I don't believe free speech is necessarily a good thing. Racists, fascists, liberals, religious people, etc. should not just be allowed to shit in the well of public opinion.
If you are engaged in class war, it would make perfect sense to ban those who oppose class strugle or work against your class from expressing themselves. That's exactly what the bourgeoisie does all the time, suppressing ideas that go against their interests or threaten their dominant role in society. "Free speech" has never existed and it shouldn't exist.
No, this doesn't make you a "red fascist", it makes you an actual threat to the ruling class.
>religious people shouldn't be part of a revolution
>90% of the world population shouldn't be part of a revolution
So, any other great ideas?
>>2930416>That's exactly what the bourgeoisie does all the time, suppressing ideas that go against their interests or threaten their dominant role in society.No, it isn't, retard. The Western bourgeoisie controls the proletariat mostly via co-option, not coercion.
Agreed but who decides what is racist, fascist, liberal, religious and so on?
But what if you are a fascist (Z) but fight even the bigger fascist (NATO) online?
>>2930435OP decides, and guess what, buddy…?
You're banned from the revolution.
Of course by fascist, I mean people I disagree with.
to think freely is great
to think correctly is greater
Correct take unironically
Under Capitalism, ruling class Revisionists/reformists/reactionaries use free speech to push bourgeois ideology, but for the working class free speech is just a vent for frustration and doesn't actually get things done. So called "free speech" works when our enemies use it, but it doesn't work when we use it. This is because the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. So the problem isn't "free speech" but class society. Free speech doesn't actually exist in practice because every bourgeois government with nominally "free" speech has either cracked down on it arbitrarily during moments of crisis, or used it as a bait to get people to openly express revolutionary sentiment, and paint targets on their own backs. To outlaw free speech under capitalism is completely arbitrary bourgeois despotism and has nothing to do with socialism. The only positive takeaway from such an action is that it potentially accelerates class struggle by oppressing critics of the bourgeoisie. But such accelerationist rhetoric is potentially shortsighted if it does not consider many other material factors, like the level of militancy of the proletariat, and their level of willingness to engage in class struggle.
If we are talking about the separate question of whether "AES" regimes should restrict free speech, my question becomes "Who's free speech are we restricting?" Just because an "AES" regime claims to be silencing the reactionaries, revisionists, and reformists doesn't mean that they actually are. Such policies run the risk of decaying into opportunism. It is very easy for an "AES" managerial bureaucracy to silence all critics, including revolutionary proletarian critics, and claim to be "merely" silencing revisionists, reformists, and reactionaries.
So the final question becomes "Is free speech actually dangerous?" The two headed critique I see is that "under AES, free speech is literally a threat to restore bourgeois society" but "under Capitalism, free speech is just meaningless yapping that poses no threat." Maybe that is because "AES" regimes are threatened by a global economy that is still capitalist, and they are mere islands of socialism, isolated and surrounded by enemies. Maybe the problem lies in the mode of production and class society and not merely "free speech" as a checkbox that you toggle on/off at will.
>>2930447all 3 jaks are doing great man theory
Free speech for everyone except jakposters
>>2930507> the problem isn't "free speech" but class societythis is the TLDR for those who don't want to read my reply in full, but I encourage that you do.
Free Speech Is Neither Free Nor Speech
Free speech is not free because every society attaches costs to expression. Capitalism makes influence purchasable. The state makes some forms of dissent punishable. Social institutions make conformity advantageous and disagreement costly. Cultural hierarchies determine whose words receive credibility, while channels of communication mediate visibility through systems that individuals do not control.
And free speech is not simply speech because communication is never just the production of words. It is an institutional process involving access, distribution, interpretation, and power. To speak is one thing; to be heard is another; to influence the conditions of collective life is something else entirely.
The promise of free speech suggests a level playing field on which ideas compete according to their merits. But speakers do not enter that field with equal resources, equal security, equal credibility, or equal access to the audience. Some own the microphone. Some control the venue. Some establish the rules. Others are technically permitted to speak but lack the means to make their voices matter.
This does not prove that freedom of speech is meaningless. It reveals the difference between a legal right and the social conditions under which that right can be exercised.
The fundamental question, therefore, is not merely whether everyone is allowed to speak. It is who bears the costs of speaking, who controls the channels of communication, whose words receive attention, and who has the power to determine what counts as legitimate public discourse.
A society may guarantee the freedom to speak without guaranteeing the freedom to be heard. The distance between those two promises is where the politics of free speech begins.
The right to speak, the capacity to be heard, and the power to shape public discourse are three different things. Humanity disagrees about how to reconcile them, while offering ways to examine the gap between the promise of free speech and the conditions under which people actually communicate.
Myasnikov got it right, pretty much everyone can handle free speech expect for outright reactionaries who will just use it as an opportunity to try and form paramilitaries,commit random acts of sadism and cannot be reasoned with in any meaningful way.
>>2930508Retard uygha forgot when Marx said "men make their own history"
>>2930526but they do not do it as they please
Unique IPs: 13