Freedom of opposing press

[The New Left]

In a socialist state, would the state ban publications that opposed the ideas or whole idea of the state?

[Faux Real]

I'd imagine, in the context of an isolated state after socialist revolution, that yes counterrevolutionary voices will be suppressed for the sake of preservation of the revolution. However, if that country or world socialist system is globally supported, no those threats will wither away and will be ridiculed in the manner that the west views the radical left today. They wouldn't have much popular support.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I think rev0lt is right; theoretically, we are opposed to the suppression of the press, but materially, we might not be permitted to rely on this principle when counterrevolutionary foes are using this powerful tool to rally a support base against us.

[apathy maybe]

Indeed, and this is a problem not just in a future hypothetically society (whether it has a state or not!), but right now!

There is a thread in the Anti-Fa forum discussing whether fascists should have the "right" to organise and spread their hateful message. Theoretically, I'm a liberal in this regard, I think everyone should be allowed to say what they want, of course, practically, we have the problem of inciting violence.

It does of course depend on the circumstances. If it is a lone voice speaking as if in the wilderness, then I've no problem with them doing so (just as the British state allows the speakers in Hyde Park to rant).

In any post-capitalist, post-state society, it would be expected that people would ignore the fascist or capitalist* just as they tend to ignore the crackpots ranting about UFO cover ups or similar today.


And now I've actually read the first post again, I have this to say. You will always have anarchists, those who oppose any state. And if you try and ban their publications, they will always find a way to spread them. :AO:



Footnote
-------------
* I do of course mean those who subscribe to the ideology of capitalism. I don't agree with those among you that insist that the word "capitalist" be reserved for those who actually own capital. That would be like reserving the word "fascist" for those who owned fasces! We already have a word for those who own capital, bourgeois. As well, when a word ends in "ist" in this context, it is generally accepted that it means a person subscribing to the ideology.

[Tatarin]

I'd say that the right to express oneself should always be granted. Socialists and communists in any state should battle with ideas, to show the people why socialism is progressive, and not just some alternative to capitalism.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 13, 2007 08:49 pm
A lot of times, in history, it has come down to resources, and the fact that a socialist country in a hostile world cannot allow capitalists to openly publish while it is in constant battle with them.

The workers, who run the presses, paper mills, etc., would grant no access to counterrevolutionaries, who wish to use them against their interests (i.e. building towards communism).

Here's an example of a real life situation. In Cuba, after the revolution, all the old capitalist publications that backed Batista and slandered the July 26 Movement and other revolutionary forces, sort of dried up and died out. No one wanted to buy them anymore, while at the same time, the papers of the revolutionaries became wildly popular.
Yeah, it all depends on the circumstances. Obviously denying them the resources, rather than an outright state ban, is more desirable. Think of the recent big issue with Venezuela: it's not that the opposing station is just being "banned" by the state for being dissident. It's simply no longer given a state approval to broadcast views that are clearly counter-revolutionary.

Regardless of what you think of it, remember that when socialism is established, counter-revolution can still surface, either armed or unarmed. In the latter case, counter-revolutionary media play an especially big role.

[The New Left]

Wouldnt it go against what you tried to do. I mean if you flat out banned them, then your no better than the government you overtook, right?

If you didn't provide them with the opportunities that all other citizens of the state, wouldn't that be a violation of their rights?

This is where I get confused.

[The New Left]

Here's an example of a real life situation. In Cuba, after the revolution, all the old capitalist publications that backed Batista and slandered the July 26 Movement and other revolutionary forces, sort of dried up and died out. No one wanted to buy them anymore, while at the same time, the papers of the revolutionaries became wildly popular.

Just read that again, that make sense. I mean, who wants to read a news paper about some bullshit thats irrelevant to whats actually going on now. Kind of the way a majority of people see "radical" publications.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Censorship is harmful because when the other side is condemned without people being familiar with their ideals and platform then all opposition becomes a bogeyman that is to be feared and not challenged or debated.

Every idea presented to a post-revolutionary populace will need to be considered, debated, and scrutinized by the people, debated freely on its merits.