Free Speech

[Saint-Just]

Those of you who are Marxists should consider class struggle. We should use the concept of class struggle in all of our thought.

We wish to get rid of the bourgeois class and their ideas. It is not about allowing them freedom. Their freedom is our slavery. We must get rid of their ideas to make us free. Their thought is worthless, decadent and outmoded.

You are right that the simple fact we hold power and the economic relations we impose will change people and their ideas. However, in class struggle that is simply not enough, ultimately it is that situation that we will only need to perpetuate to keep their ideas suppressed. However, as long as the bourgeois class and its ideas do exist we will need to work to get rid of them.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

I agree with chairman mao, those that have the wrong views should not be allowed to express them.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Enigma@Sep 24 2003, 01:38 AM

So you sre aloud freedom of speech in this system of government, but you would deny it to the capitalist in a socialist system of government, and I thought we were supposed to be better than they are...

history proves otherwise on how we dont have "free speech" in america.

[redstar2000]

It would be helpful if some of the folks here could get past "freedom of speech" as an abstraction...since there's never been any such thing and I rather doubt there ever will be any such thing.

Every social order (class society) of which we have record regards certain kinds of speech as unforgivably offensive.

The details vary widely, but everybody does it.

For example, our own capitalist ruling class rarely bothers to engage in formal censorship of our views because we don't have the money to play the mass media game.

But there have been plenty of lefties who've gone to prison for "speech crime"...see the Sherman Austin story in the ezine for a recent example.

Instead of pretending that we will be "different", it would be more useful to discuss exactly what we will consider "speech crime" and how we will deal with it.

It's not necessary, by the way, to shoot or imprison people for "speech crime"...simply depriving them of access to the media may well suffice.

Or, many punishments may be quite brief and informal; an open racist might be introduced to a couple of large men of color and "strongly advised" of the unacceptability of his views. When he gets out of the hospital, he may still be a racist in his head, but he will have presumably absorbed a knowledge of the dangerous consequences of expressing such views.

The net result will be a decrease in public racism.

The same methods could be applied to any speech that we found to be unforgivably offensive.

In the matter of "pro-capitalist" speech, I would suggest a distinction be made. There will undoubtedly be people who "had it good" in the old order and, being deprived of their wealth and prestige, will wax nostalgic about "things as they used to be". I not only see this as relatively harmless, it could even be encouraged.

Imagine a memoir by the former Lady Rich***** published side-by-side with a memoir by her former servants. The more she was free to reveal her real views about "the good old days", the greater the contrast between her views and the views of her servants...and the plainer and clearer the real gains of the revolution.

And further, nostalgia is not dangerous to us; in fact, it reinforces the demoralization of the old ruling class. Let them celebrate "their glorious past" all they wish...it just makes it all the clearer that it is the past.

It is those who agitate and organize for counter-revolution who are really dangerous; while it's unlikely that they could ever muster sufficient support to threaten the revolution's existence, they could cause material damage and loss of life.

Now and then, it may be regrettably necessary to publicly shoot a few of those bastards. (Long prison terms are expensive, demoralizing to our people, and the imprisoned counter-revolutionary always looks forward to being released by the counter-revolution itself.)

It's occurred to me that one of the most shattering blows to the morale of the active counter-revolution is to take away his children...forever. After this happens a few times, with appropriate publicity, I think few will want to take that risk in order to bring back capitalism. (After the kids grow up, some may wish to contact their fathers; if dad has been behaving himself, then it's ok. If he hasn't, then "the address of this person cannot be found".)

All of which is to say that you don't need a vanguard party, a special secret police, giant labor camps, etc. You need to determine pretty clearly what you want to prevent, what you want to discourage, and how to keep the power to do this in the hands of the working class itself.

It's not that big of a deal.



The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Sep 24 2003, 02:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (truthaddict11 @ Sep 24 2003, 02:47 PM)

Enigma

@Sep 24 2003, 01:38 AM

So you sre aloud freedom of speech in this system of government, but you would deny it to the capitalist in a socialist system of government, and I thought we were supposed to be better than they are...

history proves otherwise on how we dont have "free speech" in america. [/b]

well the fact you havent been arested and beaten kind of makes a good case against that. Also the fact that vast amounts of anti establishment art, literiture music is widly available, also makes a good case. But I do admit Redstar has a point.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Enigma+Sep 24 2003, 01:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Sep 24 2003, 01:21 PM)

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 02:47 PM

Enigma

@Sep 24 2003, 01:38 AM

So you sre aloud freedom of speech in this system of government, but you would deny it to the capitalist in a socialist system of government, and I thought we were supposed to be better than they are...

history proves otherwise on how we dont have "free speech" in america.

well the fact you havent been arested and beaten kind of makes a good case against that. Also the fact that vast amounts of anti establishment art, literiture music is widly available, also makes a good case. But I do admit Redstar has a point. [/b]

all because I personally havent been arrested doesnt mean that the US isnt guilty of taking away speech. Look at world war 1 many dissenters and labor activists such as Eugene Debs were arrested. And Chicago during the Haymarket Riot. Tell me how the US is not guilty of subversion of speech.

[Vinny Rafarino]

we need to be different from them, not the same way

that&#39;s what Ghandi and Dr. King said too. They were wrong and they paid with their lives. As did thousands (Millions in India) of their followers.

Pacifism will only lead to one thing, the opressors opressing you much EASIER than before.


I&#39;m sorry but I am not in this game to make lives EASIER on fascists and racists.


Hippies be gone&#33;

[CompadreGuerrillera]

ok, two things, were not deffending the US, as it CERTAINLY DOES NOT allow total free speech, its a given, but heres no.2

WERE NOT HIPPIES, we support violent revolution just as much as you, its just we wish to let all ppl speek freely, instead of become Military Dictators. you dont get it, Social Democracy will eliminate Fascism by itself, sit and watch it, in a society thats not BRAINWASHED, Fascism will not thrive, theres a cool analogy to this, that i can give to you if u like(right now im tired).

Military Dominance in the surrounding areas, will reinforce us as a "strong" society. therefore, enemies will be more hesistant to drop their propaganda in our society.

Also, if ALL ppl could chose their own mind and speek freely, Fascism and Conservatism wouldnt grow, we DONT NEED TO RESTRICT THEM&#33; The society will restrict them by ITSELF.

However if u reinforce this by laws and restrictions ppl will see you as "not pure" and therefore be resistant, and conservatism will grow, i promise you.

For example in school when i get punished with detention for cussing with another kid, thats not gonna get me to stop it, when i see ppl&#39;s cd players get taken away, its not gonna stop them, in other words, if ppl dont make a big deal of something, it wont be a big deal.

The ppl reflect the authority, if its a democratic authority ppl will conform by choice to it, if its a forcefull authoritarian society, the ppl will not.

"if there is hope it lay in the proles"-1984
dont forget that&#33;

and dont snap at me, what next ur gonna censor my ass huh?

[Vinny Rafarino]

If you are not a pacifist or hippy then obviously I was not targeting you with that comment. I was tageting HIPPIES.

Social Democracy will eliminate Fascism by itself

Prove it.

Also, if ALL ppl could chose their own mind and speek freely, Fascism and Conservatism wouldnt grow, we DONT NEED TO RESTRICT THEM&#33; The society will restrict them by ITSELF.

That statement goes against logic and therefore is not true.

However if u reinforce this by laws and restrictions ppl will see you as "not pure" and therefore be resistant, and conservatism will grow, i promise you.

again, against the laws of logic, evolutionary psyhology, and sociology, therefore false.

For example in school when i get punished with detention for cussing with another kid, thats not gonna get me to stop it, when i see ppl&#39;s cd players get taken away, its not gonna stop them, in other words, if ppl dont make a big deal of something, it wont be a big deal.

Individual psychology is completely different from sociology and macro evolutionary psychology. This statement has no relevance to the discussion.

"if there is hope it lay in the proles"-1984
dont forget that&#33;

What does Orwell&#39;s fiction have to do with anything?

and dont snap at me, what next ur gonna censor my ass huh?

Did I ever mention that I would "censor" you? Ever? Even once? Ever? (in the whole 24 HOURS I have been a mod)

This is a bad attempt to bring unecessary favour to your cause by "hinting" that I would abuse my moderation powers. Funny, It&#39;s only been one day and someone has already used the "will you censor me" excuse against me when their argument became weak.

EDIT

SP

[Xvall]

Or, many punishments may be quite brief and informal; an open racist might be introduced to a couple of large men of color and "strongly advised" of the unacceptability of his views. When he gets out of the hospital, he may still be a racist in his head, but he will have presumably absorbed a knowledge of the dangerous consequences of expressing such views.

LMAO.

I fucking love you, man.

[apathy maybe]

The two opposing views so far that I have read seem to be,
1) Free speech is great except where it involves racism and right-wingers (and people who generally oppose the "System")
2) Free speech is great and everyone should have the right to say what they think. People are smart enough (or will be) not to listen the racists.

Now my view is that free speech is completely necessary. People don&#39;t have to listen or agree with what people say. Who was it that said "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it"? If we ban all those outrages things those on the far right say, we must also ban everything those on the far left say. And as I am on the far left, I say NO&#33;

[Vinny Rafarino]

The problem is not that people won&#39;t listen to them. The problem is that people DO listen to them. IN GREAT QUANTATIES.

Who was it that said "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it"?

Every bourgeoisie cashing their cheques written with the blood of the proletariat.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

well, i admit i go against logic, but logic hasnt really made that much of a difference, many times things will surprise you. different wars were fought on impulse and illogical thinking, it got them victory. So thats not really a great argument. Logic is irrelevant when ur talking about something illogical in the first place--Revolution&#33; does that mean we wont do it? NO&#33;

OK ur turning this into a personal attak, i wasnt accusing YOU of wanting to censor me, just the type of society you want in the future--a non-democratic Communist state, which im not totally against, its better than cappitalism.

Orwell&#39;s fiction has to do wiht everything&#33; Its up to the people to decide&#33; The people are our future. If the people dont want YOUR ideas, they dont have to listen to them, if they dont liek mine they dont have to listen to them, they should however have the right to challange anyone they want.

I wasnt replying against u, i dont think, someone else snapped at someone. I dont know who, and i fully support ur moderater position, so dont go accusing me because my argument was "weak"

I really do hope that you dont take THIS the wrong way too

[JohnTheMarxist]

Here is my thought on the subject. If there were a successful revolution in America, socialists would run the schools so we would be able to teach acceptance and we would begin to destroy inequality thus lowerign the need for racism. Also, there would no longer be right wing fascist spin in the news media so that would also cut down on racism. There would not be much need for discrimination any longer and the only people preachign it would be left over elitists trying to stir the pot. I say let them chatter but dont let them hold government office or give them a prime time tv spot. But we don&#39;t need to go overboard gooing on purges and the like, that is just crazy and does not work.

[truthaddict11]

the thing is John, is that these groups have had these ideals and influenced people greatly by them long before the invention of mass media. so simply not allowing them to broadcast is not stoping them from spreading their hate.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by JohnTheMarxist@Sep 25 2003, 07:31 AM
Here is my thought on the subject. If there were a successful revolution in America, socialists would run the schools so we would be able to teach acceptance and we would begin to destroy inequality thus lowerign the need for racism. Also, there would no longer be right wing fascist spin in the news media so that would also cut down on racism. There would not be much need for discrimination any longer and the only people preachign it would be left over elitists trying to stir the pot. I say let them chatter but dont let them hold government office or give them a prime time tv spot. But we don&#39;t need to go overboard gooing on purges and the like, that is just crazy and does not work.

I agree with you John.

&#39;socialists would run the schools&#39;

This equals censorship. In addition we would have to make sure all our teachers are teachings socialist ideas. We would also have to re-write the textbooks to suit the working-class view of the world.

&#39;there would no longer be right wing fascist spin in the news media &#39;

This equals censorship of the media.

&#39;but dont let them hold government office

Common sense, but still it goes against traditional western liberal ideas.

[JohnTheMarxist]

I am fine with all of that Chairman Mao ...liberals are just a tool for the elite.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

To the pro-"free" speech liberals.
To allow ideas that threaten the rule of the proletariat is not acceptable. The only group that is deserving of freedom is the working class, all of you who seek to maintain freedom to oppress others will soon find that it will accomplish nothing of liberating the people. Freedom is freedom from oppression, it is not freedom to oppress. The bourgeoisie and all reactionary factions must be suppressed by putting an end to the publishing and printing of any reactionary literature and by illegalizing the assembly of any faction that seeks to restrict the rule of the proletariat, because they are the ones who are truly a threat to freedom.

If you suggest that we allow people to make public their racist, misigynistic, sexist, or nationalistic ideas of how people should live and how they should be governed, then you would also be giving the message that these ideas are tolerable. And any ideas that rival those of the people and their interests are not tolerable&#33;

I deas that counter the rule of the people do not desrve consideration, as they are undemocratic and would be accepted only by those benefiting from them, who would be benefiting individualy. Individual benefit at the expense of the people&#39;s mighty rule is, again, not acceptable.

I&#39;m sorry if I&#39;m being a tad repetitive, by the way, but at least you see my point.

[Xvall]

I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it

Yeah. I gotta say. I don&#39;t always agree with that quote, and I am one who is usually seen by other people as a &#39;liberal&#39;. But with certain cases (Fascists, for example), it is more to me like: &#39;I disagree with what you say, and I think you should be shot&#39;. Hmm.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by CompadreGuerrillera@Sep 25 2003, 05:13 AM
well, i admit i go against logic, but logic hasnt really made that much of a difference, many times things will surprise you. different wars were fought on impulse and illogical thinking, it got them victory. So thats not really a great argument. Logic is irrelevant when ur talking about something illogical in the first place--Revolution&#33; does that mean we wont do it? NO&#33;

OK ur turning this into a personal attak, i wasnt accusing YOU of wanting to censor me, just the type of society you want in the future--a non-democratic Communist state, which im not totally against, its better than cappitalism.

Orwell&#39;s fiction has to do wiht everything&#33; Its up to the people to decide&#33; The people are our future. If the people dont want YOUR ideas, they dont have to listen to them, if they dont liek mine they dont have to listen to them, they should however have the right to challange anyone they want.

I wasnt replying against u, i dont think, someone else snapped at someone. I dont know who, and i fully support ur moderater position, so dont go accusing me because my argument was "weak"

I really do hope that you dont take THIS the wrong way too

I said your argument was weak because it is, that is a fact. Nothing personal mate.


Please explain how revolution is illogical.


Orwell&#39;s fiction has about as much to do with real politics as Pee Wee&#39;s Playhouse. Please excuse me if I write it off as such.