Censorship [Archive]

LSD

4th January 2006, 03:06

All human societies have a "range" of what is considered "acceptable public discourse". Things outside of that range are suppressed.

All human socities also have oppression and inequality.

So what?

I expect, for example, that all forms of pro-fascist ideologies will be suppressed

Really? By whom?

Who exactly will judge what constitues "pro-fascism" and what doesn't?

What if the people making the paper and printing the document in question think that it's a valid social commentary? Should we burn down their factories?

Unless you are prepared to go back to "judges" and "agencies", the application of your "censorship" paradigm will always be haphazard and arbitrary.

For example, the rejection of arbitrary authority as a matter of principle!

Except, of course, on issues of censorship! :lol:

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If people are going to be taught the rejection of aribtrary authority then they're going to naturally translate that into their daily lives.

That means questioning why anyone has the right to tell them what they can and cannot say or hear.

An emanipated population is juat that. They will not tolerate a restriction in their liberties, even if it is done "for their own good".

I know you hypothesize that the population in general will be adamently in favour of censorship and only the reactionary minority will object to their inability to publish their views, but the reality is that censorship never stays limited to it's initial target.

You talk about "historical societies" and a "range of acceptable discourse", well these same historical examples also show us that the people who fall outside of this "range" do so on both sides.

There has never been an example of "progressive" censorship. Once you grant to power to decide what is "acceptable" and what is not, you limit all discussion to the imagination of the censor.

"Revolutionary" censorship is like "progressive capitalism". It can't exist.

I wish very much that people here would "get over" the myth of "absolute free speech". It has no more empirical validity than...well, reincarnation, for example.

"Empirical validity"?

Well...no. That's because it doesn't exist yet. Neither, by the way, does communism.

That does not mean, however, that it can never exist; just that current conditions do not allow for it.

bky1701

4th January 2006, 07:22

I expect, for example, that all forms of pro-fascist ideologies will be suppressed...and those who advocate any form of fascism will probably be executed.

You more you oppress a ideal, the stronger it becomes. Knowing this, it's not logical to censer or execute anyone for their political ideals.

I wish very much that people here would "get over" the myth of "absolute free speech". It has no more empirical validity than...well, reincarnation, for example.

Many say the same about communism as a whole. I guess that means we all just need to go join the republican party, then.

redstar2000

4th January 2006, 10:35

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)All human societies also have oppression and inequality.[/b]

bky1701
Many say the same about communism as a whole. I guess that means we all just need to go join the Republican party, then.

Old arguments, guys.

Bky1701, you are new here...so I refer you to the links featured in this post.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291994464 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44331&view=findpost&p=1291994464)

LSD, we've been "around the barn" on this question on at least two previous occasions...is there really any point in doing it again?

You have a much better shot at living long enough to see this become a practical question than I do...so your voice has a better chance of being heard than mine does.

But I still think you're going to lose on this one. :P

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

LSD

4th January 2006, 18:07

Here's some of what I think about the matter...

It's not that I don't trust your site, Redstar, but I think people would be better served by the original threads in question. That way they can read both sides of the argument. ;)

A typical free speech debate: Freedom of Speech (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40371)

The first free speech debate between Redstar and myself: Freedom of press in socialists or communists societies (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28463)

The big free speech debate between Redstar and myself: Free Speech: Should there be limits? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36091)

I suggest that anyone interested read through the last one. I think it neatly outlines the impraticalities and fundamental flaws of Redstar's proposal.

LSD, we've been "around the barn" on this question on at least two previous occasions...is there really any point in doing it again?

Perhaps not. I certainly don't imagine that I'll "convince" you anytime soon.

But as we all know, you're quite good with words, and I don't want any impressionable members to be swayed by your rhetoric.

Free speech is not a "myth" and censorship is not "required".

You think I'm going to "lose" on this one, but even you must admit that historical materialism is in my favour. History shows us that socities have been progressively moving closer and closer to a recognition of true free speech.

We are not there yet for sure, but that is certainly the direction we are heading in. A revolutionary proletarian society would not "reverse" this, rather they would recognize the inherent relationship between oppressive authority and the exertion of such authority.

I think you may be optimistic in predicting that I'll "live to see" any of this, but if I somehow manage to, you know which side I'll be arguing!

I expect to win. :)

violencia.Proletariat

4th January 2006, 21:08

I think censorship would be a open thing to discuss. I agree with communities having a vote whether to shut down a media collective that spews reactionary idealogy. However thats as far as it should go after its been a while since the revolution (this is the part where we shoot the open fascists, capitalists, reactionaries in general :P ). But once we have some stability, restriction should be an option only when these reactionary groups organize. I wouldnt shut down a reactionary website unless they were declaring open defiance to the revolution, then the site would go to a vote of the whole community (whoever wants to vote that is) and they will decide whether or not the material is severe enough to take off. If it is very severe, a trial could be held for the person who runs the site.

Vanguard1917

4th January 2006, 22:29

I reserve my strongest criticisms for those that defend free speech as a principle but attack it when that principle is carried out in practice.

Free speech is important because it allows all ideas to be expressed and, therefore, confronted.

We shouldn't attempt to sweep the dirt under the carpet. We should confront wrong ideas full on. Not only through debate, but also through real life confrontation.

Many on the left demand that the bourgeois state should ban or place restrictions on the right to free speech for the far-right ('No Platform for Fascists', etc.). We should oppose this stance. We need restrictions on free speech today like we need holes in our heads. Therefore, we should fully oppose all restrictions on free speech - even for fascist scum. Today, a ban-happy government will restrict the political rights of reactionaries; tomorrow, such a government will do the same for revolutionaries. Like the old saying goes: if we tolerate this, we will be next.

redstar2000

4th January 2006, 22:49

Originally posted by LSD
...but even you must admit that historical materialism is in my favour. History shows us that societies have been progressively moving closer and closer to a recognition of true free speech.

No...I don't see why I have to "admit that" at all. Nor do I think recent history actually justifies your assertion.

The range of acceptable public discourse in the "west" has broadened somewhat over the last two centuries or so.

But not by all that much...there are still quite a few things that one mentions in public only at one's peril.

Imagine what would happen to a public official who openly attacked religion, for example.

She'd lose her job!

In fact, a vigorous and straight-forward attack on superstition -- the kind that both of us have posted on this board many times -- would not even be permitted in the "mainstream" media.

It's only because this is a small internet message board that's "below the radar" -- in other words, effectively outside of the arena of public discourse -- that we are "permitted" (for the time being) to speak freely.

I once attempted to post a similar anti-religion message at a site operated by a mainstream dummyvision affiliate...it was deleted within an hour.

There is always going to be speech that people simply will not tolerate...and the only real question is what is going to be the content of that "intolerable" speech.

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

LSD

5th January 2006, 01:47

The range of acceptable public discourse in the "west" has broadened somewhat over the last two centuries or so.

Longer than that. It's been "broadening" pretty progressively since the rennaissance.

A millenium ago atheists were executed, today they write books and host talk shows. I'd certainly call that an improvement!

Imagine what would happen to a public official who openly attacked religion, for example.

She'd lose her job!

And 200 years ago she would have been run out of her town.

200 years before that, she would have probably been burned.

In fact, a vigorous and straight-forward attack on superstition -- the kind that both of us have posted on this board many times -- would not even be permitted in the "mainstream" media.

You're absolutely right. After all, this is not a free society.

But it is a far freer society than one that we would have found at nearly any other point in history.

You are correct in that this board is allowed to operate solely because it is "below the radar", but that is still an improvement over not too distant history. After all, 400 years ago, we would all be killed.

As it stands, atheist web-sites are everywhere and show no indication of "going anywhere".

We have a long way to go, of course, but the direction that we're heading in is fairly certain.

As you yourself have pointed out many times, the nature of capitalism is such that it has no patience for anything getting in the way of profit.

Revolution or no revolution, capitalism itself will kill religion sooner or later.

By the same token, the advancement of capitalism nescessitates a broadening of the "public discourse" into any area that can concievably bring profit to the purveyer.

Now this will, of course, not include ideas that are contrary to the foundations of the system itself, but it will still allow many ideas into the "mainstream" that presently cannot find a place there.

In less than a century, for instance, your hypothetical "public servant" would have no fear of losing her job for critisizing religion.

I think the idea that a proletarian society would "turn back the clock" is ludicrous. Any such society could not help but to realize that human ability to determing what is and what is no "acceptable" is so restrictive and memetic that it can only hinder social progress.

It will mean having to stomach a lot of filth ...but we can take it.

There is always going to be speech that people simply will not tolerate

I have seen absolutely no evidence for this assertion ...despite the many times you have repeated it.

The fact that historically the rulling class has defined "acceptable discourse" is to be expected considering that historically the rulling class has defined everything.

But Communism is not about the substitution of class, it's about the abolition of class. Transfering arbitrary powers to a different group of people does not solve the problem, it merely redirects it.

The power to "define discourse" is itself an oppressive and corrosive power which has no place in a free society.

I will not deny that there will always be speech that pisses people off, but how they respond is in no way "predetermined".

Just like greed is not "human nature", neither is censorship. Human beings are more than capable of emphatically disagreeing without resorting to suppression. Indeed, we do it every day.

CCCPneubauten

5th January 2006, 03:02

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

-Noam Chomsky

Why the hell would you censor? Who would be there to do it under communism? Don't force your morals down some one elses throat...

Ownthink

5th January 2006, 03:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:13 PM
“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

-Noam Chomsky

Why the hell would you censor? Who would be there to do it under communism? Don't force your morals down some one elses throat...
Fascists don't belong in a Communist society.

And they don't deserve free speech. It would be a contradiction.

Vanguard1917

5th January 2006, 03:54

Fascists don't belong in a Communist society.

And they don't deserve free speech. It would be a contradiction.

Fascism would not exist as a social force in commnunist society. If fascism exists as a social force in any society, then that society is not communist.

In this society, i defend the right of fascists to have free speech... as i pointed out in my post above.

bky1701

5th January 2006, 04:22

If you fear Fascism enough to sacrifice freedom, then you don't have much faith in communism.

You cannot force people to support you, and vice-versa.

Fascism should “die off”, as it cannot be killed, and attempting to do so only makes you more like them.

Whenever a Fascist opens his mouth, it is only to insert his foot.

Fascism will destroy itself in a true socialist government.

Are these also “old arguments”?

CCCPneubauten

5th January 2006, 04:50

I agree, censor fascism and it goes underground and breeds.

How the hell do you expect to get rid of them? There are a TON of them...more than us it seems.

bky1701

5th January 2006, 05:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:01 AM
How the hell do you expect to get rid of them? There are a TON of them...more than us it seems.
When Communism secedes, people will have no reason to support fascism, the flew who do will eventually die, taking fascism with them.

But Communism can not be created if we do not accept others and what they think. This is the reason Marxism has failed in the past. You can't hide that people don't agree with you, you can not silence them and you can not kill them. The only thing you can do is show people that there is no need for them. If you try to get rid of them, you will never secede, and you will fail to accomplish anything.

That is the only way.

redstar2000

5th January 2006, 06:01

Originally posted by bky1701
Are these also “old arguments”?

Very old. *yawns*

But Communism can not be created if we do not accept others and what they think.

That is just bourgeois liberal "tolerance" wrapped in a red flag.

Real communists are not tolerant of reaction.

I do not necessarily "accept others and what they think" and I don't even want a "communism" which would do that.

Hell, why not "accept" islands of capitalism? Islands of racism, sexism, Nazism, religion? There are people who "think like that", right?

LSD thinks that people in a communist society will permit a portion of their resources to be used for the propagation of reactionary ideas.

As I noted earlier, I don't think that's going to happen.

This is the reason Marxism has failed in the past.

What "failed" was not "Marxism", it was Leninism. And there were many material and ideological reasons for its failures; intolerance of reaction was not one of them.

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

bky1701

5th January 2006, 09:42

That is just bourgeois liberal "tolerance" wrapped in a red flag.

I wonder what that makes being pro-Censorship... at least one thing comes to mind.

Real communists are not tolerant of reaction.

Where did Marx say this? Or more so, since you don't need to "fallow" Marx, per say, who has yet proven to be a "real communist"? Who died and made you the one that says what "real communists" are tolerant of?

I do not necessarily "accept others and what they think" and I don't even want a "communism" which would do that.

That's the same single-mindedness that has lead to failure in the past. When will people learn to not repeat past mistakes?

Hell, why not "accept" islands of capitalism? Islands of racism, sexism, Nazism, religion? There are people who "think like that", right?

Like I said before, in a real socialist/communist government, no one would support such "islands of capitalism". So, it would be fine to accept it, as they would be very small and die out quickly.

What "failed" was not "Marxism", it was Leninism. And there were many material and ideological reasons for its failures; intolerance of reaction was not one of them.

This maybe true in the cases of China, Korea and Cuba, but the Soviet Union STARTED as socialist. Not true, perfect socialists, mind you, but they started that way and over time became "Leninist" and, in time, "Stalinist". Single mindedness is without a doubt part of this fall-back into capitalism.

redstar2000

5th January 2006, 17:18

Bky1701, you seem to have a real problem with "single-mindedness"...and I don't think that there's anything I can say to help you with that.

To be "single-minded" in my opinion means to concentrate fully on the real goal of our efforts...and not to allow ourselves to be distracted by secondary considerations.

You seem to think of "single-mindedness" as a "fault" to be overcome by "acceptance" of "other views".

In my opinion, your approach will simply lead you into endless confusion.

But who am I to dispute your "right to be confused"?

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

LuÃs Henrique

5th January 2006, 17:34

What do you guys understand by the word "censorship"? Are you even talking about the same thing? Have you ever experienced censorship?

Luís Henrique

painted for war

5th January 2006, 19:13

i'm still not sure of what my stand point is..
am i against censorship of books, photos, messages, etc? sure.
am i against censorship of the human body? sure.
am i against censorship of the human body in all of the above when children can see it aswell? i'm sure they'd find another way to see this stuff anyway.

but where does the line get drawn when we say "hey you know, kids shouldn't see that"?

CCCPneubauten

5th January 2006, 19:43

The people who seem to censor are the Christian Right, Nazis, and Stalinists...not a group I want to be in.

redstar2000

5th January 2006, 19:43

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 5 2006, 12:45 PM
What do you guys understand by the word "censorship"? Are you even talking about the same thing? Have you ever experienced censorship?

We all live under censorship.

That's the "price" of living in a human society.

LSD thinks that communism won't charge that "price"...but, obviously, I disagree.

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

Shredder

5th January 2006, 21:04

The question of censorship, like all political discussions, becomes clear only when phrased in terms of the class struggle.

Communists are strictly against bourgeois censorship, cesorship which defends bourgeois society.

Contrary, communists are strictly for proletarian censorship, the censorship which defends the class interests of the working class.

We have no interest in abstract ideals such as "freedom of speech." These are only class interests abstracted out from the class struggle and turned around to be presented as an alien force outside and above the class struggle. It is pure trickery.

LSD

5th January 2006, 21:22

LSD thinks that communism won't charge that "price"

I do? :o

Actually, in looking at this thread, the only one consistantly arguing that that "price" is immutable is you.

We have no interest in abstract ideals such as "freedom of speech."

Not as an abstract, no. But we do have an interst in creating the best post-revolutionary society we can.

That means making rational utilitarian choices as to what maximizes bennefit for the maximum number of people in maximum areas.

We shouldn't allow freedom of speech because it "feels good" or "because it's right", but rather because it can be objectively demonstrated to in the material interests of society.

Allowing the free expression of ideas increases exposure to ideas, allows more diverse discussion, encourages free dialogue, and promotes self-determination.

The fact that it also means having to ignore "filth" is "uncomfortable", but not a sufficient justification for censorship.

As I have pointed out to Redstar several times, censorship is not only undesirable in a communist society, it is practically unachievable without sacrificing basic tenants on which such a society is founded.

These are only class interests abstracted out from the class struggle and turned around to be presented as an alien force outside and above the class struggle. It is pure trickery.

A communist society is by definition, "classless". That means that such a society is "alien" from class struggle.

The only question relevent here is whether or not "censorship" would be benneficial to a post-revolutionary society.

It's historical social, political, and economic role is wholly irrelevent.

A communist revolution has been described as a the "greatest change in human history". An argumentum ad antiquitatem certainly has no place there!

CCCPneubauten

5th January 2006, 21:36

This is sick...almost makes me just want to ditch the Left and be apolitical...all this talk of banning free speech....*pukes*

Shredder

5th January 2006, 21:49

Allowing fascists to propagate does not encourage free dialogue, but fetters the dialogue on an eternal discussion about fascism as a viable and legitimate form of society. To say it's okay to have fascist opinions is to say fascism is okay. The proletariat has no interest in fascist rights. The very purpose of proletarian revolution is to seek and destroy all elements of the old way, not to allow them to live in harmony with the new one.

Your outlook seems to stem from the sappy anarchist idea of magical revolution overnight. To you, all capitalist and fascist hearts will suddenly melt and they will see the error of their ways in the instant of the revolution. I can agree that under this fantasy there would be no need for censorship or any other ugly things, since you are talking about eden with no serpent.

LSD

5th January 2006, 22:43

Allowing fascists to propagate does not encourage free dialogue, but fetters the dialogue on an eternal discussion about fascism as a viable and legitimate form of society.

Right...

Just like how allowing the KKK free speech right now would mean an "eternal discussion" about slavery. :rolleyes:

Politics are defined by the material conditions they exist within. There will be no "eternal discussion" on capitalism, because it will be apparent to nearly all that it is a bankrupt and dead system.

Those few who cannot accept this will be marginalized, pitties, and laughed at. But they will still be allowed to publish!

If they want to, they can stand at a corner screaming to all who pass about the "evils of communism". It may not be a "clean" solution, but it's a free one.

To say it's okay to have fascist opinions is to say fascism is okay.

No it most certainly is not!

Tolerating fascist opinions means tolerating fascist opinions, nothing more.

Your outlook seems to stem from the sappy anarchist idea of magical revolution overnight.

Absolutely not.

I am not denying that a revolution is a long and difficult process, only secondary to the longer and more difficult procress of crafting post-revolutionary society.

But the question still remain, what kind of society are we attempting to create?

Is it one in which "acceptable discourse" is arbitrarily defined? In which we grant a minority the power to determine what the rest of us can read or hear?

Is it one in which my ability to express my thoughts is subject to my neighbour's neighbour's "approval"?

I am not saying that we can forge a free society "overnight". But our aim must be to create a free society. Not a "transitional" "socialism" and not a society built on censorship and suppression!

To you, all capitalist and fascist hearts will suddenly melt and they will see the error of their ways in the instant of the revolution.

Not at all.

They will scream and they will yell and they will argue ...but that is all that they will do.

Preventing them from expressing themselves will not make them "disappear", it will just drive them undergound, forcing them to seek alternate means to get their point accross and making them appear to be "oppressed minorites".

Allowing them to speak, however, allows an open dialogue and permits the rebuttal of their position in an intellectually honest debate that will be credible to all, as opposed to obviously manipulative the "one-sided debate" that Redstar has proposed.

And what, exactly, is your fear here?

I mean aside from emotionalist hatred for fascism, what is it that you rationaly forsee as a potential danger from "free speech"?

That suddently people will "believe" reactionaries? :lol:

That a people that just overthrew capitalism and government will reverse their gains because someone tells them to?

Again, this is more of the Leninist distrust of the proletariart. This nonsensical belief that they must be "ruled for their own good" because they're not "mature enough" or "smart enough" to look after themselves.

Sorry, but that's not what communism is about.

If you trust the workers to run their own factories and determine their own society, you must also trust them to be able to read filth and recognize it as such.

That is the essence of "self government"!

LSD

5th January 2006, 22:51

This is sick...almost makes me just want to ditch the Left and be apolitical...all this talk of banning free speech....*pukes*

Don't be discouraged.

Most of this "censorship" talk is coming from the so-called "old left"; the Leninist and Maoist idealgoues who have been so thoroughly discredited.

Workers growing up today -- those who will actually build a proletarian society -- recognize the importance of freedom and will pay no mind to the apocalyptic musings of long-outdated philosphizers.

As the expression goes, "progress happens one funeral at a time". :)

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th January 2006, 23:07

Most of this "censorship" talk is coming from the so-called "old left"; the Leninist and Maoist idealgoues who have been so thoroughly discredited.

Yeah, as opposed to the 'New Left' which has become so credible through its long string of victories! :lol:

Workers growing up today -- those who will actually build a proletarian society -- recognize the importance of freedom and will pay no mind to the apocalyptic musings of long-outdated philosphizers.

Any workers who realize a revolution will not due so out of some concern for "freedom" in the abstract sense, or anything else from "the narrow realm of bourgeois right".

The liberal view of a mythical "freedom of speech" detatched from the class struggle is the only disgusting thing I see in this thread.

LSD

5th January 2006, 23:16

Yeah, as opposed to the 'New Left' which has become so credible through its long string of victories!

Which is obviously damning seeing as how the USSR, PRC, and DPRK are such glowing successes. :rolleyes:

Any workers who realize a revolution will not due so out of some concern for "freedom" in the abstract sense

Not exclusively no.

They will rise up because they are tired of being exploited and oppressed and want to see an end to the social institutions that keep them down.

But that does not mean that they will not simultaneously recognize the importance of freedom in the practical sense.

Again, this is not an "abstract" issue. "Freedom of speech" isn't important because it is "right" or "good", but because it is objectively benneficial for society.

If you wish to present rational reasons why you oppose the tolerance of free expression, please do so, but calling it "bourgeois right" doesn't accomplish anything.

The liberal view of a mythical "freedom of speech" detatched from the class struggle is the only disgusting thing I see in this thread.

Again, when discussing a classless society we are "detatched from the class struggle".

That's what "classless" means: without classes.

Shredder

6th January 2006, 00:15

Anarchist "revolution" is in reality the dogma of rapture with christ removed. As we have seen on this thread, anarchists propose a revolution in which the rights of the bourgeoisie are, instead of being viciously and violently destroyed, actually defended. Everywhere in anarchist thought, one idea prevails: "we will have a revolution in which absolutely no revolutionary action is taken, because all such actions are immoral." Well, fuck that. I would love to know how you will obtain your "classless society, detatched from class struggle" when you advocate the protection of bourgeois rights rather than the elimination of them. You will not have a classless society because on every point you refuse to destroy the old class.

You yourself compare the bourgeois free speech of the KKK to the bourgeois free speech in a post revolutionary society. I wonder how you imagine that the bourgeoisie will disappear to create a society "detatched from the class struggle" when, as your own example the KKK shows, reaction will never die out on its own.

There is nothing "objectively beneficial" to the proletariat when it comes to letting the bourgeoisie run rampant and do whatever they want because they have some inalienable right to do so. I suppose the KKK today is "objectively beneficial" to society. The only "objectively beneficial" stance for the proletariat is to oppose bourgeois free speech for the same reasons we oppose bourgeois property rights.

LSD

6th January 2006, 00:54

Well, fuck that. I would love to know how you will obtain your "classless society, detatched from class struggle" when you advocate the protection of bourgeois rights rather than the elimination of them.

"Bourgeois rights" is a rather nebulous term.

Do you mean rights for the bourgeois or rights that are bourgeois.

If you mean the former, then I am indeed contending that a communist society would extend equal protection and rights to all members therein so long as they respected the rights of others.

Again, a communist society is by definition classless. Therefore any class allegiance is not defined by relationship with production, as such no longer exist, but rather by prior relationship.

This means that a former member of the bourgeoisie is indeed capable of participating in a communist society as a full participant. After all, there are far too many non-proletarians to "kill them all". Rather most will realize that the restoration of capitalism is not realistic and will accept that life is "good enough" for them as it is.

That's if you meant rights for the "bourgeoisie".

If, on the other hand, you were referring to a subset of rights that are inherently "bourgeois", I, again, would ask you to define this group.

For a Marxist, you are addressing the question of rights from a decidely idealist perspective. Rights do not have "allegiances" or "class", they are intellectual concepts.

Their realization can have class implications, but the determination of what rights are valid and what are not can be objectively determined from impartial rational analysis.

The protection of speech is such a right.

Regardless of its "association" with bourgeois thinking, it can be demonstrated to be in the material interest of a free society and therefore should be pursued.

"Class spite" notwithstanding, emotionalism doesn't help us achieve our goals.

You yourself compare the bourgeois free speech of the KKK to the bourgeois free speech in a post revolutionary society.

I think its an apt example of the "cost" of free speech: having to deal with utter and complete "filth".

I think it also, however, illustrates that the presence of the KKK and its ability to, for the most part, "get its views across" does not mean that it is actually accomplishing its purpose.

The fact that the internet "allows" a KKK website does not make the internet racist, nor does it make the KKK anymore important as an organization.

Again free speech does not mean support, it means debate.

Something we should not be afraid of!

I wonder how you imagine that the bourgeoisie will disappear to create a society "detatched from the class struggle" when, as your own example the KKK shows, reaction will never die out on its own.

Except, it is dying.

Experts in this field consider the KKK to be practically extinct as an orgnization.

A group that once boasted more than two million official members, with governors and senators in its pocket ...is now reduced to less than a couple thousand disconnected hicks.

It doesn't take suppression to destroy bad ideas, it just takes better ones.

There is nothing "objectively beneficial" to the proletariat when it comes to letting the bourgeoisie run rampant and do whatever they want

"Do whatever they want"? Who said anything about "doing whatever they want"?

There is a vast difference between being able to set up a website and "doing whatever one wants". Believe me, most of the things that a reactionary group would "want" to do in post-revolutionary society would be forbidden.

Leading a counterrevolution and re-establishing wage-slavery come to mind.

But allowing them the freedom to present their arguments is one liberty that we can afford to allow them, and you have still not given a single argument to the contrary.

because they have some inalienable right to do so.

Again, this is not about "abstracts".

The institutionalization of "censorship" grants far too much power to the elite placed in charge of running it. Furthermore, it artificially limits the range of discussion and discourages the presentation of radical ideas.

The so-called "chilling effect" is a very real risk.

This does not, of course, in and of itself, mean that it suppression is "bad". Such a cost could be worth paying, if the bennefit could be demonstrated to be sufficiently worthy.

However, so far you have failed to name even a single bennefit!

So I ask, again, what, specifically, is the bennefit of censorship in a communist society?

The only "objectively beneficial" stance for the proletariat is to oppose bourgeois free speech for the same reasons we oppose bourgeois property rights.

And who will define which ideas are "bourgeois" and which are not?

Who will decide which website consitutes "counterevolutionary thinking" and which constitutes valid critisism?

How about jokes? Should jokes poking fun of post-revolutionary society be tolerated? After all, they could be "hidden reaction"! :o

Look, the reason that we oppose "bourgeois property rights" is because such "rights" are inherently oppressive.

The right to speak freely is, by contrast, an intrinsically negative right. Unlike property, it does not compell participation.

You are absolutely free to ignore any item that is said, printed, or published; something that cannot be said about property.

The class struggle is important, indeed it is essential, but it is not the "end of the line". Post-revolutionary society is also post-class society, and we need to be prepared to consider such a society without being trapped in anachronistic concerns.

It genuinely doesn't matter whether a "right" is presently espoused by the bourgeoisie; in a post-revolutioanry society, there will be no bourgeoisie.

The only scale we have is the scale of logic and practicality. If the protection of a "right" will bennefit society, then it should be protected; if it will not, then it should not.

It's really that simple.

bky1701

6th January 2006, 02:05

Originally posted by [email protected]n 5 2006, 09:47 PM
This is sick...almost makes me just want to ditch the Left and be apolitical...all this talk of banning free speech....*pukes*
This "Left" is not the true "Left", just keep that in mind.

On the original topic, when in history has censorship and general oppression led to non-existence of the centered and oppressed? Never. If anything, it brings attention and support to them. The only way political parties have EVER died off is via being out-dated and disproved. What makes you think communist oppression will be any more successful?

Take the US for example. When Communism was outlawed, it seen a massive increase in supporters. When the Soviet Union oppressed the capitalists they only came back more powerful.

This does not even mention that you maybe oppressing people who have nothing against you in the first place, or at least no intent to fight you; oppressed people tend to be a lot more hostile and angry at those oppressing them (take the jews in Geramny as an example. They would have not had any reason to right the government had they not been oppressed).

Oppression gives people a rock-solid reason to fight, and thus they gain them support, where someone with only “we don't like this!” as a compliant will get much less support.

Censorship only hides that people don't agree with you, it does NOT eliminate them.

redstar2000

6th January 2006, 02:42

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)...the determination of what rights are valid and what are not can be objectively determined from impartial rational analysis.[/b]

An excellent illustration of our differences.

In my view, abstract "rights" simply have no existence at all...except perhaps in some philosopher's head.

To me, "rights" can only exist "down here on earth" between actual living people according to real material conditions and specific historical circumstances.

It may be "philosophically interesting" to talk about "rights" in abstract terms, but I see nothing useful to be gained from such a discussion.

I have no doubt whatsoever that communist society will erect a structure of "absolute rights"...but I expect those rights to be very different from the "absolute rights" that exist (or are claimed to exist) now.

So I ask, again, what, specifically, is the benefit of censorship in a communist society?

If people decide that certain reactionary ideas constitute an obstacle to the progress of communist society, then it makes sense to suppress the public expression of those ideas.

If they decide that racism is such an idea, then they will act to suppress racist ideas.

It's what people do.

You may, and no doubt will, argue that reactionary ideas are "not a real obstacle" or "not a significant obstacle".

Fine...you'll either convince others that you're right or you won't.

But realize that when you do that, there will be others who will want to know why you are defending "free speech for reactionaries"? They may even suggest that you yourself are "secretly sympathetic" to reactionary ideas and that's "the real reason" you want them circulated.

You'll find yourself precisely in the position of someone today who "defends child pornography" in the name of "free speech"...victim of an assumption that "you are a pedophile yourself".

That may be "unfair" and even "irrational"...but don't be surprised if you hear it. In a post-revolutionary period, passions "run hot" and "tolerance" for reactionary ideas pretty much vanishes.

Things will calm down a bit after a few decades and you might get a hearing for some kind of "minimal tolerance"...though I would anticipate some pretty vehement opposition to the idea even then.

And that opposition is going to tell you then what I've been trying to tell you now: we don't want to take even the smallest chance of those bastards ever getting back in power!

After a century or two of communism, things will be even different. If anyone living then publicly articulated reactionary ideas, they would likely be regarded as "figures of fun"...like the cranks who argue now that we should restore feudalism.

They'd probably still be deprived of resources to spread their ideas...but it's unlikely that anything else would happen to them except public ridicule.

Again free speech does not mean support, it means debate.

The "debate" takes place in the decades leading up to the revolution.

A proletarian revolution passes from "the arms of criticism" to the "criticism of arms" -- as Marx put it so well.

One side or the other prevails by force.

If we win, we have nothing left to "debate" with reactionaries...the issue has been decided.

Unless, possibly, we make the gross blunder of giving them "a second chance".

I don't want to do that.

CCCPneubauten
This is sick...almost makes me just want to ditch the Left and be apolitical...all this talk of banning free speech....*pukes*

Yes, that might be your best choice. You shouldn't be involved in this stuff unless you understand what it really means.

The overthrow of the capitalist class does not arise from the outcome of a university debating club session.

The bourgeoisie might "respect your free speech" by shooting you down like a dog...it's happened before, you know.

If you're not prepared to respond accordingly, then it would be better for you to "get out of the way". Spend your life doing things that don't threaten the capitalist class in any way...and you'll probably get by ok.

Have a nice life.

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

LSD

6th January 2006, 03:23

To me, "rights" can only exist "down here on earth" between actual living people according to real material conditions and specific historical circumstances.

It's interesting that this "excellent illustration of our differences" consists of you agreeing with exactly what I said.

Originally posted by me
Again, this is not an "abstract" issue. "Freedom of speech" isn't important because it is "right" or "good", but because it is objectively benneficial for society.

If people decide that certain reactionary ideas constitute an obstacle to the progress of communist society, then it makes sense to suppress the public expression of those ideas.

In other words, if people decide that cenorship is nescessary, they will institute censorship.

How helpful.

You may, and no doubt will, argue that reactionary ideas are "not a real obstacle" or "not a significant obstacle".

Of course I will, especially as you have still to present a single piece of evidence to the contrary!

It is not my responsibilty to disprove your proposal, it's yours to prove it.

You are contending that the danger of allowing "reactionaries" the resources to express their ideas is so great that society should engage in an institutional policy of (somehow) selectively censoring opinions that are (somehow) determined to be "unacceptable".

That is a pretty serious idea and one which requires a great deal of corroborating justification.

But realize that when you do that, there will be others who will want to know why you are defending "free speech for reactionaries"? They may even suggest that you yourself are "secretly sympathetic" to reactionary ideas and that's "the real reason" you want them circulated.

Tell me you're not honestly presenting that as an argument! :o

"People" might "get the wrong idea"?

"People" might "talk"?

So what!?

That's the price you pay for promoting progressive ideas. If you're not willing to put up with "misunderstandings" and "gossip", there's no point in trying.

And that opposition is going to tell you then what I've been trying to tell you now: we don't want to take even the smallest chance of those bastards ever getting back in power!

And allowing them to speak won't get them there.

It won't even lead to the possibility of them getting there.

Honestly, would a revolutionary population that had just managed to overcome millenia of oppression surrender their power merely because of a web-site or pamphlet?

Your fear is entirely irrational.

If we win, we have nothing left to "debate" with reactionaries...the issue has been decided.

:lol:

It doesn't matter whether you "want" to or not, the debate is still going to happen.

It won't be a question of restoration of capitalism, such ideas would likely gather so little support that they could hardly be considered a "threat"; but rather of new solutions to new problems.

If a radical idea is presented to reform an area of production that strikes, say, the paper manufacturers as threatening or "dangerous", might they not refuse to print it, citing "protective censorship"?

It need not even be an issue of dishonesty. They could genuinely believe that such a radical suggestion was "reactionary" or "secretly regressive".

When we had this discussion on previous occassions, you indicated that such abuses would not occur because people are generally "smart" and "resonsible".

What you seem to be failing to realize is that your proposal is fundamentally rested upon the assertion that people are neither of these things. That people are so gullible and naive that they will ignore any gains of the revolution and throw themselves back into the hands of reactionaries.

A society cannot protect itself from ideas. Democratic censorship is inherently contradictory. If people have to read something to determine whether it is "reactionary", they have to read it.

Which kind of defeats the whole censorship idea.

Ultimately, there are only two possible justifications for communist censorship and both of them fail.

Firstly, that it's an issue of "safety" and that the words of reactionaries are so dangerous that society must be protected from them at all costs; and secondly that it's simply a matter of saving resources.

The problem with the first one is, as I've already outlined, that such protection cannot come from a majoritarian or democratic system. A person cannot be his own censor and therefore participatory decision making is impossible on this question.

That inherently nescessitates an elite of some sort, whether it is acknowledged as such or not and whether it is functionaly institutional or not, to make these decisions.

Whether it is a "government agency" or just the workers running the power station; if there's a minority determining "acceptability", the society is not free.

Insofar as the second possiblity, saving resources, it is equally ludicrous. A communist society is not about "efficiency", it's about liberty.

Many activies in a communist society would not be objectively "efficient", rather they would serve to maximize the bennefit of their actor. Making a guitar or a bottle rocket does not provide clear social bennefit, but both of these acts consume fart more energy than putting up a website on an already running server.

The fact is that in the end, the only reason for pushing for censorship is emotional. You hate fascists, you hate capitalists, and you hate the idea of their ideas being spread.

I can certainly understand this.

But communism is not about making everyone "happy", it's about making everyone free. And there is simply no way that such a society can incorporate suppression.

It'll mean a little more grinding of the teeth, but it will also mean a much more stable and functional society.

bky1701

6th January 2006, 03:34

If you're not prepared to respond accordingly, then it would be better for you to "get out of the way". Spend your life doing things that don't threaten the capitalist class in any way...and you'll probably get by ok.

Have a nice life.

Well that's nice. You DO know there are more NAZIS then us, right? And they even "lost" so to speak, we have not.

So why do you fell complied to tell people to "get out of our way" over something like this? Who's way are they getting out of? Yours? And who's army?

Acting like that will NEVER bring a revolution of any type.

redstar2000

6th January 2006, 04:05

Originally posted by bky1701
So why do you feel compelled to tell people to "get out of our way" over something like this?

Actually, I told that fellow to "get out of the way"...by which I simply meant that his naive commitment to "free speech" will simply make him increasingly unhappy with the emergence of a revolutionary left.

Even on this board, over the last three years, the tolerance for reactionary ideas has declined...and I expect that trend to accelerate.

There's already an idea "floating around" that reformists should be restricted to Opposing Ideologies. It's not going to happen "soon"...but I think it will happen -- maybe by 2008 or so. And by 2012, reformists might just be summarily banned.

The way fascists are now.

Things happen "faster" in the "virtual world" than they do in "real life". In a "charged" atmosphere like a left message board, political debate is heated and very critical...and people who are so inclined move "leftwards" at a fairly rapid pace.

That happens in the "real world" too...just more slowly except during periods where revolution looks like it might be a realistic possibility. Then the move leftwards is very sharp and very fast -- and tolerance of reactionary ideas of any kind "drops like a rock"...on a Nazi's head! :lol:

People who are unhappy about this trend are unhappy about history itself...and it's probably better for them if they just withdraw from public life altogether.

Certainly better that then if they become public reactionaries themselves, right? :o

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

CCCPneubauten

6th January 2006, 04:19

I just have pictures of the Nazi book burnings...all because they didn't go with their views...why censor some one? Why not just take them on in a debate and kill their argument?

Like I said...why be in the same boat as the Right and deny free speech? Just because they did it to us doesn't me we have to stoop to their level.

I suppose you can call me what ever, but I say freedom at all costs. :hammer:

I will not support throwing writers or any one in jail just because of what they think, not every one is a mindless drone and follows the same way of thought.

bky1701

6th January 2006, 07:49

There's already an idea "floating around" that reformists should be restricted to Opposing Ideologies. It's not going to happen "soon"...but I think it will happen -- maybe by 2008 or so. And by 2012, reformists might just be summarily banned.

Kicking them out does not change that they are what they are. All you are doing is yelling "to hell with them!!!!11!1!11!", you are not doing ANYTHING to help the left, a revolution or socialism.

Have fun being a Neo-Con in a red army uniform while you can.

Shredder

6th January 2006, 09:08

For a Marxist, you are addressing the question of rights from a decidely idealist perspective. Rights do not have "allegiances" or "class", they are intellectual concepts.

My outlook is far less stained with idealism than yours. Marxism's primary concern with idealism vs materialism is to explain that "intellectual concepts" are merely instruments of material forces in history.

What you ultimately want from me is one benefit of supressing counterrevolutionary ideas. I assumed that this question is so obvious that it answers itself.

The capitalist class does not, as you say, simply roll over and admit that their system is antiquated, making way for communism. They go down fighting tooth and claw. As capitalism became an unsustainable system in post-WWI Germany, the capitalists did not simply roll over and wait for the communists to have their way. They took every measure necessary to remain in power, right down to economic centralization and planning run for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. Nor did the capitalists simply abandon their small empires when they were lost to the USSR, instead the elements of reaction propagandized with all their might, which in reality was the original inspiration for the Berlin wall, to keep the troublemakers out.

Once you have taken power, the bourgeoisie will be far from letting you have it. The bourgeoisie do not roll over and give on capitalism no matter how thoroughly capitalism has proved itself a failure--because they don't care. They will take every possible measure to get power back, and it will proceed first and foremost by their propaganda. They will try to once again take abstractions and ideals and wield them as weapons against the proletariat, invoking religion, patriotism, legality, sentiment, et al. This will continue probably for several generations when the capitalists and their propaganda have been thoroughly and consistently oppressed so that the terms of social discourse have made a revival impossible, just as slavery is now regarded as such an unnatural and reprehensible sin by people whose great great grandfathers shrugged it off as an eternal law of nature.

By supressing these things, the benefit to the proletariat is that they will be rid of them, and without being rid of them the revolution will be destroyed by reaction.

If this makes me a dirty Leninist who doesn't put his faith in the goodness and capability of the people, then so be it. I don't put faith in anything anyway. The reality is that the same types of propaganda that keeps the masses hypnotized now will come roaring back if it is allowed to. While Marxists stress the material rather than idealist causes in history, we also understand intimately that ideas become detatched from their material origin and take on a life of their own. Ideas last long after the material conditions that bore them. After generations, slavery is indeed finally regarded as an incomprehensible evil because it is no longer compatible with the mode of production in today's society, yet at the same time the racist ideas that were invented to accompany the racist slave system survive. Sure, someone advocating the reinstitution of slavery is dismissed as a quack, but this does not deny the real and widespread effects of racism. This is analogous to what you have to lose by blindly pursuing the ideal of free speech for all, rather than the class interest of the proletariat, i.e., the systematic oppression of the bourgeoisie.

Finally, it has been claimed that censorship doesn't eliminate the message, it just forces it into a hidden venue. But this is incredibly wrong. If it is hidden from the censor, then it is hidden from a large portion of its target audience and the censorship is successful. Indeed, if censorship does nothing to inhibit the censored message, one wonders why censorship is ever complained about!

LSD

6th January 2006, 09:26

The capitalist class does not, as you say, simply roll over and admit that their system is antiquated, making way for communism. They go down fighting tooth and claw.

Yes indeed.

That's called a revolution.

We're talking about after that part.

The bourgeoisie do not roll over and give on capitalism no matter how thoroughly capitalism has proved itself a failure--because they don't care. They will take every possible measure to get power back, and it will proceed first and foremost by their propaganda. They will try to once again take abstractions and ideals and wield them as weapons against the proletariat, invoking religion, patriotism, legality, sentiment, et al.

Yes they will. But without the ability to control the discussion, the fallacy of their ideas will be apparent to all.

The presence of a concept does not make it convincing, especially not to a post-revolutionary self-governing classless stateless society.

The reason that the bourgeoisie is able to so effectively use propaganda today is that it dominates the field. It controlls all media, all publications, and is able to manipulate circumstances to match whatever "line" seems to be working.

An active awakened proletariat that has actually managed to throw off the shackles of capitalism will not be easily swayed by such empty rhetoric devoid of its trappings of power.

Remember, free speech means free speech for all.

This is not a blank cheque for reactionaries to spew their garbage unopposed. Rather, for every even remotely convincing piece defending capitalism, a hundred pieces will be published refuting it.

It will be a real debate.

Do you honestly doubt who will win?

By supressing these things, the benefit to the proletariat is that they will be rid of them

That's a circular argument.

and without being rid of them the revolution will be destroyed by reaction.

If post-revolutionary society were really that weak, it would be destoryed long before censorship became nescessary.

This isn't about "faith", it's about pragmatism. If a population is not sufficiently savy to read obvious propaganda without falling victim to its lies, it is no save enough to run its own society.

Neither, of course, would it have been savy enough to establish such a society.

Again, you need to realize that the workers of a post-revolutionary society are not the workers of today. They are rather these workers awakened, aware of their material conditions, and actively taking control.

The reality is that the same types of propaganda that keeps the masses hypnotized now will come roaring back if it is allowed to.

Yes it will, but it will no longer prove effective in "hypnotizing" anyone.

If a people is able to overcome and defeat the reality of capitalism, they are certainly capable of withstanding the ideas of capitalism.

Otherwise, what's the point?

Finally, it has been claimed that censorship doesn't eliminate the message, it just forces it into a hidden venue. But this is incredibly wrong. If it is hidden from the censor, then it is hidden from a large portion of its target audience and the censorship is successful.

But who will be the "censor" in this case?

In a classless, stateless society, who will have the illustrious job of determining "acceptablity"?

As you yourself admit, censorship is only effective if it hides the message from a "large proportion of its target audience".

Well, if censorhip is democratically decided then by definition that "target audience" must read the material to determine if it should be censored!

I trust you recognize the problem here! :lol:

My outlook is far less stained with idealism than yours. Marxism's primary concern with idealism vs materialism is to explain that "intellectual concepts" are merely instruments of material forces in history.

Concepts are not "instruments" of material forces, they are the result of material forces.

And my original point still stands; concepts hold no "class allegience".

The value of a concept is defined by its usefullness and logic, nothing more. If a "right" proves to be in society's interest then it is benneficial by definition; otherwise it is not.

"Bourgeois rights" is a meaningless term.

bky1701

6th January 2006, 09:49

Once you have taken power, the bourgeoisie will be far from letting you have it. The bourgeoisie do not roll over and give on capitalism no matter how thoroughly capitalism has proved itself a failure--because they don't care. They will take every possible measure to get power back, and it will proceed first and foremost by their propaganda. They will try to once again take abstractions and ideals and wield them as weapons against the proletariat, invoking religion, patriotism, legality, sentiment, et al. This will continue probably for several generations when the capitalists and their propaganda have been thoroughly and consistently oppressed so that the terms of social discourse have made a revival impossible, just as slavery is now regarded as such an unnatural and reprehensible sin by people whose great great grandfathers shrugged it off as an eternal law of nature.

But if you look at history you will see that plan just DOES NOT work. When censored and oppressed, people gain power and a reason to fight. Once you have taken away the capitalist's power, THEY HAVE LOST EVERYTHING, there would be NO REASON to fight them anymore. It would be far more productive to take the same stance the main part of the US has taken on groups like the KKK; let them die on their own. Oppressing them is a waste of power and an unneeded loss of freedom to EVERYONE.

If we eliminate censorship, along with other things, people will see that we REALLY want change for the BETTER. If we simply turn the old weapons on our new enemies, we will only be painting the old capitalist flag red, and eventually fall just like they did.

You can not be better then the capitalists if you use their means to gain power.

LuÃs Henrique

6th January 2006, 13:15

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 5 2006, 07:54 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 5 2006, 07:54 PM)
Luís [email protected] 5 2006, 12:45 PM
What do you guys understand by the word "censorship"? Are you even talking about the same thing? Have you ever experienced censorship?

We all live under censorship.

That's the "price" of living in a human society.

LSD thinks that communism won't charge that "price"...but, obviously, I disagree.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Ah, then, when we talk about censorship, we are talking about two very different things.

When I say "censorship", I mean the previous review of books, papers, films, etc, by a specialised group of people (usually, though not necessarily, a subset of the police), so to avoid the majority of the society reading, viewing, listening, etc, the material under their consideration.

That was what I have personal experience with. It is very different from what you call "censorship".

And it can have no place in a communist society.

Luís Henrique

LSD

6th January 2006, 16:10

Ah, then, when we talk about censorship, we are talking about two very different things.

When I say "censorship", I mean the previous review of books, papers, films, etc, by a specialised group of people (usually, though not necessarily, a subset of the police), so to avoid the majority of the society reading, viewing, listening, etc, the material under their consideration.

No, actually, you and redstar are talking about the same thing.

He is somewhat vague on exactly who will be doing the "previous review", but he definitely proposes a policy of suppressing "reactionary" material "so to avoid the majority of the society reading, viewing, listening, etc, the material".

Clearly, I disagree.

CCCPneubauten

6th January 2006, 17:26

Isn't having a specialized group of people reading/listening/ect things foir the purpose of banning/censoring them....fascism?

You ban the Nazis or KKK, you only prove their point and they go underground and gain even more members...

red_orchestra

6th January 2006, 18:38

I remember a quote from somewhere... "I may not agree with what you say but I will help you to say it" ...if that makes any sense. Censorship has always run from both sides of the political fence. It is a very sticky topic... I'm glad in Canada we have a limited free speech.

Comrade-Z

7th January 2006, 00:01

I would be hesitant to engage in formal institutional censorship (although I suppose I wouldn't rule it out--although the decision would have to be reached by democratic means, for sure, so as to prevent abuse).

Instead, I think a lot of problems will be solved with "informal social censorship." This kind of borrows from some ideas redstar posted on his website. For instance, I think, if a man starts preaching religion out in public, it should be socially acceptable for anyone to run up and punch the guy in the face. Nothing too restrictive, nothing totalitarian, nothing with long-term consequences, just humiliation and a little physical reminder that we are past that crap by now. Call it "participatory censorship." :lol: The same thing would happen to a guy who tries to preach capitalism out in public. If a person tries to promote fascism or Nazism out in public, I think it should be socially acceptable to beat the living crap outta the guy, although I would definitely stop short of killing him. Now, as far as repeat defenders go...

If a person in a media collective wanted to use the collective's resources to run a pro-capitalist news story, I think his/her co-workers would probably set him/her down and "set things straight." If the person persisted, I imagine that the person would be "exiled" from the media collective and its resources.

Also, here's a thing to remember: in all of the censorship in human history up until now, it has always been a minority ruling class trying to censor ideas in order to maintain power over a majority. In stateless communism it will be the other way around. Thus, I imagine that we are hyping up the problem a lot bigger than it actually will be. In any case, the desire to be "socially accepted" with one's peers will dissuade a lot of people from trying to promote reactionary crap. And furthermore, they'd actually have to think that the reactionary ideas were better than communism in the first place, and I think that most anyone who experiences communism and knows what went on before won't want to go back.

LSD

7th January 2006, 01:07

Instead, I think a lot of problems will be solved with "informal social censorship." This kind of borrows from some ideas redstar posted on his website. For instance, I think, if a man starts preaching religion out in public, it should be socially acceptable for anyone to run up and punch the guy in the face.

And what if he advocates specializing production to increase general efficiency?

Should it be "socially acceptable" to punch him then?

Reaction can be obvious, but reaction can also be very subjective. The danger of proletarian censorship is not that the censors will "go crazy" with power and start burning books, although that is always a possibility. Rather it is that they will genuinely believe that they are stiffling reaction ...and be wrong.

We are all ultimately human and our values and ideas are all ultimately the products of our societies and material conditions.

As such memetic creatures, it is very easy to confuse radically progressive for subtley reactionary.

I understand the urge to "stop all reaction", but there is simply no way to do so without greatly harming society in the process. Once cannot even "deal" with the "obvious cases", because once the system is put in place, it will not stay restricted for long.

Once you set the precedent that it is acceptable to assault a person in response to their speech, you pave the way for a great deal of violence.

Get set for a whole lot of "but he really pissed me of" defenses because once you undermine the security of person, it's almost impossible to earn it back.

If a person in a media collective wanted to use the collective's resources to run a pro-capitalist news story, I think his/her co-workers would probably set him/her down and "set things straight."

There is a difference between social censorsip and editorial control.

If a magazine collective does not want to include an article in their magazine, that is not censorship, it's just editorial freedom.

But what if a person starts a web-site? He runs a server from his home, it draws minimal power, and runs on the public network.

Some collective has to power his server, another has to maintain the network connection, probably another has to run the DNS host. If any one of those groups decided that they disagreed with the message on the website, they could effectively take it down.

Now, the question is should they be allowed to?

If the network administrators' collective holds a vote and 51.89% of them determine that his material is reactionary, does that 51.89%, a definitive minority of the total population, have the right to determine what the rest of us can read?

In a population of two million, there would probably only be about 2-5 thousand workers running the network. That means that less than two thousand people would be in a position, at any given time, to determine the content of the internet ...if we grant them that power.

Because the alternative, the only alternative in fact, is to not.

To say that they are workers and they are respected and their job is important but they are obligated by the community to do that job objectively.

That even if they violently hate the content of a website, they still must keep it running.

Remember, I have still not defined what exactly was on the web-site at the beginning of this scenario. That's because it genuinely doesn't matter. All you have to know is that it's something that 51.89% of the network admins disagree with.

Should that really enough for suppression?

Also, here's a thing to remember: in all of the censorship in human history up until now, it has always been a minority ruling class trying to censor ideas in order to maintain power over a majority. In stateless communism it will be the other way around.

But how can that work?

The idea of cenorship is to censor; to prevent the population at large from being exposed to whatever the "harmful" material in question is.

How can a society democratically censor material from itself?

Censorship requires an elite, it cannot exist without one. "Democratic censorship" is a fundamental contradiction, a phrase composed of two warring elements.

Unfortunately, it's usually the "censorship" part and not the "democratic" part that survives.

As I've already outlined, there is a way that censorship could occur in a communist society ...but it certainly wouldn't be democratic.

I think that most anyone who experiences communism and knows what went on before won't want to go back.

Then what's the problem?

If people aren't going to be swayed by reactionary bullshit, what is the fear in exposing them to it?

As I've already outlined several times, censorship in a communist society carries with it a great many practical problems.

Unlike all societies that came before it, communism would be a society predicated on equality instead of its opposite. That is certainly a progressive change, but it also means that communism would not be able to utilize many of the tools that previous societies had to control their more recalcitrant elements.

All socities up until now have had "ranges of acceptable discussion", but that's because all societies up until now have had elites.

If communism is going to be truly democratic then it must be founded in democratic principles. That means no suppression, no cenorship.

And it means trust.

After all, if we are all really so gullible that even after demolishing capitalism and all its pomps, we are still swayed by the desperate propaganda of defeated idealogues, then, truly, communism has no chance of working whatsoever.

But I don't think that's true.

I think that people, especially post-revolutionary active people, are smart enough, savy enough, and wise enough to recognize when they are bennefitting and when they are not, and what works and what does not.

If they can mount a revolution, they can sure as hell read the Economist!

bky1701

7th January 2006, 03:46

There is one indisputable anti-censorship fact that I think has yet to be mentioned completely (it was hinted at, but really stated): If you censer a group of people, the mass of people AND the group will think they you fear that group. It is a very BAD thing to make people think their communist/socialist government fears ANYTHING, even worse to make them think it still fears it's old and defeated enemies.

Comrade-Z

7th January 2006, 04:37

Ah, good arguments, I didn't realize that, if 99% of the population doesn't like an idea, there's no need to censor it in the first place.

Also, I just realized that it may be a good thing to expose people, especially curious kids, to all sorts of ideologies so as to pre-emptively discredit the bad ones by logically explaining their flaws. That way, there's no threat of capitalism becoming some sort of tempting "underground" ideology that rebellious teens secretly latch onto so that they can taste the "forbidden fruit."

So maybe the physical violence idea isn't so great. The idea for the violence partly came from present-day anti-fascist struggles where "spirited" protesting against Nazis seems effective and justified. But I suppose communist society will be radically different and require radically different approaches.

Hmmm...perhaps censorship is a bad idea for communist society after all. Of course, there is a difference between censoring an idea and confronting, criticizing, and discrediting an idea openly. The latter should definitely be done constantly, and it will be, I'm sure. Just because we don't censor an idea doesn't mean we have to be intellectually tolerant of that idea. We should repudiate the reactionary ideas in any way we can.

And also, I agree that censorship could make a society seem "afraid" of the opposing ideologies and could decrease the confidence of those individual citizens in that society. So yeah, I guess censorship is a bad idea.

CCCPneubauten

7th January 2006, 04:40

Comrade Z, that was great...

"Hmmm...perhaps censorship is a bad idea for communist society after all. Of course, there is a difference between censoring an idea and confronting, criticizing, and discrediting an idea openly."

That is exactly what I was saying, erm, thinking.

Vanguard1917

7th January 2006, 06:00

Of course, there is a difference between censoring an idea and confronting, criticizing, and discrediting an idea openly. The latter should definitely be done constantly, and it will be, I'm sure. Just because we don't censor an idea doesn't mean we have to be intellectually tolerant of that idea. We should repudiate the reactionary ideas in any way we can.

Nice point.

It's good you emphasise that free speech does not mean that we should see all ideas as somehow being equally valid. All ideas are not equally valid in their claims to truth. We don't have to be tolerant of other people's 'intellectual differences'. That's just relativist nonsense.

The reason that we defend free speech is precisely so that ideas that we deem to be wrong can be confronted and proved to be wrong. It's not merely because we believe that people should have the right to express wrong ideas; it's that we believe that we should have the right to openly refute wrong ideas.

Lenin's analysis of 'freedom of criticism' in What is to be Done? is worth a read or re-read. His emphasis on the 'theoretical struggle' is particularly important.

redstar2000

7th January 2006, 06:42

Originally posted by Luís Henrique
When I say "censorship", I mean the previous review of books, papers, films, etc, by a specialised group of people (usually, though not necessarily, a subset of the police), so to avoid the majority of the society reading, viewing, listening, etc, the material under their consideration.

That was what I have personal experience with. It is very different from what you call "censorship".

No it isn't.

What do you think an editor does when s/he rejects a manuscript?

S/he decides "ahead of time" that people should not be permitted to read it.

The reasons may be "good" or "bad"...depending on one's own point of view.

But it does happen everywhere.

And we adapt to it. We learn that it's a waste of time and energy to attempt to be heard on certain subjects or to advocate certain views. And it can even be personally dangerous.

Imagine, for example, a highly respected Muslim scholar writing a 500-page book that proves that "terrorism on behalf of Islam" is not only "objectively justified" but directly "commanded by Allah". Should he submit such a work to an academic press, it will not be published. Instead, his manuscript will be forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security. He will, at a minimum, lose his job. And he could well be "disappeared", tortured, and murdered.

So...he doesn't write the book. Or if he does, he seeks a publisher in some Muslim country. And he is careful to remove himself from American jurisdiction before the book appears.

Modern capitalist countries do not have or need a formal "Department of Censorship"...because people are well aware of the potential consequences of publishing ideas that are outside the realm of acceptable public discourse.

Significant dissent is confined to the "nooks and crannies" of the internet...and they'd stop that if they could.

When we consider how communist societies would actually work, why do people imagine that "tolerance" would blossom like spring roses?

Why do they think that communists wouldn't have their own range of acceptable public discourse and their own list of "rotten ideas" that should be utterly wiped out?

Last year, a prominent Muslim cleric in Spain published a book outlining the "appropriate techniques" of wife-beating. This aroused much public controversy, but the book was allowed to circulate in the name of "freedom of speech".

Because wife-beating is within the realm of acceptable public discourse in a patriarchal society.

Do you imagine that a communist society will tolerate that?

Do you think we should??? :o

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

LSD

7th January 2006, 07:52

What do you think an editor does when s/he rejects a manuscript?

S/he decides "ahead of time" that people should not be permitted to read it.

No, s/he decicides that people should not read it in that publication.

That's a very different thing from preventing them from reading it at all.

An editor's freedom to control content does not restrict my ability to put up a web-site or publish a pamphlet outlining my views.

It's not the same, of course. Under capitalism, one needs a great deal of money to have one's views heard by a significant amount of people. Even setting up a website costs money; maintaining it costs more; and serious publishing far more than that.

That is why, of course, the "ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas", even in an environment of ostensible "free speech".

But how is what you're proposing significantly different?

Sure, you're removing the bourgeoisie, but you're merely replacing that tyranny of the minority with a new one. Instead of the factory owner deciding what is "profitable", you would have the factory workers deciding what is "appropriate".

Neither case is desirable.

This "range of acceptable public discourse" that you keep bringing up, it does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as a byproduct of institutionalized oppression and can only exist in a societal structure in which the majority are subject to the minority.

Such a "range" cannot be coerced in a truly democratic society. It is not only philisophically incompatible, it is actually practically impossible.

Censorship and suppression are tools of elite control only; they have no place in free society.

And we adapt to it. We learn that it's a waste of time and energy to attempt to be heard on certain subjects or to advocate certain views.

Yes, there are many unfortunate things that we are forced to "adapt to" in capitalist society.

But such "adaptations" have no place in revolutionary politics.

Revolutionaries don't want to "adapt" to capitalism, we want to overthrow capitalism ...and all the crap that goes with it.

Why do they think that communists wouldn't have their own range of acceptable public discourse and their own list of "rotten ideas" that should be utterly wiped out?

Because such a "range" is impossible to maintain without the institutions of elite oppression nescessary to sustain it.

Again, "democratic censorship" is not possible. This is not a "moral" critisism, it's a practical one.

There is simply no way that a society can hide "dangerous" speech from itself.

Now, this is not to say that there won't be a list of "rotten ideas" that most people want to see "wiped out". But that's not the issue here. The question, rather, is how will society attempt to "wipe out" these ideas.

You think it's through suppression and censorship.

I think it's through debate and logic.

I guess we'll see.

Do you imagine that a communist society will tolerate that [a book promoting wife-beating]?

Yes.

I doubt that it or its author would be particularly popular, but I absolutely believe that it will be "allowed" to be released.

Do you think we should???

Of course!

If the issue is still alive enough that an author feels socially secure enough to write such a book, then the issue definitely needs to be addressed!

There is no better way to force an uncomfortable discussion than to demonstrate the brutal reality of the "other side".

We should not be afraid to hear the "arguments" for wife-beating. Rather we should confront them.

Passages from this book should be read out loud, chapters should be deconstructed paragraph by paragraph to expose their biggotry and bullshit.

Hiding the enemy's arguments does not make the enemy gone, it just makes it easier to pretend that he is.

Reaction will not "disappear" following a revolution; reactionaries will be broken and defeaed and, for the most part, resigned to live under the new structure, but it is important to keep that in mind that many will go on believing. We must reocgnize that their ideas must be confronted in a direct and honest manner.

The "one-sided debates" you propose would not accomplish this ...nor would they even be particularly likely to occur.

Why publish an argument that, as far as you can tell, everyone agrees with?

Why host a website that outlines the same position that every other website holds?

Why, as the expression goes, "sing to the choir"?

If publications addressing "reactionary" themes are censored at press, then it will be very tempting to consider the matter "closed". To think that, as you put it, "the issue has been decided".

That temptation is far more dangerous than allowing reactionary publications to exist because the debate will not be over; in all likelyhood, the debate will not be over for centuries.

Pretending that it is not occuring by stiffling opposing views will not make it "go away", it will just make dissidents turn to "alternate means" to get their views across.

Covert publications at first; violence in the end.

People will know the "one-sided debate" position, but they will also know that the other side is not being heard. They will know that "reactionary" publications are being censored and suppressed and they will, undoubtably, hear rumours of "reactionary" arguments and "reactionary" ideas that, because they're rumours and indefined, seem appealing

The "second chance" that you are so afraid of giving capitalists, that will happen if you suppress them, not if you allow them to express themselves.

In all your years, you have yet to be convinced by reactionary rhetoric. Why do you think so much worse of the rest of us?

I know that you want the debate to end with revolution, but unfortunately it's not that easy. Defeating them at arms is simply not enough.

The revolution is about winning battles, the aftermath is about winning minds.

You don't do that with censorship.

Comrade-Z

7th January 2006, 23:09

I'm beginning to agree that censorship is distinctly a product of class society. I agree with Marx's assertion that "the ruling ideas of any era are the ideas of the era's ruling class." Thus, I would expect communist ideas to predominate in communist society. Likewise, I would expect reactionary ideas to be vehemently repudiated at every opportunity. In this sense, reactionary ideas won't be tolerated in an intellectual sense, meaning, communist citizens will not say, "Oh, I suppose capitalist ideas are just as legitimate as communist ideas." Instead, communists will say, "Capitalist ideas are terrible crap. This is why that nonsense belongs in the dustbit of history...etc."

However, those capitalist ideas need to be honestly brought out into the open before they can be honestly repudiated. Redstar is fond of saying that, above all, communists must tell the truth. Now that I think about it, engaging in censorship is not telling the truth--it is engaging in obfuscation and deception. Even if you think that an idea is objectively true, it is better to demonstrate why that idea is objectively true and why the alternatives are objectively untrue than to say, "This idea is objectively true. Why? Trust me. You don't need to know anything about the alternatives, except that they are bad. We don't need to bring them out into the open and honestly investigate them. Why? Trust me."

A true communist is a person that "thinks like a communist," not just someone who supports communist ideas. And in order to "think like a communist," you need to be able to critically evaluate social systems and history. Denying the right to engage in an honest discussion of capitalism, for instance, impairs one's ability to critically evaluate capitalism and thus "think like a communist." And in the classless, communist society, everybody will need to be their own mental and physical masters and "think like communists" in a critical manner.

In fact, censorship kind of takes the "daddy" approach to the masses. If the masses are to truly run society and "think like communists," they will also have to be able to vehemently repudiate reactionary ideas on their own when confronted with them. The "daddy" ruling class won't be there to "protect them" from "objectively bad ideas" (censorship). They will have to be capable of confronting and repudiating those ideas themselves.

What I'm hitting at here is that the methods by which non-ruling ideas are repudiated will differ significantly between class and classless society. A ruling class minority naturally needs censorship to ensure that their ruling ideas stay ruling ideas. After all, if other ideas were openly discussed, there's the possibility that individuals of the lower class would realize that they are getting objectively screwed over. However, in a communist society the majority of the population is objectively getting a really good deal. Furthermore, the ruling minority only has a minority to actively argue for its ideas. A ruling majority has the majority of the population to actively advocate its ideas. In short, a ruling majority doesn't need censorship to repudiate reactionary ideas. For instance, if someone out on the street starts preaching capitalism, I'm sure there would be dozens of people gathering there to deliver scathing polemics against the capitalist-wannabe and vehemently repudiate the capitalist ideas. "No, your capitalist ideas are NOT legitimate, and here's why..." Sure, it's frustrating to have to confront these stupid reactionary ideas over and over again. But that's how they can be truly defeated. Eventually the capitalist will realize that "nobody's listening," and he/she will give up.

It would be better for communists to allow reactionary ideas to come out into the open so that they can be repeatedly repudiated. After capitalist ideas are openly repudiated and repeatedly given humilitating defeats, then people espousing capitalist ideas will learn that "nobody's listening" to their trash and that it's not worth their effort to go on preaching capitalism.

On the other hand, if you try to solve the problem with censorship, the capitalists will just try to go underground. That will require stricter censorship, and there we go again...

Censorship will not demoralize reactionaries. People, especially youth, are innately curious about the world and eager to learn about novel things and ideas. Thus the appeal of the "forbidden fruits." Underground ideas will always find appeal in the ranks of such people. People must instead be exposed to these ideas (and shown the counter-arguments by which these reactionary ideas are defeated. That's the part that's missing in current society).

Should people be allowed to maintain websites about capitalism in a communist society? Sure. That way communists (who are the majority of the population) can deluge the website with counter-websites that demolish the ideas on the capitalist website.

CCCPneubauten

8th January 2006, 04:52

Exactly a point Comrade Z

When I hear something is banned what's the first thing I, and most people, do? GO FIND IT! :lol:

Censorship is reactionary, plain and simple.

1984

8th January 2006, 22:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:16 AM
Oppression gives people a rock-solid reason to fight, and thus they gain them support, where someone with only “we don't like this!” as a compliant will get much less support.
That's why the modern, "free-speech" capitalist countries have grown their elites so powerful - because we may speak against their interests or put some political pressure, but the thing is - DO THEY REALLY CARE?

As an recent example, remember Live 8? Sure, it was an event for a good cause, but WHAT has it accomplished? What have the G8 countries done to prevent poverty all around the world? NOTHING. Did the world leader's really give a damn about it? NO.

The elites who are in power of the "democratic" countries let the people speak "freely" so they are CONTENT with the system, and won't rebel because "they can vote" and "change the country". BAH - we are all aware that politicians are, deep inside, all the same and will only fulfill the interests of THEIR own class.

When true actions are taken place by a rebel group, they'll simply repress us, and use their influence on the media to put most of the people with them. Or do nothing, since most are usually more concerned on sports and soap-operas on TV rather than politics anyway...

So each 4 years we choose the ones who'll gain 50.000 per mounth to sit down and do nothing at the parliament/senate sessions.

So, really, they've found an alternative (and more effective) way to censorship - ignorance.

(...)

LSD truly has a point - in a classless, communist society both censorship and ignorance will be meaningless, since there won't be a ruling class for which these mass-manipulation techniques are useful.