Freedom of Speech

[HatefulRed]

I've seen in quite a few articles here supporting the suppression of the bourgeoisie media and pretty much restricting freedom of speech (like in Cuba). This part of "communism" I'm not fond of at all.. isn't it a little contradictory? Shouldn't a communist country accept feedback from it's countrymen to make society the best it can be for everyone? With the lack of freedom of speech and freedom of press the country turns into a tyranny. Plus, what I gathered from my reading on Lenin is that there are 4 main aspects that a "communist"government should have:
[1]All officials are to be elected and able to be recalled at any time if necessary
[2]Over a period of time everyone participates in the running of the economy-"if everyone is a bureaucrat, no one is a bureaucrat."
[3]No standing army, but a general arming of the people
[4]No public official receives a wage higher than any skilled worker
Items 1 and 2 contradict the whole suppression of freedom of speech, right? If everyone is able to participate in the economy then we need freedom of press. Also, it seems to me freedom of speech is at least important if not necessary to keep the equality of the workers. This brings up one major criticism of communism that we can't just ignore: when the workers "revolt", it is just as easy for us to recreate the oppressive and not-so-classless society just ruled by a different class. Freedom of speech and media is vital to keep this from happening.

Can anyone justify the suppression of media (bourgeoisie and proletariat)?

[Revulero]

In the transition from capitalism to communism you cant have freedom of speech or freedom of the press because it allows people to speak rascism and allows the press to discourage the revolution.

[LSD]

And? Therefore? A working class that is so gullible as to be convinced by racist propaganda is not capable of mounting a real revolution anyway.

Besides, the only kind of censorship that is presently possible is bourgeois censorship and, obviously, that won't be in the interests of the revolutionary workers movement.

As for in the midst of a violent revolution, you're deluding yourself if you imagine that anything approaching organized censorship will be possible. The workers won't have time to shut down every "reactionary" website, we'll be to busy figthting for our lives.

Wasting our time trying to crash nationalreview.com would be a tragic waste of resources.

***

To the thread starter, as you said, we've had a number of these discussions. If you're really curious as to the pro-censorship line, I suggest you skim the latest thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62070&st=0).

They make their arguments fairly coherently, if not persuasively.

[Red Menace]

dictatorship of the Proletariat comrade :hammer:

these rights must be suppressed, because the revolution will be in a vulnerable state, and cannot risk counter-revolution.

[BobKKKindle$]

One of the reasons that revolution is not possible in the present is that the Bourgeoisie has control of the institutiions and mechanisms that are responsible for the formation of the ideas and concepts that determine how people view the world. This is called a cultural hegemony. In a revolutionary situation it will be necessary to ensure that the proletariat seizes control over these devices and that the Bourgeoisie is not able to turn any sections of the proletariat against the idea of a revolutionary transformation of society. In any case, under Capitalist society it is innacurate to say that freedom of speech exists, because the means of communication are under the control of a small number of media conglomerates, resutling in a limited ideological breadth in the media.

[KC]

There is no such thing as freedom of speech as long as class society exists. Even if there were no legal restrictions on freedom of speech (such as censorship) there will always be social restrictions. The difference between bourgeois and proletarian rule is just this; in bourgeois society censorship takes on a legal character, whereas in proletarian society (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat) censorship would take on more of a social character. This is because during the dictatorship of the proletariat, social pressure begins to take control of legal pressure, and as the state withers they become one and the same.


As for in the midst of a violent revolution, you're deluding yourself if you imagine that anything approaching organized censorship will be possible. The workers won't have time to shut down every "reactionary" website, we'll be to busy figthting for our lives.

I think we're talking about a time after the revolution when the bourgeois state is abolished and the dictatorship of the proletariat is created.


One of the reasons that revolution is not possible in the present is that the Bourgeoisie has control of the institutiions and mechanisms that are responsible for the formation of the ideas and concepts that determine how people view the world. This is called a cultural hegemony. In a revolutionary situation it will be necessary to ensure that the proletariat seizes control over these devices and that the Bourgeoisie is not able to turn any sections of the proletariat against the idea of a revolutionary transformation of society. In any case, under Capitalist society it is innacurate to say that freedom of speech exists, because the means of communication are under the control of a small number of media conglomerates, resutling in a limited ideological breadth in the media.

The idea of superstructure and its power over society is certainly an interesting one. However, I don't think superstructure has such a profound role in the control of the lower classes as you are putting on it. The media is simply but one section of the superstructure, however one of the most prominent, and what I think you're overlooking is that in many cases the infrastructure itself gives rise to class consciousness (or anti-capitalist consciousness in general) in spite of the "influence" or "domination" of the superstructure.

We saw this in Venezuela, for example, when the material needs of the citizens caused them to oppose bourgeois society (whether or not the leadership of that movement is actually doing so is completely irrelevent to my point). They went against the propaganda of the superstructure (which permeates all levels of society) and are striving to change the infrastructure, or the material conditions in which they live. The mass media still exists in Venezuela and to this day it continues to rail against the Bolivarian Revolution, but their influence is long gone. They were rendered powerless by the masses acting in response to the infrastructure.

I guess my whole point is that you can't put too much power in either of these elements of society, because they both have an influence on the consciousness of the proletariat, however one regularly overrides the other (ideology prevents the proletariat from revolting due to material conditions and productive forces, or vice versa; the material conditions cause the proletariat to revolt in spite of the ideological conditioning by bourgeois society).

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:21 am
I've seen in quite a few articles here supporting the suppression of the bourgeoisie media and pretty much restricting freedom of speech (like in Cuba). This part of "communism" I'm not fond of at all.. isn't it a little contradictory? Shouldn't a communist country accept feedback from it's countrymen to make society the best it can be for everyone? With the lack of freedom of speech and freedom of press the country turns into a tyranny. Plus, what I gathered from my reading on Lenin is that there are 4 main aspects that a "communist"government should have:[1]All officials are to be elected and able to be recalled at any time if necessary
[2]Over a period of time everyone participates in the running of the economy-"if everyone is a bureaucrat, no one is a bureaucrat."
[3]No standing army, but a general arming of the people
[4]No public official receives a wage higher than any skilled workerItems 1 and 2 contradict the whole suppression of freedom of speech, right? If everyone is able to participate in the economy then we need freedom of press. Also, it seems to me freedom of speech is at least important if not necessary to keep the equality of the workers. This brings up one major criticism of communism that we can't just ignore: when the workers "revolt", it is just as easy for us to recreate the oppressive and not-so-classless society just ruled by a different class. Freedom of speech and media is vital to keep this from happening.

Can anyone justify the suppression of media (bourgeoisie and proletariat)?
no they cant

and if they try to shut me up i'll fucking shoot them.

:wub:

oh and LSD basically pwned it.

[manic expression]

First of all, that is communism.

Second of all, there is no reason to tolerate speech that should not be tolerated. It is detrimental and unnecessary to do so, and so any reasonable person can agree that disallowing certain speech is something that is justified.

Lastly, rights do not exist outside of how society defines them. Therefore, "free speech" is not natural or inherent or anything like that, it is something society decides upon. Also, don't forget that "free speech" only goes so far at any rate; try screaming "fire" in a crowded theater sometime and use that argument.

[MrDoom]

To care more about freedom of speech for the bourgeoisie in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat rather than the practical liberation of the proletariat is liberalism.

EDIT: And we shouldn't be supressing proletarian media, only bourgeois outlets.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:36 pm
And we shouldn't be supressing proletarian media, only bourgeois outlets.
Nor are we going to suppress the bourgeois outlets, we will just expropriate them.

Luís Henrique

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 25, 2007 08:23 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 25, 2007 08:23 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 10:36 pm
And we shouldn't be supressing proletarian media, only bourgeois outlets.
Nor are we going to suppress the bourgeois outlets, we will just expropriate them.

Luís Henrique[/b]
Ha. Exactly.

[Cyanide Suicide]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:21 am
what I gathered from my reading on Lenin is that there are 4 main aspects that a "communist"government should have:[1]All officials are to be elected and able to be recalled at any time if necessary
[2]Over a period of time everyone participates in the running of the economy-"if everyone is a bureaucrat, no one is a bureaucrat."
[3]No standing army, but a general arming of the people
[4]No public official receives a wage higher than any skilled workerItems 1 and 2 contradict the whole suppression of freedom of
Lenin also said:

"When one makes a Revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward - or go back. He who now talks about the "freedom of the press" goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism."

I don't particularly agree, though. I think LSD got it pretty much right.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 26, 2007 01:23 am--> (Luís Henrique @ February 26, 2007 01:23 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:36 pm
And we shouldn't be supressing proletarian media, only bourgeois outlets.
Nor are we going to suppress the bourgeois outlets, we will just expropriate them.

Luís Henrique [/b]
In any case, the same effect is produced.


Stalin
Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns. Why should we allow them to have ideas?

[Camarada Miguel]

from: > Supression of the Burgeoise Media., Should it be done?
by: RGacky3

We want free speech FOR EVERYONE, if its not for everyone its not free speech is it? If its not democracy for everyone its not democracy. Plus after the revolutoin there will be no more Capitalists, they will have to become fellow workers like everyone else helping and contributing to society. If someone thinks that Capitalism is better for society, they have as much a right to voice it as do Socialists in a Capitalist system.

Even the term Reactionary, what the hell does that mean, again like the concepts of counter-revolutionary and Bourgiousie Mentality its Lenninist-Maosit-Stalinist crap, you can't pigon hole people into reactionaries and revolutionaries. People are people with different ideas, different ethics, different backgrounds, and all people should be respected.

Thats one thing that I think is good about the United States, it has unconditional free speach, not many other countries have that, even the so called liberal countires in Europe.




I agree with this fellow comrade, there should not be censorship that oppresses anyone of what they think. Then we will become like north Korea brainwashing fellow citizens into thinking what the government wants you to think and thinking that your the best and others are worse off then you, and i fight oppression of any kind. I will not be controlled by anyone, Freedom Justice and Equality is what i fight for and will die for.Also so you can see what will happen if you become fascist, which is what censorship is about, I recommend reading "1984" by George Orwell its very simple but truly gets the point across. Even if Capitalism has its flaws at least you have the first amendment which says no law against free speech, press, or religion and i agree 100 percent and that amendment should be adapted. I say rather they censor media try to defend your own and win the people that way, which is what happened in Venezuela if i am not mistaken. When Chavez was president he allowed all those counter Chavez media reports yet he still had the majority of the people on his side. Also how could you oppress anyone against the revolution comrades. We are having freedom of speech right now, the so called enemy(bourgeois) is giving us this right to speak freely. I say that if you start to become fascist and oppress your own comrades or even those against there will be another revolution going on cause no one wants to be oppressed. If the Revolution were to become fascist them i swear to all man that i will fight against fascist. I am a Democratic Socialist and a Revolutionary of

FREEDOM JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by MrDoom+February 25, 2007 10:28 pm--> (MrDoom @ February 25, 2007 10:28 pm)
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 26, 2007 01:23 am--> (Luís Henrique @ February 26, 2007 01:23 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 10:36 pm
And we shouldn't be supressing proletarian media, only bourgeois outlets.
Nor are we going to suppress the bourgeois outlets, we will just expropriate them.

Luís Henrique [/b]
In any case, the same effect is produced.


Stalin
Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns. Why should we allow them to have ideas? [/b]
Well they can have their fuckin' ideas, we just won't let them shout their ideas from street corners while normal people are trying to listen to music, etc. You know, shout "hail capitalism!" and some random person comes along and breaks your nose.

(for those of you who can't read beyond literal words, that was a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE not the ENTIRETY of what we will do to bourgeois speech)

[MrDoom]

I agree with this fellow comrade, there should not be censorship that oppresses anyone of what they think. Then we will become like north Korea brainwashing fellow citizens into thinking what the government wants you to think and thinking that your the best and others are worse off then you, and i fight oppression of any kind. I will not be controlled by anyone, Freedom Justice and Equality is what i fight for and will die for.

You sound like a liberal, fighting for 'holy' Freedom and Justice. :rolleyes:


Also so you can see what will happen if you become fascist, which is what censorship is about, I recommend reading "1984" by George Orwell its very simple but truly gets the point across.

Orwell's fictional novels are reactionary and counter-revolutionary. I also rccomend you discover what fascism means.


Even if Capitalism has its flaws at least you have the first amendment which says no law against free speech, press, or religion and i agree 100 percent and that amendment should be adapted.

So what? The cappies will take it away the instant it becomes inconvenient.


We are having freedom of speech right now, the so called enemy(bourgeois) is giving us this right to speak freely. I say that if you start to become fascist and oppress your own comrades or even those against there will be another revolution going on cause no one wants to be oppressed.

It doesn't matter who's being oppressed. What it boilsdown to is who has the guns. The proletariat, in this case.


I am a Democratic Socialist and a Revolutionary of

FREEDOM JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

Liberal.

[Camarada Miguel]

Forgive me for not wanting to be like the like north Korea. I don't wish to have a dictatorship or a Totalitarian government. Call me liberal sure if you want to put a label on it, but


It doesn't matter who's being oppressed. What it boilsdown to is who has the guns. The proletariat, in this case.

I would disagree, the military has the guns now, now when the proletarians are larger in numbers then it will be a different story. and to say it does not matter who's being oppressed is to say crush all those who oppose us and, your just being angry mod and a racist and a fascist. And to call fighting for Freedom Justice and Equality liberal like if it were a bad thing, its to say that you fight for Slavery Injustice Inequality.

"Fascism: A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain."

from, The World Traveler

how about that as a definition. In other words what i said oppression. To have just one idea to rule over all, and according to you eliminate all those who oppose you, You know you cant be a Nazi and kill all your problems away. Eventually it will catch up to you. I don't think people will conform to one idea. and to uphold that idea by force even less.

[MrDoom]

Forgive me for not wanting to be like the like north Korea. I don't wish to have a dictatorship or a Totalitarian government.

Nobody here wants totalitarianism, and the only dictatorship anyone supports is the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.



It doesn't matter who's being oppressed. What it boilsdown to is who has the guns. The proletariat, in this case.

I would disagree, the military has the guns now, now when the proletarians are larger in numbers then it will be a different story. and to say it does not matter who's being oppressed is to say crush all those who oppose us and, your just being angry mod and a racist and a fascist. And to call fighting for Freedom Justice and Equality liberal like if it were a bad thing, its to say that you fight for Slavery Injustice Inequality.

I was referring not to the current state of class society, but a post-revolutionary one. And how am I being "a racist and a fascist"? I'm sorry if you don't understand what those are. And I called your use of the terms liberal because you take the time to capitalize them as if they are some "holy" truth.

And the proletariat already IS the vast majority. We don't need "larger numbers". I'm not being oppressive by saying that we should destroy all opposition. I'm being practical. If someone stands between you and freedom, you utterly destroy them. If someone (for example fascists and capitalists) would threaten the absolute sovereignty of the proletariat, then they cannot be afforded to have free speech as a class enemy.


In other words what i said oppression. To have just one idea to rule over all, and according to you eliminate all those who oppose you, You know you cant be a Nazi and kill all your problems away. Eventually it will catch up to you. I don't think people will conform to one idea. and to uphold that idea by force even less.

WTF? Learn what Nazism is before throwing the word around.

And I never said that one idea should be upheld by force. I just said that the bourgeoisie should be suppressed and their ideas crushed.

The freedom of speech for a few bourgeois counter-revolutionaries is far less important than the collective security of the proletariat's control of the state/society.

[Camarada Miguel]

Comrade MrDoom you make some good points and it would possibly work its just i don't believe in crushing all opposition. i think it will be better to convince them of are ways by showing them what capitalism is really doing and what socialism/communism really is. I think i the end there will be little opposition and that they will be to minor to worry about. I mean who do we got to worry about...Donald Ttrump, Bush owners of major corporations..you think they will really fight against us, no they wont we will have the proletarians on our sides and we will win

Hasta la victoria siempre!


The freedom of speech for a few bourgeois counter-revolutionaries is far less important than the collective security of the proletariat's control of the state/society.

I would agree but its like some others have said, We we will other better issues and it would be a waste of resources. I think that capitalism thoughts will be few and minor when we win the revolution. And what i ment by the military has all teh weapons and all that i meant the people that are socialist or communist that there are not enough of us yet not the proletarians, they are the majority.


Nobody here wants totalitarianism, and the only dictatorship anyone supports is the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.

I agree and i think its good to discuss issues such as this and we need Solidarity comrades theres no point in hating one another, cause we all are fighting for the same goals more or less. :redstar:

[HatefulRed]

I agree and i think its good to discuss issues such as this and we need Solidarity comrades theres no point in hating one another, cause we all are fighting for the same goals more or less. Star2.gif


I'll drink to that! :D

[Whitten]

The important thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between "the people" and "the bourgeois" all people are entitled to their freedoms, including free speech, and revolutionaries much fight to protect those rights. But the bourgeois are our enemies in a war, and our long term oppressors, not just undesirables with different views within our society. Why should we grant our enemies the freedom of speech any more than we grant them the freedom of guns?

[CrimsonTide]

In Class War, all we can possibly do to harm the enemy and protect ourselves, we should do. Freedom of Speech is not Holy and should'nt be protected uber-alles. Throughout all history, there has never been this mythical "Truly Free Speech" that Liberals (and occasionally Conservatives) tend to espouse. There has allways been Protected Speech, and Unprotected Speech. Whatever is Protected is tolerated, whatever is Unprotected is not. It is the way of things, and to deny such is to deny reality itself and join the pie-in-the-sky crowd.

[KC]

Read my post.

[MiniOswald]

Im not for restricting freedom of speech. If a capitalist wants to write a newspaper outlining why he thinks capitalism is the best economic theory for the world, well thats fine by me, he has his opinion, I have mine.

What I do have a problem with is, is the spouting of unfounded hatred and unfactual crap. For example, I wouldnt tolerate a book called 'how the jew ruined society and plans to take over the world', because thats just a pile of nazi bullshit, designed to manipulate people and turn them against each other for no good reason.

Also I just cant stand things like the daily express, I dont really know the foreign equivilants, sorry. But papers that cleverly misuse statistics and twist facts to promote an agenda of hate. Every day I see headlines on that paper of stuff like 'migrants cheat british public out of £400,000 of YOUR money', obviously its not true, its xenophobic lies presented in newspaper format designed to manipulate the common man of this country.

I dont know, I just feel that news, should be fact, I should be left to make up my own decision. Personally though, I wouldnt feel a need to suppress the freedom of speech on a large scale post revolution, if its a popular revolution, as all good leftist ones are, and what replaces the old state, whether that be a proletarian leadership or a more devolved system is working correctly, the majority of people will simply ignore the right wing crap because theyll be feeling the benefits of the new society.

[Janus]

These threads may help you out:
Suppression of bourgeois media (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62070&hl=freedom+of+speech)

Freedom of speech (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56738&hl=)

[Enragé]

Second of all, there is no reason to tolerate speech that should not be tolerated

yes there fucking is

If you begin to illegalise some speech that in your mind should not be tolerated, people begin to fear that what they say might be something which cannot be tolerated, people will refrain from speaking their mind more and more and that will be the death of any sort of democracy, and therefore of socialism/communism


Therefore, "free speech" is not natural or inherent or anything like that

True
but it is inherent to any form of true democracy
which is what we strive for

now go and kiss your stalin poster on your bedroom wall <3

[CNT-FAI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:38 am
In the transition from capitalism to communism you cant have freedom of speech or freedom of the press because it allows people to speak rascism and allows the press to discourage the revolution.
The problem has been that the "transition" never ends......remember no ruling elite willingly relinquishes power. And who is to say who the "real" Communists are? Those who happen to succeed in taking over the State & thus are capable of crushing their dissident comrades as well as the bourgeosie? (of course the leaders of the new elite are usually of bourgeois origin themselves, but they exempt themselves from any judgement).

A friendly critique, no intention to set off any head-butting.

[LSD]

Even if there were no legal restrictions on freedom of speech (such as censorship) there will always be social restrictions.

And those "social restrictions" would quickly become legal, or virtually legal, since people cannot act as their own censor.

The entire function of cenorship is to prevent exposure to the general public. "Democratic" or "social" censorship, however, would logically require that everyone read the material in question and then vote as to whether they should be allowed to read it.

It&#39;s nonsensical.

If a majority of the population does not want to read some website or newspaper, they won&#39;t. "Outlawing" it is pure paternalism, nothing more. It assumes that people are not smart enough to read "reaction" ...and yet, counterintuitively, the "democratic" model seems to somehow assume that people are smart enough to somehow "vote" on what should be "censored".

Will you require full participation? What if most people just don&#39;t care about Web-site X and only 20% of the population vote. Will 50%+1 of that 20% constitute a sufficient "majority" to suppress the web-site?

Will 10% of the population have the authority to "call in the milita" &#39;cause some website is too "offensive" for them?

How is that any different from the fucking FCC?

Or are you advocating a redstar-ite decentralized censorship? You know each "neighbourhood" or "collective" deciding on what&#39;s "acceptable" and what isn&#39;t?

If so, I trust the rank insanity of such a proposal is obvious to everyone else here. If not, I suggest having a look at one of the (many) long arguments between redstar and myself.


Lastly, rights do not exist outside of how society defines them. Therefore, "free speech" is not natural or inherent or anything like that, it is something society decides upon.

No kidding. It just so happens that free speech is a particularly useful socially invented right.


Also, don&#39;t forget that "free speech" only goes so far at any rate; try screaming "fire" in a crowded theater sometime and use that argument.

Obviously that kind of activity cannot be allowed. There isn&#39;t even a question as to whether or not it should be permitted and, indeed, that&#39;s the only reason why anyone ever bring up that example.

The point of the "fire in a crowded theater" hypothetical is to illustrate that absolute free speech in absolutely all situations is ludicrous at face.

Unfortuantely, what many people fail to recognize is that it&#39;s the "absolutely all situations" part that causes the problems, not the "absolute free speech" part.

Absolute free speech works; what&#39;s more, it&#39;s a fundamental prerequisite to any free and democratic society. Censorship, by its nature, requires the presence of a coercive elite and nescessarily undermines the foundational principles of any populist or majoritarian society.

So ...is outlawing "yelling fire" compatible with a policy of absolute free speech? In matter of fact, yes. The issue, you see, is not one of speech but of location.

There is nothing wrong with yelling "fire"; there&#39;s something wrong with yelling it in a crowded theater.

It&#39;s much the same how there&#39;s nothing wrong with telling someone that you love them; but there is with doing so 24 hours a day to a total stranger -- the former being romantic discussion, the latter being stalking.

Certain locations have certain implicit rules about them and by entering them, you tacitly agree to abide by those rules. So when you go into a library, you agree to speak quetly. That doesn&#39;t mean that you don&#39;t have a "right to be loud". It just means that you&#39;ve ceded that right by entering that one specific building.

Certain situations likewise have an implicit nature about them. When a soldier orders one of his men to shoot a man, he is merely using words, but because of the nature of the situation, those words nescessitate action.

When you yell fire in a crowded room, you are just like that soldier, barking out orders.

You are, in effect, "ordering" a stampede and, as such, you are putting people in danger. If there was a fire, causing that stampede was in the general interest; if there was not, then it was not.

But it&#39;s not the speech that&#39;s at issue, it&#39;s the caused action.


Well they can have their fuckin&#39; ideas, we just won&#39;t let them shout their ideas from street corners while normal people are trying to listen to music, etc. You know, shout "hail capitalism&#33;" and some random person comes along and breaks your nose.

And you have no problem with that scenario? I suppose in your mind the nose-breaker should not be charged with assault since he was "stopping reaction"?

So tell me, if beating up "capitalists" is acceptable, what else is? Killing them? How about raping them?

If some capitalist "****" refuses to stop peacably protesting, should we "teach her a lesson"? You know,"slap her around" a bit, maybe "fuck the capitalist outa her"? I mean, she&#39;s just a "capitalist", so it&#39;s not like she has any rights...

I think you need to think long and hard about what kind of society you are endeavouring to create. Because a system in which people&#39;s social rights are dependent on them toeing the ideological line is anything but free ...and is hardly what I&#39;d call communist&#33;


But the bourgeois are our enemies in a war, and our long term oppressors, not just undesirables with different views within our society. Why should we grant our enemies the freedom of speech any more than we grant them the freedom of guns?

Because unless you can come up with some demonstrable harm that doing otherwise would produce, we have an obligation to grant full democratic enfranchisement to every member of society.

Revolution is not about "class spite". We fight the bourgeoisie because we have to, not because we enjoy it. "Hurting" the former capitalists would be a complete waste of time and worse than useless public policy.

We&#39;re not overthrowing the bourgoeisie to replace them with a worse oppression&#33; The revolutionary aftermath is a very delicate situation and a little too much overeagerness in "suppression" can derail the entire endeavour.

We don&#39;t want another Lenin ...or another Mao. Tha means no "iron discipline", no "ruling party", and no government suppression&#33;

Now, that might mean having to debate capitalists a lot longer than we might like to, but so long as we&#39;re on the wining side of history, who gives a damn? Revolution isn&#39;t about making revolutionaries happy, it&#39;s about emancipating the proletariat.

And censorship is fundamentally incompatible with an emancipated society.