Questions on Free Speech

[Cloud]

I have a question on freedom of speech. I just recently got into quite an argument over at rebelforums about the theory on freedom of speech, and i wanted to hear everyones veiws on it. My own veiws are that im completly for it, whether you be right wing, left wing, or independent thought. No matter what is said, it is freedom of speech. I dont believe in propaganda in newspapers and such, obviously, but of course straight truth in them on all international affairs and internal affairs. What is everyone else's veiws on freedom of speech? Im quite curious.

[anomaly]

How much speech is 'free' obviously depends upon the time in which one is living.

Right now, do we anti-capitalists have freedom of speech? Well, one has only to open one's mouth in a public place to see that the answer is no. Speech that calls for the destruction of the system is met with only scorn.

And in a revolutionary situation, is it a smart idea to allow freedom of speech for counterrevolutionaries? Of course not.

But, once we get to communism, then yea, maybe we'll be closer to this dream of 'free speech'.

It's more as bourgeois fantasy than a reality.

[apathy maybe]

Expect to see redstar2000 popping over soon to post a link to his text on free speech for reactionaries ...


Personally I think that people should be able to think what they want. And say (to a limited extent) what they want. That is a different matter to having 'free press' which we don't have.
And I do not see anyone arguing for the right to have someone listen to you ...

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Free speech is essential for even those you disagree with, and this also applies to a communist society. Different strands of communism will probably disagree on this issue, with the anarchists being more accepting of free speech.

[EusebioScrib]

Freedom for the wolves is death to the lambs.

It doesn't matter what someone thinks or believes, what matters is what they do with those thoughts and beliefs. If reactionaries try to organize around their beliefs, they need to be straight up shot.

Our "ideas" are not superior to theirs. History shows that reactionary ideas have many times triumphed over radical ones. It's not ideas that matter, but matter that matters.

[Janus]

Speech that calls for the destruction of the system is met with only scorn.
Yes, but it is still allowed at least though people will complain at how we have abused it.

Anyways, I think everyone should and will have freedom of speech with a communist society. After all, this is what egalitarianism is all about as suppression of speech only shows that something is wrong with society.

[FinnMacCool]

The idea of censuring freedom of speech is itself counter revolutionary. THe goal of the revolution is to make people happy. There are always going to be people who are going to disagree but this is healthy and normal. Censuring freedom of speech is the unnatural suppresion of thought and idea.

[amanondeathrow]

The idea of censuring freedom of speech is itself counter revolutionary. THe goal of the revolution is to make people happy. There are always going to be people who are going to disagree but this is healthy and normal. Censuring freedom of speech is the unnatural suppresion of thought and idea.


The goal of the revolution to empower the working class, eliminate economic divisions and establish communism. Marx, and no serious revolutionary, ever wrote anything about making counter revolutionaries "happy".

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Freedom is just another word for 'nothing left to lose'. No just kidding. Seriously, I think it's a human right. Anything that limits free speech is totalitarian.


Right now, do we anti-capitalists have freedom of speech? Well, one has only to open one's mouth in a public place to see that the answer is no. Speech that calls for the destruction of the system is met with only scorn.

And in a revolutionary situation, is it a smart idea to allow freedom of speech for counterrevolutionaries? Of course not.

But, once we get to communism, then yea, maybe we'll be closer to this dream of 'free speech'.


I disagree with this. I think we do. We are met with scorn do to the fact that the government and Comrade Stalin have buried our ideology in shit during the past century. Otherwise if we had more support than we wouldn&#39;t be met with scorn. Hopefully in a post revolutionary society, there would be no wire tappings..... <_<

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Dee&#39;s [email protected] 16 2006, 11:17 PM
The goal of the revolution to empower the working class, eliminate economic divisions and establish communism. Marx, and no serious revolutionary, ever wrote anything about making counter revolutionaries "happy".
You don&#39;t make them happy by letting them talk, you make them happy by accepting and acting upon their ideas which is where the problem lies. Silencing them is not a desirable or vaible solution, although some may imply it.

What constitutes a counter-revolutionary is at least partially subjective, and itself only established through free discussion.

This thread may be of interest:Mill thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50022)

Basically along the same lines. Mill&#39;s arguments are fairly concrete in my oppinion with regards to free speech.

[Leo]

&#39;Free&#39;Speach? Yes&#33; But it must be literally &#39;free&#39;, not like the word &#39;freedom&#39; from the expression &#39;free trade&#39;.

&#39;Free&#39; Speach is not something to be allowed, it is a duty to be gained. If someone is to have &#39;free&#39; speach, that person must be a freethinker. Free speach will be the duty of every individual freethinker in the communist society, to say when you see a flaw, to say what you think and believe as the right thing...

As for the bourgeois or racist &#39;free speach&#39;, they can shove it in their asses&#33; There is no &#39;freedom&#39; of expression for leftists anywhere in the capitalist world. In a communist society, when they express their bourgeois or racist ideas, they will be in trouble: not because they expressed their ideas, but because they are racists or exploiters, because the society realized that those people were sick and dangerous...

[rouchambeau]

It all depends. I can scream all kinds of offensive things, but so long as no one hears me it really doesn&#39;t matter. The same is true if my speech does not offend anyone or create harm. However, it might. So then what speech is worthy of being silenced? Pro-Fascist speech? Any Pro-capital speech?

[Cloud]

Well from the idealology that i am behind, i dont believe revolutions can happen if there isnt free speech for both sides, left and right. Though i dont agree with the right, or anything about it, they are still allowed to voice. As pointed out above;
And in a revolutionary situation, is it a smart idea to allow freedom of speech for counterrevolutionaries? Of course not.

I agree, it is not a gaining factor for the revolution rather then an example of a biased media we wish to impose on revolution. I think that freedom of speech is what will create a more "independent" society rather then one based on the left or the right. Of course free speech would probably amount to fights and outrages, but that is what comes with free speech.

Now also stated above;
The goal of the revolution to empower the working class, eliminate economic divisions and establish communism. Marx, and no serious revolutionary, ever wrote anything about making counter revolutionaries "happy". Now that is something that could go many ways. One way would be if people arent towards the Marxist way, and are much more for total freedom (Anarchist, Libertarien socialists, Etc:) and of course any clash in freedom would also announce an upsurge of anger in them as well.

As for historical preference towards why im for total free speach, is Lenin&#39;s newspapers. If Europe was a completly biased media at the time of the russian revolution, how would Lenin have ever been able to establish his newspaper, "Iskra". I think Iskra was a huge step towards establishing the russian revolution, and if Europe had been under the iron fist of censoship, i have very strong beleif the russian revolution would have either never happened, or been flushed until one of the "Superpowers" attacked it during a war, and somehow won.

[Leo]

It all depends. I can scream all kinds of offensive things, but so long as no one hears me it really doesn&#39;t matter. The same is true if my speech does not offend anyone or create harm. However, it might. So then what speech is worthy of being silenced? Pro-Fascist speech? Any Pro-capital speech?

The problem here is not the &#39;speach&#39; itself. The problem is someone being a racist, or a capitalist, or any other kinds of oppressor. The question is this: "Will the communist society tolerate individuals becoming capitalists or racists?". This is a similar question to "Will the communist society tolerate individuals becoming murderers or rapists?", and the answer is no. As we won&#39;t let a murderer or rapist go just because they declared what they are publicly, we won&#39;t let capitalists or racists go etiher.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

As far as i see things these days, there are only two options in this, which is you either support free speech or you oppose it.

1.) If you support free speech, you must fight to protect the right of everyone, even nazi and fascist scum, to be able to give out the shit they do. This is if you are pro free speech.

2.) If you do not support free speech, they you take action against speech which youdo not like. I think this is the sensible option. We should repress all the bullshit from the right and the capitalists, but allow any other speech. In my opinion, this is the best way, as you do not favour free speech but society does allow free speech " in some areas, while not others"

If you support freedom of speech, you support nazi and fascists rights to be able to tell people crap&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 16 2006, 04:40 AM
Expect to see redstar2000 popping over soon to post a link to his text on free speech for reactionaries ...
The Myth of "Free Speech" -- Part 1 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083205107&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

Once More: No "Free Speech" for Reactionaries&#33; (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1106930843&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The Cost of "Free Speech" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Hegemonicretribution]

Perhaps I am almost alone on the free speech idea, as I think it should be free. It is all well and good to simply say it should be, unless they (those practicing speech) say something that you deem distasteful or reactionary. The problem is that what constitutes these things is incredibly subjective, something that many seem to pass over. It is only through free speech we establish boundaries.

Actions are different, but speech in itself is never harmful, and people can say whatever the fuck they want in a free society as far as I am concerned. If people start acting upon these ideas by exploiting people, or acting in a discriminatory manner then they should be called up on their actions as they are more important than what they said.

Anyone have any arguments against this? (Sorry redstar I am sure that there are some in the papers, and that repitition can be annoying, but opening another window is suicide for me as my computer will likely crash...I will check them later)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

&#39;As for the bourgeois or racist &#39;free speach&#39;, they can shove it in their asses&#33; There is no &#39;freedom&#39; of expression for leftists anywhere in the capitalist world. In a communist society, when they express their bourgeois or racist ideas,

I don&#39;t know. I think that&#39;s how Stalin and Lenin and co. were able to limit free speech in the USSR. They just called everyone who went up against them, fascists and bourgeois. We have to let them speak un punished otherwise it&#39;s not &#39;free&#39;. We should let them speak but strongly oppose them otherwise we&#39;re no better than they are.

[Leo]

I don&#39;t know. I think that&#39;s how Stalin and Lenin and co. were able to limit free speech in the USSR. They just called everyone who went up against them, fascists and bourgeois. We have to let them speak un punished otherwise it&#39;s not &#39;free&#39;. We should let them speak but strongly oppose them otherwise we&#39;re no better than they are.

In a communist society, being a capitalist or a racist will be the same thing as being a murderer or a rapist. Would you let a rapist go free because he expressed that he thinks it is right to rape people and he explains it publicly? It is not that they express it, it is that they are racists or capitalists, that they want to harm and exploit others.
Secondly, there are no &#39;big leaders&#39; who decide who are &#39;bourgeoise&#39; or &#39;fascists&#39; in a communist society. No matter what, it is the society itself, collectively, who decides what&#39;s going to happen to a person who is a racist or capitalist.

[LSD]

Perhaps I am almost alone one the free speech dea, as I think it should be free.

Perhaps "almost alone", but not entirely&#33; ;)

Cloud, this issue has indeed come up a few times, and while Redstar is quick to link to his site, his "transcipts" of debates tend to be a little ...one sided.

Personally, I find it preferable to link to the real thing, that way you can read every post, every argument, and get a real feel for the debate. Accordingly, I would suggest that you read the most recent detailed discussion on this subject as well, if you&#39;re interested, the previous threads linked to within it:

Censorship, Where does it fall into place? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44331)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17 2006, 09:01 PM
In a communist society, being a capitalist or a racist will be the same thing as being a murderer or a rapist. Would you let a rapist go free because he expressed that he thinks it is right to rape people and he explains it publicly?



Of course not, but that is to do with actions and not speech, tyhere is a very important difference. Somebody voicing support for capitalism and somebody exploting others by means of capitalist economics are very different people.


It is not that they express it, it is that they are racists or capitalists, that they want to harm and exploit others.
Again this thread isn&#39;t about actions, but about speech only.


Secondly, there are no &#39;big leaders&#39; who decide who are &#39;bourgeoise&#39; or &#39;fascists&#39; in a communist society. No matter what, it is the society itself, collectively, who decides what&#39;s going to happen to a person who is a racist or capitalist.
But what was being implied earlier (if indeed you were talking about speech) was that people should be afraid in a way. Whilst the speech determines what is acceptable action, if you are punishing for speech there may well be a tendency for people to try and be merely popular, rather than face being lumped in with a group they support.

[Leo]

Of course not, but that is to do with actions and not speech, tyhere is a very important difference. Somebody voicing support for capitalism and somebody exploting others by means of capitalist economics are very different people.

Well, ok, let&#39;s say that someone said that they think &#39;killing is right&#39;, or &#39;raping is right&#39; and that they would commit those crimes at instant they found chance, or they would make those those legal whenever they find the chance to do so. Somebody voicing support for capitalism would be a real capitalist at the instant second he or she had the chance. The result is always the same: human suffering.


Again this thread isn&#39;t about actions, but about speech only.

They aren&#39;t two entirely seperate things... We would understand that the individual symphatizes with capitalism when he publicly advocates it. Him saying it by itself is not what we are against, we are against him wanting others to suffer.


But what was being implied earlier (if indeed you were talking about speech) was that people should be afraid in a way. Whilst the speech determines what is acceptable action, if you are punishing for speech there may well be a tendency for people to try and be merely popular, rather than face being lumped in with a group they support.

I wouldn&#39;t think the society would punish &#39;just&#39; for the speach (actually I am against all forms of punishments), but they sure would question the person, understand the reasons behind he or she making the statement, understand if he or she really wants to harm the others, or if he or she really wants to make some people harm the others, in other words if he or she is really dangerous.

[Niemand]

Limiting someone&#39;s free speech is not only fascist, but bourgeois. Indeed, if one was to look at how capitalists react to anti-capitalists one would immediately notice how they censor us. How can we then say that that is bad, yet us censoring them is okay? That is a complete logical fallacy and must be avoided at all costs, lest you wish for the rise of a Stalinist police state.

If we were to allow a Stalinist police state to arise, then the evolution into communism would halt and we would never acheive communism&#33; Why would we not reach communism, you may be asking? Quite simply, we would fail because all reactionary fascist governments fall, and a Stalinist police state is not an exception to that rule. We would be overthrown and capitalists would once again celebrate and fill their textbooks with hideous lies about communism, and the arrival of communism would yet again be delayed a few decades, a century even&#33;

So, you must really ask yourself when the censorhip will stop. Who is to stop the state from deciding that more and more is "counter-revolutionary"? The inevitable result of the restriction of free speech is that of the society depicted in George Orwell&#39;s 1984. So ask yourself who the real counter-revolutionary is when you spew such shit as free speech being bourgeois.

[amanondeathrow]

Erik The Communist

Limiting someone&#39;s free speech is not only fascist, but bourgeois.

Limiting Fascist and Bourgeois speech is itself Fascist?

What is Bourgeois is believing in impossible concepts such as freedom of speech. There will never be true freedom of speech until all remnants of capitalism have been eliminated.


How can we then say that that is bad, yet us censoring them is okay? That is a complete logical fallacy and must be avoided at all costs, lest you wish for the rise of a Stalinist police state.


There is nothing wrong with using the counter revolutionaries&#39; tactics against them. Why should we treat them any better then they treat us?

Reactionaries also use violence to achieve their goals, should we not do the same?

It is illogical to think a revolution can be won through some pure and romantic way. Most likely it will be dirty and unpleasant, for both sides.

If we do not recognize this truth we are doomed to failure.


If we were to allow a Stalinist police state to arise, then the evolution into communism would halt and we would never acheive communism&#33;

This is true, but suppressing counter revolutionary propaganda and becoming a police state are two very separate things.

Instead of having the decision to censor in the hands of an elite clique, it would be decided by the DoP as a whole.

Revolutionaries have to recognize that there was much more to Stalinism then just censorship of reactionaries, which was in fact one of its good aspects.


Who is to stop the state from deciding that more and more is "counter-revolutionary"?

No one is to stop the state from deciding who should be censored because the state will be under the complete control of the working class. The goal of the revolution is to achieve protection for the interests of the working class and therefore what ever the class as a whole sees fit to censor, shall be censored.

If some how a Stalinist has seized power, the working class will have more important things to worry about then if someone is reactionary enough to be censored.


The inevitable result of the restriction of free speech is that of the society depicted in George Orwell&#39;s 1984.

1984 never specifies how the Big Brother government consolidated its power and chances are it had nothing to do with the working class censoring reactionaries.

The book was a critique of Stalinism which rejects a working class run DoP, at least in practice. Stalinism has nothing to do with the worker&#39;s state supported by most members of this board.


So ask yourself who the real counter-revolutionary is when you spew such shit as free speech being bourgeois.

I would say that those who actively oppose revolution are the real counter revolutionaries. Limiting how much shit they can spew does not make me one of them, especially when it is decided by the working class as a whole.

Are you saying the working class is a counter revolutionary force, to be corrected by you when they make the wrong "Bourgeois" decisions?

[Leo]

Limiting someone&#39;s free speech is not only fascist, but bourgeois. Indeed, if one was to look at how capitalists react to anti-capitalists one would immediately notice how they censor us. How can we then say that that is bad, yet us censoring them is okay? That is a complete logical fallacy and must be avoided at all costs, lest you wish for the rise of a Stalinist police state.

If we were to allow a Stalinist police state to arise, then the evolution into communism would halt and we would never acheive communism&#33; Why would we not reach communism, you may be asking? Quite simply, we would fail because all reactionary fascist governments fall, and a Stalinist police state is not an exception to that rule. We would be overthrown and capitalists would once again celebrate and fill their textbooks with hideous lies about communism, and the arrival of communism would yet again be delayed a few decades, a century even&#33;

So, you must really ask yourself when the censorhip will stop. Who is to stop the state from deciding that more and more is "counter-revolutionary"? The inevitable result of the restriction of free speech is that of the society depicted in George Orwell&#39;s 1984. So ask yourself who the real counter-revolutionary is when you spew such shit as free speech being bourgeois.

Well, it is not a matter of censorship. It is figured simply like this: if someone is going to live in our society, they cannot be harmful to other members of the society, so when they say they want to be harmful to others, either they will let us look into the matter, look into why they are acting like this or they will be forced out of the society. Oh, and there is no state or secret police in the communist society. Workers, the society itself decides such things. And Orwell&#39;s 1984 is not just anti-Stalin but it is anti-Revolution because it gives the message: Stalin=Revolution.

[amanondeathrow]

Well, it is not a matter of censorship. It is figured simply like this: if someone is going to live in our society, they cannot be harmful to other members of the society, so when they say they want to be harmful to others, either they will let us look into the matter, look into why they are acting like this or they will be forced out of the society.

How ever you want to justify it is fine, as long as you recognize its impermanence to achieving communism.

[Leo]

How ever you want to justify it is fine, as long as you recognize its impermanence to achieving communism.

There is nothing to justify&#33; Would we do nothing if someone starts publicly advocating that &#39;murder and rape is right, everyone should do it and it should be legal&#39;? Would we let them just walk freely around, promoting harm, causing possible deaths? There is no difference&#33; It is not their sick &#39;ideas&#39; that we are afraid of, it is the harm they want to cause the innocents.

[amanondeathrow]

There is nothing to justify&#33; Would we do nothing if someone starts publicly advocating that &#39;murder and rape is right, everyone should do it and it should be legal&#39;? Would we let them just walk freely around, promoting harm, causing possible deaths?

I agree with you, there is no need to justify the working class&#39; decision to censor anyone. It just seemed to me that you were trying to do just that.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17 2006, 10:31 PM
Well, ok, let&#39;s say that someone said that they think &#39;killing is right&#39;, or &#39;raping is right&#39; and that they would commit those crimes at instant they found chance, or they would make those those legal whenever they find the chance to do so. Somebody voicing support for capitalism would be a real capitalist at the instant second he or she had the chance. The result is always the same: human suffering.

They aren&#39;t two entirely seperate things... he would understand that the individual symphatizes with capitalism when he publicly advocates it. Him saying it by itself is not what we are against, we are against him wanting others to suffer.


They could be lying, either to present themselves in a false light, or to conflict commonly held ideas in their capacity as a devil&#39;s advocate...it doesn&#39;t really matter. Until they do something it mans nothing....think back to school when all the kids would "do" this or that in a fight or war, would they really?

Yes perhaps, but my above reasons justify it. Your "limits" are entirely subjective and open to abuse. Also it depends upon a claim of infallibility.


I wouldn&#39;t think the society would punish &#39;just&#39; for the speach (actually I am against all forms of punishments), but they sure would question the person, understand the reasons behind he or she making the statement, understand if he or she really wants to harm the others, or if he or she really wants to make some people harm the others, in other words if he or she is really dangerous.
Exactly&#33; This is my position also, without engaging in speech however this isn&#39;t possible. I don&#39;t mean people should just hold their oppinions as true, but thta free speech should be continuously used to establish what is considered true, and to constantly re-evaluate it.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by Dee&#39;s [email protected] 16 2006, 06:17 PM
The goal of the revolution to empower the working class, eliminate economic divisions and establish communism. Marx, and no serious revolutionary, ever wrote anything about making counter revolutionaries "happy".
I never said counter revolutionaries I said people. The goal of a revolution is to make peoples lives easier so they can enjoy life. Criticism is a natural thing that shouldn&#39;t be suppressed because those same people are looking to be happy as well.

[FinnMacCool]

if someone is going to live in our society, they cannot be harmful to other members of the society, so when they say they want to be harmful to others, either they will let us look into the matter, look into why they are acting like this or they will be forced out of the society.

Right but theres a difference in Freedom of Speech (which is very subjective) in saying "You know I&#39;m not really into this communism thing. Don&#39;t you think we should all work for our own benefit?" Is far different then saying, "I don&#39;t like this communism thing so watch out commies&#33; I&#39;m gonna kill you all&#33;"

I believe hte idea of freedom of speech extends about as far as the latter. The former was regulated during Stalin and Mao&#39;s reigns.

[FinnMacCool]

And Orwell&#39;s 1984 is not just anti-Stalin but it is anti-Revolution because it gives the message: Stalin=Revolution.

Nah it was an anti commuinst piece (should be noted though that communism was synomous with stalinism since almost all communists supported Stalinist Russia). HE was arguing that all attemps for a revolution through a centralized state were hopeless because power corrupts. Orwell was in the Spanish Civil war and he admired the anarchist revolution in Catalnoia so I hardly consider him anti revolution.

[Leo]

They could be lying, either to present themselves in a false light, or to conflict commonly held ideas in their capacity as a devil&#39;s advocate...it doesn&#39;t really matter. Until they do something it mans nothing....think back to school when all the kids would "do" this or that in a fight or war, would they really?

Yes perhaps, but my above reasons justify it. Your "limits" are entirely subjective and open to abuse. Also it depends upon a claim of infallibility.

Exactly&#33; This is my position also, without engaging in speech however this isn&#39;t possible. I don&#39;t mean people should just hold their oppinions as true, but thta free speech should be continuously used to establish what is considered true, and to constantly re-evaluate it.

As I said, we are not going to &#39;punish&#39; them, but we will learn what their motive was and why they did it etc. Them saying is not the case, and we won&#39;t censor it, we won&#39;t hide it, quite the contrary, everyone will be aware of the situation and everyone will also learn the motives and everyone will decide what to do.


Right but theres a difference in Freedom of Speech (which is very subjective) in saying "You know I&#39;m not really into this communism thing. Don&#39;t you think we should all work for our own benefit?" Is far different then saying, "I don&#39;t like this communism thing so watch out commies&#33; I&#39;m gonna kill you all&#33;"

I believe hte idea of freedom of speech extends about as far as the latter. The former was regulated during Stalin and Mao&#39;s reigns.

Well, under communism everyone works for their own benefit. They give what they have to the society, and the society gives them what they want. If they wan&#39;t to keep what they have or don&#39;t want to work, they can go and try to survive in the forest. Capitalism is exploitation. It only has one meaning, what it really is, no matter how it is expressed.


Nah it was an anti commuinst piece (should be noted though that communism was synomous with stalinism since almost all communists supported Stalinist Russia). HE was arguing that all attemps for a revolution through a centralized state were hopeless because power corrupts. Orwell was in the Spanish Civil war and he admired the anarchist revolution in Catalnoia so I hardly consider him anti revolution.

You seem (from your avatar) like a person who will defend Mr. Orwell to the bitter end, but you are wrong. When Orwell wrote 1984 and also Animal Farm too actually, he didn&#39;t give a shit about either Catalonia nor Anarchism. There are some Trotskyists who like him too, but he didn&#39;t give about Trotsky either. Orwell is among the group of writers who turned very right-wing at the end of their lives, among Richard Wright and Ignazio Siloni. If he lived longer, he would be the leading writer of the &#39;God Who Failed&#39;. He is arugeing that revolution will always reach Stalinism and his two last works give the message: "Don&#39;t make a revolution or this will happen."

[apathy maybe]

Orwell in 1984 and Animal Farm was arguing against Leninist/Marxist revolutions. He was still a socialist up until he died, he just didn&#39;t like authoritarian or totalitarian revolutions.

He was arguing that authoritarian revolutions will lead to authoritarian regimes. He was a democratic socialist, not a Marxist.

[amanondeathrow]

I never said counter revolutionaries I said people. The goal of a revolution is to make peoples lives easier so they can enjoy life.


Yes, it is to make worker&#39;s lives better through a revolution controlled by the workers, to abolish class.

This is the most important goal of communist revolution and anything that stands in the way of worker&#39;s power must be opposed before it can pose a legitimate threat to the worker&#39;s state.


Criticism is a natural thing that shouldn&#39;t be suppressed because those same people are looking to be happy as well.


The people whose speech would be opposed by the working class want to be happy, there is no doubt. They want to be happy living off the labor of the working class.

The goal of the revolution is not to make everyone happy. It is to liberate the working class from economic marginalization and establish a classless society.

If some people who rather live as they do now oppose this, then it is well within the revolution&#39;s guidelines to make them "unhappy".

[Fistful of Steel]

I think there should be free speech but only up to a certain point, as it&#39;s possible to infringe upon other&#39;s freedoms just by talking. Take kids, who never lay a finger on a child but bully him repeatedly by taunting and teasing him. The child then kills himself. Is that acceptable? I don&#39;t think so. Just an example.

[Leo]

Orwell in 1984 and Animal Farm was arguing against Leninist/Marxist revolutions. He was still a socialist up until he died, he just didn&#39;t like authoritarian or totalitarian revolutions.

He was arguing that authoritarian revolutions will lead to authoritarian regimes. He was a democratic socialist, not a Marxist.

Orwell wasn&#39;t only arguing about Leninist/Marxist revolutions. His point was this: "There is no hope, if you do a revolution this will follow, live with what you have".

He was a Socialist in the sense Socialist International is socialist right now. Socialism in the name, de facto capitalism...

He could have easily said that Trotskyist or Anarcihst revolutions could have a chance, but no he didn&#39;t say it. The message of 1984 was "Proletarians can&#39;t do shit, they are only capable of rebelling mindlessly, not making a revolution, not self-governce."

You don&#39;t have to be a Marxist to dislike Orwell.

[FinnMacCool]

You seem (from your avatar) like a person who will defend Mr. Orwell to the bitter end, but you are wrong. When Orwell wrote 1984 and also Animal Farm too actually, he didn&#39;t give a shit about either Catalonia nor Anarchism. There are some Trotskyists who like him too, but he didn&#39;t give about Trotsky either. Orwell is among the group of writers who turned very right-wing at the end of their lives, among Richard Wright and Ignazio Siloni. If he lived longer, he would be the leading writer of the &#39;God Who Failed&#39;. He is arugeing that revolution will always reach Stalinism and his two last works give the message: "Don&#39;t make a revolution or this will happen."

Begging your pardon, but this post is entirely interpertive. You have know evidence to back up these assertions whatsoever. I don&#39;t really admire Orwell for his politics either but his writing, which is brilliant. He had always been a socialst, though not as dogmatic as the rest of them, who supported Russia. He was the type of person who never let any wrong deed go unheard.

Your interpertation of 1984 is an opinion which I respect but you can neither prove nor disprove.


Well, under communism everyone works for their own benefit. They give what they have to the society, and the society gives them what they want. If they wan&#39;t to keep what they have or don&#39;t want to work, they can go and try to survive in the forest. Capitalism is exploitation. It only has one meaning, what it really is, no matter how it is expressed.
[Capitalist Response]But I disagree&#33; It can have several meanings. We want to be individualists and we think that working for the common good is dehumanzing[/Captailist Response]

Its kinda typical to believe that capitalism would survive if everyone merely defended exploitation.


Orwell in 1984 and Animal Farm was arguing against Leninist/Marxist revolutions. He was still a socialist up until he died, he just didn&#39;t like authoritarian or totalitarian revolutions.

Correct.

[FinnMacCool]

Yes, it is to make worker&#39;s lives better through a revolution controlled by the workers, to abolish class.


Anything that affects an entire people would have to affect the worker&#39;s first since they are the lowest class but the revolution should be for all people.


This is the most important goal of communist revolution and anything that stands in the way of worker&#39;s power must be opposed before it can pose a legitimate threat to the worker&#39;s state.

If someone expressing an opinion is a threat to the worker&#39;s state, your argument is either weak or else your idea of a workers power isn&#39;t working very well.


The people whose speech would be opposed by the working class want to be happy, there is no doubt. They want to be happy living off the labor of the working class.
THey don&#39;t think about it that way though. In their mind, everyone is given an equal chance in capitalism


The goal of the revolution is not to make everyone happy. It is to liberate the working class from economic marginalization and establish a classless society.
Which is supposed to make people happy.


If some people who rather live as they do now oppose this, then it is well within the revolution&#39;s guidelines to make them "unhappy".
Which will further prove to them how evil communism is.

[FinnMacCool]

He could have easily said that Trotskyist or Anarcihst revolutions could have a chance, but no he didn&#39;t say it. The message of 1984 was "Proletarians can&#39;t do shit, they are only capable of rebelling mindlessly, not making a revolution, not self-governce."

This is definatly purely interpertive. IF you read animal farm, you will notice how in the beginning he praises the ideals of socialism and actually empthasizes the benefits of a socialist economy through the working class.

Have you read Homage to Catalonia?

In Homage to Catalonia, Orwell speaks very admiringly about the worker revolution in Catalonia, where the anarchists were powerful. He also argues against capitalist ideas about how appealing to ones revolutionary feeling would not work.


He was a Socialist in the sense Socialist International is socialist right now. Socialism in the name, de facto capitalism...
I would argue that all forms of socialism have merits for state capitalism.

[Leo]

Begging your pardon, but this post is entirely interpertive. You have know evidence to back up these assertions whatsoever. I don&#39;t really admire Orwell for his politics either but his writing, which is brilliant. He had always been a socialst, though not as dogmatic as the rest of them, who supported Russia. He was the type of person who never let any wrong deed go unheard.

Your interpertation of 1984 is an opinion which I respect but you can neither prove nor disprove.

Lets see what Mr. Orwell has to say about this:


(1984) "One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship"


(1984) "Men are infinitely malleable. Or perhaps you have returned to your old idea that the proletarians or the slaves will arise and overthrow us. Put it out of your mind. They are helpless, like the animals."

Those are typical anti-revolution and anti-self governce messages. This is why Mr. Orwell is so popular on the west, especially in the US. I would reconsider my admiring for Mr. Orwell if I were you. After all, he did not write anything attacking capitalism. (Evet Homage to Catalonia, it is anti-Fascist but not anti-Capitalist)


[Capitalist Response]But I disagree&#33; It can have several meanings. We want to be individualists and we think that working for the common good is dehumanzing[/Captailist Response]

In the communist society, one would work for the self, one will work in the way they want to work and be able to use the products produced by the others. Communism is not contrary to real indvidualism, capitalism is, in capitalism one works only for money. What&#39;s more dehumanizing than that? What&#39;s more anti-individualist than that? What about the individuality of billions who are exploited?

If someone thinks that they should exploit others and don&#39;t produce anything, then we will kindly show these gentlemen the way to the wilderness. They can try to survive on their own out there.

[FinnMacCool]

Those are typical anti-revolution and anti-self governce messages. This is why Mr. Orwell is so popular on the west, especially in the US. I would reconsider my admiring for Mr. Orwell if I were you.

LMAO&#33; Way to take those quotes out of context&#33;

For your information, those quotes are from O&#39;Brian, who was brainwashing the main character Winstin. Are you going to cite him as an accurate representation of Orwell&#39;s idealogy? This shows PRECISELY how much of Orwell you&#39;ve read.


I would reconsider my admiring for Mr. Orwell if I were you.

I would ask you to reconsider your hatred of Orwell until you&#39;ve read at least one of his books. I think the fact that I have Orwell in my avatar even though I&#39;m an anarchist should show you a lot. I admire Orwell for his writing, not for his politics. I myself am a writer who has been very much influenced by him. Its his open honesty in his works that make me come back to him again and again.


After all, he did not write anything attacking capitalism. (Evet Homage to Catalonia, it is anti-Fascist but not anti-Capitalist)
He wrote plenty of things criticizing capitalism. Down and Out in London and Parris, The Road to Wigan Pier as well as his essay the Lion and the Unicorn. Also, there are certain bits of HOmage to Catalonia which are read as anti capitalist.



In the communist society, one would work for the self, one will work in the way they want to work and be able to use the products produced by the others. Communism is not contrary to real indvidualism, capitalism is, in capitalism one works only for money. What&#39;s more dehumanizing than that? What&#39;s more anti-individualist than that? What about the individuality of billions who are exploited?
Um the idea of that quote wasn&#39;t for you to argue with it but to show you where arguments can be made.
And in any case, what would you do with the capitalists children.

[Leo]

LMAO&#33; Way to take those quotes out of context&#33;

For your information, those quotes are from O&#39;Brian, who was brainwashing the main character Winstin. Are you going to cite him as an accurate representation of Orwell&#39;s idealogy? This shows PRECISELY how much of Orwell you&#39;ve read.


I know Orwell pretty well my friend. In the end of the book, O&#39;Brian turns out to be right. This is the message of the book.


I would ask you to reconsider your hatred of Orwell until you&#39;ve read at least one of his books. I think the fact that I have Orwell in my avatar even though I&#39;m an anarchist should show you a lot. I admire Orwell for his writing, not for his politics. I myself am a writer who has been very much influenced by him. Its his open honesty in his works that make me come back to him again and again.

But I don&#39;t hate Orwell&#33; Why would I hate him? This is the message he gives, this is the moral of 1984. O&#39;Brian says workers can&#39;t do shit and then guess what happens? They don&#39;t do shit&#33;

As for his writing, I also am a writer and an admirer of literature and Orwell is nothing compared to writers such as Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, Dickens, Gorky, London, Steinback etc. He is not in the league. The reason why he, and his fellow dystopian novelists are famous is their counter-revolutionary message. Why is Jack London&#39;s Iron Hell forgotten and 1984 is the jewel of bourgeois literature edication? Think about it...

And open honesty? What&#39;s honest about showing workers like animals? He does it twice, both in the Animal Farm and 1984&#33;

[Hit The North]

Having witnessed the barbarism of totalitarian nazism and the iron grip of Uncle Joe, I think we can forgive Orwell the despair which is 1984.

The book remains one of the greatest warnings of the brutality of bureaucratic control and the moral emptiness of political systems which devalue the human in the name of the &#39;great machine&#39; or &#39;the great cause&#39;. It thus deserves its status amongst the most important work of 20th Century literature.

To me, the book is not an attack on the revolutionary programme, it&#39;s a reaffirmation of the essential humanity which informs it.

[Ol' Dirty]

I vehememently believe in freedom of speech for all people, regardless of your beliefs. If you are a fascist, you have just as much right to your beliefs as I do. Of course, that means that I have the right to defend myself against you, and even offend you. That&#39;s the beauty of true free speech; everybody hs their right to it. :)

[Leo]

Having witnessed the barbarism of totalitarian nazism and the iron grip of Uncle Joe, I think we can forgive Orwell the despair which is 1984.

The book remains one of the greatest warnings of the brutality of bureaucratic control and the moral emptiness of political systems which devalue the human in the name of the &#39;great machine&#39; or &#39;the great cause&#39;. It thus deserves its status amongst the most important work of 20th Century literature.

To me, the book is not an attack on the revolutionary programme, it&#39;s a reaffirmation of the essential humanity which informs it.

I think any book that gives the message &#39;proletarians are animals&#39; is not forgivable.

As for it being a warning against brutality, bureaucratic control and etc, well that would be a very shallow analysis of the book. What Orwell did was exaggreting Stalinism to unrealistic levels. If he really and only wanted to warn us against something, describing Stalinism itself would have been more than enough.

1984 identifies revolution with Stalin, labels workers as mindless animals, gives the message &#39;there is no hope, there is nothing better than what you have right now, you are going to get Stalin if you make a revolution, don&#39;t make a revolution&#39; that&#39;s why it is so popular, that&#39;s why the capitalists love that book&#33;

If you want to read a book which reaffirms the essential humanity which informs the revolution, read the Iron Heel. If you want to read a good piece of futuristic anarchist literature, read the Dispossesed.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 20 2006, 04:14 PM




I know Orwell pretty well my friend. In the end of the book, O&#39;Brian turns out to be right. This is the message of the book.
O&#39;Brien doesn&#39;t turn out to be right at all. Winstin is made to believe he is right becuase he was brainwashed into believing it was so.

The reason why O&#39;Brian refused to tell him whether the brotherhood existed was because it did. If he told him it did, Winstin would&#39;ve known that there were people like him that would&#39;ve rebelled so he couldn&#39;t have been allowed to know this.


But I don&#39;t hate Orwell&#33; Why would I hate him? This is the message he gives, this is the moral of 1984. O&#39;Brian says workers can&#39;t do shit and then guess what happens? They don&#39;t do shit&#33;
&#39;
Orwell&#39;s literiture has, most unfortunately, been used to by the ruling class to promote fear and hatred of socialist and communist sympathizers. That doesn&#39;t mean that the author was wrong. 1984 isn&#39;t a moralist tale. Its a cautionary tale about governments and power, the message being that governments with too much power will abuse it and this wasn&#39;t specifically directed at communism, though it was modeled after Soviet Russia, which was one of the most succesful authoritarian governments succesful at destroying humanity.


And open honesty? What&#39;s honest about showing workers like animals? He does it twice, both in the Animal Farm and 1984&#33;

The animals in Animal Farm were a metaphor because the animals of this world produce while humans do not produce but consume like the ruling class. Thats why at the end, when the pigs walk on hind legs like animals it shows to them how their rulers have become exactly the same as the capitalists were.

[FinnMacCool]

As for it being a warning against brutality, bureaucratic control and etc, well that would be a very shallow analysis of the book. What Orwell did was exaggreting Stalinism to unrealistic levels. If he really and only wanted to warn us against something, describing Stalinism itself would have been more than enough.
No it wouldn&#39;t have. Why do you think 1984 has affected so many people in so many different ways? By exagerating and describing in length the idea of losing your humanity in an authoritarian state, it has been able to show what exactly it feels to be living under totalitarian rule. Haven&#39;t you ever heard the phrase &#39;history tell you what happened but fiction tells you how it feels&#39;? Thats exactly what 1984 was and I must say Orwell did a wonderful job.


If you want to read a book which reaffirms the essential humanity which informs the revolution, read the Iron Heel. If you want to read a good piece of futuristic anarchist literature, read the Dispossesed.
I&#39;ve read the Dispossessd. Its good but its nowhere near Orwell.

[Leo]

O&#39;Brien doesn&#39;t turn out to be right at all. Winstin is made to believe he is right becuase he was brainwashed into believing it was so.

The reason why O&#39;Brian refused to tell him whether the brotherhood existed was because it did. If he told him it did, Winstin would&#39;ve known that there were people like him that would&#39;ve rebelled so he couldn&#39;t have been allowed to know this.


What?&#33; No&#33;&#33;&#33; I can&#39;t believe that you missed the famous point of "The governments usage of &#39;hated&#39; figures." Remember, O&#39;Brian is one of the writers of Goldstein&#39;s book. The main reason the Brotherhood, Goldstein etc. exists is this. They serve the Big Brother as well&#33; O&#39;Brian says something like &#39;People like you will always exist and will always lose.&#39; to Winston, he turns out right there as well.


Orwell&#39;s literiture has, most unfortunately, been used to by the ruling class to promote fear and hatred of socialist and communist sympathizers. That doesn&#39;t mean that the author was wrong. 1984 isn&#39;t a moralist tale. Its a cautionary tale about governments and power, the message being that governments with too much power will abuse it and this wasn&#39;t specifically directed at communism, though it was modeled after Soviet Russia, which was one of the most succesful authoritarian governments succesful at destroying humanity.

I am against the idea of state as much as you are, and much more than Orwell ever was. Saying that &#39;proleterians are animals&#39;, saying that they can&#39;t do anything is the same thing as saying &#39;rulers are always necessary, pick the cappies cause they&#39;re better rulers.&#39; It is false and false&#33; Not that I love Stalinist USSR, but imperialist countries, all of them were much more authoritaian and much more succesful in destroying humanity. They just didn&#39;t do it (actually did it to a lesser degree) in their own countries.


The animals in Animal Farm were a metaphor because the animals of this world produce while humans do not produce but consume like the ruling class. Thats why at the end, when the pigs walk on hind legs like animals it shows to them how their rulers have become exactly the same as the capitalists were.

But they are still animals while the rulers are humans. When the animals revolt against humans who are more superior to them, the most superior of the animals will become the new leader. It is anti-self governce, anti-communist and anti-anarchist.


No it wouldn&#39;t have. Why do you think 1984 has affected so many people in so many different ways? By exagerating and describing in length the idea of losing your humanity in an authoritarian state, it has been able to show what exactly it feels to be living under totalitarian rule. Haven&#39;t you ever heard the phrase &#39;history tell you what happened but fiction tells you how it feels&#39;? Thats exactly what 1984 was and I must say Orwell did a wonderful job.

Nice try... History tells how it happened and historical fiction tells how it felt, not mere fiction. Read Bread and Wine or One Day in the Life of Ivan Ivanovich. 1984 looks incredibly stupid compared to them. Orwell has no idea what he is talking about. He is writing 1984 in his comfortable home, not under a totalitarian state, he is playing with the common knowledge about the totalitarian states, capitalist propaganda, he exagerates that knowledge.


I&#39;ve read the Dispossessd. Its good but its nowhere near Orwell.

I think 1984 or infact anything else written by Orwell or his fellow cappy dystopians are anything near Le Guin when it comes to writing technique or the flow of the story or the way details and feelings and the fantasy world is constructed but after all this is just my opinion. But remember, there is a reason why the bourgeoise media does talk much about The Dispossesed.

[Niemand]

Limiting Fascist and Bourgeois speech is itself Fascist?
Indeed it is, for fascists censor the views of political opponents so as to prevent the masses from hearing other opinions and possibly revolting against them. They will be unscrupuolous, and have been as such throughout history and censoring is therefore a characteristic of fascists and also of the bourgeoisie since the fascists are the bourgeoisie.



What is Bourgeois is believing in impossible concepts such as freedom of speech. There will never be true freedom of speech until all remnants of capitalism have been eliminated.
Freedom of speech is not impossible, it is only impossible when the masses are fooled to believe that it is impossible or when elitists have gotten too much power. You also seem to forget that capitalism inevitably leads to fascism and that the restriction of free speech is a fascist ideal and that as long as you restrict free speech, then capitalism shall always exist.

Only when the people know freedom will capitalism be abolished.



There is nothing wrong with using the counter revolutionaries&#39; tactics against them. Why should we treat them any better then they treat us?
Are we not better than that? Must we resort to such bourgeois and lowly tactics? What they do to us is unjust and evil; none should ever have to experience the oppression which the working class of the world feels.



Reactionaries also use violence to achieve their goals, should we not do the same?
That is completely different, for a revolution is necessary whereas fascism is not.



It is illogical to think a revolution can be won through some pure and romantic way. Most likely it will be dirty and unpleasant, for both sides.
Fighting to overthrow the ruling class will indeed be messy and unpleasant, but it needn&#39;t be as such once we triumph over the bourgeoisie.



This is true, but suppressing counter revolutionary propaganda and becoming a police state are two very separate things.

Instead of having the decision to censor in the hands of an elite clique, it would be decided by the DoP as a whole.

Revolutionaries have to recognize that there was much more to Stalinism then just censorship of reactionaries, which was in fact one of its good aspects.
No, they are not separate things, for police states always begin justifying censorship and stricter laws by demonising the enemy. Case in point: the Soviet Union after Lenin, and the U.S. currently.

George Bush is continually passing laws and having the NSA spy on the working class. He justifies it by demonising Leftists and using scare tactics to paralyse the working class into submission so as to continue the Imperialist rape of the Middle East. He is sucessfully setting up a police state just as Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini did; by using bullshit scare tactics.



1984 never specifies how the Big Brother government consolidated its power and chances are it had nothing to do with the working class censoring reactionaries.
It has everything to do with that, since that is exactly what Stalin was doing, as well as censoring other communists who simply disagreed on the path to communism.



The book was a critique of Stalinism which rejects a working class run DoP, at least in practice. Stalinism has nothing to do with the worker&#39;s state supported by most members of this board.
The workers state will crumble and fall after a Stalin-esque figure takes power by using the same old scare tactics and the same thing which happened under Stalin will happen again.



Are you saying the working class is a counter revolutionary force, to be corrected by you when they make the wrong "Bourgeois" decisions?
No, what I&#39;m saying is that if we make this grave error then the revolution is doomed and capitalism shall rise again under the guise of saving the revolution, i.e. Stalinism.

[FinnMacCool]

What?&#33; No&#33;&#33;&#33; I can&#39;t believe that you missed the famous point of "The governments usage of &#39;hated&#39; figures." Remember, O&#39;Brian is one of the writers of Goldstein&#39;s book. The main reason the Brotherhood, Goldstein etc. exists is this. They serve the Big Brother as well&#33; O&#39;Brian says something like &#39;People like you will always exist and will always lose.&#39; to Winston, he turns out right there as well.


They serve big brother by being used to promote fear among the masses. The Brotherhood, in Winstins mind&#39; was meant to be a resistance. The idea of a brotherhood or Goldestein as resistance was blurred to the masses because it was used to promte some kind of negative conotation. Winstin was able to see through this somehow. If Winstin had known that the resistance existed, he would&#39;ve realized that it wasn&#39;t him who was insane but the government who existed that was. O&#39;Brian was lying through his teeth almost the entire time but he was as fanatically attached to the government as were the other government. The book "Oligarchial Collectivism" was actually a handbook on how governments use their power to enslave people and Orwell puts in there to explain it. The idea of Freedom is Slavery was promoted by O&#39;Brian but obviously Freedom ISN&#39;T Slavery but Winstin was made to believe it was so because he was braiwashed.


I am against the idea of state as much as you are, and much more than Orwell ever was. Saying that &#39;proleterians are animals&#39;, saying that they can&#39;t do anything is the same thing as saying &#39;rulers are always necessary, pick the cappies cause they&#39;re better rulers.&#39; It is false and false&#33; Not that I love Stalinist USSR, but imperialist countries, all of them were much more authoritaian and much more succesful in destroying humanity. They just didn&#39;t do it (actually did it to a lesser degree) in their own countries.

Orwell never said the proleitarians cannot accomplish anything and no matter how much you say it, it cannot definiativly be proven that his works even hint at such a thing. In fact, if you read books like Homage to Catalonia, some of his essays on Burma, and even Animal Farm itself, you will see that he was actually promitng the worker strugle.

As for other countries doing it to a lesser degree, I couldn&#39;t agree more. I sometimes feel that when people say that Orwells 1984 vision hasn&#39;t come true well I believe it has. I think we are all subject to it even now. It is not as extreme as it was in the book but I think, in a certain way, many human beings have been dehumanized.


But they are still animals while the rulers are humans. When the animals revolt against humans who are more superior to them, the most superior of the animals will become the new leader. It is anti-self governce, anti-communist and anti-anarchist.
animal farm shows Mr. Jones and the capitalist being on a different class to them. Is that what you mean by superior? If so, then I agree. But nothing in it indicates that either Napoleon or Mr. Jones were superior in terms of capabilities. Napoleon emerged simply because there "had" to be a leader (obviously I don&#39;t agree) and he took the iniition in brainwashing and training his secret police (the dogs).


Nice try... History tells how it happened and historical fiction tells how it felt, not mere fiction. Read Bread and Wine or One Day in the Life of Ivan Ivanovich. 1984 looks incredibly stupid compared to them. Orwell has no idea what he is talking about. He is writing 1984 in his comfortable home, not under a totalitarian state, he is playing with the common knowledge about the totalitarian states, capitalist propaganda, he exagerates that knowledge.

Actually, Orwell experienced Totalitarianism first hand when the revolution in Spain was betrayed by the communists and the communists started a witch hunt on his united the POUM. He writes about this in great deal in Homage to Catalonia. Orwell got his ideas about the Ministry of Information from the communist run media in Spain as well as from his experiences at working for the Ministry of Information in Britian. He takes the idea of Britian being at war with Germany and allied with Russia into the whole Oceania is at war with Eurasia concept. He also took the idea about the media reporting about the British Empries trimuphs even though it was collapsing into it.

And he was writing this while suffering from Tuberculousis and reading up in his hospital bed about totalitarian states in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.



I think 1984 or infact anything else written by Orwell or his fellow cappy dystopians are anything near Le Guin when it comes to writing technique or the flow of the story or the way details and feelings and the fantasy world is constructed but after all this is just my opinion.
Oh Orwell is a capitalist now is he?

Yes it is just your opinion and you are certainly welcome to it. The Dispossessed was a good book but it had too many obvious anarchist promotions. Of course I&#39;m not really against this being an anarchist myself but as literiture, it felt like I was reading an ad at some points.



But remember, there is a reason why the bourgeoise media does talk much about The Dispossesed.

The "Bourgeooise media" doesn&#39;t talk at all about books, except for the ones which are on the bestsellers list and have just come out. The Dispossessed isn&#39;t a recent book either which makes it even less liable to be talked about.

[Leo]

Erik,

When dealing with things such as racism, capitalism, fascism etc. the question ceases to be one of free speach. The question is this: &#39;Will the communist society of the future (and notice that I use the word society, because there is no state after revolution) allow individuals to be racist or capitalist or fascis?&#39;, and the answer is the same with the answer of the question: &#39;Will the communist society of the future allow individuals to become killers or rapists?&#39; It is NO&#33; So there is no cencorship. I would expect the communist society to question the person who talks in a racist or capitalist way, understand why he does that, what his problem is, and try to solve it, or if he really is a capitalist or a racist, therefore, if he really is dangerous to other members of the society, show him the way to the wilderness.

[Leo]

They serve big brother by being used to promote fear among the masses. The Brotherhood, in Winstins mind&#39; was meant to be a resistance. The idea of a brotherhood or Goldestein as resistance was blurred to the masses because it was used to promte some kind of negative conotation. Winstin was able to see through this somehow. If Winstin had known that the resistance existed, he would&#39;ve realized that it wasn&#39;t him who was insane but the government who existed that was. O&#39;Brian was lying through his teeth almost the entire time but he was as fanatically attached to the government as were the other government. The book "Oligarchial Collectivism" was actually a handbook on how governments use their power to enslave people and Orwell puts in there to explain it. The idea of Freedom is Slavery was promoted by O&#39;Brian but obviously Freedom ISN&#39;T Slavery but Winstin was made to believe it was so because he was braiwashed.

If Orwell thought that resistance was possible he could have easily said it so. The fact that O&#39;Brian doesn&#39;t exactly say if the Brotherhood existed can be interpreted in any ways. Party says it exists, but it doesn&#39;t exist indepndently. When you think about the names, notice this: the brotherhood and the big brother. It implies that Big Brother does in fact rule the brotherhood. There are no signs of a real rebel group in the book, there are individual rebels who are doomed to lose, like Winston.


Orwell never said the proleitarians cannot accomplish anything and no matter how much you say it, it cannot definiativly be proven that his works even hint at such a thing.

You can&#39;t deny that that message is given in 1984, or even in Animal Farm. If it was, the proles or the animals would have actually established something that they would govern themselves.


animal farm shows Mr. Jones and the capitalist being on a different class to them. Is that what you mean by superior? If so, then I agree. But nothing in it indicates that either Napoleon or Mr. Jones were superior in terms of capabilities. Napoleon emerged simply because there "had" to be a leader (obviously I don&#39;t agree) and he took the iniition in brainwashing and training his secret police (the dogs).

It is not a different class. We, workers are individually equall with our rulers, we are all human. In the animal farm it is not just a class superiority, it is a real superiority. And the message it gives is, well, you know what it is. That is Orwell for you.


Actually, Orwell experienced Totalitarianism first hand when the revolution in Spain was betrayed by the communists and the communists started a witch hunt on his united the POUM. He writes about this in great deal in Homage to Catalonia.

It is not the same thing. You can&#39;t compare what Spanish communists were doing with Stalinist Russia itself.


Orwell got his ideas about the Ministry of Information from the communist run media in Spain as well as from his experiences at working for the Ministry of Information in Britian.

Maybe he was taking the revenge of Spain when he gave names of pro-communist writers and artists including Charlie Chaplin to the British government <_< ...


And he was writing this while suffering from Tuberculousis and reading up in his hospital bed about totalitarian states in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

He wrote it actually in his remote farm house on an island called Jura, off the coast of Scotland. It is true that his health was going bad, but again, he had no idea&#33; As I said, read Bread and Wine, Survival in Auschwitz or One Day in the Life of Ivan Zasulich, Orwell couldn&#39;t even dream to write in such a grim and powerfull way. Those novels take their stregth because of the fact that they are real. All Orwell says is what cappies say about what&#39;s going to happen if we go &#39;communist.&#39;


Oh Orwell is a capitalist now is he?

As I said, socialist in the sense of the Socialist International, and SDP and Labour Pary UK...meaning: capitalist.


Yes it is just your opinion and you are certainly welcome to it. The Dispossessed was a good book but it had too many obvious anarchist promotions. Of course I&#39;m not really against this being an anarchist myself but as literiture, it felt like I was reading an ad at some points.

Well I would pick the anarchist promotion (altough I don&#39;t agree that it is merely and anarchist promotion. The anarchist society itself is shown in a flawed way) instead of a &#39;leadership&#39; promotion.


The "Bourgeooise media" doesn&#39;t talk at all about books, except for the ones which are on the bestsellers list and have just come out. The Dispossessed isn&#39;t a recent book either which makes it even less liable to be talked about.


But they do talk about Orwelian concepts and Big Brother and schools give 1984 to young kids to read and be proud anti-communist patriots.

[FinnMacCool]

If Orwell thought that resistance was possible he could have easily said it so. Why on earth would he do that? The whole book is meant to be depressing and cynical. He&#39;s not going to give it even a glimmer of hope. The book is meant to be authoritarianism taken to an extreme in order to show how dehumanizing authoritarianism is and to what extremes it might be taken to.

Orwell once said something like, "When thought is supprssed, the very act of thinking becomes a revolutionary act." I think Winstin and Julia showed this.


The fact that O&#39;Brian doesn&#39;t exactly say if the Brotherhood existed can be interpreted in any ways. Party says it exists, but it doesn&#39;t exist indepndently. When you think about the names, notice this: the brotherhood and the big brother. It implies that Big Brother does in fact rule the brotherhood. There are no signs of a real rebel group in the book, there are individual rebels who are doomed to lose, like Winston.
They are doomed to lose because none of them know that others have the same thoughts as them. Winstin has to pretend the whole time like he is under their spell like everyone else. By chance, he happens to group up with Julia but he thought she was under their spell too. I tend to think there were a lot of dissenters among them but they were so afraid of being killed that they didn&#39;t do anything.


You can&#39;t deny that that message is given in 1984, or even in Animal Farm. If it was, the proles or the animals would have actually established something that they would govern themselves.
I don&#39;t believe that message was there at all but you can think what you want to think I guess. I saw no evidence of it when I read those books.


It is not a different class. We, workers are individually equall with our rulers, we are all human. In the animal farm it is not just a class superiority, it is a real superiority. And the message it gives is, well, you know what it is. That is Orwell for you.

Class superiority is real superiority. Orwell doesn&#39;t say that at all but thats what Napoleon says. Napoleon is the one that says "All Animals are created equal, but some are more equal then others." Since Orwell was against totalitarianism, I&#39;m sure he was inclined to disagree.


It is not the same thing. You can&#39;t compare what Spanish communists were doing with Stalinist Russia itself.

Propaganda is the same no matter where it is. "Political Language is designed to make lies sound truthful, murder respectable, and give an air of solidity to pure wind." Orwell saw how the people over there we being influenced by communist run media.


Maybe he was taking the revenge of Spain when he gave names of pro-communist writers and artists including Charlie Chaplin to the British government ...

. . .because he felt that they would not be suitable for writing anti communist propaganda. Don&#39;t forget that part.

He wrote it actually in his remote farm house on an island called Jura, off the coast of Scotland. It is true that his health was going bad, but again, he had no idea&#33; As I said, read Bread and Wine, Survival in Auschwitz or One Day in the Life of Ivan Zasulich, Orwell couldn&#39;t even dream to write in such a grim and powerfull way. Those novels take their stregth because of the fact that they are real. All Orwell says is what cappies say about what&#39;s going to happen if we go &#39;communist.&#39;

So? Its true, isn&#39;t it? Name a communist revolution which hasn&#39;t been turned into an authoritarian state.

Orwell did write in a very grim and powerful but his work was fiction and its hard to compare that with real life accounts. I myself have never read the works you listed so I cannot say firsthand if its any more powerful then 1984 but 1984 was one of the most powerful books I&#39;ve ever read so I think you would be hard pressed to find one which is more powerful. Orwell did know what he was talking about though.


As I said, socialist in the sense of the Socialist International, and SDP and Labour Pary UK...meaning: capitalist.

So then surely you would list communism as capitalist to, wouldn&#39;t you?

Well I would pick the anarchist promotion (altough I don&#39;t agree that it is merely and anarchist promotion. The anarchist society itself is shown in a flawed way) instead of a &#39;leadership&#39; promotion.

Even if 1984 was "leadership" promotion, it doesn&#39;t make it less superior as a novel to the Dispossessed. 1984 was a masterpiece and you are very hardpressed at finding a book that will match them.

And I don&#39;t know about you, but after reading 1984 I didn&#39;t get an idea &#39;Oh wow. So this is why we really need leaders. . .&#39; If I didn&#39;t know better, I would say Orwell was an anarchist if I had read it.


But they do talk about Orwelian concepts and Big Brother and schools give 1984 to young kids to read and be proud anti-communist patriots.
That&#39;s because 1984 is such an amazing book that terms such as double speak and Orwellian have come into our vocabulary.

LIke I said earlier, the fact that the government uses 1984 and Animal Farm for pro capitalist indoctrination is unfortunate but its only because it was such a powerful anti communist book. Orwell&#39;s socialist posistion isn&#39;t explored at all in 1984 and is only glossed over in Animal Farm so its not surprising. If they had assigned the Road to Wigan Pier or maybe Homage to Catalonia as part of the reading list though, I think people would&#39;ve come out with a much better impression.

In all fairness though, the government does have &#39;Shooting an Elephant&#39; as one of its reading lists. Thats an anti imperialist essay by the way.

[Leo]

Why on earth would he do that? The whole book is meant to be depressing and cynical. He&#39;s not going to give it even a glimmer of hope.

Being to cynical and depressing than the actual situation is not telling to truth. Not giving hope where there is always hope is not telling the truth. He should have told them if he cared about the truth. Otherwise he was just making propaganda.


"When thought is supprssed, the very act of thinking becomes a revolutionary act."

That is "When lies are universally accepted, telling the truth becomes revolutionary." and I think it is misattributed because statist-socialist Lassele had the same motto.


They are doomed to lose because none of them know that others have the same thoughts as them. Winstin has to pretend the whole time like he is under their spell like everyone else. By chance, he happens to group up with Julia but he thought she was under their spell too. I tend to think there were a lot of dissenters among them but they were so afraid of being killed that they didn&#39;t do anything.

Why doesn&#39;t the proles rebel then? Big Brother can&#39;t possibly watch billions of workers. The message is very elitist, only the members of the ruling class (you know that Winston is actually one of them, low level, but one of them) can manage to rebel. Proletarians are not capable of doing this. They are animals. If there is a revolution, it must because someone who has ruling class mentalities lead them. There would be no other way. Revolution=Stalin.


Class superiority is real superiority.

No. It is an imaginary superiority, it is a spectacle. There is nothing real about it. All humans are equal and some are not more equal than others. As for animals, all animals aren&#39;t equal in the first place. And they aren&#39;t equal with humans either.


Propaganda is the same no matter where it is. "Political Language is designed to make lies sound truthful, murder respectable, and give an air of solidity to pure wind." Orwell saw how the people over there we being influenced by communist run media.

Yeah good for him, big deal. He doesn&#39;t know anything about life under a real totalitarian regime, my case remains solid as it is.

By the way, the capitalist usage of media is much worse than the Stalinist one. It has always been so&#33; Stalinists were too blunt all along.


So? Its true, isn&#39;t it? Name a communist revolution which hasn&#39;t been turned into an authoritarian state.


So then surely you would list communism as capitalist to, wouldn&#39;t you?

I can&#39;t name a &#39;communist&#39; revolution because communism has never been practiced before. Let&#39;s see: Was the state ever crushed? No... Were the means of production given to public? No... Did self governce ever been practiced? No... The list goes on.

Therefore I would list what you think as &#39;communism&#39; but what actually is &#39;state monopoly capitalism&#39; or if we are to use a better definition &#39;capitalism without individual capitalists where the party is the capitalist class&#39; as capitalism yes.


I myself have never read the works you listed so I cannot say...

Read them then, read Survival in Auschwitz (by Primo Levi) or One Day in the Life of Ivan Ivanovich (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn). They are not long, you would probably finish the latter one in two hours.


That&#39;s because 1984 is such an amazing book that terms such as double speak and Orwellian have come into our vocabulary.

Those aren&#39;t as brilliant as you think. Infact doublethink has a much better name in real life: dialectics. None of the concepts or names were really creative, they were just suitable for the government to use for the anti-communist propaganda. Honestly, I don&#39;t know if Orwell intended them to be used that way but nevertheless...

Lastly, it is not that I attack Orwell with violent hatred. In fact author of one of the books I recommended you (Bread And Wine, Ignazio Silone) did also become an anti-communist like Orwell. What I&#39;m trying to do is to get what Orwell was trying to say clear, and tell that his message was wrong and you might be getting anarchist messages from the book but most of the people don&#39;t.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Leo Uilleann, I am not sure why you came off as being against free speech (you said with regards to capitalists and facists), but without a group to exercise power over this speech then there is no restriction placed upon it; it is free.

Of course the community should have a direct influence, and through exercising free discussion and speech we can discover possible dangers. This is a reason for championing free speech in ever instance, not to suggest there should be a limit. Free speech is not free speech unless it is conflicted with other ideas.

[Herman]

Free Speech is linked directly with the problem of economics. If you have the economic means to voice your opinion, then it&#39;s fine. If you do not have the money to do so, then you can&#39;t.

[FinnMacCool]

Leo, its been a very enjoyable discussion but I think we&#39;ve gone full circle in the range of possibilities for debate so if you don&#39;t mind I&#39;d like to say that we should agree to disagree and get back to talking about other issues.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 10:43 AM
Free Speech is linked directly with the problem of economics. If you have the economic means to voice your opinion, then it&#39;s fine. If you do not have the money to do so, then you can&#39;t.
Yes but assuming we&#39;re under a socialist system where everyone is equal, this means that everyone has the right to voice their opinion.

[Leo]

Leo Uilleann, I am not sure why you came off as being against free speech (you said with regards to capitalists and facists), but without a group to exercise power over this speech then there is no restriction placed upon it; it is free.

As I&#39;ve said for many many times in this thread, I am not against them saying it, and I never said that they will be punished because of what they said (I said they&#39;ll be in deep trouble, and that is true).


Of course the community should have a direct influence, and through exercising free discussion and speech we can discover possible dangers. This is a reason for championing free speech in ever instance, not to suggest there should be a limit. Free speech is not free speech unless it is conflicted with other ideas.

That&#39;s exactly what I said. The whole process is about discovering dangers.

Free speech is only free if it expresses free thought. Censorship etc. does not restrict free speach, it restricts free thought. As for free speach, well it really is an empty concept. The important thing is not being free to say something, the important thing is being free after you said something, and there are things to get a person into trouble after he or she said something (which would be harmful to others or which shows that the person is harmful to others.) The society will notice the danger, the society will question and the society will decide.


Leo, its been a very enjoyable discussion but I think we&#39;ve gone full circle in the range of possibilities for debate so if you don&#39;t mind I&#39;d like to say that we should agree to disagree and get back to talking about other issues.

Yeah it was a good one... and it did become pretty apparent that either of us was going to convince the other one. Oh well, maybe next time :lol:

[Herman]

Yes but assuming we&#39;re under a socialist system where everyone is equal, this means that everyone has the right to voice their opinion.

In this case, everyone should have the right for free speech, except for Capitalist warmongers who want to see the old system brought back.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Leo, they should be free even after they sad it, intervention should not even be contemplated unless they take actions.

How are you supposed to knwo (supposing you have a dangerous view) that your view is bad for whatever reason if you face consequences for even expressing it? Of course when action becomes involved it is a different matter.

[Leo]

Leo, they should be free even after they sad it, intervention should not even be contemplated unless they take actions.

How are you supposed to knwo (supposing you have a dangerous view) that your view is bad for whatever reason if you face consequences for even expressing it? Of course when action becomes involved it is a different matter.

Saying something can be taking an action. As I said, we (workers) will question, we will investigate, we will understand and finally we will decide in how we will solve the problem.