine for a moment that there's a "mind" laboratory, and someone invents a new "ideological drug" in that lab. That drug supposedly will solve certain social problems of human societies. Is that illegal? Of course not. But if he starts to spread his drug without testing, can it be potentially harmful to society? Of course. Therefore anyone has the right to experiment in the ideological lab, but to massively spread something into society without testing is a quite different thing. The spreading of a thought among scholars is one thing, the spreading of a thought through society using the media is quite another thing.

If a social scientist suddenly stops a person and asks: "why should you respect your parents?" and tell that person that some advanced nations do not have the tradition of respecting their parents. This question would be very difficult to answer, it involves philosophy, behaviorial science, etc. And that person who respects his parents may not really have an answer. So after a few discussions with the scientist, he starts to think: "maybe the scientist is right. WHy should I treat my parents so well? There's no reason!". From that point on, the seed of destruction has been planted in his family.

In fact, we do not have answers to many questions of our soceity. But the society does not stop going because we have no answers. We continue to research the unknown, and therefore any kind of opinions can be raised. But selling your products from the ideological lab before reliability testing can create social disasters. Very much like selling defective cars. If someone says there is no need to respect your parents, and says the respect for parents is conditional. It's entirely possible that his reasoning would be sound and correct. But if he starts to spread his views with the help of the media, and people start to read "we don't need to respect our parents" on the newspapers everyday, the harm done is evident.

Especially for the hardworking, poor workers of China: they did not learn too much from books. So when they listen to certain scholars who are well versed in the art of rhetoric and argumentation, they'll be very easily convinced. And if those rhetoritians and argumentationists massively control the media, I believe the harm is great.

In reality, most of China's intellectuals complain about lack of freedom of speech. What they are reallyh complaining about is not that they can't say stuff after dinner in their houses, if they do, no one will know and they will be safe. What they are complaning about is that they don't have control of media tools such as newspapers, TV's, radios. They wish to spread their "products" to society. But they have not proven that their products have passed reliability testing.

In conclusion: I believe we cannot view the non-judicial limitation of the freedom of speech as a violation of human rights."

[Subversive Pessimist]

My view of this, taken from:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30972

"Of all the "basic human rights", freedom of speech is put on a prominent place, and is the biggest desire of all intellectuals.

This essay plans to lay out some opinions that support the limitation on the freedom of speech. Of course, I welcome all criticisms. If the moderator does not like this essay, feel free to edit or delete it, I don't mind at all. It will be ironic of me to write an essay supporting the limitation on the freedom of speech and ask the moderator not to censor it. Also, the essay is not a satire, it is an opinion.


First, we all agree that absolute freedom of speech does not exist. The famous "you cannot falsely yell fire in a theater" is clear evidence that speech that endangers or libels other people is prohibitted. But I am not talking about those kinds of limitations on speech: those limitations are agreed by everyone and is enforced by law, whether in America or in any other place. Therefore I will focus on those speech that are allowed by law. By "allowed by law", I mean there'll be no legal procedures, no sentencing, no fines.

Now, you will ask, if the speech is legal, then it should be spread freely. It is a sacred human right. If it is legal, what you say should not be interferred. That is the point I want to investigate.

Let's first talk about human acts. There are a lot of acts that are legal. But amongst those acts, some are harmful to society. It's just that those harms are not as evidence and immediate as the ones through illegal acts. Or, some harms are just as immediate as illegal ones, but there's no laws yet to prohibit it. For example, cooking. Cooking needs the burning of fuel, and burning creates carbon dioxide in the air, and hydrogen gets reduced as a result. Now is cooking illegal? Of course not. But, if there's an excess production of carbon dioxide, such as too many cars, turning on lights in empty business buildings, etc. Will those be harmful to human society? Of course they will. This example illustrates that even if something is perfectly legal, it can still be harmful to society if done in excess. And that's the reason there are so many environmental groups trying to stop the waste of energy.

NOw, let's get back to speech. I believe you know what my opinion is now. I believe in the system of human society, there contains a large amount of harmful speech and harmful information. But their harm is not very immediate and direct, so there's no law prohibiting them, and there's no need to prohibit them. But interferrence is a must, that is, interferrence of harmful speech outside the legal system is a necessary precondition for the defence of human social system.

Especially, there exists a method, a method to massively infuse into a society certain kinds of speech or information that is legal within that society, but very harmful to the society. This method can be elaborated into a big systematic project. So that you can collapse and destroy a country's system from the outside. For example the USSR, it's not collapsed by war or by nuclear bombs, it's collapsed by the the continual injection of harmful information.

Then, why can't a country fight back using the same method? The reason is that human soceity has always been a society where one class rides on top of another class. This has been a tradition that is deeply rooted in the system. Socialism, other the other hand, is a relatively new system. And a new system of course lacks tradition. In other words, when people enter a socialist system, it takes a long time for their mindset to leave the old system. So the socialist system lacks a tradition, or a root if you will. So it's very much like a tree that has not solidly grasped the soil yet, and is very easily knocked down. Therefore it is critical to enforce information control. As time goes on and the new system becomes a not-so-new-system, as it gains its own tradition and its own root and its own grasp of soil, then it can relax such control, because it is strong enough to withstand some wind.

Now, let's go a step further. Imagine someone invents a new drug in his lab, is that illegal? Of course not. But if he starts to advertise his drugs in society and sell them, without testing, without approval by any agencies, is that illegal? At least in America, that is absolutely illegal. Even if his drugs proves to be good and effective, it's still illegal. Because in order to massively spread a new drug, there must be a legal procedure of approval.

Now, imagine for a moment that there's a "mind" laboratory, and someone invents a new "ideological drug" in that lab. That drug supposedly will solve certain social problems of human societies. Is that illegal? Of course not. But if he starts to spread his drug without testing, can it be potentially harmful to society? Of course. Therefore anyone has the right to experiment in the ideological lab, but to massively spread something into society without testing is a quite different thing. The spreading of a thought among scholars is one thing, the spreading of a thought through society using the media is quite another thing.

If a social scientist suddenly stops a person and asks: "why should you respect your parents?" and tell that person that some advanced nations do not have the tradition of respecting their parents. This question would be very difficult to answer, it involves philosophy, behaviorial science, etc. And that person who respects his parents may not really have an answer. So after a few discussions with the scientist, he starts to think: "maybe the scientist is right. WHy should I treat my parents so well? There's no reason!". From that point on, the seed of destruction has been planted in his family.

In fact, we do not have answers to many questions of our soceity. But the society does not stop going because we have no answers. We continue to research the unknown, and therefore any kind of opinions can be raised. But selling your products from the ideological lab before reliability testing can create social disasters. Very much like selling defective cars. If someone says there is no need to respect your parents, and says the respect for parents is conditional. It's entirely possible that his reasoning would be sound and correct. But if he starts to spread his views with the help of the media, and people start to read "we don't need to respect our parents" on the newspapers everyday, the harm done is evident.

Especially for the hardworking, poor workers of China: they did not learn too much from books. So when they listen to certain scholars who are well versed in the art of rhetoric and argumentation, they'll be very easily convinced. And if those rhetoritians and argumentationists massively control the media, I believe the harm is great.

In reality, most of China's intellectuals complain about lack of freedom of speech. What they are reallyh complaining about is not that they can't say stuff after dinner in their houses, if they do, no one will know and they will be safe. What they are complaning about is that they don't have control of media tools such as newspapers, TV's, radios. They wish to spread their "products" to society. But they have not proven that their products have passed reliability testing.

In conclusion: I believe we cannot view the non-judicial limitation of the freedom of speech as a violation of human rights."

[LSD]

no government? we could do our best and then we will return to fiefdoms and the like.
Anarchy for Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421)

[LSD]

no government? we could do our best and then we will return to fiefdoms and the like.
Anarchy for Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421)

[LSD]

no government? we could do our best and then we will return to fiefdoms and the like.
Anarchy for Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421)

[redstar2000]

While I acknowledge that "perfect justice" is unachievable, I must point out that it still must be attempted. You're concerned about the first "few decades" of communist society, well, nothing erodes faith in a society like blatant injustice.

That's actually two points.

First, should attempting to achieve "perfect justice" take priority over defeating our class enemies?

And second, if defeating our class enemies is our primary goal, why is it then "necessary" that we must engage in "blatant injustice"?

That some injustice will almost certainly take place, I concede. Why do you assume that it will be so frequent and outrageous as to deserve the label "brazen"?


If I know that my rights are subject to the whim and mood of a few "hotheads" down the road, I know I wouldn't feel too safe.

Me neither; I'd move and so would most sensible people.

But again, why assume these polar opposites? There are the calm and rational folks on one side -- who are "tolerant" of reactionary views...and then over on the other side are "hotheads" with "whims" and "moods" who think that anything they disagree with "must" be "reactionary" and is therefore a suitable target for a violent response.

Why can't you be "calmly and rationally" intolerant of reaction? And how can you be so certain that it won't be the reactionaries who are the "hotheads"?

The Nazis were and are not particularly well known for either their "tolerance" or their calm and rational approach to controversy.

You seem to envision communism as a perpetual "witch-hunt" and search for "heresy".

I don't see why that should necessarily be the case.


Issues that are either so important or so complex that they cannot be left up to random chance must be worked out to some degree. But since I agree with you that any such attempt will pobably lead to exactly the bureacratic outcome I outlined, I must oppose any attempt at external censorship.

Well, that only leaves you with two rather unappealing alternatives: you can simply remain outside of public controversy altogether or you will find yourself defending "freedom of speech" for some pretty odious characters.

I personally think you will lose more votes than you'll win on this issue...but I could be wrong.


"Big fuss" or not, since we've agreed not to impose a bureacracy and to still attempt censorship, I can guarantee that it will happen again.

Other unjustified attacks (and, yes, worse) will happen again and again and again.

With no guidelines, but with the sense of "righteousness" that can only come with social approval, such activities will become commonplace.

But resistance to unjustified accusations will also arise "again and again" and, if necessary, "become commonplace".

A point I've made before: communist society is not "Heaven". People will still differ with each other and still struggle with each other to influence the course of events.

That need not mean "blood-thirsty mobs" storming through the streets looking for "a heretic" to hang.

And if some people decide to act like that, others will resist...violently if necessary.


But will it make honest critics, scholars, and journalists afraid to speak? Certainly.

Why?

To be sure, some folks might be feel induced to ponder their words a bit more carefully before they speak...to consider more thoughtfully the "larger" implications of their views.

But shouldn't we want people to "engage brain before opening mouth"?

I don't think there will be much public "outrage" over any honest and thoughtful criticism...unless it is clearly crafted in such a way as to attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society.

People who do that will, I suspect, know what they are doing and will have to accept the consequences...be they no worse than expulsion from a collective and a "rep" for being some kind of reactionary.


This is the kind of chaos I'm concerned about. Not the kind that can be worked with and shaped, but the kind that leaves half of society terrified and the other half the reason why.

Well, it could happen that way...I just see it as a "low probability" outcome.

If things did turn out that way, then people would demand the "restoration of order" and they'd get the restoration of class society along with it...probably some sort of "left" despotism.

That would certainly be a great tragedy...but not necessarily "the end of the world". It took the capitalists a considerable period of time to learn "how to rule" -- and perhaps the working class will need to make several attempts at communism before they "get it right".


So what are we left with? Civil war?

Yes, that's also possible. There were hints of that possibility during China's "great proletarian cultural revolution".

I don't think it will happen that way in a "high tech" communist society...but the possibility certainly exists.

But I see no reason for "despair" if it does; the reactionaries and their supporters will be defeated again (hopefully!) and...things will go on.


If people living on one end of the street believe that someone should be designated to manage water reclamation, but the people on the other end disagree, what happens? Fight to the death?

Maybe. Unlikely but...maybe.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means"...but now we're talking about a society in which both politics and war are in the hands of ordinary people.

I think they will do better than all of the various elites of today and yesterday.

But we'll see.


In this scenario, every area will vie to be the "most leftist". No one will want to be killed for living in a "looser" area, so they will begin accusing the "next town over" and real criticism or analysis of anything becomes impossible without risking a violent response.

You have a very vivid and colorful imagination. Some of what worries you might take place on a small scale here and there...but as a consistent feature of classless society, I think it's a non-starter.

People have real lives, after all. Only outright nutballs would see reactionaries "under every bed"...and what kind of hearing are they likely to get?

What kind of hearing do "right-to-life" nutballs get now when they start taking shots at doctors and women's clinics?

If a small group of "righteous" nutballs take it upon themselves to start exterminating anyone they think is a reactionary, is it not most likely they will be quickly exterminated themselves as a menace to public order?

In order to arouse a violent response that will also be socially-approved, you have to actually convince a substantial number of people that in this case a violent response is appropriate.

That's not as easy as you might think. It might happen on occasion...to Nazis and groups like them.

It's not going to happen to someone for writing a book or a newspaper article...even a very bad book or newspaper article.


Once people discover that they can go around burning anything they disagree with, it is unlikely they will stop.

Ah, but they can't. In fact, if a small group resorts to violence, then they will find out if they "went too far" from the surrounding community.

If the provocation was deemed insufficient justification for the act, they will find themselves in some very deep shit indeed.

It's more likely that the mildly reactionary newspaper will cease to be published after the first issue because the resources needed to publish it will simply be withdrawn.


A de facto police force is formed, as most people don't go around burning and destroying, there will be a select few that will "have" to do it for them. Not people appointed by anyone, but merely the people who have the ideological outlook and preexisting temperment to be the ones who would do it anyway.

A gang.

Will people "accept that"? If they do, then their "communism" is doomed anyway...it's only a matter of time until the gang becomes a state.

You see, that's what "letting the people decide" means...it means that we do not "run things for them" so they "can't" fuck up.

If people are so timid as to allow "left" vigilantes to "run wild"...then that simply means that they are not ready yet for communism...and, in one fashion or another, a new ruling class will emerge.

The only thing we can do is tell them what we think should or should not be done.


Our prospects are even dimmer if we start "punishing" those who speak out. The chilling effect is very real and very dangerous.

I'm sure it is. I've certainly had occasion to feel the icy wind on my neck often enough.

But who will feel the chill of suppression in communist society?

Everyone? Most people? A substantial minority? A small minority?

If "done right", only the "bad guys" should feel the chill. You seem to anticipate that it "must" be done "wrong" (to excess) and the resulting atmosphere will be simply impossible for people to tolerate.

I think people, using their ordinary common sense, will "get it mostly right".

I could be wrong, of course, but it's a chance I'm willing to risk.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

While I acknowledge that "perfect justice" is unachievable, I must point out that it still must be attempted. You're concerned about the first "few decades" of communist society, well, nothing erodes faith in a society like blatant injustice.

That's actually two points.

First, should attempting to achieve "perfect justice" take priority over defeating our class enemies?

And second, if defeating our class enemies is our primary goal, why is it then "necessary" that we must engage in "blatant injustice"?

That some injustice will almost certainly take place, I concede. Why do you assume that it will be so frequent and outrageous as to deserve the label "brazen"?


If I know that my rights are subject to the whim and mood of a few "hotheads" down the road, I know I wouldn't feel too safe.

Me neither; I'd move and so would most sensible people.

But again, why assume these polar opposites? There are the calm and rational folks on one side -- who are "tolerant" of reactionary views...and then over on the other side are "hotheads" with "whims" and "moods" who think that anything they disagree with "must" be "reactionary" and is therefore a suitable target for a violent response.

Why can't you be "calmly and rationally" intolerant of reaction? And how can you be so certain that it won't be the reactionaries who are the "hotheads"?

The Nazis were and are not particularly well known for either their "tolerance" or their calm and rational approach to controversy.

You seem to envision communism as a perpetual "witch-hunt" and search for "heresy".

I don't see why that should necessarily be the case.


Issues that are either so important or so complex that they cannot be left up to random chance must be worked out to some degree. But since I agree with you that any such attempt will pobably lead to exactly the bureacratic outcome I outlined, I must oppose any attempt at external censorship.

Well, that only leaves you with two rather unappealing alternatives: you can simply remain outside of public controversy altogether or you will find yourself defending "freedom of speech" for some pretty odious characters.

I personally think you will lose more votes than you'll win on this issue...but I could be wrong.


"Big fuss" or not, since we've agreed not to impose a bureacracy and to still attempt censorship, I can guarantee that it will happen again.

Other unjustified attacks (and, yes, worse) will happen again and again and again.

With no guidelines, but with the sense of "righteousness" that can only come with social approval, such activities will become commonplace.

But resistance to unjustified accusations will also arise "again and again" and, if necessary, "become commonplace".

A point I've made before: communist society is not "Heaven". People will still differ with each other and still struggle with each other to influence the course of events.

That need not mean "blood-thirsty mobs" storming through the streets looking for "a heretic" to hang.

And if some people decide to act like that, others will resist...violently if necessary.


But will it make honest critics, scholars, and journalists afraid to speak? Certainly.

Why?

To be sure, some folks might be feel induced to ponder their words a bit more carefully before they speak...to consider more thoughtfully the "larger" implications of their views.

But shouldn't we want people to "engage brain before opening mouth"?

I don't think there will be much public "outrage" over any honest and thoughtful criticism...unless it is clearly crafted in such a way as to attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society.

People who do that will, I suspect, know what they are doing and will have to accept the consequences...be they no worse than expulsion from a collective and a "rep" for being some kind of reactionary.


This is the kind of chaos I'm concerned about. Not the kind that can be worked with and shaped, but the kind that leaves half of society terrified and the other half the reason why.

Well, it could happen that way...I just see it as a "low probability" outcome.

If things did turn out that way, then people would demand the "restoration of order" and they'd get the restoration of class society along with it...probably some sort of "left" despotism.

That would certainly be a great tragedy...but not necessarily "the end of the world". It took the capitalists a considerable period of time to learn "how to rule" -- and perhaps the working class will need to make several attempts at communism before they "get it right".


So what are we left with? Civil war?

Yes, that's also possible. There were hints of that possibility during China's "great proletarian cultural revolution".

I don't think it will happen that way in a "high tech" communist society...but the possibility certainly exists.

But I see no reason for "despair" if it does; the reactionaries and their supporters will be defeated again (hopefully!) and...things will go on.


If people living on one end of the street believe that someone should be designated to manage water reclamation, but the people on the other end disagree, what happens? Fight to the death?

Maybe. Unlikely but...maybe.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means"...but now we're talking about a society in which both politics and war are in the hands of ordinary people.

I think they will do better than all of the various elites of today and yesterday.

But we'll see.


In this scenario, every area will vie to be the "most leftist". No one will want to be killed for living in a "looser" area, so they will begin accusing the "next town over" and real criticism or analysis of anything becomes impossible without risking a violent response.

You have a very vivid and colorful imagination. Some of what worries you might take place on a small scale here and there...but as a consistent feature of classless society, I think it's a non-starter.

People have real lives, after all. Only outright nutballs would see reactionaries "under every bed"...and what kind of hearing are they likely to get?

What kind of hearing do "right-to-life" nutballs get now when they start taking shots at doctors and women's clinics?

If a small group of "righteous" nutballs take it upon themselves to start exterminating anyone they think is a reactionary, is it not most likely they will be quickly exterminated themselves as a menace to public order?

In order to arouse a violent response that will also be socially-approved, you have to actually convince a substantial number of people that in this case a violent response is appropriate.

That's not as easy as you might think. It might happen on occasion...to Nazis and groups like them.

It's not going to happen to someone for writing a book or a newspaper article...even a very bad book or newspaper article.


Once people discover that they can go around burning anything they disagree with, it is unlikely they will stop.

Ah, but they can't. In fact, if a small group resorts to violence, then they will find out if they "went too far" from the surrounding community.

If the provocation was deemed insufficient justification for the act, they will find themselves in some very deep shit indeed.

It's more likely that the mildly reactionary newspaper will cease to be published after the first issue because the resources needed to publish it will simply be withdrawn.


A de facto police force is formed, as most people don't go around burning and destroying, there will be a select few that will "have" to do it for them. Not people appointed by anyone, but merely the people who have the ideological outlook and preexisting temperment to be the ones who would do it anyway.

A gang.

Will people "accept that"? If they do, then their "communism" is doomed anyway...it's only a matter of time until the gang becomes a state.

You see, that's what "letting the people decide" means...it means that we do not "run things for them" so they "can't" fuck up.

If people are so timid as to allow "left" vigilantes to "run wild"...then that simply means that they are not ready yet for communism...and, in one fashion or another, a new ruling class will emerge.

The only thing we can do is tell them what we think should or should not be done.


Our prospects are even dimmer if we start "punishing" those who speak out. The chilling effect is very real and very dangerous.

I'm sure it is. I've certainly had occasion to feel the icy wind on my neck often enough.

But who will feel the chill of suppression in communist society?

Everyone? Most people? A substantial minority? A small minority?

If "done right", only the "bad guys" should feel the chill. You seem to anticipate that it "must" be done "wrong" (to excess) and the resulting atmosphere will be simply impossible for people to tolerate.

I think people, using their ordinary common sense, will "get it mostly right".

I could be wrong, of course, but it's a chance I'm willing to risk.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

While I acknowledge that "perfect justice" is unachievable, I must point out that it still must be attempted. You're concerned about the first "few decades" of communist society, well, nothing erodes faith in a society like blatant injustice.

That's actually two points.

First, should attempting to achieve "perfect justice" take priority over defeating our class enemies?

And second, if defeating our class enemies is our primary goal, why is it then "necessary" that we must engage in "blatant injustice"?

That some injustice will almost certainly take place, I concede. Why do you assume that it will be so frequent and outrageous as to deserve the label "brazen"?


If I know that my rights are subject to the whim and mood of a few "hotheads" down the road, I know I wouldn't feel too safe.

Me neither; I'd move and so would most sensible people.

But again, why assume these polar opposites? There are the calm and rational folks on one side -- who are "tolerant" of reactionary views...and then over on the other side are "hotheads" with "whims" and "moods" who think that anything they disagree with "must" be "reactionary" and is therefore a suitable target for a violent response.

Why can't you be "calmly and rationally" intolerant of reaction? And how can you be so certain that it won't be the reactionaries who are the "hotheads"?

The Nazis were and are not particularly well known for either their "tolerance" or their calm and rational approach to controversy.

You seem to envision communism as a perpetual "witch-hunt" and search for "heresy".

I don't see why that should necessarily be the case.


Issues that are either so important or so complex that they cannot be left up to random chance must be worked out to some degree. But since I agree with you that any such attempt will pobably lead to exactly the bureacratic outcome I outlined, I must oppose any attempt at external censorship.

Well, that only leaves you with two rather unappealing alternatives: you can simply remain outside of public controversy altogether or you will find yourself defending "freedom of speech" for some pretty odious characters.

I personally think you will lose more votes than you'll win on this issue...but I could be wrong.


"Big fuss" or not, since we've agreed not to impose a bureacracy and to still attempt censorship, I can guarantee that it will happen again.

Other unjustified attacks (and, yes, worse) will happen again and again and again.

With no guidelines, but with the sense of "righteousness" that can only come with social approval, such activities will become commonplace.

But resistance to unjustified accusations will also arise "again and again" and, if necessary, "become commonplace".

A point I've made before: communist society is not "Heaven". People will still differ with each other and still struggle with each other to influence the course of events.

That need not mean "blood-thirsty mobs" storming through the streets looking for "a heretic" to hang.

And if some people decide to act like that, others will resist...violently if necessary.


But will it make honest critics, scholars, and journalists afraid to speak? Certainly.

Why?

To be sure, some folks might be feel induced to ponder their words a bit more carefully before they speak...to consider more thoughtfully the "larger" implications of their views.

But shouldn't we want people to "engage brain before opening mouth"?

I don't think there will be much public "outrage" over any honest and thoughtful criticism...unless it is clearly crafted in such a way as to attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society.

People who do that will, I suspect, know what they are doing and will have to accept the consequences...be they no worse than expulsion from a collective and a "rep" for being some kind of reactionary.


This is the kind of chaos I'm concerned about. Not the kind that can be worked with and shaped, but the kind that leaves half of society terrified and the other half the reason why.

Well, it could happen that way...I just see it as a "low probability" outcome.

If things did turn out that way, then people would demand the "restoration of order" and they'd get the restoration of class society along with it...probably some sort of "left" despotism.

That would certainly be a great tragedy...but not necessarily "the end of the world". It took the capitalists a considerable period of time to learn "how to rule" -- and perhaps the working class will need to make several attempts at communism before they "get it right".


So what are we left with? Civil war?

Yes, that's also possible. There were hints of that possibility during China's "great proletarian cultural revolution".

I don't think it will happen that way in a "high tech" communist society...but the possibility certainly exists.

But I see no reason for "despair" if it does; the reactionaries and their supporters will be defeated again (hopefully!) and...things will go on.


If people living on one end of the street believe that someone should be designated to manage water reclamation, but the people on the other end disagree, what happens? Fight to the death?

Maybe. Unlikely but...maybe.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means"...but now we're talking about a society in which both politics and war are in the hands of ordinary people.

I think they will do better than all of the various elites of today and yesterday.

But we'll see.


In this scenario, every area will vie to be the "most leftist". No one will want to be killed for living in a "looser" area, so they will begin accusing the "next town over" and real criticism or analysis of anything becomes impossible without risking a violent response.

You have a very vivid and colorful imagination. Some of what worries you might take place on a small scale here and there...but as a consistent feature of classless society, I think it's a non-starter.

People have real lives, after all. Only outright nutballs would see reactionaries "under every bed"...and what kind of hearing are they likely to get?

What kind of hearing do "right-to-life" nutballs get now when they start taking shots at doctors and women's clinics?

If a small group of "righteous" nutballs take it upon themselves to start exterminating anyone they think is a reactionary, is it not most likely they will be quickly exterminated themselves as a menace to public order?

In order to arouse a violent response that will also be socially-approved, you have to actually convince a substantial number of people that in this case a violent response is appropriate.

That's not as easy as you might think. It might happen on occasion...to Nazis and groups like them.

It's not going to happen to someone for writing a book or a newspaper article...even a very bad book or newspaper article.


Once people discover that they can go around burning anything they disagree with, it is unlikely they will stop.

Ah, but they can't. In fact, if a small group resorts to violence, then they will find out if they "went too far" from the surrounding community.

If the provocation was deemed insufficient justification for the act, they will find themselves in some very deep shit indeed.

It's more likely that the mildly reactionary newspaper will cease to be published after the first issue because the resources needed to publish it will simply be withdrawn.


A de facto police force is formed, as most people don't go around burning and destroying, there will be a select few that will "have" to do it for them. Not people appointed by anyone, but merely the people who have the ideological outlook and preexisting temperment to be the ones who would do it anyway.

A gang.

Will people "accept that"? If they do, then their "communism" is doomed anyway...it's only a matter of time until the gang becomes a state.

You see, that's what "letting the people decide" means...it means that we do not "run things for them" so they "can't" fuck up.

If people are so timid as to allow "left" vigilantes to "run wild"...then that simply means that they are not ready yet for communism...and, in one fashion or another, a new ruling class will emerge.

The only thing we can do is tell them what we think should or should not be done.


Our prospects are even dimmer if we start "punishing" those who speak out. The chilling effect is very real and very dangerous.

I'm sure it is. I've certainly had occasion to feel the icy wind on my neck often enough.

But who will feel the chill of suppression in communist society?

Everyone? Most people? A substantial minority? A small minority?

If "done right", only the "bad guys" should feel the chill. You seem to anticipate that it "must" be done "wrong" (to excess) and the resulting atmosphere will be simply impossible for people to tolerate.

I think people, using their ordinary common sense, will "get it mostly right".

I could be wrong, of course, but it's a chance I'm willing to risk.

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

Sorry it took me a while to respond, I've been violently ill for the last few days.


First, should attempting to achieve "perfect justice" take priority over defeating our class enemies?

I would propose that the two aims are in fact one in the same.

After all, the reason we aim to defeat the rulling class is not for our health but rather because their defeat would create a better society. People are far better off in a just, fair, and free envirnomen. This is not possible with capitalism and it is not possible with unequal application of social norms and rules.


And second, if defeating our class enemies is our primary goal, why is it then "necessary" that we must engage in "blatant injustice"?

I don't claim it is "necessary", rather that it is unavoidable if we attempt the enforcement of "censorship" without perscribed limitations.


That some injustice will almost certainly take place, I concede. Why do you assume that it will be so frequent and outrageous as to deserve the label "brazen"?

To be fair, I applied the label "blatant", not "brazen".

And I used the word "blatant" specifically, because what you're proposing would not be the orindary inperfect justice that comes with any society, but rather injustice that is specifically condoned by society. It is that acceptance that creates the errosian I mentioned.


But again, why assume these polar opposites? There are the calm and rational folks on one side -- who are "tolerant" of reactionary views...and then over on the other side are "hotheads" with "whims" and "moods" who think that anything they disagree with "must" be "reactionary" and is therefore a suitable target for a violent response.

Why can't you be "calmly and rationally" intolerant of reaction?

I'm sure there will be many like that. But specifically because they are "calm and rational", they are not the ones I worry about. Rather they are the ones who are likely to be the ones who "wink and nod". They may not agree with some acts of "excessive" censorship, but they don't generally care either way. The issues will be grey and complex, and most "calm and rational" people will simply not have the investment to find out whether the "activists" were right or not.


And how can you be so certain that it won't be the reactionaries who are the "hotheads"?

Oh, I'm sure there will be many "hothead" reactionaries.

But, for the present discussion, they really aren't the problem. The reactionaries who are "irrational" and "out of control" will be pretty easy to identify, and will more than likely take action that anyone would agree merits a response. The problem is with the "rational" ones, because they are the ones who can come across as very much like the "rational" ones on the other side.


You seem to envision communism as a perpetual "witch-hunt" and search for "heresy".

I don't see why that should necessarily be the case.

I don't envision that, I merely forsee that some may.

Believe me, I would love to have "faith" that everyone will be "calm and rational" and that no one will abuse this power, but I can't. I believe that the people should have power, but I also believe that even this power should be limited to what is essential.

The clear danger of any plebiscitarian system is oppression of the minority, what Oligarchs called the "tyranny of the majority". The Oligarchan solution centralize power, the better solution is to limit it.

Everyone should participate in community decisions, but the power of those decisions must be limited to nescessary areas, lest "irrational" voices drown out the "calm" ones.


But resistance to unjustified accusations will also arise "again and again" and, if necessary, "become commonplace".

A point I've made before: communist society is not "Heaven". People will still differ with each other and still struggle with each other to influence the course of events.

That need not mean "blood-thirsty mobs" storming through the streets looking for "a heretic" to hang.

And if some people decide to act like that, others will resist...violently if necessary.

Others may resist....but when? And how often?

Eventually, I imagine, they will be forced to prevent such "blood-thirsty mobs" outright by codifying the rules.

I know we've covered this ground before, but, on clear-cut issues, it will be simple to decide if the "mob" was correct or not, but more often it is very difficult to determine. To control reactions, "rules" we have to be set up.



I don't think there will be much public "outrage" over any honest and thoughtful criticism...unless it is clearly crafted in such a way as to attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society.

Ah... but there's the problem. Who's to say what is "crafted" to "attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society"? That is a very subjective judgement. Indeed, many may think innocent publications have precisely that intent, whereas other may find innocent, publications with alterious motives.



People who do that will, I suspect, know what they are doing and will have to accept the consequences...be they no worse than expulsion from a collective and a "rep" for being some kind of reactionary

The punnishment isn't the problem, the application is.

The problem is knowing when to "rep", not how to.


Yes, that's also possible. There were hints of that possibility during China's "great proletarian cultural revolution".

I don't think it will happen that way in a "high tech" communist society...but the possibility certainly exists.

But I see no reason for "despair" if it does; the reactionaries and their supporters will be defeated again (hopefully!) and...things will go on.

Fine, but civil war over censorship every couple of years is not maintainable in the long-term. Eventually, for the sake of sanity alone, some form of compromosie must be reached and, again, we're left with "laws" on censorship.


You have a very vivid and colorful imagination. Some of what worries you might take place on a small scale here and there...but as a consistent feature of classless society, I think it's a non-starter.

People have real lives, after all. Only outright nutballs would see reactionaries "under every bed"...and what kind of hearing are they likely to get?

No argument. But it is the "nutballs" who have caused many problems throughout history.

I don't imagine that "ordinary" people will "go along" with the "nutballs", but, as you say, they have "real lives" to live.

"The only thing nescessary for the triumph of evil..."


What kind of hearing do "right-to-life" nutballs get now when they start taking shots at doctors and women's clinics?

What they get is dead doctors.

Not to mention the gradual closing of clinics willing to perform abortions. Mainly because of the exact actions you outline, less and less doctors in less and less areas are now performing abortions.

These "nutballs" may not get a good "hearing" in polite circles, but they seem to be doing quite well.


In fact, if a small group resorts to violence, then they will find out if they "went too far" from the surrounding community.

If the provocation was deemed insufficient justification for the act, they will find themselves in some very deep shit indeed.

If a small group of "righteous" nutballs take it upon themselves to start exterminating anyone they think is a reactionary, is it not most likely they will be quickly exterminated themselves as a menace to public order?

In order to arouse a violent response that will also be socially-approved, you have to actually convince a substantial number of people that in this case a violent response is appropriate.


It is more likely they will be critisized, but generally left alone.

Unless the actions of the "mob" were blatantly wrong, people would be divided, fragmented, and unsure. It may take a large consensus to endorse violence, but it would take the same to condemn it as well.


It's more likely that the mildly reactionary newspaper will cease to be published after the first issue because the resources needed to publish it will simply be withdrawn.

Again, those "resources" are quite few: A computer, electricity.
Hell, if one gets desperate: ink and a few sheets of paper.

I'm not talking about journalistic editing, but about a few guys in their spare time cranking our a newsletter. The resources are paltry and the bare minimum of what anyone would get anyways.



If "done right", only the "bad guys" should feel the chill. You seem to anticipate that it "must" be done "wrong" (to excess) and the resulting atmosphere will be simply impossible for people to tolerate.

It's not going to happen to someone for writing a book or a newspaper article...even a very bad book or newspaper article.

You hope.

But it could.

And the question that must be asked is are the bennefits of censorship worth that risk. So far, I fail to see any of the bennefits.

In your words:
If people are so timid as to allow "left" vigilantes to "run wild"...then that simply means that they are not ready yet for communism

By the same token, if a few words about "market mechanisms" or "professionalizing" will drive them back into to wage-slavery, they aren't ready either.

[LSD]

Sorry it took me a while to respond, I've been violently ill for the last few days.


First, should attempting to achieve "perfect justice" take priority over defeating our class enemies?

I would propose that the two aims are in fact one in the same.

After all, the reason we aim to defeat the rulling class is not for our health but rather because their defeat would create a better society. People are far better off in a just, fair, and free envirnomen. This is not possible with capitalism and it is not possible with unequal application of social norms and rules.


And second, if defeating our class enemies is our primary goal, why is it then "necessary" that we must engage in "blatant injustice"?

I don't claim it is "necessary", rather that it is unavoidable if we attempt the enforcement of "censorship" without perscribed limitations.


That some injustice will almost certainly take place, I concede. Why do you assume that it will be so frequent and outrageous as to deserve the label "brazen"?

To be fair, I applied the label "blatant", not "brazen".

And I used the word "blatant" specifically, because what you're proposing would not be the orindary inperfect justice that comes with any society, but rather injustice that is specifically condoned by society. It is that acceptance that creates the errosian I mentioned.


But again, why assume these polar opposites? There are the calm and rational folks on one side -- who are "tolerant" of reactionary views...and then over on the other side are "hotheads" with "whims" and "moods" who think that anything they disagree with "must" be "reactionary" and is therefore a suitable target for a violent response.

Why can't you be "calmly and rationally" intolerant of reaction?

I'm sure there will be many like that. But specifically because they are "calm and rational", they are not the ones I worry about. Rather they are the ones who are likely to be the ones who "wink and nod". They may not agree with some acts of "excessive" censorship, but they don't generally care either way. The issues will be grey and complex, and most "calm and rational" people will simply not have the investment to find out whether the "activists" were right or not.


And how can you be so certain that it won't be the reactionaries who are the "hotheads"?

Oh, I'm sure there will be many "hothead" reactionaries.

But, for the present discussion, they really aren't the problem. The reactionaries who are "irrational" and "out of control" will be pretty easy to identify, and will more than likely take action that anyone would agree merits a response. The problem is with the "rational" ones, because they are the ones who can come across as very much like the "rational" ones on the other side.


You seem to envision communism as a perpetual "witch-hunt" and search for "heresy".

I don't see why that should necessarily be the case.

I don't envision that, I merely forsee that some may.

Believe me, I would love to have "faith" that everyone will be "calm and rational" and that no one will abuse this power, but I can't. I believe that the people should have power, but I also believe that even this power should be limited to what is essential.

The clear danger of any plebiscitarian system is oppression of the minority, what Oligarchs called the "tyranny of the majority". The Oligarchan solution centralize power, the better solution is to limit it.

Everyone should participate in community decisions, but the power of those decisions must be limited to nescessary areas, lest "irrational" voices drown out the "calm" ones.


But resistance to unjustified accusations will also arise "again and again" and, if necessary, "become commonplace".

A point I've made before: communist society is not "Heaven". People will still differ with each other and still struggle with each other to influence the course of events.

That need not mean "blood-thirsty mobs" storming through the streets looking for "a heretic" to hang.

And if some people decide to act like that, others will resist...violently if necessary.

Others may resist....but when? And how often?

Eventually, I imagine, they will be forced to prevent such "blood-thirsty mobs" outright by codifying the rules.

I know we've covered this ground before, but, on clear-cut issues, it will be simple to decide if the "mob" was correct or not, but more often it is very difficult to determine. To control reactions, "rules" we have to be set up.



I don't think there will be much public "outrage" over any honest and thoughtful criticism...unless it is clearly crafted in such a way as to attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society.

Ah... but there's the problem. Who's to say what is "crafted" to "attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society"? That is a very subjective judgement. Indeed, many may think innocent publications have precisely that intent, whereas other may find innocent, publications with alterious motives.



People who do that will, I suspect, know what they are doing and will have to accept the consequences...be they no worse than expulsion from a collective and a "rep" for being some kind of reactionary

The punnishment isn't the problem, the application is.

The problem is knowing when to "rep", not how to.


Yes, that's also possible. There were hints of that possibility during China's "great proletarian cultural revolution".

I don't think it will happen that way in a "high tech" communist society...but the possibility certainly exists.

But I see no reason for "despair" if it does; the reactionaries and their supporters will be defeated again (hopefully!) and...things will go on.

Fine, but civil war over censorship every couple of years is not maintainable in the long-term. Eventually, for the sake of sanity alone, some form of compromosie must be reached and, again, we're left with "laws" on censorship.


You have a very vivid and colorful imagination. Some of what worries you might take place on a small scale here and there...but as a consistent feature of classless society, I think it's a non-starter.

People have real lives, after all. Only outright nutballs would see reactionaries "under every bed"...and what kind of hearing are they likely to get?

No argument. But it is the "nutballs" who have caused many problems throughout history.

I don't imagine that "ordinary" people will "go along" with the "nutballs", but, as you say, they have "real lives" to live.

"The only thing nescessary for the triumph of evil..."


What kind of hearing do "right-to-life" nutballs get now when they start taking shots at doctors and women's clinics?

What they get is dead doctors.

Not to mention the gradual closing of clinics willing to perform abortions. Mainly because of the exact actions you outline, less and less doctors in less and less areas are now performing abortions.

These "nutballs" may not get a good "hearing" in polite circles, but they seem to be doing quite well.


In fact, if a small group resorts to violence, then they will find out if they "went too far" from the surrounding community.

If the provocation was deemed insufficient justification for the act, they will find themselves in some very deep shit indeed.

If a small group of "righteous" nutballs take it upon themselves to start exterminating anyone they think is a reactionary, is it not most likely they will be quickly exterminated themselves as a menace to public order?

In order to arouse a violent response that will also be socially-approved, you have to actually convince a substantial number of people that in this case a violent response is appropriate.


It is more likely they will be critisized, but generally left alone.

Unless the actions of the "mob" were blatantly wrong, people would be divided, fragmented, and unsure. It may take a large consensus to endorse violence, but it would take the same to condemn it as well.


It's more likely that the mildly reactionary newspaper will cease to be published after the first issue because the resources needed to publish it will simply be withdrawn.

Again, those "resources" are quite few: A computer, electricity.
Hell, if one gets desperate: ink and a few sheets of paper.

I'm not talking about journalistic editing, but about a few guys in their spare time cranking our a newsletter. The resources are paltry and the bare minimum of what anyone would get anyways.



If "done right", only the "bad guys" should feel the chill. You seem to anticipate that it "must" be done "wrong" (to excess) and the resulting atmosphere will be simply impossible for people to tolerate.

It's not going to happen to someone for writing a book or a newspaper article...even a very bad book or newspaper article.

You hope.

But it could.

And the question that must be asked is are the bennefits of censorship worth that risk. So far, I fail to see any of the bennefits.

In your words:
If people are so timid as to allow "left" vigilantes to "run wild"...then that simply means that they are not ready yet for communism

By the same token, if a few words about "market mechanisms" or "professionalizing" will drive them back into to wage-slavery, they aren't ready either.

[LSD]

Sorry it took me a while to respond, I've been violently ill for the last few days.


First, should attempting to achieve "perfect justice" take priority over defeating our class enemies?

I would propose that the two aims are in fact one in the same.

After all, the reason we aim to defeat the rulling class is not for our health but rather because their defeat would create a better society. People are far better off in a just, fair, and free envirnomen. This is not possible with capitalism and it is not possible with unequal application of social norms and rules.


And second, if defeating our class enemies is our primary goal, why is it then "necessary" that we must engage in "blatant injustice"?

I don't claim it is "necessary", rather that it is unavoidable if we attempt the enforcement of "censorship" without perscribed limitations.


That some injustice will almost certainly take place, I concede. Why do you assume that it will be so frequent and outrageous as to deserve the label "brazen"?

To be fair, I applied the label "blatant", not "brazen".

And I used the word "blatant" specifically, because what you're proposing would not be the orindary inperfect justice that comes with any society, but rather injustice that is specifically condoned by society. It is that acceptance that creates the errosian I mentioned.


But again, why assume these polar opposites? There are the calm and rational folks on one side -- who are "tolerant" of reactionary views...and then over on the other side are "hotheads" with "whims" and "moods" who think that anything they disagree with "must" be "reactionary" and is therefore a suitable target for a violent response.

Why can't you be "calmly and rationally" intolerant of reaction?

I'm sure there will be many like that. But specifically because they are "calm and rational", they are not the ones I worry about. Rather they are the ones who are likely to be the ones who "wink and nod". They may not agree with some acts of "excessive" censorship, but they don't generally care either way. The issues will be grey and complex, and most "calm and rational" people will simply not have the investment to find out whether the "activists" were right or not.


And how can you be so certain that it won't be the reactionaries who are the "hotheads"?

Oh, I'm sure there will be many "hothead" reactionaries.

But, for the present discussion, they really aren't the problem. The reactionaries who are "irrational" and "out of control" will be pretty easy to identify, and will more than likely take action that anyone would agree merits a response. The problem is with the "rational" ones, because they are the ones who can come across as very much like the "rational" ones on the other side.


You seem to envision communism as a perpetual "witch-hunt" and search for "heresy".

I don't see why that should necessarily be the case.

I don't envision that, I merely forsee that some may.

Believe me, I would love to have "faith" that everyone will be "calm and rational" and that no one will abuse this power, but I can't. I believe that the people should have power, but I also believe that even this power should be limited to what is essential.

The clear danger of any plebiscitarian system is oppression of the minority, what Oligarchs called the "tyranny of the majority". The Oligarchan solution centralize power, the better solution is to limit it.

Everyone should participate in community decisions, but the power of those decisions must be limited to nescessary areas, lest "irrational" voices drown out the "calm" ones.


But resistance to unjustified accusations will also arise "again and again" and, if necessary, "become commonplace".

A point I've made before: communist society is not "Heaven". People will still differ with each other and still struggle with each other to influence the course of events.

That need not mean "blood-thirsty mobs" storming through the streets looking for "a heretic" to hang.

And if some people decide to act like that, others will resist...violently if necessary.

Others may resist....but when? And how often?

Eventually, I imagine, they will be forced to prevent such "blood-thirsty mobs" outright by codifying the rules.

I know we've covered this ground before, but, on clear-cut issues, it will be simple to decide if the "mob" was correct or not, but more often it is very difficult to determine. To control reactions, "rules" we have to be set up.



I don't think there will be much public "outrage" over any honest and thoughtful criticism...unless it is clearly crafted in such a way as to attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society.

Ah... but there's the problem. Who's to say what is "crafted" to "attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society"? That is a very subjective judgement. Indeed, many may think innocent publications have precisely that intent, whereas other may find innocent, publications with alterious motives.



People who do that will, I suspect, know what they are doing and will have to accept the consequences...be they no worse than expulsion from a collective and a "rep" for being some kind of reactionary

The punnishment isn't the problem, the application is.

The problem is knowing when to "rep", not how to.


Yes, that's also possible. There were hints of that possibility during China's "great proletarian cultural revolution".

I don't think it will happen that way in a "high tech" communist society...but the possibility certainly exists.

But I see no reason for "despair" if it does; the reactionaries and their supporters will be defeated again (hopefully!) and...things will go on.

Fine, but civil war over censorship every couple of years is not maintainable in the long-term. Eventually, for the sake of sanity alone, some form of compromosie must be reached and, again, we're left with "laws" on censorship.


You have a very vivid and colorful imagination. Some of what worries you might take place on a small scale here and there...but as a consistent feature of classless society, I think it's a non-starter.

People have real lives, after all. Only outright nutballs would see reactionaries "under every bed"...and what kind of hearing are they likely to get?

No argument. But it is the "nutballs" who have caused many problems throughout history.

I don't imagine that "ordinary" people will "go along" with the "nutballs", but, as you say, they have "real lives" to live.

"The only thing nescessary for the triumph of evil..."


What kind of hearing do "right-to-life" nutballs get now when they start taking shots at doctors and women's clinics?

What they get is dead doctors.

Not to mention the gradual closing of clinics willing to perform abortions. Mainly because of the exact actions you outline, less and less doctors in less and less areas are now performing abortions.

These "nutballs" may not get a good "hearing" in polite circles, but they seem to be doing quite well.


In fact, if a small group resorts to violence, then they will find out if they "went too far" from the surrounding community.

If the provocation was deemed insufficient justification for the act, they will find themselves in some very deep shit indeed.

If a small group of "righteous" nutballs take it upon themselves to start exterminating anyone they think is a reactionary, is it not most likely they will be quickly exterminated themselves as a menace to public order?

In order to arouse a violent response that will also be socially-approved, you have to actually convince a substantial number of people that in this case a violent response is appropriate.


It is more likely they will be critisized, but generally left alone.

Unless the actions of the "mob" were blatantly wrong, people would be divided, fragmented, and unsure. It may take a large consensus to endorse violence, but it would take the same to condemn it as well.


It's more likely that the mildly reactionary newspaper will cease to be published after the first issue because the resources needed to publish it will simply be withdrawn.

Again, those "resources" are quite few: A computer, electricity.
Hell, if one gets desperate: ink and a few sheets of paper.

I'm not talking about journalistic editing, but about a few guys in their spare time cranking our a newsletter. The resources are paltry and the bare minimum of what anyone would get anyways.



If "done right", only the "bad guys" should feel the chill. You seem to anticipate that it "must" be done "wrong" (to excess) and the resulting atmosphere will be simply impossible for people to tolerate.

It's not going to happen to someone for writing a book or a newspaper article...even a very bad book or newspaper article.

You hope.

But it could.

And the question that must be asked is are the bennefits of censorship worth that risk. So far, I fail to see any of the bennefits.

In your words:
If people are so timid as to allow "left" vigilantes to "run wild"...then that simply means that they are not ready yet for communism

By the same token, if a few words about "market mechanisms" or "professionalizing" will drive them back into to wage-slavery, they aren't ready either.

[redstar2000]

I would propose that the two aims are in fact one in the same.

They may be the same in the long run...but it's rather unlikely in the short run.

In any given country, if there are tens or hundreds of millions of people in general agreement with communism, there are also going to be millions or even tens of millions in general disagreement with communism.

It's hardly practical to just "kill them all", yet in some fashion they must be demoralized to the point of political passivity or ineffectiveness. The alternative is counter-revolution...or at least a really nasty and bloody civil war.

By stigmatizing their ideas and making it extremely difficult for them to circulate in the public discourse, we accomplish a necessary purpose without wide-spread bloodletting.


I don't claim it is "necessary", rather that it is unavoidable if we attempt the enforcement of "censorship" without perscribed limitations.

The two words -- "necessary" and "unavoidable" -- mean the same thing in this context.

Whereas I argue that injustices are possible and even likely on occasion but neither "necessary" nor "unavoidable".

And when injustices do occur, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be "horrendous" and bloody excesses inflicted by "hotheads".

It can simply mean that reactionaries will be denied the resources to spread their ideas in a significant fashion.


To be fair, I applied the label "blatant", not "brazen".

And I used the word "blatant" specifically, because what you're proposing would not be the ordinary inperfect justice that comes with any society, but rather injustice that is specifically condoned by society.

I stand corrected for mis-quoting you...though again it would seem that in this context the words have the same meaning.

What I dispute is your contention that we would be guilty of "blatant injustice"...that we "would" unfairly and wrongfully stop the circulation of views that were not reactionary at all.

I can see people arguing in meetings about a particular set of views and taking varying positions: X is actually revolutionary, X is "harmless", X "implies" a reactionary outlook, X is "self-evidently" reactionary, etc.

Just as on this board, there might well be protracted public debate before any decisions were made -- there are majority views on this board now that two years ago were only held by a small minority. For example, Religion is now a sub-forum of Opposing Ideologies...two years ago that could not have happened.

You could argue that we have evolved an informal "code" now...a step towards eventually eliminating religion as a subject of serious public discussion here at all. I think the time will come (two years? five years? whenever) when anyone who writes a "pro-god" post here will be automatically restricted to Opposing Ideologies and, further down the line, will be banned.

The limits of acceptable public discourse will have been defined by the people here themselves...not by decree but by ideological struggle and democratic vote.

I think that's how it will work in communist society...though things may be somewhat less orderly in the early years when "tempers are high".

The goal is not "hotheads" running amuck...but a serious and long-term struggle to put an end to the public display of reaction: racism, sexism, homophobia, superstition...and any appeal for the restoration of class society.


The clear danger of any plebiscitarian system is oppression of the minority, what Oligarchs called the "tyranny of the majority". The Oligarchan solution [is to] centralize power, the better solution is to limit it.

What is more "limiting" of power than the absence of a state apparatus? You can't be arrested, imprisoned, or shot simply for expressing reactionary views...at least that can't happen in a systematic way.

It could happen "informally"...if you really pissed off a whole lot of people or even a few "hotheads". I would anticipate that Nazis would be "censored" by summary execution.

But beyond this, I think this quote by you is a revealing one and cuts to the heart of the matter.

You fear the "tyranny of the majority" and wish to limit it.

I don't.

In my view, oligarchies -- even "people's oligarchies" -- are much more worthy of being feared...and despised.

I contend that by the time the working class is "ready" to undertake proletarian revolution and the project of a communist society, it will rule justly far more often than it will rule unjustly...and will continuously improve in that regard.

Of course, I could be wrong. :(

But that's where I'm putting my chips.

All of them.


Who's to say what is "crafted" to "attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society"? That is a very subjective judgement. Indeed, many may think innocent publications [that] have precisely that intent, whereas other may find innocent publications with alterious motives.

Like all controversies, this must be decided on the basis of argument and evidence.

There may be subjective elements involved in such decisions and injustices may result from that...but I think ordinary working people will "get it mostly right."

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

I would propose that the two aims are in fact one in the same.

They may be the same in the long run...but it's rather unlikely in the short run.

In any given country, if there are tens or hundreds of millions of people in general agreement with communism, there are also going to be millions or even tens of millions in general disagreement with communism.

It's hardly practical to just "kill them all", yet in some fashion they must be demoralized to the point of political passivity or ineffectiveness. The alternative is counter-revolution...or at least a really nasty and bloody civil war.

By stigmatizing their ideas and making it extremely difficult for them to circulate in the public discourse, we accomplish a necessary purpose without wide-spread bloodletting.


I don't claim it is "necessary", rather that it is unavoidable if we attempt the enforcement of "censorship" without perscribed limitations.

The two words -- "necessary" and "unavoidable" -- mean the same thing in this context.

Whereas I argue that injustices are possible and even likely on occasion but neither "necessary" nor "unavoidable".

And when injustices do occur, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be "horrendous" and bloody excesses inflicted by "hotheads".

It can simply mean that reactionaries will be denied the resources to spread their ideas in a significant fashion.


To be fair, I applied the label "blatant", not "brazen".

And I used the word "blatant" specifically, because what you're proposing would not be the ordinary inperfect justice that comes with any society, but rather injustice that is specifically condoned by society.

I stand corrected for mis-quoting you...though again it would seem that in this context the words have the same meaning.

What I dispute is your contention that we would be guilty of "blatant injustice"...that we "would" unfairly and wrongfully stop the circulation of views that were not reactionary at all.

I can see people arguing in meetings about a particular set of views and taking varying positions: X is actually revolutionary, X is "harmless", X "implies" a reactionary outlook, X is "self-evidently" reactionary, etc.

Just as on this board, there might well be protracted public debate before any decisions were made -- there are majority views on this board now that two years ago were only held by a small minority. For example, Religion is now a sub-forum of Opposing Ideologies...two years ago that could not have happened.

You could argue that we have evolved an informal "code" now...a step towards eventually eliminating religion as a subject of serious public discussion here at all. I think the time will come (two years? five years? whenever) when anyone who writes a "pro-god" post here will be automatically restricted to Opposing Ideologies and, further down the line, will be banned.

The limits of acceptable public discourse will have been defined by the people here themselves...not by decree but by ideological struggle and democratic vote.

I think that's how it will work in communist society...though things may be somewhat less orderly in the early years when "tempers are high".

The goal is not "hotheads" running amuck...but a serious and long-term struggle to put an end to the public display of reaction: racism, sexism, homophobia, superstition...and any appeal for the restoration of class society.


The clear danger of any plebiscitarian system is oppression of the minority, what Oligarchs called the "tyranny of the majority". The Oligarchan solution [is to] centralize power, the better solution is to limit it.

What is more "limiting" of power than the absence of a state apparatus? You can't be arrested, imprisoned, or shot simply for expressing reactionary views...at least that can't happen in a systematic way.

It could happen "informally"...if you really pissed off a whole lot of people or even a few "hotheads". I would anticipate that Nazis would be "censored" by summary execution.

But beyond this, I think this quote by you is a revealing one and cuts to the heart of the matter.

You fear the "tyranny of the majority" and wish to limit it.

I don't.

In my view, oligarchies -- even "people's oligarchies" -- are much more worthy of being feared...and despised.

I contend that by the time the working class is "ready" to undertake proletarian revolution and the project of a communist society, it will rule justly far more often than it will rule unjustly...and will continuously improve in that regard.

Of course, I could be wrong. :(

But that's where I'm putting my chips.

All of them.


Who's to say what is "crafted" to "attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society"? That is a very subjective judgement. Indeed, many may think innocent publications [that] have precisely that intent, whereas other may find innocent publications with alterious motives.

Like all controversies, this must be decided on the basis of argument and evidence.

There may be subjective elements involved in such decisions and injustices may result from that...but I think ordinary working people will "get it mostly right."

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

I would propose that the two aims are in fact one in the same.

They may be the same in the long run...but it's rather unlikely in the short run.

In any given country, if there are tens or hundreds of millions of people in general agreement with communism, there are also going to be millions or even tens of millions in general disagreement with communism.

It's hardly practical to just "kill them all", yet in some fashion they must be demoralized to the point of political passivity or ineffectiveness. The alternative is counter-revolution...or at least a really nasty and bloody civil war.

By stigmatizing their ideas and making it extremely difficult for them to circulate in the public discourse, we accomplish a necessary purpose without wide-spread bloodletting.


I don't claim it is "necessary", rather that it is unavoidable if we attempt the enforcement of "censorship" without perscribed limitations.

The two words -- "necessary" and "unavoidable" -- mean the same thing in this context.

Whereas I argue that injustices are possible and even likely on occasion but neither "necessary" nor "unavoidable".

And when injustices do occur, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be "horrendous" and bloody excesses inflicted by "hotheads".

It can simply mean that reactionaries will be denied the resources to spread their ideas in a significant fashion.


To be fair, I applied the label "blatant", not "brazen".

And I used the word "blatant" specifically, because what you're proposing would not be the ordinary inperfect justice that comes with any society, but rather injustice that is specifically condoned by society.

I stand corrected for mis-quoting you...though again it would seem that in this context the words have the same meaning.

What I dispute is your contention that we would be guilty of "blatant injustice"...that we "would" unfairly and wrongfully stop the circulation of views that were not reactionary at all.

I can see people arguing in meetings about a particular set of views and taking varying positions: X is actually revolutionary, X is "harmless", X "implies" a reactionary outlook, X is "self-evidently" reactionary, etc.

Just as on this board, there might well be protracted public debate before any decisions were made -- there are majority views on this board now that two years ago were only held by a small minority. For example, Religion is now a sub-forum of Opposing Ideologies...two years ago that could not have happened.

You could argue that we have evolved an informal "code" now...a step towards eventually eliminating religion as a subject of serious public discussion here at all. I think the time will come (two years? five years? whenever) when anyone who writes a "pro-god" post here will be automatically restricted to Opposing Ideologies and, further down the line, will be banned.

The limits of acceptable public discourse will have been defined by the people here themselves...not by decree but by ideological struggle and democratic vote.

I think that's how it will work in communist society...though things may be somewhat less orderly in the early years when "tempers are high".

The goal is not "hotheads" running amuck...but a serious and long-term struggle to put an end to the public display of reaction: racism, sexism, homophobia, superstition...and any appeal for the restoration of class society.


The clear danger of any plebiscitarian system is oppression of the minority, what Oligarchs called the "tyranny of the majority". The Oligarchan solution [is to] centralize power, the better solution is to limit it.

What is more "limiting" of power than the absence of a state apparatus? You can't be arrested, imprisoned, or shot simply for expressing reactionary views...at least that can't happen in a systematic way.

It could happen "informally"...if you really pissed off a whole lot of people or even a few "hotheads". I would anticipate that Nazis would be "censored" by summary execution.

But beyond this, I think this quote by you is a revealing one and cuts to the heart of the matter.

You fear the "tyranny of the majority" and wish to limit it.

I don't.

In my view, oligarchies -- even "people's oligarchies" -- are much more worthy of being feared...and despised.

I contend that by the time the working class is "ready" to undertake proletarian revolution and the project of a communist society, it will rule justly far more often than it will rule unjustly...and will continuously improve in that regard.

Of course, I could be wrong. :(

But that's where I'm putting my chips.

All of them.


Who's to say what is "crafted" to "attack (directly or indirectly) the fundamentals of classless society"? That is a very subjective judgement. Indeed, many may think innocent publications [that] have precisely that intent, whereas other may find innocent publications with alterious motives.

Like all controversies, this must be decided on the basis of argument and evidence.

There may be subjective elements involved in such decisions and injustices may result from that...but I think ordinary working people will "get it mostly right."

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

It can simply mean that reactionaries will be denied the resources to spread their ideas in a significant fashion.

If you mean in an informal way, then I'll repeat,

Again, those "resources" are quite few: A computer, electricity. Hell, if one gets desperate: ink and a few sheets of paper. I'm not talking about journalistic editing, but about a few guys in their spare time cranking our a newsletter. The resources are paltry and the bare minimum of what anyone would get anyways.

If you mean in a more systematic plebiscitarian sense, wherin everyone "gets together" and specifically withholds those resources, ultimately, the problems are the same.

Someone would have to ensure that the person does not acquire the proscribed "resources" and if they do, then some sort of "punnishment" will be applied. Now, ostensibly they're being penalized for using "restricted" resources, but in reality it's for the ideas they're spreading with them.

You're just changing the name of the crime, not the details of it.

The same problems will occur in deciding who's "resource rights" should be revoked, if they vote in the affrimative, and what penalty should be applied when the offender inevitable violates the decision. It's an extra step between identification and punnishment, but that's it.


What I dispute is your contention that we would be guilty of "blatant injustice"...that we "would" unfairly and wrongfully stop the circulation of views that were not reactionary at all.

Yes, it's an assumption, but then for the momment so is any discussion of communist society.

I can't know that abuses will happen any more than you can know that they won't. But I think, in light of the inherient fallibility of people, that it is inevitable that from time to time, abuses must happen when dealing with issues so complex and detailed as this.


What is more "limiting" of power than the absence of a state apparatus? You can't be arrested, imprisoned, or shot simply for expressing reactionary views...at least that can't happen in a systematic way.

It could happen "informally"...if you really pissed off a whole lot of people or even a few "hotheads". I would anticipate that Nazis would be "censored" by summary execution.

To the peoples executed, I don't think it matters.

Right before their execution tell them they're just being "informally .. censored" ...see if they care.

Basically you're saying that most of the time it will be consensus judegement but from time to time, we'll "string up" a Nazi. Sort of a "mixed" approach to the censorship problem. Both elements of this solution have problems.

The "consensus" part for reasons of complexity, time, and enforcement; and the "string 'em up" part for reasons of "mob rule".


In any given country, if there are tens or hundreds of millions of people in general agreement with communism, there are also going to be millions or even tens of millions in general disagreement with communism.

It's hardly practical to just "kill them all", yet in some fashion they must be demoralized to the point of political passivity or ineffectiveness. The alternative is counter-revolution...or at least a really nasty and bloody civil war.

By stigmatizing their ideas and making it extremely difficult for them to circulate in the public discourse, we accomplish a necessary purpose without wide-spread bloodletting.

This purpose can also be accomplshed by showing them that their lives are improved by eliminating the social and economic rulers that oppressed them. In the case of the few that were among those rulers, they will discover that while they are no longer in control, their lives are not miserable and they will adjust.

You seem to fear that every former bourgois will spend every waking mommet plotting to reinstate capitalism.

In a free society, that will simply be too much work.

Facts speak louder than words and if peoples lives are trully better than they were under capitalist rule, it doesn't matter what "counterrevolutionary" propaganda they're handed.

As I said earlier, if a few words about "market mechanisms" or "professionalizing" will drive them back into to wage-slavery, they aren't ready [for communism].

You are afraid that if people read counterrevolutionary publications they will be convinced, however, if you are able to trust the people to make critical decisions regarding what is or what is not "reactionary" you must also trust that they are able to read such publications without being moved by them. If communism is to work, it must be because the people believe in it and believe it works. In this environment, the writings of a few "dissenters" will have no real effect.

I trust that people are smart and ovbservant enough that capitalistic writings will not lead them back to capitalism, but not patient or analytical enough to make critical decisions on every potential "reactionary" piece.

You, on the other hand, seem believe the opposite: that the people can be trusted t o judge the reactionary, but not to read it.

It takes much more time and effort to analyze an article than to read it. People should and will still discuss what they have read, and informally many may agree that an article is inflamatory or reactionary, but that is not enough to silence the author.


But beyond this, I think this quote by you is a revealing one and cuts to the heart of the matter.

You fear the "tyranny of the majority" and wish to limit it.

I don't.

I am not proposing a "people's oligarchy", as you put it, but rather proposing that the power of popular decisions be limited based on human fallibility. While majoritarian rule has its clear bennefits, ignoring the problems is ultimately self-defeating.

Basic human rights must be understood to be protected. Now, in the end, every system is ultimately majoritarian, and yes, if enough people want something they can have it, laws and customs and understandings notwithstanding. But civil wars and revolutions are pretty few and far between and usually only occur when there is both a wide and intense demand for a change. Protecting human rights would most likely not illicit such a reaction.

The protection of basic rights is essential to ensure that everyone feels safe and secure in any society, the dangers of a plebiscitarian approach to everything are clear. I don't like Jim, you don't like Jim, no one seems to like that Jim. Sure he's a hard worker and contributes his share, but there's just something that's off-putting, always keeps to himself, I say we execute him...

Would it happen often? Who's to say, but as a risk it would be an omnipresent power that just "50% plus one" would have.

Ensuring a process of fair justice, with evidence and logic secures that, for the most part, arbitrary whims do not dominate.

Beliving that the majority will "always choose best" is hopelessly idealistic.

They will mostly choose right, but in the important issues of personal rights and security even those few times where they are wrong are too much.

When it comes to "free speech", there is a constant risk of specifically that kind of abuse, and while you have accepted that some sort of risk exists, you have not shown what the risk is in allowing free discourse.

Flat out, what are the risks attached with allowing the free writing and distrution of material that you would deem to be "reactionary"?

In effect, what's the worst that could reasonably happen? Civil War over a newsletter?

I don't think it would happen, but in your own words:"... the possibility certainly exists. But I see no reason for "despair" if it does; the reactionaries and their supporters will be defeated again (hopefully!) and...things will go on."

[LSD]

It can simply mean that reactionaries will be denied the resources to spread their ideas in a significant fashion.

If you mean in an informal way, then I'll repeat,

Again, those "resources" are quite few: A computer, electricity. Hell, if one gets desperate: ink and a few sheets of paper. I'm not talking about journalistic editing, but about a few guys in their spare time cranking our a newsletter. The resources are paltry and the bare minimum of what anyone would get anyways.

If you mean in a more systematic plebiscitarian sense, wherin everyone "gets together" and specifically withholds those resources, ultimately, the problems are the same.

Someone would have to ensure that the person does not acquire the proscribed "resources" and if they do, then some sort of "punnishment" will be applied. Now, ostensibly they're being penalized for using "restricted" resources, but in reality it's for the ideas they're spreading with them.

You're just changing the name of the crime, not the details of it.

The same problems will occur in deciding who's "resource rights" should be revoked, if they vote in the affrimative, and what penalty should be applied when the offender inevitable violates the decision. It's an extra step between identification and punnishment, but that's it.


What I dispute is your contention that we would be guilty of "blatant injustice"...that we "would" unfairly and wrongfully stop the circulation of views that were not reactionary at all.

Yes, it's an assumption, but then for the momment so is any discussion of communist society.

I can't know that abuses will happen any more than you can know that they won't. But I think, in light of the inherient fallibility of people, that it is inevitable that from time to time, abuses must happen when dealing with issues so complex and detailed as this.


What is more "limiting" of power than the absence of a state apparatus? You can't be arrested, imprisoned, or shot simply for expressing reactionary views...at least that can't happen in a systematic way.

It could happen "informally"...if you really pissed off a whole lot of people or even a few "hotheads". I would anticipate that Nazis would be "censored" by summary execution.

To the peoples executed, I don't think it matters.

Right before their execution tell them they're just being "informally .. censored" ...see if they care.

Basically you're saying that most of the time it will be consensus judegement but from time to time, we'll "string up" a Nazi. Sort of a "mixed" approach to the censorship problem. Both elements of this solution have problems.

The "consensus" part for reasons of complexity, time, and enforcement; and the "string 'em up" part for reasons of "mob rule".


In any given country, if there are tens or hundreds of millions of people in general agreement with communism, there are also going to be millions or even tens of millions in general disagreement with communism.

It's hardly practical to just "kill them all", yet in some fashion they must be demoralized to the point of political passivity or ineffectiveness. The alternative is counter-revolution...or at least a really nasty and bloody civil war.

By stigmatizing their ideas and making it extremely difficult for them to circulate in the public discourse, we accomplish a necessary purpose without wide-spread bloodletting.

This purpose can also be accomplshed by showing them that their lives are improved by eliminating the social and economic rulers that oppressed them. In the case of the few that were among those rulers, they will discover that while they are no longer in control, their lives are not miserable and they will adjust.

You seem to fear that every former bourgois will spend every waking mommet plotting to reinstate capitalism.

In a free society, that will simply be too much work.

Facts speak louder than words and if peoples lives are trully better than they were under capitalist rule, it doesn't matter what "counterrevolutionary" propaganda they're handed.

As I said earlier, if a few words about "market mechanisms" or "professionalizing" will drive them back into to wage-slavery, they aren't ready [for communism].

You are afraid that if people read counterrevolutionary publications they will be convinced, however, if you are able to trust the people to make critical decisions regarding what is or what is not "reactionary" you must also trust that they are able to read such publications without being moved by them. If communism is to work, it must be because the people believe in it and believe it works. In this environment, the writings of a few "dissenters" will have no real effect.

I trust that people are smart and ovbservant enough that capitalistic writings will not lead them back to capitalism, but not patient or analytical enough to make critical decisions on every potential "reactionary" piece.

You, on the other hand, seem believe the opposite: that the people can be trusted t o judge the reactionary, but not to read it.

It takes much more time and effort to analyze an article than to read it. People should and will still discuss what they have read, and informally many may agree that an article is inflamatory or reactionary, but that is not enough to silence the author.


But beyond this, I think this quote by you is a revealing one and cuts to the heart of the matter.

You fear the "tyranny of the majority" and wish to limit it.

I don't.

I am not proposing a "people's oligarchy", as you put it, but rather proposing that the power of popular decisions be limited based on human fallibility. While majoritarian rule has its clear bennefits, ignoring the problems is ultimately self-defeating.

Basic human rights must be understood to be protected. Now, in the end, every system is ultimately majoritarian, and yes, if enough people want something they can have it, laws and customs and understandings notwithstanding. But civil wars and revolutions are pretty few and far between and usually only occur when there is both a wide and intense demand for a change. Protecting human rights would most likely not illicit such a reaction.

The protection of basic rights is essential to ensure that everyone feels safe and secure in any society, the dangers of a plebiscitarian approach to everything are clear. I don't like Jim, you don't like Jim, no one seems to like that Jim. Sure he's a hard worker and contributes his share, but there's just something that's off-putting, always keeps to himself, I say we execute him...

Would it happen often? Who's to say, but as a risk it would be an omnipresent power that just "50% plus one" would have.

Ensuring a process of fair justice, with evidence and logic secures that, for the most part, arbitrary whims do not dominate.

Beliving that the majority will "always choose best" is hopelessly idealistic.

They will mostly choose right, but in the important issues of personal rights and security even those few times where they are wrong are too much.

When it comes to "free speech", there is a constant risk of specifically that kind of abuse, and while you have accepted that some sort of risk exists, you have not shown what the risk is in allowing free discourse.

Flat out, what are the risks attached with allowing the free writing and distrution of material that you would deem to be "reactionary"?

In effect, what's the worst that could reasonably happen? Civil War over a newsletter?

I don't think it would happen, but in your own words:"... the possibility certainly exists. But I see no reason for "despair" if it does; the reactionaries and their supporters will be defeated again (hopefully!) and...things will go on."

[LSD]

It can simply mean that reactionaries will be denied the resources to spread their ideas in a significant fashion.

If you mean in an informal way, then I'll repeat,

Again, those "resources" are quite few: A computer, electricity. Hell, if one gets desperate: ink and a few sheets of paper. I'm not talking about journalistic editing, but about a few guys in their spare time cranking our a newsletter. The resources are paltry and the bare minimum of what anyone would get anyways.

If you mean in a more systematic plebiscitarian sense, wherin everyone "gets together" and specifically withholds those resources, ultimately, the problems are the same.

Someone would have to ensure that the person does not acquire the proscribed "resources" and if they do, then some sort of "punnishment" will be applied. Now, ostensibly they're being penalized for using "restricted" resources, but in reality it's for the ideas they're spreading with them.

You're just changing the name of the crime, not the details of it.

The same problems will occur in deciding who's "resource rights" should be revoked, if they vote in the affrimative, and what penalty should be applied when the offender inevitable violates the decision. It's an extra step between identification and punnishment, but that's it.


What I dispute is your contention that we would be guilty of "blatant injustice"...that we "would" unfairly and wrongfully stop the circulation of views that were not reactionary at all.

Yes, it's an assumption, but then for the momment so is any discussion of communist society.

I can't know that abuses will happen any more than you can know that they won't. But I think, in light of the inherient fallibility of people, that it is inevitable that from time to time, abuses must happen when dealing with issues so complex and detailed as this.


What is more "limiting" of power than the absence of a state apparatus? You can't be arrested, imprisoned, or shot simply for expressing reactionary views...at least that can't happen in a systematic way.

It could happen "informally"...if you really pissed off a whole lot of people or even a few "hotheads". I would anticipate that Nazis would be "censored" by summary execution.

To the peoples executed, I don't think it matters.

Right before their execution tell them they're just being "informally .. censored" ...see if they care.

Basically you're saying that most of the time it will be consensus judegement but from time to time, we'll "string up" a Nazi. Sort of a "mixed" approach to the censorship problem. Both elements of this solution have problems.

The "consensus" part for reasons of complexity, time, and enforcement; and the "string 'em up" part for reasons of "mob rule".


In any given country, if there are tens or hundreds of millions of people in general agreement with communism, there are also going to be millions or even tens of millions in general disagreement with communism.

It's hardly practical to just "kill them all", yet in some fashion they must be demoralized to the point of political passivity or ineffectiveness. The alternative is counter-revolution...or at least a really nasty and bloody civil war.

By stigmatizing their ideas and making it extremely difficult for them to circulate in the public discourse, we accomplish a necessary purpose without wide-spread bloodletting.

This purpose can also be accomplshed by showing them that their lives are improved by eliminating the social and economic rulers that oppressed them. In the case of the few that were among those rulers, they will discover that while they are no longer in control, their lives are not miserable and they will adjust.

You seem to fear that every former bourgois will spend every waking mommet plotting to reinstate capitalism.

In a free society, that will simply be too much work.

Facts speak louder than words and if peoples lives are trully better than they were under capitalist rule, it doesn't matter what "counterrevolutionary" propaganda they're handed.

As I said earlier, if a few words about "market mechanisms" or "professionalizing" will drive them back into to wage-slavery, they aren't ready [for communism].

You are afraid that if people read counterrevolutionary publications they will be convinced, however, if you are able to trust the people to make critical decisions regarding what is or what is not "reactionary" you must also trust that they are able to read such publications without being moved by them. If communism is to work, it must be because the people believe in it and believe it works. In this environment, the writings of a few "dissenters" will have no real effect.

I trust that people are smart and ovbservant enough that capitalistic writings will not lead them back to capitalism, but not patient or analytical enough to make critical decisions on every potential "reactionary" piece.

You, on the other hand, seem believe the opposite: that the people can be trusted t o judge the reactionary, but not to read it.

It takes much more time and effort to analyze an article than to read it. People should and will still discuss what they have read, and informally many may agree that an article is inflamatory or reactionary, but that is not enough to silence the author.


But beyond this, I think this quote by you is a revealing one and cuts to the heart of the matter.

You fear the "tyranny of the majority" and wish to limit it.

I don't.

I am not proposing a "people's oligarchy", as you put it, but rather proposing that the power of popular decisions be limited based on human fallibility. While majoritarian rule has its clear bennefits, ignoring the problems is ultimately self-defeating.

Basic human rights must be understood to be protected. Now, in the end, every system is ultimately majoritarian, and yes, if enough people want something they can have it, laws and customs and understandings notwithstanding. But civil wars and revolutions are pretty few and far between and usually only occur when there is both a wide and intense demand for a change. Protecting human rights would most likely not illicit such a reaction.

The protection of basic rights is essential to ensure that everyone feels safe and secure in any society, the dangers of a plebiscitarian approach to everything are clear. I don't like Jim, you don't like Jim, no one seems to like that Jim. Sure he's a hard worker and contributes his share, but there's just something that's off-putting, always keeps to himself, I say we execute him...

Would it happen often? Who's to say, but as a risk it would be an omnipresent power that just "50% plus one" would have.

Ensuring a process of fair justice, with evidence and logic secures that, for the most part, arbitrary whims do not dominate.

Beliving that the majority will "always choose best" is hopelessly idealistic.

They will mostly choose right, but in the important issues of personal rights and security even those few times where they are wrong are too much.

When it comes to "free speech", there is a constant risk of specifically that kind of abuse, and while you have accepted that some sort of risk exists, you have not shown what the risk is in allowing free discourse.

Flat out, what are the risks attached with allowing the free writing and distrution of material that you would deem to be "reactionary"?

In effect, what's the worst that could reasonably happen? Civil War over a newsletter?

I don't think it would happen, but in your own words:"... the possibility certainly exists. But I see no reason for "despair" if it does; the reactionaries and their supporters will be defeated again (hopefully!) and...things will go on."

[redstar2000]

I am not proposing a "people's oligarchy", as you put it, but rather proposing that the power of popular decisions be limited based on human fallibility. While majoritarian rule has its clear benefits, ignoring the problems is ultimately self-defeating.

If the power of popular decisions is to be "limited", who does that?

And who enforces that?

Are we to rid ourselves of all the attributes of a state machinery "except" nine old men on a "Supreme Court" and a small army to enforce their decisions?

Or do you want "the whole bag of donuts"...multi-level courts, life-time judges, elaborate law codes, police, prisons, prison guards, lawyers, etc., etc., etc.?

How long would it take for all that to devolve into a new class society?


Basic human rights must be understood to be protected...The protection of basic rights is essential to ensure that everyone feels safe and secure in any society, the dangers of a plebiscitarian approach to everything are clear.

What is a "basic human right"? How could that be defined in a coherent way?

After all, capitalists sincerely believe that "the right to get rich" is not only a "basic human right" but the most important basic right there is...more important than all the rest put together.

Many superstitious people sincerely believe that "the right to be saved and to save others from eternal damnation" is the most important "basic right" there is, also more important than all the rest put together.

Nazis think that fighting for the global triumph of one's "race" is the most important "basic human right" of them all.

Many bourgeois liberals have a somewhat more humane approach (at least verbally): the rights to decent food, adequate shelter, education, etc. are "basic human rights".

And so on...we could, if we wished, make a very long list of what different social groups have regarded as "basic human rights".

Which ones prevail? In communist society, it would be the ones that a majority of people agreed with...the ones that would make them feel "safe and secure".

Is that wrong? Is there some philosophical or theological reason for assuming that "basic human rights" refers to an "absolute" standard that exists "independently" of real human societies?

Or is it not a fact that "basic human rights" are a product of a specific culture, a specific class (or classless) society? Frankly, that seems the obvious answer to me.

Every society has "its own" set of "basic human rights" derived from its own historical experiences and based upon the interests of its own ruling class.

It's true that in a revolutionary society we have a certain amount of "latitude" in proclaiming our own set of "basic human rights". People are "open-minded" about major changes in every area of human interaction.

But the changes that will "stick" are the ones that most people find are genuinely useful, those that result in real improvements in their lives, and those that definitively write finis to the old order.

That is what people will spontaneously enforce as the "basic human rights" of communist society.

I don't think "freedom of speech for reactionaries" is going to "make the cut".

Nor should it.


Flat out, what are the risks attached with allowing the free writing and distribution of material that you would deem to be "reactionary"?

1. It enhances the morale of the reactionaries themselves...their ideas are "not dead yet".

2. It encourages reactionaries to actively engage in resistance to the new society, including violent resistance. It "points towards" a civil war.

3. It appeals to a greater or lesser extent to anyone who may be less than satisfied with the new society..."pulling" them towards more coherently reactionary views.

4. And, by the same token, it acts as an obstacle to the deepening of revolutionary views throughout the new society.

5. In an atmosphere where it is socially acceptable (or semi-respectable) to express reactionary ideas publicly, it encourages the re-emergence of reactionary behavior.

6. Perhaps most importantly of all, it influences attitudes in a "semi-conscious" way -- a perfectly sincere communist could find himself advocating some measure that he "picked up" from a reactionary source without even realizing it...and it would be a measure that, if implemented, could end up promoting the restoration of capitalist society.

Do not overlook the fact that even in a revolutionary society, there is still an enormous amount of "social inertia" to be overcome if the revolution is to "stick"...reactionary propaganda on any significant scale will only make things tougher.

We don't need that.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

I am not proposing a "people's oligarchy", as you put it, but rather proposing that the power of popular decisions be limited based on human fallibility. While majoritarian rule has its clear benefits, ignoring the problems is ultimately self-defeating.

If the power of popular decisions is to be "limited", who does that?

And who enforces that?

Are we to rid ourselves of all the attributes of a state machinery "except" nine old men on a "Supreme Court" and a small army to enforce their decisions?

Or do you want "the whole bag of donuts"...multi-level courts, life-time judges, elaborate law codes, police, prisons, prison guards, lawyers, etc., etc., etc.?

How long would it take for all that to devolve into a new class society?


Basic human rights must be understood to be protected...The protection of basic rights is essential to ensure that everyone feels safe and secure in any society, the dangers of a plebiscitarian approach to everything are clear.

What is a "basic human right"? How could that be defined in a coherent way?

After all, capitalists sincerely believe that "the right to get rich" is not only a "basic human right" but the most important basic right there is...more important than all the rest put together.

Many superstitious people sincerely believe that "the right to be saved and to save others from eternal damnation" is the most important "basic right" there is, also more important than all the rest put together.

Nazis think that fighting for the global triumph of one's "race" is the most important "basic human right" of them all.

Many bourgeois liberals have a somewhat more humane approach (at least verbally): the rights to decent food, adequate shelter, education, etc. are "basic human rights".

And so on...we could, if we wished, make a very long list of what different social groups have regarded as "basic human rights".

Which ones prevail? In communist society, it would be the ones that a majority of people agreed with...the ones that would make them feel "safe and secure".

Is that wrong? Is there some philosophical or theological reason for assuming that "basic human rights" refers to an "absolute" standard that exists "independently" of real human societies?

Or is it not a fact that "basic human rights" are a product of a specific culture, a specific class (or classless) society? Frankly, that seems the obvious answer to me.

Every society has "its own" set of "basic human rights" derived from its own historical experiences and based upon the interests of its own ruling class.

It's true that in a revolutionary society we have a certain amount of "latitude" in proclaiming our own set of "basic human rights". People are "open-minded" about major changes in every area of human interaction.

But the changes that will "stick" are the ones that most people find are genuinely useful, those that result in real improvements in their lives, and those that definitively write finis to the old order.

That is what people will spontaneously enforce as the "basic human rights" of communist society.

I don't think "freedom of speech for reactionaries" is going to "make the cut".

Nor should it.


Flat out, what are the risks attached with allowing the free writing and distribution of material that you would deem to be "reactionary"?

1. It enhances the morale of the reactionaries themselves...their ideas are "not dead yet".

2. It encourages reactionaries to actively engage in resistance to the new society, including violent resistance. It "points towards" a civil war.

3. It appeals to a greater or lesser extent to anyone who may be less than satisfied with the new society..."pulling" them towards more coherently reactionary views.

4. And, by the same token, it acts as an obstacle to the deepening of revolutionary views throughout the new society.

5. In an atmosphere where it is socially acceptable (or semi-respectable) to express reactionary ideas publicly, it encourages the re-emergence of reactionary behavior.

6. Perhaps most importantly of all, it influences attitudes in a "semi-conscious" way -- a perfectly sincere communist could find himself advocating some measure that he "picked up" from a reactionary source without even realizing it...and it would be a measure that, if implemented, could end up promoting the restoration of capitalist society.

Do not overlook the fact that even in a revolutionary society, there is still an enormous amount of "social inertia" to be overcome if the revolution is to "stick"...reactionary propaganda on any significant scale will only make things tougher.

We don't need that.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

I am not proposing a "people's oligarchy", as you put it, but rather proposing that the power of popular decisions be limited based on human fallibility. While majoritarian rule has its clear benefits, ignoring the problems is ultimately self-defeating.

If the power of popular decisions is to be "limited", who does that?

And who enforces that?

Are we to rid ourselves of all the attributes of a state machinery "except" nine old men on a "Supreme Court" and a small army to enforce their decisions?

Or do you want "the whole bag of donuts"...multi-level courts, life-time judges, elaborate law codes, police, prisons, prison guards, lawyers, etc., etc., etc.?

How long would it take for all that to devolve into a new class society?


Basic human rights must be understood to be protected...The protection of basic rights is essential to ensure that everyone feels safe and secure in any society, the dangers of a plebiscitarian approach to everything are clear.

What is a "basic human right"? How could that be defined in a coherent way?

After all, capitalists sincerely believe that "the right to get rich" is not only a "basic human right" but the most important basic right there is...more important than all the rest put together.

Many superstitious people sincerely believe that "the right to be saved and to save others from eternal damnation" is the most important "basic right" there is, also more important than all the rest put together.

Nazis think that fighting for the global triumph of one's "race" is the most important "basic human right" of them all.

Many bourgeois liberals have a somewhat more humane approach (at least verbally): the rights to decent food, adequate shelter, education, etc. are "basic human rights".

And so on...we could, if we wished, make a very long list of what different social groups have regarded as "basic human rights".

Which ones prevail? In communist society, it would be the ones that a majority of people agreed with...the ones that would make them feel "safe and secure".

Is that wrong? Is there some philosophical or theological reason for assuming that "basic human rights" refers to an "absolute" standard that exists "independently" of real human societies?

Or is it not a fact that "basic human rights" are a product of a specific culture, a specific class (or classless) society? Frankly, that seems the obvious answer to me.

Every society has "its own" set of "basic human rights" derived from its own historical experiences and based upon the interests of its own ruling class.

It's true that in a revolutionary society we have a certain amount of "latitude" in proclaiming our own set of "basic human rights". People are "open-minded" about major changes in every area of human interaction.

But the changes that will "stick" are the ones that most people find are genuinely useful, those that result in real improvements in their lives, and those that definitively write finis to the old order.

That is what people will spontaneously enforce as the "basic human rights" of communist society.

I don't think "freedom of speech for reactionaries" is going to "make the cut".

Nor should it.


Flat out, what are the risks attached with allowing the free writing and distribution of material that you would deem to be "reactionary"?

1. It enhances the morale of the reactionaries themselves...their ideas are "not dead yet".

2. It encourages reactionaries to actively engage in resistance to the new society, including violent resistance. It "points towards" a civil war.

3. It appeals to a greater or lesser extent to anyone who may be less than satisfied with the new society..."pulling" them towards more coherently reactionary views.

4. And, by the same token, it acts as an obstacle to the deepening of revolutionary views throughout the new society.

5. In an atmosphere where it is socially acceptable (or semi-respectable) to express reactionary ideas publicly, it encourages the re-emergence of reactionary behavior.

6. Perhaps most importantly of all, it influences attitudes in a "semi-conscious" way -- a perfectly sincere communist could find himself advocating some measure that he "picked up" from a reactionary source without even realizing it...and it would be a measure that, if implemented, could end up promoting the restoration of capitalist society.

Do not overlook the fact that even in a revolutionary society, there is still an enormous amount of "social inertia" to be overcome if the revolution is to "stick"...reactionary propaganda on any significant scale will only make things tougher.

We don't need that.

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

What is a "basic human right"? How could that be defined in a coherent way?

After all, capitalists sincerely believe that "the right to get rich" is not only a "basic human right" but the most important basic right there is...more important than all the rest put together.

Many superstitious people sincerely believe that "the right to be saved and to save others from eternal damnation" is the most important "basic right" there is, also more important than all the rest put together.

Nazis think that fighting for the global triumph of one's "race" is the most important "basic human right" of them all.

Many bourgeois liberals have a somewhat more humane approach (at least verbally): the rights to decent food, adequate shelter, education, etc. are "basic human rights".

And so on...we could, if we wished, make a very long list of what different social groups have regarded as "basic human rights".



Which ones prevail? In communist society, it would be the ones that a majority of people agreed with...the ones that would make them feel "safe and secure".

Is that wrong? Is there some philosophical or theological reason for assuming that "basic human rights" refers to an "absolute" standard that exists "independently" of real human societies?

Or is it not a fact that "basic human rights" are a product of a specific culture, a specific class (or classless) society? Frankly, that seems the obvious answer to me.

Every society has "its own" set of "basic human rights" derived from its own historical experiences and based upon the interests of its own ruling class.

It's true that in a revolutionary society we have a certain amount of "latitude" in proclaiming our own set of "basic human rights". People are "open-minded" about major changes in every area of human interaction.

But the changes that will "stick" are the ones that most people find are genuinely useful, those that result in real improvements in their lives, and those that definitively write finis to the old order.

That is what people will spontaneously enforce as the "basic human rights" of communist society.

I agree!


I don't think "freedom of speech for reactionaries" is going to "make the cut".

Well, that's what we're discussing.

Neither of us will single-handedly "shape" communist society, what we're doing is describing what we think the people should do and providing reasons thereof. I think that people should decide that racial persecution is a bad idea, I trust you do as well, but, ultimately, in any majoritarian society, the people will make that decision. We both know that history is replete with examples that people are fallable and make mistakes and accordingly it is possible that a communist society will make them as well. Discussion and debate is nescessary to "flesh out" the issues so that the chances of mistakes are reduced.

You believe that the people should not allow full freedom of speech, and you have contentious reasons. An argument which is not valid, however, is that the people "won't agree with you", that in effect you're right because in your oppinion more people think like you than me.

The entire purpose of this discussion is to determine which attitude is correct, or at a deeper level, which model would best serve the interest of society. Saying that you believe that your oppinion is correct because people will naturally choose it contributes nothing in that regard.

You may not think freedom of speech will "make the cut", but before you make that summary judgement let's look at the reasons why it might or might not and determine their validity. If, indeed, you are logically and factually correct then perhaps more people will come to agree with you, but I would hope that if I proved my case, you would grant me the same.


1. It enhances the morale of the reactionaries themselves...their ideas are "not dead yet".

This encouragement will be there, regardless, because "reactionaries" will likely "hang out" with other "reactionaries". Unless you "forbid" those accused of "reactionary" oppinions from associated with others under the same suspicion, there is nothing you can do on this issue.

Now, one isolated "reactionary" in the middle of a small community could theoretically be the only one in that area, but with modern technlogy they will find each other regardless of whether they can do it visibly or surrepticiously.

"Code words", "catch phrases", and the like will quickly develop such that communication remains possible between like-minded counterrevolutionaries.


2. It encourages reactionaries to actively engage in resistance to the new society, including violent resistance. It "points towards" a civil war.

On the contrary, if "reactionary" views are being read and discussed, it lessens the risk of civil war. The proponents of these ideas feel listened to and can visibly see that their ideas are not being accepted. They may attempt to change their tactics, but violence is unlikely.

On the other hand, if the "reactionaries" feel "silenced", they may belive that many would rally to their cause "if only they knew about it", they may also believe that in light of their inability to express themselves, violence is the "only way".


3. It appeals to a greater or lesser extent to anyone who may be less than satisfied with the new society..."pulling" them towards more coherently reactionary views.

Yes it may....sometimes...for some....

But, regardless, these "reactionary" pieces are hardly the only attitudes people are exposed to. Sure, they may read a pamphelt telling them it's all communism's fault, bring back the Market!!!, but they will also meet people, read newspapers, and live their lives. The oppinions they read in the pamphlet will be discused and will be debated. In the end, the "pulling" effect is marginal.

People who are "less than satisfied" with communism will be tempted to consider other options regardless of whether they're at risk of being shot for writing about it, at least with free speech, they will be able to have a public debate on it. Ultimately, it may serve to solidify rather than weaken their faith in communism.


4. And, by the same token, it acts as an obstacle to the deepening of revolutionary views throughout the new soci

Hardly.

A few newsletters and articles?

If "revolutionary views" are so tennuous as to be shaken by the oppinions of a few dissenters, these ideas are not particularly strong. If people's lives are significantly improved and they are happier then they were before, it won't matter how much a few critisize it.


5. In an atmosphere where it is socially acceptable (or semi-respectable) to express reactionary ideas publicly, it encourages the re-emergence of reactionary behavior.

How?

How does reading a glowing tribute to the "market" lead to "reactionary behaviour"?

And what, specifically, is "reactionary behaviour"? Creating a market economy in my basement?

Again, what will lead to this "re-emergence" is if communism is not serving society, if people feel that they were better off under capitalism. And if reading that they were better off convinces them that they were, regardless of the facts, these people are not yet ready for self-rule. Unless people are able to critically evaluate their lives and the lives of others they are not yet ready to make decisions regarding them.

I believe that when communism is set up, people will have reached that level of self-analysis.


6. Perhaps most importantly of all, it influences attitudes in a "semi-conscious" way -- a perfectly sincere communist could find himself advocating some measure that he "picked up" from a reactionary source without even realizing it...and it would be a measure that, if implemented, could end up promoting the restoration of capitalist society.

That's why I support public discussion and conversation.

I'm not saying that no one can critisize "reactionary" writings, on the contrary I would greatly support it.

In the end, I propose that allowing public discourse on this subject would bring such "subtle capitalism" into the forefront.

When it's "kept quiet", people will hear these "subtle" ideas from people in the street quickly, quietly, and without much analysis. Any attempt to debate it with others would be met with shocked frowns. Why would you want to talk about that?!? What are you a reactionary?

A one-sided debate is impossible, if people are deluged with nothing but communist propaganda, with no response from dissenters, people will naturally question whether there is a capitalist response to the charges that such propaganda levels against it.

Keeping such things quite and forbidden adds to the air of mystery surrounding them. When capitalism and its ideas are not publically debated, people soon forget the specifics of the ideas and only remember that they're "different" from communism. Whenever they find themselves dissatisfied with communist society, they will then turn to capitalism solely because they know its something "different".

The "forbidden fruit" mystique is remarkably powerful.


If the power of popular decisions is to be "limited", who does that?


The people themselves, of course.

They agree that despite emotion or event, certain basic rights will be protected by that community. Any attempt to enforce that externally would be ultimately fruitless.

Sure the people could "change their mind", but if you were to have a "supreme court" the people could always ignore it, and if there were a "small army" the people could always fight it.

In the end, either way the people are making the decision. I trust that if they are responsible enough to make the decision, they will be faithful enough to uphold it.


Do not overlook the fact that even in a revolutionary society, there is still an enormous amount of "social inertia" to be overcome if the revolution is to "stick"...reactionary propaganda on any significant scale will only make things tougher.

What will make things "tougher" is "keeping secrets".

The more a society tries to hide opposing oppinions, the more the members of that society want to see of them.

[LSD]

What is a "basic human right"? How could that be defined in a coherent way?

After all, capitalists sincerely believe that "the right to get rich" is not only a "basic human right" but the most important basic right there is...more important than all the rest put together.

Many superstitious people sincerely believe that "the right to be saved and to save others from eternal damnation" is the most important "basic right" there is, also more important than all the rest put together.

Nazis think that fighting for the global triumph of one's "race" is the most important "basic human right" of them all.

Many bourgeois liberals have a somewhat more humane approach (at least verbally): the rights to decent food, adequate shelter, education, etc. are "basic human rights".

And so on...we could, if we wished, make a very long list of what different social groups have regarded as "basic human rights".



Which ones prevail? In communist society, it would be the ones that a majority of people agreed with...the ones that would make them feel "safe and secure".

Is that wrong? Is there some philosophical or theological reason for assuming that "basic human rights" refers to an "absolute" standard that exists "independently" of real human societies?

Or is it not a fact that "basic human rights" are a product of a specific culture, a specific class (or classless) society? Frankly, that seems the obvious answer to me.

Every society has "its own" set of "basic human rights" derived from its own historical experiences and based upon the interests of its own ruling class.

It's true that in a revolutionary society we have a certain amount of "latitude" in proclaiming our own set of "basic human rights". People are "open-minded" about major changes in every area of human interaction.

But the changes that will "stick" are the ones that most people find are genuinely useful, those that result in real improvements in their lives, and those that definitively write finis to the old order.

That is what people will spontaneously enforce as the "basic human rights" of communist society.

I agree!


I don't think "freedom of speech for reactionaries" is going to "make the cut".

Well, that's what we're discussing.

Neither of us will single-handedly "shape" communist society, what we're doing is describing what we think the people should do and providing reasons thereof. I think that people should decide that racial persecution is a bad idea, I trust you do as well, but, ultimately, in any majoritarian society, the people will make that decision. We both know that history is replete with examples that people are fallable and make mistakes and accordingly it is possible that a communist society will make them as well. Discussion and debate is nescessary to "flesh out" the issues so that the chances of mistakes are reduced.

You believe that the people should not allow full freedom of speech, and you have contentious reasons. An argument which is not valid, however, is that the people "won't agree with you", that in effect you're right because in your oppinion more people think like you than me.

The entire purpose of this discussion is to determine which attitude is correct, or at a deeper level, which model would best serve the interest of society. Saying that you believe that your oppinion is correct because people will naturally choose it contributes nothing in that regard.

You may not think freedom of speech will "make the cut", but before you make that summary judgement let's look at the reasons why it might or might not and determine their validity. If, indeed, you are logically and factually correct then perhaps more people will come to agree with you, but I would hope that if I proved my case, you would grant me the same.


1. It enhances the morale of the reactionaries themselves...their ideas are "not dead yet".

This encouragement will be there, regardless, because "reactionaries" will likely "hang out" with other "reactionaries". Unless you "forbid" those accused of "reactionary" oppinions from associated with others under the same suspicion, there is nothing you can do on this issue.

Now, one isolated "reactionary" in the middle of a small community could theoretically be the only one in that area, but with modern technlogy they will find each other regardless of whether they can do it visibly or surrepticiously.

"Code words", "catch phrases", and the like will quickly develop such that communication remains possible between like-minded counterrevolutionaries.


2. It encourages reactionaries to actively engage in resistance to the new society, including violent resistance. It "points towards" a civil war.

On the contrary, if "reactionary" views are being read and discussed, it lessens the risk of civil war. The proponents of these ideas feel listened to and can visibly see that their ideas are not being accepted. They may attempt to change their tactics, but violence is unlikely.

On the other hand, if the "reactionaries" feel "silenced", they may belive that many would rally to their cause "if only they knew about it", they may also believe that in light of their inability to express themselves, violence is the "only way".


3. It appeals to a greater or lesser extent to anyone who may be less than satisfied with the new society..."pulling" them towards more coherently reactionary views.

Yes it may....sometimes...for some....

But, regardless, these "reactionary" pieces are hardly the only attitudes people are exposed to. Sure, they may read a pamphelt telling them it's all communism's fault, bring back the Market!!!, but they will also meet people, read newspapers, and live their lives. The oppinions they read in the pamphlet will be discused and will be debated. In the end, the "pulling" effect is marginal.

People who are "less than satisfied" with communism will be tempted to consider other options regardless of whether they're at risk of being shot for writing about it, at least with free speech, they will be able to have a public debate on it. Ultimately, it may serve to solidify rather than weaken their faith in communism.


4. And, by the same token, it acts as an obstacle to the deepening of revolutionary views throughout the new soci

Hardly.

A few newsletters and articles?

If "revolutionary views" are so tennuous as to be shaken by the oppinions of a few dissenters, these ideas are not particularly strong. If people's lives are significantly improved and they are happier then they were before, it won't matter how much a few critisize it.


5. In an atmosphere where it is socially acceptable (or semi-respectable) to express reactionary ideas publicly, it encourages the re-emergence of reactionary behavior.

How?

How does reading a glowing tribute to the "market" lead to "reactionary behaviour"?

And what, specifically, is "reactionary behaviour"? Creating a market economy in my basement?

Again, what will lead to this "re-emergence" is if communism is not serving society, if people feel that they were better off under capitalism. And if reading that they were better off convinces them that they were, regardless of the facts, these people are not yet ready for self-rule. Unless people are able to critically evaluate their lives and the lives of others they are not yet ready to make decisions regarding them.

I believe that when communism is set up, people will have reached that level of self-analysis.


6. Perhaps most importantly of all, it influences attitudes in a "semi-conscious" way -- a perfectly sincere communist could find himself advocating some measure that he "picked up" from a reactionary source without even realizing it...and it would be a measure that, if implemented, could end up promoting the restoration of capitalist society.

That's why I support public discussion and conversation.

I'm not saying that no one can critisize "reactionary" writings, on the contrary I would greatly support it.

In the end, I propose that allowing public discourse on this subject would bring such "subtle capitalism" into the forefront.

When it's "kept quiet", people will hear these "subtle" ideas from people in the street quickly, quietly, and without much analysis. Any attempt to debate it with others would be met with shocked frowns. Why would you want to talk about that?!? What are you a reactionary?

A one-sided debate is impossible, if people are deluged with nothing but communist propaganda, with no response from dissenters, people will naturally question whether there is a capitalist response to the charges that such propaganda levels against it.

Keeping such things quite and forbidden adds to the air of mystery surrounding them. When capitalism and its ideas are not publically debated, people soon forget the specifics of the ideas and only remember that they're "different" from communism. Whenever they find themselves dissatisfied with communist society, they will then turn to capitalism solely because they know its something "different".

The "forbidden fruit" mystique is remarkably powerful.


If the power of popular decisions is to be "limited", who does that?


The people themselves, of course.

They agree that despite emotion or event, certain basic rights will be protected by that community. Any attempt to enforce that externally would be ultimately fruitless.

Sure the people could "change their mind", but if you were to have a "supreme court" the people could always ignore it, and if there were a "small army" the people could always fight it.

In the end, either way the people are making the decision. I trust that if they are responsible enough to make the decision, they will be faithful enough to uphold it.


Do not overlook the fact that even in a revolutionary society, there is still an enormous amount of "social inertia" to be overcome if the revolution is to "stick"...reactionary propaganda on any significant scale will only make things tougher.

What will make things "tougher" is "keeping secrets".

The more a society tries to hide opposing oppinions, the more the members of that society want to see of them.

[LSD]

What is a "basic human right"? How could that be defined in a coherent way?

After all, capitalists sincerely believe that "the right to get rich" is not only a "basic human right" but the most important basic right there is...more important than all the rest put together.

Many superstitious people sincerely believe that "the right to be saved and to save others from eternal damnation" is the most important "basic right" there is, also more important than all the rest put together.

Nazis think that fighting for the global triumph of one's "race" is the most important "basic human right" of them all.

Many bourgeois liberals have a somewhat more humane approach (at least verbally): the rights to decent food, adequate shelter, education, etc. are "basic human rights".

And so on...we could, if we wished, make a very long list of what different social groups have regarded as "basic human rights".



Which ones prevail? In communist society, it would be the ones that a majority of people agreed with...the ones that would make them feel "safe and secure".

Is that wrong? Is there some philosophical or theological reason for assuming that "basic human rights" refers to an "absolute" standard that exists "independently" of real human societies?

Or is it not a fact that "basic human rights" are a product of a specific culture, a specific class (or classless) society? Frankly, that seems the obvious answer to me.

Every society has "its own" set of "basic human rights" derived from its own historical experiences and based upon the interests of its own ruling class.

It's true that in a revolutionary society we have a certain amount of "latitude" in proclaiming our own set of "basic human rights". People are "open-minded" about major changes in every area of human interaction.

But the changes that will "stick" are the ones that most people find are genuinely useful, those that result in real improvements in their lives, and those that definitively write finis to the old order.

That is what people will spontaneously enforce as the "basic human rights" of communist society.

I agree!


I don't think "freedom of speech for reactionaries" is going to "make the cut".

Well, that's what we're discussing.

Neither of us will single-handedly "shape" communist society, what we're doing is describing what we think the people should do and providing reasons thereof. I think that people should decide that racial persecution is a bad idea, I trust you do as well, but, ultimately, in any majoritarian society, the people will make that decision. We both know that history is replete with examples that people are fallable and make mistakes and accordingly it is possible that a communist society will make them as well. Discussion and debate is nescessary to "flesh out" the issues so that the chances of mistakes are reduced.

You believe that the people should not allow full freedom of speech, and you have contentious reasons. An argument which is not valid, however, is that the people "won't agree with you", that in effect you're right because in your oppinion more people think like you than me.

The entire purpose of this discussion is to determine which attitude is correct, or at a deeper level, which model would best serve the interest of society. Saying that you believe that your oppinion is correct because people will naturally choose it contributes nothing in that regard.

You may not think freedom of speech will "make the cut", but before you make that summary judgement let's look at the reasons why it might or might not and determine their validity. If, indeed, you are logically and factually correct then perhaps more people will come to agree with you, but I would hope that if I proved my case, you would grant me the same.


1. It enhances the morale of the reactionaries themselves...their ideas are "not dead yet".

This encouragement will be there, regardless, because "reactionaries" will likely "hang out" with other "reactionaries". Unless you "forbid" those accused of "reactionary" oppinions from associated with others under the same suspicion, there is nothing you can do on this issue.

Now, one isolated "reactionary" in the middle of a small community could theoretically be the only one in that area, but with modern technlogy they will find each other regardless of whether they can do it visibly or surrepticiously.

"Code words", "catch phrases", and the like will quickly develop such that communication remains possible between like-minded counterrevolutionaries.


2. It encourages reactionaries to actively engage in resistance to the new society, including violent resistance. It "points towards" a civil war.

On the contrary, if "reactionary" views are being read and discussed, it lessens the risk of civil war. The proponents of these ideas feel listened to and can visibly see that their ideas are not being accepted. They may attempt to change their tactics, but violence is unlikely.

On the other hand, if the "reactionaries" feel "silenced", they may belive that many would rally to their cause "if only they knew about it", they may also believe that in light of their inability to express themselves, violence is the "only way".


3. It appeals to a greater or lesser extent to anyone who may be less than satisfied with the new society..."pulling" them towards more coherently reactionary views.

Yes it may....sometimes...for some....

But, regardless, these "reactionary" pieces are hardly the only attitudes people are exposed to. Sure, they may read a pamphelt telling them it's all communism's fault, bring back the Market!!!, but they will also meet people, read newspapers, and live their lives. The oppinions they read in the pamphlet will be discused and will be debated. In the end, the "pulling" effect is marginal.

People who are "less than satisfied" with communism will be tempted to consider other options regardless of whether they're at risk of being shot for writing about it, at least with free speech, they will be able to have a public debate on it. Ultimately, it may serve to solidify rather than weaken their faith in communism.


4. And, by the same token, it acts as an obstacle to the deepening of revolutionary views throughout the new soci

Hardly.

A few newsletters and articles?

If "revolutionary views" are so tennuous as to be shaken by the oppinions of a few dissenters, these ideas are not particularly strong. If people's lives are significantly improved and they are happier then they were before, it won't matter how much a few critisize it.


5. In an atmosphere where it is socially acceptable (or semi-respectable) to express reactionary ideas publicly, it encourages the re-emergence of reactionary behavior.

How?

How does reading a glowing tribute to the "market" lead to "reactionary behaviour"?

And what, specifically, is "reactionary behaviour"? Creating a market economy in my basement?

Again, what will lead to this "re-emergence" is if communism is not serving society, if people feel that they were better off under capitalism. And if reading that they were better off convinces them that they were, regardless of the facts, these people are not yet ready for self-rule. Unless people are able to critically evaluate their lives and the lives of others they are not yet ready to make decisions regarding them.

I believe that when communism is set up, people will have reached that level of self-analysis.


6. Perhaps most importantly of all, it influences attitudes in a "semi-conscious" way -- a perfectly sincere communist could find himself advocating some measure that he "picked up" from a reactionary source without even realizing it...and it would be a measure that, if implemented, could end up promoting the restoration of capitalist society.

That's why I support public discussion and conversation.

I'm not saying that no one can critisize "reactionary" writings, on the contrary I would greatly support it.

In the end, I propose that allowing public discourse on this subject would bring such "subtle capitalism" into the forefront.

When it's "kept quiet", people will hear these "subtle" ideas from people in the street quickly, quietly, and without much analysis. Any attempt to debate it with others would be met with shocked frowns. Why would you want to talk about that?!? What are you a reactionary?

A one-sided debate is impossible, if people are deluged with nothing but communist propaganda, with no response from dissenters, people will naturally question whether there is a capitalist response to the charges that such propaganda levels against it.

Keeping such things quite and forbidden adds to the air of mystery surrounding them. When capitalism and its ideas are not publically debated, people soon forget the specifics of the ideas and only remember that they're "different" from communism. Whenever they find themselves dissatisfied with communist society, they will then turn to capitalism solely because they know its something "different".

The "forbidden fruit" mystique is remarkably powerful.


If the power of popular decisions is to be "limited", who does that?


The people themselves, of course.

They agree that despite emotion or event, certain basic rights will be protected by that community. Any attempt to enforce that externally would be ultimately fruitless.

Sure the people could "change their mind", but if you were to have a "supreme court" the people could always ignore it, and if there were a "small army" the people could always fight it.

In the end, either way the people are making the decision. I trust that if they are responsible enough to make the decision, they will be faithful enough to uphold it.


Do not overlook the fact that even in a revolutionary society, there is still an enormous amount of "social inertia" to be overcome if the revolution is to "stick"...reactionary propaganda on any significant scale will only make things tougher.

What will make things "tougher" is "keeping secrets".

The more a society tries to hide opposing oppinions, the more the members of that society want to see of them.

[redstar2000]

This encouragement will be there, regardless, because "reactionaries" will likely "hang out" with other "reactionaries".

That doesn't bother me...and there would be little anyone could do about it even if it did.

Should reactionary ideas be "part" of the "public discourse" of communist society...that's the question.

It occurs to me that "scale" might be one of the keys to this matter. You've said a number of times that reactionaries could always gather the bare minimum of resources to "publish" in a small way reaching a few people...perhaps on the internet or perhaps on a copy machine.

Whereas I've said that I think that workers should and will deny the large-scale resources required for reactionaries to spread their ideas on a significant scale.

The people who make and repair printing presses will not give them one. The people who run radio and television stations will not let them on the air. They might certainly acquire a home personal computer (anyone can have one of those)...but if the workers at their internet service provider find out what they're up to, the plug will be pulled.

So what can the reactionaries do besides mostly talk to each other?

That doesn't worry me.


On the contrary, if "reactionary" views are being read and discussed, it lessens the risk of civil war. The proponents of these ideas feel listened to and can visibly see that their ideas are not being accepted. They may attempt to change their tactics, but violence is unlikely.

For civil war to be a practical possibility, one needs a significant base of support. If reactionary ideas are part of the legitimate public discourse, they may either get some of that support or think they have it.

"Cooler" heads may prevail -- "it's too soon, we don't have enough support yet," etc. -- but they may not.

Historically, reactionaries have always been far more addicted to violence than revolutionaries...any encouragement they might receive from "being listened to" only exacerbates the problem.

If they are small and isolated and yet resort to violence, that's not too bad. They can be crushed. But if they are "allowed to grow"...then things could get very nasty indeed.

Civil wars, as I'm sure you know, are very bloody affairs in which many innocents are killed by both sides.

If they can be avoided by forcing reactionary ideas out of public discourse, I think that's reason enough.


People who are "less than satisfied" with communism will be tempted to consider other options regardless of whether they're at risk of being shot for writing about it; at least with free speech, they will be able to have a public debate on it.

Of course they will "consider other options"...but in the absence of a public reactionary "movement" put together around a reactionary media, their musings are apt to remain isolated and ineffective.

The phrase "at risk of being shot for writing about it" is disingenuous. Only outright Nazis/fascists are at serious risk of such a harsh response -- for obvious historical reasons. Some academic who wants to argue for the re-introduction of "market mechanisms" is, at worst, likely to get the boot by his colleagues.


If "revolutionary views" are so tenuous as to be shaken by the opinions of a few dissenters, these ideas are not particularly strong.

The key word here is "few". It's often assumed by revolutionaries that the physical existence of a proletarian revolution is sufficient, in and of itself, to "insure victory". When the last armed defenders of the old order surrender, "the ballgame is over -- we won!"

I don't think that's true. I think there will be a long period of time -- perhaps a century or maybe two -- in which "the struggle will continue". Sure, we will have a powerful edge and many advantages in that struggle -- material conditions being the most important of those advantages. We "ought" to win "easily".

But the kind of complacency that "tolerates" reactionary ideas in the public sphere is deadly.

You've probably heard the sports cliche that always comes up when a strong team plays a weak team: "they think they've won the game just by showing up".

It's even truer in politics.

Those who benefited from the old order (or think they did) are not just going to throw in the towel. They want a re-match very badly -- and I think it is vitally important never to give them that chance.


How?...And what, specifically, is "reactionary behaviour"?

1. Violence against women and children.

2. Racially motivated hate crimes.

3. Gay bashing.

4. Taking more goods than you can use from the public warehouse...deliberate waste or destruction of resources, sabotage of production, etc.

5. Inappropriate/unnecessary bureaucratization/centralization...the attempt to accumulate administrative "power" in the hands of an on-going and self-perpetuating elite.

These are reactionary behaviors that immediately come to mind...my mind at least. I could probably think of some others.

The public "toleration" of reactionary ideas will encourage some people to "do it".

They will.


Keeping such things quiet and forbidden adds to the air of mystery surrounding them...The "forbidden fruit" mystique is remarkably powerful.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Besides which I'm sure that there will be a flood of books -- "Capitalism's Hidden History", etc. -- about the old order once our historians get their hands on whatever secret records survive the revolution. Look at the enormous number of widely-read books that are still being published about the Third Reich.

Evil is "fascinating"...at least to many. Very well, let us tell them the whole bloody story in plenty of detail...from the communist perspective.

I think that will do the trick.


A one-sided debate is impossible, if people are deluged with nothing but communist propaganda, with no response from dissenters, people will naturally question whether there is a capitalist response to the charges that such propaganda levels against it.

Some may indeed do so...that can't be helped.

But, you see, I'm not concerned with "a fair debate" with our enemies...I want to beat them permanently and drive their ideas out of existence. Or at least discredit them so badly that should anyone raise one of their ideas, they will be immediately dismissed as a nutball.


The people themselves, of course.

They agree that despite emotion or event, certain basic rights will be protected by that community.

Sure...but why should toleration of reactionary ideas be one of those "basic rights"?

After all, what's at the heart of reactionary ideas generally speaking? Isn't it the contention that certain people (workers, women, people of color, gays, children, etc.) should have no rights at all? Isn't it the proposition that humanity needs to be ruled by an elite?

Why should this crap be "tolerated"?

Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that intolerance is a "slippery slope"...that intolerance of reactionary ideas "must lead" to intolerance for all ideas, especially new ones.

I disagree with that assumption vehemently.

The absence of discredited ideas does not mean the "end" of debate, discussion, intellectual ferment, etc. In fact, I think it opens the way for fruitful debate, discussion, etc.

That's what happens in science...and I don't see why that shouldn't happen in all of public discourse. There's a ton of debate in scientific journals...even though they won't publish a single article defending "creationism".


The more a society tries to hide opposing opinions, the more the members of that society want to see of them.

Have you noticed a big media market these days for material arguing in favor of the restoration of feudalism or slavery?

The "arguments" in favor of those systems have been suppressed.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

This encouragement will be there, regardless, because "reactionaries" will likely "hang out" with other "reactionaries".

That doesn't bother me...and there would be little anyone could do about it even if it did.

Should reactionary ideas be "part" of the "public discourse" of communist society...that's the question.

It occurs to me that "scale" might be one of the keys to this matter. You've said a number of times that reactionaries could always gather the bare minimum of resources to "publish" in a small way reaching a few people...perhaps on the internet or perhaps on a copy machine.

Whereas I've said that I think that workers should and will deny the large-scale resources required for reactionaries to spread their ideas on a significant scale.

The people who make and repair printing presses will not give them one. The people who run radio and television stations will not let them on the air. They might certainly acquire a home personal computer (anyone can have one of those)...but if the workers at their internet service provider find out what they're up to, the plug will be pulled.

So what can the reactionaries do besides mostly talk to each other?

That doesn't worry me.


On the contrary, if "reactionary" views are being read and discussed, it lessens the risk of civil war. The proponents of these ideas feel listened to and can visibly see that their ideas are not being accepted. They may attempt to change their tactics, but violence is unlikely.

For civil war to be a practical possibility, one needs a significant base of support. If reactionary ideas are part of the legitimate public discourse, they may either get some of that support or think they have it.

"Cooler" heads may prevail -- "it's too soon, we don't have enough support yet," etc. -- but they may not.

Historically, reactionaries have always been far more addicted to violence than revolutionaries...any encouragement they might receive from "being listened to" only exacerbates the problem.

If they are small and isolated and yet resort to violence, that's not too bad. They can be crushed. But if they are "allowed to grow"...then things could get very nasty indeed.

Civil wars, as I'm sure you know, are very bloody affairs in which many innocents are killed by both sides.

If they can be avoided by forcing reactionary ideas out of public discourse, I think that's reason enough.


People who are "less than satisfied" with communism will be tempted to consider other options regardless of whether they're at risk of being shot for writing about it; at least with free speech, they will be able to have a public debate on it.

Of course they will "consider other options"...but in the absence of a public reactionary "movement" put together around a reactionary media, their musings are apt to remain isolated and ineffective.

The phrase "at risk of being shot for writing about it" is disingenuous. Only outright Nazis/fascists are at serious risk of such a harsh response -- for obvious historical reasons. Some academic who wants to argue for the re-introduction of "market mechanisms" is, at worst, likely to get the boot by his colleagues.


If "revolutionary views" are so tenuous as to be shaken by the opinions of a few dissenters, these ideas are not particularly strong.

The key word here is "few". It's often assumed by revolutionaries that the physical existence of a proletarian revolution is sufficient, in and of itself, to "insure victory". When the last armed defenders of the old order surrender, "the ballgame is over -- we won!"

I don't think that's true. I think there will be a long period of time -- perhaps a century or maybe two -- in which "the struggle will continue". Sure, we will have a powerful edge and many advantages in that struggle -- material conditions being the most important of those advantages. We "ought" to win "easily".

But the kind of complacency that "tolerates" reactionary ideas in the public sphere is deadly.

You've probably heard the sports cliche that always comes up when a strong team plays a weak team: "they think they've won the game just by showing up".

It's even truer in politics.

Those who benefited from the old order (or think they did) are not just going to throw in the towel. They want a re-match very badly -- and I think it is vitally important never to give them that chance.


How?...And what, specifically, is "reactionary behaviour"?

1. Violence against women and children.

2. Racially motivated hate crimes.

3. Gay bashing.

4. Taking more goods than you can use from the public warehouse...deliberate waste or destruction of resources, sabotage of production, etc.

5. Inappropriate/unnecessary bureaucratization/centralization...the attempt to accumulate administrative "power" in the hands of an on-going and self-perpetuating elite.

These are reactionary behaviors that immediately come to mind...my mind at least. I could probably think of some others.

The public "toleration" of reactionary ideas will encourage some people to "do it".

They will.


Keeping such things quiet and forbidden adds to the air of mystery surrounding them...The "forbidden fruit" mystique is remarkably powerful.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Besides which I'm sure that there will be a flood of books -- "Capitalism's Hidden History", etc. -- about the old order once our historians get their hands on whatever secret records survive the revolution. Look at the enormous number of widely-read books that are still being published about the Third Reich.

Evil is "fascinating"...at least to many. Very well, let us tell them the whole bloody story in plenty of detail...from the communist perspective.

I think that will do the trick.


A one-sided debate is impossible, if people are deluged with nothing but communist propaganda, with no response from dissenters, people will naturally question whether there is a capitalist response to the charges that such propaganda levels against it.

Some may indeed do so...that can't be helped.

But, you see, I'm not concerned with "a fair debate" with our enemies...I want to beat them permanently and drive their ideas out of existence. Or at least discredit them so badly that should anyone raise one of their ideas, they will be immediately dismissed as a nutball.


The people themselves, of course.

They agree that despite emotion or event, certain basic rights will be protected by that community.

Sure...but why should toleration of reactionary ideas be one of those "basic rights"?

After all, what's at the heart of reactionary ideas generally speaking? Isn't it the contention that certain people (workers, women, people of color, gays, children, etc.) should have no rights at all? Isn't it the proposition that humanity needs to be ruled by an elite?

Why should this crap be "tolerated"?

Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that intolerance is a "slippery slope"...that intolerance of reactionary ideas "must lead" to intolerance for all ideas, especially new ones.

I disagree with that assumption vehemently.

The absence of discredited ideas does not mean the "end" of debate, discussion, intellectual ferment, etc. In fact, I think it opens the way for fruitful debate, discussion, etc.

That's what happens in science...and I don't see why that shouldn't happen in all of public discourse. There's a ton of debate in scientific journals...even though they won't publish a single article defending "creationism".


The more a society tries to hide opposing opinions, the more the members of that society want to see of them.

Have you noticed a big media market these days for material arguing in favor of the restoration of feudalism or slavery?

The "arguments" in favor of those systems have been suppressed.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

This encouragement will be there, regardless, because "reactionaries" will likely "hang out" with other "reactionaries".

That doesn't bother me...and there would be little anyone could do about it even if it did.

Should reactionary ideas be "part" of the "public discourse" of communist society...that's the question.

It occurs to me that "scale" might be one of the keys to this matter. You've said a number of times that reactionaries could always gather the bare minimum of resources to "publish" in a small way reaching a few people...perhaps on the internet or perhaps on a copy machine.

Whereas I've said that I think that workers should and will deny the large-scale resources required for reactionaries to spread their ideas on a significant scale.

The people who make and repair printing presses will not give them one. The people who run radio and television stations will not let them on the air. They might certainly acquire a home personal computer (anyone can have one of those)...but if the workers at their internet service provider find out what they're up to, the plug will be pulled.

So what can the reactionaries do besides mostly talk to each other?

That doesn't worry me.


On the contrary, if "reactionary" views are being read and discussed, it lessens the risk of civil war. The proponents of these ideas feel listened to and can visibly see that their ideas are not being accepted. They may attempt to change their tactics, but violence is unlikely.

For civil war to be a practical possibility, one needs a significant base of support. If reactionary ideas are part of the legitimate public discourse, they may either get some of that support or think they have it.

"Cooler" heads may prevail -- "it's too soon, we don't have enough support yet," etc. -- but they may not.

Historically, reactionaries have always been far more addicted to violence than revolutionaries...any encouragement they might receive from "being listened to" only exacerbates the problem.

If they are small and isolated and yet resort to violence, that's not too bad. They can be crushed. But if they are "allowed to grow"...then things could get very nasty indeed.

Civil wars, as I'm sure you know, are very bloody affairs in which many innocents are killed by both sides.

If they can be avoided by forcing reactionary ideas out of public discourse, I think that's reason enough.


People who are "less than satisfied" with communism will be tempted to consider other options regardless of whether they're at risk of being shot for writing about it; at least with free speech, they will be able to have a public debate on it.

Of course they will "consider other options"...but in the absence of a public reactionary "movement" put together around a reactionary media, their musings are apt to remain isolated and ineffective.

The phrase "at risk of being shot for writing about it" is disingenuous. Only outright Nazis/fascists are at serious risk of such a harsh response -- for obvious historical reasons. Some academic who wants to argue for the re-introduction of "market mechanisms" is, at worst, likely to get the boot by his colleagues.


If "revolutionary views" are so tenuous as to be shaken by the opinions of a few dissenters, these ideas are not particularly strong.

The key word here is "few". It's often assumed by revolutionaries that the physical existence of a proletarian revolution is sufficient, in and of itself, to "insure victory". When the last armed defenders of the old order surrender, "the ballgame is over -- we won!"

I don't think that's true. I think there will be a long period of time -- perhaps a century or maybe two -- in which "the struggle will continue". Sure, we will have a powerful edge and many advantages in that struggle -- material conditions being the most important of those advantages. We "ought" to win "easily".

But the kind of complacency that "tolerates" reactionary ideas in the public sphere is deadly.

You've probably heard the sports cliche that always comes up when a strong team plays a weak team: "they think they've won the game just by showing up".

It's even truer in politics.

Those who benefited from the old order (or think they did) are not just going to throw in the towel. They want a re-match very badly -- and I think it is vitally important never to give them that chance.


How?...And what, specifically, is "reactionary behaviour"?

1. Violence against women and children.

2. Racially motivated hate crimes.

3. Gay bashing.

4. Taking more goods than you can use from the public warehouse...deliberate waste or destruction of resources, sabotage of production, etc.

5. Inappropriate/unnecessary bureaucratization/centralization...the attempt to accumulate administrative "power" in the hands of an on-going and self-perpetuating elite.

These are reactionary behaviors that immediately come to mind...my mind at least. I could probably think of some others.

The public "toleration" of reactionary ideas will encourage some people to "do it".

They will.


Keeping such things quiet and forbidden adds to the air of mystery surrounding them...The "forbidden fruit" mystique is remarkably powerful.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Besides which I'm sure that there will be a flood of books -- "Capitalism's Hidden History", etc. -- about the old order once our historians get their hands on whatever secret records survive the revolution. Look at the enormous number of widely-read books that are still being published about the Third Reich.

Evil is "fascinating"...at least to many. Very well, let us tell them the whole bloody story in plenty of detail...from the communist perspective.

I think that will do the trick.


A one-sided debate is impossible, if people are deluged with nothing but communist propaganda, with no response from dissenters, people will naturally question whether there is a capitalist response to the charges that such propaganda levels against it.

Some may indeed do so...that can't be helped.

But, you see, I'm not concerned with "a fair debate" with our enemies...I want to beat them permanently and drive their ideas out of existence. Or at least discredit them so badly that should anyone raise one of their ideas, they will be immediately dismissed as a nutball.


The people themselves, of course.

They agree that despite emotion or event, certain basic rights will be protected by that community.

Sure...but why should toleration of reactionary ideas be one of those "basic rights"?

After all, what's at the heart of reactionary ideas generally speaking? Isn't it the contention that certain people (workers, women, people of color, gays, children, etc.) should have no rights at all? Isn't it the proposition that humanity needs to be ruled by an elite?

Why should this crap be "tolerated"?

Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that intolerance is a "slippery slope"...that intolerance of reactionary ideas "must lead" to intolerance for all ideas, especially new ones.

I disagree with that assumption vehemently.

The absence of discredited ideas does not mean the "end" of debate, discussion, intellectual ferment, etc. In fact, I think it opens the way for fruitful debate, discussion, etc.

That's what happens in science...and I don't see why that shouldn't happen in all of public discourse. There's a ton of debate in scientific journals...even though they won't publish a single article defending "creationism".


The more a society tries to hide opposing opinions, the more the members of that society want to see of them.

Have you noticed a big media market these days for material arguing in favor of the restoration of feudalism or slavery?

The "arguments" in favor of those systems have been suppressed.

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

If they are small and isolated and yet resort to violence, that's not too bad. They can be crushed. But if they are "allowed to grow"...then things could get very nasty indeed.

Historically, "small and isolated" groups have done amazing things.

But regardless, what I think you're missing is that these groups can grow even within the restrictions you advocate. The difference is that they will do it more quitely and with less scrutiny than they would if their ideas were debated in the open.

When groups seek to radically change society it is often to their advantage that their arguments not be publically weighed because it is precisely this exposure which can expose their flaws.

You are afraid that allowing a free discourse will lead to the growth of rightist movements as more and more are "converted" and pre-existing "reactionaries" find one another and organize. I am afraid that by imposing publication restrictions we silence honest critics and do nothing to remedy the problem you fear.

The "conversion" you worry about might be slowed in some areas by silencing certain oppinions, but it will be unaffected in others. "Talking" is still a remarkably powerful method of ideological change. And without any real public discussion on the subject the ideas of these rightists will effectively go unchallanged.

Yes, there will be books and articles wrtitten which attack the foundations of the old order and reenforce communist principles, but those who have been stopped in the street or talked to by "old friends" will have specific question that have not been answered.

Since you really can't censor speech to any effective level, if ideas remain then they can be spread. You cannot kill an idea by blocking it out of newpapers, you kill it by showing it is wrong.


Have you noticed a big media market these days for material arguing in favor of the restoration of feudalism or slavery?

The "arguments" in favor of those systems have been suppressed.

Arguments for feudalism were never "banned".

Even today, I could start a newletter advocating the restoration of the glory days of Feudal Manorialism.

No one would stop me, no one cares.

Why? Becaue the ideas have been proven wrong. Not censored, but proven wrong.

There were never "laws" or "ordinances" or "informal censorship" stopping anyone from advoating a restoration of slavery (with a few very temporary examples in the Southern United States). If I had wanted to I could have written until my hand bled on the subject, I can still do so today in much of the "free world".

So... why then is there no "big media market" for my Pro-Slavery/Feudalism newletter? I can write it and you can read it; there are no mobs amasing to burn down my press, no police breaking down my door... but no one will read it...

Because, through time and through debate, the vast majority of society has learned that these ideas are wrong and that these ideas are not in their interst. They did not learn this because they were told that they must learn this nor because all other ideas were silenced, they learned by observing and analyzing.


The "arguments" in favor of those systems have been suppressed.

No one suppressed the "arguments".

The systems were suppressed. Revolutions and parliaments suppressed Feudalism, edicts and civil wars suppressed slavery. The ideas lived on.

In Russia, fedusalism was alive until well into the last century, it was there for anyone to see. If I were a Frenchman living in 1902, I could have written on the subject, I could have praised it if I had seen fit. Many did.

If I had been an American in 1890, I could have published a newspaper telling my readers that America must adopt a feudalist system, no one would have stopped me.

If I had been a publisher in Texas in 1875, I could have advocated reinstituting slavery. Many did, Many still do.

Today, slavery still has its proponents. Theonomic Reconstructionists, for the most part, still advocate slavery. Why aren't they "growing"? After all, no one's silencing them.

Their movement has remained a vast minority because the ideas they advocate have been publically discredited. It is the public discourse which has taught most of us that what they propose would not be good for society.

The same applies to any society; keeping everything "quiet" helps no one.


Of course they will "consider other options"...but in the absence of a public reactionary "movement" put together around a reactionary media, their musings are apt to remain isolated and ineffective.

Russian Bolsheviks didn't have a "reactionary media", but they were pretty effective.

Small "isolated" publications and small "isolated" groups can be very powerful at instigating social change. The mass movement needed for a counterrevolution can often be garnered after the first shots have been fired.

People who have been dissatisfied or unhappy will rally to the new cause. The "reactionaries" will give them a target on which to pin their anger and disapointment. When the ideas are hidden and suppressed, the general public knows nothing about them. When the counterrevolution begins they know only that these "radicals" offer "something else", someting ostensibly better. Sure they've been told that a return to capitalism would be bad for them and they've heard plenty about the bennefits of the new system, but without a real debate on the subject they can't really be sure.

I don't really know what this "counterrevolution" is all about, but what the hell, my life ain't so hot now and who knows, maybe I'd do better under this "neocapitalism" they're talking about...


But the kind of complacency that "tolerates" reactionary ideas in the public sphere is deadly.

It's not "complacency" it's responsibility.

It's nice, from an academic perspective, to talk about "not giving them a second change", but in practical terms, they're going to get that second change one way or another, the question is in what form?

You're right that those who bennefited from capitalism are not going to accept a change easily and you're right that they are going to try to change things back, but "controlling the presses" is not an effective way of preventing that.

The real question is do we want the "reactionaries" to fight with ideas or bullets, because we know they're going to fight.

I don't want a civil war anymore than you do, but I must be rational in that if an ideologically strong group with a relatively large membership exists in a society without a standing army or organized police force; and that group advocates a social change that nescessitates and glorifies conflict and violence; and that group has been prevented from expressing its oppinions in any public form; and that group believes that it could gain public support were to launch an agressive military attack; and that group had the precedent of centuries of capitalist rule and knew from recent history that a vast social revolution is achievable then a civil war is practically inevitable.

If, on the other hand, all the above conditions exist except for restrictions on publication and distribution, I believe a civil war can be avoided.

If their ideas are publically considered and discussed, it is less likely they will engage in hostile actions, and more likely that their membership will shrink as more and more of the general population understands what's wrong with their position.

Likewise, were they to launch an attack, it is less likely that they would succeed as now the ideas they fight for are not "new" and "different" but the same tired positions that people have been hearing argued back and forth for years. The mystery and the novelty is worn off and without them, there is very little to attract new "converts".


The public "toleration" of reactionary ideas will encourage some people to "do it".

They will.

I couldn't help beating my wife.... the newpaper told me to do it!!

No one is advocating the institutionalization of "reactionary ideas", nor am I proposing that such ideas go unchallenged.

Anyone who engages in any of the actions you outlined would be justly punnished, but a newpaper article proposing the reinstitution of currency is not going to lead to a string of violent assaults nor is an article on the need for "professionalism" going to lead to a mass abuse of public goods.

"Reactionary ideas" will be presented, and "reactionary ideas" will be disproved, if anything this only leads to the further institutionalization of communist ideals as people see them being further confirmed.

Tolerating expression does not lead to the acceptance of anything that is expressed.

There is a critical difference between allowing debate and saying "anything goes".The argument that "dangerous" speech "incites" people to action is an easy justification for restricting speech, but it is not a particularly strong one.


But, you see, I'm not concerned with "a fair debate" with our enemies...

I'm not advocating a "fair debate" because the principle appeals to me, but because pragmatically it is the best way to defeat "reactionary" ideas.


I want to beat them permanently and drive their ideas out of existence. Or at least discredit them so badly that should anyone raise one of their ideas, they will be immediately dismissed as a nutball.

The way to do this is not to "outlaw them" but to "discredit" them. Preventing the publication of any idea does not discredit it, it just makes it slightly harder to find.

To some it makes the idea sexier, to others it has no effect, but to no one does it make it less believable.

Censorship never convinces.

If you were to prove to me through logic and rational argument that you are indeed correct in this discussion and censorship is nescessary for communism to survive, I would be convinced. If, instead, you told me you were correct and banned everyone who tried to argue otherwise, I would not be.

Redaction can work for only so long. It may work temporarily to keep the number of "reactionaries" relatively low. But if you really want to "beat them permanently", eventually you must allow the issues to be publically debates such that the issues behind them can finally be laid to rest.

The discussion of the foundations of society ais so key that it will never simply "die" of its own accord. People must come to agree on communism because they agree on communism, not because they can't read about an alternative.

In the long run, it's the only way.


Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that intolerance is a "slippery slope"...that intolerance of reactionary ideas "must lead" to intolerance for all ideas, especially new ones.

Yes and no.

I do fear that that is a possiblity, and historically it is one that has been bourne out, but it is not the only reason I oppose the kind of censorship you outline.

While I am justifiably concerned over the abuse of the kind of "mob" censorship you advocate, I also fear that keeping "reactionary" views silent will only lead to the mystification of those ideas and that preventing a public debate on the subject will prevent those ideas from ever being defeated. That if the claims and arguments of "reactionaries are marginalized they will only gain credence among those who fear that society is "hiding" what it can't disprove.


The absence of discredited ideas does not mean the "end" of debate, discussion, intellectual ferment, etc. In fact, I think it opens the way for fruitful debate, discussion, etc.

That's what happens in science...and I don't see why that shouldn't happen in all of public discourse. There's a ton of debate in scientific journals...even though they won't publish a single article defending "creationism".

Scientific journals won't publish anything unless it is peer reviewed and conforms to certain standards, it's a good thing, but I wouldn't want every publication to be a scientific journal.

There is a place for such a rigorous standard of journalism and there is a place for a looser one.

If such a standard as is employed in scientific journals were to be applied to all journals and newspapers nothing controversial would be published. Evrything would have to be approved by "experts" and everything would have to conform to publication "standards". In a technical journal that works, but not in a newspaper.

There are no "experts" in life or society, in practical terms you can't treat the "whole world" like a scientifc paper.

There's a reason why there are other things being published.


Those who benefited from the old order (or think they did) are not just going to throw in the towel. They want a re-match very badly -- and I think it is vitally important never to give them that chance.

Both of us agree on this issue, but where we disagree is how to deal with it.

Censorship will not solve the problem, it might indeed make it worse.

Silencing ideas does not make them "go away" and it certainly does not convince anyone of their invalidness.

Debating "reactionaries" may seem "sordid" and "petty" in the wake of a revolution, but it's a natural part of the transition.

You can't "rush" to acceptance, simply hiding ideas you disagree with doesn't disappear them, you must face them to combat them. It is a slow and painful process, but it works. In the end, it is an open discourse that will defeat "reactionaries" and prevent their ideas from spreading.

It may not be glamorous, but it is nescessary.


Why should this crap be "tolerated"?

Because the only other alternative doesn't work.

[redstar2000]

But regardless, what I think you're missing is that these groups can grow even within the restrictions you advocate. The difference is that they will do it more quietly and with less scrutiny than they would if their ideas were debated in the open.

Possibly, but possibly not. One thing we do know is that public toleration of reactionary ideas will serve as no obstacle to their growth.

You seem to be confident that even with all the public exposure they want, they'll still get nowhere.

You may be right...but I don't see why we should give them that chance at a "come-back".

Why make it "easier" for them?

As to growing "underground"...well, it's historically true that some underground groups eventually emerged into the open and became powers to be reckoned with.

Most, of course, began and ended in obscurity.

Thus the odds favor keeping them out of public discourse.

But should they emerge eventually, well, then it does probably mean civil war.


And without any real public discussion on the subject the ideas of these rightists will effectively go unchallenged.

Not necessarily. Suppose a reactionary tract fell into our hands. We might well decide to publicize it and even publish an annotated version and critique.

After all, it's sometimes the case on this board that we actually post extensive excerpts from some reactionary document, attacking it paragraph by paragraph.

But it is (as it should be) a one-sided "debate"...we "rig the game" so that our enemies "look" as "bad" as they really are.

We're "not fair" nor should we be.


You cannot kill an idea by blocking it out of newspapers, you kill it by showing it is wrong.

I think we will publish enough material about the old order to show that "it was wrong" and very convincingly.


Their movement has remained a vast minority because the ideas they advocate have been publicly discredited. It is the public discourse which has taught most of us that what they propose would not be good for society.

Quite so, but the discourse was essentially one-sided and not a "fair debate". Someone may have a website that argues the "virtues" of slavery or feudalism and may even print a small newsletter...but they do not get a "fair hearing" nor have they for many, many years. The mainstream capitalist media would not consider even for a moment giving them any serious, respectful attention...any more than they would do that "for us".

The absence of a "formal code" of censorship in capitalist republics does not mean that ideas aren't censored, and very effectively, by the denial of the necessary resources to reach large numbers of people.

I propose no more than that we do the same.


...and that group has been prevented from expressing its opinions in any public form...

Here again, I think you've reached the heart of the matter.

Your assumption is that if reactionaries are granted "freedom of speech" they will be "grateful"...at least sufficiently so as to be willing not to use violent methods to advance their "cause".

I don't think there's a shred of historical justification for that assumption. The record of reactionaries is conclusive: violence is their first choice whenever they have the opportunity to use it...regardless of how much "free speech" they might have at that or any other moment.


If their ideas are publicly considered and discussed, it is less likely they will engage in hostile actions, and more likely that their membership will shrink as more and more of the general population understands what's wrong with their position.

It's certainly not "less likely" that reactionaries will engage in "hostile actions".

If things go well in the early decades of classless society, their appeal will shrink...and it will do so whether or not they have "free speech".

Things don't always "go well".


...but a newspaper article proposing the reinstitution of currency is not going to lead to a string of violent assaults nor is an article on the need for "professionalism" going to lead to a mass abuse of public goods.

No, those things are not related to one another directly...though there might well be some foolish readers who would interpret an article advocating the reintroduction of money as an invitation to "stock up" on "stuff" while it's "still free". :lol:

But you know as well as I that reaction is not simply limited to a particular viewpoint on a particular subject. It's a "world-view" (or a series of world-views...they have differences among themselves just as we do).

When a reactionary writes and publishes an article on "the natural subordination of women", he doesn't have to add "it's natural to beat your wife!".

It's "understood"...for those men predisposed to that sort of thing.

When a reactionary writes and publishes an article on the "moral failures of the urban underclass"...we know and the sympathetic reader also knows what is really being said. It's not necessary to write "bring back lynching".


I'm not advocating a "fair debate" because the principle appeals to me, but because pragmatically it is the best way to defeat "reactionary" ideas.

It didn't work in the Weimar Republic.


Scientific journals won't publish anything unless it is peer reviewed and conforms to certain standards; it's a good thing, but I wouldn't want every publication to be a scientific journal.

Well, if you're referring to style -- that dreadful "third-person impersonal" -- I'd have to agree with you. :lol:

But what does any editorial group do but "peer review" in one fashion or another? Everyone involved in that sort of thing has "standards" -- there's stuff they won't print. Even message boards will "censor" or "edit" after the fact (and sometimes before the fact -- we have that feature in the Che-Lives software but I don't think we've ever enabled it).


If such a standard as is employed in scientific journals were to be applied to all journals and newspapers nothing controversial would be published.

That's just completely wrong.

Perhaps you don't realize it. There are "conventions" of scientific controversy that can make it look as if scientists "don't argue" with one another -- one of them is usually avoiding any direct attack on the views of another.

But don't be misled. When an article in Nature concludes with a bland sentence like "We were accordingly unable to confirm the results of Dickhead, et.al., 2001." -- that's a flame! Grants may not be renewed, tenure may be withheld, graduate students will change dissertation advisers, etc. "Heads will roll!" :lol:

The standard of scientific discourse that I advocate has nothing to do with the bland "style" of their argumentation...and everything to do with their refusal to knowingly print bullshit.

I think that's good...and will elevate the standard of public discourse generally.

It does not "end controversy" but channels it into controversy about rational alternatives.


Because the only other alternative doesn't work.

It has worked very well for science. I see no reason why it would not work for communist society.

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

The standard of scientific discourse that I advocate has nothing to do with the bland "style" of their argumentation...and everything to do with their refusal to knowingly print bullshit.

The problem, of course, is determining exactly what is bullshit.

The rigorous standard you describe works well for scientific papers specifically because there are strict guidelines and procedures to be followed. It works in its proper environment.

Applying it accross the board is definitley a very bad idea.

No one knows enough on "politics" or humanity to properly judge whether or not every oppinion piece conforms to the rigorous standard of journal publication. Now, this isn't to say that publications shoudn't use discretion in their editorial decisions, nor is it to say that everything "must" be published, but it is to say that a "scientific journal style" of editing is simply unrealistic.

Peer-reviewing takes along time and takes a lot of effort. The newest news or research isn't published for months if not longer.

And while the process is undergoing, "little" changes are made. Much of the work in question is often "watered down" so that no one is offended. Since the writer knows he's being judged by his "fellows", he's careful not to critisize the field or its members too much. "Controversial" or "questionable" passages are removed. In short, the "bland style" you speak of isn't an attribute of scientific writing it's a nescessity of it.


It does not "end controversy" but channels it into controversy about rational alternatives.

I'm not quite sure what you want.. every newspaper article to be peer-reviewed and annotated? Every television program to be followed with sworn attestations?

The mass-media simply cannot take the role of the scientific journal, it cannot take the time nor spare the energy to do so.

There is a place for "journal level" rigour, but that place is not "everywhere".

Besides, how would you enforce this across the board standard? Would those publishing a newspaper only print what they could cite or provide sworn declarations for?

When it comes to news or social critique, requiring the kind of standard you're proposing does more harm than good. It may eliminate "crackpot" theories, but it also eliminates oppinions which are not "establishment". Without any other medium, these oppinions simply languish with no exposure. Also, requiring the stilted, careful scientific language alienates most of the readers or audience and the need for excessive citations and documentations gets quickly tired.

All that your plan would achieve is a restriction of the press to those in the "in-crowd" and a drastic reduction in newspaper subscriptions.


The absence of a "formal code" of censorship in capitalist republics does not mean that ideas aren't censored, and very effectively, by the denial of the necessary resources to reach large numbers of people.

There were resources "allocated" to pro-slavery writers. Before the civil war, it was state policy.

From an economic sense, slavery was big business and none of the big southern "players" wanted to see it go.

For most of the next hundred years racism would remain an institutional part of much of the United States. In the end, it was a popular movement that largely discredited it.

For once, it wasn't the economics that moved the people, it was the people that changed the econonomics.

People in the sixties and seventies didn't change their oppinions on race because the "pro-capitalist media" wanted it, but because, finally, they were confronted with the issues and had to look at their prejudeces and preconceptions.

It was public debate, and it worked.


But it is (as it should be) a one-sided "debate"...we "rig the game" so that our enemies "look" as "bad" as they really are.

We're "not fair" nor should we be.

I think we will publish enough material about the old order to show that "it was wrong" and very convincingly.

One-sided "debate" is a contradiction, but I assume that's why you used quotations marks.

There is a much better word for this "form" of "debate": propaganda.

Now, propaganda works, and historically has been a very powerful means of persuasion, but it is not by any means powerful enough to do what you would need it to be.

A society that had just come out of a fundamental upheaval of society would be a remarkably savy one, a society that was keenly aware of both their own power and the power of others to control them.

Propaganda would probably still work on many, but not to the extent you'd need to quell "reactionary" sentiment.

In this society, people would easily understand the difference between a real debate and the "debate" you propose.


If things go well in the early decades of classless society, their appeal will shrink...and it will do so whether or not they have "free speech".

Things don't always "go well".

In those times when things are not "[going] well", it is the most important to keep the dialogue open, because in a society that silences its opposition, it is in the difficult times that the silenced oppinions spread.

Whispers and mutterings and gatherings in darkened rooms: all the cliches of the "underground resistance". Keeping them out of the presses and off the internet mey seem like a solution but it only worsens the problem. In the troubled times, people want a solution, but they don't want to have to think about it too much, after all, they have more pressing concerns.

When it is understood, capitalism may not appeal to many, but Capitalism might.

Big-C, italisized, mysterious Capitalism. The kind that you don't know that much about, but seems different.

It's an alternative to the status quo, and to many that alone may make it appealing.

Exposure of the foundations of this "alternative" is the only way to prevent it from taking root again.

You fear that a public discourse may serve to "legitimize" capitalist ideas, but in post-revolutionary society these ideas will have been rulling for centuries, they don't need "legitimizing", they need debunking.


But you know as well as I that reaction is not simply limited to a particular viewpoint on a particular subject. It's a "world-view" (or a series of world-views...they have differences among themselves just as we do).

Yes I do, and I also know that to disprove these "world views", one must confront them directly.

In post-revolutionary society, these "world views" must be allowed to stand-up so we can knock them down.

Continuous one-sided propaganda is simply not an effective tool with those who are seriously considering capitalism. When one is seriously thinking about a fundamental change in "world view", it doesn't help that all one's getting from one's fellows is propaganda. The "recruiter" will tell them it's because communism "can't debate us" and without opposition, the potential recruit will start to believe him.


Your assumption is that if reactionaries are granted "freedom of speech" they will be "grateful"...at least sufficiently so as to be willing not to use violent methods to advance their "cause".

Not grateful, merely pragmatic.

If their ideas are getting press they don't feel unheard and can "get a feel" for public oppinion.

You seem to feel that this public oppinion will naturally sway to the right once they hear some of the arguments. I vehemently disagree.

The arguments are simply not strong enough on their own to convince a sizable proportion of society, especially not since these arguments will be subject of persistent public debate.

Furthermore, a public discussion on the subject is very "distracting", it is likely to take up much of the time and effort of the "reactionary" groups, as in order to "save face" they can't be seen to be publically humiliated.

In addition, many of the potential "converts" will not be so easily swayed when they can simply "watch the fight at home". Whereas a "guerrila war" or "underground war" has a certain romantic appeal, a very visible and very public discussion does not.

Those who are tempted to capitalism because of its forbidden nature or because they want to be a part of "the war" will find themselves mostly bored with the incessant rounds of political argumentation.


I don't think there's a shred of historical justification for that assumption. The record of reactionaries is conclusive: violence is their first choice whenever they have the opportunity to use it...regardless of how much "free speech" they might have at that or any other moment.

The question isn't about the "reactionaries" themselves, I think we both agree that they are willing to try a violent move if they gain sufficient support.

The question is what is liable to garner them more support, public debate or censorship.

I've already outlined my reasons several times, but I say again that public debate is the only reasonable solution.

Silencing may seem to make more sense in the short term analysis, after all, if they ain't printing, no one's reading, but word gets around, and if this word is not challenged but by propaganda and "one-sided debate"...

The bennefit of a debate is that while the "reactionaries" may be getting "air time", they're getting debunked as well.

You seem to believe that the people are so easily decieved that the mere mention of capitalist arguments and they'll go running back to the dollar.

I don't.

[commiecrusader]

Redstar you will never win total support if you simply oppress the opposition. The way to do it is to have an open debate, in public, and prove the opposition wrong somewhere for all to see. Censorship by the state only encourages people to think the state has something to hide.

[Osman Ghazi]

Redstar, I have to say, I used to agree with you, but LSD makes one hell of a point. I mean, in the early years of post-revolutionary society, we will probably hvae little to fear. In a society filled with people that lived under capitalism, in particular, whatever crisis finally ended it, capitalism will have little or no appeal. The ones who benefitted from capitalism will no doubt advocate its reintroduction, but their cries will fall upon deaf ears, ones that have heard the lies of capitalism a thousand times over and know its fallacies inside and out.

Where the problem comes in, is the second generation, the one that never lived under capitalism's excesses, and consequently don't know exactly what is to be feared about it. Look at Russia, pre-restoration. The populace decided that whatever it was they were doing, it certainly wasn't working. So, they decided to give capitalism a try. In their ignorance, they made a poor decision, and now most if not all regret it.

But the real question is, in a society where humanity has crossed a psychological boundary, a society that questions and thinks critically about everything, will you be able to fool them into even having a "one-sided debate."?

[redstar2000]

Censorship by the state only encourages people to think the state has something to hide.

We are not talking about that here...there's no state in a communist society.

What I seek is a situation where responsible workers' collectives in the communications industry take it upon themselves to refuse resources to reactionaries and their ideas.

Some of those collectives will have more rigorous standards than others...and thus some mildly reactionary stuff might "slip through" from time to time. But most of it will never be seen...nor does it deserve to be.


The problem, of course, is determining exactly what is bullshit.

I think that most of the time it will be pretty obvious. There may be some marginal stuff and it will be a matter of chance whether it gets printed or not.

It's not a big deal, either way.


No one knows enough on "politics" or humanity to properly judge whether or not every opinion piece conforms to the rigorous standard of journal publication.

True, but they don't need to -- opinion pieces don't "carry the weight" of an article in a scientific journal. I'm assuming that workers' collectives in the communications industry will be pretty well informed of the characteristics of reactionary propaganda and will be vigorous in stopping it from ever seeing the light of day.

Mistakes will sometimes be made...but can always be corrected.


In short, the "bland style" you speak of isn't an attribute of scientific writing, it's a necessity of it.

Nonsense. In the 19th century, scientific polemics could be as vehement as anything found in politics. Even today, those few scientists who are not dependent for their careers on institutions possibly controlled by their opponents still polemicize openly against what they think are false hypotheses.


I'm not quite sure what you want...every newspaper article to be peer-reviewed and annotated? Every television program to be followed with sworn attestations?

No, it's not necessary to take matters to that extreme...it's simply to follow the standard "we will not knowingly print/broadcast reactionary bullshit."


Without any other medium, these opinions simply languish with no exposure.

Here you seem to contradict a number of your earlier statements to the effect that reactionary views might "grow" if they were kept "underground".

I, of course, would be delighted to learn that reactionary views were "languishing" for lack of public outlets.

May they "languish" to the point of extinction.


People in the sixties and seventies didn't change their opinions on race because the "pro-capitalist media" wanted it, but because, finally, they were confronted with the issues and had to look at their prejudices and preconceptions.

Well, I was there...and I think you've over-simplified matters a bit.

For one thing, segregation in the American South and all the overt racism that went with it became an acute liability during the "cold war"...and many ruling class folks were painfully aware of this.

The capitalist media's contribution to this "debate" was to show, in vivid imagery, the behavior of southern cops towards non-violent demonstrators...scenes of such brutality as to "shock" the viewing public.

This could have been done as early as 1910 or thereabouts...but it was done in the late 1950s for reasons other than "conscience".

What the ruling class decided was that overt and visible racism (segregation) should be suppressed...and this was indeed done, mostly during the Johnson administration.

The "normal" racism of American society -- the routine daily discriminations and humiliations directed against people of color -- have never changed and may, in some cases, have gotten worse.

But no public figure can use the "n" word any more...that is no longer permitted. It's been suppressed.

Instead, code words like "urban underclass" are used.

I expect communications workers in communist society to be especially alert to the use of code words.


There is a much better word for this "form" of "debate": propaganda.

I can live with that.

In fact, I have no choice and neither do you nor does anyone else. Every human society "propagandizes" its members to think that certain things are true and legitimate and other things are shameful and disgusting.

People raised in a certain society from childhood will usually accept most if not all of its "norms" without serious questioning...and without regard to objective truth or falsehood.

If we can mostly stop the propagation of reactionary ideas, then generations will arise that, should they encounter a reactionary idea, will find it shameful and disgusting.

What's wrong with that?


You seem to believe that the people are so easily deceived that the mere mention of capitalist arguments and they'll go running back to the dollar.

No, I don't "believe" any such thing...neither of us has any way of objectively predicting the outcome of our respective propositions.

I just don't see anything to be gained by giving reactionaries even the chance to make a come-back...no matter how slender the odds may be of that actually happening.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe several contradictory things about the outcome of "free speech for reactionaries" but that overall "things will work out even better".

Maybe you're right.

But what if you're wrong?

What happens then?

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

Nonsense. In the 19th century, scientific polemics could be as vehement as anything found in politics.

The "scientific journal" of the ninetheenth century and the "scientific journal" of today are quite different.

When you stated a wish to have all media reflect the publishing style of "scientific journals", I interpreted that to mean their modern incarnation, if you meant instead that all newpapers, television, radio, journals, newsletters, websites... should reflect the style of 150 years ago, I have a whole set of other arguments. :D

Frankly, "scientific" style is a pretty vague concept.

"Not printing bullshit" is a fairly simple idea, but I wouldn't call it exclusively "scientific".

Maybe, on the "scientific journal" front we're just arguing about termanology. If you merely meant to say that more publications should adopt a policy of "not knowingly printing bullshit", I'll agree and move on.


No, it's not necessary to take matters to that extreme...it's simply to follow the standard "we will not knowingly print/broadcast reactionary bullshit."

I think you should rephrase that to "we will not knowingly print/broadcast reactionary bullshit or permitt anyone else from doing so or allow inernet access or printing materials to anyone who attempts to do so; and we will disallow distribution, publication, or broadcast of anything wedeem to be reactionary bullshit".

I have said several times that I do not oppose journalistic editing, merely the suppresion of alternate attempts at dissemination.


Here you seem to contradict a number of your earlier statements to the effect that reactionary views might "grow" if they were kept "underground".

Not at all.

There is a critical difference between "reactionary" ideas which many share and discuss, and "one man's ideas" that he "just can't get out there".

In both cases the details will begin to blurr and, to the average citizen the key elements will start to become forgotten, but...

In the first case, this is to the advantage of "reactionaries". As far as they're converned, the less people really know about capitalism...the better. Capitalist ideas will never fully vanish, not for generations. People do not need to be "informed" about "what capitalism is".

In the latter case, however, the "lone author" isn't about to go out "leading a counterrevolution". When people don't read his ideas, those ideas do languish...


In fact, I have no choice and neither do you nor does anyone else. Every human society "propagandizes" its members to think that certain things are true and legitimate and other things are shameful and disgusting.

Your talking about subtle socialization, the natural programming that accompanies any society.

I'm talking about your "one-sided debate".

There's a difference.


People raised in a certain society from childhood will usually accept most if not all of its "norms" without serious questioning...and without regard to objective truth or falsehood.

Yes, if most people belive something and don't believe something else, the thing that they do believe is more believably than the thing they don't believe.

Sounds like a good comedy routine, but it's not what we're talking about here.

That form of subtle passive propaganda is unavoidable, but what it isn't, is directed. It isn't active. This may seem unimportant, but it is in fact essential.

Any post-revolutionary society would "smell" active propaganda in a second, and they won't trust it.

For the first few decades that may not make a difference, but after a time... hmm.. this "capitalism" doesn't seem like such a bad idea...

You may believe that if you "control" the presses, this can never happen, but no matter how hard you try, you can never truly "kill" capitalist ideals. There just too damn known and too damn entrentched.

You can keep them out of the papers, but you can't keep them out of the public conciousness.

The only way to do that is to prove that those ideas are wrong.

Propaganda simply won't cut it.

You can't "force" socialization, not in any lasting way. Especially not when you're trying to "hide" something so broad as any "reactionary" opposition. You're trying to completely remove a set of values that have been a part of most of the world for the majority of the past three hundred years.

You can't do that with censorship.


If we can mostly stop the propagation of reactionary ideas, then generations will arise that, should they encounter a reactionary idea, will find it shameful and disgusting.

Unfortunately no.

They will find it "new" and "different".

Sure, they'll have been told in school that they should find it "shameful and disgusting", but we both know how curious young people can be...


Maybe you're right.

But what if you're wrong?

What if I am?

What if you're wrong?

Regardless of which of us is right and which of us is wrong, we're both worried about the same outcome.

I think that censorship would lead to a rightist counterrevolution, you feel that it would prevent one.

As to who's correct, well... that's "why we're here", isn't it?


I just don't see anything to be gained by giving reactionaries even the chance to make a come-back...no matter how slender the odds may be of that actually happening.

Well, neither of us wants that, we just disagree on whether or not censorship would prevent that "come-back" from occuring.

"Wiping out" capitalism with some "smart editing" may seem nice, but it's really not possible.

Maintaining a working communist society while still alowing dissenting oppinion may seem like "more work", but it's ultimately more productive.

In the first few years of communist society, censorship or no censorship, things are still so new that it really won't make a difference. Capitalist ideals are still prevalent, "reactionary" groups are very clear, people don't need to be "told" what capitalism is, but they also aren't liable to turn back to it so soon after casting it off

In a few decades, the stakes get higher. After living in communist society for a while, people do start to get curious about "alternatives" and now they start to look to the media for"options".

If all they see is propaganda, they will look elsewhere, and so the counterrevolution beings...

[redstar2000]

I think you should rephrase that to "we will not knowingly print/broadcast reactionary bullshit or permit anyone else from doing so or allow internet access or printing materials to anyone who attempts to do so; and we will disallow distribution, publication, or broadcast of anything we deem to be reactionary bullshit".

I have said several times that I do not oppose journalistic editing, merely the suppression of alternate attempts at dissemination.

As long as it's understood that the "we" in your formula is understood to mean workers in the communications industry itself, I have no problem with that.

The "we deem" phrasing makes it sound as if such decisions will be arbitrary and whimsical in nature...but I think you know that's not the case.

Three days ago, a user on this board posted a blatantly racist rant. Within a few minutes, a moderator requested a ban. And within 40 minutes, I banned the asshole and moved his thread to Trashcan.

I hope that workers in communist society will act with similar dispatch.


Capitalist ideas will never fully vanish, not for generations. People do not need to be "informed" about "what capitalism is".

This again seems to contradict other things you've said to the effect that if reactionaries are not permitted access to public discourse, then their ideas will "appeal" (to some) due to their "mystery" and aura of "forbidden fruit".

In any event, there will be books and articles reminding people of the content of reactionary ideas...but they will be written from our point-of-view.

Propaganda, to be sure.

So what?


Your talking about subtle socialization, the natural programming that accompanies any society.

I'm talking about your "one-sided debate".

There's a difference.

Which is?

Shall we have "equal time" for cannibals? Or child-molesters? How about those in favor of human sacrifice to the "gods"?

If we agree that such views are outside of the range of acceptable public discourse, why should not the same be true of reactionary ideas? Why should they not be widely condemned and, where practical, suppressed?

The only difference that I see is that condemnation of cannibalism is almost universal now and it would be very hard to find anyone who would seriously argue in its favor. Suppression has essentially "worked".

Many people in the first few centuries of communism will, at one point or another, "toy" with one or several reactionary ideas...but when they find that such ideas cannot ever get "a fair hearing", they will mostly, I expect, "throw in the towel". They may retain a private opinion (something I'm indifferent to) favorable to some reactionary ideas...but they will be unable to do anything about it of any public significance.


That form of subtle passive propaganda is unavoidable, but what it isn't, is directed. It isn't active. This may seem unimportant, but it is in fact essential.

Any post-revolutionary society would "smell" active propaganda in a second, and they won't trust it.

Why shouldn't they "trust it"? It's not "made" by some central "Ministry of Propaganda" but by revolutionary workers themselves. Sure, those who are reactionary will dismiss what we say as "mere propaganda"...they are our enemies after all.

Otherwise, as long as we are truthful (and don't fall prey to "Comintern-speak" -- that preachy and horribly unreadable style that Leninists adopted after the death of Lenin), I see no reason why what we say should not be "trusted".


...but no matter how hard you try, you can never truly "kill" capitalist ideals.

Expecting a big turnout at the Temple of Zeus in your neighborhood this morning? What, you don't have one?

Gee, there's not one in my neighborhood either.

In other words, the "ideals" of capitalism, like the "gods", are mortal. Constructed by humans, they can be abandoned or even destroyed by humans. They have no existence independent of humans.

The time will come, I think, when reactionary ideas will be of interest only to antiquarians...rather like Zeus now.


You're trying to completely remove a set of values that have been a part of most of the world for the majority of the past three hundred years.

You can't do that with censorship.

It will not, as already noted, be done solely by censorship. There will be many overt attacks on these ideas in many forms.

You would call it "propaganda".


Sure, they'll have been told in school that they should find it "shameful and disgusting", but we both know how curious young people can be...

If I'm not mistaken, you are here alluding to the times when young people were taught that sex was "shameful and disgusting"...a campaign that always failed.

If so, I don't think that's a very good "parallel". Sex is highly pleasurable and therefore strongly appealing to the young regardless of "official morality".

I don't think reactionary ideas will have anything remotely approaching the appeal of sex.


In a few decades, the stakes get higher. After living in communist society for a while, people do start to get curious about "alternatives" and now they start to look to the media for"options".

If all they see is propaganda, they will look elsewhere, and so the counterrevolution beings...

I think the only reason that people would start to look for "alternatives" in a serious way is that if communist society had conspicuously failed to meet people's perceived needs. If shortages were chronic, if gross inequalities were permitted to arise and establish themselves, if some kind of political elite came to dominate the public discourse, or even if people found communist society unbearably boring...then I could see a serious search for alternatives.

Even then, though, there'd have to be a pretty major "disconnect" between the media and reality for people to start turning over rocks looking for reactionary options. That is, if everything readily available told you that things "are really great" when you know from your personal experience that things are, in fact, "really fucked up"...yeah, you'd be a fool not to start digging for serious dissent.

I simply don't think this is a realistic scenario. In fact, I think there will turn out to be a wide range of communist alternatives that will be contested and struggled over...without censorship of any kind being involved.

At this point, we don't know the range of those alternatives and what they would involve...but I think it highly unlikely that human innovation and creativity will cease on "the day after the revolution" or ever.

There may be ways of "having communism" that haven't even been thought of yet.

Reactionary ideas have nothing to contribute to that project.

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

If I'm not mistaken, you are here alluding to the times when young people were taught that sex was "shameful and disgusting"...a campaign that always failed.

Sorry, you came up with that metaphor all on your own.

To be honest sex hadn't even enterred my mind.

"shameful and disgusting" wasn't a sexual reference, it was your's:

Originally posted by emphasis added+--> (emphasis added)If we can mostly stop the propagation of reactionary ideas, then generations will arise that, should they encounter a reactionary idea, will find it shameful and disgusting.[/b]

I wasn't refering to sexual curiousity, I was refering to curiousity in general.

We both agree that capitalism doesn't typically induce orgasm.

What it does, however, is illicit curiousity when introduced as an alternative to an opposing status quo.


As long as it's understood that the "we" in your formula is understood to mean workers in the communications industry itself, I have no problem with that.

Yes, well...to to use a phrase from my home town, that's just 50% plus 1.

To the other 50, a popular decision can be percieved as just as arbitrary as a "ministry" one.

Whether its a popular consensus or not, unless a decision is unanimous, some people will find it "unfair"


Three days ago, a user on this board posted a blatantly racist rant. Within a few minutes, a moderator requested a ban. And within 40 minutes, I banned the asshole and moved his thread to Trashcan.

hmm.. select individuals with the sole power to censor... I think there's a word for that.... wait...wait....oligarchy!!

Now, that may work fine on an internet message board, but if you want a society to function with similar "dispatch", you have to start adopting some of those "proffesionalizing" principles you so despise.

As I've said from the beginning, enforcing censorship restrictions nescessitates the creation of bureaucracy in order for it to function with any semblence of efficiency, your message board analogy only reenforces my case.


This again seems to contradict other things you've said to the effect that if reactionaries are not permitted access to public discourse, then their ideas will "appeal" (to some) due to their "mystery" and aura of "forbidden fruit".

Damn, you see "contradictions" like Bush sees WMDs.


emphasis added
apitalist ideas will never fully vanish, not for generations. People do not need to be "informed" about "what capitalism is".

"Never fully vanish"

The point is that the details of capitalism will blur but the existance of capitalism and the "buzzwords" will persists.

"individualism", "hard work", "make it on your own".

After a couple of decades, people will start to forget the practical realities, but they'll never forget that Capitalism is still out there.


In any event, there will be books and articles reminding people of the content of reactionary ideas...but they will be written from our point-of-view.

Propaganda, to be sure.

So what?

It's called credibility, once you lose it it's damn hard to get back.

Replacing capitalist propaganda with communist propaganda is just changing the message, the medium's still a *****.

Sure you change which books you burn, but the town bonfire's still there.

If a popular revolution has just fundamentally reshaped society, the population of that society would not be so easily convinced.

You think people can't tell the difference between a real debate and a "one-sided" one, that if you put enough of it out there, they'll believe it, If you're correct, then communist society has no real chance of success. If the average person is so unable to discriminate, what chance to they have to govern.

Ultimately, this comes down to trust.

You don't trust that people will make intelligent decisions if they hear all the opinions. You don't trust that they can identify propaganda.

I do.


If we agree that such views are outside of the range of acceptable public discourse, why should not the same be true of reactionary ideas? Why should they not be widely condemned and, where practical, suppressed?

Condemned? Yes.
Suppressed? Absolutely not.

And not for reasons of principle, albeit some do exist, but for purely pragmatic ones. Condemnation breeds debate and discussion, suppression breeds resentment and anger.


Many people in the first few centuries of communism will, at one point or another, "toy" with one or several reactionary ideas...but when they find that such ideas cannot ever get "a fair hearing", they will mostly, I expect, "throw in the towel". They may retain a private opinion (something I'm indifferent to) favorable to some reactionary ideas...but they will be unable to do anything about it of any public significance.

Ah yes, remember when the CCP "threw in the towel"... when Mao couldn't get press he just gave up....didn't he? What?? You mean he didn't?

"Fair hearing" is a complex term. Cutting off the press doesn't mean that "no one's listening", it just means they're not reading it with the morning coffee.

"Private opinion" leads to "private meetings" which lead to "private organizations" which lead to insurrection.

Prohibiting free expression only forces like-minded "reactionaries" to gather together. It certainly won't convince them to change their mind, nor will it stop them from attempting to engage in violent action.

Your central contention seems to be that this will at the very least prevent further conscripts to "reactionary-ism", but as I've repeatedly said, the only way to do that is the defeat "reactionary" principles face on. Hiding them just makes them more "mysterious".


Why shouldn't they "trust it"? It's not "made" by some central "Ministry of Propaganda" but by revolutionary workers themselves.

You say "workers themselves" as if they were a monolothic organization. In fact what you mean is "the majority of revolutionary workers". To those who were not part of that decision, either because they disagreed or simply couldn't be "bothered", censorship will not be seen as mere "suppression" but as oppression. Human beings are emotional beings. Very few will coldly assesss, well, it was only a nescessary self-regulatory resource allocation decision. Far more will ask what are they hiding...


Sure, those who are reactionary will dismiss what we say as "mere propaganda"...they are our enemies after all.

It's not the "reactionaries" I'm concerned about.

Sure, they will scream "propaganda", but everyone else will think it.

It isn't what's written that won't be trusted per se, but the lack of any voiced dissent.


I think the only reason that people would start to look for "alternatives" in a serious way is that if communist society had conspicuously failed to meet people's perceived needs. If shortages were chronic, if gross inequalities were permitted to arise and establish themselves, if some kind of political elite came to dominate the public discourse, or even if people found communist society unbearably boring...then I could see a serious search for alternatives.

If that were true than what's the harm in allowing public debate?

What, if people read about "profesionalizing",whether they're satisfied or not, they'll start jumping on the "reactionary" bandwagon?

You can't have it both ways. Either people are fickle and are eaily distracted from communism (i.e., reading an article makes them beat their wife) or they're not (i.e., reading an article doesn't make them beat their wife).

Now your above statement would lead one to assume that you believe the latter, but your desire for censorship is more in line with the former.

If people will be "reactionary-ized" by reading any capitalist publication, then their attatchement to communist ideals are so weak that they will be considering alternatives, censorships or not, "good times" or not.


Even then, though, there'd have to be a pretty major "disconnect" between the media and reality for people to start turning over rocks looking for reactionary options. That is, if everything readily available told you that things "are really great" when you know from your personal experience that things are, in fact, "really fucked up"...yeah, you'd be a fool not to start digging for serious dissent.

That "disconnect" occurs whenever the media becomes ideological. It's happening in parts of America today, it can happen under communism tomorrow.

You don't need a "really great / really fucked up" contrast when the front page of your newpaper reads: "COMMUNISM, COMMUNISM, COMMUNISM!!"


I simply don't think this is a realistic scenario. In fact, I think there will turn out to be a wide range of communist alternatives that will be contested and struggled over...without censorship of any kind being involved.

And who's to say that those "communist" alternatives won't be judged to be "reactionary"?

After all, if they're new, they're different, maybe they're...capitalistic??

Who can say?

"reactionary" is a relative term.

[redstar2000]

Whether it's a popular consensus or not, unless a decision is unanimous, some people will find it "unfair"

So be it.


Now, that may work fine on an internet message board, but if you want a society to function with similar "dispatch", you have to start adopting some of those "professionalizing" principles you so despise.

Why? Did I need a "college degree" or a "weekly paycheck" to spot the racism in a post that said "fuck n*****s"?

Do you suggest that anyone would have any problem spotting the racism there?

Do you think we should permit racism on this board?

Most of the time, detecting reaction is not "rocket science"...it's as obvious as shit on the dinner table.

On those occasions when it's "well disguised", then -- as I noted earlier -- it's the responsibility of conscious communists and anarchists to draw attention to what is really being said.

If the working class finds our arguments convincing, then it's off to the trashcan with the disputed piece.


The point is that the details of capitalism will blur but the existence of capitalism and the "buzzwords" will persist.

"Individualism", "hard work", "make it on your own".

After a couple of decades, people will start to forget the practical realities, but they'll never forget that Capitalism is still out there.

After 20 years, no. After 200 years, yes.

How much of feudalism is still "out there"? Do you or any sensible person still think of it as a realistic "alternative" now?


It's called credibility, once you lose it it's damn hard to get back.

Agreed...but I don't see why we should "lose it" simply because we suppress reactionary ideas.

To lose credibility, we'd have to lie about stuff that people could see with their own eyes was a lie.

I hope that we would not be so stupid as to do such a thing.


Sure you change which books you burn, but the town bonfire's still there.

My...you're really getting carried away with this, aren't you?

I see no reason why reactionary books might not be stored in a few libraries here and there -- they will be important for historians, after all.

The remainder will be pulped and recycled as new books...pretty much what happens now as a matter of routine.

Of what use are 50,000 copies of How to Succeed in Business when business no longer exists?


You think people can't tell the difference between a real debate and a "one-sided" one, that if you put enough of it out there, they'll believe it.

They should "believe it"...it's true.


Ultimately, this comes down to trust.

You don't trust that people will make intelligent decisions if they hear all the opinions. You don't trust that they can identify propaganda.

I do.

Even if one of their "intelligent decisions" is to the effect that they don't want a society where reactionary ideas are considered part of the legitimate range of public discourse?

Do they "have the right" to decide that? Even if it's by a vote of 51 to 49?


Condemnation breeds debate and discussion; suppression breeds resentment and anger.

I don't know where you get the idea that reactionaries are going to find communist society more "acceptable" provided only that they are free to propagate their views.

They are "resentful and angry" with us now...and they have complete freedom to propagate their views (some of which are actually law).

They will be very "resentful and angry" in the event of a successful proletarian revolution. The fact that they are denied access to the arena of public discourse may well add to their "resentment and anger"...but it wouldn't "go away" even if they were permitted such access.

They'd simply use that access to interfere (as best they could) with the establishment of communist society.

And you think we should "debate" them?

No.


To those who were not part of that decision, either because they disagreed or simply couldn't be "bothered", censorship will not be seen as mere "suppression" but as oppression. Human beings are emotional beings. Very few will coldly assesss, well, it was only a necessary self-regulatory resource allocation decision. Far more will ask what are they hiding...

Perhaps. I don't deny that humans are emotional nor that "unjust suppression" can become an "emotional issue".

But here as in the case of your previous posts, I don't think it at all likely that any significant number of people will react as you suggest.

That is, I think that most people will be quite happy to suppress reactionary ideas simply because they are disgusted by them. And further, I think most of the remainder will be completely indifferent to such suppression.

Only a small minority of reactionaries and a somewhat larger number of of their sympathizers will be "upset"...and since they are already upset anyway, I don't think we have anything to lose.


It isn't what's written that won't be trusted per se, but the lack of any voiced dissent.

Don't be absurd...there will be dissent and probably lots of it.

What will be missing is reactionary dissent...and who will miss it?


If that were true then what's the harm in allowing public debate?

Reactionaries would waste public resources producing shit.

They have no constructive role to play.

And if communist society does have "difficulties", we want to debate and solve those difficulties in a communist context...we neither want nor need a bunch of reactionary crap around to simply confuse matters.


Either people are fickle and are easily distracted from communism (i.e., reading an article makes them beat their wife) or they're not (i.e., reading an article doesn't make them beat their wife).

No, it's not a matter of such gross over-simplifications.

It's more like this: a society in which advocating wife-beating is considered a "legitimate expression of opinion" is conducive towards wife-beating behavior...no matter how much you "debate" the advocates of wife-beating on their logical/empirical shortcomings.


And who's to say that those "communist" alternatives won't be judged to be "reactionary"?

After all, if they're new, they're different, maybe they're...capitalistic??

Who can say?

"Reactionary" is a relative term.

No, I think it's an objective term and can be determined by any person of normal intelligence willing to put in a little effort.

It may well be that some of those "new and different" ideas for furthering communism will have reactionary content...and that will be something determined by wide-spread debate and discussion.

But a genuinely new idea cannot just be dismissed arbitrarily as "reactionary" and subsequently suppressed...it must be shown to be reactionary through argument and evidence.

Most of the time, this will not be an issue. It will be known more or less widely what reactionary ideas are and what they lead to...and there will be abundant "propaganda" to reinforce those lessons.

And I don't think most people will feel "oppressed" by this at all...in fact, I think they will insist on it.

Rightfully so.

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

Three days ago, a user on this board posted a blatantly racist rant. Within a few minutes, a moderator requested a ban. And within 40 minutes, I banned the asshole and moved his thread to Trashcan.

I hope that workers in communist society will act with similar dispatch.

On those occasions when it's "well disguised", then -- as I noted earlier -- it's the responsibility of conscious communists and anarchists to draw attention to what is really being said.

If the working class finds our arguments convincing, then it's off to the trashcan with the disputed piece.

So.. read, identify, call a meeting, argue, hear counterarguments, recess, contemplate, reassemble, vote, take action.

40 minutes? Not even close.

If this board operated on the principles you're outlining, "dispatch" like you describe would not be possible.

My point was, and is, that continually dedicating time to determining what is or isn't "reactionary" is impossible in the long term. Eventually, a systm such as that which exists on this board will develop. Certain people will be particualarly interested in the subject, will "seek out" "reactionary" writings and will unerringly be the ones to "bring it up". Maybe, in an effort to "streamline" and "speed things up", these people will be given "discretionary powers" to more "efficiently" deal with such problems.

But maybe not! Maybe they'll just irritate the hell out of everybody so much that people will just abandon the whole idea.

I don't know. No one can.

What I am contending, however, is that the kind of balance you want is unachievable. The pendullum will swing back and forth and eventually get stuck on one side.


After 20 years, no. After 200 years, yes.

After a couple of decades, people will start to forget the practical realities, but they'll never forget that Capitalism is still out there.

"couple of decades"

20, 40, 60 years.

Who can say what will happen in a couple of centuries?

It's the decades that I'm worried about. That period when capitalist ideas are still around, but the the details are blurring. The first communist generation, which will see communism not as a "revolutionary" society, but just as the "natural" society. To them, capitalism offers change and novelty.


How much of feudalism is still "out there"? Do you or any sensible person still think of it as a realistic "alternative" now?

The transition from feudalism was gradual. Hell, in some parts, it didn't fully vanish untill the beginning of the last century.

Why does that matter? Because when a change is progressive instead of instant, it nescessitates that exactly the kind of debate I advocate occur. Although not in any formal or official sense, when society is gradually transforming, discussion is unavoidable.

When society changes radically and quickly, if the new society doesn't allow discussion on those changes, those changes won't last.


They should "believe it"...it's true.

The ideas may be, the debate isn't.

A false debate in which the propaganda is true is no more convincing than one in which the propaganda is untrue. People will distrust the message, not because they are "reactionaries", but because they notice the conspicuous absense of an opposition.

That which makes debates convincing is the interaction of opposing opinions. Through that interplay we learn more about both our own convictions and those of our opponents. Face on confrontations allow us to understand how our ideologies and ideas stand up to challenge and help us, if nesessary, to revise them. Understanding the flaws as well as the advantages of one's convictions is essential to appreciating, on any significant level, the impact or validity of one's opinions. Especially when we are dealing with such issues of grandeur as the basis of society or treading in such new terrain as a functional communist society. Under these circumstances, outlawing debate, even from a "reactionary" perspective, is suicidal. In such a novel environment, all ideas, even insane ones, even "reactionary" ones, must be discussed.

Not adopted, but discussed.


Even if one of their "intelligent decisions" is to the effect that they don't want a society where reactionary ideas are considered part of the legitimate range of public discourse?

um.. we've covered this.

If such as decision is made, I would consider it ill-advised, but I'm not about to go to go on a "shooting spree" about it.

What we are discussing here is whether or not it would be in the interests of communist society for such a "51 to 49" decision to be made.

You are advocating that they should because ultimately you don't trust them. The people have to protect themselves from themselves.

The "enlightened" majority must ensure that both they and no one else be "lead astray" by "reactionary lies".


That is, I think that most people will be quite happy to suppress reactionary ideas simply because they are disgusted by them. And further, I think most of the remainder will be completely indifferent to such suppression.

That's not an argument, it's an assertion.

Stating that "most people" agree with you isn't logic, it's telepathy, something I doubt you possess.


They will be very "resentful and angry" in the event of a successful proletarian revolution. The fact that they are denied access to the arena of public discourse may well add to their "resentment and anger"...but it wouldn't "go away" even if they were permitted such access.

It's not the resentment of the "reactionaries" that concerns me, but rather the resentment of everyone else, especially that minority you're protecting, the 49.

In capitalist society, people accept that the "game is rigged" but after they've overthrown that society, they will not be as accepting.

"...new boss, same as the old boss..."

You don't run a successful post-revolutionary society by providing the people with "one-sided debate".


Only a small minority of reactionaries and a somewhat larger number of of their sympathizers will be "upset"...and since they are already upset anyway, I don't think we have anything to lose.

Define "reactionary sympathizer".

I don't actually think "reactionaries" would be that genuinely angry. Sure, they would "make a fuss", but in the end, I imagine it is what they expected anyway. Workers' revolution, communism; the idea that the former rulling class is not given a public voice will probably come as natural to true "reactionaries", indeed it fits with both their public and private conception of what "communism is".

So, who will it anger? Some of the "reactionary sympathizers" perhaps?

"Reactionary symphathizer" is a label that I imagine would soon come to mean anyone who didn't approve of the censorship in question. After all, how else could you oppose it? You must be sympathizing with the reactionaries.

These "sympathizers" will not be "bad people" just people who happen to have a different viewpoint from the majority or at the least from those who approved of the censorship; people who would never otherwise think towards capitalism, but begin to consider "alternatives" once they see that your "communism" isn't allowing a free consideration of ideas.


I see no reason why reactionary books might not be stored in a few libraries here and there -- they will be important for historians, after all.

Oh, so the old "reactionary" propaganda is fine, but printing any new stuff is "dangerous"?! So, people can still go down to the library and "read up" on capitalism, but a newsletter will "convert" them.

Any particular reason? "Reactionaries would waste public resources producing shit."

I was talking with CyM who suggested that it's the allocation of resources that is the problem; that using resources gained through the public effort for the purposes of undermining that public system is morally and practically contradictory. Perhaps you're trying to make a similar case, but so far you haven't articulated that.

If so, I stilll stand by my earlier comments.

Allowing the existance of "reactionary" materials means that people can still read them and "be convinced" while disallowing the creation and dissemination of new such materials only leads to an air of suppression.

In other words, it can only hurt.


a society in which advocating wife-beating is considered a "legitimate expression of opinion" is conducive towards wife-beating behavior...no matter how much you "debate" the advocates of wife-beating on their logical/empirical shortcomings.

Bullshit.

This society considers advocating communism a "legitimate expression of opinion", I'm doing it, you're doing it. Sure, it isn't exactly endoresed, but there is no doubt that if you asked the average citizen, they would consider the advocacy of communism to be an "opinion" and a "legitimate expression" at that. Die for your right to say it.. and so forth.

So, is capitalist society conducive towards communist behavior?

...hmm.. I didn't think so either....


No, I think it's an objective term and can be determined by any person of normal intelligence willing to put in a little effort.

Ah but here's the problem:

The exact publications that the majority of people would likely find to be "reactionary" are the ones that are not likely to convince anyone of anything. That is the Kill the Jews Quarterly is not liable to gain any new converts to antisemitism. Blatant overt examples of a racist or capitalistic nature are far to obvious to realistically garner support but from those who already share those viewpoints.

On the other hand, the articles and websites that could potentially lead to "reactionary" actions are the ones that couch their counterevolutionary sentiments in complex argumentation and masked fallacies. These publications are the ones that are persuasive enough to convince potential readers, but because of this, they are also persuasive enough to comvince those same readers that they are not in fact "reactionary"!

Therefore, if you don't trust the people to casually read these articles without being influenced by them, how can you possibly trust them to detemine whether or not they should be published in the first place?

When it comes to the more subtle forms of "reactionary-ism", it will often be likely that enough people will be uncertain enough that they can't quite agree to censor it. The articles and websites which might convince will be precisely the ones which are permitted.

Censoring the blatantly "reactionary" will do nothing to prevent the dissemination of such ideas, they will just be expressed more subtley and often more convincingly. People will be persuaded about capitalist ideas and not even know it. Meanwhile, these same readers will also be noticing that "reactionary" ideas appear to be being suppresed. They won't know they've been influenced by reading covert "reaction" but they will see that communism must have something to hide.

So...

"reactionary" materials being read? Check.
Communism discredited? Check.
Faith in community weakend? Check.

Remind me again how this is a good idead?


They have no constructive role to play.

Absolutely false.

They have an essential role to play.

The role of critic and of antagonist. They are an opposing position with which to struggle, an outside viewpoint by which to study ourselves. They are the other that allows us to refine our views and understand our positions. They are the reminder of the fallen order that we need to seperate ourselves, and they are the continual reminder that we must constantly work or we lose it all.

Eventually, such opinions will become antiquated, but that is a change which will take time and which will happen gradually. It will happen because the ideas and the conceptions will become no longer relevent, it will not happen because the press is controlled.


And you think we should "debate" them?

I think we have no choice.

Censorship won't work. It requires too much of a bureacracy to function properly and such a bureaucracy would undermine everything we're working for.

"No bureacracy required" you say? Well, how would this glorious system work?

Mr. Johnson is printing "reactionary trash", let's NAIL him! Now, most of the community (that's 53%) think that Johnson is "counterevolutionary", but the people who make the printers disagree. Most of them (58%) think that Mr. Johnson is an honest schollar.

So what happens?

If the worker's truly control the means of production than they can give poor Mr. Johnson a lonely printer but that isn't in keeping with the "general" opinion. Censorship becomes haphazard, subject to the whims of the producers of the resource in question. A divide forms between those in the community who voted "yay" and the workers who allowed that reactionary fuck to publish his lies!!!

On the other hand, if the community overrules the printer makers and forces them not to deliver to Johnson, that 58% of the printer producers will feel betrayed and resentfull. Their production was "taken out of their hands", how dare they!

Either way, someone's ticked.

The only way to prevent people from staying ticked is to develop some sort of "standard" and whoops......bureacrcy here we come....


You want to eliminate "reactionary" ideas? Fine.
Censorship ain't the way to do it.

[redstar2000]

Stating that "most people" agree with you isn't logic, it's telepathy, something I doubt you possess.

Nor do you possess such a talent. Our respective arguments have largely been based on "how" people would react to our opposing perspectives were they to be implemented.

We are both speculating.


This society considers advocating communism a "legitimate expression of opinion", I'm doing it, you're doing it.


Bullshit.

Sorry to respond "in kind", but your statement is either unbelievably naive or (equally) unbelievably myopic.

Where are our daily newspapers? Where are our radio and television stations? Where are our movies? Our best-selling books? Our mass-circulation magazines at the check-out counter of every supermarket?

They don't exist. Why not? We are denied the resources to create/produce them.

As even some bourgeois liberals have admitted: Freedom of the press applies only to those who can afford to buy one.

Let's suppose, for a moment, that we had at our disposal say $200 million...and we wanted to create some kind of mass medium for communism.

First of all, forget about radio and television...we'd never get a broadcasting license. Magazine wholesale distributors would refuse to carry a communist magazine...so, no newsstand sales and thus no magazine. Same for mass-produced paperbacks.

We could make a movie about communism...but the film distributors would refuse to distribute it and cinema owners would refuse to show it.

So we end up spending the money to set up a daily newspaper. Now things get really interesting.

No one (with the possible exception of a few small businesses) will buy ads...so the actual cost of the paper must be much higher than capitalist dailies just to "break even".

And parents are not going to be happy about their kids having a paper route for a commie newspaper.

We can expect regular and frequent visits from building inspectors, occupational health and safety guys, and even the EPA...and they will "find something" to "write us up" on every visit.

If we own the building where the paper is printed, local property-tax authorities are going to re-assess it...upwards. If we rent, the landlord will try his best to evict us and will certainly not renew the lease.

Insuring the paper against fire and vandalism will be very expensive...and may not be possible at all.

Which is "too bad" because the threat of arson will be tremendous. Even our newspaper vending machines will be trashed regularly.

An amendment to the zoning code may be tailored especially to exclude us. (Our legal fees, by the way, are going to be enormous.)

We will have considerable difficulties in hiring competent workers...it will take a well-above-average wage to lure people into writing and printing a commie newspaper.

Our "credit rating" will be permanently zero...everything we buy (newsprint, ink, plates, down to the plastic trashcan liners) will be "cash on delivery".

Our initial investment of $200 million would soon melt away like a spring snowstorm. In a couple of years or so we'd be broke...and that would be the end of our "first amendment" exercise.

I trust you get the point: our ideas are not considered "legitimate" public discourse in capitalist society and will never be so considered!

We are and always will be excluded by the denial of resources.

Beginning with the fact that we don't have $200 million!


[Reactionaries] have an essential role to play.

The role of critic and of antagonist. They are an opposing position with which to struggle, an outside viewpoint by which to study ourselves. They are the other that allows us to refine our views and understand our positions. They are the reminder of the fallen order that we need to separate ourselves, and they are the continual reminder that we must constantly work or we lose it all.

I confess I simply don't understand this at all. Why do we "need" an "other" to "refine our views" or "understand our positions"?

When communists argue with each other, then the kind of development you describe here does take place; I've experienced it myself.

But I don't see what contribution reactionaries have to make to this process. I know what they have to say for themselves...and so, I think, will most people.

It's not as if there won't be a long period of ideological struggle against reaction prior to the revolution itself. And it's also not as if reaction won't be periodically blasted in the media of the post-revolutionary society.

To you that's "propaganda"...because we decline to furnish the resources for reactionaries to repeat their hoary cliches.

That's ok with me.


Censorship becomes haphazard, subject to the whims of the producers of the resource in question.

Yes...and that is as it should be. People will disagree, argue with each other, and eventually reach a decision on whether a "fuzzy" (or subtle) view is reactionary or not.

The workers' decisions are not "whimsical"...unless you also want to consider the decisions of contemporary bourgeois "gate-keepers" whimsical.

The obviously reactionary will never see the light of day; the questionable will be argued. And perhaps re-argued.

And eventually it will become clear to the people involved where this "unusual" view belongs.

The "mechanics" of how to make it work is a trivial problem -- the principle is that communications workers and those involved in the production of technology and resources for that purpose cannot be compelled to assist in the dissemination of ideas that they find repugnant.

The age of compulsion is over.

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

Nor do you possess such a talent. Our respective arguments have largely been based on "how" people would react to our opposing perspectives were they to be implemented.

We are both speculating.

We are both speculating and theorizing as to how a hypothetical society should function. Because the hypothetical society in question is one in which the people will make such decisions themselves, we are effectively debating what decisions the people should make.

Accordingly, it is indeed relevent to determine "how people would react", but to do so based on logic and evidence. Stating that they will react your way is not an argument, it's assertation.


That is, I think that most people will be quite happy to suppress reactionary ideas simply because they are disgusted by them.

Because people will be disgusted by a certain class of ideas they will suppress them therefore they will agree with you and therefore you are correct?

A couple premises there are based on nothing at all.

You can't know if people will be "disgusted" and even if they are, you can't say that that disgust will nescessarily lead to sanctioned suppression.

That's more than "speculation" that's down-right assumption.

You can't argue that more people will agree with you because more people will agree with you, that's pure circular reasoning.


Sorry to respond "in kind", but your statement is either unbelievably naive or (equally) unbelievably myopic.

...

I trust you get the point: our ideas are not considered "legitimate" public discourse in capitalist society and will never be so considered!

Point taken...mostly.

Perhaps it was a bad example, but your argument is no stronger. Namely that making it acceptable to say something nescessarily means that it is acceptable to do that thing.

You're mostly right in that this society does not support the advocacy of communism....and yet... this board is still up. My ISP has not suspended my account, neither has yours. Communist newspapers have been set up before, communist articles have been published. Is it to the degree of your "200 million" scenario, of course not, but the issue isn't whether such advocacy is considered desirable but whether is is considered "legitimate".

Your imagination is certainly vivid, but in this case, I think you're exagerating the situation. Far from the "all out war" you seem to imagine, in actually most people simply wouldn't care about this new communist paper. Parents worried about terrorists and pedophiles aren't going to be overly concerned about the hammer and sickle. Landlords unsure about how they're going to pay their bills aren't about to kick out 200,000,000$ clients over communism. The Cold War is over and most people don't give a damn about communism any more. Terrorism is the new buzzword and so long as this paper isn't run by arabs, the police, the building inspectors, and the EPA probably won't make a peep. They're far to busy with the mosque across the street.

Sure you're advocating a viewpoint in direct contradiction with that of the government and economy, but as far as they're concerned you're simply not important enough. They are far more worried about poltical opponents and political action committees. From their viewpoint you simply don't have a sufficient following to make it worthe the effort to bother with you.

You don't think movie houses would show your movie, why not? Would they be afraid of being "blacklisted"?

Fear of "commies" went out with the tailfin. Sorry to tell you this, but you're absolutely wrong. Granted, you wouldn't get the kind of wide release that a "Finding Nemo" would, but you'd be pleasently suprised. Theater owners are market capitalists, if there's an audience....

Communism is simply not the "hot-button" issue it used to be, the chance of vandalism or arson is ridiculously low. No one has the emotional investment needed to produce such a violent outburst. In the minds of most people, the risk of a communist revolution is so low that they need not be concerned with the oppening of a new communist advocacy group. Most people would probably find it amusing. The days when communist and fascist battled in the streets are done.

If you got those 200 million, you'd find that you could do quite a bit with them.

But... of course you don't have 200 million and it would be hard to get that kind of money for such a purpose, and in that respect you are correct. But what you're missing is that because of the nature of market economics, you can still get some backing. Is it to the degree that a firearm advocacy group would get, no. But the question remains whether or not advocating communism is considered "legitimate", and you have not shown that it isn't.


The workers' decisions are not "whimsical"...unless you also want to consider the decisions of contemporary bourgeois "gate-keepers" whimsical.

I do and they are.


The obviously reactionary will never see the light of day; the questionable will be argued. And perhaps re-argued.

And eventually it will become clear to the people involved where this "unusual" view belongs.

How?

People are fallible and make mistakes.

Yeah, the "really obvious" stuff will be easily identified but what about the more "questionable"?

It will "eventually become clear to the people involved"? How??

Like it or not a lot will "fall through the cracks" and precisely the kind of material that you believe is in danger of converting people will be exactly that which ends up being allowed to be published and distributed.

If people are so calm, rational, and analytic that they can carefully determine what is and what isn't "reactionary" than why the hell can't they be trusted to read the stuff in the first place?


The "mechanics" of how to make it work is a trivial problem -- the principle is that communications workers and those involved in the production of technology and resources for that purpose cannot be compelled to assist in the dissemination of ideas that they find repugnant.

Can they be compelled to not?

You never answered my question: Who has the final say?

If those "communications workers" happen to be a particularly "sympathetic" bunch, and a narrow majority (let's say 50% plus 1) wants to allow the dissemination of something that the majority of the community in general (now let's say 75%) find to be "reactionary", who "wins"?

If you "stick by your guns" then it would seem to mean that it must be printed, but now the community is subject to "reactionary" material that three fourths of them find to be clearly counterrevolutionary!

All those "dangers" you fear are brought to the fore-front. What about legitimization? Is it right that community resources are going to support the publication of such obviously reactionary garbage?? It must be stopped!!!

Remember way back in this discussion when you mentioned the burning of a certain Nazi bookstore? I fear that under your model we'd find a lot of this. Only this time not fascist stores, but of community factories. Producers who "disagree" with the majority. Those "communication workers", for example, the ones who must be "reactionary sympathizers" because they published "reactionary" material.

After all when offical sources of compulsion are closed, people turn to more "unoffical" methods. As long as it is socially acceptable to base service on ideological agreement, this kind of intermittent civil war is unavoidable.


The age of compulsion is over.

The issue of compulsion is an important one, but I fear you're oversimplifying. Should newspapers be compelled to print "reactionary" articles, of course not. But likewise should they be compelled to print anything?

Any society nescessitates a level of interpersonal compulsion, everyone "has" to do something. Now, a great level of independence should be maintained, but the question we are debating isn't about whether the newpapers should publish a "letter to the editor" but whether the ISP should cut of the internet connection of the webmaster of a "reactionary" site.

Now who's being "compelled"?

In this case, it isn't a matter of refusing to take action in support of "reaction", it's about choosing to take direct action against the percieved threat of "reactionary" promulgation. The difference is that now the compulsion is on the individual who is forced to "tone down" or face losing "privileges".

Again, I never said that newspapers should have to print that which they do not wish to, but only that direct external censorhip not be imposed. That means if I use a communal printer just like everybody else, but I use it to print a paper I wrote advocating the "free market", I should not be subject to retributory action.

You might say that the printing collective should not be "compelled" to allow me to use that printer, but take that argument to its extreme and they should not be compelled to let anyone print anything.


But I don't see what contribution reactionaries have to make to this process. I know what they have to say for themselves...and so, I think, will most people.

No you don't, nor can you predict what "reactionaries" will say when they are living under an alternative system.

No one can say what will be argued or presented. This is why it is essential that such a discussion occur.

It is possible that "nothing of value" will come out of it, but I don't know and neither do you.

When we find ourselves in such a novel environment it is essential that all viewpoints, even the one we just revolted against, be expressed. Partly so they can be discredited, partly so they can be analyzed. Dismissing the attitudes that ran the world for a quarter of a millenia as "irrelevent" is short-sighted and foolish. Debating issues is not a sign of surrender or of weakness, it does not mean that we are "legitamizing" those ideas. It does mean that we are discussing them and in so doing we are understanding them. Using that which we learn, and especially using the critisisms that they make. These are critisisms and problems which we can't predict will emerege, day to day issues of running communist society that we cannot yet imagine. Understanding these problems from every perspective can only help in diagnosing and solving. Neither of us can know that "reactionaries" won't "stumble" on a good idea.

Censoring them can only hurt.

[redstar2000]

You never answered my question: Who has the final say?

Because I don't know the answer.

Must I? If I drew up a nice rational "flow-chart", would that make my view more convincing to you?

I doubt it.


As long as it is socially acceptable to base service on ideological agreement, this kind of intermittent civil war is unavoidable.

Yes, the struggle against reactionary ideas continues well into the period of communist society...and may, at times, be violent.

In my opinion, that's how things will actually turn out.

You are perfectly free to speculate otherwise...and we'll see what happens.


You might say that the printing collective should not be "compelled" to allow me to use that printer, but take that argument to its extreme and they should not be compelled to let anyone print anything.

I do take it to that "extreme". The printers are not "employees" (wage-slaves) who must do as they're told or lose their jobs.

They are free men and women who work at printing because they enjoy it...and are thus free to print or not print "anything" they please.

Of course, the same thing applies to those who provide the printers with what they need to be able to print: presses, ink, plates, paper, electricity, etc.

If the printers decided to print something reactionary, they might have to wait quite a while for their next delivery of newsprint.

If it was "really bad", they might find a large group of very angry people at their front door.

On the other hand, if they refused to print things that people really wanted to see, then others would start up a new printing collective to supply that need.

I daresay this all appears very "sloppy" and "disorganized" to you; I don't think communist society is going to win many "efficiency awards".

Efficiency is not really our goal.


Neither of us can know that "reactionaries" won't "stumble" on a good idea.

We've had quite a lot of experience with them up to now...and their track-record hardly inspires admiration.

So yeah, I know they will have nothing to offer but shit.

You evidently think that hearing some more of it will do us some kind of "good".

I disagree.

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

Because I don't know the answer.

Exactly. Which is why you shouldn't rush to supporting censorship before you've worked out how it could function. I don't want "flow-charts", but I do want analysis.

I have been arguing from the beginning that while censoring "reactionaries" makes good academic sense, it is practically impossible. It is the implementation that "sinks the ship". I have been entirely unable to think of a way that a communist society could censor "reactionaries" in the way you'd like, and it appears that you have as well.

I don't think it is possible.

I understand that perhaps you want to adopt the "general idea" and "work out the details" later, but I fear that such an approach is very dangerous. For all the reasons I've outlined before, I fear that censorship would only validate reactionary claims, destroy faith in communist society and do nothing to promote communist views. Furthermore, I fear it would quickly either degenerate into a new classists system of bureaucrats or persistently lead to civil wars.The fact that you don't have a concrete model only reinforces those fears.


They are free men and women who work at printing because they enjoy it...and are thus free to print or not print "anything" they please.

Yes, of course, but my point was that if they choose printing then they assume the responsibility of printing.


If the printers decided to print something reactionary, they might have to wait quite a while for their next delivery of newsprint.

So as long as someone along the vertical chain finds something "reactionary" no one lower on that chain produces?

So if the newsprint producers find an article to be counterrevolutionary, the printers can't produce it no matter what they think. They simply don't have the resources to do so if the newsprint doesn't arrive.

It's still compulsion, no matter what you call it.

But, even taking that example, what about when it's a matter of active censorship instead of inactive? That is what about when instead of not printing reactionary material, you punish.

Let's take ISPs. Now, if someone uses their internet connection to host a web site which advocates "reactionary" viewpoints, what should the response be? Now, let's take the hypothetical that most people in the community do find the website "reactionary". So, if the ISP chooses to revoke the internet from the webmaster, most people are "cool". But, what if they don't? Unlike in the printing example, cutting off essential resources to the ISP isn't really an option. See, the ISP chose not to take direct action and in so doing incurred the anger of many who disagreeed with that action, but because it was inaction that they chose there is not way to prevent them from continuuing.

That means that whereas withholding ink from printers prevents them from printing reactionary materials, i.e., from persisting in the offending action, there is no comparable way of preventing inaction. Electricity is pretty much the only "essential resource" that an ISP gets externally and cutting it off isn't really an option. The ink can be redirected to a "new printing collective", but the electricity cannot. What are the options available then? Other than violence, the only solution possible is one you yourself suggested:
"On the other hand, if they refused to print things that people really wanted to see, then others would start up a new printing collective to supply that need."
That applies nicely to this case. The ISP is refusing to cut off a site that "people really wanted" them to cut off. So creating a new ISP collective would appear to be the easy and painless solution. But setting up a new ISP requires a lot more than setting up a new printing collective. It isn't a matter of just assembling the machines and workers; the internet is far more complex and requires interconnection. So you either go out and rewire the entire community or you "take over" the existing ISP. If the ISP workers put up a fight, it could get quite messy. And who could blame them if they do? They are, after all, "free men and women who work...because they enjoy it".

I understand that communism won't "win many 'efficiency awards'", but I can't imagine that the kind of "mess" you're envisaging is constant bloodshed.

But, let's keep runnning through the scenarios and consider the flipside. What if the ISP does revoke the "offending" site, but most people don't think it was "reactionary"? Taking the "printing ink" paradigm, the ISP is now taking direct action in regards to a censorship issue that is contrary to the interest of most of the community. What do you think the reaction should be? Based on the model you propose, the response should be that the ISP be replaced with a new ISP collective, as we've established that is the only effective way of compelling them to comply.

But...will that happen? Probably not.

The motivation will simply not be there. While people might be angry over the percieved publication of "reaction", they are less likely to be active over percieved suppression of possible "reactoin". Oh well, it was probably the wrong decision, but what do I know...

From a psychological perspective, people are far more certain when it comes to not liking something and knowing that thing is whatever it shouldn't be than they are when it comes to judging whether someone else was correct in making that determination, even when they might disagree with them. It's never as clear and people are less likely to take action when they're not clear.

What this means is that people will err on the side of suppresion. If the community believes something to be "reactionary", they suppress it by compelling the collective involved to suppress it, either through resource revokation or through downright replacement. On the other hand, if the collective involved finds something "reactionary" while the community does not, it is suppressed as well. This means that there is a trend towards suppression rather than discussion. Potential writers and the like must consider the attitude of the specific collectives and of the general community; whichever one is more conservative "wins".

Hardly "free men and women".


Yes, the struggle against reactionary ideas continues well into the period of communist society...and may, at times, be violent.

Many things "may, at times, be violent", but we should try to minimize that violence to the greatest degree possible.

A society that persists in civil wars over web sites is not liable to last very long.

People will get fed up.


We've had quite a lot of experience with them up to now...and their track-record hardly inspires admiration.

So yeah, I know they will have nothing to offer but shit.

History can be a valuable reference, but trusting that "history will repeat itself" is not always advisable.

Again, I admit that it is possible that an open dialogue may not lead to anything, but it is certainly possible that it could. I simply don't think it's worth ignoring that possiblity because people "can't "handle" a fair debate.

[redstar2000]

By this time, I think you've made it abundantly clear that you want freedom of speech for reactionaries in communist society.

I don't.

Your arguments reduce to speculations on how people "will react" to the absence of reactionary ideas in public discourse. Mine reduce to similar speculations on how people "will react" to their presence.

We each consider the other's views dangerous to the progress of communist society.

Your technical objections may or may not be well-founded...as you noted, I am in favor of the principle and more than willing to "work out the details" of implementation when opportunity permits. Your view is that no practical implementation is possible that would not be bureaucratic or violent or both.

Is there anything new to be said on this subject?

As it happens, we do have a fresh "object lesson" on how our class enemies handle the problem...

FBI Seizes Global Indymedia Servers (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29564)

But I surmise that we will draw different conclusions from even this "lesson".

:redstar2000:

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

[LSD]

Well, it was fun when it lasted :lol:

I guess time will tell which of us is ultimately correct.