In the transition from capitalism to communism you cant have freedom of speech or freedom of the press because it allows people to speak rascism and allows the press to discourage the revolution.
Results 1 to 20 of 28
I've seen in quite a few articles here supporting the suppression of the bourgeoisie media and pretty much restricting freedom of speech (like in Cuba). This part of "communism" I'm not fond of at all.. isn't it a little contradictory? Shouldn't a communist country accept feedback from it's countrymen to make society the best it can be for everyone? With the lack of freedom of speech and freedom of press the country turns into a tyranny. Plus, what I gathered from my reading on Lenin is that there are 4 main aspects that a "communist"government should have:
- [1]All officials are to be elected and able to be recalled at any time if necessary
[2]Over a period of time everyone participates in the running of the economy-"if everyone is a bureaucrat, no one is a bureaucrat."
[3]No standing army, but a general arming of the people
[4]No public official receives a wage higher than any skilled worker
Items 1 and 2 contradict the whole suppression of freedom of speech, right? If everyone is able to participate in the economy then we need freedom of press. Also, it seems to me freedom of speech is at least important if not necessary to keep the equality of the workers. This brings up one major criticism of communism that we can't just ignore: when the workers "revolt", it is just as easy for us to recreate the oppressive and not-so-classless society just ruled by a different class. Freedom of speech and media is vital to keep this from happening.
Can anyone justify the suppression of media (bourgeoisie and proletariat)?
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
-- Communist Manifesto Karl Marx
In the transition from capitalism to communism you cant have freedom of speech or freedom of the press because it allows people to speak rascism and allows the press to discourage the revolution.
And? Therefore? A working class that is so gullible as to be convinced by racist propaganda is not capable of mounting a real revolution anyway.
Besides, the only kind of censorship that is presently possible is bourgeois censorship and, obviously, that won't be in the interests of the revolutionary workers movement.
As for in the midst of a violent revolution, you're deluding yourself if you imagine that anything approaching organized censorship will be possible. The workers won't have time to shut down every "reactionary" website, we'll be to busy figthting for our lives.
Wasting our time trying to crash nationalreview.com would be a tragic waste of resources.
***
To the thread starter, as you said, we've had a number of these discussions. If you're really curious as to the pro-censorship line, I suggest you skim the latest thread.
They make their arguments fairly coherently, if not persuasively.
I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you...
dictatorship of the Proletariat comrade :hammer:
these rights must be suppressed, because the revolution will be in a vulnerable state, and cannot risk counter-revolution.
My Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00
Just Imagine, I, a Premier, a Soviet Representative...just now I was told I could not go to Disneyland. I cannot find words to explain this to my people"
-Nikita Kruschev
One of the reasons that revolution is not possible in the present is that the Bourgeoisie has control of the institutiions and mechanisms that are responsible for the formation of the ideas and concepts that determine how people view the world. This is called a cultural hegemony. In a revolutionary situation it will be necessary to ensure that the proletariat seizes control over these devices and that the Bourgeoisie is not able to turn any sections of the proletariat against the idea of a revolutionary transformation of society. In any case, under Capitalist society it is innacurate to say that freedom of speech exists, because the means of communication are under the control of a small number of media conglomerates, resutling in a limited ideological breadth in the media.
There is no such thing as freedom of speech as long as class society exists. Even if there were no legal restrictions on freedom of speech (such as censorship) there will always be social restrictions. The difference between bourgeois and proletarian rule is just this; in bourgeois society censorship takes on a legal character, whereas in proletarian society (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat) censorship would take on more of a social character. This is because during the dictatorship of the proletariat, social pressure begins to take control of legal pressure, and as the state withers they become one and the same.
I think we're talking about a time after the revolution when the bourgeois state is abolished and the dictatorship of the proletariat is created.
The idea of superstructure and its power over society is certainly an interesting one. However, I don't think superstructure has such a profound role in the control of the lower classes as you are putting on it. The media is simply but one section of the superstructure, however one of the most prominent, and what I think you're overlooking is that in many cases the infrastructure itself gives rise to class consciousness (or anti-capitalist consciousness in general) in spite of the "influence" or "domination" of the superstructure.
We saw this in Venezuela, for example, when the material needs of the citizens caused them to oppose bourgeois society (whether or not the leadership of that movement is actually doing so is completely irrelevent to my point). They went against the propaganda of the superstructure (which permeates all levels of society) and are striving to change the infrastructure, or the material conditions in which they live. The mass media still exists in Venezuela and to this day it continues to rail against the Bolivarian Revolution, but their influence is long gone. They were rendered powerless by the masses acting in response to the infrastructure.
I guess my whole point is that you can't put too much power in either of these elements of society, because they both have an influence on the consciousness of the proletariat, however one regularly overrides the other (ideology prevents the proletariat from revolting due to material conditions and productive forces, or vice versa; the material conditions cause the proletariat to revolt in spite of the ideological conditioning by bourgeois society).
no they cant
and if they try to shut me up i'll fucking shoot them.
oh and LSD basically pwned it.
ο λαός θα πεί την τελευταία λέξη - αυτές οι νύχτες είναι του αλέξη!
Freedom without equality is privilege - Equality without freedom is a barracks
'Engels, my brother from another class,
we haz got to get fucked up on the grog, and then revolt...if the lessons of the Paris Commune has taught as such, the working class cannot lay hold of the ready made bourgeoisie alcohol, they must smash it, and get pissed on cheap methylated spirits.
holler,
marxy.'
- BCBM=AndreasBaader
First of all, that is communism.
Second of all, there is no reason to tolerate speech that should not be tolerated. It is detrimental and unnecessary to do so, and so any reasonable person can agree that disallowing certain speech is something that is justified.
Lastly, rights do not exist outside of how society defines them. Therefore, "free speech" is not natural or inherent or anything like that, it is something society decides upon. Also, don't forget that "free speech" only goes so far at any rate; try screaming "fire" in a crowded theater sometime and use that argument.
To care more about freedom of speech for the bourgeoisie in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat rather than the practical liberation of the proletariat is liberalism.
EDIT: And we shouldn't be supressing proletarian media, only bourgeois outlets.
Nor are we going to suppress the bourgeois outlets, we will just expropriate them.
Luís Henrique
The world is not as it is, but as it is constructed.
Falsely attributed to Lenin
Ha. Exactly.
Concerning non-violence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. -Malcolm X
The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Lenin also said:
"When one makes a Revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward - or go back. He who now talks about the "freedom of the press" goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism."
I don't particularly agree, though. I think LSD got it pretty much right.
<span style=\'font-family:tahoma\'><span style=\'color:#990000\'>"I don't like to use the word "U.S. interest". That's why I wish some other critics would stop saying "We go into this country, we do that, we do this", no no no. We do not do things, they do it to us. We are part of the victims, not part of the victimizors."</span></span>
<span style=\'font-family:tahoma\'><span style=\'color:#000000\'>"The network's going down because I think for myself."</span></span> - <span style=\'color:#000000\'>Carbon/Silicon</span>
<span style=\'color:#CC0000\'>Formerly known as stayfree.</span>
In any case, the same effect is produced.
I agree with this fellow comrade, there should not be censorship that oppresses anyone of what they think. Then we will become like north Korea brainwashing fellow citizens into thinking what the government wants you to think and thinking that your the best and others are worse off then you, and i fight oppression of any kind. I will not be controlled by anyone, Freedom Justice and Equality is what i fight for and will die for.Also so you can see what will happen if you become fascist, which is what censorship is about, I recommend reading "1984" by George Orwell its very simple but truly gets the point across. Even if Capitalism has its flaws at least you have the first amendment which says no law against free speech, press, or religion and i agree 100 percent and that amendment should be adapted. I say rather they censor media try to defend your own and win the people that way, which is what happened in Venezuela if i am not mistaken. When Chavez was president he allowed all those counter Chavez media reports yet he still had the majority of the people on his side. Also how could you oppress anyone against the revolution comrades. We are having freedom of speech right now, the so called enemy(bourgeois) is giving us this right to speak freely. I say that if you start to become fascist and oppress your own comrades or even those against there will be another revolution going on cause no one wants to be oppressed. If the Revolution were to become fascist them i swear to all man that i will fight against fascist. I am a Democratic Socialist and a Revolutionary of
FREEDOM JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
Freedom Justice and Equality
Well they can have their fuckin' ideas, we just won't let them shout their ideas from street corners while normal people are trying to listen to music, etc. You know, shout "hail capitalism!" and some random person comes along and breaks your nose.
(for those of you who can't read beyond literal words, that was a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE not the ENTIRETY of what we will do to bourgeois speech)
Signature Virus - Copy this into your signature.
You sound like a liberal, fighting for 'holy' Freedom and Justice.
Orwell's fictional novels are reactionary and counter-revolutionary. I also rccomend you discover what fascism means.
So what? The cappies will take it away the instant it becomes inconvenient.
It doesn't matter who's being oppressed. What it boilsdown to is who has the guns. The proletariat, in this case.
Liberal.
Forgive me for not wanting to be like the like north Korea. I don't wish to have a dictatorship or a Totalitarian government. Call me liberal sure if you want to put a label on it, but
I would disagree, the military has the guns now, now when the proletarians are larger in numbers then it will be a different story. and to say it does not matter who's being oppressed is to say crush all those who oppose us and, your just being angry mod and a racist and a fascist. And to call fighting for Freedom Justice and Equality liberal like if it were a bad thing, its to say that you fight for Slavery Injustice Inequality.
"Fascism: A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain."
from, The World Traveler
how about that as a definition. In other words what i said oppression. To have just one idea to rule over all, and according to you eliminate all those who oppose you, You know you cant be a Nazi and kill all your problems away. Eventually it will catch up to you. I don't think people will conform to one idea. and to uphold that idea by force even less.
Freedom Justice and Equality
Nobody here wants totalitarianism, and the only dictatorship anyone supports is the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.
I was referring not to the current state of class society, but a post-revolutionary one. And how am I being "a racist and a fascist"? I'm sorry if you don't understand what those are. And I called your use of the terms liberal because you take the time to capitalize them as if they are some "holy" truth.
And the proletariat already IS the vast majority. We don't need "larger numbers". I'm not being oppressive by saying that we should destroy all opposition. I'm being practical. If someone stands between you and freedom, you utterly destroy them. If someone (for example fascists and capitalists) would threaten the absolute sovereignty of the proletariat, then they cannot be afforded to have free speech as a class enemy.
WTF? Learn what Nazism is before throwing the word around.
And I never said that one idea should be upheld by force. I just said that the bourgeoisie should be suppressed and their ideas crushed.
The freedom of speech for a few bourgeois counter-revolutionaries is far less important than the collective security of the proletariat's control of the state/society.
Comrade MrDoom you make some good points and it would possibly work its just i don't believe in crushing all opposition. i think it will be better to convince them of are ways by showing them what capitalism is really doing and what socialism/communism really is. I think i the end there will be little opposition and that they will be to minor to worry about. I mean who do we got to worry about...Donald Ttrump, Bush owners of major corporations..you think they will really fight against us, no they wont we will have the proletarians on our sides and we will win
Hasta la victoria siempre!
I would agree but its like some others have said, We we will other better issues and it would be a waste of resources. I think that capitalism thoughts will be few and minor when we win the revolution. And what i ment by the military has all teh weapons and all that i meant the people that are socialist or communist that there are not enough of us yet not the proletarians, they are the majority.
I agree and i think its good to discuss issues such as this and we need Solidarity comrades theres no point in hating one another, cause we all are fighting for the same goals more or less. :redstar:
Freedom Justice and Equality
I'll drink to that!
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
-- Communist Manifesto Karl Marx
