Canadian Postal worker disciplined for refusing to

[Cheung Mo]

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/bc/news/sto...68b5929&k=35109 (http://www.canada.com/globaltv/bc/news/story.html?id=221b8715-a7bd-4010-927d-a699a68b5929&k=35109)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/.../bc-postal.html (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/10/26/bc-postal.html)

http://libcom.org/news/postal-worker-facin...mphlet-20112006 (http://libcom.org/news/postal-worker-facing-sack-for-refusing-to-deliver-homophobic-pamphlet-20112006)


"The first words I saw when I picked it up were: 'The plague of this 21st Century: the consequences of the sin of homosexuality (AIDS).' "

[LSD]

Obviously we can all sympathize with the postal worker in question, but what happens when the reverse occurs? When it's a pro-gay pamphlet and an anti-gay employee?

Or how about when it's a Candadian "patriot" who refuse to deliver revolutionary literature?

Censorship, in any form, is the enemy of social progress. I understand why these workers are doing what they're doing, but they're completely misguided in their cause. If they want to fight homophobia and discrimination, that's great; but they should fight real discrimination, not offensive pamphlets.

Obviously Canada Post is being hypocritcal and fuzzy in its definitions of "hate speech". Surely if anything qualifies as "hate", it' would be this, but censorship laws shouldn't be strengthened they should be abolished.

No authority has the right to say what are or aren't "acceptable" ideas. Not the Canadian government , not Canada Post, and not the people who work for it.

[Cheung Mo]

What about a pamphlet that made inflammatory statements about aboriginals or women? Would that be okay for a PUBLICLY-OWNED corporation to deliver?

[Amusing Scrotum]

The first link, Cheung Mo, doesn't seem to work. Just goes into one of those long, long loading stages, that never ever end. The other two links are fine ... and give a decent overall outline of the situation.

And, based on that outline, what becomes apparent is that this is not a case of "censorship" ... in any meaningful sense, that is. The Postal Worker involved is not calling for these ideas to be suppressed and nor are his or her colleagues; he or she is simply refusing to propagate those ideas.

And that, whether you choose to admit it or not, is one of their most basic democratic rights. The right to abstain from any activity that one finds offensive, distressing ... and so on.

And that around 60 workers, according to the CBC article, have been willing to take up such a political fight revolving around the rights of workers and the links between the working class movement and the gay community, is certainly not something that should be disregarded. In fact, it's something that should be proudly celebrated.

And that you've consciously sided with the Management on this issue, is something you should really reflect on...

[LSD]

What about a pamphlet that made inflammatory statements about aboriginals or women? Would that be okay for a PUBLICLY-OWNED corporation to deliver?

Of course!

The nature of the pamphlet is irrelevent, the issue at hand is free speech and the "right" to "abstain" from "offensive" actions.


And, based on that outline, what becomes apparent is that this is not a case of "censorship" ... in any meaningful sense, that is. The Postal Worker involved is not calling for these ideas to be suppressed and nor are his or her colleagues; he or she is simply refusing to propagate those ideas.

That's de facto censorship, if not de jure.

Sure one guy not delivering one letter, especially a letter as generally useless as the one in question, is not a serious blow to free speech; but as a rule, the intercourse of ideas cannot be bottlenecked at the whims of the intermediaries.

Again, what if we were talking about the opposite situation? A postal worker refusing to carry gay rights letters? Or, to take a a broader hypothetical, an internet provider unwilling to provide access to "unacceptable materials"?

At which point does it become censorship? How many ideas have to be suppressed before "abstinence" becomes repression?

Look, postal workers have the right to fight for better conditions, they have the right to call for the overthrow of the wage system which oppresses them. But, regardless of the economic situation in place, if the mail's going to be delivered, it's got to delivered without bias.

And keep in mind, these workers aren't fighting for a "right" to "abstain from activity". Rather, they're claiming that the pamphlet at issue shouldn't be delivered because it should qualify as "hate speech" under the federal law which governs "acceptable discourse" in Canada.

Like it or not, they are calling for censorship.


And that, whether you choose to admit it or not, is one of their most basic democratic rights. The right to abstain from any activity that one finds offensive, distressing ... and so on.

So you support pharmacists who refuse to dispense the morning-after pill? Or justices of the peace who won't officiate at gay weddings? Or cashiers who refuse to serve Jews?

This notion that we are all responsible only to ourselves is libertarian bullshit and it has absolutely no relation to the real world.

People have the right to chart their own lives in a general sense, but if you're performing a service to the community, you are obligated to do so impartially. If you're a doctor, you can't treat only some of the people some of the time. If you did, you'd probably go to jail.

Obviously the Canada Post situation isn't as serious, but the underlying principle remains the same.

By refusing to deliver this letter, the worker in question infringed on the right of sender to express himself. And whether we like his expression or not, he did have that right.

So just like a pharmacists cannot be free to refuse to sell a drug just 'cause she doesn't like it, a letter carrier cannot determine what people on his route should or should not read.


And that around 60 workers, according to the CBC article, have been willing to take up such a political fight revolving around the rights of workers and the links between the working class movement and the gay community, is certainly not something that should be disregarded.

And if 60 workers supported a bus driver's "right" to refuse to carry black people, would that be deserving of "celebtration", as well?

Again, I understand and sympathize with the workers involved, but they are rallying for arbitrary suppression and state censorship. It's not nearly as bad as if they were rallying for racism, but it's nonetheless reactionary.

It's great that so many postal workers were offended by the pamphlet in question, but lots of people are offended by lots of things, we still demand that they excersize operational neutrality.


And that you've consciously sided with the Management on this issue, is something you should really reflect on...

I'm not "siding" with Managment, I just think it's a misguided struggle.

Not everything that workers do is automatically progressive. When workers fought against integration or rallied for the war in Afghanistan, they were serving reactionary interests.

That doesn't mean that we should call for their firing or support any action taken against them, it just means that we need to acknowledge that their line is flawed.

[Unquiet Youth]

^Agreed, we can't pick and choose what people have what rights, if one person has the right to not do their job in the face of their beliefs, we all have the same right. If a doctor refused treatment to a man based on beliefs, and the man later died due to this lack of treatment, would you celebrate the doctor's decision? I certainly wouldn't.

[Cheung Mo]

I'd clearly label it as hate propaganda in violation of the criminal code amendments made by Bill C-250, which extended hate crime, hatred inciting, and genocide advocation laws to encompass sexual orientation...Consider that a fundamentalist organisation based in ONTARIO -- a few thousand km away -- targeted a left-wing area of Vancouver -- an area with an ethnically diverse population, a sizable population of sexual and gender minorities, and an openly bisexual MP on the left flank of the New Democratic Party -- with a pamphlet intended to incite hatred against sexual minorities...Sure Stalin, Mao, and Ceausescu would have agreed with the contents of such a pamphlet, but I'd like to think that anyone smart enough to be on the left is smart enough to ignore those idiots.

[Physco Bitch]

I don't belive it is right for someone to lose their job just because of their belifes, wether some people belive those views to be right or not. It is simply up to the person themselves, if certain people find it offensive then why should they be made to deliver it ... don't they have other post people who would deliver such items? The same goes for if it was a pamphlet on pro-gay views, if it is a belife of certain workers then just get others to do the job. I belive that such a pamphlet is wrong and is causing hatred for people who are already against gays - and also causeing the same feeling of hatred to those who are straight. As far as i can see this is just as bad as people loseing their jobs because of religion, gender, or colour, and so on. As for a doctor refuseing to treat a patient because he doesn't like how or what the person does... the majority of doctors wouldn't do that- the whole point most doctors became doctors is so that they could help and save peoples lifes - yes their are doctors out there who might do such a thing (and no i wouldn't stand behind them and cheer) but most of them just take a sharp breathe and let you now they don't agree. It is not the same thing with such people as postal service workers and as far as i am concierned you cannot compare such things so tightly. A postal worker does not have the power of life and death over people as a doctor does - so it would be alright to be against doctors doing such a thing because the reason to be a doctor is to save people and if they are so against such things they are in the wrong profession. Also postal workers do not take a hypocratical oth to help all people as doctors do when they become doctors. If they wan't all postal workers to post this then also make them post steaming piles of shit through the post because i am sure many people as well as myself would see such a pamphlet as that a pile of crap and just inciting people (wether for reigion or not) to turn against each other , well they are doing that in other ways so why not try driving a bigger wadge in socity by turning more people against each other. This is certain postal workers rights to stand up for what they belive in even thought they now know that they could lose their jobs for their own birth rights to stand up for what they belive in. Well rant over. :lol:

[LSD]

Sure Stalin, Mao, and Ceausescu would have agreed with the contents of such a pamphlet

Exactly how homophobic Stalin and Mao were is a matter of historical debate; what is not up for debate, however, is that they were both enormous fans of state censorship.

So if your aim is to "not be like Stalin", you're going about this issue all wrong.

Of course the pamphlet is disgusting, we all know that. But the issue here isn't whether or not we should like the sentiments involved, it's whether or not we should tolerate the sentiments involved.

Whether we should allow ideas, even "bad" ideas, to be expressed or whether we should use the cudgel of the bourgeois state to stop it.

The postal workers in question here aren't protesting for greater workers' or gay rights, they're lobbying the government to censor letters that "offend" them. And while that offense is certainly understandable, legislating based on emotion can only result in repression.


I don't belive it is right for someone to lose their job just because of their belifes, wether some people belive those views to be right or not. It is simply up to the person themselves, if certain people find it offensive then why should they be made to deliver it ... don't they have other post people who would deliver such items?

Then the letter carrier in question could have traded routes that day or found some other way to swap shifts. But that's not what he did.

No, his interest wasn't in avoiding delivering it himself, it wasn't in "abstaining" from "offensive" behaviour; his intention was to stop the pamphlet from being delivered at all.

That's why he brought it to the attention of Canada Post, that's why he forwared a copy to the CBC, that's why he's calling for the government to declare it "hate speech" and ban it.

There are progressive solutions here. One is to require that all mail be enveloped so that letter carriers are not forced to read offensive material. Such an action respects the right to free expression and the right of the worker to a decent working environment.

But "hate speech" laws respect nobody's rights. They infantalize society and socialize us to be all the more dependent on the "wise" bourgeois government.

As revolutionaries, it shouldn't have to be said that that is not what we want.


A postal worker does not have the power of life and death over people as a doctor does

Obviously not, but then neither does a cashier. Does that give him the right to refuse service to all Jews?

Besides, it's not like the mail is never important. What if, say, a postal worker decided that he wouldn't deliver any AIDS testing kits because AIDS was a "godly disease" and to interfere would "offend" his beliefs?

Would you stand behind his "rights"? Would you applaud his "expression" of "principles"? After all, he didn't "take an oath". So I guess his prejudice and bias "doesn't matter" ...right?


so it would be alright to be against doctors doing such a thing because the reason to be a doctor is to save people

And the reason to be a letter carrier is to deliver the mail.


Also postal workers do not take a hypocratical oth to help all people


Neither do pharmacists. Does that mean you support religious drugists' "right" to refuse to give out condoms? Or abortificents? Or emergency contraception?

Most professions don't have formal oaths, but they nonetheless have responsibilities attatched to them. And if your beliefs, whatever they might be, prevent you from fullfilling those responsibilities, you can't do the job.

People don't exist in a vacuum; they are a part of a society and they have duties to that society. Because when someone becomes a doctor or a phamacist or a cashier or a letter carrier, it means that someone else doesn't.

Freedom isn't about statutes and grand ideas, it's about real people on the ground. It's about writters and editors and printers and engineers. It's about holding the value of that freedom above any personal beliefs, no matter how strongly felt.

And when there's flexibility, great. When you can trade shifts or swap bags and can avoid the stuff that really bothers you, that's fantastic. But when you can't. you can't. You still don't get to call in the government to repress the stuff that pisses you off.

[TC]

I agree with LSD;

When it comes to the very most basic means of exchanging data, the post office, the internet, etc, it is impossibly dangerious to try to 'no platform' what you don't like because if policies like that are permitted then it gives whoever sets the 'editorial policy' such effective powers of censurship and ability to surpress ideas that its incompatable with a free society.


Mao sayz on state censurship: Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend...he did not oppose free speech LSD.


Besides it makes it easier to identify the homophobes and what not. ;)

[Pawn Power]

But if a postal workers is, say, offended by something that can't be reasonably obscured - like say a return address to an ACLU or KKK branch - that's just too bad.

One has the right to not perform a job that one does not want to (althought that right is hardly recognized under capitalism), but while one is doing a job, one does have a responsibility to do so without bias or discrmination.

So you would want postal workers to deliver Klan propaganda? What about US Military recruitment misinformation?

I do not think we can ignore the reasons and consequences of such actions. And while the state and capitalist mass media censor information daily I do not see why conscious workers can not try to do so, even on an individual basis, in fighting class war. We are in opposition to the state and to fascists, right?

Your premise that it is “duty” to propagate there ideas is based on the negative implications of censorship however large scale censorship all ready exists and is daily influencing opinions. This factor, the control of capital, is at the basis of popular philosophy being that of the ruling class.

This specific case may not entirely correspond because of the underlying motives of the workers and because it is not fully an issue of class, however the basis is similar. We should be fighting shit ideas. Can we say that is state censorship? What if the ideas we are fighting are that of the state? Maybe its different in Canada, maybe state and mass media censorship don’t exist as the do in the US, and this is a mute point, I don’t know?

If we can protest a Klan rally and impede them from handing out racist material what is the difference from thwarting it within your job. Because once you go to work in the capitalist system you can no longer fight it? We cannot split the two; we live day by day within and outside our jobs under capitalism and the decisions we make have consequences. We want to propagate revolutionary ideas.




A plumber can strike, but when he's on the job he can't refuse to fix your pipes 'cause he doesn't like that you're a Jew ...or a bigot.

Should a black plumber have to go and fix the pips of a bigot because it’s his job? I guess, if we want bigots to have water, maybe they deserve that.

I agree that within bounds we want social and community services to be delivered without prejudice but that’s not the case. Firstly, it helps to be in a certain economic bracket to receive services like plumping and health care, at least in the US. Secondly do we want to accommodate those that are against us? We are not living in a world were services are dolled out equally without biased but are living embeded in dynamic struggle in which actions have results and are done with purpose.



Rather, he petitioned the government to have it declared "hate speech" and hence undeliverable under Canadian law.

Clearly we should not be reaching out for more government censorship. I am more concerned with your opposition against combating reactionary misinformation.

I am not arguing for censorship or state censorship in anyway I am arguing for the struggle against reactionary ideas within the class war we live in.

I to some extent grasp your concern of liberalism of individual philosophies in taking actions however I think when the acts are done are a class basis this does not apply. This appears to be a important point and I have to give this more thought.

[STI]

Peh, if I worked for Canada Post, I'd refuse to be a party to the spread of that anti-human trash too.

People will decide on their own what ideas "should" and "shouldn't" be allowed in public, and sometimes we'll be on the butt-end of that... but not always.

When the case happens that we (ie: the forces of human progress and objective facts) come out "on top" of a given 'censorship issue', all the better!

Sometimes we've gotta play dirty to win. Fine by me.

[Felicia]

heh, maybe they should've just secretly disposed of the pamphlets and no one would be the wiser :ph34r:

but if I recieved flyers against aboriginals, women, or homosexuals.... I'd be livid! :angry:

[STI]

Hmmm... just had a quick thought for LSD. If you're universally against censorship, does that mean you think sexism, racism, queerphobia, and the like should be allowed on this board?

[LSD]

So you would want postal workers to deliver Klan propaganda?

Yes.

They shouldnt't have to read that propaganda, forcing anyone to read racist propaganda is degrading and unfair, so, again, I support enveloping all letters. But, again, regardless of where a letter's coming from or to whom it's addressed, no one has the right to unilaterally stop it from being delivered.

The fact is, there are probably a lot of workers out there who aren't to eager to deliver pro-gay pamphlets. Do we stand by their "right" to "take a stand" and suppress the message of the gay community or do we recognize that there's something more important than personal opinion?

For my part, I'm voting for the latter.


What about US Military recruitment misinformation?

What about it?

How would a postal worker even know that that's what a letter contained unless they opened it up? I mean it's not like military recruitment letter have a big stamp on them that says "propaganda".

And since I'm assuming that you're not supporting letter carriers having the right to "inspect" every piece of mail they carry, this really is a nonissue.


Your premise that it is “duty” to propagate there ideas is based on the negative implications of censorship however large scale censorship all ready exists and is daily influencing opinions. This factor, the control of capital, is at the basis of popular philosophy being that of the ruling class.

Yes, and that censorship is one of the biggest weapons in the arsenal of the bourgeoisie.

But if we try to "out-censor" the capitalists, we will lose. And what's worse we'll come across as just as petty and just as elitist as the elites we're fighting.

If we're going to trust the proletariat, we need to stop treating it like it needs to be protected from "bad" ideas. The bourgeoisie censors because it knows that, given all the options, the working class isn't going to chose exploitation.

But our ideas don't need that kind of institutional packaging; we aren't trying to fool people or socialize them to apathy, we're trying to liberate them.

So getting all the ideas out there, even the "bad" ones, is in our interest.

We want a full and open discussion, we want a fully informed working class. 'Cause that's the only way that we win. A radicallized class-conscious proletariat can only develop in an environment of knowledge.

Trying to "no platform" our "enemies" only hurts our cause in the end because it helps keeps the working class ignorant and servile by perpetuating the notion that it must be "protected from itself".


If we can protest a Klan rally and impede them from handing out racist material what is the difference from thwarting it within your job.

It depends on what you mean by the former.

Klan rallies should absolutely be protested, but no one should be "impeded" from promulgating ideas, no matter how "shit" those ideas may be.


Should a black plumber have to go and fix the pips of a bigot because it’s his job?

No, but the bigot has the right to get his pipes fixed.

So if that black plumber wants to trade shifts or find some other means of swaping out of the job, that's fine. And if he's fired or otherwise disciplined for doing that, we should support him 100% as should all other workers.

Also, it goes without saying that if the bigot abuses workers in his home, they have no obligation to stay and suffer said abuse. Again, everyone has the right to a decent working environment and that includes being free of harassment.

But if a plumber decides that because a customer's a member of the Heritage Front that they'll ignore their order, they've violated their responsibilities just as much as a doctor who refuses to treat Jews.

Again, there's nothing wrong with class-based economic actions like striking or work stopping. But there's a vast difference between leveraging economic power for better conditions and using positional authority to pursue a personal agenda.

All jobs, insofar as it is possible, need to be done objectively and impartially. That doesn't mean that we should support bosses firing workers who fail to live up to that. But it does mean that we should spread the word that that strategy is, in the end, self-defeating.

Stopping one racist letter does nothing to fight racism, but, if tolerated or, worse, promoted, it sets a precedent for a kind of arbitrary censorship that, in the end, only serves the bourgeoisie.

They're better at this and if we get into a war of suppression with them, they will win.

Our strength is that we are espousing a theory of emancipation against oppression. We need to capitalize on that strength and not be afraid of debate, any debate.


Firstly, it helps to be in a certain economic bracket to receive services like plumping and health care

No kidding, but the way to fight that inequality is not to make the distribution of services more arbitrary.


I am not arguing for censorship or state censorship in anyway I am arguing for the struggle against reactionary ideas within the class war we live in.

The way to defeat reactionary ideas is to fight them, not suppress them.

And refusing to deliver a letter isn't fighting the class war, it's arbitrating morality. Some random homophobic preacher with a mailing list is not the enemy we need to be fighting.

He's most certainly not our ally, but he's nowhere near a priority.

Fighting the capitalists is one thing, imposing one's personal judgement of "right and wrong" on the rest of the world through one's job is something entirely else. And something that has absolutely nothing to do with our interests as a class or as a movement.


Hmmm... just had a quick thought for LSD. If you're universally against censorship, does that mean you think sexism, racism, queerphobia, and the like should be allowed on this board?

No.

This board is not a means of communication, it's a private discussion group between a bunch of likeminded revolutionaries.

The analogy I like to use is to a study group that you set up at school. You have no obligation to invite everyone and anyone into it, and if you refuse someone entrance for whatever reason, you haven't "censored" them because there are literally millions of other places for them to go.

But when a letter carrier refuses to deliver letters because the senders' "views" clash with their own, there's nowhere else that that sender can go.

Again, I would support allowing postal workers to trade routes if delivering a particular piece of mail genuinely causes them distress. But, regardless of the content, the mail needs to be delivered.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 05:38 pm
Mao sayz on state censurship: Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend...he did not oppose free speech LSD.
I'm sure that sentiment meant a lot to the communist Jiǎng Bīngzhī, aka Ding Ling, after she was imprisoned for 5 years and then forced into manual labor after her imprisonment for being a "rightist" author.

[STI]

The way to defeat reactionary ideas is to fight them, not suppress them.

Is surpression not a means of fighting a given idea?


Some random homophobic preacher with a mailing list is not the enemy we need to be fighting.

Does he not serve to strengthen the force of reactionary ideas throughout the working class? Do these reactionary ideas not serve to inhibit the potential for proletarian revolution? C'mon.



No.

This board is not a means of communication, it's a private discussion group between a bunch of likeminded revolutionaries.

:lol:

No it isn't! It's a public message board, and one of the most active forums exists specificaly for the purpose of discussion with those outside the revolutionary left. Should hate propaganda be allowed in OI? Or are you just being inconsistant...




But when a letter carrier refuses to deliver letters because the senders' "views" clash with their own, there's nowhere else that that sender can go.

All the better for us when the sender is sending filth like that!


But, regardless of the content, the mail needs to be delivered.

Forget effectively combatting reaction using the means at our disposal, the mail needs to be delivered!


Again, I would support allowing postal workers to trade routes if delivering a particular piece of mail genuinely causes them distress.

You mean I'd be able to passively allow the exact same trash to reach the exact same people?

Gee, thanks!

[Pawn Power]

The fact is, there are probably a lot of workers out there who aren't to eager to deliver pro-gay pamphlets. Do we stand by their "right" to "take a stand" and suppress the message of the gay community

No. I never said that we should “stand by their ‘right’ to ‘take a stand,’” what I said was that we should take a stand against the proliferation of reactionary organizations and ideas. Either you miss understood the point or are attempting to use this “debate trick” ” but I was not promoting any variety of suppression but combating racist propaganda.

I understand in this situation allowing individual postal workers to select their choice to censorship could lead to hazardous censorship for the left if other postal workers begin censoring haphazardly. But what I would like to discuss is the broader connotations of fighting reactionary ideas in different ways, including suppression.


How would a postal worker even know that that's what a letter contained unless they opened it up? I mean it's not like military recruitment letter have a big stamp on them that says "propaganda".

In fact, military recruitment propaganda regularly circulates with various US army/navy/marines insignia and designs on the outside of large glossy envelopes. These are the typical advertising pamphlets that contain the whole arsenal of US recruitment misinformation (money for college, training, travel the world, etc.) to persuade and often trick youth, often poor minorities are targeted, into joining the armed services.

This type of propaganda is very common, from small envelopes with the US army crest on it to large pamphlets with shiny holographic images of sailors on aircraft carriers. What do you think in regard to this since it is not a “nonissue.”


But if we try to "out-censor" the capitalists, we will lose. And what's worse we'll come across as just as petty and just as elitist as the elites we're fighting.
We are already loosing this censorship war. This is not in support any state censorship, but you know very well it already exists. What I do support is the working class consciously combating reaction, not an individual’s right to censor according to their “morality.”


If we're going to trust the proletariat, we need to stop treating it like it needs to be protected from "bad" ideas. The bourgeoisie censors because it knows that, given all the options, the working class isn't going to chose exploitation.
This is a very important point and I agree with in to a large extent. We should spend much more of our time and resources propagating revolutionary ideas then attempting to smother reactionary ones. We want an educated population that will reject racism/homophobia/sexism upon emergence.


So getting all the ideas out there, even the "bad" ones, is in our interest.

Another problem isn’t these are just “bad” ideas but a lot of them are brazen lies.


We want a full and open discussion, we want a fully informed working class.

I agree, but this information misinforms the working class.


Klan rallies should absolutely be protested, but no one should be "impeded" from promulgating ideas, no matter how "shit" those ideas may be.
So I guess you are not in the camp that promotes beating up fascist, Nazis, racist skin heads, etc.? That sure does impede them from promulgating ideas.


Stopping one racist letter does nothing to fight racism, but, if tolerated or, worse, promoted, it sets a precedent for a kind of arbitrary censorship that, in the end, only serves the bourgeoisie.
Again, I agree that we do not want arbitrary censorship. But it has never been about any random ideas, it’s been about combating reactionary ones.


They're better at this and if we get into a war of suppression with them, they will win.

The "war" is going on and with the capitalist states vast resources they have a clear upper hand. We don’t have the means for a national or international news program, to choose the standard text history texts for schools, etc.

Should we “tolerate” “intelligent design” text books into schools so students can have a “full and open discussion?” Or should we say this is utter bullshit, there is information worth discussing and this shit is a misuse of time.


The way to defeat reactionary ideas is to fight them, not suppress them.

At first I wanted to say I agree and I would still like to say that, but is that a fact? Do reactionary ideas dissolve because they are suppressed and cease to be promoted or in another way? I don’t know specifically why and how ideas are dismissed. I would like to say evidence plays the leading role. Do we have any data on this subject? Also, I would like a clear definition to be made between “fight” and “suppress.”

[blake 3:17]

So you would want postal workers to deliver Klan propaganda?



Yes.

They shouldnt't have to read that propaganda, forcing anyone to read racist propaganda is degrading and unfair, so, again, I support enveloping all letters. But, again, regardless of where a letter's coming from or to whom it's addressed, no one has the right to unilaterally stop it from being delivered.

Well in this case the homophobic literature was not in an envelope and it wasn't addressed. It was a mass flyer.

The brothers and siseters in CUPW have taken a strong stance against Canada Post's bullying and against recent successes of the Right.

[LSD]

Is surpression not a means of fighting a given idea?

No, it's a means of hiding a given idea.

Fighting an idea means confronting it, it means showing why its wrong and presenting something better. The bourgeoisie generally doesn't do that because it realizes that, in the end, it's ideas just aren't that good.

Now we can take from their example and try to "out censor" them, but if we do we will lose.

Instead we need to take a proletarian approach and recognize that working people are smart enough and competent enough to hear reactionary ideas without falling victim to them.

Suppression indicates that we think the proletariat is too stupid to take care of itself, it's a paternalistic approach to politics which borders on the elitsm of the bourgeoisie itself.

We don't want to hide homophobia, we want it right there in the open so that we can show everyone just what crap it is.

That's the only way we're going to defeat capitalism, after all, but discrediting it, not by trying to suppress all the ideas that we don't like.


Does he not serve to strengthen the force of reactionary ideas throughout the working class? Do these reactionary ideas not serve to inhibit the potential for proletarian revolution?

Not really.

Some whacko preacher sending hate letters to gay groups is not going to have a significant effect on class organization. In fact, if anything it's just going to anger people and possibly even further radicalize them.

That's the point. A debate on homophobia is in our interest because our ideas are better.

The only people who need to suppress ideas are people who are afraid that they would lose a fair contest. That cannot be us.


All the better for us when the sender is sending filth like that!

And what about when he isn't?

"Filth" is a subjective standard, if this one postal worker can suppress anti-gay material, than another can suppress pro-gay material. And if we're on record supporting the former's "right" to censors, we have no legitimacy to critisize the latter's.

We can't be idealist about this, we may not like the specific pamphlet that got suppressed here, but the issue is larger than that. The material reality is that if this letter carrier can get away with censorship in this case, it makes it all the more easy for the next one to get away with it too.

And there's no guarantee that that next one won't be suppressing progressive ideas.

That's why we need to take a hard line in favour of free speech. Because, in the end, if we start getting into the censorship game, it's us who are going to get hurt.

We are a minority movement after all and suppression always damages minority movements more than majority ones.

That's why the bourgeoisie loves it so much.


No it isn't! It's a public message board

It's public in the sense that anyone can read it, but it's private in the sense that there are strict membership requirements.

Regardless though, it's still a discussion group among likeminded individuals and as such it has no obligation to open itself to anyone and everyone.

The mail, however, is a public service and does have an obligation to be impartial in its functioning. There are a lot of message boards out there, there's only one mail service.


and one of the most active forums exists specificaly for the purpose of discussion with those outside the revolutionary left. Should hate propaganda be allowed in OI?

Again, there is nothing wrong with setting up membership rules for discussion groups. Pretty much everyone has them.

And because there are other discussion groups out there and because no one has a "right" to force others to talk with one, there's nothing wrong with such limitations.


In fact, military recruitment propaganda regularly circulates with various US army/navy/marines insignia and designs on the outside of large glossy envelopes.

I'll be honest, I don't know much about US recruitment letters, not living in the US myself. But either way, my position's the same.

It doesn't matter if one can or cannot tell what's inside an envelop, a postal worker still does not have the right to impose his morality or judgement on the person recieving it.

Yeah, a lot of US military mailings contain crap and outright lies, but the way to combat that is to reveal those lies not to try and "catch" all the letters before they get delivered.

For one thing, that's just never going to happen. That kind of "no platforming" can only be haphazardly enforced and, realistically, will probably only affect a tiny minority of recipients.

Its effect on battling the state, in other words, will be marginal; but what it will do is reenforce this precedent of postal workers substituting their own values for those of their customers and enforcing their own ideas of what's "good" via their jobs.

And the political consequences of that can only be reactionary.


What I do support is the working class consciously combating reaction, not an individual’s right to censor according to their “morality.”

But that's exactly what happened here. The worker in question was "morally" offended by the pamphlet he was delivering and decided that he wouldn't deliver it.

That wasn't an action of class war, it was a personal act of suppression; and ones who'd only political consequence was to prevent a debate from happening.

As a political movement predicated on empowering the working class to take charge of its own political destiny, we cannot support that kind of infantalizing of society.


Again, I agree that we do not want arbitrary censorship. But it has never been about any random ideas, it’s been about combating reactionary ones.

Except that's not what we're talking about.

The issue at hand is ver much one of arbitrary censorship, because that's all that can result from this precedent.

There are effective ways of combating reaction, but suppressing the mail is not one of them!


Should we “tolerate” “intelligent design” text books into schools so students can have a “full and open discussion?

No, because school isn't a means of communication, it's a means of education and so we must require that it adheres to a basic standard of veracity.

Holding the mail to a similar standard would be insane, however, as people's right to communicate should not be dependent on whether or not we think they're "right".


Well in this case the homophobic literature was not in an envelope and it wasn't addressed. It was a mass flyer.

And, again, I oppose that. No one should be forced to read that kind of filth, which I why I support requiring the enveloping of all letters across the board.

[blake 3:17]

I realized I should have checked in on this thread earlier -- it has drifted towards the abstract and legalisitic.



Many of you might not know what an important role the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) has played in establishing gay and lesbian rights. They were the first North American union to fight for and win same sex spousal benefits. Their members and leaderships decision to refuse to participate in this hate mail campaign is class based, not some silly liberalism.

CUPW has consistently shown courage in challenging petty authority and oppression everywhere -- by willing to defy the employer and the state. In addition they are the only union in Canada with a meaningful unwillingness to cross picket linesregardless of legality. CUPW members face discipline for this, but they and their union fight for this.


But if a plumber decides that because a customer's a member of the Heritage Front that they'll ignore their order, they've violated their responsibilities just as much as a doctor who refuses to treat Jews.

I'm no plumber, and I'm no doctor, but I have had an HF member swing a baseball bat at me and the dude didn't get no TLC. Nazis forfeit basic rights. I'm not into the state banning them -- I like to see ordinary folks kicking the shit out of them.And if working class organizations fight for human rights on the job or int he street, and not just in sweet words, I can only say right fucking on.

[LSD]

Many of you might not know what an important role the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) has played in establishing gay and lesbian rights. They were the first North American union to fight for and win same sex spousal benefits.

That's great ...but it's also irrelevent.


CUPW has consistently shown courage in challenging petty authority and oppression everywhere

Except, obviously, in this case.

'Cause one letter carrier getting to arbitrarily decided what should or shoudln't be delivered based on whether or not he personally likes the content therein? That is the definition of "petty authority".


I'm no plumber, and I'm no doctor, but I have had an HF member swing a baseball bat at me and the dude didn't get no TLC.

Yeah, 'cause he was swiring a bat at your head.

No one was swinging a bat at this postal worker. Not physically and not metaphorically.


Nazis forfeit basic rights.

Due to their actions or their thoughts?

Obviously anyone who actually goes out and attacks minorities needs to be stopped, but that's not 90% of "Nazis" today. No, most Nazis right now realize that they lack the popular or social support and so do ...nothing.

Yeah, they grandstand on the internet or in their occasional pathetically small rally. But their role in the ongoing class war is minor to say the least.

And to say that they "forfiet" their humanity by virtue of you not liking their ideas ...well, that's a remarkably dangerous road to start going down.

It's also a generally counterproductive one 'cause you're not going to defeat Naziism by beating up its members or by arbitrarily and haphazardly censorsing its publications.

It might make you feel good in the short run, but the precedent that it sets and the petty authority that it grants to any zealot with an important job will ultimately do our movement more harm than good.

[blake 3:17]

The role of CUPW wasn't at all irrelevant. The union would have not defended a member who was promoting homophobia.



Nazis forfeit basic rights.



Due to their actions or their thoughts?

Obviously anyone who actually goes out and attacks minorities needs to be stopped, but that's not 90% of "Nazis" today. No, most Nazis right now realize that they lack the popular or social support and so do ...nothing.

Because of their actions. When the Heritage Front was organizing here in the early 90s they were killing people. In 1994, one member tried to kill me on College St. in Toronto. I fought back.

I guess I should've considered his human rights -- oh, but then I'd be dead.

[LSD]

There's nothing wrong with fighting back when you're attacked. I'm just challenging your notion that anyone who adheres to a "Nazi" ideology automatically forfeits their human rights.


The role of CUPW wasn't at all irrelevant. The union would have not defended a member who was promoting homophobia.

Maybe not, but their stand on this issue gives homophobic letter carriers liscence to to act on their "beliefs".

I know that it's not intentional, but it's the inevitable result of endorsing. this kind of petty censorship.

[STI]

No, it's a means of hiding a given idea.

Fighting an idea means confronting it, it means showing why its wrong and presenting something better. The bourgeoisie generally doesn't do that because it realizes that, in the end, it's ideas just aren't that good.


You're treating the issue as though it's binary - surpress or combat. When we *can*, we should make sure reactionary ideas don't even 'get out there' and influence people (like we do here at Revleft). When we can't, of course it's smarter not to waste effort on futile attempts at surpression... actively waging idea-war is obviously the better choice.

In the case of the postal worker, he made the right decision... though maybe he would have been smarter to *pretend* to deliver the pamphlets but really set them ablaze... then refuse to deliver any more of them. He'd probably get in more shit for it, so I wouldn't hold it against him if that's not what he did, but it would have been a more effective means of combatting the homophobia espoused by that waste-of-paper pamphlet.



Now we can take from their example and try to "out censor" them, but if we do we will lose.


True - though censorship (more aptly named "surpression") will occur against us either way, so it would be foolish for us to neglect the use of an effective (even if not comprehensive) tool in defeating reactionary ideas when we're in a position to do so... for what, again?


Suppression indicates that we think the proletariat is too stupid to take care of itself, it's a paternalistic approach to politics which borders on the elitsm of the bourgeoisie itself.

Please. It indicates that we acknowledge the fact that people are in large part products of the environments to which they are exposed. The more we can affect that environment by decreasing the popularity of reactionary ideas therein, the less likely said people will be to adopt those reactionary (or any other) ideas.


We don't want to hide homophobia, we want it right there in the open so that we can show everyone just what crap it is.

That's the only way we're going to defeat capitalism, after all, but discrediting it, not by trying to suppress all the ideas that we don't like.


Ok, then. If you're really serious about this crap, you'll start a thread in the CC to allow any opinoins to be expressed in OI.


Some whacko preacher sending hate letters to gay groups is not going to have a significant effect on class organization. In fact, if anything it's just going to anger people and possibly even further radicalize them.


Just like the outlaw and surpression of secular/rational ideas in midieval Europe further radicalized secularism en masse? C'mon. You know better than this, what's getting you?




That's the point. A debate on homophobia is in our interest because our ideas are better.


That they are - but that's not enough in and of itself... the "battle of ideas" often takes more to win than a simple "battle between ideas".




The only people who need to suppress ideas are people who are afraid that they would lose a fair contest. That cannot be us.


The contest is "unfair" as it is... the weight of reactionary ideas (or the hangover therefrom) looms heavy, so the more we can do to decrease the effect, the better!


And what about when he isn't?

Then we fight against the censorship!

"Biased"? "Unfair"? Hell yes!

But who says we have to "play by the rules" that don't exist?


"Filth" is a subjective standard,

"Reactionary material" then :rolleyes:


if this one postal worker can suppress anti-gay material, than another can suppress pro-gay material. And if we're on record supporting the former's "right" to censors, we have no legitimacy to critisize the latter's.

You're treating "free expression" as though it were a universal phenomena... "all" or "nothing". The case is not as such, though. We can very well be on record as supporting the surpression of reactionary ideas and supporting the spread of progressive ones, and defend our position on such a basis!


That's the point. A debate on homophobia is in our interest because our ideas are better.

Tell that to the clergy who have more media clout than we do... and their readership!


We can't be idealist about this, we may not like the specific pamphlet that got suppressed here, but the issue is larger than that. The material reality is that if this letter carrier can get away with censorship in this case, it makes it all the more easy for the next one to get away with it too.

It's hardly idealist - some material is progressive, some is neutral, some is reactionary. We should support the surpression of reactionary material and oppose the surpression of the others. Where's the idealism?



It's public in the sense that anyone can read it, but it's private in the sense that there are strict membership requirements.


Ah? So then we surpress the expressive capability of *some people* (ie: those who would post racist crap). We (or rather, Malte) is capable of surpressing whatever ideas he chooses, and he does! Fortunately, he's shown himself to be the type to surpress particularily reactionary ideas. Just like Malte, the postal worker was capable of surpressing the homophobic pamphlet, and good on him for doing it!


The mail, however, is a public service and does have an obligation to be impartial in its functioning.

An obligation to whom? Based on what?



There are a lot of message boards out there, there's only one mail service.

All the better, then, if the "one mail service" refuses to deliver homophobic pamphlets.



Again, there is nothing wrong with setting up membership rules for discussion groups.

No disagreement there... some ideas shouldn't be allowed expression ;)

[LSD]

Ok, then. If you're really serious about this crap, you'll start a thread in the CC to allow any opinoins to be expressed in OI.

Again, there's a vast difference between setting membership requirements on a website and censorsing the mail.

If you and I start a discussion group, we can set rules on who else can join. That doesn't stop Johnny capitalist from standing in the next room and railing on about Von Mises until his heart explodes, he just can't do it with us.

By that same token, our homophobic preacher cannot force himself into your home and harras you with religious blather, but he certainly has every right to mail you a letter ...or to set up a website.


Ah? So then we surpress the expressive capability of *some people*

We prevent "some people" from expressing themselves here, it doesn't stop them from expressing themselves in general.

It's like someone putting a "no junkmail" sticker on their mailbox. It doesn't stop the advertisers from expressing themselves, it just doesn't let them do it in that person's home.

Similarly, I suppose the gay organization in this case could have put a stop request on any mail from the preacher's address. There certainly wouldn't have been anything wrong with that.

But this one letter carrier did not have the right to unilaterally dictate what they could or could nor read. No one appointed him arbitor of acceptablity, and his arbitrarily chosing which mail to deliver and which not to is fundamentally anti-democratic.

I get letters from Jehovas Witnesses all the time. I happen to find it amusing. Do I not have a right to continue receiving them? What if my mailman decided tomorrow that they were too "reactionary" for me to see?

You don't think I would be offended by that? You don't think it takes something away from me when I don't have the freedom to read what I want?

We condemn government censorship not only because it comes from the bourgeois government, but also because censorship, no matter who's doing it, is an implicitly abusive act.

It strips of a piece of our individuality and humanity and reduces us to children.

This one letter carrier not delivering a pamphlet isn't going to end the world by any means, but you're talking about censorship is a policy of mass action. And that, if manifested, has a very real chance of doing some very real harm.


An obligation to whom? Based on what?

And obligation to society, based on the politcal nescessity for a free and unrestrained debate.

Obviously, as you say, the debate as it stands is nowhere near free, but the answer to inequality is not to subject the marketplace of ideas to the arbitrary hand of personal whims.

We aren't going to defeat the bourgeosie by trying to out-oppress them. Our movement is supposed to be about empowering the majority, not duping them into following our "vanguard".

That particular tract has been attempted before and its failed every time.

No, if we're going to fight for the proletarian to emancipate itself, we need to stop thinking of them as too stupid to read the mail. We need to recognize that a revolutionary working class is an informed working class, a fully informed working class.

Lying to them or restricting what they have access to (which is really the same thing) is just more of the bourgeois politicking bullshit that we are supposed to be transcending.


All the better, then, if the "one mail service" refuses to deliver homophobic pamphlets.

All the better for whom.

You don't know if the gay group in question wanted to recieve this letter or not. At first guess, I would assume that they didn't; but for all we know, they were collecting hate literature, or engaged in a campaign against this preacher and this letter would have helped their cause.

Regardless, the point is that we don't know and we can't know what's in people's "interests" to read.

And its when we get into the business of acting "on behalf" of society that we really get into trouble. If it's acceptable to dictate what kind of letters people can get, is it acceptable to limit what they can borrow from the library?

How about what websites they visit? How about who they talk to?

Obviously some of these things are easier to restrict than others, but I would remind you that many societies in history have successfully legislated them. And a good deal of them did so in the name of stopping "reactionary material" from "poisoning minds".

That's certainly what Stalin thought, it's undoubtably what Mao thought. And yet both of those regimes are now roundly condemned on the left for their attempts to dictate the debate.

Is that really the ground you think we should retread? Social policy through repression?


You're treating the issue as though it's binary - surpress or combat. When we *can*, we should make sure reactionary ideas don't even 'get out there' and influence people

Except we can't and you know we can't. As you said yourself, the playing field is just too uneven.

If we try to suppress the "other side", we'll fail and we'll just look bad for the trying.

If our message is the self empowerment of the working class, we're not going to win any allies by actively trying to control what the working class can and cannot see!

People already associate communism with Stalinism; a campaign of suppression will just cement that impression.

And besides, even if we could succede, "one sided debates" don't make revolutionaries.

Suppression works for the bourgoieise because their aim is apathy. Keeping progressive ideas down keeps the masses docile and disinterested. But we don't want dissociated "citizens", we want revolutionary workers.

And true radicalness cannot come out of ignorance.


Please. It indicates that we acknowledge the fact that people are in large part products of the environments to which they are exposed. The more we can affect that environment by decreasing the popularity of reactionary ideas therein, the less likely said people will be to adopt those reactionary (or any other) ideas.

Dress it up all you want, it's still paternalistic politics and the infantalizing of the working class.

We either trust them to emancipate themselves and set up a postcapitalist society or we think they're too stupid to read some whackjob's pamphlet without swallowing it whole.

Have you heard the "arguments" against homosexuality? Have most people on this board?

It's not the arguments that are keeping homophobia alive, it's a culture of ignorance. Most homophobes don't even know why they hate gay people, just like most racists don't know why they hate black people.

Exposing them to the racist or homophobic litterature won't make them "more" hateful and it certainly won't turn progressive thinkers into homophobes and racists.

In fact, the pamphlet in question wasn't even trying to "change minds". It was sent to a gay rights group for crying out loud. As such this act of suppression didn't "save souls" from the corruption of "reaction" or help us one bit in our campaign against homophobia.

All in all, it did nothing ...nothing but strip the recipients of their democratic right to get their mail delivered without moralism or bias.


Just like the outlaw and surpression of secular/rational ideas in midieval Europe further radicalized secularism en masse? C'mon. You know better than this, what's getting you?

In case you didn't notice, secularism won. In the end, suppression didn't work.

And we're not the Catholic Church nor should we pattern ourselves after it. The Church was dealing with a mostly illiterate population that was raised from birth to look to its doctrines as infallible.

We will never have that kind of influence or power, nor, as a democratic movement, should we aspire to it.

Any attempt that we make to achieving that kind of dominance will only discredit our movement and further alienate the proletariat from revolutionary leftist ideas.

Besides, we don't have a consistant dogma, not like the Church did. Look at how many arguments we have just on this site and then imagine trying to wage a successful "war of suppression" from a leftist paradigm.

The fact is we are neither united enough nor organized enough for anything of that sort to succede.

No, what we'll get instead are instances like this one, where one guy acting on his own personal "morals" decides what's "appropriate" and what's not. And when we support his right to do that, as you are, it doesn't help some organized campaign, it helps to inspire more of these personal incidents.

And the next time, it might not be a "reactionary" idea that's suppressed. But because you campaigned for one postal worker's right to censor the mail, you won't get much support in protesting anothers.

And while you may not see it as a contradiction, society in general will recognize it as the hypocrisy that it is.

Besides, whether you like it or not, most of the workers who don't like homophobia probably don't like communism much either. So while you may not like the idea of them censoring communist litterature, I can imagine where they'd tell you to stick your opinions on the subject.

We are at present a minority movement and minority movements cannot start getting into the censorship game. 'Cause once we not only open that door but start pushing people through it, we lose.

The only way that we can get our views out is if everyone can get their views out. Otherwise the same instruments that we use to suppress our less powerful oponents will be turned around and used on us when we get in range of being a potent threat.


The contest is "unfair" as it is... the weight of reactionary ideas (or the hangover therefrom) looms heavy, so the more we can do to decrease the effect, the better!

Again though, we're never going to decrease it enough to matter. We either win this one on our merits or we don't.

And where do you draw the line on this one? Lots of things have the potential to "increase the effect" of "reaction". The mail's one of the lesser influences.

Should we start censoring the internet as well? How about telephone conversations? Should operators shut down any call that seems to be heading in a "reactionary" direction?

This isn't just about freedom of speech, although that's an essential part of it, it's also about privacy.

You are proposing that letter carriers -- and presumably other types of communications workers too -- should start actively suppressing "reactionary" materials.

As I see it, the only way that they can determine whether the letter they carry is "reactionary" or not is by reading it. I guess if you trust your mailman enough to censor your mail, you trust him enough to puruse it too.

For my part though, I don't.

I don't know what his views or his interests are and I'll be damned if I'm going to give up my right to privacy out of a hope that he and others like him are correct in their analysis of what constitutes "reaction".

I cherish my right to read "filth" if I chose and I will not give it up to you or anyone else without a fight.


Then we fight against the censorship!

"Biased"? "Unfair"? Hell yes!

But who says we have to "play by the rules" that don't exist?

It's not a matter of "playing by the rules", it's a matter of political reality.

By supporting one postal worker's right to censor, we nescessarily support all postal worker's right to do the same. This idea that we can practically mount the kind of needle-head balancing act you're talking about is absurd.

Politics are not that fine-tuned, you can't agitate for a freedom while agitating for its restriction.

Besides, who gets to determine when censorship is appropriate and when it isn't? You?

I suppose you'll just communicate your wishes to the "central committee" and they'll filter it out to the workers on the ground? :rolleyes:

The fact is, the way this would work in the real world is that different people with different ideas would censor different things, probably often contradictorally. And neither you nor me nor anyone else would have any say whatsover.

Hell, a lot of the time we just might not know. If this worker hadn't announced that he had censored the mail, there's a good chance that no one might have figured out.

I'd imagine that'd be true a lot of the time.

So, for instance, if a letter carrier were to get offended by the idea of delivering mail with a "communist league USA" return address, he could just dump them all the in trash and never tell anyone.

And both the communist league and the workers to whom they were writting would be none the wiser.

But because an atmosphere of suppression and arbitrarity have been promoted, the worker in question feels fully justified in imposing his personal beliefss on his clients.

That's the inevitably consequence of promoting individual suppression as politically viable.



"Filth" is a subjective standard

"Reactionary material" then

"Reactionary" is just as subjective.

Fifty years ago gay rights were "reactionary" and most of the leftist movement would have laughed at the suggestion of supporting that "bourgeois decadence". Fifty years before that, civil rights and anti-segregation were a "petty bourgeois distraction" and men like Victor Berger lead the Socialst Party USA.

Don't be so naive as to think any of us have a monopoly on truth or are so infallible as to be trusted to mind the gates of societal expression.

There are a lot of really crummy ideas out there, but none of us are so smart or so trustworthy that we should be granted the absolute right to dictate whether others are exposed to them.

That letter carrier had the freedom to reject the pamphlet as hate-filled crap. The people it was addressed to deserve that same freedom.


You're treating "free expression" as though it were a universal phenomena... "all" or "nothing".

Yes I am.

Because the unavoidable historical lesson is that even if your aim is to only suppress the "bad", you inevitably end up suppressing far far more than that.

And I don't want another NKVD ...or Mutaween.

[blake 3:17]

Liberal.

[manic expression]

LSD, I haven't read nearly all of your points, but I have a few things to add.

"Free speech" is not a proletarian idea at all. It is largely invalid IMO. "Freedom" is based on nothing more than social constructs, constructs which are not ultimately true by any stretch of the imagination. What is the basis of "free speech"?

Let me ask this question: should a community accept something that is intolerable? If we accept that homophobia is something that is both unnecessary and deleterious, why should a society tolerate such a thing? These types of ideas don't deserve the light of day, and they should be treated accordingly.

An individual refused to take part in spreading terrible ideas. How is that wrong? The thing you are ignoring is that those ideas are wrong, period. It's not about being "offended", it's about creating an environment devoid of these sorts of ideas, which carries far more benefits than notions of "freedom".

Look at the bottom line: this action hindered the spread of hatred. There is nothing wrong with that.

I can understand where you're coming from, and this is one question that is pretty problematic, so those are my present concerns and views. I could live with this stuff through the mail, but if we claim to work for a better world, why would we want that world to be filled with these same ills? The fact is that the community is important here, not someone's right to violate others' lives (as these ideas inevitably do).

[LSD]

What is the basis of "free speech"?

The politcal nescessity for a free and unrestrained debate.

Obviously, as has been pointed out, the debate as it stands is nowhere near free, but the answer to inequality is not to subject the marketplace of ideas to the arbitrary hand of personal whims.

We aren't going to defeat the bourgeosie by trying to out-oppress them. Our movement is supposed to be about empowering the majority, not duping them into following our "vanguard".

That particular tract has been attempted before and its failed every time.

No, if we're going to fight for the proletarian to emancipate itself, we need to stop thinking of them as too stupid to read the mail. We need to recognize that a revolutionary working class is an informed working class, a fully informed working class.

Lying to them or restricting what they have access to (which is really the same thing) is just more of the bourgeois politicking bullshit that we are supposed to be transcending.


If we accept that homophobia is something that is both unnecessary and deleterious, why should a society tolerate such a thing?

Because "society" is not a monolithic organism. It's composed of individuals and those individuals deserve the freedom to decide for themselves what's "deleterious" and what isn't.

After all, you don't know if the gay group in question wanted to recieve this letter or not. At first guess, I would assume that they didn't; but for all we know, they were collecting hate literature, or engaged in a campaign against this preacher and this letter would have helped their cause.

Regardless, the point is that we don't know and can't presume to know what's in people's "interests" to read.

And its when we get into the business of acting "on behalf" of society that we really get into trouble. If it's acceptable to dictate what kind of letters people can get, is it acceptable to limit what they can borrow from the library?

How about what websites they visit? How about who they talk to?

Obviously some of these things are easier to restrict than others, but I would remind you that many societies in history have successfully legislated them. And a good deal of them did so in the name of stopping "reactionary material" from "poisoning minds".

That's certainly what Stalin thought, it's undoubtably what Mao thought. And yet both of those regimes are now roundly condemned on the left for their attempts to dictate the debate.

Is that really the ground you think we should retread? Social policy through repression?


An individual refused to take part in spreading terrible ideas. How is that wrong?

Because it deprived the sender of his fundamental right to communicate ideas and, perhaps more importantly, because it deprived the recipients of their right to use their own discretion in selecting what to read.

Look, the gay organization in this case could have put a stop request on any mail from the preacher's address, certainly that was their right.

But this one letter carrier did not have the right to unilaterally dictate what they could or could nor read. No one appointed him arbitor of acceptablity, and his arbitrarily chosing which mail to deliver and which not to is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Look, I get letters from Jehovas Witnesses all the time. I happen to find them amusing. Do I not have a right to continue receiving them? What if my mailman decided tomorrow that they were too "reactionary" for me to see?

You don't think I would be offended by that? You don't think it takes something away from me when I don't have the freedom to read what I want?

We condemn government censorship not only because it comes from the bourgeois government, but also because censorship, no matter who's doing it, is an implicitly abusive act.

It strips of a piece of our individuality and humanity and reduces us to children.

This one letter carrier not delivering a pamphlet isn't going to end the world by any means, but you're talking about censorship as a policy of mass action. And that, if manifested, has a very real chance of doing some very real harm.


It's not about being "offended", it's about creating an environment devoid of these sorts of ideas, which carries far more benefits than notions of "freedom".

Which "kind of ideas"? "Reactionary" ones? And who precisely gets to determine what constitutes "reaction"?

Fifty years ago gay rights were "reactionary" and most of the leftist movement would have laughed at the suggestion of supporting that "bourgeois decadence". Fifty years before that, civil rights and anti-segregation were a "petty bourgeois distraction" and men like Victor Berger lead the Socialst Party USA.

Don't be so naive as to think any of us have a monopoly on truth or are so infallible as to be trusted to mind the gates of societal expression.

There are a lot of really crummy ideas out there, but none of us are so smart or so trustworthy that we should be granted the absolute right to dictate whether others are exposed to them.

That letter carrier had the freedom to reject the pamphlet as hate-filled crap. The people it was addressed to deserve that same freedom.


Look at the bottom line: this action hindered the spread of hatred. There is nothing wrong with that.

But did it? Really?

Haven't you heard the "arguments" against homosexuality? Haven't most members of this board? Somehow, though, they remain unconvinced.

It's not the arguments that are keeping homophobia alive, it's a culture of ignorance. Most homophobes don't even know why they hate gay people, just like most racists don't know why they hate black people.

Exposing them to the racist or homophobic litterature won't make them "more" hateful and it certainly won't turn progressive thinkers into homophobes and racists.

In fact, the pamphlet in question wasn't even trying to "change minds". It was sent to a gay rights group for crying out loud! As such, this act of suppression didn't "save souls" from the corruption of "reaction" or help us one bit in our campaign against homophobia.

All in all, it did nothing ...nothing but strip the recipients of their democratic right to get their mail delivered without moralism or bias.


but if we claim to work for a better world, why would we want that world to be filled with these same ills?

This may come as a shock to you, but we don't run the world. We're not in a position to say what the world is "filled with" and what it isn't.

We can argue and agitate and struggle for change, but even this kind of active "no-platforming" is never going to decrease "reaction" enough to matter. We're just not that important.

No, we either win this fight on our merits or we don't. If we try to suppress the "other side", we'll fail and we'll just look bad for the trying.

If our message is the self empowerment of the working class, we're not going to win any allies by actively trying to control what the working class can and cannot see!

People already associate communism with Stalinism; a campaign of suppression will just cement that impression.

***

Besides, where do you draw the line on this one? Lots of things have the potential to "increase the effect" of "reaction". The mail's one of the lesser influences.

So should we start censoring the internet as well? How about telephone conversations? Should operators shut down any call that seems to be heading in a "reactionary" direction?

You are proposing that letter carriers -- and presumably other types of communications workers too -- should start actively suppressing "reactionary" materials. Well, as I see it, the only way that they can determine whether the letter they carry is "reactionary" or not is by reading it. I guess if you trust your mailman enough to censor your mail, you trust him enough to puruse it too.

For my part, though, I don't.

I don't know what his views or his interests are and I'll be damned if I'm going to give up my right to privacy out of a hope that he and others like him are correct in their analysis of what constitutes "reaction".

I cherish my right to read "filth" if I chose and I will not give it up to you or anyone else without a fight.

Because like it or not, the unavoidable historical lesson is that even if your aim is to only suppress the "bad", you inevitably end up suppressing far far more than that.

And I don't want another NKVD ...or Mutaween.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:21 pm

What is the basis of "free speech"?

The politcal nescessity for a free and unrestrained debate.

Obviously, as has been pointed out, the debate as it stands is nowhere near free, but the answer to inequality is not to subject the marketplace of ideas to the arbitrary hand of personal whims.

We aren't going to defeat the bourgeosie by trying to out-oppress them. Our movement is supposed to be about empowering the majority, not duping them into following our "vanguard".

That particular tract has been attempted before and its failed every time.

No, if we're going to fight for the proletarian to emancipate itself, we need to stop thinking of them as too stupid to read the mail. We need to recognize that a revolutionary working class is an informed working class, a fully informed working class.

Lying to them or restricting what they have access to (which is really the same thing) is just more of the bourgeois politicking bullshit that we are supposed to be transcending.


If we accept that homophobia is something that is both unnecessary and deleterious, why should a society tolerate such a thing?

Because "society" is not a monolithic organism. It's composed of individuals and those individuals deserve the freedom to decide for themselves what's "deleterious" and what isn't.

After all, you don't know if the gay group in question wanted to recieve this letter or not. At first guess, I would assume that they didn't; but for all we know, they were collecting hate literature, or engaged in a campaign against this preacher and this letter would have helped their cause.

Regardless, the point is that we don't know and can't presume to know what's in people's "interests" to read.

And its when we get into the business of acting "on behalf" of society that we really get into trouble. If it's acceptable to dictate what kind of letters people can get, is it acceptable to limit what they can borrow from the library?

How about what websites they visit? How about who they talk to?

Obviously some of these things are easier to restrict than others, but I would remind you that many societies in history have successfully legislated them. And a good deal of them did so in the name of stopping "reactionary material" from "poisoning minds".

That's certainly what Stalin thought, it's undoubtably what Mao thought. And yet both of those regimes are now roundly condemned on the left for their attempts to dictate the debate.

Is that really the ground you think we should retread? Social policy through repression?


An individual refused to take part in spreading terrible ideas. How is that wrong?

Because it deprived the sender of his fundamental right to communicate ideas and, perhaps more importantly, because it deprived the recipients of their right to use their own discretion in selecting what to read.

Look, the gay organization in this case could have put a stop request on any mail from the preacher's address, certainly that was their right.

But this one letter carrier did not have the right to unilaterally dictate what they could or could nor read. No one appointed him arbitor of acceptablity, and his arbitrarily chosing which mail to deliver and which not to is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Look, I get letters from Jehovas Witnesses all the time. I happen to find them amusing. Do I not have a right to continue receiving them? What if my mailman decided tomorrow that they were too "reactionary" for me to see?

You don't think I would be offended by that? You don't think it takes something away from me when I don't have the freedom to read what I want?

We condemn government censorship not only because it comes from the bourgeois government, but also because censorship, no matter who's doing it, is an implicitly abusive act.

It strips of a piece of our individuality and humanity and reduces us to children.

This one letter carrier not delivering a pamphlet isn't going to end the world by any means, but you're talking about censorship as a policy of mass action. And that, if manifested, has a very real chance of doing some very real harm.


It's not about being "offended", it's about creating an environment devoid of these sorts of ideas, which carries far more benefits than notions of "freedom".

Which "kind of ideas"? "Reactionary" ones? And who precisely gets to determine what constitutes "reaction"?

Fifty years ago gay rights were "reactionary" and most of the leftist movement would have laughed at the suggestion of supporting that "bourgeois decadence". Fifty years before that, civil rights and anti-segregation were a "petty bourgeois distraction" and men like Victor Berger lead the Socialst Party USA.

Don't be so naive as to think any of us have a monopoly on truth or are so infallible as to be trusted to mind the gates of societal expression.

There are a lot of really crummy ideas out there, but none of us are so smart or so trustworthy that we should be granted the absolute right to dictate whether others are exposed to them.

That letter carrier had the freedom to reject the pamphlet as hate-filled crap. The people it was addressed to deserve that same freedom.


Look at the bottom line: this action hindered the spread of hatred. There is nothing wrong with that.

But did it? Really?

Haven't you heard the "arguments" against homosexuality? Haven't most members of this board? Somehow, though, they remain unconvinced.

It's not the arguments that are keeping homophobia alive, it's a culture of ignorance. Most homophobes don't even know why they hate gay people, just like most racists don't know why they hate black people.

Exposing them to the racist or homophobic litterature won't make them "more" hateful and it certainly won't turn progressive thinkers into homophobes and racists.

In fact, the pamphlet in question wasn't even trying to "change minds". It was sent to a gay rights group for crying out loud! As such, this act of suppression didn't "save souls" from the corruption of "reaction" or help us one bit in our campaign against homophobia.

All in all, it did nothing ...nothing but strip the recipients of their democratic right to get their mail delivered without moralism or bias.


but if we claim to work for a better world, why would we want that world to be filled with these same ills?

This may come as a shock to you, but we don't run the world. We're not in a position to say what the world is "filled with" and what it isn't.

We can argue and agitate and struggle for change, but even this kind of active "no-platforming" is never going to decrease "reaction" enough to matter. We're just not that important.

No, we either win this fight on our merits or we don't. If we try to suppress the "other side", we'll fail and we'll just look bad for the trying.

If our message is the self empowerment of the working class, we're not going to win any allies by actively trying to control what the working class can and cannot see!

People already associate communism with Stalinism; a campaign of suppression will just cement that impression.

***

Besides, where do you draw the line on this one? Lots of things have the potential to "increase the effect" of "reaction". The mail's one of the lesser influences.

So should we start censoring the internet as well? How about telephone conversations? Should operators shut down any call that seems to be heading in a "reactionary" direction?

You are proposing that letter carriers -- and presumably other types of communications workers too -- should start actively suppressing "reactionary" materials. Well, as I see it, the only way that they can determine whether the letter they carry is "reactionary" or not is by reading it. I guess if you trust your mailman enough to censor your mail, you trust him enough to puruse it too.

For my part, though, I don't.

I don't know what his views or his interests are and I'll be damned if I'm going to give up my right to privacy out of a hope that he and others like him are correct in their analysis of what constitutes "reaction".

I cherish my right to read "filth" if I chose and I will not give it up to you or anyone else without a fight.

Because like it or not, the unavoidable historical lesson is that even if your aim is to only suppress the "bad", you inevitably end up suppressing far far more than that.

And I don't want another NKVD ...or Mutaween.
It is not a political necessity to tolerate intolerance. Such views are detrimental to society and should be treated as such.

Opposing these sorts of beliefs at every turn helps to build a better society, one without discrimination. Taking this position does not weaken our ability to defeat the bourgeoisie, and on the contrary, siding with the oppressed among us would likely gain us more support. That's what the leftist and communist parties did in the US: long before any capitalist ever cared about the civil rights of minorities, those parties did all they could for that cause and they got support for it.

It's not a classist thing, since oftentimes it is the rich (bourgeoisie, petty-bourgeoisie) who embrace intolerant ideas. These ideas should be countered whenever possible, their propagation and spread hurts the proletariat and the people and that is unacceptable.

It's not lying to them to refuse to propagate intolerant ideas. It's recognizing the effect they have.

Society is composed of individuals, but the collective is far more important. I put the wellbeing of the whole above the unfounded and misled "rights" of one person. "Individual freedom" is in denial of the community.

Perhaps they did want to receive the letter, but all things being equal, not spreading the letter was the better choice. And in relation to practicality, there is nothing to say that a group cannot be notified of this transgression.

We can presume enough about the situation to make the conclusion that not spreading the letter was the right thing to do.

Would you want bigoted books in a public library? They don't belong there. I would even oppose reactionary books in a public library, but that's for another discussion.

Websites and private conversations are two things which are somewhat different. However, if I was in the position to do so, bigoted websites would be shut down.

Conversations are entirely personal and different from sending a letter to a certain group. We can at least agree upon that.

Stalin was more concerned with silencing opponents within the party than with moving society forward. You can find a great amount of praise for Mao's writings, but I believe he made dire mistakes in policy.

Opposing bigotry is repression? Hardly, but even if you characterize it as such, it does help the general good.

It only deprived the sender of a needless "right" to spread hatred. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sure, they could've barred the address, but that's putting a bandaid on a gash and a solution easily overcome by bigots. Solve the problem at its source.

So if someone appoints him arbitor, it's OK? More to the point, the fact remains that in spite of his lack of a "position", he did the right thing.

Are you saying that you would tolerate missionary activity? Such tears apart entire communities and cultures, one can see this by reading any account of what these people do (I recommend "Things Fall Apart"). YOU may find it amusing, but that does not trump the benefit that would come to everyone if such materials were restricted.

It's not about being offended, it's about opposing (in this instance) hatred. We can draw a line here: you can read what you want, but only if you actively pursue it. However, I find hateful ideas worthless, and I would expect other people who oppose them to agree, so what is the point of having them around? More than this, they are unnecessary and detrimental to many things (such as equality), and so they should not be tolerated.

Bourgeoisie governments censor us more than bigots, who are the group I want to censor. Aside from this, I put the nature of a tolerant community before the "rights" of bigots to disrupt it.

People are not islands unto themselves, you indeed an individual, but you are also an individual member of your community. Membership of one's community is something that cannot be ignored, while the ability to express unjustifiable hatred for those we live with is something that is not important at all, if not a negative prospect.

No one is saying that the letter would destroy anything, but it is an example of a serious problem that should not be tolerated by a tolerant society.

You know exactly what I mean by reactionary. Hateful ideas, ones which express contempt for people because of who they are. It's not that difficult to identify them.

Most of the leftist movement would say that they could make mistakes, and would likely agree that homosexuals are people to be fully tolerated if here today.

Bigotry is as clear as day, and I will certainly trust myself and a tolerant community to deny it entry through those very gates.

They aren't just crummy, they're an affront to humanity.

They had the "freedom" to reject it? They should have the "freedom" to live without such insane ideas. You tell me which is more important.

I trust people on this board would see the plentiful amount of flaws in those arguments, but I do know that people, regardless of education, may succumb to them without active opposition against them. Tolerating them, which is what you are proposing, creates an environment that bigots can exploit.

Can you identify a single worthful purpose of the letter? If you cannot, then there is no real reason to tolerate it.

As stated before, there is no "right" to send the letter (no political necessity), and so the "right" to receive it is even more unfounded and invalid.

Oh, we're not in control so we shouldn't discuss what society should be? Then I guess we might as well just shut down the board, burn our books and literature and apologize for our activities if a simple lack of control makes you want to shy from serious discussion. I know as well as you do that talking about censorship isn't going to help the cause, so I don't highlight it to people who aren't like-minded, so I put it in language that people can accept. It's not that hard to give people a gradual introduction to these conclusions, and it's something we should do.

Tolerating hatred isn't a fight at all, it's practically a concession to those we should be opposing at every step.

If our message is empowerment of the working class, then we should empower them to destroy hatred.

I hope you already know that no matter what we do, people are going to associate us with baby-eating or some other nonsense. If we shape our message around that, then we've already lost.

Conversations, unlike websites, are personal and should be treated as such.

I am proposing that reactionary material be opposed. You are proposing the tolerance of that which is intolerable.

In many countries today, Holocaust deniers are subject to prosecution, and that's the way it should be. You are ignoring those lessons, as well as the lesson that tolerating intolerance leads to nothing but unnecessary trouble.

I don't want another SS...or SA.

[LSD]

It is not a political necessity to tolerate intolerance.

Well, that actually depends on what you mean by "tolerate". If you mean "respect" or "value", then you're absolutely correct. But if you mean allow to exist, then you're dead wrong.

'Cause while I agree that this particular pamphlet was pure shit, the issue here isn't the "merits" of homophobia, it's the logic of trusting postal workers to arbitrarily puruse and filter our mail.

You have to have a remarkable faith in humanity to imagine that that kind of massive trust can be placed without risk of error or abuse.

You may have that faith, but I don't.


Opposing these sorts of beliefs at every turn helps to build a better society, one without discrimination.

That's not in dispute here. No one is suggesting that bigotry should not be combatted. The question at hand is what's the best way to do that.

Because while defeating reaction is an important goal, that doesn't mean that any action carried out in its name is automatically acceptable.

Again, some of the worst repressions in human history have been done in the name of "battling reaction" or "building a better society". But having a lofty goal does not excuse oppression or subjugation.

It didn't for Stalin, it didn't for Mao, and it doesn't for you.


That's what the leftist and communist parties did in the US: long before any capitalist ever cared about the civil rights of minorities, those parties did all they could for that cause and they got support for it.

Well, actually ...no.

Yes, some communist and socialist parties took a leading role in the struggle against racial discrimination, but a whole lot of them didn't.

Again, I point to the Socialist Party USA in the early twentieth century and leading socialist figures like Victor Berger who were not only not pro-civil rights but were actually open and vehement racists.

The fact is, while the leftist movement has very often been right, it's also often been wrong.

There's nothing particularly surprising in that, of course. No movement, whether political or otherwise, has been right 100% of the time. The fact is that human beings are creatures of their time and of their environment and if one is living in the nineteenth century it's hihgly unlikely that one can live up to twenty-first century ideals.

Which is why it's a damn good thing that 1920s communists didn't campaign for the suppression of the civil rights movement or the emergent gay rights movement.

For the most part, they didn't agree with either one, but they were at least rational enough to recognize that that censorship wasn't the way forward.

Unfortunately, it would appear that modern communists have patterned themselves after the fascist right and see suppression as a viable mechanism for social change.

Well, just think what would have happened if instead of just opposing the civil rights movement, Berger would have lead his socialist party to actively suppress it at any available turn.

Now, I'm not saying that homophobia is comparable to civil rights, but I am saying that none of us are so intelligent or so all-knowing that we can say with absolute certainty what should and what should not be discussed.

'Cause the unavoidable historical lesson is that a good deal of the time, we'll be dead wrong.


It's not lying to them to refuse to propagate intolerant ideas. It's recognizing the effect they have.

No, it's lying to them.

It's saying that they're too stupid to be "exposed" to hate without swallowing it whole and so it must be "hidden" from them at all costs.

I suppose actually informing them is just too much work. <_<

How you see this as revolutionary in any sense, however, is beyond me. If you were a reformist liberal, I supppose I&#39;d understand. They&#39;re quite fond of using "big government" to save the "ignorant masses" from themselves.

But revolutionaries are supposed to be about empowering the masses; about radicalizing and educating the oppressed othe world such that they can take their future into their own hands.

Can you seriously look a worker in the eye and tell him that he&#39;s smart enough to run his factory, but too stupid to listen to Pat Robertson? Really?


Perhaps they did want to receive the letter, but all things being equal, not spreading the letter was the better choice.

Really? How so?

What practical bennefit did suppressing this letter have? Did it help in the fight against homophobia? Did it "save souls" from the "poison" of "reaction"?

Again, this pamphlet was addressed to a gay rights group. Do you really think it had a high chance of convincing a bunch of gay people to adopt homophobia? :rolleyes:

The fact is this act of censorship accomplished absolutely nothing. All that it did was strip this gay rights group of their basic human right to choose for themselves what they read and what they don&#39;t.

If they don&#39;t want to get letters from some whackjob preacher, that&#39;s their decision to make and no one else&#39;s.

It certainly isn&#39;t up to their mailman to restrict what they&#39;re "exposed to".


We can presume enough about the situation to make the conclusion that not spreading the letter was the right thing to do.

And who exactly is "we"?

&#39;Cause as far as I can tell, in this case the only person making "conclusions" was one lone letter carrier who arbitrarily decided that this one letter offended his sensibilities.

Had that letter been carried by a different postal worker or even the same worker when he was in a different mood, it would have almost certainly been delivered.

So what we&#39;re talking about here isn&#39;t some grand organized "anti-reaction" campaign, it&#39;s random people with random opinions imposing those opinions on the rest of society ...and then a bunch of "leftists" congratulating them for it.

The problem with that scenario, however, is that most postal workers don&#39;t agree with communism either. So if postal censorship becomes the norm, you&#39;re pamphlets are going to take just as big a hit as our homophobic preacher&#39;s.

And, in the end, that&#39;s the problem with minority movements trying to use suppression tactics. It always backfires.

When you&#39;re as far on the fringes as communism and revolutionary leftism is, you can&#39;t start campaigning for restrictions on speech. Because, as you yourself admitted, most people in this world still equate communism with Stalinism and don&#39;t rank either one that much better than Naziism.

So while your purpose may be to suppress the far-right, when you empower the centre to dictate the debate, they cut off both ends.


Would you want bigoted books in a public library?

Yes.

Because I don&#39;t trust the state or its employees to dicate what is or is not "acceptable" reading material.

...do you?


[Telephone] conversations are entirely personal and different from sending a letter to a certain group.

How so?

Both are forms of interpersonal communication, both operate with an expectation of privacy, both require complex technical infastructures, and both relly upon workers to keep them functioning.

A telephone worker is no different from a postal one. Both are in a position of responsibility to the community and both have the ability to censor the conversation, should they so choose.

So, again, I ask you, should a telephone operator disconnect any call that seems to be going in a "reactionary" direction? Or refuse to place calls from known "reactionaries"?


Sure, they could&#39;ve barred the address, but that&#39;s putting a bandaid on a gash and a solution easily overcome by bigots. Solve the problem at its source.

And you think this is "solving the problem at its source" do you?

You really think that censorship will stop homophobia? It sure hasn&#39;t worked for hollocaust denial.

Besides, what is it exactly that makes self-censorship more of a "bandaid" than trusting mailmen to do it for us? Either way, it doesn&#39;t solve the problem, it just keeps one person from having to deal with it that day.

Of course, when a person makes that choice themselves, it constitutes a conscious rejection of hate; when someone else does it "for them", all it does is infantilize and disempower them.

The Soviet Union did its damndest to keep its citizens away from capitalist propaganda. But what happened the moment the CPSU lost power? Capitalist resoration.

Why? Because suppression doesn&#39;t engender adherence, it just engenders apathy. That might be good enough for liberals, but if we want to move the proletariat towards revolutionary consciousness we need to encourage it to be politically active.

And you don&#39;t get active if your mailman won&#39;t even let you read the issues.

You know how most people react when they see racist websites? They get angry. We want that anger, we need that anger. That&#39;s the kind of anger that leads to things getting accomplished.

If you took away all the homophobic litterature in the world, you wouldn&#39;t have less homophobes, but you would have less anti-homophobic activists. &#39;Cause it&#39;s reading the other side that gets people pumped up.


It&#39;s not about being offended, it&#39;s about opposing (in this instance) hatred.

No, actually it&#39;s about being offended.

The reason that this letter got censored was that the guy carrying it was offended by its contents. Like it or not, that&#39;s what happened.

So when you support his "right" to arbitrarty censorship, you&#39;re not supporting some grand campaign against "hate", you&#39;re giving liscence to every postal worker out there to impose their own judgement on the rest of society.

And I can promise you most of those workers do not agree with you when it comes to politics&#33;


However, I find hateful ideas worthless, and I would expect other people who oppose them to agree, so what is the point of having them around?

The "point" is that your opinion should not dicatate my life. The "point" is that democracy is about recognizing that, whatver your personal feelings about them, I have the right to make my own choices unhindered.

You may not like homophobia, and I may not like homophobia, and most of the country may not like homophobia, but I&#39;d remind you that most of the country doesn&#39;t like communism either.

Being popular doesn&#39;t mean being right. And it doesn&#39;t grant one the authority to forcibly dicatate ones values onto the rest of the world.


You know exactly what I mean by reactionary.

Do I?

Try browsing this forum for bit before you say that, hell just search for "reactionary" and see what kind of hits you get.

There are more definitions of "reactionary" than there are of almost any other word, it&#39;s probably the single most contentious term on this board.

And this is a revolutionary leftist website&#33; For the most part, we all agree with each other here. Just imagine what you&#39;d find if you asked the public in general.

So before you go asserting that "reaction" is self-evident, remember that even among leftists, there&#39;s no set definition.

Which is why, again, empowering postal workers to censor as they see fit is outragous. If you can I can&#39;t even agree on what "reaction" is, how on earth do you expect fifty thousand CP workers to?

No, the only possible outcome from supporting this kind of individual suppression, is pure and complete chaos: I get my pro-communist letter delivered, but you don&#39;t; preacher A gets to spread his anti-gay rant but preacher B doesn&#39;t.

Well, that&#39;s not "fighting reaction", it&#39;s just shooting ourselves in the foot, both politically and socially.

An unbiased mail service (and telephone serive, and internet service, etc...) is in our interest because we are a minority movement trying to get an unpopular message out to a highly unconvinced public.

The less free the channels of communcation, the weaker we become. Period.


They had the "freedom" to reject it? They should have the "freedom" to live without such insane ideas.

It&#39;s a nice ideal, but the problem with that "freedom" is that it requires a consensus on just what constitutes "insanity" and what doesn&#39;t. And it requires that that consensus be right.

Again, 50 years ago, 95% of the population would have agreed that gay rights were a ludicrous cause, and that includes most of the communist movement. So if we were having this discussion then, your 50s counterpart would be agitating for the censorship of gay rights.

I don&#39;t know what the modern parallel is, what the issues are that we&#39;ve gotten wrong and just don&#39;t know it. But I do know that they exist. Because the notion that we&#39;ve gotten everything right whereas every other generation in history hasn&#39;t is just too absurdly arrogant to accept.

So no matter how noble our intentions may be, once we start imposing our nescessarily flawed values onto society in general, we can&#39;t help but suppress things that shouldn&#39;t be suppressed.

Which is why, as revolutionaries, as progressives, and as democrats, it&#39;s our obligation to stay out of the censorship game entirely.


Can you identify a single worthful purpose of the letter? If you cannot, then there is no real reason to tolerate it.

That is an incredibly dangerous position to take because "worthwhile" is one of the most subjective valutations there is.

Most people didn&#39;t think that Origin of the Species was particularly "worthwhile" when it first came out. Should it have been suppressed? What about Catcher in the Rye? What about The Manifest of the Communist Party???


Oh, we&#39;re not in control so we shouldn&#39;t discuss what society should be?

No, we&#39;re not in control so we shouldn&#39;t spout nonsense about controlling the debate or shaping the "community".

We simpy don&#39;t have the power to suppress our political enemies, so all that trying to do so will accomplish is to make us look bad.


I hope you already know that no matter what we do, people are going to associate us with baby-eating or some other nonsense.

And, what, we should just "accept" that? We shoudn&#39;t even try to get the proletariat on our side?

What kind of revolutionary are you??? :blink:

I&#39;m not saying that we sacrifice our politics on the altar of public acceptance, but censorship has never been a fundamental part of the leftist paradigm. And there is nothing anti-leftist about adopting a strong anti-censorship line.


Conversations, unlike websites, are personal and should be treated as such.

Why?

If suppression "reaction" is as important as you make it out to be, shouldn&#39;t we use any tools at our disposal?

An email conversation is no more "personal" than a postal exchange so if censoring the mail is acceptable, shouldn&#39;t web admins start reading through their clients&#39; emails and delete the "reactionary" ones.

I guess that concept&#39;s just a little to creepy for you to adopt, eh? But it&#39;s actually not functionally any different from the line you&#39;re supporting.

Either people have a right to free communication or their don&#39;t. You really can&#39;t have it both ways.


I don&#39;t want another SS...or SA.

And? Therefore?

Are you suggesting that the problem in pre-Nazi Germany was a lack of suppression? That if only there had been more censorship, the Weimar republic might not have fallen?

Well, take it from a History major, nothing could be further from the truth.

There aren&#39;t that many historical constants, but one of the few out there is that the power to censor is always abused.

Regardless of the ideal or the intentions or even the politics involved, no one can be trusted with that kind of power, no one.

[LSD]

First of all, there was only one letter carrier involved, and secondly, don&#39;t make it out like this sort of thing happens often.

Refusing to deliver a letter because of personal disagreements is no different from any other abuse of position, like refusing to dispense contraception or to marry gay couples.

Anyone who makes a habbit of it should be immediately transfered to a position where their personal "values" won&#39;t get in the way of others&#39; freedoms. There are plenty of other jobs within the postal service.

[LSD]

Wait, are you talking pre or post revolution? &#39;Cause I&#39;m quite confused on exactly what you&#39;re asking.

The case at issue here happened last year. It has nothing to do with "statelessness" or "workers&#39; collectives". The question at hand is whether or not we should lend our support to this kind of arbitrary suppression and whether this sort of individual censorship helps our cause.

As I hope I&#39;ve made quite clear, in my opinion it does nothing of the kind.


What if a whole "collective" of letter carriers refuses to carry something they disagree with ideologically?

What if doctors decide they&#39;re not going to treat anyone? What if automotive workers decide they don&#39;t feel like making any more cars?

Oh my God, maybe no one will work at all&#33; :o

I guess we&#39;d better have material incentives, &#39;cause we all know that without money, no economy could possibly function. Oh well, there goes communism... <_<

Or could it be that people aren&#39;t nearly as stupid as you&#39;re making them out to be?

The job of a letter carrier is to carry letters. If, post-revolution, someone wants to go into that occupation they do so knowing full well that they&#39;re expected to respect the privacy of those they deliver to.

Now, personally I&#39;m not at all convinced that there even will be letter carriers in a postrevolutionay society. For one thing, from a purely technological standpoint, I don&#39;t see the physical post lasting that much longer; and for another, personal mail delivery is basically a luxury. There&#39;s no reason that people can&#39;t pick up their own mail.

But if there still are mailmen following a communist revolution, the expectation will be that they will deliver the mail.

Anyone unwilling to do that for "personal" or "ideological" reasons isn&#39;t doing their job. If every mailman decides to impose their own "values" on their occupation (which, honestly, is a very unlikely scenario), other people will have to start picking up their slack.

That&#39;s the beauty of a communist economy, after all. If a given collective refuses to perform the service that society expects of them, they can be easily and painlessly replaced.

Eventually the collective will have to choose between doing their jobs and social irrelevency.


Or will all people be absolute "free speech" advocates like you and Noam Chomsky?

Neither of us can speak to what "all people" will be. But I certainly do expect a post-revolutionary society to be quite aware of the dangers of censorship and repression, no matter how "well-intentioned" either might be.

If I&#39;m wrong and most people genuinely want to have their mail censored for them, I suppose there&#39;s nothing I can do. But I&#39;ll sure as hell do my damndest to try and convince them otherwise.

Democracy is founded on an informed and active population. How can democracy possibly function if we&#39;re not even free to read our own mail?