Should Thought be Illegal?

[Joby]

We have just had a revolution.

I argue that capitalism is a better system, and gather a following.

How should I be dealt with, if at all?

I write a book arguing that Capitalism is better.

Should it be banned?

Are people smart enough to make their own decisions, or do they need someone to tell them?

If the people of a communist nation overwhelmingly choose to revert to capitalism, should they be free to do it?

Would post-revolutionary democracy allow for capitalists to hold office, if they are voted in By The People?

[Guest1]

It wouldn't happen.

Slaves don't go out of their way to find a new slave owner.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CYM is probably right, but I venture to suggest that if you did gather a 'following' it would be very small.

Since a successful workers' revolution will be carried out by the vast majority on behalf of the vast majority, there will be few supporters of capitalism left.

But, your democratic rights should be protected -- however, that will be up to the workers to decide, not me or anyone else here.

[Dimentio]

After a few years, the system might revert back to some kind of a capitalist system. The population might lose their support of socialism. A lot of things could happen, theoretically.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Thought can never be made illegal. What you're referencing is the expression of thought.

There's no reason why capitalists would have their literature torn up. Certainly post-revolution children will still learn about the Wealth of Nations and see the important role Adam Smith played in retrospect of the past 200+ years.

It's all theoretical, but I suppose during the revolution a lot of injustice will occur. In some circumstances those expressing a desire for rebuilding capitalism may be faced down with violence by workers and students, although ideally they would just be ignored. Likewise mass looting will probably persuade some of the petit-bourgeoisie to arm themselves against popular insurrection.

If the class is aware of itself, which is obviously the case since we're basing this off of post-revolution society, of course they'll be able to think for themselves.

As for whether or not capitalists would be able to form a political opposition, I think, depending on whether or not the primary transition stage resembles something similar to what we have now, they will be able to express their desire for change through some medium of organized action. Although in time it would become pointless -- and if we end up with something resembling "libertarian" socialism where the state plays a minimal role, then they would just be participating on a small level.

There are still a few heads running around today calling for feudalism, but they wouldn't have been able to form a sizable opposition even 150 years ago.


If the people of a communist nation overwhelmingly choose to revert to capitalism, should they be free to do it?
If you adhere to the belief that capitalism works from wage slavery, it would be similar to allowing a nation to revert back to racial slavery.

Although after the French Revolution some peasants and common citizens desired for the return of the monarchy, only the elite actually wanted the feudal obligations back. I imagine it would be similar.

[Ben Seattle]

Hi Joby,

No -- your book will not be banned. You would have the right to write and distribute your book and to work with other people to do so.

The workers' state will not have the right to regulate media expressions that are created by voluntary (ie: unpaid in money, goods or services) labor.

What you might not be able to do--is make any money off of your book. Once you enter the commercial realm--the workers' state would have the right to regulate the content of what you create (this is the principle of "separation of speech and property"). So the state may (or may not) decide to confiscate the money you make on your book or fine you--or fine any wealthy people (ie: inequalities in wealth will not disappear overnight after the bourgeoisie is overthrown) who have supported you financially in creating such a book.

The state will make its decision based on the popular opinions of the masses who control the state--but it will have the right to regulate all commercial media.

So if your book is important to you and you want to make sure you can distribute it -- you would need to circulate it for free or "at cost" (ie: your cost to publish it). And people with money or private corporations (these will also not disappear overnight) would probably not be allowed (depending on the whim of the state) to advertise or promote your book with their resources.

[bezdomni]

No, the socialist state should encourage people who do not align themselves with the revolution to put forward their criticisms.

Only really bad shit would actually get repressed under socialism, like stuff that glorifies slavery or promotes fascist counterrevolution.

[Forward Union]

I argue that capitalism is a better system, and gather a following.

How should I be dealt with, if at all?

I, personally, would ignore you. The thing is, Communism will be materially better than capitalism. It will be much like the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. And to be honest, I don't hear many people arguing to go back to a system of kings and Serfs, if anyone did they would be seen as very usual. This would be the same in a post-capitalist society.

Freedom of speech is paramout to a functioning democracy.


Should it be banned?

No, absolutely not.


Are people smart enough to make their own decisions, or do they need someone to tell them?

As we are arguing for a system of direct democracy without, hierachical structures and state, obviously the former.


If the people of a communist nation overwhelmingly choose to revert to capitalism, should they be free to do it?

That's an impossible scenario as Communism implies the elimination of nations.

You cannot "vote to be captialist" capitalism is the forceful ownership of land by a few. If an individual attempted to steal land by force, and hold his or her community ransom, they should be dealt with appropriately.


Would post-revolutionary democracy allow for capitalists to hold office, if they are voted in By The People?

There would be no such thing as "office" no positions of authority would exist.

I hope this helps answer your questions to some extent?

[spartan]

It will be up to the people what would happen to you.

They vote to decide if you should be allowed to continue as you are or if you should be stopped (In whatever way is decided) from doing what you do.

[Forward Union]

It will be up to the people what would happen to you.

They vote to decide if you should be allowed to continue as you are or if you should be stopped (In whatever way is decided) from doing what you do.


Thats called mob rule and is barbaric. The people would vote on laws and statutes, these would then provide a legal model. They could vote to amend certain laws, but the ycan't just have no laws and decide what happens case by case...

[spartan]

Thats called mob rule and is barbaric. The people would vote on laws and statutes, these would then provide a legal model. They could vote to amend certain laws, but the ycan't just have no laws and decide what happens case by case...

Yes but this isnt about laws, it is about a very unique situation that has to be dealt with (As it could pose a threat to the development of Socialism).

We cant have a minority of people deciding what should happen as they could be seen as a hierarchal body that censors any oppossition to itself.

Issues like this are so unique that the only people who are qualified enough to decide what should happen is everyone!

[LSD]

We have just had a revolution.

I argue that capitalism is a better system, and gather a following.

How should I be dealt with, if at all?

Unless you can come up with some objective 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're not overthrowing the bourgeoisie to replace them with a worse oppression! The revolutionary aftermath is a very delicate situation and a little too much overeagerness in "suppression" can derail the entire endeavour. Now, that might mean having to debate capitalists a lot longer than we might like to, but so long as we're on the wining side of history, who gives a damn? Revolution isn't about making revolutionaries happy, it's about emancipating the proletariat.

I think the problem here is that you're approaching this issue as if there will be some post-revolutionary "government" that is detatched from the public at large. You need to divest yourself of that notion immediately.

Any postrevolutionary "transition government" will quickly "transition" into iron totalitarianism. That's what "transitional" governments do. No matter how well-meaning or "revolutionary" politicians may be, the temptation to use one's power is simply too great for a politico -- especially a "radical" politico -- to resist.


I write a book arguing that Capitalism is better.

Should it be banned?

You're asking a philosophical question when you should be asking a political one. The issue isn't "should" capitalists be allowed to speak, it's how would one go about stopping them.

No one is denying that capitalists are wrong or that their ideas are shit, but the problem with censorship is that by definition it requires a censor; that is, someone empowered to declare what is and what is not "acceptable" speech. And since a person cannot act as his own censor, participatory decision making is impossible on this question, which inherently nescessitates an elite of some sort -- whether it is acknowledged as such or not and whether it is functionaly institutional or not -- to make these decisions.

Whether we're talking "government agency" or just the workers running the power station; if there's a minority determining "acceptability", the society is not free.

And remember, capitalists and "reactionaries" are going to be part of society too. They're going to be sitting in the meetings where censorship decrees are handed our and they'll be voting on propositions to shut down their presses. The government can't "fool" the citizenry in a democratic society because democracy means that government is the citizenry.

Which effectively leaves you with one of three choices;

1) you decriminalize assault so long as the victim's politics are unpopular enough, i.e, political chaos, or
2) you set up some kind of screening body empowered to review any form of speech, i.e., a bureaucratic clique, or
3) you allow people to express their opinions, even unpopular ones, without fear of civil retribution.

Those are your only choices because there is ultimately no such thing as "democratic censorship".

So I guess you need to decide which is more important to you, maintaining legitimate social freedom, or harassing "counterrevolutionaries". Because the two are not mutually compatible.

[mikelepore]

Should it be banned?

It should be permitted. It would be clear to everyone that it is a suggestion to return to an outmoded period of history. Just as capitalism is in no danger from people who write books suggesting a return to feudalism or the Roman empire or primitive tribal society, the age of socialism would be in no danger from people who write books suggesting a return to capitalism. Everyone would know that such things come from kooks. History moves in one direction.

[kromando33]

Easy answer, arm the workers, and if someone in their workplaces starts to act bourgeois like, you know what will happen.

[Zurdito]

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

Joby is referring to immediately after a revolution: most likely, he is describing the socialist transition period, and not a communist society. it's an easy mistake to make, we shouldn't be pedantic, but instead attempt to answer the question in the spirit it was aksed.

In the middle of a class war and a transition period, there will of course still be forces of reaction existing, some kind of bourgeois organisations may still be organised and sabotaging our efforts, even after they have been expropriated.

I personally would not rely on a bureaucratic government to ban people's access to information. I would call on the workers sate to defend an individual's right to free speech. Of course, these individuals would not have access to private property, so they'd be limited to publishing everything themselves or otherwise hoping that the populalrly controlled workers press would publish it for them. Personally I'd be in favour of freedom for the workers press, though I wouldn't expect it to be "unbiased", in the middle of a class war, I have no doubt that a workers organisation would put forward its own opinions, whilst hopefully respecting the concrete truth. Therefore, I'd not expect the organised forces of reaction during a transition period to have much success on the propaganda front, because they'd lack the material base. For them to pose any real threat to us, they would need some outpost where they retained material dominance and control of the means of production in contradiction with our workers state. Of course, such an outpost would be illegal, and they should be expropriated immediately, as part of the fight to break down every remnant of the old system and turn socialism into a worldwide communsit system.

Now in a communist system, with no states, no remnants of any states, etc., private property would be unviable - "who would defend it? why?" - capitalists get people to defend their private property because they can pay them because they are rich to begin with, so if no-one needs to sell their labour to anyone else, no-one will defend nayone else's personal private property, they will onl work for the communal interest, therefore, to call for capitalism would be to call for a counter-revolution, like someone said, it'd be like calling for the return of serfdom today, so yes, I'd allow it, because it'd pretty much be impossible

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'd like to point out that even if your book was banned, we wouldn't be banning thought. We would be banning incitement to terrorism, counterrevolution etc. Banning thought would be like punishing someone for thinking without acting on that thought, like in 1984. Here there is coincidence of actus reus and mens rea, so it's not so dodgy legally.

[Organic Revolution]

We have just had a revolution.

I argue that capitalism is a better system, and gather a following.

How should I be dealt with, if at all?

I write a book arguing that Capitalism is better.

Should it be banned?

Are people smart enough to make their own decisions, or do they need someone to tell them?

If the people of a communist nation overwhelmingly choose to revert to capitalism, should they be free to do it?

Would post-revolutionary democracy allow for capitalists to hold office, if they are voted in By The People?

One of the most absurd things I have ever read. First, why would people willingly choose to become wage-slaves yet again? Second, all we can do as revolutionaries is attempt to push for a better world, but we cannot force the working class (and people in general) into a situation as we see fit, at least I'm not that pretentious. Third, if we make 'thought' illegal, who are we but another master?:mad:

[kromando33]

When I see someone quoting 1984 to prove their point, I die a little bit inside...

[Sleeping Dog]

As to what one finds at the very least a little unhealthy, I cringe at Zurdito's "socialism and communism" transition suggestion?

I always considered Socialism, an economic system, Communism, a political system.

Not to mention the Revolution can only come from the barrel of a gun! implication inherent in a vision that presumes an immediate transition period.

[Holden Caulfield]

It will be up to the people what would happen to you.
They vote to decide if you should be allowed to continue.



Easy answer, arm the workers, and if someone in their workplaces starts to act bourgeois like, you know what will happen.

these points seem pointless, spart and kromando agree basically, but why decide what to do with the author and why kill them (as kromando who it seems would love to live in a Big Brother style nation suggests) if the book is such wrong bullshit then nobody would listen and think and think the author was some crazy guy in the same way we all ignore the evangelicalists who yell their vodoo message in town centres

[Qwerty Dvorak]

When I see someone quoting 1984 to prove their point, I die a little bit inside...
Were you implying that I was quoting 1984 to prove my point?

[gilhyle]

If there is a civil war on the book should be banned and the author imprisoned. If the workers state is stabily established s/he should be allowed to write.

ANyone who wants reminding that initially the Soviet Government allowed free speech should read Maxim Gorky 1918 newspaper full of ridiculous anti-soviet propaganda and freely published until the Civil War started.