Free press

[EMS]

The internet gives an ideal way to promote free press. After the coming revolution the itnernet would be the place to discuss our dissatisfaction with the new state of things(assuming there is some). I was also thinking about Publicly-funded broadcasting stations. We need criticism(from the left, none of that right wing bull) and i believe that it will be possible eventually.

[redstar2000]

Long before the revolution, we have a problem with the internet right now.

For example...


Council blocks anti-corporate sites

COMPUTER software blocking access to anti-corporate political sites has been installed by a local authority in West Sussex, a newsletter has revealed.

The Porkbolter, a campaigning satirical sheet in Worthing, came across the sinister development after a young reader complained he had been unable to access its site. He had been using the public computers at West Sussex County Council's Information Shop for Young People (aged up to 24) in Marine Place off Warwick Street.

Although he could get onto the site's homepage, when he tried to read specific issues, he came across the problem. A message came up declaring: "You are being blocked from viewing content of the following type(s)..." And the system then produced some bizarre excuses for its censorship, falsely claiming the site featured 'pornography' 'hate' and 'illegal activities'. Even a simple google search for 'anarchism' was blocked because it apparently equals 'illegal activities'.

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/138592/index.php

Or scumbag software like these...

http://www.cyberpatrol.com/

http://www.netnanny.com/

Or this...


Productivity Threats. The temptations of non-work related Web destinations are endless. Just 20 minutes of recreational surfing a day can cost a company with 500 employees over $8,000 per week.

http://www.surfcontrol.com/Default.aspx?id=375&mnuid=1.1

If the internet is to become an effective "tool" for revolution, we must find a way to overcome "censorship software".

Perhaps a harmless virus that would disable such software without otherwise affecting the host computer could be written and launched.

I'm really surprised something like this hasn't been developed by now. :o

:redstar2000:

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

[YKTMX]

Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat we will neccessarily have to to control all information, including that on the internet. I can see that software which filters out words such as "profit" or "re-insitution" or "king" might be useful. ;)

[Rage Against the Right]

Is it good to inflict strict press regulations immeadiatley after seizing control? Or is it beneficial so slowly move things in that direction to allow people to adjust. The ideal situation to educate everyone on the forms of Communism and then let them vote their fate. If they were well enough educated and voted for Communism it would be an easy pill to swallow.

[EMS]

I believe if we give people a fair, objective view on things people would pick the system in which all prosper(socialism), and therefore the Capitalist sites should stay up even after the revolution. If we took those sites down, then we would be doing the very thing we are accusing the Hysterical Right of doing right? Thank goodness the Hysterical Right hasnt aimed its guns of self-righteousness at this site.


I completely agree with RedStar, censorship is the tool of the reaction forces, not ours. If we are to maintain a socialist society, there must be freedom, and for freedom there must be free press.

[Hate Is Art]

It's more about a fair press then a free press. A fair press ensures that one person *cough*rupertmurdoch*cough* doesn't have control of the media and thus what news is shown on TV or read in the newspapers etc.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EMS
I completely agree with RedStar, censorship is the tool of the reaction forces, not ours.

Much as I enjoy people "agreeing" with me, I can't allow them to do so under a false impression.

My post referred to our class enemies' attempts to censor us...not what we may do to censor them.

You see, I am partisan...I think that whatever the reactionaries try to do to us is automatically unjustified and outrageous -- whereas anything we do to them is fully justified.

I'm not concerned with "fair play", a "balanced position", etc. Just as they want to defeat us, I want to defeat them.

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

No "Free Speech" for Reactionaries! (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097152138&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

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

[Hate Is Art]

You see, I am partisan...I think that whatever the reactionaries try to do to us is automatically unjustified and outrageous -- whereas anything we do to them is fully justified.

Your a cookie aren't ya!

Anything we do them is fully justified? Who is this "them"? Sounds like Lynching talk. Organise the rabble and supply the pitch-forks, hand out the burning torches. :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 11 2005, 06:31 AM

You see, I am partisan...I think that whatever the reactionaries try to do to us is automatically unjustified and outrageous -- whereas anything we do to them is fully justified.

Your a cookie aren't ya!

Anything we do them is fully justified? Who is this "them"? Sounds like Lynching talk. Organise the rabble and supply the pitch-forks, hand out the burning torches. :rolleyes:
Hey, we are dealing with vampires, are we not?

:redstar2000:

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

[Ligeia]

So there should be censorship?
OK,but what if some intellectuals think that this is bad because you block the mind and opinions and whatever and then they are strictly against that,although they dont like the statements censored anyway.Wouldnt you creat new opponents?

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:58 PM
Long before the revolution, we have a problem with the internet right now.

For example...


Council blocks anti-corporate sites

COMPUTER software blocking access to anti-corporate political sites has been installed by a local authority in West Sussex, a newsletter has revealed.

The Porkbolter, a campaigning satirical sheet in Worthing, came across the sinister development after a young reader complained he had been unable to access its site. He had been using the public computers at West Sussex County Council's Information Shop for Young People (aged up to 24) in Marine Place off Warwick Street.

Although he could get onto the site's homepage, when he tried to read specific issues, he came across the problem. A message came up declaring: "You are being blocked from viewing content of the following type(s)..." And the system then produced some bizarre excuses for its censorship, falsely claiming the site featured 'pornography' 'hate' and 'illegal activities'. Even a simple google search for 'anarchism' was blocked because it apparently equals 'illegal activities'.







Or this...


Productivity Threats. The temptations of non-work related Web destinations are endless. Just 20 minutes of recreational surfing a day can cost a company with 500 employees over $8,000 per week.

http://www.surfcontrol.com/Default.aspx?id=375&mnuid=1.1

If the internet is to become an effective "tool" for revolution, we must find a way to overcome "censorship software".

Perhaps a harmless virus that would disable such software without otherwise affecting the host computer could be written and launched.

I'm really surprised something like this hasn't been developed by now. :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Now that reminds me - che-lives has been banned on my school computers by our ISP. Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

[Invader Zim]

its actually been banned by the schools ISP? I can understand them putting some ridiculously poor program in place to stop yiu accessing it on a local level, but the actual ISP has banned it? Overkill.

[Famepollution]

So there should be censorship?
OK,but what if some intellectuals think that this is bad because you block the mind and opinions and whatever and then they are strictly against that,although they dont like the statements censored anyway.Wouldnt you creat new opponents?


Well boo hoo. a bunch of rich Ivy league douches are sad that they dont get to spout their capitalistic bullshit. Come on, Censorship of the ultimate Pornography (capitalism) will not make any new enemies. it will only limit the reactionaries ability to pollute and if the revolution (and the society after ward) are truly communistic and proleterian their will be very few ardant reactionary if any at all.

Once the revolution is over and communism is assured this issue should be decided upon by none other then the masses and not by some vanguard or "great leader". But that should be a no brainer.

[EMS]

But who shall inform the masses of the issues? The press, and if the press tries to provide a legitimate opposing viewpoint, it could be branded as reactionary. There is such a thing as criticizing a leftist government from the left, and criticizing it from the right. How do we differentiate?

[cormacobear]

A limited form of censorship is of course justified, Their needs to be an entity that prevents lies being offered as legitimate news. However, censorship applied too strictly has it's own dangers regardless of whose doing the censorship. I'm confident that publicly owned news organizations can maintain sufficient credibility that rivals restricted to honest broadcasting would pose little threat. I am confident that under such conditions our position is strong enough to withstand oppositional debate. Such a limited mandate for censors would ensure honest News delivery while posing little threat to our civil liberties.

[apathy maybe]

I believe that censorship in any form is bad. If our position is correct, then let it stand against the enemy. If it is wrong, then it will fail. Besides which surely we have to trust the people that they know what is right for them, we can force them to hate something.

People should be allowed to have whatever beliefs they want, if you try and censor writing, then the next step is censoring thoughts (we don't want 2+2 equalling 5 do we?).

As to filtering sites that contain certain words (such as breast or ass (apparently they don't filter arse)) then you can filter sites that have a "legitimate" use for those words (such as breast-stroke or the care and raising of donkeys). The same can apply for political websites, if we filter words that contain, say 'profit' we might well filter sites that support the old system (capitalism) but sites that are critical of it also.

And a finial reason not to have censorship, who actually decides what to censor? Who are the censors? Do we have a special group of people who can decide that this pornography is bad for the rest of the adult population? Are the censors selected for the righteousness, or do they select themselves?

[GlassDraggon]

Someone should just set up "mirror" sites for groups like Che-Lives.

As far as censorship goes- many of you seem to be forgetting that capitalism is the ultimate form of censorship. The vast majority of those living under a capitalist regime wouldn't believe the real news anways. Culture is the ultimate censor.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EMS+--> (EMS)There is such a thing as criticizing a leftist government from the left, and criticizing it from the right. How do we differentiate?[/b]

Criticism from the right: thinks revolution has gone "too far", wants to do more things "the way they were done before the revolution", thinks the masses are "undisciplined", "backward", "ignorant", or even "corrupted", etc.

Criticism from the left: thinks revolution has "not gone far enough", wants to do more things "in a new, communist way", thinks the masses are far more trustworthy than any "leaders", wants power radically decentralized, etc.


Apathy Maybe
And a final reason not to have censorship, who actually decides what to censor? Who are the censors?

In the first place, the people who actually work in the media -- people cannot be compelled to print or otherwise circulate what they regard as reactionary crap.

Beyond this would be some community assembly that would decide if its resources should be used for the purpose of spreading what the people might or might not regard as reactionary.

We would certainly not want or permit some "central board of censors".

:redstar2000:

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

[Hate Is Art]

Hey, we are dealing with vampires, are we not?

Vampires, more like Succubi.


Beyond this would be some community assembly that would decide if its resources should be used for the purpose of spreading what the people might or might not regard as reactionary.

Are you talking about a fully post revolutionary society or transitional phase?

In a classless society I honestly don't think we would need censorship at all. It would have rendered redundant by revolutionary events, people would no longer buy any of this crap so it just wouldn't exist in a harmful large scale.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Digital Nirvana
Are you talking about a fully post revolutionary society or transitional phase?

Both...though it's obviously true that censorship ceases to be meaningful if the censored idea entirely disappears.

No one these days is spending much time stamping out Zeus worship -- it's disappeared as an idea.

But there was a period in which proclaiming Zeus as the "true god" could get you some nasty prison time. :o

Perhaps that's something to be emphasized here: bad ideas (untrue ideas) can be suppressed out of existence...if material conditions permit.

From a social standpoint, one religion is just as good (useful to a ruling class) as any other...so the Christians successfully wiped out the old Greek-Roman pantheon. With the techniques at their disposal, it took them only a few hundred years to do it.

I don't see why it should take us significantly longer to extinguish the reactionary ideas of our own era.

:redstar2000:

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

[Hate Is Art]

Agreed, although I'd prefer to do without without nasty prison time and other methods of controlling the "scum"

[commiecrusader]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:10 PM
The internet gives an ideal way to promote free press. After the coming revolution the itnernet would be the place to discuss our dissatisfaction with the new state of things(assuming there is some). I was also thinking about Publicly-funded broadcasting stations. We need criticism(from the left, none of that right wing bull) and i believe that it will be possible eventually.
Firstly, it wouldn't be 'free' press unless right-wing views were allowed to be expressed. Personally, I don't see the problem, we can criticise them the same way as we would have done pre-revolution, which would obviously have worked or the revolt wouldnt have succeeded.

[Famepollution]

I believe that censorship in any form is bad. If our position is correct, then let it stand against the enemy. If it is wrong, then it will fail. Besides which surely we have to trust the people that they know what is right for them, we can force them to hate something.

We are dealing with Fascists/capitalists. Are we the general left going to let them deface our communist society with lies and misinformation? These Fucking Parasite pray on the weak and they'll brainwash the ignorant with their garbage. Have you ever argued with these vampires. Its Like yelling at brickwall.

Red star said it best NO FREE SPEECH FOR REACTIONARIES!



Firstly, it wouldn't be 'free' press unless right-wing views were allowed to be expressed. Personally, I don't see the problem, we can criticise them the same way as we would have done pre-revolution, which would obviously have worked or the revolt wouldnt have succeeded.

Rightist critiques would not help our communist society but only hinder it. Only leftist criticism can be relevent in these situations. Since the left actually wants a truly libretarian society and the right only wants to enslave us.

I just realise the solution to this free speech problem. Instead of letting these Reactionary bastards have free speech. We round them up give them a trial. A real one with a jury and not a stalinist show trial. Then all those who are guilty of trying to stop the revolution process are shot! Easy solution.

[Hate Is Art]

Instead of letting these Reactionary bastards have free speech. We round them up give them a trial. A real one with a jury and not a stalinist show trial. Then all those who are guilty of trying to stop the revolution process are shot! Easy solution.

We can't just go around shooting people who disagree with us, we can make them useful to society. Rehabilititation programmes to try and change their beliefs and show them the errors of their ways. Failing this they can be utilised for other purposes, like work.

[Famepollution]

We can't just go around shooting people who disagree with us, we can make them useful to society. Rehabilititation programmes to try and change their beliefs and show them the errors of their ways. Failing this they can be utilised for other purposes, like work.

I guess we could try and rehabilitate them but should we let them exercise Free speech? No. I dont think we should use them for forced labor since it would make a hierachal system of the pro communists and the remnants of the reactionary forces. Having a reactionaries as slaves for the commune is definitely against communist principals.

[EMS]

So far in the west, we have had free speech(to some extent), if we deprive them of theirs we are the monsters that we are saying that they are, and they will have an additional plank in their platform for counter-revolution.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:22 PM
So far in the west, we have had free speech (to some extent), if we deprive them of theirs we are the monsters that we are saying that they are, and they will have an additional plank in their platform for counter-revolution.
I'm afraid that your premise is wrong...which means you conclusion ain't worth much.

One bourgeois journalist put it very bluntly: freedom of the press applies only to those who can afford to own one.

You think you have "freedom of speech" because you can criticize the existing regime on an internet message board read by a few thousand people.

Do you think you would be permitted to operate a large daily newspaper, a radio or television station, etc. and express your views freely...even if you had the capital for such a project in the first place???

The capitalist class has a long history of suppressing radical views whenever people were listening.

They are "monsters".

They do not believe in "fair play", "justice", "reasoned debate", etc. They intend to stay on top by any means necessary.

We are "monsters" too! Once we get them off our backs, we never intend to give them a chance to make a come-back.

Why should we?

:redstar2000:

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

[Citzen Smith]

I think that Redstar put it best


One bourgeois journalist put it very bluntly: freedom of the press applies only to those who can afford to own one

Its that simple. The capatalist system has brainwashed the majority of the worlds population with its rupert murdoch owned propaganda stations and newspapers. There would be no point in free speech for the right wing after the revolution because it wouldnt be a true showing of what was good for the people, rather a simply a showing of the left over capatalist sentiment, not a sign of the period of world history that we would all be living through. It would simply be an excuse for the rupert murdochs of this world to try and steer us back towards capatlism.

That said, the people should be allowed to criticize the leaders during the period between socailism and communism (im not an anarchist, i dont beleive in an instant switch between capatalism and communism). The power of the people should not be subdued by the excuses that it is for the protection of the state. The people are the first priority. Im just saying we shouldnt allow the facists and the rest to derail the revolution. Whilst the revolution is invetiable, i beleive we can speed it up if we take action as soon as possible under the marxist doctrine.

Im not exactly comfortable with the idea of repressing free speech, i suppose my middle class sentimentality there. But basically, it comes down to whats more important. Revolution, or free speech?

[Anti-Prophet]

Redstar, your confusing free speech with freedom of the press. read your quote again.

"freedom of the press applies only to those who can afford to own one."

S/he did not say anything about free speech. We have free speech in most capitalist nations. Thats why we can say whatever we want to whoever we want. We just cant use mass media to say it... unless we can pay for it.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 15 2005, 12:05 AM
We have free speech in most capitalist nations. Thats why we can say whatever we want to whoever we want.

Not really. There are often restrictions on speech aimed at overthrowing the government, hate speech, and so on. Even copyright and trademark laws limit freedom of speech.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 14 2005, 04:05 PM
Redstar, your confusing free speech with freedom of the press. read your quote again.

"freedom of the press applies only to those who can afford to own one."

S/he did not say anything about free speech. We have free speech in most capitalist nations. Thats why we can say whatever we want to whoever we want. We just cant use mass media to say it... unless we can pay for it.
"Freedom of speech" is meaningless if no one can hear you.

That is why I inserted the "freedom of the press" phrase -- in capitalist society we have the "freedom to speak our minds" in exactly the same sense that prisoners have that freedom...if the guards aren't looking.

As soon as we get "on their radar", our "freedom of speech" is quickly curtailed.

:redstar2000:

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

[Hiero]

It's rather ridiculous to overthrow the ruling class then allow them to have their own press. It would confuse the revolutionary working class to have on one side the new peoples Socialist government pushing the reovlution then have the overthrown class printing their own message and the Socialist government allows this.

Part of the Socialist transition period is to promote the idea of socialism and destroy reactionary thought so society can move forward to communism, we cant do this effectivly if we are always challenged by the reactionaries themselve. How would it be in a schools we are teaching this new thought to have students rebel and start promoting the capitalist system.

Anyway apart for the reason why not to let the enemy have their own press, how could they?. The media indsutry would all be nationalized like all other industries are we just going to hand out printing factories to every capitalist,facist and nationalist that want their own press?

[Hiero]

Also like to add the main role of the media buisness today is of large buisness second is to inform the masses of news.

[EMS]

Who decides who is reactionary and who is not?
If certain people in the councils or politburo decide that a certain person has a conflicting ideology, then that person(who could be just trying to help) will be branded as reactionary. If you give certain people the power to limit others rights they will surely abuse it.

[Anti-Prophet]

"Freedom of speech" is meaningless if no one can hear you.

If you ever lived in a country where free speech was restricted you would not be saying it is meaningless without freedom of the press. And if free speech is meaningless without freedom of the press then why restrict free speech for reactionaries in the first place? Wouldnt restricting freedom of the press be just as effective in achieving your goal of controling peoples beleifs?


It's rather ridiculous to overthrow the ruling class then allow them to have their own press. It would confuse the revolutionary working class to have on one side the new peoples Socialist government pushing the reovlution then have the overthrown class printing their own message and the Socialist government allows this.

The "peoples socialist government" is supposed to be the working class.

Anyway The bourgeoisie are not the only ones to have reactionary beliefs. In a post revolutionary society there will be many working class people who want to voice their reactionary opinions.


Part of the Socialist transition period is to promote the idea of socialism and destroy reactionary thought so society can move forward to communism, we cant do this effectivly if we are always challenged by the reactionaries themselve. How would it be in a schools we are teaching this new thought to have students rebel and start promoting the capitalist system.

Theres no need to feel threatened by reactionaries once they lose their monopoly on mass media. In a socialist society the reactionaries will no longer be able manipulate people the way they do today. Without that ability, progressive thought will easily overcome reactionary thought on a leveled playing field. And what kind of message would our socialist society be sending to the rest of the world (asuming that not every country becomes socialist at the same time) if it were to ban free speech for reactionaries?

[trex]

The internet is such a good domain of freedom of speech. I can say (within reason) anything I want, with no penalty, other then your opinion's as well.

Screw George Bush. He sucks.
Screw Al Quaeda. Blowing up people in the name of Allah.
Screw democrats. Weak-kneed wusses.
Screw fascism. Hateful bile(much like this post <_< )

things that is probably best left not said:
You know what? Let&#39;s kill all the Jews&#33;
You know what? Let&#39;s kill all the people who don&#39;t look exactly like me&#33;
You know what? Al Quaeda rocks and I&#39;m going to blow thousands of Satan&#39;s minions away by smashing a plane into an office building&#33; Praise Allah&#33;
the words &#39;Will of Allah&#39; and &#39;explosives&#39; in the same post (FBI come a knockin&#39; for this one)

I hold none of the above opinions true. Except the ones about al quaeda and fascism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EMS+--> (EMS)Who decides who is reactionary and who is not?
If certain people in the councils or politburo decide that a certain person has a conflicting ideology, then that person (who could be just trying to help) will be branded as reactionary. If you give certain people the power to limit others rights they will surely abuse it.[/b]

Most of the time, it&#39;s self-evident.

In "borderline" cases, there may have to be a discussion before an entire community assembly, followed by a vote.

It won&#39;t be a matter of "certain people" -- in the sense of an unrepresentative minority -- "abusing people&#39;s rights".


Anti&#045;Prophet
If you ever lived in a country where free speech was restricted you would not be saying it is meaningless without freedom of the press.

Whoops&#33;

What&#39;s that crap supposed to mean? Are you a refugee from some dismal swamp of "totalitarianism" now overjoyed to breath the "free air" of the American Empire?

What the hell are you talking about?


And if free speech is meaningless without freedom of the press, then why restrict free speech for reactionaries in the first place? Wouldn&#39;t restricting freedom of the press be just as effective in achieving your goal of controlling peoples beliefs?

Yes, that&#39;s how it would work. Did you think we were going to plant microphones everywhere and then listen to terabytes of mindless babble? :o

And I repeat once again: there&#39;s no such thing as "controlling people&#39;s beliefs"&#33;

What can be controlled (after a fashion) is the range of acceptable public discourse.


In a post revolutionary society there will be many working class people who want to voice their reactionary opinions.

Well, it&#39;s going to be tough on them too. Being "working class" is not a "license" to behave like a turd.


There&#39;s no need to feel threatened by reactionaries once they lose their monopoly on [the] mass media. In a socialist society, the reactionaries will no longer be able [to] manipulate people the way they do today. Without that ability, progressive thought will easily overcome reactionary thought on a leveled playing field. -- emphasis added.

I&#39;m glad you used that expression -- a leveled playing field.

I would now like to know just exactly why you think those bastards deserve a level playing field.

Have they ever given us one?


And what kind of message would our socialist society be sending to the rest of the world (assuming that not every country becomes socialist at the same time) if it were to ban free speech for reactionaries?

That we&#39;re serious.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by trex
The internet is such a good domain of freedom of speech. I can say (within reason) anything I want, with no penalty...

Your statement raises two interesting points.

Notice your parenthetical phrase -- within reason.

That&#39;s a short way of saying that you can post comments that are within the range of acceptable public discourse.

Things that are outside that range risk persecution.

For example, dozens of indymedia sites were arbitrarily shut down in a number of countries for several weeks because one site posted photographs of undercover political police -- the FBI just demanded the servers and the internet service provider just handed them over.

More seriously, there was a fellow by the name of Sherman Austin who went to federal prison for a year...not for anything he said on the internet, but because he posted a link to what someone else posted on another site&#33;

That&#39;s capitalist "freedom of speech".

:redstar2000:

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

[Raisa]

Nah. We dont have to restrict anything.

People... we do not believe in anything funny here&#33;
We believe in the emancipation of the working class...the only real class there is.
Most of the world is made of workers.

When we have achieved liberation, that must come with contiousness too&#33;
And when we are free, and we really know and see what freedom is, the reactionaries can SAY all they want, none of their empty words are going to make us go back into our cages.
You know, people are going to say (or write) what they want, whether you hear it or not.
If we have an open society then we will raise revolutionary contiousness by debating their illusions right out in the open for everyone to see. No labor camps or repression. Fair and square. And we will win, because we have freedom and dignity and they have ghettos, war and faciscm to give us.
Restricting free speech just makes us look insecure. We have nothing to be insecure about. We are not the ones advocating slavery.

We have freedom, and all they got are some tired words.

Let me see some replies&#33;

[(R)evolution of the mind]

I have to agree with Raisa. The revolution must be a social one, a revolution of the mind :), one where the majority of the working class sheds its slave mentality. This change is essential in holding up the new society. I do not believe that people will lose their thirst for power, so hierarchical power structures must be destroyed by nobody willing to subjugate themselves to another. That&#39;s all that&#39;s needed for the revolution to happen, to hold up the new society, and to form its new egalitarian structures. After that wannabe-capitalists can say all that they want, they won&#39;t be taken seriously.

[guerillablack]

As a kid i was against netfilters but as an adult, i believe i will have them if i have youngsters. Don&#39;t want them seeing facesofdeath or bignaturals

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Raisa+--> (Raisa)Most of the world is made of workers.[/b]

Not yet it&#39;s not; "most" of the world is still "made" of peasants. The global working class may achieve an actual majority (though a narrow one) by 2060 or thereabouts.

It will be at least another century (or more&#33;) before the working class is a majority of countries like India and China.


And when we are free, and we really know and see what freedom is, the reactionaries can SAY all they want, none of their empty words are going to make us go back into our cages.

This is the "optimistic" scenario...and we can&#39;t say at this point whether or not it will materialize.

I think it foolish, however, to always make optimistic assumptions...things in history rarely work out "as planned". We cannot rule out the possibility that a substantial minority may like cages...and vigorously demand that we should be put back into them.


You know, people are going to say (or write) what they want, whether you hear it or not.

Indeed they will...but if it&#39;s not part of public discourse, I don&#39;t care what they say or write.


If we have an open society then we will raise revolutionary consciousness by debating their illusions right out in the open for everyone to see.

I would rather attack their illusions "right out in the open for everyone to see"...and give them no chance to reply at all.

Why? Because this isn&#39;t just an intellectual exercise; it&#39;s about whether we&#39;ll stay free or be put back in those cages.


No labor camps or repression. Fair and square.

I&#39;m against labor camps myself.

But I&#39;m in favor of "repression". There&#39;s no reason to lock up someone who advocates racism, sexism, religion, etc. All that&#39;s required is to deny them access to the public discourse...much as we are denied that access now.

I repeat: why should we be "fair and square" with people who have never been "fair and square" with us?


And we will win, because we have freedom and dignity and they have ghettos, war and fascism to give us.

Do you expect them to be honest about their ideas?

Does George W. Bush make speeches advocating "ghettos, war and fascism"?

No, they will frame their ideas in such a way as to make themselves "look good" and us "look bad".

Further, you may not assume that "our strength is as the strength of ten because our hearts are pure".

Most of the time in history, the "good guys" lose and the "bad guys" win...because the "bad guys" fight dirty.

Their objective in "debate" is not to win a "majority" for their ideas; all they require is an armed and determined minority willing to support a military coup.

They must not be given even a chance to do that.


Restricting free speech just makes us look insecure.

I do not care "how we look"...as long as we win.


We have freedom, and all they got are some tired words.

Those "tired words" have been very tenacious up to now -- nationalism, racism, sexism, superstition, etc. It would be very foolish of us to allow them to "catch their breath" and return to the battle.


Originally posted by &reg;evolution of the [email protected]
After that wannabe-capitalists can say all that they want, they won&#39;t be taken seriously.

Maybe they won&#39;t...and maybe they will.

Don&#39;t forget that there will likely be many problems in setting up a communist society and "making it work". Our enemies will eagerly seize upon and exaggerate those problems...if we let them.

I think it would be "really great" if everything went smoothly and our enemies were so utterly discredited that no one listened to them at all.

But that&#39;s an extraordinarily dangerous assumption to make at this point.


guerillablack
As a kid I was against netfilters but as an adult, I believe I will have them if I have youngsters. Don&#39;t want them seeing facesofdeath or bignaturals.

Why not? If I were you, I&#39;d worry a lot more about your kids seeing Fox News. The real shit is right out in public these days and is not only readily available but almost unavoidable.

Sad to say.

:redstar2000:

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

[Zingu]

I&#39;m going to have to side with Redstar2000, the capitalists are our main enemy, and class struggle is an all-or-nothing fight, two polarized classes pitted agaisnt each other; why should we play "Nice" with them after they&#39;ve been screwing us over for years; now we have to screw them back.
If you think the upper class is going to become all docile and surrender just when the revolution begins; think again. Again, its a win all or lose all struggle. We have to repress them, hell, I&#39;m not totally against the idea of labor camps myself.

Look at how the Paris Commune granted amnesty to their former ruling class; and look what happened to the Communards in the end&#33;

In politics, to forgive and forget is suicide.

[Hiero]

Theres no need to feel threatened by reactionaries once they lose their monopoly on mass media. In a socialist society the reactionaries will no longer be able manipulate people the way they do today.

China and the USSR prove your theory wrong and every country that has had trouble with counter revolutionaries and revisionist in there own party.

You shouldn&#39;t be so naive to believe that the start of the revolution is the end of the revolution. The revolution conitinues as the counter revolution continues. The capitalist class are always fighting to get their power position back, the job of the revolution is to extend it and always fight the reactionaries. I consider it post revolution social democracy to allow the old ruling class to be able to conitinue to influence society through freedom of speach.



And what kind of message would our socialist society be sending to the rest of the world

They are going to be most pissed that we have taken power from the ruling class does that mean since its sending a bad message, thats doesnt mean we should re instate them so we can keep the rest of the world happy.

What kind of socialist government allows the rest of the world to dictate its policies?

[guerillablack]

red, after what janet pulled, you&#39;d be lucky to see tits on pbs showing national geographic&#33;

[SROleader]

Freedom of speech alone does not ensure a fair society, in fact far from it. Freedom of speech is good of course but in a corrupt society it represents only the views of the rich. Only the rich can reach the masses with thier thoughts, publication costs money. And this is one way in which they control weaker minded (as they have been taught to be by the captalist system) people into keeping what is good for the rich only. This is also shows a problem with democracy that must be overcome by passing relevant anticorruption laws for government. It would be much fairer if each party had the same amount of money to spend on advertising and even then that be tightly controlled. Politics should be taught deeply at a young age to ensure a wise voting roll. With this and more in depth policies I logically reason that democracy would work far more fairly and less corruptly and would eventually lead to a socialist society. Please feel free to point out errors in this to me and give me additional info on this subject.