The media [Archive]

black magick hustla

20th May 2006, 18:04

i think that ultimately, freedom of speech in the bourgeois sense would be impossible in a communist society.

such a controversial concept as "freedom of speech" requires a central authority that judges whether someone had inflicted or not the right of freedom of speech of a certain individual or group.

a communist society as i visualize it is stateless and decentralized, thus there won't be place for some kind of SUPREME COURT or whatever.

do not misinterpret me though, i do not advocate bolshevik-style supression of freedom of speech. that would require certainly a central authority.

if a nazi scumbag starts spouting all his shit rhetoric in television, obviously many people would be pissed off at him and he eventually would be hunted down by them, and I doubt there would be many sympathetic nazis protecting him.
there wont be some sort of BILL OF RIGHTS OF INALIENABLE RIGHTS that would magically protect him, considering how even justice itself would be in people's hands.

however, i think that ultimately, it would be very easy for any one to speak their mind in the media. probably the mass media would be Indymedia-style, were everyone could write or speak whatever they want. the infliction of "freedom of speech" wont be made by a POLICE STATE it would be naturally made by workers themselves.

redflag32

20th May 2006, 19:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:46 AM
Why should the liberals and reactionaries be given the opportunity to spread propaganda or have their say in society? Mouthpieces for such counter-revolutionary notions will not be tolerated.
So you are just going to act the way they are acting now,only from the other side?Its NOT democratic to say a certain person/group can not speak there mind,once they are not inciting hatred or violence then they can do as they please in a TRUE democratic society.

Ander

20th May 2006, 20:52

Originally posted by Kurt [email protected] 20 2006, 01:32 PM
I agree with this. My personal opinions is that pretty much everything is allowed in the media, except for right wing, or fascist statements. This is unhelpful to the revolution and may sway the public to change their allegiances to the right wing bullshit.
:huh: Are you serious? This is what we are trying to fight against..

Everything is allowed...except all right wing statements and anything that might show a shred of disagreement the revolution.

Good job, you've just initiated phase one of totalitarianism. Next, send out the secret police to kidnap and torture anyone who doesn't agree 100% with the government.

Count me WAY out of your revolution. This is the kind of shit that people hate Socialism/Communism for.

ComradeOm

20th May 2006, 21:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:32 PM
So you are just going to act the way they are acting now,only from the other side?Its NOT democratic to say a certain person/group can not speak there mind,once they are not inciting hatred or violence then they can do as they please in a TRUE democratic society.
Well... duh. What do I care about liberal standards of democracy? Now the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat; following revolution the proletariat surpresses the bourgeoisie. Without giving a fuck about their "rights"

Hit The North

20th May 2006, 21:29

Surely in a Communist society, the material conditions which foster racism and fascism (competition over rationed resources within the working class) will have ceased and anyone advocating right wing views will be viewed by the majority as a rather absurd and marginalised freak.

Would repressive censorship be necessary?

FinnMacCool

20th May 2006, 21:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:46 AM
Why should the liberals and reactionaries be given the opportunity to spread propaganda or have their say in society? Mouthpieces for such counter-revolutionary notions will not be tolerated.
Why should pro government forces be free to spread their propaganda through government controlled press?

I believe the only protection from totalitarianism after the revolution is a free press.

ComradeOm

20th May 2006, 21:47

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+May 20 2006, 08:29 PM--> (Citizen Zero @ May 20 2006, 08:29 PM)Surely in a Communist society, the material conditions which foster racism and fascism (competition over rationed resources within the working class) will have ceased and anyone advocating right wing views will be viewed by the majority as a rather absurd and marginalised freak.

Would repressive censorship be necessary?[/b]
That's taken as a given. But post revolution society is not going to be one big happy family.

FinnMacCool
Why should pro government forces be free to spread their propaganda through government controlled press?
Not quite the same as censorship. Though of course it will be the state that enforces it. But, considering that we're talking about a proletarian state, that shouldn't be a road to "totalitarianism".

But tell me why we shouldn't stop liberals and reactionaries spreading their shit?

Orange Juche

20th May 2006, 22:59

During and after a revolution, I would imagine the media would be similar to the indymedia network. I wouldn't see it as institutionalized, but an independent organization.

I imagine it would look at things objectively. Many of the conservatives and "liberals" of today would possibly see it as biased, but to me it seems it would simply be of and by the workers, and would report information that is of interest to the workers.

drain.you

20th May 2006, 23:14

i think the government should allows have some kind of media under their control, but by no means should they have a monopoly on the industry.

LSD

20th May 2006, 23:46

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

FinnMacCool

21st May 2006, 02:21

Not quite the same as censorship. Though of course it will be the state that enforces it. But, considering that we're talking about a proletarian state, that shouldn't be a road to "totalitarianism".

Without a free press to monitor the activities of the government, how on earth are we going to be able to tell what they are doing is in our interests?

LoneRed

21st May 2006, 02:38

right now the main problem that needs to be overcome is showing socialist/communist media and viewpoints, all we have is capitalist backwash, there needs to be freedom for other sides to be heard other than the dominant paradigm

Messiah

21st May 2006, 08:31

Free press, no other way, no questions asked. Obviously one has to be careful "free press" isn't used as a excuse for propaganda but "state" controlled media (and I use the term state loosely, as in dominated and dictated to by any one body) is inherently problematic. Any claim to a free society cannot exist without a free press.

redflag32

21st May 2006, 10:39

Originally posted by ComradeOm+May 20 2006, 08:19 PM--> (ComradeOm @ May 20 2006, 08:19 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 06:32 PM
So you are just going to act the way they are acting now,only from the other side?Its NOT democratic to say a certain person/group can not speak there mind,once they are not inciting hatred or violence then they can do as they please in a TRUE democratic society.
Well... duh. What do I care about liberal standards of democracy? Now the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat; following revolution the proletariat surpresses the bourgeoisie. Without giving a fuck about their "rights" [/b]
What do you care about democracy?Communism is the highest form of democracy remember.Basicaly what your saying is that the working class would have the right to oppress the bourgeoisie because it was done to them for so long?Do you also think black people have a right to do what was done to them to white people?or maybe the jews should start going around gassing germans?

We as socialists,communists,anarchists HAVE to be the righteous ones,we take part in this struggle,we take the side of the working class not because its the side we find ourselves on but because its the RIGHT thing to do and be,if we are to just copy the inhumanity the bourgeoisie has handed out to us for the last few centuries then we are no better then them,we would just simply be "the other side" of two warring classes.I dont see the class conflict like that,and i dont think any leftie should.

Sure we all know no man/woman has the right to exploit another,no man/woman has the right to private property etc... those things woukd b upheld in the law of revolution,but when it comes to censoring people because they did it to us,thats just wrong.........unless ofcourse they are inciting hatred or violence.

I think we have to remember that when a revolution does finally arrive that it HAS to have the support of the majority of the people to succeed,so if it doesnt have the support,why try to force it through?and if it does,we wont need to worry about fringe elements who are anti-revolution,they will be around for a long time,but with the people on your side they will be irrelevant.

Wells

21st May 2006, 11:46

The press should be free to print and say what they want, but they must be owned by the state so that they are not a profit making organization. In capitalist society the media is in no way "free", it is controlled by the owners who publish what they want. Rupert Murdoch owns huge parts of the media around the world where he can propergate what he wills.

violencia.Proletariat

21st May 2006, 15:34

There will be full free speech to the proletariat. However, reactionary elements will not be given resources to distribute their cause. Acussed reactionary media/information will be voted on in a community council if necessary to deem its status. Obvious reactionary media/information (nazism/fascism, open calls for return to capitalism, etc) will be shut down immediately by workers militias.

ComradeOm

21st May 2006, 15:36

Originally posted by FinnMacCool+--> (FinnMacCool)Without a free press to monitor the activities of the government, how on earth are we going to be able to tell what they are doing is in our interests?[/b]
Again, the point is to prevent reactionaries promote their agenda - not install a “Big Brother” system.

But this isn’t a bourgeois government that we’re talking about. It will be a proletarian state, in whatever form that may take, which by definition entails that it does what we tell it to.

redflag32
What do you care about democracy?Communism is the highest form of democracy remember.Basicaly what your saying is that the working class would have the right to oppress the bourgeoisie because it was done to them for so long?
It is not a matter of the right to oppress others but rather the necessity. Abstract rights do not factor into a materialist reading of society or revolution. The proletariat will oppress the bourgeoisie because the alternative is sitting back and allowing the reestablishment of capitalism. So you can take the rights that you liberals hold so dear and shove them!

We as socialists,communists,anarchists HAVE to be the righteous ones,we take part in this struggle,we take the side of the working class not because its the side we find ourselves on but because its the RIGHT thing to do and be,if we are to just copy the inhumanity the bourgeoisie has handed out to us for the last few centuries then we are no better then them,we would just simply be "the other side" of two warring classes.I dont see the class conflict like that,and i dont think any leftie should.
Of course you don’t. You no doubt see class struggle as a titanic duel between the holy and righteous proletariat against the wicked bourgeoisie. Thankfully this old German chap by the name of Marx tore up this nonsense a century ago. Like it or not we are “the other side of two warring classes”

we wont need to worry about fringe elements who are anti-revolution,they will be around for a long time,but with the people on your side they will be irrelevant.
And this is because….? Need I mention how much chaos a violent minority can cause? Far more so when these are elements of the former ruling class with all the resources that that entails.

Wells

21st May 2006, 15:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 02:34 PM
There will be full free speech to the proletariat. However, reactionary elements will not be given resources to distribute their cause. Acussed reactionary media/information will be voted on in a community council if necessary to deem its status. Obvious reactionary media/information (nazism/fascism, open calls for return to capitalism, etc) will be shut down immediately by workers militias.
Well, I would argue that such reactionary information would be allowed to be published. In a socialist state or society the majority of the people won't pay attention to bourgeoise propaganda. There must be full freedom of speach because that is what Socialism is; Ultimate democracy.

Ander

21st May 2006, 15:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:21 PM

Not quite the same as censorship. Though of course it will be the state that enforces it. But, considering that we're talking about a proletarian state, that shouldn't be a road to "totalitarianism".

Without a free press to monitor the activities of the government, how on earth are we going to be able to tell what they are doing is in our interests?
This is the best reply that has been given so far.

The rest of you make me ashamed to call myself a leftist. What you are proposing is repression, nothing less. If it was up to you to decide the future of a socialist society, you would run it into the ground and it would decay into some kind of police state.

Freedom, my ass.

violencia.Proletariat

21st May 2006, 15:52

In a socialist state or society the majority of the people won't pay attention to bourgeoise propaganda.

Thats very naive. The proletariat must maintain its power immediately after the revolution which will be an uncertain time. This is plenty of time for the reactionary propaganda to take effect.

There must be full freedom of speach because that is what Socialism is; Ultimate democracy

Yes, full freedom of speech for those who don't want to kill and put us under despotism. 50-100 years after the revolution we might let the few capitalists left babble about their bullshit all they want, it will not be effective then, but 5 days after the revolution, that could be detremental.

Aside from the principle of free speech lets analyze the situation. Are you really going to submit a significant ammount of resources to these people over people who can actually do some good with it? Will you choose reactionary phamplets over saftey or health phamplets?

Wells

21st May 2006, 16:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 02:51 PM

The rest of you make me ashamed to call myself a leftist. What you are proposing is repression, nothing less. If it was up to you to decide the future of a socialist society, you would run it into the ground and it would decay into some kind of police state.

Freedom, my ass.
I was saying the same, We must allow freedom of speech.

QUOTE
In a socialist state or society the majority of the people won't pay attention to bourgeoise propaganda.

Thats very naive. The proletariat must maintain its power immediately after the revolution which will be an uncertain time. This is plenty of time for the reactionary propaganda to take effect.

QUOTE
There must be full freedom of speach because that is what Socialism is; Ultimate democracy

Yes, full freedom of speech for those who don't want to kill and put us under despotism. 50-100 years after the revolution we might let the few capitalists left babble about their bullshit all they want, it will not be effective then, but 5 days after the revolution, that could be detremental.

Aside from the principle of free speech lets analyze the situation. Are you really going to submit a significant ammount of resources to these people over people who can actually do some good with it? Will you choose reactionary phamplets over saftey or health phamplets?

I don't think it is naive, the people have asked for a revolution and now they have it. Sutting people off like that is a prime example of causing a counter revolution. It could go toward a Stalinist state if we stop the freedom of press. In a Socialist revolution we must allow freedom of speech. People must be allowed to show their frustration. I am not a Stalinist!

Herman

21st May 2006, 16:44

Censor the Capitalists as much as one can. No one let them voice their corrupt ideas. It is better to keep them quiet and oppressed, while the working-class can spread whatever messages they want.

redflag32

21st May 2006, 17:20

Originally posted by ComradeOm+May 21 2006, 02:36 PM--> (ComradeOm @ May 21 2006, 02:36 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Without a free press to monitor the activities of the government, how on earth are we going to be able to tell what they are doing is in our interests?
Again, the point is to prevent reactionaries promote their agenda - not install a “Big Brother” system.

But this isn’t a bourgeois government that we’re talking about. It will be a proletarian state, in whatever form that may take, which by definition entails that it does what we tell it to.

redflag32
What do you care about democracy?Communism is the highest form of democracy remember.Basicaly what your saying is that the working class would have the right to oppress the bourgeoisie because it was done to them for so long?
It is not a matter of the right to oppress others but rather the necessity. Abstract rights do not factor into a materialist reading of society or revolution. The proletariat will oppress the bourgeoisie because the alternative is sitting back and allowing the reestablishment of capitalism. So you can take the rights that you liberals hold so dear and shove them!

We as socialists,communists,anarchists HAVE to be the righteous ones,we take part in this struggle,we take the side of the working class not because its the side we find ourselves on but because its the RIGHT thing to do and be,if we are to just copy the inhumanity the bourgeoisie has handed out to us for the last few centuries then we are no better then them,we would just simply be "the other side" of two warring classes.I dont see the class conflict like that,and i dont think any leftie should.
Of course you don’t. You no doubt see class struggle as a titanic duel between the holy and righteous proletariat against the wicked bourgeoisie. Thankfully this old German chap by the name of Marx tore up this nonsense a century ago. Like it or not we are “the other side of two warring classes”

we wont need to worry about fringe elements who are anti-revolution,they will be around for a long time,but with the people on your side they will be irrelevant.
And this is because….? Need I mention how much chaos a violent minority can cause? Far more so when these are elements of the former ruling class with all the resources that that entails.[/b]

The proletariat will oppress the bourgeoisie because the alternative is sitting back and allowing the reestablishment of capitalism.

No its not,how is a minority going to break the will of a united workng class majority?Sure, we shouldnt give the ruling class the powers they once had,but how is free press going to give them anything back,the working class ARE the majority currently but even free press does NOT give them the power you think it will give to the rulng class,who we must remember will be a minority.

Wells

21st May 2006, 17:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:20 PM

No its not,how is a minority going to break the will of a united workng class majority?Sure, we shouldnt give the ruling class the powers they once had,but how is free press going to give them anything back,the working class ARE the majority currently but even free press does NOT give them the power you think it will give to the rulng class,who we must remember will be a minority.
Damn Straight!

Redflag 32 we seem to have alot in common. :D

redflag32

21st May 2006, 18:16

Originally posted by Wells+May 21 2006, 04:45 PM--> (Wells @ May 21 2006, 04:45 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 04:20 PM

No its not,how is a minority going to break the will of a united workng class majority?Sure, we shouldnt give the ruling class the powers they once had,but how is free press going to give them anything back,the working class ARE the majority currently but even free press does NOT give them the power you think it will give to the rulng class,who we must remember will be a minority.
Damn Straight!

Redflag 32 we seem to have alot in common. :D [/b]
just remember that when i need your back up on something :D

Fistful of Steel

21st May 2006, 18:33

Under the revolution, the media will be controlled by the people (naturally) and the people will show what they want. I think it's important however to not just pander to the majority, but for the media to strive to be unbiased (as much as possible) in detailing events, and not showing any political slant. Once class is broken down, whatever society groups itself under there's bound to be people of different interpretations on exactly what brand of things should be done, so having a plural approach that favours all views is a good thing.

FinnMacCool

21st May 2006, 18:35

Again, the point is to prevent reactionaries promote their agenda - not install a “Big Brother” system.How on earth are ordinary people going to know whether the government is simply sensoring "reactionaries" as opposed to them censoring pretty much anything else? Its impossible without a free press.

But this isn’t a bourgeois government that we’re talking about. It will be a proletarian state, in whatever form that may take, which by definition entails that it does what we tell it to.
When has a centralized government ever acted in the interests of its own people?

violencia.Proletariat

21st May 2006, 22:25

I don't think it is naive, the people have asked for a revolution and now they have it.

No they will not "ask" for anything. They will MAKE the revolution. If this is fine with you I am asking you why on earth you would let enemies of that revolution (very capable of destroying it) have free reign in the community.

Sutting people off like that is a prime example of causing a counter revolution.

Actually it's not. There is going to be counter revolution, there is no question about it. We are willing to shut it down to the best of our abilities, you want to give them a damn weapon to shoot us with. :(

It could go toward a Stalinist state if we stop the freedom of press.

We aren't stopping the freedom of the press, proletarian press will be free. Reactionary messages are what is going to be suppressed.

People must be allowed to show their frustration

...fascists? capitalists? FUCK THEM and their "concerns." They will use every oppertunity TO KILL YOU.

OneBrickOneVoice

21st May 2006, 22:34

Originally posted by ComradeOm+May 20 2006, 08:19 PM--> (ComradeOm @ May 20 2006, 08:19 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 06:32 PM
So you are just going to act the way they are acting now,only from the other side?Its NOT democratic to say a certain person/group can not speak there mind,once they are not inciting hatred or violence then they can do as they please in a TRUE democratic society.
Well... duh. What do I care about liberal standards of democracy? Now the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat; following revolution the proletariat surpresses the bourgeoisie. Without giving a fuck about their "rights"
What do you care about democracy?Communism is the highest form of democracy remember.Basicaly what your saying is that the working class would have the right to oppress the bourgeoisie because it was done to them for so long?Do you also think black people have a right to do what was done to them to white people?or maybe the jews should start going around gassing germans?

We as socialists,communists,anarchists HAVE to be the righteous ones,we take part in this struggle,we take the side of the working class not because its the side we find ourselves on but because its the RIGHT thing to do and be,if we are to just copy the inhumanity the bourgeoisie has handed out to us for the last few centuries then we are no better then them,we would just simply be "the other side" of two warring classes.I dont see the class conflict like that,and i dont think any leftie should.

Sure we all know no man/woman has the right to exploit another,no man/woman has the right to private property etc... those things woukd b upheld in the law of revolution,but when it comes to censoring people because they did it to us,thats just wrong.........unless ofcourse they are inciting hatred or violence.

I think we have to remember that when a revolution does finally arrive that it HAS to have the support of the majority of the people to succeed,so if it doesnt have the support,why try to force it through?and if it does,we wont need to worry about fringe elements who are anti-revolution,they will be around for a long time,but with the people on your side they will be irrelevant.[/b]

Thank you! Someone gets it! We're worse than the capitalists if we censor people! Let them speak and let us laugh. It is sick to think that we'd just censor people we don't like because that's what Stalin did and look how that got out of hand, he ended up calling fellow communists fascists!

Wells

21st May 2006, 22:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:25 PM

I don't think it is naive, the people have asked for a revolution and now they have it.

No they will not "ask" for anything. They will MAKE the revolution. If this is fine with you I am asking you why on earth you would let enemies of that revolution (very capable of destroying it) have free reign in the community.

Sutting people off like that is a prime example of causing a counter revolution.

Actually it's not. There is going to be counter revolution, there is no question about it. We are willing to shut it down to the best of our abilities, you want to give them a damn weapon to shoot us with. :(

It could go toward a Stalinist state if we stop the freedom of press.

We aren't stopping the freedom of the press, proletarian press will be free. Reactionary messages are what is going to be suppressed.

People must be allowed to show their frustration

...fascists? capitalists? FUCK THEM and their "concerns." They will use every oppertunity TO KILL YOU.
I really think you're misunderstanding this. We as leftists should believe in freedom of speech, which means people will be able to print and say what they want. A revolution does not happen over night, A revolution may even consist of a counter-revolution. During all this time Pro capitalist or facist propaganda will be published, thre's no doubt about it. However, if the counter-revolution is crushed and a socialist state is formed then, THEN freedom of press needs to be allowed.

If we start suppressing people then we will become Stalinists and Facists. These facists and capitalists that try to kill us, we will obviously fight back against. Most facist or racist media is already censored today, an example of the capitalist system trying to shut down its enemies, limiting freedom.

People will be angry for years to come, but that is natural with change. There is No need to turn into a Stalinist state. If the revolution goes well and a socialist state is instigated then only the bourgeoise elements of society, not the everyday conformist, will protest.

The people will be far too strong and in a collective to listen to capitalist propaganda. Outside infulences will be a problem. That is another issue with isolated revolutions.

violencia.Proletariat

22nd May 2006, 00:20

We as leftists should believe in freedom of speech, which means people will be able to print and say what they want

Why? That makes no sense. A capitalist or a fascist should not be allowed to take community resources to say what they want! Especially not in immediate post revolutionay periods.

What do you think is going to happen to fascists and major capitalists during a revolution, wil they be given a talk radio show? :lol: I suggest the outcome of the actions taken against them are very permanent :lol:

A revolution does not happen over night, A revolution may even consist of a counter-revolution. During all this time Pro capitalist or facist propaganda will be published, thre's no doubt about it. However, if the counter-revolution is crushed and a socialist state is formed then, THEN freedom of press needs to be allowed.

What do you think I've been advocating? The suppression of free speech will take part mostly in the immediate post revolution. 50-100 years after the revolution the capitalists can babble all they want, no significant resources shall be given to them to spread their crap however. Maybe they can have an angel fire or geocities site :lol: One with lots of communist pop-ups :lol:

If we start suppressing people then we will become Stalinists and Facists.

Thats not the deffinition of fascism. So I suggest to you, stop using buzz words.

Most facist or racist media is already censored today

Thats why they have 500 cops come out to protect a 10 person march eh? :rolleyes:

There is No need to turn into a Stalinist state.

Where on earth did I ever suggest this? I'm an anarchist, quit labeling me a stalinist you prick.

The people will be far too strong and in a collective to listen to capitalist propaganda.

This leads to downfalls of revolutions. The great uncertainty of a revolution is perfect for these leaches to get people to listen to their crap.

Free speech or not, I will never work a job in which resources will be given for fascists to spread their information.

Wells

22nd May 2006, 00:43

Why? That makes no sense. A capitalist or a fascist should not be allowed to take community resources to say what they want! Especially not in immediate post revolutionay periods.

What do you think is going to happen to fascists and major capitalists during a revolution, wil they be given a talk radio show? I suggest the outcome of the actions taken against them are very permanent

What do you think I've been advocating? The suppression of free speech will take part mostly in the immediate post revolution. 50-100 years after the revolution the capitalists can babble all they want, no significant resources shall be given to them to spread their crap however. Maybe they can have an angel fire or geocities site One with lots of communist pop-ups

How do you define a capitalist, after a revolution the country will be in chaos. Like I said, and like you said the immediate revolution will be a period of consolidation. Eventually the former owners would like to use any methods to bring back capitalism. However, there should be no policy of suppressing the freedom of speech of anybody! The resources will be distributed fairly anyway and a capitalist may be secretive so that no one knows who is a capitalist.

QUOTE
If we start suppressing people then we will become Stalinists and Facists.

Thats not the deffinition of fascism. So I suggest to you, stop using buzz words.

No its not the definition of fascism, but it is an aspect of it.

Thats why they have 500 cops come out to protect a 10 person march eh?

I don't know whether you've noticed but there are massive protests in the world to alot of racial hatred. The cartoons in Denmark is an example.

Where on earth did I ever suggest this? I'm an anarchist, quit labeling me a stalinist you prick.

I did not call you a Stalinist, I was saying that a Stalinist would prefer this censorship. As an anarchist you would understand the concept of ultimate freedom, maybe better than me. Is name calling necessary? We're on the same side.

QUOTE
The people will be far too strong and in a collective to listen to capitalist propaganda.

This leads to downfalls of revolutions. The great uncertainty of a revolution is perfect for these leaches to get people to listen to their crap.

If a revolution is uncertain, then it can become dangerous. This means the base was not there for a socialist revolution to occur their in the first place. Although capitalists will always be there to turn it, as we agreed on, the immediate aftermath is most important.

Ander

22nd May 2006, 01:32

I see more fascists in this thread than leftists.

violencia.Proletariat

22nd May 2006, 01:55

How do you define a capitalist, after a revolution the country will be in chaos.

It might be those people calling for the return of capitalism, but I guess thats a little obvious right? :lol:

However, there should be no policy of suppressing the freedom of speech of anybody!

Of course there should be, but we are not going to reach an agreement on this.

The resources will be distributed fairly anyway and a capitalist may be secretive so that no one knows who is a capitalist.

I find it scary that a communist wants to provide equal resources for a capitalist to spread his ideas in a post revolutionary society.

I don't know whether you've noticed but there are massive protests in the world to alot of racial hatred. The cartoons in Denmark is an example.

The cartoons are not what I'm referring to. You see, when there are one of these large nazi marches, I'm agreeing with the larger crowd that wants to lynch them. You agree with the cops who are protecting their "freedom of speech."

We're on the same side.

Not really. Personally I would find it hard to trust a communist who wants to give free speech to fascists.

If a revolution is uncertain, then it can become dangerous. This means the base was not there for a socialist revolution to occur their in the first place.

All revolutions are uncertain, thats why they are revolutions! It's "revolutionary" the unknown.

Herman

22nd May 2006, 08:29

We as leftists should believe in freedom of speech, which means people will be able to print and say what they want.

Of course not! In the Socialist transition to Communism, do you really believe we should grant the freedom for Capitalists to say whatever they want? The bourgoisie who will try to overthrow the new Socialist state? We should use the old state apparatus to oppress and repress them.

Wells

22nd May 2006, 19:06

Hmm, I'm a socialist not communist. I joined this site to express leftist views. I don't see much of it. We Should believe in freedom of speech as leftists, I can't understand why some of you think otherwise. I'm sorry but I see oppression as a attitude of capitalists and facists, not of us on the left.

Ander

22nd May 2006, 20:39

I completely agree with everything you just said Wells. Yet no one here will argue against me.

The majority of posters in this thread are making me feel embarassed to be associated with them. We are talking heavy oppression here, a tool of imperialists and fascists, not leftists.

Freedom of speech extends to everyone, not only those who favour the revolution. If not, then you have drifted away from the true principles of Socialism.

I hate biased right wing media that is ever present today, but the solution is not to fight fire with fire. You must show them we are better than that...that anyone, no matter what their views should be able to announce them freely, without repression or harm.

violencia.Proletariat

22nd May 2006, 20:53

Hmm, I'm a socialist not communist.

What do you mean by that? Are you a socialist in the Marxist use of the word? If thats the case how are you not a communist? Or do you want scandanavian welfare and call it socialism?

We Should believe in freedom of speech as leftists, I can't understand why some of you think otherwise.

Again I ask, WHY? Why as leftists do we owe are mostly violent enemies the right to speak freely during revolution and transition?

I'm sorry but I see oppression as a attitude of capitalists and facists, not of us on the left.

I see this hopeless conquest of free speech as a fake bourgeois idea in order to please people.

I completely agree with everything you just said Wells. Yet no one here will argue against me.

Add something to the conversation, explain why we need to give them free speech?

The majority of posters in this thread are making me feel embarassed to be associated with them. We are talking heavy oppression here, a tool of imperialists and fascists, not leftists.

Suppression is not a tool of fascists and imperialists, it's just a tool. You people are really sounding like liberals, you act as if we are advocating the mass murder of these people :lol: Are you going to be telling us to put people "in prison" (or summer camp as they way you would describe it) instead of executing them during the revolution too? :lol:

Freedom of speech extends to everyone, not only those who favour the revolution. If not, then you have drifted away from the true principles of Socialism.

What true principle of socialism says I have to give a fascist a platform to fuck me over? Socialism is the democratic control of the means or production for the common good, not "free speech for reactionaries."

You must show them we are better than that...that anyone, no matter what their views should be able to announce them freely, without repression or harm.

Utopian, purley. I don't give a shit what a capitalist think is better. You do not win a revolution by preaching to the ruling class, you destroy them. There is no alternative.

Ander

22nd May 2006, 21:04

You are a truly ignorant person. You don't take the time to view things from a different perspective.

Not all capitalists want to KILL YOU or destroy the lower classes. The definition of a capitalist is not: "Someone who hates poor people and tries to exploit the working class." This is like saying that all communists are Stalin-loving fanatics who want to turn their country into a dictatorship. Do you see how generalizations go both ways?

How is banning a certain group from expressing their views democratic?

Let these capitalists and fascists say what they want, and we will laugh at them. If Socialism is truly desired by the people, then they will defend it. You cannot force any ideology upon anyone, I thought as a leftist you understood this.

violencia.Proletariat

22nd May 2006, 21:11

You don't take the time to view things from a different perspective.

I used to believe in free speech to, until I realized that reactionary propaganda has no place in a revolutionary society.

Not all capitalists want to KILL YOU or destroy the lower classes.

I would like you to find one who in a revolution would not be willing to defend their property and markets by any means necessary.

The definition of a capitalist is not: "Someone who hates poor people and tries to exploit the working class."

Are you saying the bourgeoisie does not exploit the working class? :o

How is banning a certain group from expressing their views democratic?

Fascists don't want democracy, why give it to them?

Let these capitalists and fascists say what they want, and we will laugh at them.

And you were calling me ignorant? Do you realize the severity of a revolution? It's not a game, life is at stake. I am not willing to run the risk of counter revolution to hear a capitalist or fascist spew the bullshit we are overthrowing are you? What do you think would happen if that group whos propaganda you let go led to counter revolution, what do you think is going to happen to you? They won't be giving you any free speech, thats for sure.

If Socialism is truly desired by the people, then they will defend it.

Correct, and one of the ways to defend it is suppressing reactionaries.

You cannot force any ideology upon anyone

Where have I proposed that, no where. Your the one who wants to kiss ass to convert capitalists in fascists.

Wells

22nd May 2006, 21:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:39 PM
I completely agree with everything you just said Wells. Yet no one here will argue against me.

The majority of posters in this thread are making me feel embarassed to be associated with them. We are talking heavy oppression here, a tool of imperialists and fascists, not leftists.

Freedom of speech extends to everyone, not only those who favour the revolution. If not, then you have drifted away from the true principles of Socialism.

I hate biased right wing media that is ever present today, but the solution is not to fight fire with fire. You must show them we are better than that...that anyone, no matter what their views should be able to announce them freely, without repression or harm.
Yey! Jello, You're a true leftist! I'm proud to call you a comrade. Why aren't there more like you?

violencia.Proletariat;

I'm a socialist, I would take a scandanavian welfare approach at this moment in time, only because that is much better than the situation we have in Britain at the moment. However, that is not to say I would not strive for more to distribute the wealth ever increasingly fairly so that, yes it would be communist. However, I am not a revolutionary. I cannot see immediate revolution.

Besides, we are leftists, we believe in democracy and free speech, our ideology evolves around this concept.

I see this hopeless conquest of free speech as a fake bourgeois idea in order to please people.

I'll agree with you here, but only under capitalism is this the case.

We can't just pick and choose who we give freedoim of speech to, thats not how it works, that is not socialism, communism or indeed anarchism.

Ander

22nd May 2006, 22:18

I, as a Socialist, believe in freedom. Freedom cannot exist if it is an option for only a select few.

I disagree with right wingers and I do not sympathize with them, but to say that they must be censored and repressed is something that I would not wish upon anybody.

I am completely against Nazism and its disgusting message of hate, but I don't think it is right to outright silence those who preach it. That's not freedom, and as long as they are not harming anyone else, let them talk their shit. I, for one, am not going to listen or believe anything they say so it doesn't bother me.

violencia.Proletariat, you are not a true leftist because you do not embrace true liberty. Just as the Nazi's silenced all leftist opposition during their reign, you seek to do the same to your opponents.

Get away from me, go off to your Stalinist paradise.

Wells

22nd May 2006, 22:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:18 PM
I, as a Socialist, believe in freedom. Freedom cannot exist if it is an option for only a select few.

I disagree with right wingers and I do not sympathize with them, but to say that they must be censored and repressed is something that I would not wish upon anybody.

I am completely against Nazism and its disgusting message of hate, but I don't think it is right to outright silence those who preach it. That's not freedom, and as long as they are not harming anyone else, let them talk their shit. I, for one, am not going to listen or believe anything they say so it doesn't bother me.

Hear hear! :D

violencia.Proletariat

22nd May 2006, 22:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:18 PM

.

That's not freedom, and as long as they are not harming anyone else

What do you think there message is all about. No organized nazi group that I have ever heard of renounces violence, but use it.

They wish to spread their message in order to one day gain enough power to implement their acts and will attack people in the mean time.

These bastards must be stopped.

you are not a true leftist because you do not embrace true liberty

:lol: Your right, I do not want freedom for fascists. Does this make me hate liberty or love it? Thats each individuals decision to make?

Fascists don't value freedom, they will use it to implement their idealogy at any point.

Just as the Nazi's silenced all leftist opposition during their reign, you seek to do the same to your opponents.

Don't ever compare me to a nazi. I will never suppress reactionaries with mass murder, you are insulting me. But I will never give fascists a chance to fuck the working class over.

Get away from me, go off to your Stalinist paradise

:lol: I would continue this discussion but you have turned into a flame war as your arguement is shit.

Wells

22nd May 2006, 23:58

Our arguement is "Shit"? Our arguement derives from socialism. Maybe you should take time to research where your arguement comes from. :angry:

OneBrickOneVoice

23rd May 2006, 00:09

What do you think there message is all about. No organized nazi group that I have ever heard of renounces violence, but use it.

They wish to spread their message in order to one day gain enough power to implement their acts and will attack people in the mean time.

These bastards must be stopped.

You think they have any effect in today's world? No people think more highly of dog turd.

:lol: Your right, I do not want freedom for fascists. Does this make me hate liberty or love it? Thats each individuals decision to make?

Fascists don't value freedom, they will use it to implement their idealogy at any point.

Let them talk their shit and let us laugh. First it's fascists, Then it's capitalists, then it's people who speak out against the government. Have you not learned anything from the 20th century you Stalinist!

Don't ever compare me to a nazi. I will never suppress reactionaries with mass murder, you are insulting me. But I will never give fascists a chance to fuck the working class over.

Stalin and Lenin said the same. Freedom is nothing when supress people and you do it in such a broad way. You can call anyone who disagrees a fascist or capitalist. Not letting people speak there mind is a complete violation of human rights. Look at the USSR and Cuba. Everytime someone disagreed they were called 'enemies of the revolution' and 'fascists'.

violencia.Proletariat

23rd May 2006, 00:23

You think they have any effect in today's world? No people think more highly of dog turd.

Thats why blacks and immigrants are being murdered in Russia right now eh? Bastard. :angry:

Let them talk their shit and let us laugh.

It's not just talking. Their propaganda will increase their membership, which in turn gives them more power to take physical action. The latter is very dangerous to us.

First it's fascists, Then it's capitalists, then it's people who speak out against the government.

What government? I'm an anarchist.

Have you not learned anything from the 20th century you Stalinist!

Yes, I have learned that fascists are always and will always remain violent assholes who must be suppressed. But if 10 million + deaths doesn't convince you... :rolleyes:

You can call anyone who disagrees a fascist or capitalist.

Ah I can, but as I have stated earlier in the thread this means nothing. Reactionary suppression would be a community issue that is discussed in the community assemblies. No single person or small group would have any decision in the matter.

Not letting people speak there mind is a complete violation of human rights.

They can speak their minds all they want. I however do not support giving them any significant ammount of paper to spew their bullshit. Nor do I think paper factory workers fresh out of revolution will either.

Wells

23rd May 2006, 01:32

They can speak their minds all they want. I however do not support giving them any significant ammount of paper to spew their bullshit. Nor do I think paper factory workers fresh out of revolution will either.

Well you've said it there, it will be very hard for these people to publish their own propaganda. They will be able to on a small scale. However, this will drive it underground and could be a serious threat to the state. If it is open and we allow them to publish a certain amount then at least we have some control on what is being published.

violencia.Proletariat

23rd May 2006, 01:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:32 PM

They can speak their minds all they want. I however do not support giving them any significant ammount of paper to spew their bullshit. Nor do I think paper factory workers fresh out of revolution will either.

Well you've said it there, it will be very hard for these people to publish their own propaganda. They will be able to on a small scale. However, this will drive it underground and could be a serious threat to the state. If it is open and we allow them to publish a certain amount then at least we have some control on what is being published.
So now you are being hypocritical? You want to control what they publish, but let them have a right to publish? This seems kind of pointless.

Lets look at the empirical evidence. Fascism is a physically dangerous idealogy, especially for the working class and leftists. The only effective way of disabeling fascism seems to be to phsyically confront and suppress it.

Wells

23rd May 2006, 01:48

No, I said the worse thing is is to drive it underground. Think about it, in capitalism freedom of press is those with the most money get to publish more or less what they want. Under socialism the media will be controlled by the state. So anything published will have to go through the state censorship. We can allow almost anything of their claptrap, aslong as its not "Take up arms against the bolshiveiks!" Its their right as human beings. The leftist media will outwieght the right wing media by a fair amount anyway.

violencia.Proletariat

23rd May 2006, 03:40

Under socialism the media will be controlled by the state.

:lol: You are trying to lecture me about free speech yet you want a "state" controlled media.

We can allow almost anything of their claptrap, aslong as its not "Take up arms against the bolshiveiks!"

Bolsheviks? Hmmm, this isn't 1917. Almost all of their crap is "take up arms" to defend their imaginery race. There is a difference between academic knowledge on fascism and propaganda. Which one do you think fascists spew out?

YSR

23rd May 2006, 04:06

I thought this was a pretty legitimate thread until I came across this gem:

Originally posted by Jello
I see more fascists in this thread than leftists.

And then I was like, wow, you're a giant idiot. Do you have any idea what fascism means, or are you just using it a nice buzzword to identify your enemies? I remember reading somewhere there is an internet forum that employs the rule that as soon as you have compare your opponent in an argument to Hitler, you lose. I rather like this rule.

Jello, while I respect your viewpoints and disagree with them (something which will be allowed after the revolution. Disagreement. Rather better than today's media where you have to own capital to get your voice heard loud, eh?) I understand them. It seems hard to accept. Why shouldn't we accept freedom for "everyone"?

But for me it's a matter of self-preservation. If the Nazis, fascists, and Christian fundamentalists get what they want, I will be killed. Shot behind the shed, beaten down in the streets, whatever. Dead. It's as simple as that. Self-preservation. Me, you, violencia.proletariat, anyone who has probably ever posted here would be rounded up and shot in the street. Because that's what totalitarianism is.

Totalitarianism is not attempting to stop reactionaries from spreading their messages of fear and hatred. Hitler was trying to kill two whole ethnic groups, as well as all of us folks. I suggest you ask some Holocaust survivors their opinions about Nazis. Hell, look at history: When they caught Mussolini, look what they did? Beat his corpse in the street. THEY understood what fascism means.

We simple have to learn from history and the mistakes of our ancestors. Reactionaries cannot and must not be allowed to hurt our communities nor convert others to their twisted agendas. That's just common sense, friend.

anomaly

23rd May 2006, 04:30

During a revolution, we would be fighting the current government, so obviously we cannot allow them to spew their propaganda.

And give fascists freedom of speech? Hardly. Fascists enjoy killing communists. So we restrict those bastards' speech.

Now, during communism, we should have freedom of speech for all. Indeed, perhaps such a thing will only be possible once we reach communism.

Cloud

23rd May 2006, 04:35

Free speech for everything. An argument most impose on the theory of free speech for everything is tat by agreeing with total free speech you agree with capitalsts and fascists and all that nazi garbage. This isnt true. By agreeing with total free speech i am agreeing with the people as whole. I dont want a better life for those within the government, i want a better life for everyone as a whole. As for now though, while we live in (America) a world with biased everything and propaganda reigns everywhere you look, im all about shutting them down. Perhaps after the revolution free speech will come....if there is a revolution.

ComradeOm

23rd May 2006, 12:03

Originally posted by redflag32+--> (redflag32)No its not,how is a minority going to break the will of a united workng class majority?Sure, we shouldnt give the ruling class the powers they once had,but how is free press going to give them anything back,the working class ARE the majority currently but even free press does NOT give them the power you think it will give to the rulng class,who we must remember will be a minority.[/b]
The bourgeoisie have always been the minority.

Originally posted by [email protected]
How on earth are ordinary people going to know whether the government is simply sensoring "reactionaries" as opposed to them censoring pretty much anything else? Its impossible without a free press.
Because it’s a proletarian state. This is by definition a state run by and controlled by the proletariat. How many times need I mention this?

When has a centralized government ever acted in the interests of its own people?
How about today? I’d imagine that the centralised bourgeois states are quite good for the bourgeoisie :rolleyes:

Jello
I see more fascists in this thread than leftists.
I see more bleeding heart liberals than anything

Stay in your liberal democracies if you wish but don’t be surprised when people do not tolerate Nazis or liberals such as yourself following revolution. But of course… violence is a tool of the bourgeoisie, right?

Wells

23rd May 2006, 16:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:40 AM

Under socialism the media will be controlled by the state.

:lol: You are trying to lecture me about free speech yet you want a "state" controlled media.

We can allow almost anything of their claptrap, aslong as its not "Take up arms against the bolshiveiks!"

Bolsheviks? Hmmm, this isn't 1917. Almost all of their crap is "take up arms" to defend their imaginery race. There is a difference between academic knowledge on fascism and propaganda. Which one do you think fascists spew out?
Thats what socialism is! Look it Up!

Bolshievks was an example I used to attempt to show you and make you understand the futile propaganda they might use. Wow you're annoying!

Herman

23rd May 2006, 18:04

"We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism."

* Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, vol. vi pp 503-5

If you believe in Marxist philosphy and practice, then you believe in violence from the ruling class to its enemies. Once the proletarians have state power, they will use it against the bourgoisie. Me, compared to what Marx advocates, am nothing. Yet I am willing to allow them to be part of the new society. What we can do at least, is, like any ruling class does in hsitory, oppress them completely. Use the state power to break them, unleash a wave of restrictions so that they will never be able to recuperate.

"When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created." -Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Ander

23rd May 2006, 18:15

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+May 23 2006, 12:06 AM--> (Young Stupid Radical @ May 23 2006, 12:06 AM) I thought this was a pretty legitimate thread until I came across this gem:

Jello
I see more fascists in this thread than leftists.

And then I was like, wow, you're a giant idiot. Do you have any idea what fascism means, or are you just using it a nice buzzword to identify your enemies? I remember reading somewhere there is an internet forum that employs the rule that as soon as you have compare your opponent in an argument to Hitler, you lose. I rather like this rule.

Jello, while I respect your viewpoints and disagree with them (something which will be allowed after the revolution. Disagreement. Rather better than today's media where you have to own capital to get your voice heard loud, eh?) I understand them. It seems hard to accept. Why shouldn't we accept freedom for "everyone"?

But for me it's a matter of self-preservation. If the Nazis, fascists, and Christian fundamentalists get what they want, I will be killed. Shot behind the shed, beaten down in the streets, whatever. Dead. It's as simple as that. Self-preservation. Me, you, violencia.proletariat, anyone who has probably ever posted here would be rounded up and shot in the street. Because that's what totalitarianism is.

Totalitarianism is not attempting to stop reactionaries from spreading their messages of fear and hatred. Hitler was trying to kill two whole ethnic groups, as well as all of us folks. I suggest you ask some Holocaust survivors their opinions about Nazis. Hell, look at history: When they caught Mussolini, look what they did? Beat his corpse in the street. THEY understood what fascism means.

We simple have to learn from history and the mistakes of our ancestors. Reactionaries cannot and must not be allowed to hurt our communities nor convert others to their twisted agendas. That's just common sense, friend. [/b]
Like at any time, if anyone is trying to beat you behind the shed, you beat them back. If the Nazi's, fascists, and Christian fundamentalists actually rise up and try to murder you, then you fight them back. What you don't do is suppress them and make them second class citizens, especially if they are simply unsatisfied with the government.

Your current government has obviously not beaten you and silenced you. I don''t see how you people can predict that the capitalist minority will strike back, take over, and crack down on everyone. We do not live in dictatorships now. While they are fucked up nations with corrupt governments, they have not shot you yet. Don''t assume.

And, genuine fascists in significant groups are difficult to come by nowadays, fascism is a weak ideology.

"Censorship is regarded among a majority of academics in the Western world as a typical feature of dictatorships and other authoritarian political systems."

Now if you can somehow prove to me that what you are proposing is not censorship then we have an argument. If not, then I say you are a fool.

Wells

23rd May 2006, 19:00

Originally posted by ComradeOm+May 23 2006, 11:03 AM--> (ComradeOm @ May 23 2006, 11:03 AM)

Jello
I see more fascists in this thread than leftists.
I see more bleeding heart liberals than anything

[/b]
Great, we're either soft liberals or hard line facists. Is there any leftists here???? :unsure:

violencia.Proletariat

23rd May 2006, 21:50

Originally posted by Wells+May 23 2006, 11:28 AM--> (Wells @ May 23 2006, 11:28 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 02:40 AM

Under socialism the media will be controlled by the state.

:lol: You are trying to lecture me about free speech yet you want a "state" controlled media.

We can allow almost anything of their claptrap, aslong as its not "Take up arms against the bolshiveiks!"

Bolsheviks? Hmmm, this isn't 1917. Almost all of their crap is "take up arms" to defend their imaginery race. There is a difference between academic knowledge on fascism and propaganda. Which one do you think fascists spew out?
Thats what socialism is! Look it Up!

Bolshievks was an example I used to attempt to show you and make you understand the futile propaganda they might use. Wow you're annoying! [/b]
I know both deffinitions of socialism, the original meaning and the marxist meaning. If your implying that the bolsheviks created socialism that is laughable at best.