Marx on Censorship

[Comrade #138672]

I can hardly consider RevLeft a serious board. But if my posts are offensive to you, then I'm sorry.

Just because you don't take it seriously, doesn't mean that it isn't serious. I do take it seriously, despite the childish infighting now and then. It is meant to be a serious discussion board that allows people to learn about revolutionary politics. Or do you not take revolutionary politics seriously either?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Just because you don't take it seriously, doesn't mean that it isn't serious. I do take it seriously, despite the childish infighting now and then. It is meant to be a serious discussion board that allows people to learn about revolutionary politics. Or do you not take revolutionary politics seriously either?

In it's current state, I do not.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Let's not talk about that here. User_name got his warning so there is no need to further derail the thread.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

It's not like revleft is a crucial spot for the revolution, but that doesn't mean you can go around posting whatever shit comes to your mind.

Also, as it's gotten way off-topic, our posts will be trashed anyway.

EDIT: Did not know User_Name had been warned and nor had I seen Judas' post. Sorry.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Maybe to get back on topic someone could answer a question I have.
It is not exactly about censorship but about freedom of the press in general. My question is: Can there, in class-society, even be such a thing as freedom of the press or freedom of speech?
What I mean is that, yes, we might have the "right" to free speech. But the wealthy have more means at their disposal to use this freedom. They can spread their message more widely, can pay more writers, can print more papers etc. We have the right to do that but not the means. I think this is essential to Marx' point of the ruling class' ideology being the dominant one in a class-society.

Now my other question is that if that is so, and if when the proletariat has taken political power is it then okay to restrict the freedom of press of the former exploiters? Since on the one hand the means they have at their disposal can not be done away with at once, on the other side the proletariat has taken a dominant position in society but might not directly have all the means to use it. And is if we look at it from that perspective the taking of private property, the wealth of the capitalist a form of censorship because they then cannot use the freedom of press as widely as before?

Just some thoughts I had, I hope some of you can share some thoughts as well.

[Brutus]

Should we allow them to have freedom? If the purpose of the state is to oppress other classes then the proletarian state will, by nature, be used to oppress the bourgeoisie. This is assuming that they will vocally and financially support the counter revolution, thus we will have a legitimate reason for repression.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why type of repression? Like "If you say this, you die" or a "You can speak but not do anything about it" like we have today?

[Skyhilist]

Marxists don't see whatever Marx wrote as thetruth. Just vecause Marx said something doesn't make it true.

Why exactly call it 'Marxism' then? I agree with the notion that good ideas should be adopted rather than assuming that the people with those ideas were perfect by naming the practice of those ideas after them. This is why I've always liked that anarchists have never blindly named tendencies after people.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why exactly call it 'Marxism' then? I agree with the notion that good ideas should be adopted rather than assuming that the people with those ideas were perfect by naming the practice of those ideas after them. This is why I've always liked that anarchists have never blindly named tendencies after people.

It's more about his political philosophy rather than specific issues that people call themselves Marxist especially because a man from the 1800's will most certainly have some deeply reactionary views. However, I still accept Marx's criticisms of censorship as correct and relevant, though some here disagree.

[goalkeeper]

After the 20th century, the idea of granting the state (even if its "proletarian") the power to suppress publications seems entirely redundant, considering that every counter-revolution has originated within the state apparatus.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

After the 20th century, the idea of granting the state (even if its "proletarian") the power to suppress publications seems entirely redundant, considering that every counter-revolution has originated within the state apparatus.

Gawd here was I thinking that the Russian civil war with the white-army and foreign countries invading wasn't from within the party. The crushing of the German revolution, the civil war in Spain. All obviously originated within the party, do you even know what history is? Yes there was counter-revolution in the parties but those didn't exist in a vacuum. There was a whole world around them and to think that didn't have influence on the way the parties developed towards counter-revolution within the party is idiotic.

[goalkeeper]

Gawd here was I thinking that the Russian civil war with the white-army and foreign countries invading wasn't from within the party. The crushing of the German revolution, the civil war in Spain. All obviously originated within the party, do you even know what history is? Yes there was counter-revolution in the parties but those didn't exist in a vacuum. There was a whole world around them and to think that didn't have influence on the way the parties developed towards counter-revolution within the party is idiotic.

Yeah counter-revolution was attempted by outside forces at the start of the Russian revolution, but this was pretty much over by 1921. Depending on your tendency you will say at some time, however, a successful counter-revolution was carried out by elements within the ostensibly proletarian state (1918 for Left Comms, sometime in the 1920s for some Trots, 1956 for anti-revisionists, 1991 for tankies etc). If successful counter-revolution originates within the state and party (for which material reasons), giving it power to completely filter acceptable publications is idiotic for it will make it easier to suppress those who oppose counter-revolutionaries within the state (be they Trots in the 1920s suppressed by Stalinists, anti-party group suppressed by "revisionists" etc)

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Originated would imply that it didn't exist from outside forces before that. Which would be historically wrong. Exactly those outside forces, outside from the party that is not some bland "US imperialism is to blamed for everything"-crap, shaped the countries, shaped the parties to forms in which counter-revolution could be successful.

[Althusser]

I think there needs to be a distinction made between the Hegelian idealist young Marx, and the Marx that brought us Capital.

[goalkeeper]

Originated would imply that it didn't exist from outside forces before that. Which would be historically wrong. Exactly those outside forces, outside from the party that is not some bland "US imperialism is to blamed for everything"-crap, shaped the countries, shaped the parties to forms in which counter-revolution could be successful.

ok well keep playing this same trumpet saying the "proletarian state" has the absolute right to suppress any publications or press which it deems counter to its own interest, just don't cry when counter-revolution within the party uses this right to suppress those who oppose counter-revolution.

[goalkeeper]

I think there needs to be a distinction made between the Hegelian idealist young Marx, and the Marx that brought us Capital.

Please, do point me to where Marx said he was wrong in this regard. I'm unsure of how Das Kapital contradicts this text in anyway. are u?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

ok well keep playing this same trumpet saying the "proletarian state" has the absolute right to suppress any publications or press which it deems counter to its own interest, just don't cry when counter-revolution within the party uses this right to suppress those who oppose counter-revolution.

Where do I do that?
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I agree with the other side.

[Dogs On Acid]

Personally, I find censorship futile.

We live in the 21st century with instant, wireless, computerized communication. Even if the Socialist State tries to suppress reactionary ideology through control of the press, reactionaries will always find ways to perpetuate Bourgeois ideas throughout society. Same goes for the suppression of Left-Wing ideology under Capitalism. Revolutionaries have always found ways of communicating.

In Portugal, Communists living under the Fascist Salazar Dictatorship used to share their Party's newspaper by hiding it in a secret compartment in suitcases filled with Bibles.

Censorship seems futile, and if the majority of Society under Socialism is Socialist, then the people will stigmatize reactionary ideology by themselves, no need for a central authority to do this for them.

Let's say that a Bourgeois author wants to print a reactionary book under Socialist society, well, to publish it he needs to find a publisher, which will most likely be under control of Socialist workers. They probably wouldn't even allow the book to be published for it is reactionary. This of course could be taken to court, but if the courts follow Socialist laws, then how exactly would he win the case?

Society censors itself.

[Comrade #138672]

... and if the majority of Society under Socialism is Socialist, then the people will stigmatize reactionary ideology by themselves, no need for a central authority to do this for them.

Yes. If. First we need to get there, though.