Results 1 to 20 of 47
Should freedom of speech be limited during and after the revolution? That is to say not altogether abolished with censorshio (like China and the USSR did) but should there be a limit on who we allow to excerise such freedom?
For example;
Pro-Capitalists, should they be allowed to distribute propoganda and allowed to give public speeches?
Isnt any limitation of free speech the act of a Centralized Power structre that moves to restirct the people and not liberate them?
<span style=\'color:red\'>Any power must be the enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by terror and force, whether it arises under a Fascist or Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual.
- Albert Einstein </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>
Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of Socialism...
Noam Chomsky</span>
In a socialist society there must be a democratic dictatorship of the people, that is a form of government marked by proletarian and peasant democracy coupled with freedom of speech of the working-classes. The flip side of this is the dictatorship aspect which censors counter-revolutionary forces like capitalist groups and figures.
"We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
--Lenin
Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
I don't know about censoring anyone besides neo-Nazis or the like who spout the destruction of a type of people.
Being an anarchist and advocating the most freedom for everyone, I think pro-capitalists should be allowed to talk without censorship. Remember that if the people (for themselves) revolt against the capitalist system, these people (the capitalists) will be regarded for the system the are advocating, and exploitative and corrupt system of wage-slavery.
In a true revolution, the people will have evolved from capitalism, and it will be considered a past, and failed, form of economy.
-- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
No free speech for reactionaries, period.
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
I agree, this would just piss people off against Capitalism even more. Capitalists should have freedom to express their opinion. We don't want iron fist ruling here, people.
I think we should restrict people advocating racism and hate upon basis of race, sexual preference, uncontrollable factors, lifestyle choices, etc (Neo-Nazis, KKK, etc). That, I would be all for.
What if a post-revolutionary society is not perfect right away, there are some troubles and it seems the revolution was loosing support in certain sectors of society? (I’m sure this has happened in Russia, Cuba, China etc). If certain groups of people, out of fear, begin to write and speak out against the revolution or just certain aspects of the revolution are they to be treated as reactionaries? If they think the Capitalist model was more stable than the "chaos" of a post-revolutionary society, should they be censored? Or should their grievances and criticism be welcomed, because they too are a part of the Revolution.
<span style=\'color:red\'>Any power must be the enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by terror and force, whether it arises under a Fascist or Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual.
- Albert Einstein </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>
Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of Socialism...
Noam Chomsky</span>
Which "certain sectors?"
There are alot of things to go into here, and since this thread is rehashing a topic that's been discussed so many times before here, I'll quote some things redstar has said that are correct:
"
It's very naive to think that any social order will have or even could have "absolute" freedom of speech.
There are things that may be spoken of and things that may not be spoken of in every social order.
The difference between capitalism and post-capitalist society in this regard is who decides what is permitted and what is prohibited.
The capitalist class makes that decision now; the working class will make that decision after the revolution.
I know what I think it should decide; but the actual decision belongs to the class.
I can guarantee you this -- it will prohibit some kinds of speech. So the only discussion that makes any "real world sense" is what should be permitted and what should not be permitted."
"it's very naive, as I noted earlier, to think that "freedom of speech" exists now. It most definitely does not.
There is a long history in capitalist countries of revolutionaries being imprisoned or even killed for expressing their views in public.
Whenever the ruling class feels threatened (even if the threat is marginal or nonexistent), "free speech" goes in the trash!
They are serious about staying in power; we must also be serious about keeping them down once we get them down."
"Impractical? Well, that depends on what particular kind of speech that you want to repress and in what particular medium?
Taking Rush Limbaugh off the air is easy.
Censoring the internet is difficult.
Spying on people's personal conversations is impossible.
So, we do take Rush off the air...along with all his counterparts.
We watch the internet for reactionary sites and, if they become significant, take them down.
And we leave people to have their personal conversations unmolested."
http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?su...rt_from=&ucat=&
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
The freedom of speech debate is very nessecary, personal liberty should be at the forefront of eqaltarian idealogy. Many Marxists disregard the "human nature" argument, but are quick to react to the the propostiion of complete free speech due to the liklieness of "reactionary" elements trying to seduce the populous back to Capitalism. Why are Marxist so afraid of free speech, if they know thier revolutionary ideas are solid and that the masses will oly benefit from them, why do they fear the perversion of ideas? They are afraid that people will revert back to the familiar. They are afraid of the mans nature to revert to the familiar.
It's unfair to label all Marxist in this way so I will limit them to Marxist-Leninists (or vanguardists). The Vanguard is not afraid that the people will return to the "old ways" but that they will loose power over the people.
communities, individuals, not organized by anything except proximity. Like a sector of this population is Socialist etc.. Sector is just a word to mean a percentage.
As much as I appreciate RedStar2000's insight, it shows me that some people on this forum are incapiable of forming their own thoughts and are quick to fall in line with someone else's. RedSatr is right, complete free-speech never existed, and that is exactly my point. We act just like the Cappies and Imperialists when we limit a man/woman to speak. We become oppressors, and when the oppression is questioned we simply say; well the Cappies did it. Which to me is a complete cop-out.
Freedom of speech, ideas and communication in any form should not be hindered. The people will decide what is best for them, we will decide what we should and should not hear or see.
<span style=\'color:red\'>Any power must be the enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by terror and force, whether it arises under a Fascist or Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual.
- Albert Einstein </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>
Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of Socialism...
Noam Chomsky</span>
Banning reactionary ideas is not the same thing as defeating those ideas. When you sweep dirt under the carpet, it doesn't make your house clean.
For example, the SWP in Britain has being campaigning for years for the government to ban the far-right British National Party: "No Platform for Racists". This is a strategy that i'm fully against. It encourages a climate of silence at a time when we desperately need a fully open and unrestricted debate on the state of our society.
So i say that we should fully reject ALL calls to restrict free speech - whether for fascist scum, Islamic fundamentalists, racists, homophobes, or whoever. Free speech - no ifs, no buts.
Right. Let's also have "democratic" elections and allow the Neo-Nazi parties and Christian Fascists to run for election.
Right, because Redstarr was the first to come up with this idea...
Pay attention to my first post: "There are alot of things to go into here, and since this thread is rehashing a topic that's been discussed so many times before here, I'll quote some things redstar has said that are correct:"
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
We should have deomcracy in a post-revolutionary society. Direct Democracy is a bedrock of equality. Understand that I said Direct Democracy and not Representative. The People will decide what actions to take concerning certain issues.
Cant you promote your own ideas on the issue? Why do you think redstar is correct?
Can’t you reply to the fact that censorship is oppression and any oppression should not be allowed in any egalitarian society?
<span style=\'color:red\'>Any power must be the enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by terror and force, whether it arises under a Fascist or Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual.
- Albert Einstein </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>
Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of Socialism...
Noam Chomsky</span>
Which people? Racists are people. So are fascists and capitalists.
My ideas here are the same as redstars, thus the post.
Because what he says come from a correct analysis of material history.
See first post. "No free speech for reactionaries, period."
The society created in a revolution is not immediately egilitarian. It has markings of the society it came from. This is basic stuff. The point of socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) IS oppression. Oppression of the former oppressors. That's how you get an egalitarian society.
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
Once we get socialism up and running, and prove that it's a valid system, the "Revolutionary Capitalists" will have nothing to say for themselves. If they try to, people can brush them off as inane, citing the historical failures of capitalism.
Socialism is not the answer.
Nobody should be censored. If the majority truly wants the revolution to take place, then it will. The counterrevolution will be ineffective.
When's that going happen?
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
When it's ready to.
This is contradictory. You cannot say oppression=equality.
Bingo.
-- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
Listen, I'm not saying anything new. This is a basic tennets of communist theory.
All states are the organized oppression of one or more classes by another class. The workers state (dictatorship of the proletariat) is the organized oppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. That's how it works.
Class antagonisms don't magically disappear.
See that guy in your avatar? Know what he said about "If the majority truly wants the revolution to take place, then it will?"
He said, "The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall."
It's rather disappointing to me that so many on this site have idealist illusions about what a revolution is really about.
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
More fundamentally, all states are the organized oppression of people by other people. Whch is why the state is an inherently coercive institution and must be abolished.
A "workers'" state is utopian self-delusion. No state can ever liberate, it itself is what we must liberate ourselves from!
Of course not, but the way to precipitate their eventual disappearance is not to legitamize and bolster them by censoring dissenting views.
The best way to help a capitalist counterrevolution is to demonstrate the very "red tryanny" capitalists are so afraid of.
You want to demolish capitalist ideas? Then demolish capitalist ideas ...it's really not that difficult to do. Preventing those ideas from being publically discussed, however, doesn't defeat them, it doesn't even put them "out of mind", it just lets them fester and grow in what you would call "personal conversations".
All that censorship and suppression does it delegitamize "workers" government, lend credence to counterrevolutionary claims, and, in all likelyhood, prevent a good deal of potentialy useful discourse and stagnate social progression.
Pamphlets won't destroy communism, but oppression will.
As I recall, he also "swore before a picture of old and mourned Comrade Stalin".
It was the 1950s and he's one man. Who cares?
What's idealistic is believing that a small band of "merry men" vanguardists can cause a revolution whenever they feel like.
Revolution is a social phenomenon created by material conditions. It happens when it happens. The most useful thing we can do right now is attempt to determine what the conditions that lead to revolution are and experiment with measuring and manipulating them if possible.
For example, one thing we have learned is that arranging ourselves in small rigid cult-like groups of "vanguardists" does jack-shit to increase revolutionary tendency.
But I guess no one told old Bobby Avakian. <_<
I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you...
Free speech must be unconditional and available for all. If somebody is spouting counterrevolutionary propaganda, then they should be allowed to continue. Reason and logic will conquer flawed ideas. Why should the government be able to control what comes out of anybody's mouth?
Furthermore, criticism is vital for any government to improve. If leaders don't listen to the population, even their detractors, then they won't realize how they can improve.
"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky
ThinkSocialist
"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin
