Since there would be no state, there would be no one to enforce any censorship. Of course in any situation I think that there should be no censorship. People need to see everything. They should not be shown only half-truths.
Results 1 to 20 of 69
I have always been for no censorship of anyone or anything. By censorship I mean words and actions deemed inappropriate by society and are thus bleeped, covered, or removed all together. I was curious as to where fellows like Marx, Engels, Lenin and many others stood on this opinion. Did any of them discuss it in their writings or speeches? I have never been very keen on reading about other peoples philosophies. I have therefore created my own philosophy. Due to this I have not read much literature that most of you have read. All I have taken a look at is The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Before I stray from the original subject let me just ask of you: Where do you stand on the whole censorship deal? Reasons would be great.
Since there would be no state, there would be no one to enforce any censorship. Of course in any situation I think that there should be no censorship. People need to see everything. They should not be shown only half-truths.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Everything is possible
Nothing is true
Censorship is a tool of the ruling class to keep the common man down, it has no place in an Anarchist/Communist society.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Everything is possible,
Nothing is true.
It's definitely a "hot button" issue on the left.
Here's some of what I think about the matter...
The Myth of "Free Speech"
"Free Speech" for Reactionaries?
Once More: No "Free Speech" for Reactionaries!
The Cost of "Free Speech"
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
Cenorship is simply disguisting!
First of all, photo and video censorship is simply a way to hide the beauty of the body. And sexual censorship? Vile! There is nothing wrong with a man and a woman (or a man and a man, or woman and a woman) making love! It is beautiful.
Political censorship is simply the current governments (and any future government) way of keeping those of us who are more radical in our politics down!
Vocal and printed censorhip is just ignorance. For one thing, words are words, nothing more. Also, if people thought there was nothing radical about the words, they wouldn't be used, if it really matters that much. They would just be words.
And that's the word.
Peace
Discuss.
Media is a form of production, and when it is seized and run collectively by councils, it will be run by the workers themselves. Thus the flow of ideas from the media will be worker ideas, just as the flow from the media today are bourgeois ideas. The bourgeois isn't involved in social production, they don't control social ideas, and thus they are smothered. Eventually, they will become as obsolete as geocentrism is today.
Censorship exists for any of the fallowing reasons:
1. To disguise things done by companies, web site, governments, etc,
2. To “protect” the pubic (a story used by fascists and pseudo-fascists for years),
3. To attempt to brainwash the public by making them think things are “indecent”.
So as you can see, censorship has no place in any Socialism, Communism or Anarchism.
All human societies have a "range" of what is considered "acceptable public discourse". Things outside of that range are suppressed.
Unlike many, I expect nothing different from communist societies -- except that the range of acceptable public discourse will be different.
I expect, for example, that all forms of pro-fascist ideologies will be suppressed...and those who advocate any form of fascism will probably be executed.
One can imagine other examples of things that are "tolerated" now and won't be tolerated in a communist society.
On the other hand, there are things that are not tolerated now that will be tolerated and even actively encouraged in a communist society.
For example, the rejection of arbitrary authority as a matter of principle!
I wish very much that people here would "get over" the myth of "absolute free speech". It has no more empirical validity than...well, reincarnation, for example.
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
Censorship is one of the most vile and oppressive things the ruling class has invented. It is the responsibilities of the parents, not the government, to watch their kids and make sure they don't see what their parents find innapropriate. Use your V-chip and stop trampling over my rights.
All human socities also have oppression and inequality.
So what?
Really? By whom?
Who exactly will judge what constitues "pro-fascism" and what doesn't?
What if the people making the paper and printing the document in question think that it's a valid social commentary? Should we burn down their factories?
Unless you are prepared to go back to "judges" and "agencies", the application of your "censorship" paradigm will always be haphazard and arbitrary.
Except, of course, on issues of censorship!
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If people are going to be taught the rejection of aribtrary authority then they're going to naturally translate that into their daily lives.
That means questioning why anyone has the right to tell them what they can and cannot say or hear.
An emanipated population is juat that. They will not tolerate a restriction in their liberties, even if it is done "for their own good".
I know you hypothesize that the population in general will be adamently in favour of censorship and only the reactionary minority will object to their inability to publish their views, but the reality is that censorship never stays limited to it's initial target.
You talk about "historical societies" and a "range of acceptable discourse", well these same historical examples also show us that the people who fall outside of this "range" do so on both sides.
There has never been an example of "progressive" censorship. Once you grant to power to decide what is "acceptable" and what is not, you limit all discussion to the imagination of the censor.
"Revolutionary" censorship is like "progressive capitalism". It can't exist.
"Empirical validity"?
Well...no. That's because it doesn't exist yet. Neither, by the way, does communism.
That does not mean, however, that it can never exist; just that current conditions do not allow for it.
I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you...
You more you oppress a ideal, the stronger it becomes. Knowing this, it's not logical to censer or execute anyone for their political ideals.
Many say the same about communism as a whole. I guess that means we all just need to go join the republican party, then.
Old arguments, guys.
Bky1701, you are new here...so I refer you to the links featured in this post.
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291994464
LSD, we've been "around the barn" on this question on at least two previous occasions...is there really any point in doing it again?
You have a much better shot at living long enough to see this become a practical question than I do...so your voice has a better chance of being heard than mine does.
But I still think you're going to lose on this one. :P
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
It's not that I don't trust your site, Redstar, but I think people would be better served by the original threads in question. That way they can read both sides of the argument.
A typical free speech debate: Freedom of Speech
The first free speech debate between Redstar and myself: Freedom of press in socialists or communists societies
The big free speech debate between Redstar and myself: Free Speech: Should there be limits?
I suggest that anyone interested read through the last one. I think it neatly outlines the impraticalities and fundamental flaws of Redstar's proposal.
Perhaps not. I certainly don't imagine that I'll "convince" you anytime soon.
But as we all know, you're quite good with words, and I don't want any impressionable members to be swayed by your rhetoric.
Free speech is not a "myth" and censorship is not "required".
You think I'm going to "lose" on this one, but even you must admit that historical materialism is in my favour. History shows us that socities have been progressively moving closer and closer to a recognition of true free speech.
We are not there yet for sure, but that is certainly the direction we are heading in. A revolutionary proletarian society would not "reverse" this, rather they would recognize the inherent relationship between oppressive authority and the exertion of such authority.
I think you may be optimistic in predicting that I'll "live to see" any of this, but if I somehow manage to, you know which side I'll be arguing!
I expect to win.
I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you...
I think censorship would be a open thing to discuss. I agree with communities having a vote whether to shut down a media collective that spews reactionary idealogy. However thats as far as it should go after its been a while since the revolution (this is the part where we shoot the open fascists, capitalists, reactionaries in general :P ). But once we have some stability, restriction should be an option only when these reactionary groups organize. I wouldnt shut down a reactionary website unless they were declaring open defiance to the revolution, then the site would go to a vote of the whole community (whoever wants to vote that is) and they will decide whether or not the material is severe enough to take off. If it is very severe, a trial could be held for the person who runs the site.
I reserve my strongest criticisms for those that defend free speech as a principle but attack it when that principle is carried out in practice.
Free speech is important because it allows all ideas to be expressed and, therefore, confronted.
We shouldn't attempt to sweep the dirt under the carpet. We should confront wrong ideas full on. Not only through debate, but also through real life confrontation.
Many on the left demand that the bourgeois state should ban or place restrictions on the right to free speech for the far-right ('No Platform for Fascists', etc.). We should oppose this stance. We need restrictions on free speech today like we need holes in our heads. Therefore, we should fully oppose all restrictions on free speech - even for fascist scum. Today, a ban-happy government will restrict the political rights of reactionaries; tomorrow, such a government will do the same for revolutionaries. Like the old saying goes: if we tolerate this, we will be next.
No...I don't see why I have to "admit that" at all. Nor do I think recent history actually justifies your assertion.
The range of acceptable public discourse in the "west" has broadened somewhat over the last two centuries or so.
But not by all that much...there are still quite a few things that one mentions in public only at one's peril.
Imagine what would happen to a public official who openly attacked religion, for example.
She'd lose her job!
In fact, a vigorous and straight-forward attack on superstition -- the kind that both of us have posted on this board many times -- would not even be permitted in the "mainstream" media.
It's only because this is a small internet message board that's "below the radar" -- in other words, effectively outside of the arena of public discourse -- that we are "permitted" (for the time being) to speak freely.
I once attempted to post a similar anti-religion message at a site operated by a mainstream dummyvision affiliate...it was deleted within an hour.
There is always going to be speech that people simply will not tolerate...and the only real question is what is going to be the content of that "intolerable" speech.
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
Longer than that. It's been "broadening" pretty progressively since the rennaissance.
A millenium ago atheists were executed, today they write books and host talk shows. I'd certainly call that an improvement!
And 200 years ago she would have been run out of her town.
200 years before that, she would have probably been burned.
You're absolutely right. After all, this is not a free society.
But it is a far freer society than one that we would have found at nearly any other point in history.
You are correct in that this board is allowed to operate solely because it is "below the radar", but that is still an improvement over not too distant history. After all, 400 years ago, we would all be killed.
As it stands, atheist web-sites are everywhere and show no indication of "going anywhere".
We have a long way to go, of course, but the direction that we're heading in is fairly certain.
As you yourself have pointed out many times, the nature of capitalism is such that it has no patience for anything getting in the way of profit.
Revolution or no revolution, capitalism itself will kill religion sooner or later.
By the same token, the advancement of capitalism nescessitates a broadening of the "public discourse" into any area that can concievably bring profit to the purveyer.
Now this will, of course, not include ideas that are contrary to the foundations of the system itself, but it will still allow many ideas into the "mainstream" that presently cannot find a place there.
In less than a century, for instance, your hypothetical "public servant" would have no fear of losing her job for critisizing religion.
I think the idea that a proletarian society would "turn back the clock" is ludicrous. Any such society could not help but to realize that human ability to determing what is and what is no "acceptable" is so restrictive and memetic that it can only hinder social progress.
It will mean having to stomach a lot of filth ...but we can take it.
I have seen absolutely no evidence for this assertion ...despite the many times you have repeated it.
The fact that historically the rulling class has defined "acceptable discourse" is to be expected considering that historically the rulling class has defined everything.
But Communism is not about the substitution of class, it's about the abolition of class. Transfering arbitrary powers to a different group of people does not solve the problem, it merely redirects it.
The power to "define discourse" is itself an oppressive and corrosive power which has no place in a free society.
I will not deny that there will always be speech that pisses people off, but how they respond is in no way "predetermined".
Just like greed is not "human nature", neither is censorship. Human beings are more than capable of emphatically disagreeing without resorting to suppression. Indeed, we do it every day.
I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you...
“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”
-Noam Chomsky
Why the hell would you censor? Who would be there to do it under communism? Don't force your morals down some one elses throat...
Fascists don't belong in a Communist society.
And they don't deserve free speech. It would be a contradiction.
Fascism would not exist as a social force in commnunist society. If fascism exists as a social force in any society, then that society is not communist.
In this society, i defend the right of fascists to have free speech... as i pointed out in my post above.
