I don’t follow your logic here. Marx was explicit in saying the working classes need to establish state power over capitalists, and control the means of communication and transport. Any elements used by the capitalists to maintain or gain political power should be stripped away from them, including killing them if necessary. When you speak of freedom of speech in “mature communist society,” you’re speaking of a society beyond class struggle, which has never existed. Socialist states have ongoing class struggle.
Secondly, regarding “anti-system” speech vs. Capitalist speech. You quite literally said you despise it when socialist states control the speech of capitalists earlier. In China, our relevant example, speech criticizing the system and the government is allowed and happens all the time. Of course capitalist isn’t a “state of mind,” but private, bourgeois press is the mouthpiece of the capitalist class. This is what is held in higher scrutiny.
I have never once indicated that being in a class is determined by what you believe. What I have done is recognized the class character of the press as it relates to the overall mode of production and the classes governing it. In capitalist society, I would frustrate for freedom of speech for the working classes, but in socialist society I would advocate for controlling the speech of capitalists. In classless, communist society, we will have moved beyond such a struggle and can begin to truly speak of genuine freedom of speech for all.
Capitalist speech in a communist system is “anti-system” speech.
Communist speech in a capitalist system is “anti-system” speech.
I want to defend the right of the working class for spreading anti-system speech without fear of oppression from any elite.
To me, this (along with transparency) is more important than the economic system, because it establishes a basis for the workers to be able to react and mandate change… if a fully transparent system were put in place properly, I believe ultimately the rest of the pieces will slowly fall into place.
The other reason they get power is because millions of people listen to them. Do you think they could take over without being heard? It’s not that their speech is flawless and logical, is that people are hungry for answers that reaction pretends to provide.
people are hungry for answers that reaction pretends to provide
This is exactly the problem. Fascism can only rise in situations where people have a need that has enough importance to silence reason.
The biggest enemy of Fascism is offering populist answers from a more rational perspective.
In the same way you can push for anti-system reforms from a right-wing perspective, you can also push for anti-system reforms from a left-wing perspective…
Reforming things is something the left should be more open to do, imho. Otherwise fascists will be the ones attracting the attention of the masses. And you need to be able to criticize your own system to be able to reform it.
Of course gathering support is much harder to do in a system that already is right-wing tilted… but that’s precisely because of the bias and undercover censorship the existing system is exerting.
If you don’t silence them they can recruit. Fascists are friends of censorship because silencing your enemies works.
If you silence them they will recruit in the shadows and now with an extra argument, since them being silenced is gonna reaffirm their position about the state being unable to take that “hunger for answers” seriously.
This is exactly the problem. Fascism can only rise in situations where people have a need that has enough importance to silence reason.
But this can be imposed from the outside by factors outside of the system’s control, such as if there’s a global hegemon that can blockade the economy and make people suffer. There’s no populist answer for the oil blockade against Cuba, all the “anti-system” speech can do there is help the US siege war. I, for one, don’t want the US to win in Cuba.
If you silence them they will recruit in the shadows and now with an extra argument, since them being silenced is gonna reaffirm their position about the state being open to taking people’s points seriously
You’re contradicting yourself. By your logic the “undercover censorship the existing system is exerting” should actually make anti-system reforms from a left-wing perspective easier to push for, because by your logic the censorship should be helping. It should be easier to recruit from the shadows with an extra argument, we should celebrate being censored!
Except, that’s not how it works in the real world is it? In the real world, censorship works.
Ah really? can you link me a true main-China capitalist group organized by the working class? and I mean proper capitalist, not some pro-market CCP-friendly commerce, give me a CCP-adverse one.
Let me know where is the Chinese social media group (ideally with a .cn domain) where the working class can discuss alternative forms of government and are allowed to organize discussions about how to peacefully orchestrate a change of system.
You’re talking about something different now. Pro-capitalist speech is different from the speech of capitalists. Either way, there are liberal groups in China, but the ones that would undermine socialism and restore capitalism are censored or shunned, as they should be. Socialists should protect socialism and build communism, not give free reign to reactionaries to do as they please.
I was not talking about “the speech of capitalists”… this is why I was telling you that you don’t suddenly stop being a worker just because you had the wrong thought… and that the “capitalist class” is not a state of mind… I was always referring to “capitalist speech”, particularly when it comes from regular citizens.
the ones that would undermine socialism and restore capitalism are censored or shunned, as they should be.
Ah thanks, so you confirm that the working class is not allowed to spread anti-system speech.
This is not what we do in the EU, where being able to discuss peaceful orchestration of changes in our government is explicitly protected. As it should be.
This is just nonsense, though. You’re focused entirely on a vague ideal over what has a concrete impact on benefiting the working classes. Further, no, you can’t speak freely in the EU, pro-Palestine protestors are arrested frequently in Europe. Of course you don’t embody a class based on ideas, but you did say capitalist speech, as in the speech of capitalists in my interpretation.
You’re focused entirely on a vague ideal over what has a concrete impact on benefiting the working classes
No, what im focusing more on is the objective balance of power when it comes to control of media and the outlets for collective expression and discussion.
The subjective idea of “benefit” and / or “happiness” is not as important for a materialist as the actual power structure.
you can’t speak freely in the EU
Yea, which is why I specifically was talking about protecting peaceful discussions about the system of governance and activism in that area.
There, an European communist organization. Still waiting on the Chinese capitalist organization.
And to be clear: it’s not like I’m particularly fond of the way EU does things in general. They are usually quite disappointing. But protecting this kind of speech is something that I will support.
No, you’re trapped in idealism by insisting on an abstract “right to organize against the system,” without contextualizing if the system is socialist or capitalist. You’re arguing for unrestrained liberalism and fascism in socialist systems. Protecting “speech” even if it is in service of fascism is not a good thing.
I don’t follow your logic here. Marx was explicit in saying the working classes need to establish state power over capitalists, and control the means of communication and transport. Any elements used by the capitalists to maintain or gain political power should be stripped away from them, including killing them if necessary. When you speak of freedom of speech in “mature communist society,” you’re speaking of a society beyond class struggle, which has never existed. Socialist states have ongoing class struggle.
Secondly, regarding “anti-system” speech vs. Capitalist speech. You quite literally said you despise it when socialist states control the speech of capitalists earlier. In China, our relevant example, speech criticizing the system and the government is allowed and happens all the time. Of course capitalist isn’t a “state of mind,” but private, bourgeois press is the mouthpiece of the capitalist class. This is what is held in higher scrutiny.
I have never once indicated that being in a class is determined by what you believe. What I have done is recognized the class character of the press as it relates to the overall mode of production and the classes governing it. In capitalist society, I would frustrate for freedom of speech for the working classes, but in socialist society I would advocate for controlling the speech of capitalists. In classless, communist society, we will have moved beyond such a struggle and can begin to truly speak of genuine freedom of speech for all.
I think this might clarify things:
I want to defend the right of the working class for spreading anti-system speech without fear of oppression from any elite.
To me, this (along with transparency) is more important than the economic system, because it establishes a basis for the workers to be able to react and mandate change… if a fully transparent system were put in place properly, I believe ultimately the rest of the pieces will slowly fall into place.
Reactionary, feudal-revivalist speech in a capitalist system is “anti-system” speech too.
We have no interest in defending their right to speak.
Reactionary, feudal-revivalist speech is so easy to defeat that I personally would rather see it exposed so that it can be openly dismantled…
Hiding/censoring it would only make it stronger.
Fascists love to cloak themselves in the banners of kings and shit, and they’re kind of a problem.
Also you’re saying this in the context of reactionaries calling for reinstalling the Shah in Iran.
The reason they get power is because those positions benefit those in power, so the powerful naturally adopt reactionary positions.
It’s not that their speech is somehow flawless and logical.
Fascism is friend of censorship for that reason.
The other reason they get power is because millions of people listen to them. Do you think they could take over without being heard? It’s not that their speech is flawless and logical, is that people are hungry for answers that reaction pretends to provide.
If you don’t silence them they can recruit.
This is exactly the problem. Fascism can only rise in situations where people have a need that has enough importance to silence reason.
The biggest enemy of Fascism is offering populist answers from a more rational perspective.
In the same way you can push for anti-system reforms from a right-wing perspective, you can also push for anti-system reforms from a left-wing perspective…
Reforming things is something the left should be more open to do, imho. Otherwise fascists will be the ones attracting the attention of the masses. And you need to be able to criticize your own system to be able to reform it.
Of course gathering support is much harder to do in a system that already is right-wing tilted… but that’s precisely because of the bias and undercover censorship the existing system is exerting.
If you silence them they will recruit in the shadows and now with an extra argument, since them being silenced is gonna reaffirm their position about the state being unable to take that “hunger for answers” seriously.
But this can be imposed from the outside by factors outside of the system’s control, such as if there’s a global hegemon that can blockade the economy and make people suffer. There’s no populist answer for the oil blockade against Cuba, all the “anti-system” speech can do there is help the US siege war. I, for one, don’t want the US to win in Cuba.
You’re contradicting yourself. By your logic the “undercover censorship the existing system is exerting” should actually make anti-system reforms from a left-wing perspective easier to push for, because by your logic the censorship should be helping. It should be easier to recruit from the shadows with an extra argument, we should celebrate being censored!
Except, that’s not how it works in the real world is it? In the real world, censorship works.
Sure, but then this isn’t about China at all. Further, the working classes in China can and do critique the government.
Ah really? can you link me a true main-China capitalist group organized by the working class? and I mean proper capitalist, not some pro-market CCP-friendly commerce, give me a CCP-adverse one.
Let me know where is the Chinese social media group (ideally with a .cn domain) where the working class can discuss alternative forms of government and are allowed to organize discussions about how to peacefully orchestrate a change of system.
You’re talking about something different now. Pro-capitalist speech is different from the speech of capitalists. Either way, there are liberal groups in China, but the ones that would undermine socialism and restore capitalism are censored or shunned, as they should be. Socialists should protect socialism and build communism, not give free reign to reactionaries to do as they please.
I was not talking about “the speech of capitalists”… this is why I was telling you that you don’t suddenly stop being a worker just because you had the wrong thought… and that the “capitalist class” is not a state of mind… I was always referring to “capitalist speech”, particularly when it comes from regular citizens.
Ah thanks, so you confirm that the working class is not allowed to spread anti-system speech.
This is not what we do in the EU, where being able to discuss peaceful orchestration of changes in our government is explicitly protected. As it should be.
This is just nonsense, though. You’re focused entirely on a vague ideal over what has a concrete impact on benefiting the working classes. Further, no, you can’t speak freely in the EU, pro-Palestine protestors are arrested frequently in Europe. Of course you don’t embody a class based on ideas, but you did say capitalist speech, as in the speech of capitalists in my interpretation.
No, what im focusing more on is the objective balance of power when it comes to control of media and the outlets for collective expression and discussion.
The subjective idea of “benefit” and / or “happiness” is not as important for a materialist as the actual power structure.
Yea, which is why I specifically was talking about protecting peaceful discussions about the system of governance and activism in that area.
I can link you to communist groups in the EU. Here’s one: https://www.eurcomact.org/
There, an European communist organization. Still waiting on the Chinese capitalist organization.
And to be clear: it’s not like I’m particularly fond of the way EU does things in general. They are usually quite disappointing. But protecting this kind of speech is something that I will support.
No, you’re trapped in idealism by insisting on an abstract “right to organize against the system,” without contextualizing if the system is socialist or capitalist. You’re arguing for unrestrained liberalism and fascism in socialist systems. Protecting “speech” even if it is in service of fascism is not a good thing.