/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

i don't give a fuck about abstract rights and other liberal drivel

>>2815847
it is the least abstract thing lol. like if you didnt have the right to free speech you couldnt even post on this website

>>2815959
I don't care, freedom is a stupid bourgeois construct, a spook if you will. now just to keep these proles happy, I would offer them some kind of bare minimum freedoms, but other than that, they must live breathe and die in the name of the communist struggle. get with the program, or in the gulag

>>2815959
Yes you could. Not having a right to free speech isn't the same thing as having guaranteed suppression of speech
95% of what everyone says is banal. Even in liberal strawman DPRK or Oceania from 1984, people are free to conduct banal conversions. No country has ever banned saying hello or discussing the weather (in a local sense at least)

Constitutionally codified free speech rights are a rarity.

>I am in favor of free speech because it does not challenge my power, but gives those weaker than me the illusion of freedom by allowing them to criticize me impotently, and robs them of the "censored underdog" clout they crave.
This is really a concept that communists should be more open to. The illusion of free speech, free association, and free democratic participation is perhaps the single most effective tool of dissent management in capitalist society. I've never understood why communist states so often resort to censorship and repression over taking measures to render opposition impotent the way liberals do.

Anyway: protection of free speech necessitates suppression of free speech. Either my right to yell over you trumps your right to be heard (I suppress you) or your right to be heard trumps my right to tell (you suppress me)

I will not, as an illustrative point, flood the thread with furry pornography.

>>2815967
>>2815847
>>2815970
What a retard

>>2815974
hey leftkkkom, you know you're getting gulaged once I take power right?

>>2815973
>I will not, as an illustrative point, flood the thread with furry pornography.
please do. I absolutely want your furry porn to trump my ability to resist.

>>2815836
No investigation, no right to speak.

>>2816006
You are never getting into power

>>2816020
yes but did you read and understand the question or the dynamics it was pointing out? how people behave differently when in and out of power, and even within the international communist movement there is different articulations of this principle depending on strategy as well?

>>2816020
>No investigation, no right to speak.
Hi Mao, I am a physicist. I have a PhD in physics. I have studied physics for decades. I have done much investigation and therefore have much right to speak. I have helped our country develop nuclear weapons to defend itself from imperialism. I believe I have a right to speak about physics-

RED GUARDS, SEIZE THIS BOURGEOIS ACADEMIC! I BET HE BELIEVES IN CATHOLIC BIG BANG THEORY AND NAZI EVOLUTION THEORY!!

>>2815836
My only interest is to ensure that the proletariat class acquires its political supremacy; all who deny this are enemies who will be crushed and re-educated in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Why should I believe in class conciliation if I am not a reformist? You will have freedom of speech as a proletarian, freedom of conscience, a press controlled by the democratized proletarian class, among other things, as long as it is not any bourgeois freedom, bourgeois independence, bourgeois individuality.

The state is an instrument of one class to oppress another, and therefore any repressive power given to the bourgeois state will be used against workers and communists who will have to overthrow the bourgeois state to install the dictatorship of the proletariat, to abolish private property, abolish the anarchy of production, and abolish social classes. The only point I consider is whether an instrument is useful for advancing the class struggle.

Furthermore, the bourgeois state represses communists anyway. The bourgeoisie needs to maintain illusions for a segment of the masses who believe in the superstitions of the bourgeois state, because this is cheaper than constant repression that will alienate a part of the masses who will demand more bribes. Furthermore, manipulating useful idiots with false consciousness is cheaper than having to bribe many people, even though the bourgeoisie will give money to some of its puppet agents who will spread false consciousness to co-opt those who question, moderate those who cannot be fully co-opted and who oppose the interests of the bourgeoisie, create passivity and apathy, deceive others by spreading prejudices and false information opportunistically to encourage confusion and tame potential threats to the ruling class.

>>2816140
nobody here doesn't want the proletariat to have political supremacy. try resolving the contradictions implied in the question instead of shutting down mentally like a robot and repeating your mantras and implying disloyalty

>>2815836
>free speech
I am in favor of real freedoms for the Working class over liberal ideals of "freedom". Real freedom in any society is based within the interests of a particular class. In dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois have real freedoms because they privately own the means to meaningfully speak, move, act, and influence government. The workers have none of these in such a society, even if they have the "right" on paper to scream at cars at a street corner or post into the void on Twitter. These things aren't meaningful speech, and this is why they are tolerated (to a point) by bourgeois society. Bourgeois freedom is inherently tyrannical and empty for the working class.

In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the worker democratically controls these things, and therefore has real freedom. They can not only speak, they can meaningfully speak both directly and through elected representatives. They own the means to publish their own work and collectively build up their class perspective as hegemonic in society. Likewise, the worker's access to education reflecting their interests, meaningful work, and enriching community enables them to move and act with real freedom. The worker's state additionally ensures the worker's freedom to influence government. This is all at the direct expense of the bourgeois classes, who are suppressed and liquidated as a class.

>>2815847
Based

>>2815971
Because "communist" states are such in name only and know that if criticism were allowed their power would crumble immediately. They are not confident in their ability to keep the masses pacified except through overbearing force, which is an implicit admission they are not serving the masses.

When in power I would say I, against extremists exploiting free speech for their agenda when not in power I say I’m for it so that communists can get more influence in government

>>2815847
It's not merely an abstract liberal right. if the party becomes revisionist before completing its historical duty, and the the non-party proletariat is not allowed to criticize the party, then you have not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a bureaucratic apparatus of a re-emerging bourgeoisie, posing as a proletarian vanguard.

>>2816163
>I am in favor of real freedoms for the Working class over liberal ideals of "freedom".
There are negative "freedoms" which are freedoms "from the doings of others" and positive "freedoms" which are freedoms "to do things" that mutually exclude one another. For example, the freedom to exploit is mutually excluded by freedom from exploitation. The freedom to become a member of the ruling class is mutually excluded by the freedom from class society. The nullification of exploitation is not merely the reversal of exploitation. For a non-class example the nullification of patriarchy does not consist in making men into housewives, and women into chauvinistic husbands. Similarly, the nullification of class society is not simply the making of bourgeoisie into proletariat, and proletariat into bourgeoisie.
>Real freedom in any society is based within the interests of a particular class.
If freedom can only exist for a particular class, then that precludes a society without class, which is why I find this definition limited in its self conception.
>The workers have none of these in such a society, even if they have the "right" on paper to scream at cars at a street corner or post into the void on Twitter. These things aren't meaningful speech, and this is why they are tolerated (to a point) by bourgeois society. Bourgeois freedom is inherently tyrannical and empty for the working class.
I agree.
>In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the worker democratically controls these things, and therefore has real freedom.
Ideally. If the party becomes revisionist before completing its historical duty, and the the non-party proletariat is not allowed to criticize the party, then you have not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a bureaucratic apparatus of a re-emerging bourgeoisie, posing as a proletarian vanguard, as in the dying days of the USSR (without dispute), or even earlier (as many dispute). So while I agree here, I insist upon caution, because not every society calling itself a dictatorship of the proletariat is actually a dictatorship of the proletariat, nor remains one without degenerating into opportunism, revisionism, liberalism.