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.
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.
I think this then becomes a question of seeking for the route that is best for the working class…
Is it better for the working class to starve/defend against the outside factor or to capitulate to the outside invader?
My opinion is that this is something for the working class to decide. Not by some overprotective elites that want to control public opinion in order to keep the system running even if that’s at the cost of the lives of its own people.
If you really want to fix this, you need a more global / international solution.
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.
Yes, I explicitly said “undercover” because the minute the censorship is exposed then it becomes counterproductive. China has made censorship “business as usual”, you have a whole system of public officials doing the work without it being at all something that is “undercover”.
Every time the manipulation from the elites gets exposed, it’s a win for anti-system sentiment. Because it makes the system less and less defensible.
The only “useful” censorship is so subtle that the one being censored does not even have evidence of it.
However, undercover censorship being “useful” does not make me stop despising it by principle… since it’s a method of control used against the workers.
Is it better for the working class to starve/defend against the outside factor or to capitulate to the outside invader?
I think history can conclusively answer this for us - it’s always better to repel the US. No one benefits when the US comes bringing “”“freedom”“”. All levels of society must be mobilized to repel the invasion or risk being enslaved to the empire.
Anyone who sides with the US in their invasion is the enemy, and I’d prefer my enemies to be censored.
Yes, I explicitly said “undercover” because the minute the censorship is exposed then it becomes counterproductive. China has made censorship “business as usual”, you have a whole system of public officials doing the work without it being at all something that is “undercover”.
And China is doing fine, what are you talking about? It’s certainly effective to keep the censorship hidden, but it’s hardly necessary. I think you’re wish-casting, you wish that open censorship would make people rise up. It doesn’t. Censorship is an effective tool whether it is hidden or blatant. If censorship didn’t work, no one would do it.
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.
I think this then becomes a question of seeking for the route that is best for the working class…
Is it better for the working class to starve/defend against the outside factor or to capitulate to the outside invader?
My opinion is that this is something for the working class to decide. Not by some overprotective elites that want to control public opinion in order to keep the system running even if that’s at the cost of the lives of its own people.
If you really want to fix this, you need a more global / international solution.
Yes, I explicitly said “undercover” because the minute the censorship is exposed then it becomes counterproductive. China has made censorship “business as usual”, you have a whole system of public officials doing the work without it being at all something that is “undercover”.
Every time the manipulation from the elites gets exposed, it’s a win for anti-system sentiment. Because it makes the system less and less defensible.
The only “useful” censorship is so subtle that the one being censored does not even have evidence of it.
However, undercover censorship being “useful” does not make me stop despising it by principle… since it’s a method of control used against the workers.
I think history can conclusively answer this for us - it’s always better to repel the US. No one benefits when the US comes bringing “”“freedom”“”. All levels of society must be mobilized to repel the invasion or risk being enslaved to the empire.
Anyone who sides with the US in their invasion is the enemy, and I’d prefer my enemies to be censored.
And China is doing fine, what are you talking about? It’s certainly effective to keep the censorship hidden, but it’s hardly necessary. I think you’re wish-casting, you wish that open censorship would make people rise up. It doesn’t. Censorship is an effective tool whether it is hidden or blatant. If censorship didn’t work, no one would do it.