Marx didn’t also believe that it is necessary for the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and strip them of their political power, including their speech:
Marx believed the bourgeoisie must be stripped of class power, but he was a lifelong opponent of state censorship.
“If the immaturity of the human race is the mystical ground for opposing freedom of the press, then certainly censorship is a most reasonable means of hindering the human race from coming of age.”
As for capitalist countries censoring the speech of communists, they already do this. Always have and always will.
You are avoiding the question: do you think it’s wise or not?
Personally, I despise when capitalist states censor communist speech… just as much as I despise it when socialist states censor capitalist speech.
If you think I’m a sympathizer or glosser of the way capitalist states operate, you are wrong. I’m highly critic of them, systemically. And I’d rather continue being able to openly criticize whatever system I find has systemic problems.
For me, transparency is more important than the economic model. I’ll openly embrace a fully transparent communist country, in the same way that I might embrace a fully transparent capitalist one (provided there’s still agreed-upon social control, I don’t want a wild west situation).
The thing is that, as things stand, China would not be as happy to have me criticize it as the West does. And that tilts the balance to one of the sides when in comes to that principle.
Marx talking about censorship in the context of 0 existing socialist states is entirely different from the question of whether or not the capitalist class should be given free reign and control of the press, by which it can freely espouse disinformation and attempt to undermine democratic institutions for the purposes of restoring their class power. You cannot simply take a statement outside of its necessary context, Marx advocating for freedom of the press within capitalism does not at all mean he believes capitalists should be able to undermine socialism once established.
As for whether or not it is “wise” for capitalists to censor communist speech, the answer is yes, for capitalists to protect their class interests. I can despise that choice while recognizing its strategic advantage for capitalists, just like I can approve of socialists restricting bourgeois class power. By equating the oppression of capitalists by the working classes with the oppression of workers by the capitalist classes, you’re reducing your analysis to simple phrasemongering. As long as class struggle is alive, the working classes must make use of what they can to prevent capitalists from regaining control. Allowing the spread of misinformation and disinformation out of some abstract moral virtue is to sabotage the working class.
Marx talking about censorship in the context of 0 existing socialist states
Ok, so you are saying that Marx has never had a context that allowed him to make the statement you just made about him before.
This implies you admit Marx never said what you attributed to him. You can make hypothesis of what he would say, but I can make mine too. I don’t necessarily think he would be ok with censorship in a mature communist state, he’ll see that as a means to keep people from “coming of age”, a form of oppression. Free workers don’t need an elite to to tell them what they need to think.
whether or not the capitalist class should be given free reign and control of the press
But that was not the point. Where did I say that the capitalist class should be given free reign and control of the press?
You talk as if any thought that’s anti-system must automatically make the person who had it part of the capitalist class.
The “capitalist class” is not a state of mind… it’s a real oppressor with economic power… one does not become “capitalist class” just because they have a wrong thought. For me, as a materialist, “thought” is not really relevant when it comes to modelling the economic power structure.
I can despise that choice while recognizing its strategic advantage for capitalists
Then that’s our difference. I despise that strategy because it’s fundamentally flawed, for the reasons I provided before.
equating the oppression of capitalists by the working classes with the oppression of workers by the capitalist classes
I did not say or imply that, this is another strawman.
A worker is not a state of mind, it’s a real person at the bottom of the hierarchy… you don’t suddenly stop being a worker just because you had the wrong thought.
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.
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.
Marx believed the bourgeoisie must be stripped of class power, but he was a lifelong opponent of state censorship.
One quote from him (source):
“If the immaturity of the human race is the mystical ground for opposing freedom of the press, then certainly censorship is a most reasonable means of hindering the human race from coming of age.”
You are avoiding the question: do you think it’s wise or not?
Personally, I despise when capitalist states censor communist speech… just as much as I despise it when socialist states censor capitalist speech.
If you think I’m a sympathizer or glosser of the way capitalist states operate, you are wrong. I’m highly critic of them, systemically. And I’d rather continue being able to openly criticize whatever system I find has systemic problems.
For me, transparency is more important than the economic model. I’ll openly embrace a fully transparent communist country, in the same way that I might embrace a fully transparent capitalist one (provided there’s still agreed-upon social control, I don’t want a wild west situation).
The thing is that, as things stand, China would not be as happy to have me criticize it as the West does. And that tilts the balance to one of the sides when in comes to that principle.
Marx talking about censorship in the context of 0 existing socialist states is entirely different from the question of whether or not the capitalist class should be given free reign and control of the press, by which it can freely espouse disinformation and attempt to undermine democratic institutions for the purposes of restoring their class power. You cannot simply take a statement outside of its necessary context, Marx advocating for freedom of the press within capitalism does not at all mean he believes capitalists should be able to undermine socialism once established.
As for whether or not it is “wise” for capitalists to censor communist speech, the answer is yes, for capitalists to protect their class interests. I can despise that choice while recognizing its strategic advantage for capitalists, just like I can approve of socialists restricting bourgeois class power. By equating the oppression of capitalists by the working classes with the oppression of workers by the capitalist classes, you’re reducing your analysis to simple phrasemongering. As long as class struggle is alive, the working classes must make use of what they can to prevent capitalists from regaining control. Allowing the spread of misinformation and disinformation out of some abstract moral virtue is to sabotage the working class.
Ok, so you are saying that Marx has never had a context that allowed him to make the statement you just made about him before.
This implies you admit Marx never said what you attributed to him. You can make hypothesis of what he would say, but I can make mine too. I don’t necessarily think he would be ok with censorship in a mature communist state, he’ll see that as a means to keep people from “coming of age”, a form of oppression. Free workers don’t need an elite to to tell them what they need to think.
But that was not the point. Where did I say that the capitalist class should be given free reign and control of the press?
You talk as if any thought that’s anti-system must automatically make the person who had it part of the capitalist class.
The “capitalist class” is not a state of mind… it’s a real oppressor with economic power… one does not become “capitalist class” just because they have a wrong thought. For me, as a materialist, “thought” is not really relevant when it comes to modelling the economic power structure.
Then that’s our difference. I despise that strategy because it’s fundamentally flawed, for the reasons I provided before.
I did not say or imply that, this is another strawman.
A worker is not a state of mind, it’s a real person at the bottom of the hierarchy… you don’t suddenly stop being a worker just because you had the wrong thought.
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.
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.
Really giving the game away with this one. Lol.
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.