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.
Wrong again. And this time Im starting to feel insulted with such gratuituous accusation. Fascism needs to be exposed, dismantled… Not allowed to fester… it should be studied in schools and disarmed… not hidden from view and let to develop in the shadows. You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting my argument.
You are the one trapped in idealism since you are unable to see the objective power imbalance and instead seem to want to look for moral benefit/happiness…
Allowing fascist newspapers and fascist speech to fester out in the open, rather than shutting it doen, is letting it grow. I’m not at all “trapped in idealism” by saying that fascist speech should be censored by the working classes.
“The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul, the embodiment of a people’s faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world… It is the mind of the state that can be delivered into every cottage more cheaply than material gas.”
Karl Marx
Yes, what context was he writing about here? Do you think he was also in favor of asking the bourgeoisie nicely to give up their power? Here’s Marx talking about putting “right” over the level of development of society:
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
A genuine free press can only happen in communist society after class struggle has ended.
No, he was in favor of giving the power to the working class, not to some elite that limits what the working class can do, learn about or be exposed to.
“The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves.”
Yes, so the working classes censoring the speech of liberals and fascists to prevent the restoration of bourgeois rule is absolutely in the rights of the working classes to do. A socialist state thetefore should be able to crack down on liberals and fascists, and not let their ideas fester freely.
“The censored press has a demoralizing effect. … The government hears only its own voice, it knows that it hears only its own voice, yet it harbors the illusion that it hears the voice of the people.” Karl Marx
You say it’s the “working classes” the ones censoring the speech, but you are falling into a “who watches the watchmen?” problem
Marx argued that the only way to truly defeat speech is to prove it wrong in the “light of day”
“If you do not believe in the victory of truth, you are committing a crime against truth.”
“Truth is as little modest as light… Truth is universal, it does not belong to me, it belongs to all; it owns me, I do not own it.”
Truth that requires a policeman to protect it from being challenged isn’t actually truth at all… but just some idealistic subjective point.
Again, you’re talking about Marx arguing for freedom of speech in the context of capitalist states censoring communists, and trying to apply it to socialist states censoring liberals and fascists. The “marketplace of ideas” is liberal bullshit, the one that controls the press controls which class’s point of view is espoused in society. Debate and critique happen all the time in socialist countries, just not in ways that platform liberals and fascists (and even then, sometimes that still does happen).
You’re treating Marx like a religious figure, trying to take a quote out of its necessary context and dogmatically applying it to circumstances that only arose after Marx died. Truth isn’t what “wins in debate,” it’s objective reality, and allowing the bourgeoisie as a class to dominate the press and make their point of view dominant from a misguided idea that this will “expose their flaws” shows that you’ve learned nothing from the real experience of a century of existing socialism.
Europe has pro-Nazi organizations, but they are clandestine. In the same way as China opens the door for capitalist talking points by openly censoring them, Europe gives munition to nazis by refusing to let them expose themselves. Nazism is a stupid ideology that would not stand its ground were its mask to fall.
There are documentaries protesting against neonazis and talking about their proliferation and rise… but I can’t check and link them because they are not allowed, “not available in your country”, particularly in Germany.
I’m convinced that if the reality of nazism was more public, antifascist sentiment would rise.
Can you link to me government officials openly declaring themselves nazis? …I want the actual direct declaration.
I think the reason they got the government is PRECISELY because they keep the mask. Trump has already said multiple times he’s not a nazi, do you think he would win approval if he came out and said he is?
Elon Musk did a seig heil on stage to a roaring crowd for Trump’s inauguration. He did it twice. His punishment? They appointed him the head of a government task force and then he wrecked a bunch of agencies in the name of “”“efficiency”“”
Where’s the declaration? Elon has publicly said he’s not a nazi too, even as a response to that. So mask is still on.
You don’t have to look far to find people saying that they don’t believe this was meant as nazi support, so it clearly didn’t really expose him on the eyes of the public.
If their mask were off they would not need to dog whistle.
A seig heil is an open declaration. That was a clear, mask-off moment and denying it is a joke. You’re moving the goal posts.
And sure, they’ll deny it, but that’s because they’re lying liars who love to lie. They don’t lie because they think anyone will believe them, they lie because they think it’s funny. They love to make people mad by lying to their faces. It’s like the Sartre quote:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play."
The denial is literally a joke. The joke is serious too, of course, because that’s how Nazis always are. They’re always joking and serious at the same time, and they can freely switch between being serious and joking around as it pleases them. They take the mask off and put it back on for fun.
But they aren’t being censored. Wasn’t that your original point? That censorship makes them stronger? But, they aren’t censored.
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.
Wrong again. And this time Im starting to feel insulted with such gratuituous accusation. Fascism needs to be exposed, dismantled… Not allowed to fester… it should be studied in schools and disarmed… not hidden from view and let to develop in the shadows. You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting my argument.
You are the one trapped in idealism since you are unable to see the objective power imbalance and instead seem to want to look for moral benefit/happiness…
Allowing fascist newspapers and fascist speech to fester out in the open, rather than shutting it doen, is letting it grow. I’m not at all “trapped in idealism” by saying that fascist speech should be censored by the working classes.
“The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul, the embodiment of a people’s faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world… It is the mind of the state that can be delivered into every cottage more cheaply than material gas.” Karl Marx
Yes, what context was he writing about here? Do you think he was also in favor of asking the bourgeoisie nicely to give up their power? Here’s Marx talking about putting “right” over the level of development of society:
A genuine free press can only happen in communist society after class struggle has ended.
No, he was in favor of giving the power to the working class, not to some elite that limits what the working class can do, learn about or be exposed to.
“The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves.”
Yes, so the working classes censoring the speech of liberals and fascists to prevent the restoration of bourgeois rule is absolutely in the rights of the working classes to do. A socialist state thetefore should be able to crack down on liberals and fascists, and not let their ideas fester freely.
“The censored press has a demoralizing effect. … The government hears only its own voice, it knows that it hears only its own voice, yet it harbors the illusion that it hears the voice of the people.” Karl Marx
You say it’s the “working classes” the ones censoring the speech, but you are falling into a “who watches the watchmen?” problem
Marx argued that the only way to truly defeat speech is to prove it wrong in the “light of day”
“If you do not believe in the victory of truth, you are committing a crime against truth.”
“Truth is as little modest as light… Truth is universal, it does not belong to me, it belongs to all; it owns me, I do not own it.”
Truth that requires a policeman to protect it from being challenged isn’t actually truth at all… but just some idealistic subjective point.
Again, you’re talking about Marx arguing for freedom of speech in the context of capitalist states censoring communists, and trying to apply it to socialist states censoring liberals and fascists. The “marketplace of ideas” is liberal bullshit, the one that controls the press controls which class’s point of view is espoused in society. Debate and critique happen all the time in socialist countries, just not in ways that platform liberals and fascists (and even then, sometimes that still does happen).
You’re treating Marx like a religious figure, trying to take a quote out of its necessary context and dogmatically applying it to circumstances that only arose after Marx died. Truth isn’t what “wins in debate,” it’s objective reality, and allowing the bourgeoisie as a class to dominate the press and make their point of view dominant from a misguided idea that this will “expose their flaws” shows that you’ve learned nothing from the real experience of a century of existing socialism.
So Neo-Nazis should be free to organize and spread propaganda freely?
Do you condemn Germany for not having main stream pro-Nazi organizations like you condemn China for not having capitalist ones?
Again, they should be exposed.
Europe has pro-Nazi organizations, but they are clandestine. In the same way as China opens the door for capitalist talking points by openly censoring them, Europe gives munition to nazis by refusing to let them expose themselves. Nazism is a stupid ideology that would not stand its ground were its mask to fall.
There are documentaries protesting against neonazis and talking about their proliferation and rise… but I can’t check and link them because they are not allowed, “not available in your country”, particularly in Germany.
I’m convinced that if the reality of nazism was more public, antifascist sentiment would rise.
Explain the US, where there is no censorship of pro-Nazi opinions and yet mask-off pro-Nazi ideology made it into the government.
Your thesis, that censorship just makes ideology stronger, isn’t borne out by how Nazis are coming to power in the real world.
Mask-off??
Can you link to me government officials openly declaring themselves nazis? …I want the actual direct declaration.
I think the reason they got the government is PRECISELY because they keep the mask. Trump has already said multiple times he’s not a nazi, do you think he would win approval if he came out and said he is?
You are making the point for me.
Elon Musk did a seig heil on stage to a roaring crowd for Trump’s inauguration. He did it twice. His punishment? They appointed him the head of a government task force and then he wrecked a bunch of agencies in the name of “”“efficiency”“”
Did you forget? It’s only been a year.
Where’s the declaration? Elon has publicly said he’s not a nazi too, even as a response to that. So mask is still on.
You don’t have to look far to find people saying that they don’t believe this was meant as nazi support, so it clearly didn’t really expose him on the eyes of the public.
If their mask were off they would not need to dog whistle.
A seig heil is an open declaration. That was a clear, mask-off moment and denying it is a joke. You’re moving the goal posts.
And sure, they’ll deny it, but that’s because they’re lying liars who love to lie. They don’t lie because they think anyone will believe them, they lie because they think it’s funny. They love to make people mad by lying to their faces. It’s like the Sartre quote:
The denial is literally a joke. The joke is serious too, of course, because that’s how Nazis always are. They’re always joking and serious at the same time, and they can freely switch between being serious and joking around as it pleases them. They take the mask off and put it back on for fun.
But they aren’t being censored. Wasn’t that your original point? That censorship makes them stronger? But, they aren’t censored.
So your answer is yes, you condemn Germany for censoring Nazis?