Communism and civil liberties

[dogfromthesea]

First of all I want to admit that I am not very knowledgable on the subject of real communist ideology. That out of the way, there is one point about communism that I am unsure about, that of civil liberties. In practice, "communist countries" throughout the 20th century have been very intolerant of dissenting opinions amongst its citizens, my question is: do present-day communists agree with the stance those governments took? Do they consider it to be a vital approach during a transitional period but believe that later the government should loosen up its restrictions and indeed at one point allow for complete freedom of assembly, speech, etc.? Or are they against those measures taken by communist (though I should arguably use the quotation marks) governments to prevent the spread of opposing ideologies?

[Valeofruin]

Before a solid answer can be given you should seperate myth from fact. What was the governments REAL stance, and to what extent did it apply.

Read the soviet constitution, just google it.

even under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not "all opposing idealologies" are supressed.

That being said i doubt you'll get a solid answer, as there many different kinds of "modern day" communists, and while we all fight for communism and stick together on that front, you're sure to find we disagree on almost everything else you can think of.

Personally im not a reformist, I believe this is a radical idealology, and requires at times radical actions, i stick by Stalin and Lenin.

[spice756]

There have been no real communist .Has communism died after Mao and the USSR was not communism more like capitalism :(high up communit party ministers extracting surplus money from the working class.



government should loosen up its restrictions and indeed at one point allow for complete freedom


freedom to be pro-capitalism or promote capitalism? Or freedom for private property or freedom to allow rich people or capitalists.

No you don't have that freedom.

[Trystan]

I support civil liberties 100%. Yes.

[Decolonize The Left]

First of all I want to admit that I am not very knowledgable on the subject of real communist ideology. That out of the way, there is one point about communism that I am unsure about, that of civil liberties. In practice, "communist countries" throughout the 20th century have been very intolerant of dissenting opinions amongst its citizens, my question is: do present-day communists agree with the stance those governments took?

This will raise great debates among leftists as to:
- Whether or not these countries were "communist."
- Whether or not this repression was justified.
- Whether or not this repression ought to be imitated.

Your question is an excellent one, but there is no 'right' answer. Ultimately, should the working class become conscious of their situation as exploited workers and rise up against the capitalist class in a revolution, they will decide how to govern themselves.


Do they consider it to be a vital approach during a transitional period but believe that later the government should loosen up its restrictions and indeed at one point allow for complete freedom of assembly, speech, etc.? Or are they against those measures taken by communist (though I should arguably use the quotation marks) governments to prevent the spread of opposing ideologies?

All leftists seek a movement towards the end of a society based upon the maxim: 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.' The structure of said society is open. Given that this society ought to be organized around said maxim, it is unlikely that there will be mass repression of anyone.

I can only conclude that ideally there would be no such repression, and there would be complete freedom and equality among all peoples. Realistically, there will most likely be some form of repression for it is highly unlikely that those who currently possess the ruling class status will willingly hand it over to the working class.

- August

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The vast majority of people on RevLeft and the broader socialist movement are against the levels of repression found in the Soviet systems; there are still a few wankers who fantasize over some police state, but they're few and far between. The right to criticize everything down to communism itself is a very legitimate concern.

[revolution inaction]

Non of these governments where communist, a communist government is impossible because communism is opposed to all governments (and countries).
Many communists would call these countries state capitalist, because the workers did not control the means of production and wage labour continued to exist.
A real communist society has no government it is run by the workers who form councils in there work places where they work and where they live, and these councils federate with each other to organise production, distribution and other things nearest to the running of society.

[apathy maybe]

First of all I want to admit that I am not very knowledgable on the subject of real communist ideology. That out of the way, there is one point about communism that I am unsure about, that of civil liberties. In practice, "communist countries" throughout the 20th century have been very intolerant of dissenting opinions amongst its citizens, my question is: do present-day communists agree with the stance those governments took? Do they consider it to be a vital approach during a transitional period but believe that later the government should loosen up its restrictions and indeed at one point allow for complete freedom of assembly, speech, etc.? Or are they against those measures taken by communist (though I should arguably use the quotation marks) governments to prevent the spread of opposing ideologies?
Yes, you should say "communist" governments, none of the so called "communist" governments admitted that they were leading a real communist country (such as thing would be a contradiction in terms).


To address your question though, civil liberties, the freedom to speak, associate, communicate, move around etc. are essential for a society to be truly anarchistic. (Yes, you said communism, I don't answer for "communism".) Without these freedoms, it cannot be an anarchist society.



All leftists seek a movement towards the end of a society based upon the maxim: 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.'
Actually, no they don't. All leftists seek a free open society, but I for one feel that (depending on how it is interpreted) "from each, to each" could be down right authoritarian and against my anarchist principles.


I can only conclude that ideally there would be no such repression, and there would be complete freedom and equality among all peoples. Realistically, there will most likely be some form of repression for it is highly unlikely that those who currently possess the ruling class status will willingly hand it over to the working class.
Self-defence is not repression as such. Where the current ruling class, in some future time object to losing their power, then they will either object in a non-violent manner, or their violence will be defended against.

[Decolonize The Left]

Actually, no they don't. All leftists seek a free open society, but I for one feel that (depending on how it is interpreted) "from each, to each" could be down right authoritarian and against my anarchist principles.

Fair enough. I guess I don't see how this could be interpreted beyond a "free open society" - They seem synonymous in my mind.


Self-defence is not repression as such. Where the current ruling class, in some future time object to losing their power, then they will either object in a non-violent manner, or their violence will be defended against.

This is not a good logical argument. I understand your point, but you do yourself a disservice in stating it thusly.

For if "self-defense is not repression as such," then the ruling class will not be engaging in "repression" when they "defend themselves" against the working class...

- August