Let's have a freeze peach thread.
I'm not sure what I think about this issue. I've always leaned towards the "protect freedom of speech as far as possible" side but I think some of the arguments of the anti-free speech left are quite convincing as well. I've seen some differing opinions about this on Zig Forums, so let's read two articles, one defense of free speech and one critique of it and discuss them, shall we?
Defense of free speech: jakkkobinmag.com
Critique of free speech: marxists.org
Other urls found in this thread:
jac
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
socialistworker.org
twitter.com
wordfilter fucked up the link
jac obinmag.com/2017/04/free-speech-charles-murray-campus-protest/
bonus: this critique of the concept of free speech by AW rly made me think
If you don't believe in free speech you're not left. That extends to people who think its not OK to protest Charles Murray and the like.
I'm also pro freedom of punching
Freeze peach isn't real.
As long as there's a state (monopoly on violence), speech cannot be free.
Without a state, the distinction between speech and other forms of violence is meaningless.
Better that the state stop pretending that speech can be free when it actually just means the speech of the ruling class is free and all others are silenced, and instead openly supress counterrevolutionary actions of all types, including speech.
There's no reason to hand the bourgeoisie airhorns and Twitter sockpuppets as we gun them down in the streets.
Don't have the time or energy to read the articles at the moment, but I'll weigh in anyway. So I think it goes without saying that freedom of speech is an intrinsically good thing. Socialism aims at human liberation, and obviously that liberation would include the freedom to speak, think, publish, etc as freely as possible. But like any other freedom, its subject to the needs of the current situation, and we arrive again at the perpetual struggle within the socialist camp: strategy versus tactics.
Tactically speaking, there are many situations where free speech will need to be suppressed. For example if we have a liberal democracy (or any pre-revolutionary situation) that is under threat from fascism, its perfectly acceptable for socialists to confront and repress fascists so as to prevent them from taking power. Similarly, if we have a young and fragile revolution, it's going to be necessary to repress and contain counter-revolutionaries and reactionary forces, both external and local. Both of these situations require a repression of the freedom of speech and conscience. So where's the dilemma? The dilemma lies in the fact that once you begin engaging in such repression, you create (and on some level normalize) a repressive apparatus, wielded by imperfect individuals. Now this has proven to be fraught with pitfalls, ranging from honest mistakes wherein innocent bystanders are swept up in a crackdown against genuine reactionaries. You may also have a crackdown that is disproportionate to the actual threat and is fueled by paranoia. Worst of all you may have genuine traitors and gravediggers of the revolution (revisionists, opportunists, power hungry assholes, wannabe porkies, etc) who wind up in control of this apparatus. I'm sure that most people would agree that the leadership of the USSR eventually fell into this last category, although we'd all disagree over when it happened and who it includes. The point being that while repression may secure the socialist state, it could well endanger a socialist revolution by sowing the seeds of bureaucracy and revisionism, and thus alienating the people and pushing them to reaction. In other words repression is tactically sound, but strategically weak, sacrificing the socialist revolution to save the socialist state, thus killing both.
The Anarchist/libsoc approach is the opposite. It looks a lot more like the society we are all ultimately trying to create, but it doesn't do what is necessary in the short term to ensure its survival, for fear of endangering the long term integrity of the revolution. There are plenty of examples of this from the Paris Commune to Catelonia. This approach is strategically sound but tactically weak, sacrificing the state (lets face it anarkiddies, its a state no matter what you call it) to save the revolution, and thus killing both.
To quote Lenin then, what is to be done? Well tbh there's no clear answer, and no cut and dry solution. Mao probably had the best analysis to date in "On Contradictions Among the People" although he failed miserably to practice it properly imo.
marxists.org
Its a short read and I highly recommend it, but it basically boils down to treading a middle ground and taking every instance of criticism or dissent on a case by case basis. Criticism and dissent must not be uniformly dismissed, rather it must be assessed based on a number of factors. If assessed to be subversive and intentionally destructive it must be repressed, if assessed to be intended as constructive criticism to improve socialist theory and practice, then it must be allowed, debated, considered etc. Imo Mao's definition of what was considered constructive and beneficial criticism was far too narrow, but the principle still holds. Is this a perfect solution? Of course not, it basically boils down to "allow good speech and repress bad speech," which while being frustratingly simple and inconclusive, is the only thing we can really do.
I thought so too until recently, but it turns out quite a lot of (american) self-described leftists of the last few decades have been skeptical of freedom of speech.
although this user is right.
executing counterrevolutionaries for merely expressing their views in the revolution - yes
cheering on corporations purging distasteful fringe politics from their platforms, to OWN drumpfkins epic style - no
At best they oppose the liberal view of free speech (every gets their turn at the lectern if they can pay the fee).
At worst they're radical centrists who don't want the boat rocked.
Pointing out that democracy, civil liberty, and constitutional freedoms will always be less-than-equally applied does not mean that such things are undesireable or pointless. I don't know why this is difficult to understand. I also don't know why rather than saying "bourgeois rights are just phony" we can't push for the realization of those rights under socialism. Things like freedom of the press (or freedom of criticism within a political party), juridical due process, and basic civil liberties deliver many benefits and have no downsides. But this is only apparent if you begin to first look at historical experience and also draw out the conclusions of such policies.
Example: De-platforming political movements
What happens? They organize out of sight. If the political movement is effective, they will simply use private means of communication and appear when no one suspects it. The Weimar Republic issued a number of speaking bans against Hitler. They also issued bans against wearing uniforms in public demonstrations. None of this stopped the Nazis from gaining mass support. It also "legitimizes" them in the sense that any type of repression legitimizes a movement as being too strong to actually debate.
Which brings me to the second point. Ideologies and ideas must be fought with ideas. I am assuming that most people here support some kind of socialism, which means a definite ideology or platform. The goal isn't to simply erase anti-socialism but actually win support for socialism itself. This means that somehow there must be an exchange of ideas even if ideas by themselves are not sufficient to change politics in the long-term.
"We must combine the revolutionary struggle against capitalism with a revolutionary programme and tactics on all democratic demands: a republic, a militia, the popular election of officials, equal rights for women, the self-determination of nations, etc. While capitalism exists, these demands—all of them—can only be accomplished as an exception, and even then in an incomplete and distorted form. Basing ourselves on the democracy already achieved, and exposing its incompleteness under capitalism, we demand the overthrow of capitalism, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, as a necessary basis both for the abolition of the poverty of the masses and for the complete and all-round institution of all democratic reforms. Some of these reforms will be started before the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, others in the course of that overthrow, and still others after it. The social revolution is not a single battle, but a period covering a series of battles over all sorts of problems of economic and democratic reform, which are consummated only by the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It is for the sake of this final aim that we must formulate every one of our democratic demands in a consistently revolutionary way. It is quite conceivable that the workers of some particular country will overthrow the bourgeoisie before even a single fundamental democratic reform has been fully achieved. It is, however, quite inconceivable that the proletariat, as a historical class, will be able to defeat the bourgeoisie, unless it is prepared for that by being educated in the spirit of the most consistent and resolutely revolutionary democracy."
marxists.org
I think its important not to censor ideas even if the idea is counter to what you are trying to do, simply because its arrogant to claim you have the absolute answer.
The best a human can do is look at what is available to them and decide the best course of action. You can pursue this course of action even to the point of shooting everyone trying to physically stop you, but trying to stop people form simply preserving the idea that you are wrong becomes dangerous, because you might be wrong. Future generations have the right to decide.
The argument that all speech does is try to create action is flawed. Speech might always be trying to create action but thats not all it does, it also preserves the ideas. I am against attempting to stamp out ideas, and i think people who are for it are simply unwilling to accept they might be wrong about their own ideas. Its ok to act while uncertain, its all an honest person can ever really do.>>2720258
Let's divide this into two issues:
1. Free speech as basic civil liberty in modern society, i.e. a legal right in some countries
2. Free speech as a political ideal within the left
It would be harmful to abandon the principle in either situation.
Supporting free speech as a general principle is good because,
a. It's a useful way of pointing out the hypocrisy of bourgeois states and bourgeois society when they restrict the speech of dissidents
b. It helps gain sympathizers who agree with general principles of freedom, etc.
c. It creates pushback against the ruling class when they overstep their bounds
d. Within political movements it keeps people more-or-less honest and accountable, since bad leadership is subjected to criticism and open debate
e. Bad ideas can be disproven, good ideas can be confirmed.
f. Forces people to think for themselves and take part in decision-making
Finally, there is a selfish reason for supporting free speech in principle. Namely that I, as an individual, want access to as much information as possible and don't want someone (probably much stupider than myself) deciding what I can and can't read, hear, or see.
Freedom of speech is a pleasant lie that liberals tell themselves so they can believe they live in the just society that only exists in their heads. The problem with it is not in principle, but the naivete of it.
Democracy is in tension with class struggle. You can't both say that "we are ruled by the workers" and "we are ruled by the majority" because in very many cases the majority opinion is not the one of the workers. Even when it is, the legitimacy of worker self-management doesn't come from its democratic nature but rather democracy only gains legitimacy as an extension of the will of the proletariat. The liberal values have completely infected your brain.
Being pro free speech is the only way the victory if your socio-political message has any value at all.
You shouldn't want your political rhetoric to win if it only can under the restriction of the speech of the opposition. This should be an obvious moral code.
How can the worker's govern except through democracy?
And in such cases genuine socialism is impossible except when its done through an alliance of workers and other oppressed classes (usually peasants).
Any person, group, etc can claim to be acting according to the will of the proletariat. Only those that are backed by a democratic mandate from the workers are actually doing so. In other words a body's legitimacy as a representative or agent of the working class comes from its democratic nature.
They're not that important, I just picked two texts that lay out the arguments of each side to have some ground for discussion. If you spend time on here and in other left spaces you're probably familiar with the arguments of both sides already.
I think it should go without saying, but it seems like some people on here get so caught up in their fantasies of violently repressing counter-revolutionaries that they forget what the goal actually is. It's "the ends justify the means" logic taken so far that "the ends" are almost forgotten about.
I agree. I don't have anything to add.
Free speech doesn't exist except on paper but communists should support pretty much unqualified freedom of speech within the bourgeois state for the optics and to lessen to chance of repression against communists and the suppression of communist propaganda.
Fundamentally the bourgeoisie/liberals will promote fascists in the public sphere no matter what, and they will suppress communists no matter what. Any restrictions are likelier to be effectively used against us than them.
In a revolutionary situation free speech stops existing as revolutionary justice and revolutionary terror are used to ensure the triumph of the DotP.
Post-revolution it doesn't matter. Let people say what they want for the most part.
Look at what that led to, Soviet culture was boring and shitty, the politics were stagnant for decades, and the counter revolutionaries won anyway since they were the ones in power.
Yeah and then Berkley passed laws curtailing free speech and only used them against leftists. "Using the state to ban speech to repress fascists" is the dumbest idea after "we need to stop free speech to help our revolution".
I guess communism is impossible. After all, there's no way that workers wouldn't have to "govern"
No it isn't. It's just impossible for you to fathom that violent revolution is the opression of one class over another, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, for the latter's destruction. There is no mandate that it be a democratic process. What the bourgeoisie has to say about it really doesn't matter at all.
Sure, but that doesn't matter, because the interests of the workers is clear. It isn't a democratic mandate. Your love of government reveals your actual belief in the impossibility of a stateless society. Democracy is government.
Disagree, their cinema in particular is pretty great.
Completely agree, but at the moment there appears to be no real solution to the tactics vs strategy dilemma on this issue. Like I said, Mao's solution is very general, highly subjective, and full of potentnial for error, but its the best we have right now. Tbh the only way to definitively solve this problem would be to reduce the strength of counter-revolution so severely that major repression is unnecessary. This would only be possible through world revolution, which will occur based on large scale economic/political conditions, not our own praxis. Until then all we can do is play it by ear and cross these bridges when we come to them.
No its just impossible for me to imagine a situation where the workers are a minority and the bourgeoisie are a majority. The only situations where workers are a minority is in underdeveloped countries where peasants are the majority. In that case an alliance between workers and peasants is possible, and thus there is a democratic mandate for revolution. Even if you disregard the possibility of such an alliance, democracy is clearly the only legitimate form of government among the workers, even if it excludes the bourgeoisie (which it should).
If the interests of the workers were clear then there would be unanimous agreement among them. Their interests are far from clear, at least as far as most workers are concerned. Socialism may objectively be in their interests, but many dont see it that way, and if they do there are countless interpretations on exactly how to proceed with revolution and socialist construction. You can't claim to be acting on behalf of the workers unless you do so with a mandate from some means of collective decision making from the workers themselves. Just claiming to be acting in their interests regardless of what the working class actually thinks and wants is pure counter revolutionary chauvinism.
I'm completely in favor of having freedom of speech be as free as possible, but I still believe rightwingers are wrong about thinking hate speech isn't real or that hate speech is also freedom of speech.
Well, it isn't a logical impossibility. That should at least be clear to you.
Wrong. People argue about the shape of the earth in 2018. A lot of people don't even believe in objective fact.
It is objectively in the interest of the proletariat, including myself.
Sure I can. I can act in my own self interest as a result of my class at any time. Those interests are real, whether there is agreement or a vote or not. I don't judge legitimacy by a vote, because workers vote for porky every 4 years right now. Democracy itself is a sham, because there actually are good and bad things for workers, regardless of how many Bezos points they got to vote for some new abomination.
I don't care about your claims of chauvinism, and I don't care about "democratic legitimacy." Sure, it makes things easier when most workers are on board, but it is by no means necessary, and it doesn't make vanguardism "illegitimate" whatever you think that means in the context of revolutionary praxis
Being pro-free speech when you don't have influence and being anti-free speech when you do is just self-preservation. Hypocritical sure, but you do what's in your best interest accordingly.
Supporting anti-X speech when you live in a pro-X society is self-destructive and is reserved for liberals. What socialist society, for example, should tolerate reactionary or counter-revolutionary speech?
Acting in somebody's interest isn't the same as acting on their behalf, since the latter implies that you are carrying out their wishes. No organization can claim to be the legitimate agent of the workers unless it acts in accordance with their will, not what a handful of individuals thinks their interests are. What you're advocating here is Blanquism, and its contrary to the aims of socialism, which is the liberation of the working class and all humanity by extension.
You're not describing proper Leninist vanguardism, you're describing what counter-revolutionaries and liberals think Leninism is. Lenin explicitly called for proletarian democracy both through the Soviets and the party via democratic centralism. Hell, Lenin even had a democratic mandate from the workers since the Bolsheviks held a majority in the Soviets.
One that has properly indoctrinated its citizens.
The ideal situation is for everyone to know these other ideas and consider them incorrect. A few people thinking otherwise is no threat, and if a lot of people start thinking otherwise its not the ideas fault, there is clearly something wrong with the society at that point.
Right, and I'm saying that the democratic mandate is not an essential feature.
The goal is not democracy. Liberation does not come from having a vote. Liberation comes from an equal distribution of power. This cannot occur as a result of democratic process, and is largely what democracy is designed to prevent. As long as you have the symbol of voting, you do not have any real power. If you have real political power, you do not need the vote. It becomes a formality and a memory.
I wouldn't want to live in a socialist society where my dad is sent to a labor camp for being a naive lib (which he is). And this view that free speech should be allowed as long as it doesn't go against the (imaginary) socialist status quo is completely nonsensical since speech that challenges the status quo is the only kind of speech that actually needs protection. There is absolutely no need to ever protect the right to nod and agree with the status quo, so saying "there's free speech as long as it doesn't contradict the dominant ideology" or whatever means there's no free speech at all.
Imagine believing that any actually threatening speech to the status quo has ever been protected by the status quo in any society ever
Pretty much, it's rational self-interest to preserve oneself and one's in-group against the out-group, but this out-group is more than just that, it's an anti-group; it's not a differing opinion but an anti-opinion. The liberal notion of equality betrays both in-groups and out-groups in defense of a higher legal ideal (a spook).
Thus the case cannot understated or underrepresentated: If the choice is between rescuing an anarchist or an ML from a burning building, saving one will doom the other. If you're an anarchist you will want to save the formoer, and as an ML you would save the latter. You preserve the individuals most like yourself, we like people who are like us, who fall into our in-group. There is no blame here, I'll save the anarchist, but I wouldn't hold it against the ML to make the opposite decision. There are no apologies, this is the way it has to be, so let it be. The worst you could do is moralize the situation.
Ideas are more dangerous than guns. Guns are a means but ideas are an end in themselves, we wouldn't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them ideas? If nazifags get into power they'll take away our freedom of speech, this acts against my rational self-interest so I see it more of an act of self-defense. The ironic hypocrisy of the liberal in banning guns but not genocidal calls to action should not be understated.
If you were truly an anarchist, you would become the burning building
And what is that link supposed to prove? That Lenin didn't believe that socialism meant an extension of democracy? That Lenin didn't believe in demanding more democratic reforms (like freedom of press) before a revolution could finally topple the ruling class?
The class struggle of the proletariat is, in essence, the struggle to apply democracy to the economic sphere and not only in a very limited sense to the state. The only tension here is between democracy and the bourgeoisie, who want to restrict democracy to a mere formality.
The vast majority of people in capitalist countries are workers. Giving them political power means giving power to the majority.
The opinions echoed in the mass media are largely set within a range established by the bourgeoisie.
"the will of the proletariat" = spooky idealism
Free speech has become much less interesting than the way communication platforms promote and suppress speech.
If you want to say something publicly, you will have little trouble doing so these days. There are many options available to host your message. The trouble is getting people to listen. People today make use of a small number of proprietary communication platforms. These communication platforms have their own internal (psycho-)geography that has been arranged to meet the ends of their proprietors, and are constantly subject to manipulation by external market forces.
What is and isn't allowed to be put on Facebook is way less relevant than what content is shown. When Alex Jones is shoved off YouTube, the question isn't whether he is still able to spread his message online, because he certainly is. The question is whether he can do so effectively. Free speech isn't the question, it is how the way we've set up our infrastructure directs speech.
The special properties of our communication channels used to be much less a topic. Speech was exchanged by word of mouth or the physical transfer of publications. It diffused inside the material realm. This changed with the beginning of post-modernity, as the Situationists were acutely aware of. With the advent of the internet it accelerated even further, and now much of people's speaking and listening takes place in a specially designed virtual space. A virtual space that does not have the topology of the material world or a traditional text.
In this context we should return to the Situationists and put their ideas in a new light. We could take part in digital dérive or something, describe the internet's psychogeography. Bring it to people's attention.
Nigger
But yet you live in liberal capitalist society and you're on here everyday advocating the overthrow of capitalism? People like us who advocate communist revolution are allowed to organize, protest, have podcasts, forums, youtube channels, etc. which we use to spread our ideology. I'm sure you're calling me a fucking liberal in your head right now but don't worry, I'm aware that as soon as communist revolution is a credible threat again, there's going to be some nasty repression of communist speech (which happened all over the liberal, free speech loving western world in the 20th century). Protection of speech that's threatening to the status quo is self-contradictory and will always have limits as argued here .
But I think this is exactly the way it should be in a socialist society as well. There's no point in repressing liberal and fascist speech as long as it's not a serious threat. Doing so would most likely be counter-productive, as the socialist state would appear to be a violent repressive force against ordinary people. This is probably the reason most of us can be communists openly in neoliberal capitalism: censoring a bunch of communist nerds from posting on Zig Forums would most likely just confirm the brutality of capitalism and create more radicals. People don't like being censored.
I know my thoughts on this might seem somewhat contradictory. As I said, I haven't exactly made my mind up about all of this yet.
The root of this discussion is this question: Do we have faith in working people? Do we trust working people to know their own interests, to be able to separate the truth from enemy propaganda, to consciously organize and govern themselves if given the opportunity?
"…the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves…"
marxists.org
"…the present pauperising, and despotic system of the subordination of labour to capital can be superseded by the republican and beneficent system of the association of free and equal producers."
marxists.org
"The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair."
marxists.org
"If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown."
marxists.org
"It would be sheer nonsense to think that the most profound revolution in human history, the first case in the world of power being transferred from the exploiting minority to the exploited majority, could take place within the time-worn framework of the old, bourgeois, parliamentary democracy, without drastic changes, without the creation of new forms of democracy, new institutions that embody the new conditions for applying democracy, etc. "
marxists.org
Free speech, but for who?
yer mum
Relevant works
marxists.org
marxists.org
I found this article an interesting read, some of its iffy but the ending paragraphs gave me something to think about
socialistworker.org
Great quotes.
Today this would obviously have to be a peer-to-peer online platform. The democracy of the future is digital. If any revolutionary party gets in power today, its first task should be development and implementation of such a system. One that can take over the functions of the bourgeois state.
This is the solution of the ancient Marxist communism vs. anarchism puzzle. The state is important in creating the infrastructure necessary for its own annihilation. It ought to immediately start working towards this end, creating a new popular institutional framework that will inevitably make it powerless.
Zig Forums's stance on free speech
A duly self-elected elite has the power and the right to censor and prosecute anyone for what they perceive as wrong-think without question.
...
I've never understood the need for censorship so long as academia plays a greater role in society.
peer-reviewed research and public forum is effective in letting people say whatever they want so long as they don't engage in misdirection. It naturally filters out dumb shit like the Bell Curve which ignore nuance.
Excellent post comrade
Regarding free speech, of course common Marxist critiques are valid (i.e. free speech insofar as it's within the framework of bourgeoisie narratives, etc.), however the fundamental question is this: What brings people to express themselves in threatening and destructive ways ? Of course, there is an underlying presumption in many anti-capitalist circles and movements that there is/was/will be a need for silencing others in some way or another. However, if instead of focusing on the vessel of the expression you remove the causes of the expression, then there is no need to speak in legalist terms.
t. Lenin
I don't know who that Rosa cunt is but she's not my comrade.
free speech in the sense that everybody gets to have a take on the politics of the state won't exist under communism, because there is no politics or state then, all politics becomes the administration of things , in the DotP on the other hand it won't exist either for porky, porky will be suppresed, which means it is not a right as liberals understand the word
You think reasonable people can't disagree about the best way to distribute goods?
What about art? Is there no art in your socialism?
Practically speaking, does this happen under a liberal democracy? Or, rather, does it happen that the tools for suppression that we at least lend legitimacy to are used for suppressing the left instead? I can't really think that those tools won't be used against the left without the left being in power to some extent.
Without that, you have a situation like that in the US where the left is just as often censored as the right, and advocates for online censorship in particular have generally been liberals who wish to censor "extremism" in all its forms, not simply fascism (if they even truly want to censor that), and often times organs attached to the military like the Atlantic Council and the Council on Foreign Relations, groups most likely to help a fascist government, are the greatest advocates for censorship. Leftists just play useful idiots for liberals and fascism when they're cheering censorship under such circumstances.
Personal experience, user.
I've just come back from the gulags on the false charge of "bad faith". The mod claims I am insincerely socialist. It was a trumped up charge and the worthless appeal was put up for ridicule, but taken down so that I have no way of even defending myself against those sneers.
Mods aren't the same as the userbase here, there's overlap between what parts of the userbase believe and what some mods believe but this isn't uniform. You could argue we'd go to Zig Forums if we disagreed so much with the mods here but the network effect is in place here just like any other "social media" site, and I'm not sure I trust the Zig Forums mods any more than the ones here.
Unscientific. Rosa does not advocate for free market of ideas, but free battle of opinions. Two opinions enter, one opinion leaves.
There can be only one
New information arises which may challenge that one opinion, and what then?
You have another go.
I'm fine with the user base here. If I get to talk to them, if I get to debate them without fear, you see?
The moderators on Zig Forums seem chill. Slow board though
This is true. What defines left is anti-authoritarianism and what defines right wing is authoritarianism. Capitalism is inherently authoritarian so libertarians and "anarcho"-capitalists are right wing.
What is the argument there tho, that at the margins the left is allowed to develop which could turn into a mass movement, so allowing dissidents is a good idea for America? Good for us right now, but if the state ruthlessly squashed every dissident left voice the margin would likely be even thinner than it is now, and more hidden. Which has definitely worked for them in the past, and it worked for the USSR in suppressing fascists dissidents, and it seems to largely work in China where they have leftist organizing, but the party co-opts what it can and dispersed the rest. Meanwhile, up to 70% of the population are reportedly in favor of the party.
Which is just to say, repression works for who it is applied against. Sure, the USSR fell to revisionism, but revisionists weren’t the ones targeted. The original revisionism wasn’t framed as market reforms exactly, it was framed as things like using shadow prices and profits to enhance production for the transition to greater socialism. Or in China the same thing, with the strategy to bring in more foreign investment and foreign currency through controlled exports and sanctioned investment zones to “move towards the development of MoP for next stage of socialism” etc. This was all given cover as “still socialist”, within the confines of allowable discussion. What wasn’t allowed was alternative parties or fascists, which all got effectively crushed and suppressed. So the real problem here isn’t that suppression of free speech allows some fight club movement of secretive dissidents to gain mass support, it rarely if ever goes that way. It’s that the controllers of the repressive state may even nominally agree with you (“we are the communist/people’s party!”), but in reality the suppression of speech is the suppression of dissent against the group of cadres in power right now and their right to maintain it. Non-ideologically. It’s just realpolitik.
Also, I’m not necessarily against freeze-peach. I am agnostic on the issue. I don’t get fully convinced by its defense or attacks against it. It seems like dissident speech just isn’t the core problem in a lot of cases, it is what is causing it. But the world is imperfect, and sometimes it seems as though you have to choose between allowing the dissension or not. Like in a situation where there is a real existential threat, and you can’t fix the underlying issue right now but you know that it has to be fixed. You are threatened by a group who you know will not fix that issue, but either ignorantly or opportunistically use it to gain power. The stakes are high, if they gain power they may immediately purge everyone and crush dissent from their enemies which won’t be able to foster an insurgency for decades, generations. But perhaps you’re suppression of them will rot the state. What do you do?
bump
git gud
Free speech how-to:
If your political enemies try to censor you, accuse them of violating freedom of speech. Whenever you can, censor your political enemies.
Does free speech include citing PragerU as a source? Can it also include PragerU citing itself as a source?