Hey bro, nice video and by no means a novice question. Rather, it is one which every socialist must address and often divides us. First off, I think that the comment from callingcox below me is guilty of naivety when he states that: "The historical conditions which lead to the counter revolutions suppression in the USSR just dont exist in the US" I would guard against such complacency. In a revolutionary situation, those loyal to the previous system will undoubtedly launch counter revolution.
Excellent video, brother! It's so cool to see you talking about this stuff. Don't worry about scripting. It keeps you on track. You did great! 100 Stars! It's a great question. Personally I don't think we have much of a choice in the matter. Our socialism is either free or it's a sham. And that freedom must entail freedom of speech, so the anti-socialist morons can talk all the crap they want. I'll try and develop this more in a video response. Congratulations!
Freedom of speech would mostly likely be completely intact in a current day socialist society. However, I would assume that there would be incredibly steep punishments for any yellow journalism. As you have noticed, unfounded dissent in a socialist society could be quite troublesome. But if anyone fights for civil liberties, it is that of a communist. During the Spanish Civil War, both the fascists and the communists threw their propaganda at each other. It ended up boiling down to dissension-
a fragile and delicately balanced period (revolution) which just so happens to be for the emancipation of the proletariat. There are those who want to have everything their own way. We'll have a nice, clean, healthy revolution. No nasty authoritarianism. Engels once wrote of Anarchists: "Have these people seen a revolution? It is surely the most authoritarian thing there is." For the liberation of future generations - is it worth potential sacrifice of some liberty? I say "yes."
First of all: Marx and Lenin were great theorical advocates of free speech, but they were very autoritarian (marx in the 1º internationale and Lenin in URSS). What I really think is a society must be mentally and willingly prepared for a change like that one. Just like Weimar republic and Spanish 2º republic failled because his society wasn't ready for a change of that magnitude, the transition from capitalism to socialims must be something the society is ready for.
I would never allow the nazis to make a base party in my nation, they can speak their views no matter stupid they may be, but i would never give them their own party. That is a right, reserved for only for the sane of mind. Good video! and good points.
In the intervening five years, none of them were closed, nor were any of their journalists incarcerated. Rather, the Chavez administration met with them, not to change their editorial slant, but to reach agreements preventing a repeat of such anti-democratic measure and the hyperbolic misrepresentation of facts, and also to discourage such continued infractions as the airing of pornography and cigarette commercials.
My theory is, that before we can succesfully revolutionize the actual political system, the minds of the masses need a revolution. The majority of the people need to clearly understand the problems of capitalism - and the communist answers for them. The people need indeed be "smart enough" to know that the system of communism is best for society, cause if they dont, the revolution won't succeed or its results will come to a quick end. The most important thing to do therefore is to educate people
a right that can be taken away is only a privledge. I think the government should step in by countering with its own messages. Overpower the hate with love and support. There will always be hate.
Did you read it? Did you get offended by the way they phrased something, and kinda just ignored what it said from then on? A lot of stuff offends me, but I still (surprisingly (o_o) ) manage to get by with it.
The historical conditions which lead to the counter revolutions suppression in the USSR just dont exist in the US, therefore the revolution will be different in many ways. 1) The USA is not a backwards country. We have a well developed infrastructure. 2) we have more arms and military training than any other nation. 3) it would take all of the capitalist imperial nations (the EU, Japan) to suppress a popular socialist revolution in the US-and we have advantages across the board
@Potts132 shit man! St-Petersburg? wow thats epic. i've never been to leningrad volvograd or kursk and i wish i could get myself over to Petersburg. hey-uh... you speak Russian?
dissension within both groups. The communists were fighting over which side had the right idea on how the revolution would go, then followed up with making specific militia groups, fighting on the same side, illegal. The fascists had roughly the same internal squabbles because their precious proletariat wasn't supplying for them as well any more. In the US we don't hear about how bad capitalism is, we just hear the two sides bicker about who is more right. I think the same would happen.
Most regimes had to resort to force since you will never never get everyone to agree with you, this on top the harassment from anti-socialist countries makes the struggle even more intense.
Dont mind flockofgoatse he's just mad after i completely destroyed him on the "Latin America: A struggle" video. Back to the question i dont see why freedom of speech in the state it is today couldnt translate well to the workers state. The question is have we ever had a freedom of speech wich have been more free than somebody had decided that it should be?
and, talking about that: I hate -ism. What we should think of are actual measures, one by one, and see who they benefit, the wealthy or the poor, and then go towards that goal.
But, anyway, we're talking about Capitalism (more or less, 500 year old) and Marxist Socialism (150 year old). The capitalism Marx and his predecessors were facing wasn't nowadays capitalism at all. I like to think that a new millenium should bring up a new world with new ideas. These new ideas should be of equallity, democracy and wellfare for all, and i mean all, human beings. It should be something halfway between radical capitalism and URSS comunism.
Re: How can a socialist society progress if dissent is prevalent? The society could be shipped to north korea (socialist government) where dissent is not allowed and everybody has equal amount of communication (none) with the outside world. Hey, it is possible.
"Socialism is an economic system. You are automatically assuming that a socialist economy means a authoritarian/totalitarian government that infringes on liberty." It is the condition of convergence. They will always converge to authoritarian systems. The speed of convergence varies but it is convergent nonethless.
The north korean constitution might say a lot of things but kim il sung never meant it to be anything less than a monarchy and even when he was trying to convince people of his ideas he always mentioned that the core of the government would be a radicalist oligarchy
@Potts132 OK i know this is strange but i was born in NYC and i live in Montreal... but my accent is WAAAYYY better than most immigrants that came at say 3 years old. its cause i spend every summer in Ukraine and all large vacations in Moscow... how bout you?
Since most Communist/Socalist revolutions take place in poor countries with a vastly uneducated population, the spread of rumours or disent is dangerous, since it can spread like wide fire without people questioning or reasoning.
in a true socialist country free speech would be as welcome as it is in any capitalist country ,in fact in order for the country to function corectly it would be a requirement because as the country would be run from the bottom up (as opposed to the top down as we have under capitalism) in order to highlight any flaws in production or services the people would have to highlight them . as for political desent socialists openly welcome it because i beleive that socialist thory can win any disput
quite literally mean 'war'. I can't speak for the US, but here in the UK, during WWII, we lost some liberties. Elections were, quite sensibly, cancelled. Being realistic, we couldn't allow Brits to rush around distributing Nazi propaganda whilst we geared the nation to fight Fascism. Would it have been worth the freedom of speech if it had damaged support and caused Fascism to reign? A revolution is no different in my opinion. I think that whilst freedom of speech is precious, we're discussing
A transitionary period is unlikely to be perfect, making it easy for counter-revolutionaries to propagandise. I think it's a question of gauging the threat. If capitalism were under threat, would you have free speech such as you do now? No, we'd face Fascism. If the revolution is under threat, we'd most likely face similar curtailment of liberty. If the revolution is not under threat, then we could afford more liberty. I also think that communists should be aware that revolution can quite
Free speech should never be banned. But the answer to your question depends on what you mean by "socialism". If you mean Lenin style dictatorship then it will be banned, because the state has the power to do so. But if we're talking Libertarian style council communism then any neo-nazis would just be regarded as foolish by the population who see the benefits of being in control of their own lives.
Actually, the biggest "socialist" country that has ever existed, i.e., the USSR, wasn't a capitalist country at all before that. It was stuck in the "old regime", still with traditional means of production and stuff, so...
Freedom of speech would definitely be allowed but capitalist counter-revolution would not. Capitalist speeches and other things would definitely be suppressed. That's the entire point of the DoPt
in a socialist society 4 example if the 80-90 percent of the people have class-conscience the other 20 percent will critize the govenmnert(capitalists), but if the poeple support socialism and they keep on breathin and embrasiiing , it will carry on from one generation to another,until borugiose ideas will be gone by then.mentaly people will become class-conscience unity.but socialist society will abolish capitalist ideas (e.g.greed,companies)
Im in the US NAVY and we are run under socialism. We follow a lot of the same factors, because it keeps us in order. Apparently the people we defend, like yourself, do not support us in th military.
no i wasnt offended, and i havent completely read it yet, too busy with school and all, but i do know how the original plans for communism (Marxism) is a bit different then how it end up turning out in the real world. ; )
I am more of a logical man... I belevie in science, but I see how religion plays an important role in everyones lives. Though I don't like religion for reasons even I don't understand, I think freedom of religion and freedom of speech are important. Communism is a great system, it's just been worked into the wrong government numerous times wich has lead to a negative name for it... I hope I did not offend anyone with this statement. Good day to you all.
Then why does the north korean constitution declare north korea as an official socialist state? Seriously, it proclaims it at least 30X in the constitution. By the way I still want to be your comrade.
im american and communist i discovered capitalism ITS A GARDEN OF DIRTY SHITTY WATERMELONS its hard being an american and secretly a communist should i tell my family comrade? what should i do
There is no '' socialist'' state in Europe, social 'like states that could be true, but a state that is in transition of Capitalist to Communist, no that one isn't here in western Europe.
Freedom of speech would remain intact throughout. Why are freedom of expression and Socialism exclusive? You never explain the connection (mostly because there is no connection). Yeah, you'll have people dissenting socialism... so? Big deal. It won't harm the cause.
A purely Capitalist society with the freedoms of life, liberty, and property is the best way to ensure maximum liberty for all. Read a book by Milton Friedman and your well-meaning, but ignorant, self will be converted to the ideas of free-market Capitalism.
I think your mixing up communism and Socialism. socialists dont repress freedom of speech, thats more of a communistic ideal, Socinus replied to this vid and he is right.
lol... You already got commented for insulting a system. People should learn not to take advantage of somethings faults. I've just about given up on humans for doing that. :(
As far as "learning from you" that was a joke. But you do realize this is a "video" site, right? If you really have something worth saying, get a webcam. Make a video.
You should be able to answer this yourself. "Views contradictory to the state" Let me show you why this is a problem: Any government today would suppress someone who was talking of bringing down the government, its common sense, any country would do it and has done it; however, when you change that system to a socialist system, you expect this to no longer occur? Wrong. Its perfectly fine having other views, but if you think you are going to commit an act against the state or talk about changing the state or bringing down the state, of course you will be suppressed. Again, this would happen in any country today. Just look at the US detaining Islamic speakers because they "Might" commit terrorism. Or the UK detaining the rapper Lowkey for boasting anti-state sentiment. I don't think you truly had a problem with this or else you'd be speaking out against these types of things, the logic is exactly the same in a socialist society; however you must consider a socialist society is not in the same context or social construct as a capitalist lassez-fairre society like the US. Thank you.
yet again, u fail to see the point of my comment im english, i speak the english dialect, therefore i speak the english language, u speak the american dialect, english also, but i was using type speak, makes things easier, come over to britain sometime, where u can learn what half the words you using mean, instead of pretending u do ^ Type speak
perhaps if you could put words together to create sentances that made sense, instead of placing many political terms often meaning the same thing in one line and oh yeah, go get some friends, get off your computer chair, and if you belive in freedom of expression, do what i do, write "save tibet" all across your local council to actually achieve something instead of rambling senslessly about things that dont matter, to anyone, even tho u think they do
Youre a walking contradiction. You dont want to restrict the freedom of speech but you want the govt to restrict the free market. Predetermined pricing structures stifle economic freedom and skew allocations but you have no problem with that at all..... You make no sense at all. You have to be for both freedoms, neither or have a comparamentalized mind to accept one and reject the other.
Hey bro, nice video and by no means a novice question. Rather, it is one which every socialist must address and often divides us.
First off, I think that the comment from callingcox below me is guilty of naivety when he states that:
"The historical conditions which lead to the counter revolutions suppression in the USSR just dont exist in the US"
I would guard against such complacency. In a revolutionary situation, those loyal to the previous system will undoubtedly launch counter revolution.
Excellent video, brother! It's so cool to see you talking about this stuff. Don't worry about scripting. It keeps you on track. You did great! 100 Stars!
It's a great question. Personally I don't think we have much of a choice in the matter. Our socialism is either free or it's a sham. And that freedom must entail freedom of speech, so the anti-socialist morons can talk all the crap they want.
I'll try and develop this more in a video response. Congratulations!
Freedom of speech would mostly likely be completely intact in a current day socialist society. However, I would assume that there would be incredibly steep punishments for any yellow journalism. As you have noticed, unfounded dissent in a socialist society could be quite troublesome. But if anyone fights for civil liberties, it is that of a communist.
During the Spanish Civil War, both the fascists and the communists threw their propaganda at each other. It ended up boiling down to dissension-
a fragile and delicately balanced period (revolution) which just so happens to be for the emancipation of the proletariat.
There are those who want to have everything their own way. We'll have a nice, clean, healthy revolution. No nasty authoritarianism. Engels once wrote of Anarchists: "Have these people seen a revolution? It is surely the most authoritarian thing there is."
For the liberation of future generations - is it worth potential sacrifice of some liberty? I say "yes."
First of all: Marx and Lenin were great theorical advocates of free speech, but they were very autoritarian (marx in the 1º internationale and Lenin in URSS).
What I really think is a society must be mentally and willingly prepared for a change like that one. Just like Weimar republic and Spanish 2º republic failled because his society wasn't ready for a change of that magnitude, the transition from capitalism to socialims must be something the society is ready for.
I would never allow the nazis to make a base party in my nation, they can speak their views no matter stupid they may be, but i would never give them their own party. That is a right, reserved for only for the sane of mind. Good video! and good points.
In the intervening five years, none of them were closed, nor were any of their journalists incarcerated. Rather, the Chavez administration met with them, not to change their editorial slant, but to reach agreements preventing a repeat of such anti-democratic measure and the hyperbolic misrepresentation of facts, and also to discourage such continued infractions as the airing of pornography and cigarette commercials.
My theory is, that before we can succesfully revolutionize the actual political system, the minds of the masses need a revolution. The majority of the people need to clearly understand the problems of capitalism - and the communist answers for them. The people need indeed be "smart enough" to know that the system of communism is best for society, cause if they dont, the revolution won't succeed or its results will come to a quick end. The most important thing to do therefore is to educate people
a right that can be taken away is only a privledge. I think the government should step in by countering with its own messages. Overpower the hate with love and support. There will always be hate.
Did you read it? Did you get offended by the way they phrased something, and kinda just ignored what it said from then on? A lot of stuff offends me, but I still (surprisingly (o_o) ) manage to get by with it.
The historical conditions which lead to the counter revolutions suppression in the USSR just dont exist in the US, therefore the revolution will be different in many ways.
1) The USA is not a backwards country. We have a well developed infrastructure.
2) we have more arms and military training than any other nation.
3) it would take all of the capitalist imperial nations (the EU, Japan) to suppress a popular socialist revolution in the US-and we have advantages across the board
@Potts132 shit man! St-Petersburg? wow thats epic. i've never been to leningrad volvograd or kursk and i wish i could get myself over to Petersburg.
hey-uh... you speak Russian?
this video is absically a two sided debate that everyone thinks about at one point, nice job dude
"Mr.President, this man have a webcam, I should have one too."
dissension within both groups. The communists were fighting over which side had the right idea on how the revolution would go, then followed up with making specific militia groups, fighting on the same side, illegal. The fascists had roughly the same internal squabbles because their precious proletariat wasn't supplying for them as well any more.
In the US we don't hear about how bad capitalism is, we just hear the two sides bicker about who is more right. I think the same would happen.
Most regimes had to resort to force since you will never never get everyone to agree with you, this on top the harassment from anti-socialist countries makes the struggle even more intense.
Dont mind flockofgoatse he's just mad after i completely destroyed him on the "Latin America: A struggle" video.
Back to the question i dont see why freedom of speech in the state it is today couldnt translate well to the workers state. The question is have we ever had a freedom of speech wich have been more free than somebody had decided that it should be?
and, talking about that: I hate -ism. What we should think of are actual measures, one by one, and see who they benefit, the wealthy or the poor, and then go towards that goal.
But, anyway, we're talking about Capitalism (more or less, 500 year old) and Marxist Socialism (150 year old). The capitalism Marx and his predecessors were facing wasn't nowadays capitalism at all. I like to think that a new millenium should bring up a new world with new ideas. These new ideas should be of equallity, democracy and wellfare for all, and i mean all, human beings. It should be something halfway between radical capitalism and URSS comunism.
Re: How can a socialist society progress if dissent is prevalent? The society could be shipped to north korea (socialist government) where dissent is not allowed and everybody has equal amount of communication (none) with the outside world. Hey, it is possible.
"Socialism is an economic system. You are automatically assuming that a socialist economy means a authoritarian/totalitarian government that infringes on liberty."
It is the condition of convergence. They will always converge to authoritarian systems. The speed of convergence varies but it is convergent nonethless.
whats so bad (or even the same) between them?
The north korean constitution might say a lot of things but kim il sung never meant it to be anything less than a monarchy and even when he was trying to convince people of his ideas he always mentioned that the core of the government would be a radicalist oligarchy
@Potts132 OK i know this is strange but i was born in NYC and i live in Montreal... but my accent is WAAAYYY better than most immigrants that came at say 3 years old. its cause i spend every summer in Ukraine and all large vacations in Moscow...
how bout you?
Since most Communist/Socalist revolutions take place in poor countries with a vastly uneducated population, the spread of rumours or disent is dangerous, since it can spread like wide fire without people questioning or reasoning.
in a true socialist country free speech would be as welcome as it is in any capitalist country ,in fact in order for the country to function corectly it would be a requirement because as the country would be run from the bottom up (as opposed to the top down as we have under capitalism) in order to highlight any flaws in production or services the people would have to highlight them . as for political desent socialists openly welcome it because i beleive that socialist thory can win any disput
Freedom of speech is directly related to property rights!
quite literally mean 'war'.
I can't speak for the US, but here in the UK, during WWII, we lost some liberties. Elections were, quite sensibly, cancelled. Being realistic, we couldn't allow Brits to rush around distributing Nazi propaganda whilst we geared the nation to fight Fascism. Would it have been worth the freedom of speech if it had damaged support and caused Fascism to reign?
A revolution is no different in my opinion. I think that whilst freedom of speech is precious, we're discussing
A transitionary period is unlikely to be perfect, making it easy for counter-revolutionaries to propagandise.
I think it's a question of gauging the threat. If capitalism were under threat, would you have free speech such as you do now? No, we'd face Fascism. If the revolution is under threat, we'd most likely face similar curtailment of liberty. If the revolution is not under threat, then we could afford more liberty.
I also think that communists should be aware that revolution can quite
funny you should say that because i actually have a copy of the Communist Manifesto that my parents brought over when they left Communist Hungary.
Free speech should never be banned. But the answer to your question depends on what you mean by "socialism". If you mean Lenin style dictatorship then it will be banned, because the state has the power to do so. But if we're talking Libertarian style council communism then any neo-nazis would just be regarded as foolish by the population who see the benefits of being in control of their own lives.
De-stallinizing since 1953, and still work to do.
why did you hide the eyes after glasses?
Actually, the biggest "socialist" country that has ever existed, i.e., the USSR, wasn't a capitalist country at all before that. It was stuck in the "old regime", still with traditional means of production and stuff, so...
have you read Trotsky?
Freedom of speech would definitely be allowed but capitalist counter-revolution would not. Capitalist speeches and other things would definitely be suppressed. That's the entire point of the DoPt
in a socialist society 4 example if the 80-90 percent of the people have class-conscience the other 20 percent will critize the govenmnert(capitalists), but if the poeple support socialism and they keep on breathin and embrasiiing , it will carry on from one generation to another,until borugiose ideas will be gone by then.mentaly people will become class-conscience unity.but socialist society will abolish capitalist ideas (e.g.greed,companies)
Im in the US NAVY and we are run under socialism. We follow a lot of the same factors, because it keeps us in order. Apparently the people we defend, like yourself, do not support us in th military.
we cant know that it doesnt works because we never tried it.
no i wasnt offended, and i havent completely read it yet, too busy with school and all, but i do know how the original plans for communism (Marxism) is a bit different then how it end up turning out in the real world. ; )
I am more of a logical man... I belevie in science, but I see how religion plays an important role in everyones lives. Though I don't like religion for reasons even I don't understand, I think freedom of religion and freedom of speech are important. Communism is a great system, it's just been worked into the wrong government numerous times wich has lead to a negative name for it... I hope I did not offend anyone with this statement. Good day to you all.
@Potts132 potomuchto america ich pereutchila?
Then why does the north korean constitution declare north korea as an official socialist state? Seriously, it proclaims it at least 30X in the constitution. By the way I still want to be your comrade.
NO it wasn't actually. You can be an empire and still hold an isolationist policy; ie no contact with the outside world. Japan was a perfect example.
I agree , but socialist are against the idea of anarchism after capitalism.
im american and communist
i discovered capitalism ITS A GARDEN OF DIRTY SHITTY WATERMELONS
its hard being an american and secretly a communist
should i tell my family comrade? what should i do
There is no '' socialist'' state in Europe, social 'like states that could be true, but a state that is in transition of Capitalist to Communist, no that one isn't here in western Europe.
Yeah, that's true.
Freedom of speech would remain intact throughout. Why are freedom of expression and Socialism exclusive? You never explain the connection (mostly because there is no connection). Yeah, you'll have people dissenting socialism... so? Big deal. It won't harm the cause.
A purely Capitalist society with the freedoms of life, liberty, and property is the best way to ensure maximum liberty for all. Read a book by Milton Friedman and your well-meaning, but ignorant, self will be converted to the ideas of free-market Capitalism.
I think your mixing up communism and Socialism. socialists dont repress freedom of speech, thats more of a communistic ideal, Socinus replied to this vid and he is right.
You are saying that communism is fascism.
comunism, marxism, leninism, socialism... the same kind of crap. It must be all obliterated.
lol... You already got commented for insulting a system. People should learn not to take advantage of somethings faults. I've just about given up on humans for doing that. :(
It's true i would have once agreed with you, now i challenge you to ask this of a nazi. The reply you receive is the reason for my answer.
As far as "learning from you" that was a joke. But you do realize this is a "video" site, right? If you really have something worth saying, get a webcam. Make a video.
flockofgoat doesn't know what he's talking about. Get a webcam so you can teach us all. Thanks
....thats what i said....communists dont like freedom of speech....and wow that took a long time for you to reply hah.
@Potts132 hey me too!
You should be able to answer this yourself. "Views contradictory to the state" Let me show you why this is a problem: Any government today would suppress someone who was talking of bringing down the government, its common sense, any country would do it and has done it; however, when you change that system to a socialist system, you expect this to no longer occur? Wrong. Its perfectly fine having other views, but if you think you are going to commit an act against the state or talk about changing the state or bringing down the state, of course you will be suppressed. Again, this would happen in any country today. Just look at the US detaining Islamic speakers because they "Might" commit terrorism. Or the UK detaining the rapper Lowkey for boasting anti-state sentiment. I don't think you truly had a problem with this or else you'd be speaking out against these types of things, the logic is exactly the same in a socialist society; however you must consider a socialist society is not in the same context or social construct as a capitalist lassez-fairre society like the US. Thank you.
communism is against anarchism.
@Potts132 i think you're wrong... :P
LOL
I have only one thing to say: Read Gramsci.
yet again, u fail to see the point of my comment
im english, i speak the english dialect, therefore i speak the english language, u speak the american dialect, english also, but i was using type speak, makes things easier, come over to britain sometime, where u can learn what half the words you using mean, instead of pretending u do
^
Type speak
perhaps if you could put words together to create sentances that made sense, instead of placing many political terms often meaning the same thing in one line
and oh yeah, go get some friends, get off your computer chair, and if you belive in freedom of expression, do what i do, write "save tibet" all across your local council to actually achieve something instead of rambling senslessly about things that dont matter, to anyone, even tho u think they do
lololololololol you have no idea what the term free market is....
Don't use a song written by John Lennon - almost certainly a socialist - to introduce a video on you ignorantly bashing Socialism. Thanks.
you have a double chin
Youre a walking contradiction.
You dont want to restrict the freedom of speech but you want the govt to restrict the free market. Predetermined pricing structures stifle economic freedom and skew allocations but you have no problem with that at all..... You make no sense at all.
You have to be for both freedoms, neither or have a comparamentalized mind to accept one and reject the other.