Freedoms and Communism

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Recently, I began thinking about the issue of freedom. In our society, we say that people have the right to do as they wish - assuming they do not restrict the freedoms of others. This is untrue, however. If someone's free speech is seen as infringing on other freedoms, that free speech is denied. Consequently, instead of simply censoring people we disagree with, we censor people who we feel are preventing other freedoms. Consequently, we are just moving from directly limiting freedom to limiting it through semantics.

To some extent, the idea of freedom in modern society has worked. To other extents, it does not. For instance, religion oppresses others, and language itself is power. Therefore, what is limiting freedom anyway?

How does communism deal with the contradictory nature of freedom, and what happens to religious or capitalist individuals?

[Rawthentic]

In communism, I dont believe that there would a contradictory nature of reedoms, thats how it works in capitalism. The freedoms we enjoy here are resrticted by the amount of money we have or property, making certain freedoms priviliges for those who have more money. Communism is freedom to be yourself, to act according to your needs and your abilities. There wouldnt be any capitalist individuals, at least I dont think so since they would have no reason to be greedy because they would have everything that they need. Religious individuals would be allowed operate, but not in the same magnitude as in capitalist society, and they would not be able to do it for personal profit or political purposes.

[Dyst]

Freedom as a concept is in itself contradictory, as you pointed out. For example, if someone wants to rape another person, and there was total freedom, s/he would be permitted to do so. But what about that other person, who does not want to be raped? S/he should also have the freedom to not get raped.

Because of this, it is somewhat strange to talk about freedom without pointing out precisely what you mean by it. Otherwise discussions can become quite distorted.

I believe in a type of freedom which allowes people to have at least something to say about what they will do, each day. If there is anything freedom should be defined as, it should be this.

I believe the freedom we are told to have in the newer capitalistic societies is to some degree non-existant.

[Herman]

Freedom comes once you have the economic means for it.

[RevMARKSman]

Dyst--you summarized it completely. The rape victim, in exercising his/her freedom not to be raped, would be infringing upon the "freedom" of the rapist to rape him/her. As long as there are contradictory desires there will be contradictory "freedoms." We just have to know where to draw the line.

[Janus]

Obviously, infringement of other people's freedoms will be observed by the society itself. Whether this be through violence or if someone takes more than their fair share. Societal pressure is pretty intimidating and it's not like a communist society is going to be an orgy of lawlessness. That's how capitalists think it will be but people will still know boundaries and limits.

[Le People]

Communism would bring about the control of soceity by soceity, which would then be transmitted to the control of oneself by oneself. It's all allowing the subject to conjoin with the predicate.

[red_che]

In my understanding, the communist movement wants to bring freedom on all men. And that freedom is freedom from the bondage of exploitation.

Now, any other freedoms are relative, I think. One who does what he wishes to do, as long as this does not violate the freedom of others and the existing social norms or laws, is freedom. As long as no one is exploiting others, it is freedom in its true sense. That is my opinion. :)

[apathy maybe]

My freedom to swing my fist stops at your head. I have freedom, so long as it does not impact on another person (or their freedom). (Ignoring all issues where two people consent to something.)

That's the basic. But then it gets more complicated; do I have the freedom hunt to extinction the last of some wild animal? Or bulldoze the last of a patch of endangered vegetation? It could be argued that these are not impacting on other humans (and most people only argue from a human point of view, saying that we live in a human society), but it could also be argued the other way as well.

Your bulldozing of that last patch of vegetation deprives me of my "right" to have that vegetation exist, to have the possibility of visiting it etc. (ignoring all the arguments about how the animals in the place have "rights" and how the actual eco-system has "rights").

What if there was heaps of this community of plants around and I only bulldozed a little bit? Does that impinge on the freedom of others?

I obviously cannot bulldoze a house or school, for that will impinge on the freedom of others. But some people argue that the community has the right to bulldoze a religious centre as that place impinges on the freedoms of the community to be free of reactionary-ness.

[Rawthentic]

oh right, i see how this freedom issue is far more complicated than I expected. Like red_che said, it is the freedom from exploitation and oppression.