Free Speech: Should there be limits?

[El_Revolucionario]

Should freedom of speech apply to repulsive groups like neo-nazis? Do you think fascist symbols should be banned?

[anomaly]

Do you mean in a socialist society, should they be banned? No, they won't need to be. If we can win over enough popular support to establish socialism, there will be almost no popular support for fascists. But sure, give the scum the freedom to spread their bullshit. Fascism simply isn't attractive to very many people, least of all to socialists. No, we needn't worry about them.

[rikaguilera]

Anomaly is right. It just depends on what you, or where you are asking your question. If it is centered around the U.S. today, then no, it should not be limited. Just like those moronic neo nazis that you mentioned, your freedom to express would also be limited. In a new socialist society, there would be no need.
I feel there is more to your question though. Has something happened that made you question the limits of free speech?

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:04 AM
Do you mean in a socialist society, should they be banned? No, they won't need to be. If we can win over enough popular support to establish socialism, there will be almost no popular support for fascists. But sure, give the scum the freedom to spread their bullshit. Fascism simply isn't attractive to very many people, least of all to socialists. No, we needn't worry about them.
I agree.

[Clarksist]

Saying that freedom of speech should be limited is saying that you shouldn't have freedom of speech. Limitation on a freedom does not make it a freedom, just a hollow promise. Just like in America, you can't use vulgarities... so in a way we don't have freedom of speech because you can't say anything.

[C_Rasmussen]

I don't think we should have limits or what would be the point of calling it a freedom as was posted above? Yes the fascists should be able to say what they want as much as socialists should.

[encephalon]

I do not believe that nazis should be allowed to use their voices as weapons against minorities. Call me authoritarian if you'd like.

[C_Rasmussen]

No maybe not to incite dangerous speech against minorities but I believe that they do have the right to voice their OPINIONS on minorities.

[metalwraith]

:huh: You can't limit something and then call it free. And c'mon, the fascists are always fun to listen to, they're a study in just how perverted the thought process can become if corrupted properly. If you restrict someone elses right to say something you disagree with, you're justifying any attempts to censor you. You can only form an opinion on something once you've heard or read it represented by both it's advocates and opponents.

[OleMarxco]

We shall not stumble and become like teh rulin' class.

[LSD]

Freedom of speech must be unrestricted.

In practical terms, however, speech alone rarely is the issue. It's usually more about the written / broadcast word. In a communist society, censoring such things not only has a moral problem associated with it, it also has a practical one.

But that discussion has been done many, many times... :lol:

EDIT: like this one:
Freedom of Press in Socialists or Communist Society (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28463)

[apathy maybe]

redstar2000 has a definite opinion on this. You should read it.

I personally think that now and for all time all things should be open, allowed to be spoken and not restricted.

This includes fascists, capitalists etc. However, I don't believe that people have a right to be listened to. Nor for the above to carry out what they say.

I don't believe in libel or defamation. Though I do recognise the potential in this society for those in control to vilify people with out them having the chance to defend themselves.

In this society if we restrict the rights of fascists to speak, then we must, in the name of fairness, restrict the rights of anarchists to speak. If we are correct, then we will be listened to, though I see that fascists are more likely to be listened to if some people have their way.

The trouble with this society is that the ones with access to the peoples ears, are the ones who don't want things to change.

[encephalon]

You can't limit something and then call it free. ... If you restrict someone elses right to say something you disagree with, you're justifying any attempts to censor you. You can only form an opinion on something once you've heard or read it represented by both it's advocates and opponents.


This is a false argument. If you apply it to anything other than this particular issue, it quickly leads to trouble. For instance? Killing. If you put limits on killing, then you justify attempts to stop you from killing, even if in self-defense. Which is all fine, except by your logic there can be no justifiable limit on it. So regardless of whether your killing someone because they're a threat to society or someone is killing you because you're a threat to bourgeoisie society, it's equally justifiable.

There are different forms of speech in the same manner as there are different forms of killing; killing in self-defense is more justifiable than killing for pleasure. Censoring speech when it is used as a weapon against minorities is justifiable, while censoring speech against oppression is not. Free speech is not a black and white issue.

[encephalon]

No limits on free speech what-so-ever! It's just goddamn WORDS! Point of our rebel must be also, against all censoring, what-so-ever! SHIZZLE! We'll never go down to 'eir level and oppress facists...or cappie-counter-revvies....even if they're TOTALLY idiots....they can waste their breath for all they want and SCREAM to the top of their loungs in irritation of this new, free, society. And we'll see who cares enough to listen..much rather less, to get "inspired" and do something because of it. Bah, 'spose it's all free-talk free-listenin' stuff, y'know what I'm sayin'?

The whole point to revolution is oppressing the bourgeoisie and empowering the proletariat.

[OleMarxco]

Perhaps so....but letting the few, lingering, surviving PASSIVE reactionaries around talk about whatever they like, is not "letting of the stem" on the Burgerouise, since they're not oppressing anyone by expressing what they think! Do you think we need to seal their mouths shut to empower the proletars? That's just implying that we need to stop them from "convincing" them back into becoming slaves for a ruling class again, and if they're THAT foolish to fall for that, they're deserving of it, in my humble opinion :P

[RedStarOverChina]

Let the people decide who they want to listen to, not their dictators.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think anyone expressing nazi or fascist sentiments during or after a revolution is just asking to be asskicked by hordes of angry proles.

[encephalon]

well, as a socialist state would be a state, then certainly freedom of speech is within the realm of statehood, in both protecting it and censorship. True, it is controlled by the proletariat, and therefore anyone expressing fascist sentiments is likely to get beaten to a bloody pulp, it is censorship nonetheless, and justifiable as well.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:14 AM
I think anyone expressing nazi or fascist sentiments during or after a revolution is just asking to be asskicked by hordes of angry proles.
exactly my point.

[slim]

Freedom of speech is essential. If you take away a revolutionary population's freedom then nothing stops them doing what happened to the last govt. October revolution two. lol.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:57 AM
Should freedom of speech apply to repulsive groups like neo-nazis? Do you think fascist symbols should be banned?
do that and you become the fascists... Or at the very least very authoritarian. I despise authoritarians.

[Captain redstar]

surely this would lead to dictatorship. i am against fascism more than any other political movement but surely everybody deserves an opinion however disgusting that opinion is. obviously i am against that opinion being used to abuse, threaten or attack minority groups.

[redstar2000]

It's very naive to think that any social order will have or even could have "absolute" freedom of speech.

There are things that may be spoken of and things that may not be spoken of in every social order.

The difference between capitaism and post-capitalist society in this regard is who decides what is permitted and what is prohibited.

The capitalist class makes that decision now; the working class will make that decision after the revolution.

I know what I think it should decide; but the actual decision belongs to the class.

I can guarantee you this -- it will prohibit some kinds of speech. So the only discussion that makes any "real world sense" is what should be permitted and what should not be permitted.

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

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

Once More: No "Free Speech" for Reactionaries! (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1106930843&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[codyvo]

Like I said in the compulsory military service debate, I am speaking only of the principle of this practice. And in principle, I think that freedom of speech should be absolute, even if, that means allowing fascists, capitalists and all sorts of counter-revolutionaries to spout their rubble. And again like I said in the last debate, most leftist would not stand for any limitation or repeal of freedom of speech, so why should we take a totally opposite stance after the revolution?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by codyvo
And again like I said in the last debate, most leftist would not stand for any limitation or repeal of freedom of speech, so why should we take a totally opposite stance after the revolution?

Because we want to win.

In addition, it's very naive, as I noted earlier, to think that "freedom of speech" exists now. It most definitely does not.

There is a long history in capitalist countries of revolutionaries being imprisoned or even killed for expressing their views in public.

Whenever the ruling class feels threatened (even if the threat is marginal or nonexistent), "free speech" goes in the trash!

They are serious about staying in power; we must also be serious about keeping them down once we get them down.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[El_Revolucionario]

thank you for all the responses. I agree with those who said we shouldn't limit the freedom of speech. It's like Voltaire or somebody said: "I despise what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it. "

[OleMarxco]

The answer to the question is simple...When it's "Power to the People", why shouldn't it also be "Power of the press TO the people?" They will decide whether or not to! In Communism, there will be no absolute restriction or absolute non-restriction. There's just middle-things. It's basically totally no restriction, but the workers could, shall we say, "stop the flow" of certaint publishions at any time, if they so want. That's the good thing; I don't even care about this, really, they're deciding! WE're deciding! If someone gets counter-revolutionary, so what! Then they'll fight and get killed! Their decision! If someone says something or writes something negative about our new society, their decision! Someone decides to not listen to it or someone decides to...YOU GET THE IDEA. There will be no regular press with only one outlet. It might be praising or punishing of Communism; I don't give a fuck. They might even write to overthrow it - so what? Our new society is MADE on overthrowing, if they want to urge to overthrow back, then so be it. Atleast then, the decision is in the people's MINDS. And we'll exchange "journalists" from time to time, too.

[metalwraith]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:17 PM

This is a false argument. If you apply it to anything other than this particular issue, it quickly leads to trouble. For instance? Killing. If you put limits on killing, then you justify attempts to stop you from killing, even if in self-defense. Which is all fine, except by your logic there can be no justifiable limit on it. So regardless of whether your killing someone because they're a threat to society or someone is killing you because you're a threat to bourgeoisie society, it's equally justifiable.
While i may be guilty of over generalising, i stand by what i say in the context of free speech. Also, it's hardly fair to compare free speech and murder. Free speech, I'm assuming, means the right to express yourself. It's a personal right, and does NOT impinge on anyone elses rights in the sense that whether or not they choose to listen is their right. When it comes to killing, the act itself is the violation of somebody elses right to live. No matter how badly that other person wants to ignore your action of killing, his right to life is violated and he cannot ignore you and live anyway.
Does free speech exist today? Not in society. And lets face it, when the revolution comes, do you really expect the hate-mongers to be listened to? Have faith in humanity, the majority are just like you and me...

[encephalon]

While i may be guilty of over generalising, i stand by what i say in the context of free speech. Also, it's hardly fair to compare free speech and murder. Free speech, I'm assuming, means the right to express yourself. It's a personal right, and does NOT impinge on anyone elses rights in the sense that whether or not they choose to listen is their right. When it comes to killing, the act itself is the violation of somebody elses right to live. No matter how badly that other person wants to ignore your action of killing, his right to life is violated and he cannot ignore you and live anyway.
Does free speech exist today? Not in society. And lets face it, when the revolution comes, do you really expect the hate-mongers to be listened to? Have faith in humanity, the majority are just like you and me...

It shares more in common with the act of murder than you think. Free speech can and does infringe on the rights of other. Speech can be a form of oppression as well as a form of liberation. It is, essentially, a weapon--to be used for good and bad purposes alike. So I guess you could compare it more to say, missiles; in post-revolutionary society, should we let the fascists have missiles as they please? NO. It would be foolish.

The key to winning war is to negate the weapons of the enemy, including speech.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 3 2005, 03:26 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 3 2005, 03:26 PM)
codyvo
And again like I said in the last debate, most leftist would not stand for any limitation or repeal of freedom of speech, so why should we take a totally opposite stance after the revolution?

Because we want to win.

In addition, it's very naive, as I noted earlier, to think that "freedom of speech" exists now. It most definitely does not.

There is a long history in capitalist countries of revolutionaries being imprisoned or even killed for expressing their views in public.

Whenever the ruling class feels threatened (even if the threat is marginal or nonexistent), "free speech" goes in the trash!

They are serious about staying in power; we must also be serious about keeping them down once we get them down.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
So you want to be as bad as the capitalists are now? In a socialist society, we may monitor speech of such vile groups, but we should not simply imprison them for speaking their mind. If they propose to commit acts of violence against certain people (for example, fascists planning to commit violent acts against a particular race), obviously the governemnt should take action. But, since I plan for an armed proletariat, if something like this happens, it will be taken care of. But the government's official stance should be tolerance towards all opinion, to further better ourselves over our capitalist predecessors. Also, I think that the capitalist movement in a socialist state would likely be very small, perhaps encorporating no more than 5% of the general population. The fascist population would be exceedingly small, meaning that while we may observe them and act on threats from the fascist bastards (the same with capitalists), in the end, the numbers and support we should have will prevail over such treasonous threats. Again, like I said earlier, we needn't worry, really.

[encephalon]

I think most of you seriously underestimate how easily most people are swayed by powerful speeches, whether the speech be for communism, capitalism or nazism. Does anyone need to be reminded how easily Hitler gained support? He did that with speech alone.

Speech/propaganda is by far the most powerful weapon a person or group has. If you doubt that, read some history.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jun 3 2005, 08:14 AM--> (NoXion @ Jun 3 2005, 08:14 AM)I think anyone expressing nazi or fascist sentiments during or after a revolution is just asking to be asskicked by hordes of angry proles.[/b]
I don't think that a revolution which authorizes such gratuitous violence is a worthwhile on. ;)



Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:34 AM
It shares more in common with the act of murder than you think. Free speech can and does infringe on the rights of other. Speech can be a form of oppression as well as a form of liberation. It is, essentially, a weapon--to be used for good and bad purposes alike. So I guess you could compare it more to say, missiles; in post-revolutionary society, should we let the fascists have missiles as they please? NO. It would be foolish.

I think the flaw with this statement is that speech itself(at least in the way you refer to it) is not any kind of actual infringement. Any actions directly resulting from this speech which were intended to happen would be the infringements. A civilized society would only limit specific acts of speech which can be proven to cause violence or oppression. But this doesn't justify massively censoring speech of any racist ideologies. That is nothing but oppression. And anyway, I really don't know why 'Nazis' are brought up as particular examples of this, as all sorts of people say things that can provoke crimes, leftists included(if not especially).


[email protected] 4 2005, 03:34 AM
The key to winning war is to negate the weapons of the enemy, including speech.

Not meaning to be hostile, but that just sounds like an excuse to be ruthless.


To encephalon regarding your last message(which I just noticed):

Do you not think that one of, if not the job of a leftist revolution is to educate people and prevent them from learning and acting on and from propaganda? A revolution that does not do that is probably one that started because of some other kind of propaganda. Revolutions start in people's heads, [to me,]any benevolent one must have as a goal the education of people, not on mere facts or simple skills(or just 'why to support the revolution'), but teaching and stimulating people how to think for themselves. Otherwise it would be a failed revolution.

Something some of you may want to keep in mind is that you can learn a lot from a 'fascist.'(The term is something of an overgenerlization) As can you from probably anyone. We should learn from other people what we can, whether we like them(or what they say) or not.

Last point: Whether or not the opposing view of the party in question is right or wrong, I personally wouldn't want the interpretation of that parties correctness decided for me or anyone else by some pre-set rules, regardless of who makes them, that includes the masses. This is exactly what far-right people complain about when they use terms like "tyranny of the masses." Maybe the use of the term is often used for propaganda purposes, but it can have some truth. It's something to think about. In my opinion oppression is wrong. If the masses condone it, the masses are wrong. Let people think on their own on issues, thought should be stimulated, not suppressed. How else do you think "the masses" will know what decisions to make?

[El_Revolucionario]

I don't fear the disgusting fascists. Let them say stupid things, and we shall all laugh at them!

If the people are smart enough to have a revolution, I don't think they will simply turn around and go to fascism just because of the rantings of a few fascists.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 3 2005, 03:26 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 3 2005, 03:26 PM)
codyvo
And again like I said in the last debate, most leftist would not stand for any limitation or repeal of freedom of speech, so why should we take a totally opposite stance after the revolution?

Because we want to win.

In addition, it's very naive, as I noted earlier, to think that "freedom of speech" exists now. It most definitely does not.

There is a long history in capitalist countries of revolutionaries being imprisoned or even killed for expressing their views in public.

Whenever the ruling class feels threatened (even if the threat is marginal or nonexistent), "free speech" goes in the trash!

They are serious about staying in power; we must also be serious about keeping them down once we get them down.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
But wouldn't that be seriously oppressive, not to mention hypocritical and Stalinesque. Taking their stance makes us just as bad as them on this issue, and we can't keep dodging the argument by saying " well we are fighting for the right cause so we have to repress the freedoms of the reactionaries." Well they have people on the other side making the same argument, hypocracy is the path to the dark side.

[LSD]

There are things that may be spoken of and things that may not be spoken of in every social order.

There have also always been people on top and people on the bottom in "every social order". But we aim to change that, do we not?


The difference between capitaism and post-capitalist society in this regard is who decides what is permitted and what is prohibited.

The capitalist class makes that decision now; the working class will make that decision after the revolution.

Well, yes...

in any society the people who run that society, utlimately, make the decisions as to what freedoms are permitted.

Under capitalism that would be the capitalists.
Under communism that would be the workers (who will be everyone, eventually).

..but so what?

That doesn't mean that their decision can't be to not restrict speech!

Simply because the rulling class today chooses to restrict speech, does not mean that the rulling class tomorrow should. I would propose that there are many things which the rulling class does today that we should not emulate!


I can guarantee you this -- it will prohibit some kinds of speech.

That's a nonargument.


Because we want to win.

But you won't.

Suppressing speech is not only immoral, it is also impractical.

There is simply no way to prevent people from expressing themselves short of setting up what would, effectively, become a state-bureaucracy.


They are serious about staying in power; we must also be serious about keeping them down once we get them down.

As we've discussed in previous threads, restricting free expression does not "keep us on top", all it does is marginalize the minority and galvanize the latent capitalists under a banner of "moral righteousness".

People who may not agree with capitalism in its totality will still find themselves drawn to it
1) because it has become "forbidden" and it seems to be being "oppressed".
2) because they will not really understand it.
3) because it will seem to be an alternative to whatever problems they will inevitable be having in their own lives.

Preventing free speech by "reactionaries" prevents a free debate on "reactionary" ideas, which means that they can never fully be destroyed.

In an earlier thread, you advocated a "one-sided debate"; propaganda, effectively.

But, again, surely any socially conscious, politically acute society, which any post-revolutionary society will have to be, will not trust anything comming out of a a "one-sided debate".


but the actual decision belongs to the class.

Well on this we do agree.

It must be up to the people themselves.

In the end, however, I feel that a people having just freed themselves of the shackles of capitalism will not be so quick to bind themselves again.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
So you want to be as bad as the capitalists are now?

Or even worse...if that's what it takes to win!

Do you realize what would happen if the capitalists re-take power? I was reading a little history the other day and discovered something that has probably been almost completely forgotten.

When the Spanish Republic was finally defeated by Franco and his clerical-fascist forces, they went on an unbelievable killing spree (1939-1941) -- as many as 200,000 lefties (of all varieties) were summarily murdered!

No one paid a lot of attention to this; World War II was already underway and that's what people were looking at.

But this is typical...if you look at dozens of examples where insurrections have been defeated, you'll find that "white terror" far exceeds "red terror" in ferocious inhumanity.

Depriving reactionaries of "free speech" is trivial...compared to what they would deprive us of if we let them have the chance.


Again, like I said earlier, we needn't worry, really.

Yeah...what could possibly go wrong?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

Do you realize what would happen if the capitalists re-take power? I was reading a little history the other day and discovered something that has probably been almost completely forgotten.

When the Spanish Republic was finally defeated by Franco and his clerical-fascist forces, they went on an unbelievable killing spree (1939-1941) -- as many as 200,000 lefties (of all varieties) were summarily murdered!

No one paid a lot of attention to this; World War II was already underway and that's what people were looking at.

But this is typical...if you look at dozens of examples where insurrections have been defeated, you'll find that "white terror" far exceeds "red terror" in ferocious inhumanity.

What is your point, exactly?

Capitalists use oppressive methods to stay on top?

Of course they do! They're advocating an ideology which bennefits the elite at the expense of the majority. When you're pushing a system like that, you need to be "ruthless".

We, however, do not.

In our case, a free debate helps and in our case we are not creating a society which would be conducive towards the kind of suppression you're advocating.

Speech suppression is relatively easy in a statist state (where the government has the bureaucracy and guns) or in a capitalist one (where the corporations have the bureaucracu and guns) or in a combination of both (where the government and corporations have bureaucracies and guns), but it does not work in a communist one where there's no infastructure for enforcing, reguating, or monitoring what is said / written / published / broadcast.

I've said it before, the only way to truly control speech is either to set-up that kind of bureaucracy or allow speech to be "controlled" in a completely random and unjust way.

Neither of those options is very appealing.


Depriving reactionaries of "free speech" is trivial...compared to what they would deprive us of if we let them have the chance.

Yes it is.

And I'm proud that it is.

You know, there's a tone of "class spite" in your words, RedStar2000.

Look what they would do to us, ...well, we'll hit them just as hard...

I don't think that that's a productive way to look at it. Yes, the capitalists are and will be brutal. Yes they would kill us all if they got the chance...

...but so what?

We are under no obligation to return "in kind". Our only obligation is to make the best society we can, and that means not limiting freedoms, escpecially intellectual freedoms, if we can at all avoid it.

I'd say that in this case we can very much avoid it.


Yeah...what could possibly go wrong?

Not nearly as much as will if we follow your plan, I'm afraid.

The dangers of suppression and oppression are much higher than those of freedom.

[anomaly]

Redstar, if we ever do establish a socialist state, our actions will speak louder than our words. By eliminating freedom of speech, you're going a bit too Stalinist for me. I propose that we, after the revolution, create a successful socialist state so as to gain the loyalty of the masses. If all goes according to plan, nothing can go wrong in dealing with the minicule amount of fascists. The capitalists will be shut up if we can create an efficient socialist state. Eliminating freedom of speech will simply make citizens think of Orwell's 1984, and we'll lose some proletarian loyalty. We can create armed proletarian militias to ensure that if the fascists decide to use their actions as well, we can deal with them. But what you propose, redstar, is political suicide.

[encephalon]

I think the flaw with this statement is that speech itself(at least in the way you refer to it) is not any kind of actual infringement. Any actions directly resulting from this speech which were intended to happen would be the infringements. A civilized society would only limit speech which can be proven to cause violence or oppression. But this doesn't justify massively censoring speech of any racist ideologies. That is nothing but oppression. Really, I don't know why 'Nazis' are brought up as particular examples of this, as all sorts of people say things that can provoke crimes, leftists included(if not especially).


The very act of calling someone a racist term is a form of oppression. It is mental subjugation, affecting how the victim relates to society.

Furthermore, the very goal of revolution is for the proletariat to gain the means of oppression from the bourgeoisie. Do you think we seek that to not use it? Without oppressing the bourgeoisie, it will continue to rule. Without oppressing racist ideology, it will continue to exist.


Not meaning to be hostile, but that just sounds like an excuse to be ruthless.

Not at all; in fact, this is the more peaceful solution in comparison to the alternatives. You can take away the weapons of oppressors so that they can inflict as little harm as possible, or you can take away the oppressors themselves (I don't think I have to explain how that is done); which do you think is more ruthless?



Do you not think that one of, if not the job of a leftist revolution is to educate people and prevent them from learning and acting on and from propaganda? A revolution that does not do that is probably one that started because of some other kind of propaganda. Revolutions start in people's heads, [to me,]any benevolent one must have as a goal the education of people, not on mere facts or simple skills(or just 'why to support the revolution'), but teaching and stimulating people how to think for themselves. Otherwise it would be a failed revolution.


That does not mean a reactionary movement can not gain sway. Germany was one of the most educated places in Europe before WWI and WWII.

An example? The neo-cons. A great many of them were marxists before their betrayal of the working class. The were quite educated in revolutionary ideas, and still are. It doesn't mean they won't change from propaganda or the offering of special benefits.


If the people are smart enough to have a revolution, I don't think they will simply turn around and go to fascism just because of the rantings of a few fascists.

Some of the greatest scientific minds of the last century ended up supporting hitler's policies. Education and "smarts" can only go so far, and can be easily circumvented with a little effort.

[encephalon]

I'm sincerely confused about all of these communists saying that we shouldn't oppress the bourgeoisie. What's the definition of the state? Briefly, it's the means of one class to oppress another class. Why do we want to gain control of the state? For kicks?!? What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. God damn.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by encephalon+Jun 4 2005, 05:42 AM--> (encephalon @ Jun 4 2005, 05:42 AM)The very act of calling someone a racist term is a form of oppression. It is mental subjugation, affecting how the victim relates to society. [/b]

Well yes, the act of calling someone such a name can be an act of oppression, a less major form of oppression then the ones I had in mind, but oppression nonetheless. However, this kind of oppression just boils down to enforcability. You cannot completely get rid of oppression, and that is primarily because of these sorts of everyday oppressions. Attempts to get rid of these are nothing more than very ruthless acts of oppression. That would involve attempting to get rid of namecalling altogether. That won't happen. The only reasonable act here is to try(I say try because everyone has their right to their own opinion, and we should not indoctrinate.) to teach people that oppression of this nature is wrong, and also to teach people how to not to be so hurt by these kinds of everyday acts of oppression. This does not include systematic namecalling and such by particular parties, those kinds of "special situations" can be dealt with individually.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:42 AM
Furthermore, the very goal of revolution is for the proletariat to gain the means of oppression from the bourgeoisie. Do you think we seek that to not use it? Without oppressing the bourgeoisie, it will continue to rule. Without oppressing racist ideology, it will continue to exist.

That is not the goal of revolution. That is the goal of some particular kind of 'Communist(?)' revolution which you adhere to. I tend to think the goal of any kind of leftist revolution would be to literally abolish the bourgeoisie, not to harm or burden(oppress) it. The point should be that the bourgeoisie should not exist in that society.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:42 AM
Not at all; in fact, this is the more peaceful solution in comparison to the alternatives. You can take away the weapons of oppressors so that they can inflict as little harm as possible, or you can take away the oppressors themselves (I don't think I have to explain how that is done); which do you think is more ruthless?

Actually, the correct way to use this analogy to relate to your statement would be to say: "Take away anything that we say is dangerous of the oppressors, and that will included weapons, perhaps among other things, but that's just tough luck." These kinds of acts themselves are serious harms. The point isn't that this or that ruthless method is better or worse than the others, the point is that there are far less ruthless options that one has. In specific cases, it will be disputable whether or not these tools really are weapons. The key is to do what is possible to prevent these tools from becoming or being used as dangerous weapons, not to take all the tools away from suspected parties.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:42 AM
That does not mean a reactionary movement can not gain sway. Germany was one of the most educated places in Europe before WWI and WWII.

An example? The neo-cons. A great many of them were marxists before their betrayal of the working class. The were quite educated in revolutionary ideas, and still are. It doesn't mean they won't change from propaganda or the offering of special benefits.

Ah, but you see, there are other things that need to be taught besides plain facts. Values can be taught(People of course can decide on them how they wish). Also how to interpret things is something that can be taught. If a lot of people in Germany had learned how to think for themselves, and how to find out information, they probably wouldn't have believed any of Hitler's wild claims. Today in the United States, plenty of kids have a (suppposedly)great education, but they cannot think for themselves on many important issues. Also, I don't think the people in Germany were that educated in facts about their country, at least key ones, if they believed in some of the 'facts' Hitler presented.

Keep in mind that a lot of the reason people in Germany felt the way they did was resulting from bad conditions in Germany at the time. If a great revolution was to occur like the one you dream of, those conditions probably should not exist if this revolution is all that great. And since these bad conditions don't exist to such a significant extent, the speech of dissidents should not be such a threat. It sounds more like this censorship would be creating a 'bad condition' and then could lead to some kind of sway. People in Germany were already unhappy, the Nazis did not make them feel that way. In fact, the Nazis made them feel better by telling lies to give them a dream for a better future. That's why they succeeded in coming to power. What should people be so unhappy about in a good Communist/Socialist/leftist society?

In regards to the Capitalists you are talking about, I don't know what former-Communist Neo-Cons you are referring to. If such people exist, there firstly was some kind of problem in their Communist experiences. It's easy to completely blame others, but it's not always the case. People do not fall victim to propaganda without a reason. As for special benefits, I tend to think there are much stronger human feelings than greed, and leftist ideologies are supposed to promote some of those other feelings.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:42 AM
Some of the greatest scientific minds of the last century ended up supporting hitler's policies. Education and "smarts" can only go so far, and can be easily circumvented with a little effort.

As I said, book facts are only a small part of education. You can find simple farmers who have a much more enlightened view of the world then some proclaimed scholars, even thought they might notg know much about current events and such.


[email protected] 4 2005, 05:42 AM
I'm sincerely confused about all of these communists saying that we shouldn't oppress the bourgeoisie. What's the definition of the state? Briefly, it's the means of one class to oppress another class. Why do we want to gain control of the state? For kicks?!? What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. God damn.

The reason 'we' gain control of the state is to abolish it. You can't abolish it without controlling it first. The purpose is not to set up a new state and a new form of oppression, but to get rid of the state altogether. The same applies to more specific entities like classes, the bourgeoisie is supposed to cease to exist, not be treated differently. One of the key feelings in Marx's religion(and that's precisely what it is) is an opposition to state power, as the state is considered an anti-human institution. Another key belief is that the society should be classless one. Does that make sense?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide)Suppressing speech is not only immoral, it is also impractical.[/b]

Immoral? :lol:

Impractical? Well, that depends on what particular kind of speech that you want to repress and in what particular medium?

Taking Rush Limbaugh off the air is easy.

Censoring the internet is difficult.

Spying on people's personal conversations is impossible.

So, we do take Rush off the air...along with all his counterparts.

We watch the internet for reactionary sites and, if they become significant, take them down.

And we leave people to have their personal conversations unmolested.

It's perfectly practical...as long as you don't go wacko with paranoia.


You know, there's a tone of "class spite" in your words, RedStar2000.

Look what they would do to us, ...well, we'll hit them just as hard...

Harder! :angry:

And I agree, there is definitely a tone of "class spite" in everything I write on this and similar subjects.

I really do hate the capitalist class. I deeply despise them and everything they stand for.

In revolutionary periods, the working class has been inclined to "softness" and even "mercy" when it comes to dealing with the class enemy...and I think that's been a great failure on our part. I suspect it has been a material factor in many of our historical defeats.

Well, I frankly advocate a more "ruthless" and, if you like, "Stalinesque" approach. I don't see any reason to be "nice" to those who would massacre us and then enjoy their breakfasts.


anomaly
If all goes according to plan, nothing can go wrong in dealing with the minuscule amount of fascists.

In life, nothing goes "according to plan".


But what you propose, redstar, is political suicide.

Well, we disagree...since I think that free speech for reactionaries is an extraordinarily foolish risk that could lead to catastrophe for the new-born revolution.

But the working class will decide...and I certainly hope they will make better decisions about this than they have in the past.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[encephalon]

That is not the goal of revolution. That is the goal of some particular kind of 'Communist(?)' revolution which you adhere to. I tend to think the goal of any kind of leftist revolution would be to literally abolish the bourgeoisie, not to harm or burden(oppress) it. The point should be that the bourgeoisie should not exist in that society.


How do you propose abolishing the bourgeoisie without oppressing it?



Actually, the correct way to use this analogy to relate to your statement would be to say: "Take away anything that we say is dangerous of the oppressors, and that will included weapons, perhaps among other things, but that's just tough luck." These kinds of acts themselves are serious harms. The point isn't that this or that ruthless method is better or worse than the others, the point is that there are far less ruthless options that one has. In specific cases, it will be disputable whether or not these tools really are weapons. The key is to do what is possible to prevent these tools from becoming or being used as dangerous weapons, not to take all the tools away from suspected parties.


I reiterate that speech is a weapon. It is why certain speech is currently suppressed while other speech is not. It is why HUAC began to prosecute leftists in the 30s. It is why censorship exists. People are moved to do things through speech that they would not do otherwise. Like it or not, people also adhere to the basic principle of groupthink. Get a few to say things, sooner or later others will follow. It is a basic principle of human interaction. Even worse, children are raised with this same principle; gradually, it spreads through family relations.

What less ruthless options are there than taking away the "right" to push racist and fascist views? Tell people it's bad and not to listen? You might want to look down human history a bit to verify that such actions do not work.



Ah, but you see, there are other things that need to be taught besides plain facts. Values can be taught(People of course can decide on them how they wish). Also how to interpret things is something that can be taught. If a lot of people in Germany had learned how to think for themselves, and how to find out information, they probably wouldn't have believed any of Hitler's wild claims. Today in the United States, plenty of kids have a (suppposedly)great education, but they cannot think for themselves on many important issues. Also, I don't think the people in Germany were that educated in facts about their country, at least key ones, if they believed in some of the 'facts' Hitler presented.

You've a false view on german society before hitler took hold. It was, pre WWI, the home of modern philosophy. People were thinking for themselves. The truth is, even people that "think for themselves" can easily be led astray towards things as horrendous as nazism.



Keep in mind that a lot of the reason people in Germany felt the way they did was resulting from bad conditions in Germany at the time. If a great revolution was to occur like the one you dream of, those conditions probably should not exist if this revolution is all that great. And since these bad conditions don't exist to such a significant extent, the speech of dissidents should not be such a threat. It sounds more like this censorship would be creating a 'bad condition' and then could lead to some kind of sway. People in Germany were already unhappy, the Nazis did not make them feel that way. In fact, the Nazis made them feel better by telling lies to give them a dream for a better future. That's why they succeeded in coming to power. What should people be so unhappy about in a good Communist/Socialist/leftist society?

There will be unhappy times in such a future leftist society. If you think there won't be problems that can be taken advantage of by resistance to such a society, I hope to god the rest of society isn't as utopian as yourself; if they are, they will turn to reactionary ideas.



In regards to the Capitalists you are talking about, I don't know what former-Communist Neo-Cons you are referring to. If such people exist, there firstly was some kind of problem in their Communist experiences. It's easy to completely blame others, but it's not always the case. People do not fall victim to propaganda without a reason. As for special benefits, I tend to think there are much stronger human feelings than greed, and leftist ideologies are supposed to promote some of those other feelings.

The neo-cons were dubbed neo-cons because they were formerly known to be of the far-left. They "thought for themselves," they were "revolutionary," they were "socialists." Neo-cons are characterized by their sudden radical switch from left to right.

People do fall prey to propaganda without reason. It's why propaganda is so effective. People don't need a reason; many will grasp at the first thing that pops up that gives them hope. It's why religion is so prevailing an institution. It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be peaceful, and the people don't have to be stupid to go for it.

I feel you terribly underestimate the power speech has over people, and if a great many people underestimate it as such we will fail, all leftists, repeatedly.



The reason 'we' gain control of the state is to abolish it. You can't abolish it without controlling it first. The purpose is not to set up a new state and a new form of oppression, but to get rid of the state altogether. The same applies to more specific entities like classes, the bourgeoisie is supposed to cease to exist, not be treated differently. One of the key feelings in Marx's religion(and that's precisely what it is) is an opposition to state power, as the state is considered an anti-human institution. Another key belief is that the society should be classless one. Does that make sense?

You cannot get rid of the state until you get rid of class conflict. That's the purpose of gaining control of it; to oppress the bourgeoisie into non-existence. Then, the purpose of the state is gone, and with it the state itself.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

The problem with the state is that it's designed specificly to let a minority rule a majority. It's impossible to take statepower as a majority (workingclass) over a minority. Before you know it some smartasses decide to play vangaurd or elect new "representative" politicians in name of the WC.

Back to topic. I am not bothered with mercy for the bourgeoisie. Whatever death toll they may take, it's nothing compared to ours and our generally shitty lives. What I am bothered about is what sort of implications such a "ban" on freespeech has on the attitudes of the workingclass. What I fear is that such a ban would produce a conservative attitude, hostile to new thougts and ideas. Which would make further progress/enlightment in society very difficult.

Instead of this, on the outbreak of revolution; instantly destroy all authoritive institutions of society. Destroy their intelligentsia, prominents, writers, thinkers, big time financers, buildings, high ranking members, militants. If you destroy all those, only the "zombies" will be left over. They will be pretty forced to think for themselves.

They did similair things in Spain and Ukrain. The peasant no longer could turn to the landlord or the priest for advice. He had to think!

[LSD]

How do you propose abolishing the bourgeoisie without oppressing it?

In a post-revolutionary society, the bouregois will be the vast minority. Much as they are today, in fact. But today they have their institutional tools and social power systems to keep them in power.

Once, we have torn them down, the bouregoisie will be weak.

Yes, they will try to take back power, but is the way to stop them by censoring their speech, or by exposing it?


What less ruthless options are there than taking away the "right" to push racist and fascist views? Tell people it's bad and not to listen? You might want to look down human history a bit to verify that such actions do not work.

What examples, specifically, were you thinking of?

More importantly, what example do you have of a state-censorship plan being successful?

Sure, there are instances where consolidated state power has managed to suppress a group, but those societies that manage that are always highly hierarchical authoritatian states.

You need a great deal of bureaucracy and state power to successfuly censor speech. But such a system is not compatable with communism!

Censorsing speech within a communist society will either lead that society into exactly the kind of reactionary direction it is censoring to avoid, or will leave it in chaos.

Either way, it isn't a realistic option.


You've a false view on german society before hitler took hold. It was, pre WWI, the home of modern philosophy. People were thinking for themselves. The truth is, even people that "think for themselves" can easily be led astray towards things as horrendous as nazism.

Wiemar Germany was hardly an example of a free-speech nation!

The NSDAP managed to gain the support of the large industrialists and corporate bosses who controlled the presses. The NSDAP, further, managed to get a great deal of funding so that they could produce a great deal more litterature than most of their opponents.

Plus, there was the simple stupidity of the left which had nothing to do with speech being free or otherwise. Many in the left wanted the Nazis to come to powoer, thinking that they would "destroy themselves".

Certainly any communist society should not make that mistake!


There will be unhappy times in such a future leftist society. If you think there won't be problems that can be taken advantage of by resistance to such a society, I hope to god the rest of society isn't as utopian as yourself; if they are, they will turn to reactionary ideas.

Especially if those ideas are "forbidden" and an honest debate on them has been made impossible.

There is no ideology quite so tempting as the "outlawed" one...


You cannot get rid of the state until you get rid of class conflict. That's the purpose of gaining control of it; to oppress the bourgeoisie into non-existence. Then, the purpose of the state is gone, and with it the state itself.

And how long will that take?

A year?
Ten?
A Hundred?

We can't wait for things to "settle down", we have to destroy the state IMMEDIATELY.

Leaving tools of oppression in anyone's hands is dangerous, using them ...even more.


So, we do take Rush off the air...along with all his counterparts.

We watch the internet for reactionary sites and, if they become significant, take them down.

And we leave people to have their personal conversations unmolested.

Who's "we"?

Does the entire community get together to decide which radio hosts should be taken off?

What if the radio worker's collective likes DJ-X? Does the "will" of the community take precedence?

What about publishing?

What if the paper collective and the printers collective thinks that "An analysis of post-communist living" is a well-researched thought piece but 61% of the general community thinks it's "reactionary"?

Who "wins"?

And on the internet, who spend their time searching for "reactionary" web pages?

And when found, it there a plebiscide held on each of them?

On each book, broadcast, newspaper, journal, article as well?

Every one!?

Don't you think that, ultimately, someone might be "appointed" to "take care of all that stuff"?

Only temporarily of course, but sooner or later...


Otherwise, now that the precedent of approved censorship is set-up, don't you think that people will quickly tire of the ineffiency of the process (holding a vote everytime) and might just "take matters into their own hands"?

You know, kill people, beat them up, and so forth.

Once a society condones suppression, it isn't a big leap to mob suppression, especially if the society itself isn't that quick with the suppressing.


It's perfectly practical...as long as you don't go wacko with paranoia.

:lol:

Well, that's a problem isn't it!

No system should be set-up such that it's liable for disaster should those running it come down with paranoia.

Rules in a communist society, and there will be few of them, must be simply and not open for interpretation.

Murder is murder. Period.
Rape is rape. Period.
Hoarding is hoarding. Period.

But "reactionary speech"? ...well, that's about as subjective as you can get, especially on the "grey" stuff. The stuff that you "can't quite tell".

Yeah, it could be reactionary ...maybe, I can't tell. Let's CENSOR it just to be safe..

Because really, that's where the ultimate harm is. Legitimate speech, legitimate writtings won't be seen, because of a fear of "reaction".

Not all progressive writting, of course, but enough.

Furthermore a great deal of "reactionary" material will get through anyways!

By the same token, the "grey" stuff, in this case the stuff that is capitalist or statist but is well-disguised, will often be approved. Probably because there simply isn't time to go over everything that carefully.

So not only do we have legitimate thought, censored, we have reactionary thought being published and, indeed, the reactionary thought most liable to do harm!

The "Kill the Jews Gazzette" is not liable to get many followers, but "An analysys of economic trends" just might.

By censoring the excessive stuff and, effectively, allowing the moderate and the "well hidden", you make it such that the only new "reactionary" material being spread is the slightly rational stuff, which gives people a warped few of capitalism / statism and prevents them from truly understanding the nature of the enemy.

Yeah, the community could release articles "debunking" "reaction", maybe even showing some of the "old stuff" ...but it isn't the same.

Despite what you think, no one believes a "one sided debate"!


Well, I frankly advocate a more "ruthless" and, if you like, "Stalinesque" approach. I don't see any reason to be "nice" to those who would massacre us and then enjoy their breakfasts.

Perhaps, but I don't see any reason to be unnescessarily "Stalinesque" either. Not if it's, ultimately, counterproductive.

In a post-revolutionary society, such emotionalism is only going to make rational decision making harder.

By all means "hate" the capitalists -- use that hate in the fight against them!

But when that fight is over, you must be able to put that hate aside.


Back to topic. I am not bothered with mercy for the bourgeoisie. Whatever death toll they may take, it's nothing compared to ours and our generally shitty lives. What I am bothered about is what sort of implications such a "ban" on freespeech has on the attitudes of the workingclass. What I fear is that such a ban would produce a conservative attitude, hostile to new thougts and ideas. Which would make further progress/enlightment in society very difficult.

Exactly!

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by encephalon+Jun 4 2005, 06:59 AM--> (encephalon @ Jun 4 2005, 06:59 AM)How do you propose abolishing the bourgeoisie without oppressing it? [/b]

Well, I'm not talking about any of "my" proposals. I am merely sticking to Marxist "prophecies" here. Marx felt that the bourgeoisie, in its unnaturalness would collapse over itself do its nature. Once it was time for the revolution, and the proletariat was mobilized and read to take over the state, the rest would simply happen. The bourgeoisie would naturally collapse as would all classes and the state would then be naturally abolished.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 AM
I reiterate that speech is a weapon. It is why certain speech is currently suppressed while other speech is not. It is why HUAC began to prosecute leftists in the 30s. It is why censorship exists. People are moved to do things through speech that they would not do otherwise. Like it or not, people also adhere to the basic principle of groupthink. Get a few to say things, sooner or later others will follow. It is a basic principle of human interaction. Even worse, children are raised with this same principle; gradually, it spreads through family relations.

What less ruthless options are there than taking away the "right" to push racist and fascist views? Tell people it's bad and not to listen? You might want to look down human history a bit to verify that such actions do not work.

I reiterate that speech is a tool, and yes, can be a weapon. The only reason children and people in general are raised with this "groupthink" principle is because people chose to raise them that way. I don't know what the rest of this paragraph has to do with anything, as I never denied that any of these statements are true. The only thing I can make out is that maybe you're trying to say all speech is always a weapon. If not that, then you don't seem to even be responding to the post at all.

As I said earlier the less ruthless option would be the rational one: to deal with the problems individually based on a legal system of proof and to teach people not to be so bothered by namecalling and the like. I'll copy and paste for you: The only reasonable act here is to try(I say try because everyone has their right to their own opinion, and we should not indoctrinate.) to teach people that oppression of this nature is wrong, and also to teach people how to not to be so hurt by these kinds of everyday acts of oppression. This does not include systematic namecalling and such by particular parties, those kinds of "special situations" can be dealt with individually.

How about you try and make this arguement of yours make sense. Do you suggest making all namecalling a crime? If not, what makes this particular namecalling different? Do not all insults (potentially)lead to "mental subjugation, affecting how the victim relates to society" as you said? How do you enforce such rules then?


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 AM
You've a false view on german society before hitler took hold. It was, pre WWI, the home of modern philosophy. People were thinking for themselves. The truth is, even people that "think for themselves" can easily be led astray towards things as horrendous as nazism.

These "enlightened ones" were merely a small portion of Germany society. The upper classes basically. Philosophy from its birth, although not intended, has been very elitist.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 AM
There will be unhappy times in such a future leftist society. If you think there won't be problems that can be taken advantage of by resistance to such a society, I hope to god the rest of society isn't as utopian as yourself; if they are, they will turn to reactionary ideas.

I had a terrible feeling the word "utopian" would appear somewhere. Please don't assume such things about the things I write, I never said anything about perfection, or having no serious problems in a leftist society. I did however say that a society with a leftists revolution should not ever be in the state(mental and physical) of Germany after World War I. There is nothing utopian about that at all. It sounds reasonable considering the goals of leftists, especially Communists, who have apparently already prophecized it.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 AM
The neo-cons were dubbed neo-cons because they were formerly known to be of the far-left. They "thought for themselves," they were "revolutionary," they were "socialists."

Like I said, I don't know who you could be talking about. Do you have any examples that I can look into?(Don't say David Horowitz)


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 AM
Neo-cons are characterized by their sudden radical switch from left to right.

No they're not.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 AM
People do fall prey to propaganda without reason. It's why propaganda is so effective. People don't need a reason; many will grasp at the first thing that pops up that gives them hope. It's why religion is so prevailing an institution. It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be peaceful, and the people don't have to be stupid to go for it.

Read your own writing. 'People will grasp at the first thing that gives them hope?' Hope is a need. People having that need means they are living some kind of unsatisfactory lifestyle. THat is a reason, that is the reason. The same was the case with Nazi Germany, awhich I noticed you haven't touched on in this matter any longer.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 AM
I feel you terribly underestimate the power speech has over people, and if a great many people underestimate it as such we will fail, all leftists, repeatedly.

Again, I'm not trying to be hostile, but I am starting to feel you are not paying attention to what I am saying at all. I never denied the great power speech can have over people? I am merely saying there are limits, and there are ways to prevent, or at least, lessen the likelyhood of being indoctrinated. Do you dispute that?


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 AM
You cannot get rid of the state until you get rid of class conflict. That's the purpose of gaining control of it; to oppress the bourgeoisie into non-existence. Then, the purpose of the state is gone, and with it the state itself.

Hehe, I don't think that's what Marx meant. The scenario you suggest is merely a shifting of roles in who becomes the bourgeoisie(NOTE: This is not a tactical arguement here criticizing Communist methods). Marx's view on this was very non-violent, if you look at his later writings, he believed that after "the revolution," after the people mobilize the rest will basically fall into place naturally. Abolishing the state is not supposed to be a complicated process(And in such circumstances, I don't see why it has to be.).


Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 4 2005, 07:43 AM
What I fear is that such a ban would produce a conservative attitude, hostile to new thougts and ideas. Which would make further progress/enlightment in society very difficult.

That's what I tend to think will happen.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
Who's "we"?

Does the entire community get together to decide which radio hosts should be taken off?

What if the radio worker's collective likes DJ-X? Does the "will" of the community take precedence?

What about publishing?

What if the paper collective and the printers collective thinks that "An analysis of post-communist living" is a well-researched thought piece but 61% of the general community thinks it's "reactionary"?

Who "wins"?

And on the internet, who spend their time searching for "reactionary" web pages?

And when found, it there a plebiscite held on each of them?

On each book, broadcast, newspaper, journal, article as well?

Every one!?

Don't you think that, ultimately, someone might be "appointed" to "take care of all that stuff"?

Only temporarily of course, but sooner or later...

Otherwise, now that the precedent of approved censorship is set-up, don't you think that people will quickly tire of the inefficiency of the process (holding a vote every time) and might just "take matters into their own hands"?

You know, kill people, beat them up, and so forth.

Once a society condones suppression, it isn't a big leap to mob suppression, especially if the society itself isn't that quick with the suppressing.

I don't usually reproduce lengthy quotes -- but it struck me how reminiscent this one is of the posts in Opposing Ideologies about the "practical difficulties" of socialism/communism/anarchism.

Yes, working out the details of the best ways to suppress reactionary views will be problematical and fraught with inefficiencies and fuckups. No question about it.

We won't get everything right "the first time". Some things will get suppressed that shouldn't be and some of the crap will get through.

And the authors of some of the crap that gets through might well get beaten up or even killed by an angry mob.

Revolution is "not a dinner party" as someone (correctly) put it.

Since we are a very long way from actually having to work out the practical details of suppressing reactionary ideas, this discussion is really about principles.

Are all opinions "equal"? No.

Do all opinions "deserve to be heard"? No.

Do opinions reflect real class interests (actual or potential)? Yes.

Are they "weapons" in class struggle? Yes.

Will class struggle continue after the revolution? Yes.

Is it legitimate (and even vitally important) for the working class to suppress the views of its class enemies? Yes.

Those are the principles that I think should guide our practice in the post-revolutionary era.

And I think that any commitment to abstract "freedom of speech" for the old ruling class and its lackeys is childish and irresponsible.


In a post-revolutionary society, such emotionalism is only going to make rational decision making harder.

By all means "hate" the capitalists -- use that hate in the fight against them!

But when that fight is over, you must be able to put that hate aside.

When is "that fight over"? You evidently think it's over as soon as the old ruling class is driven from power and their state apparatus destroyed.

I disagree; my estimate is that it will take up to a century after the revolution before we can really say "it's over & we won".

I still remember listening on the radio to a minor-league baseball game a few years ago. The visiting team scored 14 runs in the top-half of the first inning.

A romp? The home team came back with 15 runs in the bottom of the first and went on to win 18-16! :lol:

As Yogi said, "it ain't over until it's over."

That works for proletarian revolution too.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

We won't get everything right "the first time".

My point was that we won't be able to "get it right" ...ever.

Communist society is intrinsically antithetical to the limitation of free speech. Controlling speech requires an organized bureaucratic structure to be done at all effectively. Full democratic enforcement simply places to unreasonable a work load on the society and haphazard enforcement will lead to resentment and anger.

The only way to enforce "speech codes" is to have people "on it" all the time. Sort of like a committee...


Since we are a very long way from actually having to work out the practical details of suppressing reactionary ideas, this discussion is really about principles.

I don't think we can "dismiss" practicalities though.

Ultimately, even principles must be sacrificed to reality. But I have no problem with addressing the principles here. Indeed, I would contend that the fundamental principles of communist society tend towards greater freedom and away from oppression.

So let's get into it.


Are all opinions "equal"?

No, of course not.


Do all opinions "deserve to be heard"?

YES!

Accepted? No.
Considered? No.

But "heard"? Yes!

It's so dangerously naive to not realize that with the suppression of ideas, any ideas, you prevent intellectual progression. Allowing "wrong" and even "reactionaary" speech is essential to furthering discussion.

Every oppinion should be heard, even the wrongs ones, especially tje wrong ones. That's one of the best ways we learn.


Is it legitimate (and even vitally important) for the working class to suppress the views of its class enemies?

NO!

Do you not realize the crucial flaw with your plan?

If you truly envisage a really democratic suppression of speech, it would require that everyone in society contribute to the decisions regarding suppression. But this means that everyone in society must analyze the speech in question to judge whether or not it is, in their oppinion, "reactionary".

So ...in order to keep "reactionary" speech from the so impressionable public, you're going to show that "reactionary" speech to the public.

Censorship is functionaly impossible within a communist society because without a state to have "state secrets", everything is available.

That means that if I want to publish "reactionary" material, all I have to do is write it. Now, someone will come upon it and call a general meeting to suppress it. But, now everyone will read my publications... which is all I wanted in the first place!

Anyone wanting a copy will simply say that they are interested in the decision regarding the censorship of document R-677742 and would like a copy for analytical purposes.

...or will you destroy every copy after the decision is made? Surely you can see the danger of that. But even if you do destroy them ...durring the decision making process, a copy must be made available for people to look at!

Again, you can only censor speech when it is the minority doing the censoring. Majoritarian censorship is intrinsically contradictory. There is simply no way that a communist society can prevent people from encounter "reaction" ...by making them read "reaction"!

Now, I know you don't like practical issues, and want to talk about "principles", that's fine, but this is an issue of fundamental incompatability, so I think it has to be addressed.


And I think that any commitment to abstract "freedom of speech" for the old ruling class and its lackeys is childish and irresponsible.

How about "freedom of speech" for everyone.

Because once it is limited for some, it is limited for all.


I disagree; my estimate is that it will take up to a century after the revolution before we can really say "it's over & we won".

Maybe you're right. Maybe not. Obviously neither of us can say...

But how should we act?

Should we "wait" to set up a truly free society until the last vestiges of the old order have gone away?

Maybe we should, as many advocate, set up a "transitional state" in order to more effectively control recalcitrant capitalist elements.

I think we both know why that is a bad idea.

Well, the same applies for any infringement of basic freedoms. The point of the revolution is not to change who's holding the whip, it's to eliminate the whip.

Yeah, it will take a while, but that does not mean that we cannot begin immediately.

Earlier you pointed out that capitalists have historically suppressed free speech. You seemed to indicate that we should respond "in turn". But I repeat what I said, we are not pushing capitalism. We are not pushing an ideology of oppression that sacrifices the many for the elites. We do not need to resort to those methods. And doing so only weakons our position and our credibility.

You think the class war will continue after the revolution? You're damn right.

You know what else will continue? The ideological one. And the surest way to end our chances for a successful long term society is to become exactly what the capitalists will be saying we will become.

The momment we start restricting what people can say and write and read and hear is the momment we lose credibility with the masses. Not just the capitalists, but everyone. The people did not just fight a revolution to exchange one master for another, and as they'd have just shown, they're willing to fight!

[More Fire for the People]

To summarize what has already been said and make myself look like an ass,
What part of socialism being the dictatorship of the proletariat did you not understand? For socialism to sucede we must oppress the bourgeoisie.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 04:12 PM
To summarize what has already been said and make myself look like an ass,
What part of socialism being the dictatorship of the proletariat did you not understand? For socialism to sucede we must oppress the bourgeoisie.
This is a misinterpretation. The use of the word dictator only meant that the new ruling class(proletariat) would have absolute power. That's all a dictatorship is.

[More Fire for the People]

I fully understand what the dictatorship of the proletariat means, it means that the proletarian will be elivated to the ruling class and dictate against the bourgeoisie.

It is the reversal of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Go read Lenin.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 PM
Go read Lenin.
That would explain your understanding. Lenin was nothing but an excuse making elitist dictator who used Marxist ideas to exploit his way to power.

[More Fire for the People]

You know nothing of communism, have you ever read Lenin?
Do you realize he was a servant of the masses and a revolutionary?
Do you realize that he strictly oppossed those that were elected as socialist but betrayed the masses?

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:08 PM
You know nothing of communism, have you ever read Lenin?
Do you realize he was a servant of the masses and a revolutionary?
Do you realize that he strictly oppossed those that were elected as socialist but betrayed the masses?
Wow, try to cut down on the Soviet propaganda. First off, people who were organizing strikes to oppose poor working and living conditions were not 'betrayers of the masses.' These were the people(the masses, in fact) that had most to do with overthrowing the Czars in the first place. Lenin just took advantage of this and took control of Russia himself. He then became a dictator himself, and didn't do anything significant to fix some of the problems with working or living conditions, and continued to keep Russia under totalitarian rule("power of the masses," give me a break), so new strikes broke out, for the same reasons as the ones before. And what did the savior do? He used violence to crush them of course, that is the way of Lenin. Here's a good history book you can read, The Bolsheviks and Workers Control by Maurice Brinton: http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/s...1/bolintro.html (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html)

[More Fire for the People]

You have no idea how Russia worked then do you?
The Social-Revolutionaries and Menshiviks sided with the bourgeoisie state established in 1905.
Lenin was elected by the congress as leader.
Lenin did not have totalitarian sentiments, you are obviously confusing Lenin with Stalin.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:12 PM
You have no idea how Russia worked then do you?
The Social-Revolutionaries and Menshiviks sided with the bourgeoisie state established in 1905.
Lenin was elected by the congress as leader.
Lenin did not have totalitarian sentiments, you are obviously confusing Lenin with Stalin.
1. Starting your posts out with hostility and arrogance once again.... Like I told you read the book, it has sources and information better certainly then what you seem able to provide.

2. The congress was not representative of the people. That is hardly a secret, c'mon.

3. What does Stalin have to do with anything? Stalin being even more extreme than Lenin doesn't make him any less totalitarian than what he was.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 PM
I fully understand what the dictatorship of the proletariat means, it means that the proletarian will be elivated to the ruling class and dictate against the bourgeoisie.

It is the reversal of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Go read Lenin.
Right now, though, the capitalists (atleast in 1st world countries) do not opress the working class to the degree that some propose opressing the bourgeoisie. We must understand that openly opressing the bourgeoisie is pointless in a socialist country. One of the key changes that must be made in socialism is raising state power above economic power. In socialism, the democratically elected government will have full control over the bourgeoisie, therefore the oppression of this class is not needed. If we can get a socialist government elected, and then rid ourselves of capitalist parties, the bourgeosie will be stripped of all political power, which will then belong solely to the majority, solely to the proletariat. The bourgeoisie will not become terribly antisocialist, however, because though they will see a significant increase in their taxes, they will still hold more ecoonmic power (own more capital) than the proletariat. We will see an equilibrium of power, in that the capitalist class will hold on to most of their capital, but they will be directly controlled by the proletarian-elected state. Therefore power of this class, which is limitless today, will be carefully and fully checked. No open opression or denial of certain rights is needed because of new state power. Openly denying the capitalists right to freedom of speech would not win the socialist cause any supporters, but what I've suggested, simply letting the majority have certain powers over them inority, will be strongly supported.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)If we can get a socialist government elected...[/b]

But we can't do that! If the capitalists thought they were about to lose an election, they'd either cheat or they'd declare a "national emergency" and cancel the "election".


Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
My point was that we won't be able to "get it right" ...ever.

Perfection, alas, is truly unattainable. I'll settle for keeping 99.999% of the crap out of the area of public discourse.


Communist society is intrinsically antithetical to the limitation of free speech.

I don't see why that should be the case.


Full democratic enforcement simply places to unreasonable a work load on the society and haphazard enforcement will lead to resentment and anger.

The only way to enforce "speech codes" is to have people "on it" all the time. Sort of like a committee...

Details...and, yes, I'm sure that reactionaries denied a role in public discourse will indeed be "resentful" and "angry".

Tough shit!


Ultimately, even principles must be sacrificed to reality.

If a principle must be sacrificed to reality, then it's clearly a "bad" principle...one that is disconnected from reality.


It's so dangerously naive to not realize that with the suppression of ideas, any ideas, you prevent intellectual progression. Allowing "wrong" and even "reactionary" speech is essential to furthering discussion.

After the revolution, I am no longer interested in "furthering discussion" with reactionaries.

I want them and their ideas entirely removed from public life.

Nor do I think that reactionary ideas have any useful contribution to make to "intellectual progression".


If you truly envisage a really democratic suppression of speech, it would require that everyone in society contribute to the decisions regarding suppression.

Not necessarily. Something so difficult to evaluate would be an extremely rare occurrence. Most of the time, reactionary ideas are plain and obvious and will be suppressed by the media collective to which they are submitted.

A media collective set up for the purpose of spreading reactionary ideas would be denied the resources to operate.

It simply isn't the "big deal" that you make it out to be.

Consider the practice of the New York IndyMedia collective. When people publish reactionary material on that site, the collective moves it into a field called "hidden posts"...they are not truly hidden -- you can still read them if you want. But it's a "pain in the ass" -- involving many mouse-clicks to get to them. Most people don't bother -- they don't want to read reactionary crap.

I would, of course, just delete them.


The moment we start restricting what people can say and write and read and hear is the moment we lose credibility with the masses.

I do not see why that should be the case. Credibility rests on the correspondence between what we say and the material reality that people directly observe.

If we are "fanatically truthful" then our credibility will not be questioned simply because we have suppressed reactionaries.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

Nor do I think that reactionary ideas have any useful contribution to make to "intellectual progression".

Well that's just naive and short-sighted.

Understanding failed models and wrong ideas is essntial to making correct models and right ideas.

"Reactionary" critisizms only adds to the total sum. Yes, most of the time those critisizms will be empty and useless, but sometimes they can be quite useful. Peventing them from being heard only prevents society from the bennefit of learning from another mistake.

And, besides, again, the great flaw of any censorship program is that, inevitable, things are censored that should not have been. In this case, things that were not "reactionary": maybe things that are a little too progressive, a little too challanging, a little too critical of the status quo. Basically the things that need to be published the most will be the ones that are most liable to be censored in the name of "protecting" the public!


Not necessarily. Something so difficult to evaluate would be an extremely rare occurrence.

Hardly.

If you institute a censorship scheme such as you outline, very quickly the "reactionary" forces would realize that they have little chance of getting the obvious stuff out there. ...so they'd obfuscate and blur it.

In a few years, everything will be grey.

Of course, among themselves, they'll still talk the same. As they will to anyone who'll listen. All you'll really accomplish is to make them work harder at cleaning up their ideas and couch their arguments in more rational terms, meaning that they'll actually probably convince more people than they would have otherwise!

Oh, you'll also increase everyone's work-load making them search through document after document hunting for hidden "reaction".


Most of the time, reactionary ideas are plain and obvious and will be suppressed by the media collective to which they are submitted

Again, what happens when the "media collective to which they are submitted" differs from the general community?

Can the community "force" that collective to withhold publishing?

If not, then all that you're talking about is editorial control, which I never argued with.

Of course a newspaper / television show / radio station has to be able to control what they do or do not print / broadcast. That goes without saying.

What we're talking about here, goes far beyond that.


If we are "fanatically truthful" then our credibility will not be questioned simply because we have suppressed reactionaries.

Yes it will.

Propaganda doesn't stop being propaganda just because it's true -- and people know that.

Certainly a post-revolutionary society will realize that no matter hoe "fanatically truthfull" you are, if you're only presenting "one side", and preventing the other side from responding, there is no way to determine if you're answers are the best, only that they're satisfying.

That is your model may fit nicely with observable material conditions and you may be able to convince people that you have good ideas, but no matter how truthful you are, that truthfulness itself will never convince people that the viewpoint you're stiffling doesn't have better ideas.

The only way to do that is to debunk those ideas.

And the only way to do that ...is to first let people hear them!


A media collective set up for the purpose of spreading reactionary ideas would be denied the resources to operate.

Denied by whom?

The community in general or the workers' who generate the resources in question?

Are you proposing community-wide suppression or collective-dependent suppression?

Collective-dependent meaning that, for example, the standards for newspapers will be different from that of radio because the newspaper standard is decided by the paper collective whereas the radio standard is decided by the electicity collective.

[CrazyModerate]

There should be no restrictins to free thought or speech. And one also should be able to think whatever one wants without worrying about being lynched by one's neighbours and government. If one's ideas are bad, ignore them, or prove them wrong. Don't kill them. This violent approach to different ideology makes a communist very much like a conservative, capitalist, or reactionary.

[OleMarxco]

Holy shit, RedStar is gettin' whipped here, huh? :P
I don't care much what or if the Reactionaries who survive the revolution get a say after the revolution, 'tho. If they convinc someone to do action AGAINST us...then it's by free will, and just the same as we're doing now! But if they DO something..well, we retain all our rights to stop them. But SAYING anything? Why is that even being cared to be stopped as a problem? Can reactionaries make "dangerous letters"? Will the texts they write jump up and kill us? Will their public opinions torture us for days and slaughter us? Hardly. I let them sail their sea after that, 'tho, until the day they decide they CANNOT CHANGE what great social-change has happanad tarh, and commit SEPPUKU! But if someone decides to kick their ass (Free Listening!) I won't stop 'em either. Just aslong no-one dies over a couple of debates.

[red-gers]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:04 AM
But sure, give the scum the freedom to spread their bullshit. Fascism simply isn't attractive to very many people, least of all to socialists. No, we needn't worry about them.
i couldn't disagree more. in the north of england the fascist british national party (BNP) is spreading it's vile message through a thin veil of respectibility, and i'm afraid working class communities are falling for it. these communities are not fascist. but they are looking for a better option than Tony Blair and the left in that area is fairly weak. in the elections here last month the BNP polled 200,000 votes up from 47,000 four years before. in Scotland we have physically stopped (non-violently) the BNP selling their racist paper on the streets of the capital city. in scotland where the left is stronger they only managed 1500 votes from a total of 2,333,000 votes. of course elections are not the only indicator but they show a trend. most left group here have a policy of "no platform for nazis"

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide)And, besides, again, the great flaw of any censorship program is that, inevitable, things are censored that should not have been.[/b]

That may and even will happen on occasion...but the damage is not "permanent".

An idea that correlates highly with material reality and yet is suppressed because it's incorrectly perceived as "reactionary" will emerge again...and will keep on emerging until it's impossible to suppress. It will "make sense" in a way that's impossible to ignore.

So, on rare occasions, it may slow us down a little...temporarily.

No big deal.


Basically the things that need to be published the most will be the ones that are most liable to be censored in the name of "protecting" the public!

Right. We "know" this because...you asserted it was true.

Very well, I assert the opposite. Progressive critiques of the new revolutionary society will be especially welcomed and collectives will compete with each other to publish and circulate them.


All you'll really accomplish is to make [reactionaries] work harder at cleaning up their ideas and couch their arguments in more rational terms...

I don't think that's within their capabilities; you can't really make unreason "sound reasonable"...unless you obfuscate to the point of incomprehension. Reaction that is so well disguised as to be impenetrable does not concern me...no one would likely publish it and, if someone did, no one would take the trouble to read it.


Can the community "force" that collective to withhold publishing?

Sure...by denying resources. I mentioned this in my last post...if a media collective is formed for the purpose of publicizing reactionary opinion, then the resources it needs to do that will be denied by the community. Up to and including turning off the electricity!


Propaganda doesn't stop being propaganda just because it's true -- and people know that.

If it's true...then why would they care?

Do you think that significant numbers of people will be profoundly disturbed at the fact that we are "not playing fair" with reactionaries?

If so, then you have nothing to worry about. We both agree that any kind of "special" or "official" censorship collective is a bad idea. I'm counting on ordinary class-conscious people to want to remove all the crap from public discourse.

If, as you seem to anticipate, they are really motivated by a "spirit of fairness" towards reaction, then my perspective won't have a prayer.

I hope they will be motivated by a fierce hatred of all forms of reaction...and will be delighted to squash it like a cockroach on the kitchen table.


Are you proposing community-wide suppression or collective-dependent suppression?

*yawns*

Whichever works best, of course.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Don't kill them.

Can we rough them up a little? :lol:


OleMarxo
Holy shit, RedStar is gettin' whipped here, huh?

Nah...just having my usual problems pounding sense into people's skulls. :P

It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

An idea that correlates highly with material reality and yet is suppressed because it's incorrectly perceived as "reactionary" will emerge again...and will keep on emerging until it's impossible to suppress. It will "make sense" in a way that's impossible to ignore.

Progressive critiques of the new revolutionary society will be especially welcomed and collectives will compete with each other to publish and circulate them.

Well, you're right, that certainly is an assertion!

My claim, however, was based on logical deduction.

When you install a system in which resources are summarily denied and recalled based on the presence of undesirable speech, speech that is percieved as being "reactionary" or even "counterrevolutionary", you are faced with the very simple, yet obvious, problem of subjective judgment.

Those writtings / broadcasts which challange the status quo or shake up the rulling paradigm have often historically been labeled as "reactionary" or their local equivalents.

A piece which advocated major economic or social reforms or a complex structural article open for misinterpretation. Because there is no guide for "suppressing reaction", they will be censored.

You seem to think that even if this occurs, other collectives will "pick of the slack". I highly doubt this. Once such a work has been rejected as "reactionary", other collectives will shy away from it, fearing that if they were to publish it, their resources would be revoked and they would be unable to work at all.

A lot of the time, progressive submissions and, accordingly progressive thoughts, will simply languish and never be heard.

Will all progressive thought be censored? Of course not. But as I said before, enough will.


Do you think that significant numbers of people will be profoundly disturbed at the fact that we are "not playing fair" with reactionaries?

"Disturbed"? Probably not.

But, skeptical, definitely.

The risk is not that people will be outraged by the censorship of "reaction". You are quite correct in that for any democratic censorship effort to be even attempted, the majority must support it.

But, the "one sided debate" you advocate will mean that people will be highly skeptical of what they read and hear.

An ordinary average person who feels disenfranchised or disatisfied will, naturally, search for remedies to his problem. Now, of course, he will initially look to what is immediately available, but it is hopelessly naive to imagine that he will not be curious as to what else is out there.

More importantly it shows a severe misunderstanding of human cynicism to imagine that he will trust the statements comming out of a "one sided debate".

He will not be "disturbed" or protest, you may be right in that he probably won't even mind. To be honest, "reactionary" thoughts and their expression or lack thereof is not often on his mind ...except that now he's questioning the world around him and thinking about possible alternatives.

He knows that there's this group pushing this plan that they seem to like ..but he doesn't really know what it is.

He does know that he's being prevented from reading about it, and that the group in question is unable to publish their position. Of course, he's reading every day "deconstructions" of this position and a lot of articles that claim to debunk the group in question's ideology ...but since that group never really gets to respond, how can he be sure?

In the end, it is suppression that undermines free societies, not openness. Keeping "undesirable" ideas hidden only makes them more mysterious, and it makes an honest debate impossible.

I know, I know "we don't want an honest debate with reactionaries!", right?

Well, the thing is, we do. Because while a revolution is needed and a social change is essential, once that's done, keeping a post-revolutionary society means convincing people.

People will rise up to defeat capitalism, but there's no guarantee that they won't change again. You think that allowing "reaction" to be read will precipitate that change, I would say the opposite.

After a revolution it is fundamental that you trust the people. All the people. Trust that they are able to judge for themselves. Because if the new society doesn't do this much, it won't last very long.


*yawns*

Whichever works best, of course.

That's a nonanswer.

There are critical differences between the two. The first would mean that "reaction" standards are communaly decided and somehow enforced. The second would mean that such standards are ultimately up to the workers is the basest field in the vertical structure in question: The bottom of the chain.

Not everyone in a community is involved, even tangentially, with the production of resources needed for media capable of distributing speech. That is, Unless you propose something ridiculous like well, the veterenarians will refuse to treat the pets of the damn workers who maintain the damn used by the hydro workers who provide power to the radio station workers who allow a "reactionary" DJ on the air.

The fact is that if you choose the second, you're letting, ultimately, a very small minority make such judgements, because every link in the chain is dependent on the one before it.

Once you set the precedent that workers in a field can refuse basic services to a member of the community because they disagree with him you undermine the entire society.

Alternatively, community decision making is hopelessly unrealistic. Neither the time nor the energy is available to agree on, not to mention enforce (somehow), such standards.

Both have obvious and critical problems ...but you won't say which one you support, so I guess that means I can't point out those problems... :(

I mean, I guess if you don't have a solid practical idea, we'll have to just talk about the "principles", right?

Wrong!

You are advocating a severe curtailment of rights. You are proposing that a communtiy get together and ban those ideas that it disagrees with. If anyone, anyone, is going to take that position, they'd better have a damn good way to enforce it.

The opportunity for abuse is clear. Whenever we're talking about the restriction of basic intellectual rights, the risk is obvious. And that risk is one which we should never take lightly. It's actually a risk which we should never be taken at all!

That's why we should fight hiearchy and oppression and insitutionalized power. If you want to brink back oppression "but on the other side", you'd better have a damn good way to do it that doesn't bear any chance of leading to the very thing that the revolution just fought against.


I hope they will be motivated by a fierce hatred of all forms of reaction...and will be delighted to squash it like a cockroach on the kitchen table.

Of course, they will hate "reactionary" ideas, but what they will hate more is oppression. And they will sooner sprout booster rockets and fly to Saturn then they will become instruments of that oppression themselves.

You want a society that has just liberated itself from thousands of years of materialistic oppression to shackle itself again in the name of protecting the people from themselves.

You want this population that has just fought and, almost certainly, died in large numbers, to secure their freedom to now believe that their speech should be regulated?

I don't think that it will happen! More importantly I think that if it were to happen, you'd see another revolution within months. Not from "reactionaries", but from honest revolutionaries who are not willing to see what they fought for be destroyed in the name of proctecting themselves from themselves.

If you want the people to liberate themselves, you have to trust that the people will not voluntarily return to slavery. No matter what they read, or hear, or see. If you want the people to trust themselves to rule themselves, you have to trust the people so that they can rule themselves.

For a communist society to function, the people in that society must, fundamentally, trust that the other people in that society are basically rational and decent and trustworthy.

It is entirely contrary to that to impose rules preventing the people from reading "dangerous" ideas. It shows a lack of trust and a lack of respect, and it will inevitable lead to failure.

You want people to communaly get together and say I can't trust my neighbour to read "reaction", I can't trust my family or my husband to read "reaction" because I can't trust that they won't be convinced by it.

I don't know what kind of society that creates, but I do know that it isn't a healthy one.


Nah...just having my usual problems pounding sense into people's skulls.

Yeah, I'm sure it's a bother.

Wouldn't life be so much easier if you could just deny us "reactionaries" resources?

Maybe you could cut my internet connection until I "come around".

Then you can pontificate to your hearts delight without having to worry about being contradicted. I'm sure they'll be many people here who will trust the "one sided debate" that would insue.

[Holocaustpulp]

NO!

[Comrade san]

There shouldn't be a restriction, freedom of speech is freedom of speech end of.You do that and the people are in breach of their human rights.

As for neo-Nazis, if the day comes where half the worlds population agrees with racism,bigotry and other ridiculous views, thats when we no longer have hope.They are unpopular with the people.

[LuZhiming]

Words by Red Star: "If a principle must be sacrificed to reality, then it's clearly a "bad" principle...one that is disconnected from reality."

Ooh, having faith in principles now, are we? Faith in principles is what we call religion. It is also a far-right doctrine. Why do you think Neo-Nazis romanticize Pagan religions and battles to the death and the like? Here's the problem, principles are based on circumstances. We base our perception of reality on circumstances. Another words, things change. That means a rational person would accept that principles are subject to change. Absolute principles are called orthodoxies. They are a reactionary/religious concept and the idea of them should be rejected. So I don't know why you're arguing that principles would not be needed to be sacrificed to reality because they will be the "right" principles. Then again, the claim that "religion is the opium of the masses" never has been taken seriously by Communists anyway....

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
Those writings / broadcasts which challenge the status quo or shake up the ruling paradigm have often historically been labeled as "reactionary" or their local equivalents.

Mistakenly?

I can't think of a single historical example. I cannot think of a single bourgeois revolution that was labeled "reactionary" by aristocrats or royalty. I cannot think of a single proletarian uprising that was labeled "reactionary" by the bourgeoisie. Even on those rare occasions when fascism tried to appear "progressive", it was always understood to be fundamentally reactionary.

The only ambiguous cases come from Eastern Europe -- East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Poland 1980-90.

The reason I call them ambiguous is that both progressive and reactionary elements were mixed together -- people who wanted those societies to move towards the left were united with people who wanted those societies to move towards the right.

Looking back now, it's clear to me that the reactionary elements were dominant: nationalist, religious, pro-capitalist, etc.

The Russians were good at shooting people (or threatening to)...what they were not good at was actually fighting reactionary ideologies. They didn't give a damn about progressive change in Eastern Europe...all that was important to them was the continued existence of docile regimes.

Mostly because after 1945, the USSR itself was moving in a reactionary direction.


After a revolution it is fundamental that you trust the people. All the people.

No, that's not "fundamental" to me. I don't trust the former members and lackeys of the old ruling class an inch! I am similarly distrustful of the clergy...all of them.

That's a lot of people...perhaps 25% of the population or even a little more! Most of them will turn out to be harmless enough...but some of them won't.

And I think we have to be ready to fall like "a ton of bricks" on the ones who are not harmless...who are not just nostalgic for their "glory days" but who are very serious about bringing them back!

Attempting to advocate that, of course, is self-evidently counter-revolutionary and reactionary.

That doesn't mean we have to "shoot them" or even "put them in jail"...it just means we have to deny them an internet connection.

That's easy enough.


Once you set the precedent that workers in a field can refuse basic services to a member of the community because they disagree with him you undermine the entire society.

Happens all the time now...and capitalism doesn't seem to suffer for it.

Why should we?


If you want to bring back oppression "but on the other side", you'd better have a damn good way to do it that doesn't bear any chance of leading to the very thing that the revolution just fought against.

Everything that we do or don't do implies risk -- there are no perfect certainties or risk-free choices.

I think that as long as the power to repress is widely-dispersed and subject to democratic oversight, the risks of despotism are minimal.

I also think that the free circulation of reactionary ideas is an impermissible risk to the revolution itself. Not because it will necessarily lead to a reactionary coup or civil war -- though either or both of those possibilities would exist -- but because reactionary ideas act as an intellectual obstacle to the spread of even more progressive ideas.

We want society to become more and more communistic...how do ideas that are reactionary even by contemporary bourgeois standards help in that process?

Look at this board. How could we even have the discussion that we're having now if, at the same time, the thread was cluttered with posts about "Jewish control of the media" or "liberal media bias" or "the untouchable sanctity of religious belief", blah, blah, blah.

All your strategy would result in is the proliferation of great heaping mountains of crap...and I see no reason whatsoever to permit that or even the possibility of that.


And they will sooner sprout booster rockets and fly to Saturn then they will become instruments of that oppression themselves.

You're repeating yourself...if in somewhat more colorful terms. I understand that you believe the working class will be so "fair minded" and "compassionate" that they will not dream of depriving a reactionary of his "free speech".

I disagree with that...though I'll admit that you have a lot of historical precedent on your side.

What I and those who agree with me will argue is that the working class has been too kind with its class enemies...and this time, we should not fool around or tolerate their crap for a second.

And the working class will decide between our contrasting views.


For a communist society to function, the people in that society must, fundamentally, trust that the other people in that society are basically rational and decent and trustworthy.

But, in the beginning, some are not "rational" and not "decent" and not trustworthy.

And we are stuck with that...probably for 50-100 years.

You want to trust them anyway...and I don't.

Simple as that.


Wouldn't life be so much easier if you could just deny us "reactionaries" resources?

Us reactionaries?

Now you wish to take this thread in a somewhat different direction. You really want to identify yourself with the "poor suppressed reactionaries"?

Well, it's up to you. But you risk serving as an illustration of the strength of my argument.

You begin with a superstitious reverence for "freedom of speech" as a Platonic ideal that we grubby revolutionaries must not sully with our earthly (and probably bloody) hands. Then you proceed to identify with the "victims" of our repression.

The only remaining step is to join them.

That would be a shame. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by LuZhiming
Ooh, having faith in principles now, are we? Faith in principles is what we call religion.

Where the hell did I say anything about "faith"?


Here's the problem, principles are based on circumstances. We base our perception of reality on circumstances. Another words, things change. That means a rational person would accept that principles are subject to change. Absolute principles are called orthodoxies. They are a reactionary/religious concept and the idea of them should be rejected.

Yeah sure. So what?

What's that have to do with anything I said?

A "good principle" is one that correlates highly with objective reality and need not be abandoned but should be embraced. A "bad principle" does not correlate well with objective reality and may even correlate negatively...and must be abandoned.

You have a problem with that?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

PS: I have a problem with your sig. I think a moronic statement like "communism is a religion" suggests a total lack of understanding of either.

[lennonist-leninist]

i do belive if there where limits on freedom of speech it would almost seem for there to be no point in it.

[LSD]

You begin with a superstitious reverence for "freedom of speech"

"superstitious"!?! :angry:

Every member of a society has the right to express themselves freely. Not only is this nescessary to ensure basic intellectual freedom but also to ensure that the full range of debate is heard and that every considered idea is put out there.

What is "supertitious" is your fear that somehow "reactionary" words will insight counterrevolution and prevent progression.

I think you have been fighting the bourgeois for so long that you don't realize just how powerless they will become.

Today, they are bolstered by massive institutional networks of power. But don't let that fool you into thinking that their ideology can stand on its own!

In a communist society, we have nothing to fear from an open debate. And remember I am talking about a debate. This isn't about giving reactionaries an open mike. They will have free speech, but so will everyone else.

And for every reactionary piece, they'll be fifty ones debunking it. It will be a debate, but it will be a two-sided one!


That's a lot of people...perhaps 25% of the population or even a little more! Most of them will turn out to be harmless enough...but some of them won't.

It's not those people that I'm saying you must trust, although I do disagree with you 25% number, it's everyone else.

You have to trust that they are perseptive enough and rational enough that they will not be swayed by "reactionary" speech.


Then you proceed to identify with the "victims" of our repression.

Obviously I am not calling myself "reactionary". I'm only illustrating how easy the jump is from censoring "reaction" to censoring any differing oppinion.

Once the precedent is set, it's a very simple progression. Especially because, as with any suppression of speech, you're relying on subjective judgements, in this case on what's "reactionary" and what isn't.


Happens all the time now...and capitalism doesn't seem to suffer for it.

Why should we?


...what "happens all the time now"?

People are unable to get electricity because the power workers disagree with their political views!?

Really!?

I'd like to see some sources on that! :D


I also think that the free circulation of reactionary ideas is an impermissible risk to the revolution itself. Not because it will necessarily lead to a reactionary coup or civil war -- though either or both of those possibilities would exist -- but because reactionary ideas act as an intellectual obstacle to the spread of even more progressive ideas.

On the first issue "reactionary coup or civil war", I maintain my earlier position that the only way to really discredit reactionary ideas and stave off such a counterrevolution is to have an honest debate.

Suppresion will only make such ideas seem more credible. For one, because it appears as though there's "something to hide" and secondly because people won't be able to be entirely sure on exactly what these ideas are! They will know what the "one sided debate" is telling them, but they will be equally aware that the proponents of the idea in question are being prevented from making their case.

When the reactionary opinions are trounced in a fair and free debate of ideas, which they, of course, will be, it will be far more convincing than any effort of propaganda. It will truly show which ideas are superior. And that is the only way to defeat ideas.


On the second issue, that "reaction" somehow prevents progression ...I fail to see on what you base this.

The fact that there are people out there writting reactionary pieces in no way stops other people from writting progressive pieces.

Indeed, what might stop people from writting progressive pieces is if there's a culture of suppression and speech-control in which no one is quite sure if their next article might not piss off the electric workers or the paper workers.

If, instead, there's a culture of freedom and free expression, then those with progressive, those with the "crazy", "wild" ideas will feel perfectly willing to present them knowing that there won't be any reprecussions. It is this kind of openness that is nescessary to have real progression. And that can only come from having a truly unrestricted flow of ideas, even disgusting bigotted insulting ones.


All your strategy would result in is the proliferation of great heaping mountains of crap

And all that yours would do is lead to a bizzarre tyrany of the select workers in the "lucky" areas.

You have still not provided a reasonable practical model for how you can hope to control speech within the confines of a free communist society.


But, in the beginning, some are not "rational" and not "decent" and not trustworthy.

And we are stuck with that...probably for 50-100 years.

Look, you can't have it both ways redstar2000.

Either you want a "transitional state" to ensure that the former bourgeois et al, behave or you don't.

You're trying to create a non-statist transitional state. You don't want a new state, but you want to somehow, "for 50-100 years" give society the powers that only a state can reasonable excersize, namely suppressing undersirable speech.

The reason you're having trouble comming up with a practical way to do it in a true communist society is that there really isn't any way to do it in a true communist society.

Again, such a society is predicated on every member having intrinsic rights as an individual and contributing to the society. Having workers' collectives refusing basic fundmantal goods/services based on their dislike of someone's ideas undermines that entire principle.

Remember, you wanted to talk about "principles". Well, that's a pretty big one. There is simply no way to enforce speech codes that does not conflict with nescessary foundations of communist society. Once you set the precedent that workers in a field can refuse basic services to a member of the community because they disagree with him you undermine the entire society. Furthermore, you place unreasonable amounts of power in the hands of select workers' groups to decide what is and what isn't "reactionary".

It is not the place of electric workers to decide what the entire community can listen to on the radio!

If the radio station is making bizzare, eccentric, excessive, irrational, or unrealistic requests for power, than the electric workers' are well within their rights to challenge them on it.

They have an obligation to produce power, but they have to get resonable requests. The workers in this field have made the same tacit agreement with the rest of society that everyone has. They will work in their respective area and they will bennefit from the labour of everyone else, much as how everyone else bennefits from their work.

But this means they have to work! They have to produce the power! They have to produce the power for those who need the power within reasonable limits based on practicality and arrived at through internal discussion and external consulation.

It also means that they cannot take personal attributes unrelated to electricity into account when deciding power.

It is not up to the electric workers to prosecute crimes, it is not up to the electric workers to assign guilt. Justice must be met out by the entire community. If a majority of the communtiy decides that a man is innocent of murder, the electric worker's cannot refuse him power because a majority of them thought he was guilty.

Otherwise, we have absolute chaos.

The same goes for political opinions. It cannot be up to elite workers' groups who happen to work in fields essential to mass distribution to decide what is and what is not appropriate. You're just creating elite oppression in a different guise.

Resources must go to all reasonable egalitarian requests.

If Bob wants to use paper to publish his hate-filled capitalist rag "the Daily Bouregois", he should get that paper. Because once you set the precedent that the paper workers can withhold resources based on opinion, there's no guarantee that the next time it won't be Susan's "problems in the paper industry"! :o


And the working class will decide between our contrasting views.

Of course.

In the end, neither of us is going to make the decision. I tend to think that the people will agree with me, you actually seem to think so as well! :lol:

The difference, of course, is that I think they should.

If either of us are alive when a revolution actually occurs, I'm sure we'll be out there pushing our positions.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 03:05 AM
Where the hell did I say anything about "faith"?

Yeah sure. So what?

What's that have to do with anything I said?

A "good principle" is one that correlates highly with objective reality and need not be abandoned but should be embraced. A "bad principle" does not correlate well with objective reality and may even correlate negatively...and must be abandoned.

You have a problem with that?


Correct me if I misunderstood you, but it seemed to me like you were suggesting (good)principles were absolute, and they must be held on to(because they are always in touch with reality) and not be sacrificed(or changed). Whereas principles that were ever in need of being "sacrificed to reality" were just "bad principles" and never should have been principles to follow in the first place.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by red-gers+Jun 5 2005, 10:42 PM--> (red-gers @ Jun 5 2005, 10:42 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 05:04 AM
But sure, give the scum the freedom to spread their bullshit. Fascism simply isn't attractive to very many people, least of all to socialists. No, we needn't worry about them.
i couldn't disagree more. in the north of england the fascist british national party (BNP) is spreading it's vile message through a thin veil of respectibility, and i'm afraid working class communities are falling for it. these communities are not fascist. but they are looking for a better option than Tony Blair and the left in that area is fairly weak. in the elections here last month the BNP polled 200,000 votes up from 47,000 four years before. in Scotland we have physically stopped (non-violently) the BNP selling their racist paper on the streets of the capital city. in scotland where the left is stronger they only managed 1500 votes from a total of 2,333,000 votes. of course elections are not the only indicator but they show a trend. most left group here have a policy of "no platform for nazis" [/b]
I wasn't aware of this. But this is a fine exmple of why we need some sort of Marxist education system for the proletariat.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by LuZhiming
Correct me if I misunderstood you, but it seemed to me like you were suggesting (good) principles were absolute, and they must be held on to (because they are always in touch with reality) and not be sacrificed (or changed). Whereas principles that were ever in need of being "sacrificed to reality" were just "bad principles" and never should have been principles to follow in the first place.

Yes, that too.

"Absolute" is usually a term without meaning, of course, particularly in human affairs.

In this discussion, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide and others defend the "absolute principle" of "freedom of speech" without regard to historical experience or social reality.

They embrace that principle with such enthusiasm that, in their eyes, a revolution that infringes on "freedom of speech" is not worth making. Or worth keeping once it has been made.

I think this attitude may be what you are objecting to...and, if so, I agree with you. There is, as I noted, a "superstitious air" about it.

On the other hand, the abolition of wage-slavery is also a principle...and one that I do think is "absolute". We may not be able to "do it all at once", but there must, in my view, be a determined and unrelenting movement in that direction after the revolution...otherwise all you end up with, sooner or later, is a new ruling class.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hiero]

I skimmed over this and i have read RedStar's opinion on this before and i mostly agree with him.

I would like to raise some points.

The basics of socialist revolution is to overthrow one class and replace its social order with another, wether through direct control or through a Vangaurd party. Either way we take every bit of power from the capitalist. The capitalist greatest power is that they own the means of production, this includes media outlets like paper presses. If we were to allow the capitalist class to have freedom of speach we would have to give them back their media industries, that would be counter revolutionary and would be a crime agaisnt revolution.

We can see that socialism does not allow the freedom of speach to just anyone. The economic base in socialism favours the working class. Speach is free for thoose who own the means of production.

But we can not be naive and believe that the reactionary ideas of the capitalist class will be suppressed by changing the economic base, we found out through Stalins errors, and Mao's corrections that the economic base isn't the only factor in destroying ideas. Many who are involved in the revoltuion plan to destroy it with dangours propaganda, and revert it back to capitalism.

A revolution is more then the overthrow of one class, there are many tasks ahead One of these tasks is the suppressing of the old ideas and the promoting of the new ideas.

If you do not suppress the old ideas then what is there to stop them? What is stoping revisionism?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
...what "happens all the time now"?

People are unable to get electricity because the power workers disagree with their political views!?

Come now.

What "happens now" is that the overwhelming majority of people are deprived of their nominal "freedom of speech" because they are deprived of the resources to exercise that right.

You don't have a television station? Why not? Rupert Murdoch has a whole bunch!

Oh, you don't have the money...so your "freedom of speech" lapses for lack of resources.

And yet the capitalist system functions perfectly well...inspite of the near total absence of "free speech" in reality.

I see no reason why a communist society, even a very young one, cannot function perfectly well by granting the resources to exercise "freedom of speech" to the vast majority of people while denying those resources to reactionaries.

Is that clear?


When the reactionary opinions are trounced in a fair and free debate of ideas, which they, of course, will be, it will be far more convincing than any effort of propaganda. It will truly show which ideas are superior. And that is the only way to defeat ideas.

Since that's never happened, I have no idea if that's "the best way" to defeat ideas or not.

But I know it's not the "only way".

Do you imagine that 4th and 5th century Christians defeated pagan ideas as a consequence of "fair and free debate"?

You know that did not happen; the Christians drove the pagans out of public life. The great library at Alexandria was burned. The schools of philosophy in Greece were shut down and the teachers exiled to Persia. The pagan temples were demolished or converted into Christian churches. The pagan public ceremonies and holy days were abolished or taken over by the Christians.

And, in fact, there was very little direct violence against pagans as such -- it was the disappearance of paganism from public life that caused it to "wither away". (Christians reserved most of their violence for each other. :lol:)

I propose nothing more drastic than the same treatment of reactionary ideas (including religion) by a revolutionary society; we do not need to "shoot people" or "put people in jail" because they disagree with us (although we may shoot some particularly odious figures "on general principles")...all we really need to do is drive reaction out of public life altogether -- and it will "wither away".


The fact that there are people out there writing reactionary pieces in no way stops other people from writing progressive pieces.

It may not "stop them" but it certainly distracts them. I pointed that out with the practical example of this board and this particular discussion.

I reiterate: suppose that every time we were to discuss the shape of communist society, our posts were constantly interrupted with reactionary bullshit.

Would our readers be willing to wade through the crap to see what we had to say? Hell, would we be willing to do it in order that we could reply to each other?

I expect that there will be wide-ranging discussions and heated controversies in the aftermath of a genuine proletarian revolution -- the details of making communism work are bound to be the topic of much debate among workers themselves.

What purpose is served by adding to that discussion great heaping piles of reactionary bullshit?


And that can only come from having a truly unrestricted flow of ideas, even disgusting bigoted insulting ones.

Nope...all you'll achieve with publication of reactionary ideas is to piss off progressive people while encouraging closet reactionaries to come out in the open.


Again, such a society is predicated on every member having intrinsic rights as an individual and contributing to the society.

Even under communism, you don't have an "intrinsic right" to be a reactionary asshole. You may be "tolerated" as long as you don't annoy too many people.

But if you start preaching reaction, expect the worst.


If Bob wants to use paper to publish his hate-filled capitalist rag "the Daily Bourgeois", he should get that paper.

But he won't. You cannot reasonably expect paper workers to deliver paper to someone who wants to re-enslave them.

That's just not going to happen.

Nor should it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)In this discussion, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide and others defend the "absolute principle" of "freedom of speech" without regard to historical experience or social reality.[/b]

No, its with specific regard to history and social reality.

With regard to fact that no one, especially not elite groups as your plan would result in, should be able to control the speech of others.

History is very clear on what such suppression results in.


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)They embrace that principle with such enthusiasm that, in their eyes, a revolution that infringes on "freedom of speech" is not worth making. Or worth keeping once it has been made.[/b]

I never said that.

Clearly a "communist" society, even one that did infinge on free speech, would be preferable to the present system, since it does not respect free speech either.

But I do believe that such a society is doomed to either stop trying to suppress speech, or, unfortunately, collapse.


Originally posted by Hiero
We can see that socialism does not allow the freedom of speach to just anyone. The economic base in socialism favours the working class. Speach is free for thoose who own the means of production.

Can I take it that by "socialism", you're refering to some sort of transitional state?

Well, the reason I reject such an idea is for the exact reasons that you're pointing out!

You're right that a "socialist" state would proably be oppressive. Inded, all states are oppressive. That's why we must smash the state.

Not try to "use" it, but destroy it!


[email protected]
If you do not suppress the old ideas then what is there to stop them? What is stoping revisionism?

The fact that it is not in the interest of the people!

The fact that just reading "reactioanry" ideas will not make them reactionary.

The fact that communist society is predicate on trusting the people to rule themselves which means trusting that they are capable of making rational decisions on what is and what is not a good idea.


redstar2000
There is, as I noted, a "superstitious air" about it.

Yes, you did "note" that, although I notice you never defended that assertion.

As I've been pointing out this entire theread, there is simply no practical way to enforce speech suppression within a communist society!

I think you and Hiero may have more in common than you'd like to admit.

You both seem to favour a transitional state. He calls it "socialism", you ...well, I don't think you've given it a name. But you've called it the "50-100 year" period durring which certain rights should be curtailed in the name of preventing "reaction".

You seem to have fallen into the same trap that Marxist-Leninists have, believing that we can't trust a post-revolutionary society to rule itself, that people must be protected from ...themselves.

What you, and they, don't realize is that the fact the people just rose up in a revolution shows that they are, firstly, politically and socially active and, secondly, that they are not liable to support the reintroduction of oppression, even in the name of "protection".

The only reason that such suppression was possible in the Soviet Union or the PRC was because the people didn't have a say. The respective vangaurd parties made the decision and the people just had to "live with it".

Presented with the choice, no revolutioanry people will choose suppression!

Furthermore, again, you have not been able to defend your method of enforcement! Your "cutting off resources" model, as I've repeatedly pointed out, only leads to a tyranny of the workers in those "lucky" areas that are nescessary for media promulgation.

Is that freedom?
Is that Communism?

My right to see or read or hear what I want being decided by the Paper Workers' Collective?

Once you set that precedent, you undermine the entire basis of society. Once again, the electric workers do not have the right to decide what the entire community can listen to on the radio or watch on television or see on the net.

The elctric workers make power and have made the same tacit agreement with the rest of society that everyone has. They produce the power for those who need power within reasonable limits based on practicality and arrived at through internal discussion and external consulation.

But it is not their role to decide who is "worthy" of powe and who is not! They cannot make personal judgments, or the entire sytem collapses.

If a man is accused on child molestation and a majority of the community decides, after careful consideration and analysis, that he is in fact innocent, then he cannot be punnished!

Organized society means that "justice" is not random and not carried out by the individual, but by the society. If he is found to be innocent, then those few in society who voted Guilty must accept the decision of the community.

This means that the electric workers cannot refuse him power because a majority of them thought he was guilty! They cannot declare "we're not going to make power for a child molester" because he isn't a chld molester. That's what society has said. It is not up to the workers in any field to decide "worth" or "value" of another human being. That kind of judgment is so dangerous that it can only be made by the community in general.

The same goes for political opinions. It cannot be up to elite workers' groups who happen to work in fields essential to mass distribution to decide what is and what is not desirable speech.


But he won't. You cannot reasonably expect paper workers to deliver paper to someone who wants to re-enslave them.

Yes I can.

See the above example of the "child molester".


Do you imagine that 4th and 5th century Christians defeated pagan ideas as a consequence of "fair and free debate"?

No.

And as I've been saying, under authoritarian governments, there are many ways to suppress ideas. Certainly the twentieth century alone provides many examples.

What you're proposing, however, is to attempt to engage in authoritarian mathods without granting authoritarian powers.

Its, again, the transitional state without the state.


What "happens now" is that the overwhelming majority of people are deprived of their nominal "freedom of speech" because they are deprived of the resources to exercise that right.

Absolutely!

I entirely agree!


And yet the capitalist system functions perfectly well...inspite of the near total absence of "free speech" in reality.

You think that capitalism "functions perfectly well"? :o

You do?!?

Well, within its own rules it does, because it is a system predicated on inequality and inequalities in freedoms. Therefore the fact that capitalism has unequal rights to speech is hardly surprising given that it also has an unequal rights to food.

But you cannot graft an unequal system into an equal society!

It does work for capitalism, but it won't for communism.


I expect that there will be wide-ranging discussions and heated controversies in the aftermath of a genuine proletarian revolution -- the details of making communism work are bound to be the topic of much debate among workers themselves.

What purpose is served by adding to that discussion great heaping piles of reactionary bullshit?

It opens the field of debate.

Who knows what useful things could come out of it? Maybe in attempting to rebut "reactionary" ideas, some useful thoughs will emerge. Maybe, some "reactionary" critics will actually make valid observations that no one else had thought of.

I don't know. But I do know that they'll be too many opinions out there is not a valid excuse for suppression and oppression.

If you don't want to read reaction, fine, don't read it. But it is the cultural and sociological effect of setting the principle that ones right to basic services is dependent on their opinions that is most dangerous.


Nope...all you'll achieve with publication of reactionary ideas is to piss off progressive people while encouraging closet reactionaries to come out in the open.

"piss off progressive people"?

Good!

They should be pissed at reaction, they should scream and yell and write and protest and show the world how wrong those ideas are. That's how a debate works!

As for "encouraging closet reactionaries to come out in the open", well I'd say we want them in the open. So that they can be confronted and perhaps convinced. Nothing comes of keeping them hidden, resentful, and angry. All that that does is lead to resistance and counterrevolution, which neither of us wants!


But if you start preaching reaction, expect the worst.

redstar2000, you hate reactionary ideas, you hate capitalist and bouregois ideas, and I understand that.

You fear what will happen if such ideas are publically consumed, and I understand that fear as well.

But that fear and that hate are not enough to curtail basic rights. They are not enough to overcome the very simply problem that there is no way to curtail those rights without undermining basic principles of a free society.

We must fight "reaction" and must continue fighting "reaction". There will always be a segment of the population, even under communism, who fear progression and change and seek backward even self-destructive movement.

We can't eliminate that, but we can fight it. Fighting means that we argue and we debate. We struggle and we bicker and we muddle on throught the mess and confusion of an open and free conversation.

We muddle on, but we muddle on free, knowing that no matter our ideas or our thoughts or our speech, or who we piss off, we face no retribution for what we say.

Knowing that even if we anger the workers who work the power plants, because we contribute to society, our power won't be cut.

It's an imperfect solution and it's messy and it's dirty and we'll have to deal with "mountains of crap", but it's a lasting solution. No transitional states, no transitional periods. The only way to create a lasting free communist society is to create a free communist society that lasts.

And that means starting from day 0: communism, freedom, right from the start.

[Hiero]

Can I take it that by "socialism", you're refering to some sort of transitional state?

Well, the reason I reject such an idea is for the exact reasons that you're pointing out!

You're right that a "socialist" state would proably be oppressive. Inded, all states are oppressive. That's why we must smash the state.

Not try to "use" it, but destroy it!


Well not going into a debate about wether or not to have a state or not. Like what Redstar was saying, when we take the media industries from the capitalist class how are they going to express there ideas?

In that simple way we already suppress their freedom of speach, unless we give them some of their machines and workers back.


The fact that it is not in the interest of the people!

History has proven that not everything goes in favour of the interest of the people.


The fact that communist society is predicate on trusting the people to rule themselves which means trusting that they are capable of making rational decisions on what is and what is not a good idea.

Well for startes you are choosen to trust people who have through a transition from a bourgioes society to a proleterait society. That means they are still going have the culture of the past society.

Aside from that what if the proleteriat decide to suppress the speach of the reactionaries?

I think Stalin really summed it up with his quote "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas"

Seriously we don't let our enemies have anything but the basic human needs, or re-education. Why should we let them announce their ideas.

[encephalon]

tell me this, those of you who disagree with some degree of censorship: are there absolutely any other "freedoms" other than that of speech where you use this same "all or nothing" mentality? I can't think of anything else that people use that defense on. Why? Because it's a slippery slope, and if you apply it to anything else the folly in it becomes strikingly apparent.

Besides: under post-revolutionary socialism, at least as I see it, the proletariat alone will control the state. Saying that "the state shouldn't censor stuff, but the people will choose not to hear it" makes no sense in that context. When you say censorship won't be necessary because the working class will kick any fascists/nazis/capitalists ass that speaks up, you're saying they will use censorship.

[anomaly]

This topic has become rather vague on what the socialist state will censor. Will we censor fascist internet sites? Will we only censor and not alow public speeches? But in a worker's state, why is censoring needed? The proletariat are in control under socialism, they constitute the deifnite majority (as they do in any nation), and will be given political rights accordingly. They and they alone, since they are the majority, will decide their own government. The capitalists will have political power taken from them, with no political power, what will the capitalists do? They will become essentially powerless, holding on only to their economic power (I think that capitalists, even with a redistributive policy, will earn more than workers, in some areas), but economic power under socialism is placed under the control of the politcal power. And the political power belongs to the proletariat, and now we get back to the capitalists simply having no power. Is not censoring then simply a waste of time and money? Perhaps, as many have suggested, we simply leave itu p to the people, that is, we hold votes on whether the government should censor. With this democratic reasoning in mind, this debate becomes meaningless. In the end, it will be up to the majority, up to the proletariat.

[encephalon]

This topic has become rather vague on what the socialist state will censor. Will we censor fascist internet sites? Will we only censor and not alow public speeches? But in a worker's state, why is censoring needed? The proletariat are in control under socialism, they constitute the deifnite majority (as they do in any nation), and will be given political rights accordingly. They and they alone, since they are the majority, will decide their own government. The capitalists will have political power taken from them, with no political power, what will the capitalists do? They will become essentially powerless, holding on only to their economic power (I think that capitalists, even with a redistributive policy, will earn more than workers, in some areas), but economic power under socialism is placed under the control of the politcal power. And the political power belongs to the proletariat, and now we get back to the capitalists simply having no power. Is not censoring then simply a waste of time and money? Perhaps, as many have suggested, we simply leave itu p to the people, that is, we hold votes on whether the government should censor. With this democratic reasoning in mind, this debate becomes meaningless. In the end, it will be up to the majority, up to the proletariat.

One could make a similar argument over the al quaeda; that is, they don't have the power of the state, so therefore don't represent a threat, right?

Increasingly, smaller and smaller groups can become more and more powerful. I don't just think that capitalists will try to regain control; I think they will resort to what they themselves would call "terrorism" to do so. And, when they speak out publicly in favor of such actions, I would fully support the worker's state censoring it, as well as racial propaganda.

People act like there's going to be a revolution and then everything will be dandy and peaceful. News for you: it won't be. The bourgeoisie is not going to be happy about it, and will do everything they can to influence others to support them in whatever manner they can and sieze back power from the proletariat. If you think they're just going to sit there and be quiet, and not have any access to weapons--speech or otherwise--think again.

[anomaly]

I never said I'd allow militant pro-fascist or pro-cappies groups to exist. That's not freedom of speech at all. That's an armed offensive. And actually, if such militant groups were to speak publically, I'd let the proletariat here it, and then use such emotional devices as patriotism and national security to rally the proletariat in the defense of the socialist country. But no one's calling for militant groups to be able to roam freely throughout a socialist nation. Until capitalists/fascists do form such militant groups, however, they are no threat. It's incredibly obious that if militant groups are formed, and present a threat to the state, they will be destroyed. This idea goes well beyond the topic at hand, as censoring is not an option in such a situation.

[encephalon]

and then use such emotional devices as patriotism and national security to rally the proletariat in the defense of the socialist country.

Putting aside my basic disagreement with such tactics, have you ever considered that fascists and capitalists will do the same with their "freedom of speech" to rally greater sympathy for their cause? If you feel it is an effective device to use to rally people behind the state, then so too are they effective to rally people against it. That "freedom of speech" is what creates the threat: they grow in number, and with that grow in power economically, mentally and number-wise. This gives them greater power in which to obtain dangerous weaponry, among many other things.

[anomaly]

Emotional devices such as patriotism and natioanl security are simply not useful to capitalists or fascists who have no state. They will argue, but in vain. Freedom of speech for capitalists, and them using it in ways you say they will will infuriate the proletariat. Then the militias will begin to take action, especially if violent tactics are used. Basically what your saying is that cappies and fascists will become terrorists. Tell me, how successful is a terrorist who wishes to steal power from the majority? The proletariat will finally get their state, and you feel they will let it slip away because of some fancy words uttered by a militant capitalist? No. Once the proletarian socialist state is created, the people most defensive of such a state will be the proletariat! And, if such a situation occurs, where capitalists are gaining power at an alarmig rate, perhaps we could simply pull a capitalist trick, and throw the leaders of the movement in jail. Even if free speech is guarenteed, that doesn't mean it must be respected all of the time. I mean, in modern times, since when is freedom of speeach always protected? Never. And in a socialist state it will be no different. Government will handle movements that present a threat to national security accordingly ;) .

[encephalon]

Emotional devices such as patriotism and natioanl security are simply not useful to capitalists or fascists who have no state.

These are not the only such devices, however. There's racial pride, for one. They can also feed off the insecurities of people in the immediate post-revolutionary era, reminding them of "the good old days" when all they had to worry about was their family and jobs, and everything was stable. There are many such devices that play on emotion.


Freedom of speech for capitalists, and them using it in ways you say they will will infuriate the proletariat. Then the militias will begin to take action, especially if violent tactics are used. Basically what your saying is that cappies and fascists will become terrorists. Tell me, how successful is a terrorist who wishes to steal power from the majority?

You tell me. I'm pretty sure there are far more americans than muslim fundamentalists who hate them. They seemed to be pretty damned effective in their assault despite their minority status, and continue to evade capture.


The proletariat will finally get their state, and you feel they will let it slip away because of some fancy words uttered by a militant capitalist? No. Once the proletarian socialist state is created, the people most defensive of such a state will be the proletariat!

Once again, you ignore the groupthink phenomena that time and again rears its ugly head as part of human interaction. I would assume that hundreds of people would not sit and watch a woman getting raped and do nothing, even though they could easily stop it; yet it happens time and again. I would ssume that the german populous wouldn't have supported Hitler, especially since he clearly laid out his plans in mein kampf; yet again, it happened. Id assume that the US populous wouldn't rally behind someone as dangerous as Bush; yet it happened. And so on to infinity. Keep expecting the best of people and you will inevitably be unprepared when the worst comes.



And, if such a situation occurs, where capitalists are gaining power at an alarmig rate, perhaps we could simply pull a capitalist trick, and throw the leaders of the movement in jail.


Getting rid of the speaker does not get rid of the effect of the speech. The fact that we are here discussing this right now proves it.



Even if free speech is guarenteed, that doesn't mean it must be respected all of the time. I mean, in modern times, since when is freedom of speeach always protected? Never. And in a socialist state it will be no different. Government will handle movements that present a threat to national security accordingly


hah.. and how is this not censorship?!?!? You spend a bunch of effort disagreeing with me only to say censorship can and should be used under certain circumstances?

[Lefty]

Short reply: No.

Justification for short reply: I am unilaterally against restricting the rights of the people, and anyone who advocates fewer rights for the proletariat is not truly a revolutionary.

When you think about it, free speech is what allows revolution to occur. Free speech is the ability to say "Maybe the present way isn't the best way," and the next logical step after that is improvement upon the present way. Free speech helps people. Granted, people like Nazis say some dumb shit, but preventing them from saying that dumb shit is not correct because, you know, everyone has a different definition of "dumb shit."

[anomaly]

Well, if capitalists threaten the proletariat, then yes, censorship, as you define it, should be used. But with the rest off your response there, encephalon, you put forward the groupthink idea. The state is the largest group, and the proletariat is the largest class. I plan to arm them, in ways I've described, so any fascist 'revolution' would be futile. And with the citizen-militia I have outlined, any 'al-qaeda' like attack would also prove futile. And besides, a socialsit state would have many, many more allies than the USA does now. I imagine we'd gain sympathyzers within the proletariat in general, as well as in the governments of poor countries, and the left-minded countries of Europe. And rebellion against a democratic socialist state would not be a popular one. And let me clarify when exactly this 'censorship' should be used: it should be used when the proletariat say the cappies are a threat, or whenever the cappies form a militant movement. Do you agree with htis?

[encephalon]

When you think about it, free speech is what allows revolution to occur. Free speech is the ability to say "Maybe the present way isn't the best way," and the next logical step after that is improvement upon the present way. Free speech helps people. Granted, people like Nazis say some dumb shit, but preventing them from saying that dumb shit is not correct because, you know, everyone has a different definition of "dumb shit."


Well, if the proletariat agrees with you when the time comes that a capitalist revolution should be allowed to manifest (since you yourself state that free speech is what allows revolution), too bad for them. I'd hate to see it all start over.



Well, if capitalists threaten the proletariat, then yes, censorship, as you define it, should be used. But with the rest off your response there, encephalon, you put forward the groupthink idea. The state is the largest group, and the proletariat is the largest class. I plan to arm them, in ways I've described, so any fascist 'revolution' would be futile. And with the citizen-militia I have outlined, any 'al-qaeda' like attack would also prove futile. And besides, a socialsit state would have many, many more allies than the USA does now. I imagine we'd gain sympathyzers within the proletariat in general, as well as in the governments of poor countries, and the left-minded countries of Europe. And rebellion against a democratic socialist state would not be a popular one. And let me clarify when exactly this 'censorship' should be used: it should be used when the proletariat say the cappies are a threat, or whenever the cappies form a militant movement. Do you agree with htis?


I agree, that is exactly when I feel censorship should be used. I'm not talking about mandatory shooting of anyone who is reactionary or holds racist, homophobic, etc. views. There is a stark difference between that and an organized effort to rally people against a certain race, sexuality, religious affiliation, etc.

Would I support sending someone to the gulag because I asked them if they liked homosexuals and they said no? Of course not.

Would I support censorship of someone spewing forth an emotionally charged message in the park based on hate and disruption? Absolutely.

And I've still not had a reply by anyone concerning applying their "all or nothing" approach to anything but speech. I'd really like to see how well people can apply that universally.

[LSD]

I agree, that is exactly when I feel censorship should be used. I'm not talking about mandatory shooting of anyone who is reactionary or holds racist, homophobic, etc. views. There is a stark difference between that and an organized effort to rally people against a certain race, sexuality, religious affiliation, etc.

There is a difference, but that doesn't mean that that speech should be suppressed either.

It should be condemned and fought against, and I imainge very few newspapers or radio stations would accept it.

But if someone wants to set up a website rallying for "race war", they must be allowed to do so. Not because it's a good idea, obviously, but because a communist society cannot start exerting that kind of power.

Yes, it's disgusting an infuriating and it's possible that some people might be insighted (although it would be a very small number), but these people would probably be radicalize in some other way anyway. Perhaps by secret meeting, or conversation, or reading up on "classic" racism.

But even if you are right and people will act that wouldn't have otherwise acted, it is still not the role of anyone in society to limit what another can say. We must stop the acts and punnish those who commit them, but we cannot punnish people for their ideas or stop those ideas from being expressed.

It is so dangerous in a free society, a stateless society to set the precedent of assumed state powers. Because as I've been pointing out again and again in this thread there is no practical way to suppress speech in a communist society. The only attempt at a "realistic" method was presented by redstar2000, and it wasn't really an option.

He proposed that any collective or person that published "reactionary" materials would have their flow of essential resources cut by the workers' collective who made that resource.

That's a pretty bad solution, but he's right in tha tit's pretty much the only way to control speech in a society in which the workers are emancipated. There is no state or army or police force to impose speech codes and so it must be the workers themselves.

Now, I suppose, there could be a democratic vote every time somethign is discovered which someone considers to be "reactionary" or "insiting", but this would become such a common occurance that, eventually, most people would simply stop attending these sessions. We'd be left with a tyranny of the board and the radicalized, which is not in anyones interests!

Oh, and don't forget the stupidly simply problem that if the point of censorship is to protect the people from reading reactionary materials... is the way to do that really to make everyone read rectionary materials (so they can vote on suppressing it)? :lol:

redstar2000 didn't propose this, howevever. Probably because even he realized that it would be a dangerous step. That an "assembly", somehow, "ordering" workers to stop printing what they wished to print... well, it doesn't result in anything good.

But the solution he did propose, it's actually worse. To reiterate my earlier point, once you set that precedent, you undermine the entire basis of society.

It is not the role of select workers' groups to decide who is "worthy" of powe and who is not! They cannot make personal judgments, or the entire sytem collapses.

To repeat my criminal comparison:

If a man is accused on child molestation and a majority of the community decides, after careful consideration and analysis, that he is in fact innocent, then he cannot be punnished!

Organized society means that "justice" is not random and not carried out by the individual, but by the society. If he is found to be innocent, then those few in society who voted Guilty must accept the decision of the community.

This means that the electric workers cannot refuse him power because a majority of them thought he was guilty! They cannot declare "we're not going to make power for a child molester" because he isn't a chld molester. That's what society has said. It is not up to the workers in any field to decide "worth" or "value" of another human being. That kind of judgment is so dangerous that it can only be made by the community in general.

The same goes for political opinions. It cannot be up to elite workers' groups who happen to work in fields essential to mass distribution to decide what is and what is not desirable speech.



And I've still not had a reply by anyone concerning applying their "all or nothing" approach to anything but speech. I'd really like to see how well people can apply that universally.

Well, I'll jump in to this one.

Firstly, remember that an absolute right to free speech is not an infinite right to free speech. That is, there is still a practical limit on how much on person can say / broadcast / write.

Therefor unrestricted free speech merely means that there is no limit on the kind of speech and that, therefore, everyone has the right to all varieties available of speech, but not all volumes, since, again, a practical limit exists.

I would say that people have an absolute right to do what they want to their own bodies.

With that established, I would say that people have an absolute right to consentual sex! Two people have the right to try any variety that they damn well choose.

People have an absolute right to medical care. They have the right to recieve every kind of treatment available if needed.

...but you're right, there are many things for which absolue rights are impossible. For many things, there are simply pratical limits that exists irrespective of human society. But those are restrictions which do not exist in regards to free speech. That is, speech, as a nonphysical act and as a non consumptive endeavour is not naturally limited, other than in volume. There is no natural suppression of speech, as there is a natural limit in, say, types of food.

But, actually, while we're on it, people have an absolute right to all varieties of food that exist!

[encephalon]

although I've not time to reply to this all currently (finals), I did want to mention that I'm speaking of censorship in a socialist context, which many of us disagree over in both nature and necessity. I would agree, it would be quite impractical if not impossible to censor in an actual communist society.

[LSD]

I would agree, it would be quite impractical if not impossible to censor in an actual communist society.

That's all I've been saying!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
He proposed that any collective or person that published "reactionary" materials would have their flow of essential resources cut by the workers' collective who made that resource...

But the solution he did propose, it's actually worse. To reiterate my earlier point, once you set that precedent, you undermine the entire basis of society.

The "entire basis"?

I don't see why. Unless you assume that workers' collectives are unusually vindictive or spiteful, recourse to denial of resources would probably be a pretty rare event...it wouldn't be done "casually" or on the "spur of the moment".

Consider a group that has formed to publish a "Christian magazine". In order to do this, they need computers, glossy paper, a printing press, building space, a delivery truck, electricity, etc.

To get all this stuff, they have to ask for it. And when they make that request, the producers of all that stuff will want to know what they want it for -- because others are also asking and the producers have to prioritize requests (since they can't produce an infinite supply of whatever they make).

I think it would be self-evident that The Christian Magazine requests would go to the bottom of the list or be rejected outright.

Ok, the Christians, not being dummies, realize that if they tell the truth, that will happen. So they make up a plausible-sounding lie -- saying perhaps that they want to publish a magazine called "The Marxist Philosopher". Ending up somewhere in the middle of the list, their requests are approved and, in six months to a year, they have all the stuff they need to publish.

And The Christian Magazine rolls off the press. But now what do they do? They can't take it to a regular magazine outlet collective...they'd refuse to carry it. (Magazine distributors today refuse to carry left publications and most news dealers won't handle them.) They can mail it to people (in a plain brown envelope)...and hope that the mail-handling machinery doesn't damage that envelope in such a way as to reveal its contents. Or they can hand-deliver it to known Christians...awkward but possible.

Ok, so far, so good. They're spreading reaction and "getting away with it". They're "under the radar" (just as we are with this board).

And then, by chance, a copy falls into the hands of...well, someone like me. :lol:

WTF??? :angry:

So, I yell! Whatever collectives I happen to be a member of, I bring this up. I copy the worst parts and send emails to anyone I think might be in a position to shut those bastards down. Like-minded people also start yelling. Perhaps our complaints make it into the mainstream anti-reactionary media.

Who are those fuckers? Where are they getting the resources to print that crap? Complaints begin to reach the workers' collectives that did and are still supplying the resources to publish The Christian Magazine. Records are checked and re-checked. Perhaps some individual at each of the various paper plants volunteers to track down copies of all the publications that they are supplying paper to...and, at one plant, there's a series of shipments to a magazine called "The Marxist Philosopher" which no one can find a copy of!

Our volunteer reports his findings to the acting "managers" of the paper plant -- and they decide to check out physically the place to where they're shipping the paper (while suspending further shipments, of course).

Now the Christians are in the shit. They can't produce any issues of "The Marxist Philosopher" and they can't explain what they really did with all that paper. Even if they took the precaution of making dummy issues of "The Marxist Philosopher", they are stuck for an answer to the question "which magazine outlet collective carries TMP?".

Not to mention "which bookstores or newsstands carry TMP?"

Now, the paper plant cancels paper shipments to the Christians. And probably warns other paper plants about shipping anything to that particular address.

Sharper consequences could follow; one of the things that's likely to be a "common law crime" in communist society is the appropriation of public resources for reactionary purposes.

In other words, you can't request a load of bricks to build a community center and then secretly use the bricks to build or repair a church. The Christians lied to obtain the resources to publish...which could lead to serious criminal charges against them.

In any event, that's likely the end of The Christian Magazine...and good riddance!

And the "entire basis" of communist society is not "undermined" at all. A reactionary threat emerged and was dealt with.

End of story.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

End of story.

redstar2000, the problem with that "story" is that it makes a couple of problematic assumptions early on ...and then runs with them.

The first is that the Christian group in question would lie about their purpose and conceal their opinions. Because of this assumption, the majority of your post is just making the case against concealment of purpose, fraud, and public deception. None of which I have a problem opposing! I entirely agree with you that such deception can not be stood for. If the group did what you outline in this story than they should have their resouces taken.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

You assume that the group will lie because you think that if they don't, their "requests would go to the bottom of the list or be rejected outright". Well, this assumption is predicated on the acceptance of the fundamental point of contention between us!

As far as I can tell, the critical area of disagreement between us on this issue is that you feel that paper producers, say, should be able to determine priority based on the political leanings of the publication for to which they ship paper. I do not.

I believe that these workers must decide priority based on entirely objective standard. That is, standards irrespective of political opinion.

Maybe they can determine publication priority based on readership levels, or by periodically surveying members of the community on what they read. However they do it, it cannot be based on politics.

Now, since there will probably not be that many Christians, the publication in question will not be at the top of the list. It may even be at the bottom, but it's still on the list, and the paper will still arrive. If the Christians grow "impatiant" and try to defraud the paper workers, well, then I agree with you that they should be summarily punnished. But if they spell out truthfully what they intend to do with the paper and it is a reasonable request, I believe it is the obligation to the paper workers to rationally place it on their queue.

Otherwise, we are allowing select groups of workers not only to define what is "appropriate" and what is not, but to decide who is "worthy" and who is not. If workers' collectives can decide who gets resources and who doesn't based on political opinion, than why not on other opinions? Why not on criminal history?

Or, more dangerously, percieved criminal history?

If a man is accused of child molestation and a majority of the community decides, after careful consideration and analysis, that he is in fact innocent, then he is innocent of that crime. He cannot be punished by select groups that disagree with the majority.

Organized society means that "justice" is not random and not carried out by the individual, but by the society. If he is found to be innocent, then those few in society who voted Guilty must accept the decision of the community. This means that the paper workers cannot refuse him paper because a majority of them thought he was guilty!

What if the child who this man was accused of molesting has a father who's a well respected worker at the paper factory. He's been working there for 20 years and gets along with everyone. Now he's convinced that his man hurt his child, even though he can't prove it. Because of his steadfastness, his passion, and his reputation and history at the plant, most of his fellow paper workers have come to agree with him.

They were shocked when the man was not found guilty!

So what are they going to do? Well they're damn well not going to make paper for a CHILD MOLESTER, that's for sure! After all, if workers can refuse to make paper for someone whom they think is a "reactionary", certainly thay can refuse to make it for someone whom they think is a child molester.

But what kind of society does this create?

A bizzarre uneven one in which the opinion of select worker groups can determine one's fate and power is tipped towards those working in more essential fields.

That kind of society won't last, nor should it.

It can not be up to the workers in any field to decide "worth" or "value" of another human being. That kind of judgment is so dangerous that it can only be made by the community in general. Decisions on production and distribution must be made rationaly, objectively, and defendably ...and entirely unrelated to the personality, attributes, or ideas of the person in question.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
As far as I can tell, the critical area of disagreement between us on this issue is that you feel that paper producers, say, should be able to determine priority based on the political leanings of the publication for to which they ship paper. I do not.

I believe that these workers must decide priority based on entirely objective standard. That is, standards irrespective of political opinion.

Maybe they can determine publication priority based on readership levels, or by periodically surveying members of the community on what they read. However they do it, it cannot be based on politics.

You're assuming that paper workers (and nearly all workers, for that matter) are "disengaged" from the social consequences of their work. They are "like machines" which, not being sentient, do not care about the motives of their operators.

A gun does not care who you shoot, much less why. A car does not care about your destination, much less your reason for going there.

That kind of alienation among workers is so common today that we "take it for granted"...we just "do our job" -- like robots -- and let someone else (the bosses) worry about the consequences.

I do not think communist society will have this kind of attitude...or at least it will be far less common. I think people will care about what is being done with the products of their labor...or at least a lot of people will care far more than they do now.

How will a paper workers collective decide its priorities? What criteria will they use? Well, they know that their bulk newsprint shipments are going to The Daily Comrade and most of their glossy stock is going to Progressive Computer, Gender Liberation, The Revolutionary Artist or whatever. So someone puts in a request for a few cartons of glossy stock and tells the plant that it's for "a new publication" about "such and such".

Will they just "fill the order" and move on? Possibly. Will someone ask an awkward question or two? Maybe, maybe not.

Certainly a title like The Christian Magazine is going to "ring alarm bells"...the most highly conscious workers are going to raise hell about getting involved with that kind of crap.

To avoid the fuss, chances are that the person who takes the order will probably reject it on the spot.

Just as I don't have to ask anyone when I spot an obvious Nazi who has just registered on this board...I know that the people here want Nazis banned -- so I just do it.

Thus reactionaries who want to publish will have to disguise themselves in some fashion in order to acquire the resources to do so. And, sooner or later, that disguise will break down.

(Another thought just occurred to me -- paper plant collectives might maintain a library of publications for which they had supplied the paper -- it would be a point of pride to say they were involved in the making of "good stuff". And, naturally, it would be a point of shame to be, even inadvertently, involved in the making of "bad stuff".)

When we are no longer wage-slaves who dutifully follow the orders of our masters, then the responsibility for our actions in the world fall on us.

We can't use that old German excuse -- "I was just carrying out my orders" -- or its American variant -- "I was just doing my job".

Someone who advocates reactionary ideas is a "bad person". Someone who helps them do that is, at the very least, negligent and irresponsible. As if I saw a Nazi had registered on this board and just "let it slide".

Nobody would even notice it, probably, because some other administrator would ban the Nazi.

But I would know that I had behaved irresponsibly...and that should bother me!

In the first century or so of communist society, I think that communists will have to struggle a good deal to get this idea accepted: each member of society is responsible for the social consequences of her/his actions.

That's what "being free" means.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 8 2005, 02:37 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 8 2005, 02:37 AM)
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
As far as I can tell, the critical area of disagreement between us on this issue is that you feel that paper producers, say, should be able to determine priority based on the political leanings of the publication for to which they ship paper. I do not.

I believe that these workers must decide priority based on entirely objective standard. That is, standards irrespective of political opinion.

Maybe they can determine publication priority based on readership levels, or by periodically surveying members of the community on what they read. However they do it, it cannot be based on politics.

You're assuming that paper workers (and nearly all workers, for that matter) are "disengaged" from the social consequences of their work. They are "like machines" which, not being sentient, do not care about the motives of their operators.

A gun does not care who you shoot, much less why. A car does not care about your destination, much less your reason for going there.

That kind of alienation among workers is so common today that we "take it for granted"...we just "do our job" -- like robots -- and let someone else (the bosses) worry about the consequences.

I do not think communist society will have this kind of attitude...or at least it will be far less common. I think people will care about what is being done with the products of their labor...or at least a lot of people will care far more than they do now.

How will a paper workers collective decide its priorities? What criteria will they use? Well, they know that their bulk newsprint shipments are going to The Daily Comrade and most of their glossy stock is going to Progressive Computer, Gender Liberation, The Revolutionary Artist or whatever. So someone puts in a request for a few cartons of glossy stock and tells the plant that it's for "a new publication" about "such and such".

Will they just "fill the order" and move on? Possibly. Will someone ask an awkward question or two? Maybe, maybe not.

Certainly a title like The Christian Magazine is going to "ring alarm bells"...the most highly conscious workers are going to raise hell about getting involved with that kind of crap.

To avoid the fuss, chances are that the person who takes the order will probably reject it on the spot.

Just as I don't have to ask anyone when I spot an obvious Nazi who has just registered on this board...I know that the people here want Nazis banned -- so I just do it.

Thus reactionaries who want to publish will have to disguise themselves in some fashion in order to acquire the resources to do so. And, sooner or later, that disguise will break down.

(Another thought just occurred to me -- paper plant collectives might maintain a library of publications for which they had supplied the paper -- it would be a point of pride to say they were involved in the making of "good stuff". And, naturally, it would be a point of shame to be, even inadvertently, involved in the making of "bad stuff".)

When we are no longer wage-slaves who dutifully follow the orders of our masters, then the responsibility for our actions in the world fall on us.

We can't use that old German excuse -- "I was just carrying out my orders" -- or its American variant -- "I was just doing my job".

Someone who advocates reactionary ideas is a "bad person". Someone who helps them do that is, at the very least, negligent and irresponsible. As if I saw a Nazi had registered on this board and just "let it slide".

Nobody would even notice it, probably, because some other administrator would ban the Nazi.

But I would know that I had behaved irresponsibly...and that should bother me!

In the first century or so of communist society, I think that communists will have to struggle a good deal to get this idea accepted: each member of society is responsible for the social consequences of her/his actions.

That's what "being free" means.
[/b]


It is laughable that you would think workers give a damn about what is written on the materials that they make, if I was a paper factory worker, that would be the last thing I would worry about, I would instead care about getting better pay, getting less hours, and so on.

So now I get what you think should be implemented. Instead of locking up those who disagree, you will take away their paper! What if our own revolutionary comrades want to write something that criticizes this authoritarian measure, will they be banned from getting paper? I wonder, if those who disagree, what will be done about their mouths, because you can take away a person's paper and pen, but their mouth, you can't take away their ability to speak their mind. What will you do?

What if said "Christian Magazine" is actually a leftist publication? Oh, you don't care if they're left or right, because you just want to ban religion. Yes, I couldn't have forgotten that.

We're talking about real life, not an online forum. Rules about what you can say on a certain board are different from rules in real life. Unless this board is your life.

These 'paper plant collectives' would only be involved in the making of the paper, they are not involved in the making of 'good stuff' or 'bad stuff'. So, while it might be a source of pride to feel that you helped contribute to a popular publication, making paper that went to a reactionary publication should not be a source of shame.

So you would punish paper makers or paper sellers who sell paper to people who want to write ideas outside of the communist norm? Sometimes it appears that you are no better than the fascists and reactionaries, Redstar. Again, you're making an analogy to something that happens on this forum, an analogy that is completely non-related to the real world where free speech should be a right. I do not think Nazis should have any respect at all, I hate them more than anything, but if you try to cover up their ideas it only intensifies the mystery surrounding them, but letting people see how ridiculous they are, will show the people how stupid they are and the people will laugh at their ignorance.



http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
You know, it's really annoying that you always end your posts with that stupid red smiley, don't you get tired of always putting that in there? Jeeze.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by El_Revolucionario
It is laughable that you would think workers give a damn about what is written on the materials that they make, if I was a paper factory worker, that would be the last thing I would worry about, I would instead care about getting better pay, getting less hours, and so on.

That's because you "are" -- or think you "would be" -- a typical alienated worker in late-capitalist society. Naturally, all that concerns you (or any such worker) is less work and more pay...class interest reduced to its rock-bottom core.

No better, really, than a slave whose greatest hope is being sold to "a kind and generous master".

You are so accustomed to this personal degradation that you cannot imagine anything but a "better version" of what we have now!

Real liberation from wage-slavery is "unthinkable" for you.

So, of course, you laugh -- nervously, I suspect. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that you are one of the unfortunates who find the implications of freedom "scary".

Too bad. :(


What if our own revolutionary comrades want to write something that criticizes this authoritarian measure, will they be banned from getting paper? I wonder, if those who disagree, what will be done about their mouths, because you can take away a person's paper and pen, but their mouth, you can't take away their ability to speak their mind. What will you do?

I imagine the process of driving reactionary ideologies out of public life will arouse a great deal of heated controversy...in which people opposed to this "authoritarian" policy will speak and write a great deal.

But I expect the time to come when the debate will be effectively "over"...most workers will agree: No Free Speech For Reactionaries!

After that, if you want to publish a magazine called Free Speech for Reactionaries, you probably won't be able to find a paper plant that will supply you with paper.

As to conversations -- a.k.a. Chat -- I don't give a damn, myself. If you become annoying to people with your ceaseless reactionary yap, they may decide to "teach you a lesson" physically.

But I would suggest social ostracism is the better response...just don't have anything to do with such a moron. If necessary, expel him from your workplace collective -- no one should have to be constantly thrown into contact with an asshole.


What if I said "Christian Magazine" is actually a leftist publication?

Oxymoron...religion is always reactionary.


So you would punish paper makers or paper sellers who sell paper to people who want to write ideas outside of the communist norm?

I am occasionally tempted to punish people on this board who can't read...but I always manage to resist the temptation. :D

The suppression of reactionary ideologies need not involve any "punishment" whatsoever...I've said that in previous posts in this thread.


Sometimes it appears that you are no better than the fascists and reactionaries, Redstar.

I'm not "better" and do not claim to be...with regard to the struggle for the emancipation of the working class, I am just as fanatical, just as determined, and, I hope, just as nasty as any fascist or reactionary.

After the revolution, I will do all I can to make damn sure that there are no military coups, no civil war, and no organized reactionary resistance to the new society...and I will encourage the same attitude among the whole working class.

Zero tolerance for counter-revolution!

Now, if you find my attitude distressing, ask yourself why.

Do you imagine that we'll have such "an easy win" that my policies will not be necessary? Then you don't have anything to worry about from me...no one will listen to what I have to say -- it won't "connect" to the existing material reality. It will "sound crazy".

Or perhaps you think, like some, that "reactionaries are people too"...a common misconception in the left.

Let's be nice to them and maybe they won't kill and eat us for breakfast.

Get it through your head: reactionaries do not regard us "as people" but rather as domestic animals "gone wild"...that must be put down!

It's astonishing when you actually think about it: some people here want to have a "free and fair" debate with murdering bastards who would cheerfully kill them without a second thought or a moment's remorse.

*Shakes head in disbelief*


You know, it's really annoying that you always end your posts with that stupid red smiley, don't you get tired of always putting that in there?

It's my subtle way of telling the anti-smokers to go fuck themselves! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

You're assuming that paper workers (and nearly all workers, for that matter) are "disengaged" from the social consequences of their work. They are "like machines" which, not being sentient, do not care about the motives of their operators.

I'm not "assuming" that worker's make their production/distribution decisions objectively, I'm advocating it.

I'm well aware that it isn't the "only way", but I think that it's the only pratical option if we want to create a lasting society. If we follow your plan than we are left with a society in which those workers who work in "lucky" fields have the right to decide whether I live or die based solely on my political opinions!

Did you read my "child molester" example? I mean I've repeated it about 5 or 6 times in this thread already! So ...do you have a response? Do you have a way of preventing it?

You're talking about making this "social conciesness" production the norm. You want it to be the regular way in which production and distribution decisions are made. This means that whether or not I can get essential resources is entirely dependent on me not pissing off the workers in that field.

Now, most workers will be rational and understanding and won't cut my power because I told a bad Joke, but some might! More realistically they might decide, even if the community clears me, that I'm a murderer ...or a rapist ...or a hoarder. They will refuse to make power or paper or water or food for a criminal, and I will be ...well, dead.

Again, I ask what kind of society do you create when my survival is based not on my rights as an individual, not on following the rules of the community, not on collective decisions, but on the unaccountable decreees of select groups of workers?

I'm not advocating that workers be "like machines", but you're damn right in that I don't want them using their personal opinions in making distribution priorities.

Paper workers should be proud of the paper they make. Magazine workers should be be proud of the magazines they make. If the paper workers produce the paper for one of their favourite magazines, then they can, of course, be proud of that to. But that pride should not be a given. Its's a perk in some circumstances. But we cannot make a system in which the paper workers will only give paper to those magazines that they like ...or that they "agree with".

Don't you see the glaring danger of giving that kind of power to elite groups? Of saying that the paper workers will decide what publiscations are worthy and what are not? What people are worthy and which are not?

It must be up to the community itself to decide what it wants to read and what it wants to write. The paper workers must base their priority queue on objective community standards. Again, perhaps readership levels or periodic surveys. Regardless, it cannot be the personal likes of the paper workers that determines paper distribution.

The Christian Magazine may end up at the bottom of the list, there probably won't be that many Christians so that might make sense, but it will still be on the list.


Thus reactionaries who want to publish will have to disguise themselves in some fashion in order to acquire the resources to do so. And, sooner or later, that disguise will break down.

NO THEY WON'T!

They will only have to so if we follow your plan which, as I've already explained, I do not agree with!

If they do decieve and defraud than I support punnishing them. I agree that such obfuscation is a serious offence and must be dealt with.

But, again, it's entirely irrelevent to our discussion on free speech.


It's astonishing when you actually think about it: some people here want to have a "free and fair" debate with murdering bastards who would cheerfully kill them without a second thought or a moment's remorse.

Be "astonished".

Some of us value the principle above the emotional response.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
If we follow your plan, then we are left with a society in which those workers who work in "lucky" fields have the right to decide whether I live or die based solely on my political opinions!

You live in that kind of society now...does it keep you awake at night?

For example, if you live in a city, the chances are that there is enough food in that city at any given time to last about eight days. A massive strike by truck drivers and railroad workers -- "lucky folks" -- means that you're in deep shit in a very short period of time.

And they don't even give a rat's ass about your "political opinions".

If you have become so infamous that your life is actually threatened by the organized withholding of vital services, maybe it's time for you to move. And perhaps change your name and even keep your head down for a while.

I don't imagine people in a communist society will be so relentlessly vindictive as to "pursue you to the ends of the earth".

It really requires a state apparatus to organize that sort of thing...and we won't have one.

Once you've moved away, you'll probably be quickly forgotten.


Did you read my "child molester" example?

Yes...but I don't see its relevance in a thread that concerns the suppression of reactionary opinion in public life.

If I were accused of such a thing and subsequently acquitted, I would certainly want to move to a new place...very far away from where this catastrophe took place. An accusation of that nature -- even if you are acquitted -- will cast a long shadow on your life. It's better to go elsewhere and start over.


You're talking about making this "social consciousness" production the norm. You want it to be the regular way in which production and distribution decisions are made. This means that whether or not I can get essential resources is entirely dependent on me not pissing off the workers in that field.

Yes...but, as I explained, it's not as if those workers are walking around looking for someone to get pissed off at. The "norm" is that your vital resources will be provided "no questions asked" (glossy paper stock is not a "vital resource").

It's only when the ugly head of reaction emerges that the possibility exists of eviction, cutting off electricity or water, etc., arises.

Just cutting off the paper supply put an end to The Christian Magazine...there was never any need to appeal to the power workers or the water workers.

In fact, if things reached that point, it would be part of a "very big struggle" that would be stirring up the whole city.


Don't you see the glaring danger of giving that kind of power to elite groups? Of saying that the paper workers will decide what publications are worthy and what are not?

No, I don't see any "glaring danger" at all. They are reasonable people and, if a controversy with them emerges, one can certainly go to them and attempt to persuade them that your publication is worthy.

And there will probably be a number of paper plants around...so if one rejects you, you can always try another.


What people are worthy and which are not?

Exaggeration does not strengthen your argument.


Some of us value the principle above the emotional response.

Obviously. But it's your principle that I reject.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

For example, if you live in a city, the chances are that there is enough food in that city at any given time to last about eight days. A massive strike by truck drivers and railroad workers -- "lucky folks" -- means that you're in deep shit in a very short period of time.

That's a completely different scenario.

For one thing, that isn't targeted. Meaning that such a mass action would affect everyone in the city. Because of its large effect, it would undoubtable lead to great social upheaval and change. In short, something would soon give.

The power workers refusing to give me, and me alone, power, however, has no such consequences. Beyond my own life, it actually has no consequences whatsoever!

Hence society will go on without missing a beat and without anyone doing anything about it. My personal suffering will be "unfortunate", but if such decisions are the sole purview of the workers in question ...well, what can anyone do.

Wait, I know ...may be I should leave?


If I were accused of such a thing and subsequently acquitted, I would certainly want to move to a new place...very far away from where this catastrophe took place. An accusation of that nature -- even if you are acquitted -- will cast a long shadow on your life. It's better to go elsewhere and start over.

How horrific!

You're saying that anyone accused of a serious crime should be, effectively, forced to get up and leave?

To leave their friends, work, home, family, their entire life basically?

Why?

Doesn't that sort of undermine the entire system of justice? Is accusation alone really enough to justify completely upsetting someone's life? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply structure society such that people won't be unfairly penalized for the mere suggestion of crime? Isn't that a far more equitable and just solution?

Remember, most people think that you are innocent, perhaps even the vast majority. It's just that this particular workers' collective has gotten emotionally invested and doesn't believe you. Should they really have the power to determine whether or not you're deserving of power?


And there will probably be a number of paper plants around...so if one rejects you, you can always try another.

Really?

Earlier you suggested that any workers' collective who made resources for "reactionary" groups would themsevles have their resources revoked. Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that if one paper factory rejected you another will accept you. Once you have been labeled as "reactionary", under your plan, you're pretty much untouchable.


Obviously. But it's your principle that I reject.

I've noticed.

But you've replaced it with nothing but emotionalism. You propose a plan that, at it's best, results in elite groups deciding what the entire community can and can't read and hear. At it's worst, it results in complete inequality and disparity. The actual result would probably be somewhere in the middle.

To justify this position you cite fears of what "reaction" would do to the population and to debate. You fear that "reactionary" materials will incite "reactionary" acts and you think it will "lower" the level of debate.

To an extent, you may be right about the second. Certainly it will increase the amount of "crap" out there. But by the same token, it will increase the amount of stuff that's out there. It will widden and broaden the discussion. So, yes, it will include reantings about aliens ...and rantings about the market.

So what?

Most people will ignore the reactionary stuff, but at least we don't have to worry about what isn't being produced. More is never worse when dealing with ideas and thoughts. If you don't like reading about capitalism ...stop reading about capitalism!

In regards to incitement, in a free and communist society people are unlikely do be incited by capitalist or racist or heterosexist arguments, especially because such ideas will be debunked far more often than they will be supported. Ultimately, however, you have to simply trust that people are intelligent and rational and mature enough to dismiss and ignore the rantings of crazy people. That people can intelligently make decisions for themselves and their society. If you don't have that much basic faith in people, then how do you expect them to make decisions for themselves and their society?

If people are really that eaily swayed that the lunatic writtings of racists and sexists will convince them to abandon a free and equitable society, then there really is no hope at all for any such society in the first place.

Even if you reject the more "exagerated" dangers that I've mentioned, you must acknowledge that, pragmatically, leaving distribution decisions up to indivdual workers' collectives' personal whims is risky. Rational, objective, justifiable decision making is always better than decision making informed by subjective personal opinions. In the end, it is simply the more practical solution.

...but you're damn right there's a principle behind all of this.

That principle, fundamentally, is that every human being has the fundamental right to express themselves because expression is the simple extention of human thought.

That which makes our species unique is our capacity for complex thought and our ability to communicate those thoughts. It is, quite simply, our defining characteristic . It's also the foundation of our society and of our civilization. Any truly free society must, accordingly, place no hinderance on any member of that society's ability to convey to others the contents of his mind.

I'm talking, fundamentally, about communication. That doesn't mean I have the right to incessantly shout at you 24/7, it doesn't mean I have the right to scream to cause a stampeed, because these are actions and not communication. But my right to communicate my thoughts and my ideas is as much by basic right as my right to control my labour ...or my right to eat.

And society, being, again, predicated on communication, only bennefits from an enviroment in which free expression is supported. It makes everyone more willing to express themselves and increases the range of discussion and debate. It increases the number of ideas that are heard and considered, and despite your indications to the contrary, that increase is a good thing. Because, while one can always ignore that which one does not wish to see, one cannot produce that which does not exist.

More ideas means more options. Yeah, many of them may be bad, many of them may be "reactionary", but no one's forcing us to take any of those.

But a society that stiffles free expression, in which what kind of magazine I can make is determined by the paper collective. Where what kind of television show I can make is determined by the electricity collective, that kind of society is one in which we are forced. We are forced to only hear the options that have been deemed "appropriate" by the people in power.

Now, this may mean that we are presented with alot more "reactionary" ideas. Fine, we can ignore those. Especially because it means we are presented with simply more ideas. Including, undoubtable, some good ones. And, again, you never know. In the midst of it's whinning about Jesus, The Christian Magazine, might actually come up with a good idea ...or part of a good idea ...or something which when combined with something else and turned upside down and inverted is a good idea. An idea that never would have been realized (or would only have been realized much later) if we had suppressed that magazine.

The point is we gain nothing from censoring, we gain a great deal from freedom.

And yeah, that may mean that we have to deal with a lot more crap. But we can deal with crap, what we cannot deal with is suppression.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
That principle, fundamentally, is that every human being has the fundamental right to express themselves because expression is the simple extension of human thought.

Well, it's a "noble principle"...but I don't think it applies to the real world. Now or ever.

In fact, I don't "believe" in "fundamental rights" at all...I think that's an idealist concept that has no counter-part in social reality.

All hither-to existing societies have granted some rights and withheld others...and I don't see why communist societies will be any different except for different choices about what constitutes a "human right".

Some rights that exist now won't exist then and some rights will exist then that don't exist now.

That seems to me to just be the way human societies work.

I understand that you think that "absolute freedom of speech" should be such a right in communist society. For reasons I've already explained, I don't think that will happen or should happen.

But, we'll see.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

Well, it's a "noble principle"...but I don't think it applies to the real world. Now or ever.

It applies.

As I've already outlined, it's, in fact, the only sustainable option for a viable communist society.


In fact, I don't "believe" in "fundamental rights" at all...I think that's an idealist concept that has no counter-part in social reality.

Fundamental rights are simply those rights which are socially nescessary for a free and equitable society and which can be afforded without adversely affecting anyone else.


All hither-to existing societies have granted some rights and withheld others.

They've all been unequal and hierarchical too.

That's the point of revolution -- to change things.


But, we'll see.

I don't know if it will happen. It's quite possible that you're correct and a future communist society will decided that the risks are too great. I hope that they don't, and if I'm still around and it's within my power, I'll try and convince them that they're wrong.

I think, as with the last time we had this discussion, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I guess only time will tell which one of us is ultimately correct.

[encephalon]

alright.. finals are over and I've forgotten half of this argument, but here goes.

I'm not talking about censorship in communist society, per se, but more in the midst and right after revolution. We simply can't have the continued turmoil resulting from reactionary groups without people turning to it because they just want some sense of peace and security. After everything settles down, I think censorship wouldn't just be useless; it'd be unnecessary. But until that point, I think the bad consequences would outweigh the good ones of letting all speech be allowed. People are moved by emotional appeals, whether it's a logical fallacy or not, and much of the reactionary propaganda makes use of that. I think it would be counter-productive to let that happen.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

The problem with this "temporarily" limitation of free speech is that it will turn in a permanent one. Why would you all the sudden listen to someone, if you have shut him up all that time before? It's far easier just to beat up someone then refute his arguments. Plus this will leave deep scars in the intellectual level of the population, instead of thinking why, they just beat the crap out of new strange ideas. We have seen the previous little dictatorships in the name of liberation, workers etc. Lessons should be learned.

[Taiga]

I guess Non-Sectarian Bastard is right.
It's really easy to start and it's too difficult to stop.

[encephalon]

The problem with this "tempoprarily" limitation of free speech is that it will turn in a permanent one.

That's a slippery slope.



Why would you all the sudden listen to someone, if you have shut him up all that time before?

Once it is no longer a matter of warfare, censorship is useless. While you're battling for the support of people, however, censorship is a key tool; for one, it's why there are so few communists in the US.


Plus this will leave deep scars in the intellectual level of the population, instead of thinking why, they just beat the crap out of new strange ideas. We have seen the previous little dictatorships in the name of liberation, workers etc. Lessons should be learned.

Calling something a dictatorship because of selective censorship is pushing it. Furthermore, I'm not talking about a dictatorship in the name of workers. If rule isn't straight from the workers it isn't worth pursuing.

[Sickle of Justice]

I gotta go with Slim. you gotta keep the peoples freedom, or else you can get as little support as capitalism would. i think the Neo Nazis (and other such ass wholes) can very well go to hell, but people can decide that for themselves. in a well eduacted communist community with a strong econamy most people could easially figure out for themselves that faschim and Naziism suck, and eventually the symbols that represent them would fade to nothing, so there would be no need do do that sort of thing.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:20 PM

Why would you all the sudden listen to someone, if you have shut him up all that time before?

[...]censorship is a key tool; for one, it's why there are so few communists in the US.

Exactly! You finally got it.

The censorship and general taboo on even thinking "un-American" has lead to one of the most conservative populations in the world. Exactly, what I want to avoid. For a bourgeoisie/dictatorship the conservative situation in the US, is one to dream of, but for true progressive revolutionaries it's a nightmare. I don't want the intellectual development stop at where I was, or be dependable on the "old gaurd", on what is "acceptable and what isn't; I want intellectualism to develop further.

What bits of freedom is there left, when I can't even say and write what I want?

[encephalon]

The censorship and general taboo on even thinking "un-American" has lead to one of the most conservative populations in the world. Exactly, what I want to avoid. For a bourgeoisie/dictatorship the conservative situation in the US, is one to dream of, but for true progressive revolutionaries it's a nightmare. I don't want the intellectual development stop at where I was, or be dependable on the "old gaurd", on what is "acceptable and what isn't; I want intellectualism to develop further.

What bits of freedom is there left, when I can't even say and write what I want?


It is conservative because of right-wing propaganda and limitiation on freedom of speech by censorship. Leftist ideologies in the US have been destroyed via censorship; it is a very effective weapon. Free speech is Weimar Germany. While it opens avenues for some progress, it opens a whole lot more trap doors for reactionaries to gain sway over the populous. As communism (and leftism in general) has been supressed via censorship in order to stop it from gaining sway over the consciousness of the masses, so too must censorship be used against reactionary enemies in time of revolution. Without the power to negate the effects of passionate appeals to emotion by reactionary groups that gain sway over the people, we won't get anywhere. It will end up being a continual struggle in which the reactionaries will win, because once in power they will use censorship and offer security to the populous by "getting rid of the troubles" (eg. us). It's how nixon gained popular support, for one.

[Man of the Century]

Wow, a lot of misunderstanding about free speech in America. The Supreme Court has not changed its stance on this for quite a long time: There is virtually UNLIMITED free speech in America. Including the most vulgar, profane, anti-anybody speech you may wish.

If you're in a traditional public forum the only thing you can't do is speak to incite WHERE THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE INTENT TO CREATE VIOLENT REACTION. That means, the people are more or less within ear shot AND will act upon your comments.

The problem comes where you want to do something that is MORE than just speak. This is called conduct, and the Court allows a lot of this too, though it may allow for local time, place and manner requirements.

Let's say you want to burn the Cuban Flag. That is NOT speech per se, but under certain circumstances it is protected as if it were speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

I can go on, but you get the idea.

But LITERAL SPEECH is nearly unlimited. Fraud, Slander and Obscenity are not protected forms of speech, but the later is nearly always visual, and is therefore not precisely speech.

[LSD]

Wow, a lot of misunderstanding about free speech in America. The Supreme Court has not changed its stance on this for quite a long time: There is virtually UNLIMITED free speech in America. Including the most vulgar, profane, anti-anybody speech you may wish.

Yeah, if you're standing in the street ranting to the moon.

If you're on television or radio, you know, when someone might actually here you, there are insane standards on what you can and cannot say. The recent anti-obscenity drive is just another example of the American drive against free expression.

Did you hear Zell Miller explaining that in his opinion the first ammendment doesn't cover "offenssive" speech? Well, those are your law makers. They don't want anything being said that's challenging to them or their ideological convictions.

But, even more than the government, is the simple fact that access to means of communication in the US is determined by something as arbitrary as "money" and "wealth". Meaning that if you have a lot of "money" you can speak to millions, but if you have none, you can speak to yourself.

This means that free speech only applies to those who are in the elite and who, accordingly, limit and control the speech of others. That is it's Rupert Murdoch who's controlling censorship on "his airways". Same for CNN and ABC amd CBS...

Corporate censorship is the problem here, and since American corporations are bennefitted by the status quo and don't want to see progressive changes that would limit their power and profits, guess which kinds of things they censor?

[Gianandrea]

The revolution itself amounts to the removal of free speech and action. The key to understanding freedom is to understanding that freedom is only acceptable if it does not conflict with equality. Equality is the prime principle, not freedom. Like Lenin said as long as there is the state there is no freedom, but the state must exist until the people may govern themselves. One must not forget that free speech can cause conflict with the freedom of others and equality. The same can be said of freedom of action, one forbids capatilist ownership because it contradicts equality, but you still are removing a mans freedom. Do not hate the state because it restricts some freedoms, but because it lies, steals and makes the people unequal.