/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I'm anti-censorship, but the stuff you write after your conclusion is stupid.

Preventing scams is not necessarily censorship. Scamming amounts to a kind of theft in its most serious forms, and no state worth its salt should be permissive of it. There will always be people dumb or desperate enough to fall for certain scams, and there will always be scammers figuring out novel ways to rob people. Allowing people to go around defrauding others with impunity is negligent. Maybe you can offer a little bit of gray area for people to say ""unproven"" things, but there's no reason to allow outright scams.

>Sometime people also pretend that censoring pedo-crap protects children, which in my humble opinion is disingenuous, once there is cp on the net, the abuse already happened and the damage is done.

This bit just sounds like bait. If you were talking drawn shit with no references, that would be one thing, but actual CP? The reason that real CP should be suppressed isn't just to protect the specific children depicted, but to suppress the market for CP itself. It should be as difficult as possible (without restricting less harmful internet activity) to market and post it. Distribution of CP should absolutely be suppressed. It should not be posted, collected, or sold, because these activities stimulate a direct market for it.

I'm generally skeptical of pretty much all people "raising concern" over there not being enough censorship, and they tend to use things like fake news and child abuse (an actual issue) to cynically advance draconian policies with much broader negative implications… for the most part we have too much censorship, but CP is one of the very few areas where the amount of censorship is just right.

There is inevitably, in some way or another, a censor regulating speech and public morality. There are no "natural censors" that would produce a coherent censorship regime, but there are always forces suggesting a moral program whose points are necessarily consistent with each other to exist. If no such morality or ethos exists, a vacuum will be filled to create such, whether the morality is written down or not, or whether it is a secret code enforced by taboo.

This used to be understood. Only under eugenism, where the censorship role of the eugenic institutions must hold untrammeled authority and it is illegal to say that this is indeed what happens, did the idea of "absolute free speech" exist. Free speech as a legal right never suggested anyone had an unlimited right to speak or even that the state's regulation of speech should be highly liberal and permissive. That's a Germanic corruption and bowdlerization. All the legal right to free speech meant is that the federal government wasn't going to break everyone's presses and throw them in gulags if they refused to issue government propaganda. It didn't take long for the US to pass censorship anyway, and it has always stood up in court. Over the years censorship was refined, and of course the government can through eugenics laws and various other laws detain anyone for any reason, so all of this stuff about legal rights died a century ago. The idea that the government wants you to have a voice is laughable though, let alone this moral equivocation which is always a Germanic corruption and false egalitarianism. So far as the first amendment had a purpose, it was entirely about disallowing mechanisms that would consolidate power in the hands of a single man. All of the Bill of Rights was about precisely that problem, the fear of a dictatorship. rather than some Germanic horseshit about "unlimtied freedom" or freedom as a symbolic token word, an empty sentiment. The German philosophers of course did this because they believed in absolute autocracy and wanted the exact opposite of a free society. This used to be taught to people, who understood the republic was not democratic or intended to include them. It helps to know what this is, and flagrant lying about the nature of the government is a Germanic invention.

>>471296
Preventing scams is not necessarily censorship.
Fair enough, i mostly care about the countermeasure to scamming being not a fragile system.
>Allowing people to go around defrauding others with impunity is negligent.
I didn't try to make a case for making fraud legal or anything.

Maybe i did not make my self clear, i'm not suggesting that we pull any punches against scams and fraud, just reconsider the strategies to make it durable. The soviets squashed most of the bullshit, but all it took was an institutional malfunction and all the bullshit flooded back in. It feels like all they did was hold it at bay. Why haven't Pyramid scams gone extinct by now like some of the bullshit that actually has gone extinct. For example the tricks that show-magicians perform those used to be deployed to screw people over, but now pretty much everybody has the concept of "illusions can trick my perception" in their brain and nobody will attribute supernatural phenomenon to this kind of stuff anymore. That's like a really robust counter-measure because people actively seek out and thoroughly enjoy their "anti-scam mental hardening training".

>The reason that real CP should be suppressed isn't just to protect the specific children depicted, but to suppress the market for CP itself.
I understand the reasoning, but you are still just talking about the distribution of cp. Why wouldn't you go after the production of cp. There can't be that many cp-producers, it should be possible to take those out of commission and then the phenomenon should wither away. It feels like I'm getting resistance for proposing to go after the route cause of the problem, and i'm being nudged back towards sisyphusian solutions that amount to little more than hacking at "branches of evil" that will just grow back.

>I'm generally skeptical of pretty much all people "raising concern" over there not being enough censorship, and they tend to use things like fake news.
It's pretty easy to stump those people, if you demand that all the mainstream media be categorized as unreliable "misinformation"-prone sources for having perpetuated the lie about Saddam Hussein's imaginary weapons of mass destruction that was used to manufacture consent for the Iraq war.

>>471298
>I understand the reasoning, but you are still just talking about the distribution of cp. Why wouldn't you go after the production of cp. >There can't be that many cp-producers, it should be possible to take those out of commission and then the phenomenon should wither away. It feels like I'm getting resistance for proposing to go after the route cause of the problem, and i'm being nudged back towards sisyphusian solutions that amount to little more than hacking at "branches of evil" that will just grow back.


… But people do go after the producers of CP. People get arrested for creating child porn all the time, it's not really an either / or situation, this. Producing CP is considered an even more serious crime than distributing it, but distributing it is also extremely bad.

Also, it's not like there's a fixed pool of CP producers lmao. Even if you arrest all the guys currently producing it (which you should), there are always going to be more guys. It's like expecting murder to wither away when you arrest all the murderers - people arrest all he murderers they can catch (who aren't protected by law…), but there will always be more murderers.

>It's pretty easy to stump those people, if you demand that all the mainstream media be categorized as unreliable "misinformation"-prone sources for having perpetuated the lie about Saddam Hussein's imaginary weapons of mass destruction that was used to manufacture consent for the Iraq war.

Ok, yeah, it's a gotcha, but what's sinister about that kind of figure isn't that their arguments are so good, it's that they've usually got some serious capital, media, and agencies backing them. If national politics were up to pure reason, the Iraq war would never have happened; even the MSM's echoing of the govt's lies really was not good reason to destroy that country. They'll manufacture a reason, they'll tell everyone it's a good reason, they'll make all kinds of emotional appeals, and they'll use big platforms and repetition to sell that their proposal is popular and makes sense, and people will fall for it most of the time if they do it hard enough.

>>471300
>Even if you arrest all the guys currently producing it (which you should), there are always going to be more guys. It's like expecting murder to wither away when you arrest all the murderers - people arrest all he murderers they can catch (who aren't protected by law…), but there will always be more murderers
I think this is wrong. Murder as a crime will never go away because killing is such a fundamental survival trait. However what ever drives the cp thing is probably a side effect from a cultural phenomenon, like the abandoned praxis of Chinese foot-binding. Stuff like that can be routed out and then it'll stop reproducing it self. I think it might have something to do with extreme wealth disparity, because so many of these cases with minors getting sexually abused involves very wealthy people.

>what's sinister, it's that they've usually got some serious capital, media, and agencies backing them.
there has to be a weakness that can be used to monkey wrench that system

>the govt's lies really was not good reason to destroy that country. They'll manufacture a reason, they'll make all kinds of emotional appeals, and they'll use big platforms and repetition to sell that their proposal is popular and makes sense, and people will fall for it most of the time if they do it hard enough.
I think that emotional appeals can wear out eventually, if they make too many emotional appeals that go against the immediate interests of people they will snap out of it. The repetition system will definitely wear out. That can easily trigger heuristic defense mechanisms in the brain. If they push a propaganda narrative where you happen to know enough detailed insider information so you can't be fooled, you're going to pick up on the pattern and after that it'll become incredibly obvious every-time they do it, and you won't be fooled again.

>>471301
>I think this is wrong. Murder as a crime will never go away because killing is such a fundamental survival trait. However what ever drives the cp thing is probably a side effect from a cultural phenomenon, like the abandoned praxis of Chinese foot-binding. Stuff like that can be routed out and then it'll stop reproducing it self. I think it might have something to do with extreme wealth disparity, because so many of these cases with minors getting sexually abused involves very wealthy people.

No, this is a bad take. There were pedophiles thousands of years ago. There isn't a cultural boundary, here, this is literally just an abnormal sexual phenomenon which occurs in every culture at fairly low rates.

>there has to be a weakness that can be used to monkey wrench that system

I mean, there are things, but there's not a magic bullet.

>I think that emotional appeals can wear out eventually, if they make too many emotional appeals that go against the immediate interests of people they will snap out of it.

No, that's not how propaganda works.
If this was one or two people making a single argument, then the emotional appeal could fail like a regular argument can fail. Rather, you'd have the emotional appeal, a bunch of data which might or might not support it (but would be presented as if it did), pseudo-popular campaigns to turn the public off to more rational arguments, a manufactured media circus which portrays everything within the confines of whatever false dichotomy is beneficial, a bunch of authority figures cheerleading it, etc. It will seem like the popular thing, and people will go along with it just because of that, or they'll at least be too demotivated to offer any resistance when the politicians all get on board.

Good propaganda is designed to override people's defenses on a large enough scale to be effective. That's not to say it can't fail, but you can't assume that it will ever fail, either. It will most likely succeed, and the appropriate thing is to plan for circumstances where it accomplishes all it sets out to accomplish - what would be useful then? Labor organization, capacity for communication, arms, etc. The people who won't fall for it need to be as solid as possible or they will be wrecked.

>>471298
>I'm generally skeptical of censorship .. but CP is one of the very few areas
But how can you justify building a censorship apparatus to do it, and you can't possibly make the case that something like this wouldn't be abused, given the rising abuse that currently happens with censorship already in both the private and public sector. The ruling ideology that is being pumped through the media-mainstream has become extremely anti-democratic. Like the ministry of truth type of stuff where investigative journalism that speeks truth to power now gets criminally diffamated and politically persecuted as """foreign disinformation""". Or like that "perception management office" that the pentagon is building which looks and sounds like they're going to do "information warfare" against civilians.

If the media landscape was still dominated by calls for lowering wealth inequality via wealth redistribution, and staunch opposition to any kind of warmongering, like when the internet was still relatively free, maybe there would be some trust that implementing a censorship system could be kept in check with civil society organization and harsh punishments for abuse. But now ? In the current political climate ?

To me women usually max out their attractiveness between 25-35. To me the type of barely legal loliporn is already pretty jarring. While it would admittedly be a tempting cultural bribe to me if the excessive youth fetishism was curbed a little, it's not worth killing democratic political discourse over it. It won't be long and i'll be able to install a open source computational efficient AI image-filter in my browser plug in and then i won't have to suffer brief moments of cognitive discomfort when clicking the wrong category on pornhub, and that will fix it for me.

The rest of the "pedo-problem" has to be solved by proper police work in meat-space. Instead of torturing computer-cops by making them look at pedo-pictures all day, make them do investigative work in the "real world". There are other technological directions too. When children are getting subjected to unwanted sexual advances that has to generate distinctive physiological stress responses. It should be possible to make a stress-meter wrist/arm-band type gadget that records a narrow band of abuse related physiological signal patterns and have that act as an early warning system. Not just for pedo-abuse but also other types of abuse. If you don't do something stupid like turn it into a tracking beacon by putting wireless communication into it and enabling potential kidnappers to use it for "tracking their pray". Social acceptance for bio-loggers would probably be pretty high. It would be much more efficient and have zero risk of politically motivated abuse. And consider that unlike the signals intelligence on the internet that will always suffer from strong systemic biases and interference, a physiological data-logger measures objective medical data. If you do enough rounds of scientific research and engineering optimizations, you can have a cheap power efficient device that runs off body-heat, motion-energy and photo-voltaics with enough measurement depth and accuracy to even record nerve impulses in the body and allow you to exactly reconstruct when and where touch and pain sensations happened. It might take on a forensic quality. And you won't even have to spend any political capital by making it mandatory, parents are going to want this because they will see it as a protective aura. Of course i only guarantee political success for this as long as you're not putting a radio into it. If this thing emits radio signals those will get used in a kidnapping-ransom-scheme of some rich-people-offspring, or worse a kid gets attacked by a drone homing in on a signal, and it'll be over and politically dead.

>>471303
>No, this is a bad take. There were pedophiles thousands of years ago. There isn't a cultural boundary, here, this is literally just an abnormal sexual phenomenon which occurs in every culture at fairly low rates.
The politics of safety of children from "pedo-attacks" always manifests at the same time when wealth inequality surges upwords, and there seem to be disproportionately many extremely wealthy people involved in "pedo-affairs". It's not a big stretch to make that connection with social conditions. Maybe there also is a "naturally" occurring base-line phenomenon in addition to the social one, however that would not correlate with changing wealth concentrations, that would likely be something constant.

>Good propaganda is designed to override people's defenses on a large enough scale to be effective. That's not to say it can't fail, but you can't assume that it will ever fail, either. It will most likely succeed, and the appropriate thing is to plan for circumstances where it accomplishes all it sets out to accomplish - what would be useful then? Labor organization, capacity for communication, arms, etc.
That is solid advice but if you connect propaganda narratives with a moral obligation to suffer worse material conditions, like what is happening now, people will eventually reject those narratives. Worsening material conditions conflict with the survival imperative. We're probably not special people for snapping out of it, we're likely just slightly more sensitive than most and thus only ahead of the pack.

>The people who won't fall for it need to be as solid as possible or they will be wrecked.
So they want to murder the people they can't fool, like a theocracy ?
We had theocracy before, and it's power completely and utterly decimated during the enlightenment. Maybe we have to revisit the enlightenment to see how that was done and adapt past methods to the present conditions.

>>471318
>But how can you justify building a censorship apparatus to do it, and you can't possibly make the case that something like this wouldn't be abused, given the rising abuse that currently happens with censorship already in both the private and public sector.

CP is already illegal and it's fine.
Like the mechanisms with which we currently censor CP work. They're fine. We don't need more, but also we don't need less. That's what I'm saying, this is one of the only areas of censorship which is not broken & doesn't need to be fixed. No one needs to be in a panic about it one way or another. No reform is needed on this 1 specific front.

>Instead of torturing computer-cops by making them look at pedo-pictures all day, make them do investigative work in the "real world".

They already do that.

>When children are getting subjected to unwanted sexual advances that has to generate distinctive physiological stress responses. It should be possible to make a stress-meter wrist/arm-band type gadget that records a narrow band of abuse related physiological signal patterns and have that act as an early warning system.

God, this has to be a bit.

>The politics of safety of children from "pedo-attacks" always manifests at the same time when wealth inequality surges upwords, and there seem to be disproportionately many extremely wealthy people involved in "pedo-affairs". It's not a big stretch to make that connection with social conditions. Maybe there also is a "naturally" occurring base-line phenomenon in addition to the social one, however that would not correlate with changing wealth concentrations, that would likely be something constant.

No, actually, this stuff is pretty much constantly occurring. The "surges" are mostly just surges in attention, and while they sometimes relate to specific actual offenders (like Epstein & friends), they don't generally reflect an uptick, and a lot of times they end up being twisted into moral panics over other shit. Generally the real scandal with wealthy sex traffickers, rapists, etc. is that they get away with it for prolonged periods of time - otherwise, child rapists are getting arrested all the time on lower levels, though there's at least a little bit of questionable entrapment shenanigans going on at those lower levels.

>That is solid advice but if you connect propaganda narratives with a moral obligation to suffer worse material conditions, like what is happening now, people will eventually reject those narratives. Worsening material conditions conflict with the survival imperative. We're probably not special people for snapping out of it, we're likely just slightly more sensitive than most and thus only ahead of the pack.

The thing is, there are still "treats" for people who fit in better. A lot of folks like treats, even a lot of folks who know stuff is getting worse might still be swayed by some economic mobility, or might at least have a firm understanding of how much worse things can get.

>So they want to murder the people they can't fool, like a theocracy ?

What? No. I'm just talking about opposition being subverted, sabotaged, etc.

>>471291
I couldn't agree more OP.
It's lame and liberals constantly say this, but, this is when a broken clock is actually correct; The best way to suppress ideology is to mock it and dismantle it on the free market of ideas(TM).
When you start suppressing ideals that just gives people justification E.G "The jews have to be behind this because everywhere I turn what I am saying is being suppressed!"
The best way from a tactical perspective is to allow your population to enjoy a level of free speech even if you or the state do not directly agree with what they are saying.

In this way the actions of the state appear more justified and you are less likely to have people fighting to over throw you. Humans are naturally free animals from birth and will fight to preserve that freedom. We have inherent rights. so many people on leftypol disagree with this, but, that is obviously a case of putting ideology over rational thinking. We are supposed to be building socialism not larping like we live under the soviet union in 1928.

>>471298
Freedom of expression ends when you start infringing on the rights and freedoms of others. That's slavery.

>>471330
>CP is already illegal and it's fine. Like the mechanisms with which we currently censor CP work. They're fine. We don't need more, but also we don't need less.
Oh you're talking about websites deleting CP ? yeah nobody cares about that.
That's what I'm saying, this is one of the only areas of censorship which is not broken & doesn't need to be fixed. No one needs to be in a panic about it one way or another. No reform is needed on this 1 specific front.
Some time ago there was talk about apple installing a file scanner on people's devices and a bunch of other draconian shit.
>The thing is, there are still "treats" for people who fit in better. A lot of folks like treats, even a lot of folks who know stuff is getting worse might still be swayed by some economic mobility, or might at least have a firm understanding of how much worse things can get.
You are describing a clan-society the upper limit for that is around 10k people. If bribes are the only thing that are supposed to uphold the system, you are telling me that we're heading towards the state apparatus breaking.
"folks" you sound like a political speech writer

>>471334
>Oh you're talking about websites deleting CP ? yeah nobody cares about that.

What else would I be talking about?

>Some time ago there was talk about apple installing a file scanner on people's devices and a bunch of other draconian shit.

Yeah, and that shit is obviously insane and cynical. There's existing censorship of CP which is fine.

>You are describing a clan-society the upper limit for that is around 10k people. If bribes are the only thing that are supposed to uphold the system, you are telling me that we're heading towards the state apparatus breaking.

What? No, I'm literally describing the benefits offered in the first world - the idea of being able to live in relative comfort, with sedentary high-paying jobs (albeit often ones with a lot of time required), with a bunch of current luxuries appeals to people who can get those things. That's not bribery, that's just the ideal of white collar labor in the heart of the empire. "Bribery" would be, for the US, bringing the welfare state back… which, tbc, would actually be more functional than what we've currently got here.
Fuck you I'm from Georgia.

>>471291
>The Soviets had some censorship (although not to the degree that anti-communist propaganda says) and it did not prevent the revisionism from spreading.
Because the state catholic scholastry that's called "Marxism-Leninism" is revisionism, you spooked theologist? & the same way Rome named everything it didn't like as heresy, the same way Moscow named any deviation from its' interests as revisionism?
Imagine thinking that everybody (incl. Marx (incl. Lenin)) who disagrees with the bourgeocracy on a particular political topic must be a marxdamn sekrit porkie trying to return some part of the world back under the hold of the old metropolies. Oh wait, the ruling class of United States of Soviet (Great) Russia was doing it the entire time since 20s & they, the same people, still occupy all positions of power in the post-soviet republics! Oh well, oh well, who could have known that coomrade Margz defined the bourgeoisie as specifically relating to the means of production, controlling them de facto as their private property, disregarding the form of production management under which they operate! F-fucking ultras!
>People got accustomed to sanitized information
& that was precisely what the bourgeocrats wanted: an obedient mass of civilians believing whatever shice their managers will tell them. What, you thought all the supposedly unbelievable bullshit they, again, would say about the history of SU in the late 80s to skew public view into support of reinstating the institution of private property wasn't exploiting this same weakness?
>Censoring News about terror attacks might be reasonable. Terrorism as a political strategy would be completely ineffective if there was no medium to spread the fear.
"Terrorism" false-flagging bullshit was invented by the secret services precisely for terrorizing the public into conforming with whatever crackdowns, arrests & assassinations these same secret services would like to execute on their enemies. 9/11 & the Ryazan incident are just two examples of this method.


>My conclusion is that censorship is largely not worth it.
Just like non-official marxists always held it. Propaganda, however good may be its' cause, is always eroding minds into obedience with whatever would be loaded onto them next time. It teaches to react, not to investigate. To feel, not to think. To conform, & not to critique.
Or why do you think one of the main critical tasks for the Nazis was providing a radio receiver to every single family?


>>471297
>The idea that the government wants you to have a voice is laughable
On the contrary, the government always wants you to have a voice so
1) you will get into squabbles with other people due to the difference in your proposed ideas (upper order through the lows' disorder)
2) when you don't have a voice or you feel that your voice doesn't matter then you start to abstain from society system & become radicalized, appearing dangerous to the status quo through your mental disobedience alone. There are studies that target precisely this phenomena.


>>47131eight
>"pedo-problem" has to be solved by proper police work
>It should be possible to make a stress-meter wrist/arm-band type gadget that records a narrow band of abuse related physiological signal patterns and have that act as an early warning system
>Social acceptance for bio-loggers would probably be pretty high
>parents are going to want this because they will see it as a protective aura
Hello, officer.
& no, the left thought is all about returning all power to the public, not about further centralisation & empowering of the repressive state apparatus which is taking as much political power from the public into its' private property as it can.

>>471368
>The State atheist soviet communists were actually religious capitalists
It would be more helpful if we could criticize 20th century communist projects rationally without this emotionally charged nonsense.
The Soviets were correct on many points and they also were incorrect on other points.

>>471368
>you will get into squabbles with other people due to the difference in your proposed ideas (upper order through the lows' disorder)

<upper order through the lows' disorder
This seems like a useful concept to consider. It's a variation on ruling through divide and conquer, but it might actually be helpful to think about it in terms of order and disorder.

How would you go about on inverting it, towards the end of creating order for the lows and disorder for the uppers.
Like specifically what type of discourse makes the lows talk to each other and realize their common interests ?

A huge pitfall in this argument is that many people will approach the topic of censorship from the liberal and western perspective of free speech. Before you answer this question you must remove yourself from that platitude

>>471440
what's wrong with free speech?

>>471441
>what's wrong with free speech?
There's nothing wrong with it, if you have a reasonable definition of speech.
For example bribing politicians, "because money talks", is not a form of speech.

>>471291
>and it did not prevent the revisionism from spreading.
Stopped reading here. Dogmatist are far worse than any revisionist could be. Its the rotten reactionary anti-progressive conservative approach to communism and it needs to be eradicated with force if necessary.

>>471443
>Dogmatist are far worse than any revisionist could be.
That is objectively wrong, the revisionists brought the 1990s neo-liberal shock-doctrine to the soviets, and the resulting death-toll exceeded that of many wars.

>Its the rotten reactionary anti-progressive conservative approach to communism and it needs to be eradicated with force if necessary.
The capitalist political system generates capitalist factions, like liberals and conservatives. You are not talking about communism or socialism, you are just continuing to play out capitalist factional political fights.

If we remove the capitalist factional politics from your statement, you are saying this:
<communism needs to be eradicated with force if necessary.

I know you are not the only reactionary doing this, there are people on the other side of that capitalist factional politics fight, and if one applies the same logic of removing their capitalist factional politics, they are saying the same anti-communist stuff as you just did.

The result of this scheme is that you can "choose" to have your reactionary anti-communism with for example liberal or conservative characteristics. This is quite deliberate, you get political choices but they're all poisoned with anti-communism.

Real politics begins when you reach the level of political development to prioritize class interests.

>>471442
This is a huge strawman argument because obviously communists do not support Capitalism. this is the kind of slight of hand authoritarians use to institute authoritarian policies.

>>471449
>This is a huge strawman
No, "money-speech" is a legit example of an abusive definition of speech.

>this is the kind of slight of hand authoritarians use to institute authoritarian policies.
Because free speech is an """authoritarian""" policy ?

>>471450
I don't understand what you are saying:
Free speech under liberal democracy is different than free speech under a global communist economic system and will be driven by two different material conditions. Where as capitalism incentives the powerful and oligarchical to control the narrative communist world would not face this same problem due to the nature of the economic system itself not being dictated by profits and an economic imbalance between two classes of people.

>>471450
>>471451
Free speech isn’t a static concept, that’s a liberal and idealist interpretation. Free speech, like socialism, is constantly evolving and changing to its conditions. This is on top of the fact that the “free speech” in mind takes on the form of free speech for the proletariat not the bourgeoisie class

>>471452
You have to look at it from a tactical perspective.
Wether you like it or not suppressing freedom of speech only lends credibility to the opposition. Look at the current state of the world and how emboldened the right wing has become through the censorship of their political ideology through social media. If anything people should be allowed to have whatever opinion they like specifically because communism as an economic and political system and ideology holds the high ground

>>471448
>the revisionists brought the 1990s
Wrong.

It was your leninist party who brought it.

>>471442
>There's nothing wrong with it, if you have a reasonable definition of speech.
I have Rosa's definition of it.

Do you?

>>471454
Again there is no such thing as universal free speech. Supporting “free speech” simply means supporting free speech for the bourgeoisie class. You have to educate people on the need for free proletarian speech and to censor the upper class

>>471457
>Supporting “free speech” simply means supporting free speech for the bourgeoisie class.
Nah, it simply means supporting free speech for every class.
If you need to censor ideas for your socio-economic system to reproduce - then your socio-economic system is built on sand, ie it doesn't correspond to material reality.

>You have to educate people on the need for free proletarian speech and to censor the upper class
Translation: our party will tell you what to think.

We've been through this shit already. It doesn't work.

Who will censor the censors?

>>471459
>free speech for every class
lolbert fags can never understand the steps necessary to liquidate class enemies. Or indeed, sometimes, as is the case here, why that would be necessary.

>>471460
The issue with this logic is who is and who is not a certain socioeconomic class is not clearly definable and, as history has repeatedly shown, can been adapted to fit personal biases and individual wills.

>>471457
>i'm just going to ignore everything you said because of my religious fundamentalist beliefs.

Why am I even wasting my time here?

>>471459

He can't seem to produce an actual argument and just wants to resort to personal attacks and doubling down on his initial point.

>>471463
That's not even the main issue. The real issue is that censorship throughout history has always served one fundamental function: it's a conduit for public corruption. The function of censorship is to empower the censor and whatever group of individuals put them in the position to do the censoring.

>>471460
>the steps necessary to liquidate class enemies.

Lets say you have a revolution and then you begin building your socialist society.

You could grant the bourgeoisie free-speech, and then divert considerable resources to debunk all their arguments why they should be allowed to lord over society again. In doing so you have to figure out how to win the ideological battle, and how to win over the minds of the masses. And the reward for all that effort is going to be a society that is very hard to subvert and a socialism that is effective at communicating it's ideas.

You could also silence the bourgeoisie. Given how much repression they are using to impose their ideas on society, you can hardly be faulted for paying them back in kind. However in this case your socialist system does not have to fight the ideological battle, it will not have to learn effective communication to win over the minds of the masses. That system will be less robust, if something subverts or bypasses the censor, all the other defenses will be very feeble.

I don't trust western-imposed notions of ""free speech"". Glasnost's increased speech and press were used to launch literal disinformation campaigns in the USSR. For example Radio Free Europe reached millions of soviet listeners and fomented dissent, nationalist conflicts and market reforms. To the west it's only free speech if they can use it to inject poisonous ideas in socialist societies. In fact the only time it's deemed free speech is when it starts to negatively affect said society, like in 80s Soviet Union.

>>471467
>Glasnost's increased speech and press were used to launch literal disinformation campaigns in the USSR.
That's what your stupid ass gets as a blow back for decades of repressive censorship - people get so fed up with your retarded dogmoid bullshit that they are desperate to believe everything that the other side says.

<Everything they told us about communism was lies. But everything they told us about capitalism was true.

>>471467
Also, Glasnost campaign was not an example of free speech. Gorby just used your very own leninoid censorship apparatus to launch a smear campaign against your ass lol.

Every newspaper was STILL curated by a fucking party functionary. Only now "party line" have changed kek.

>>471467
>For example Radio Free Europe reached millions of soviet listeners and fomented
<counter revolution
That's a case of something circumventing the state censor and then reaching a sheltered society that is not ready to fight ideological battles.

>To the west it's only free speech if they can use it to inject poisonous ideas in socialist societies.
Of course they're hypocrites, but if a socialist society allows free speech, it has to train it's ideology muscles enough to become invulnerable to these schemes.

>>471470
dude there was no need to assassinate anyone lol

those old farts were dropping like flies in the 80s
people were even making bets on who would drop next from the obligatory politburo funeral procession kek

>>471470
they called it "hearse race" kek

>>471368
The government couldn't care less about what you think. They care about meaningful action, not words. Talk is cheap. People are allowed "free speech" because nothing they say can be consequential. When speech suggests a course of action, it will be suppressed. It always has been.

No government gives people a platform to call for reform. They allow speech within predefined boundaries, and historically most people saw that "free speech" was a trap. They knew the country was ruled by secret societies where this shit was really worked out, and if you weren't in the club, you had no voice and your ideas meant nothing.

I hope you would learn by now that the "radicals" are pretty much all regime cutouts to funnel dissent towards useless channels. A worthwhile dissent wouldn't be comprised of edgelords braying about how tough they are. Worthwhile resistance, the thing governments actually care to speak of, concern practical things with a sufficient base willing to fight for them. They laugh at ideology, but when the workers actually take back a piece of their lives, the ideologues shriek and attack. You're allowed performative politics, but you are not allowed the most basic expression of genuine freedom or purpose. You individually are inadmissible in that view of history.

It is curious that the greatest source of genuine resistance isn't "radicals" but ordinary people who have no reason to go along with what they live under and have dug in for the siege. According to the "radicals", ideas are magic and narratives dictate reality. The "radicals" are the most given over to the ideologies of rule in force, disrupting the genuine resistance of people who wanted to stop this and build something substantial. The radicals never move away from ideologies over a century old, because they do not allow new ideas in their world-system. They became inadmissible.

>>471474
>The government couldn't care less about what you think.
I guess that's why they're so desperate to record and catalogue every last bit of then, huh?

>>471476
It's not about an obsession with what you think. So long as you cannot act, words are ephermeal unless they are the ruling words and backed by violence. You can say whatever, but you can't even act in the mildest self-defense or interest. It was when that could be realized that suddenly governments proclaimed they would "defend free speech" purely as an empty idea or thought-form.

First Amendment didn't give you a right to think freely or say anything. All it said is that the states and feds won't seize your printing press if you own one, and this applied to narrowly "political" speech. It's hard to imagine now because the concept is inadmissible, but "state ideology" would have been seen in of itself as not just unconstitutional but sinister. The republic was not an ideological construct demanding submission, but a creature of happenstance where the ruling ideas were hashed out in secret. When the government started barking insane orders that contradicted basic sense and bragged they would do this, the republic and the claims of free speech were entirely pointless, and this was emphasized time and again. The Supreme Court rules that it is illegal to call a fascist a fascist, while fascists are granted impunity. Completely Germanic. The rot has consumed the entire apparatus.

Of course what kept the peace was not some constitutional principle unmoored from the actual purpose of the constitution, but an understanding that the government wasn't going to step on the free people. That's the only thing Americans got out of the system. They didn't believe the institutions or ideology or a piece of paper gave them a single thing.

Free speech as an empty idea is meaningless. Naturally, you are free to say and do whatever you want. Politically, if you don't say or do the right things, you're fucked. That's how it always is in practice. The idea that it was different was only spread when the US Constitution was effectively a dead letter and any purpose of a free press had long been obviated.

>>471476
I shouldn't have to explain why speech typically translates to action, and command and control of information is what governments would do to stamp out threats. Every country has internal police to stamp out revolts and assassination plots - it would be crazy if governments actually conformed to this ideological conceit of retards where they paralyze themselves. Cajolers need to believe history is moved by thought leaders alone. It's a faggot belief.

>>471476
If you think the government really cares to make everyone think the correct thoughts in this obsessive managerial clusterfuck, you do not understand the purpose of the present regime. They go out of their way to emphasize that your thoughts do not matter - they merely throw endless shit at people until they give up, so that nothing new is possible. That's the Germanic way of mind control. What a filthy and stupid race.

>>471476
If the government really cares about controlling your thoughts, they're not going to rely on passive propaganda. You will receive an intervention from one of the institutions that do this - education, psychological, medical - and if that isn't enough, you get a visit from the men/women with the uh-oh badges, who you might have seen at some point in your life if you aren't a fucktard.

>>471481
Point being, if you are anyone important, you're going to have people following you, shrinking you, and making sure you conform to expectations. If you step out of line once, you're fucking done. They don't tolerate mistakes and definitely don't tolerate transgression of the core shibboleths.

>>471482
Increasingly, the political class is under tighter control. If you ever heard of The Family, things like that are part of the culture if you are important. The Family is a relative newcomer, the disciplinary force of a large part of the right-wing elite.

Of course you're going to find certain people skulking around schools and universities. The higher up you go, the more likely you are to encounter the people who really care about what you think.

Most people, they go out of their way to ignore what they think, so long as they are corralled and terrorized. So far as their thoughts are policed, it is done through influencers and secret police seeding narratives to steer the mob, which has worked most of the time. The resistance to this can only manage inchoate expressions as ideas. The resistance has dug in out of necessity, because they know regardless of any stated ideology, they're fucked and no one in the political class is on their side. The people are not as stupid as the ruling ideas require them to be, but the people don't have any vehicle for their ideas to mean anything. To speak against eugenics or any ruling shibboleth with any clarity is to speak of a world that is no longer admissible as "real". I can tell you - I've tried and the usual suspects here do their part.

>>471483
The few proles who are potential nuclei of discontent - and these are usually castoffs of the downwardly mobile bourgeois who are not part of the world to come - are marked down and eliminated with little difficulty. It was very easy to denounce those with discordant political ideas as insane or the kiss of death, "retarded", and that was that. Concepts like the commons, shared wealth, or institutions that resist state mediation and influencers, became inadmissible and verboten. If you ask too many questions, the fear and the shrieking will begin. This has been going on for a century, and now it's locked in.

>>471484
If you were of actual prole origin, you were almost never capable of formulating an independent program without running your mouth and getting kicked down before it started. Usually the proles with revolutionary sentiment were herded into controlled opposition and ideology, not yet being wise to what this really was, and if they strayed from what was acceptable in the radical milieu, it was easy to get the radicals to tear each other down. If that failed, convenient disappearances are always a thing, and this is what happened to those who were not famous. The fame is a double-edged sword, because it opened someone to public scrutiny and made it impossible to hide one's actions or intents, while the intel ghouls operate in the shadows and know the hoodwink. If you weren't vocal and tried to play the sneaky game, you had fewer people willing to bat for you, and all that was needed was to isolate someone and make defending them too painful for their friends and family. The institutions are set up to break up all such relations, unless someone has enough prominence that their disappearance would cause a disturbance. With that established, it was very easy for the ruling interest to install talking heads that could be controlled and jump in front of genuine resistance, and this is a multi-layered strategy.

The full nature of this beast is something many books can be written about, and a barrier to understanding are philosophical conceits that were built into socialism and Marxism in particular. They do it to themselves, and after a while this can't be an accident, because earlier Marxists were aware of conspiracy. The rep of OG Marxists was "left-wing conspiracy crank" and they were pretty badass in that role. The good Marxists today carry on that tradition.

>>471463
>The issue with this logic is who is and who is not a certain socioeconomic class is not clearly definable
>clearly definable
You think like an idealist who abides by static concepts and “definitions”. Just because static parameters can’t be set, does not mean that classes and individuals can’t be analyzed and analysis formed thereafter. It’s very simple, does your speech benefit the proletariat, it’s party, and it’s interests? Then it’s okay even if you are a ceo of a company. Are you trying to subvert proletarian interests or even promote bourgeoisie interests? Then you should be censored even if you work in a factory.

>>471487
Despite making pretenses of being on the left, you haven't the faintest clue of how power relations work. Guess what happens when you give someone the power to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech? It gets abused, dummy. Unless your plan involves giving the reigns over to some fantastically objective AI to determine good from bad speech, the reality is that your utterly naive, idealistic ability to categorize good and bad speech will have to pass through the filter of human enforcement.

>>471487
I think that setting laws on arbitrary shifting castles of sand do more harm than good, yes. The cultural revolution went from: Kill the land lords to, kill the teacher to, literally, kill and beat people we just don't like.
You seem to stupid and incapable to understand basic reasoning so I don't know what to do with you.

Do you think every single person, every plebeian, can be a well versed and deep throated Marxist that under stands the material relations betweemn owners and laborers? I mean you just come off as delusional and ideological to the absolute max.

Whatever nothing I say will change anyt of the stupid shit you believe anyways.

>>471487
>the proletariat, it’s party
I have no party

fuck off cunt, vanguardist scum

>>471487
also reminder that political parties are bourgeois inventions

there can be no such thing as a "proletarian party" - party structure is the very antithesis to the proletarian power

seriously, dumbfuck leninoids need to read some Ostrogorsky tbh

>>471488
I’m not on the “left” I’m a Marxist, retard.

>>471479
God damnit you fucking moron we aren't saying they wouldn't do this but they would also do this to stamp out ANYTHING they find subversive to their political agenda what so ever. Regardless of what it is. Lenoids are literally the biggest brainlets on earth.

>>471625
You're not a Marxist at all, retard.

>>471706
Says the person incapable of material analysis

>>471291
I am against censorship, freedom of religion is freedom of speech in practice.

>>471715
Marx was for freedom of speech and opposed censorship. You can't take the opposite position and claim to be a Marxist.

>>471723
>Ruthless criticism of all that exists
>You can't be a marxist if you disagree with marx

While I agree the anti free speech lenoid revisionist is a retard that is incorrect.

>>471716
>freedom of religion is freedom of speech in practice
depends on what you mean by "freedom of religion"

freedom of any organized religion is the enemy of freedom - you give them an inch and they'll take a mile, just look at russian orthodoxy

as the old revolutionary saying goes "No freedom to the enemies of freedom"

>>471730
You sound like a Trotskyist

>>471810
>freedom of any organized religion is the enemy of freedom - you give them an inch and they'll take a mile
Religious freedom is always also freedom from religion, you are correct about that.

The Soviets doing state-atheism and the west doing secularism that did break the power of organized religion to impose religious terror.
But only for religions with supernatural believes. Most of the major historic religions have been or are being pacified. The Catholics an the Protestants aren't leading their "sheep" into "holy-wars" against each other anymore, these days the Pope pleads for peace when he meets with heads of states, not for crusades against the "heretics". Islam's battles between Shia and Sunni are not gone entirely but are trending downwards.

However this isn't over yet. Organized Religion doesn't have to be based on supernatural believes. You can have religions based on secular believes as well. For example the phenomenon that is colloquially called "woke-ism" is already exhibiting certain pattern of organized religion. Like purity spirals, creating toxic social hierarchies, doctrinal-ism, social ostracism for people with different believes, interference with the sexuality of others, attempts at interfering with scientific processes, attempts at law-fare against people with different believes and of course manufacturing moralistic excuses for the war-business (in this case rainbow-imperialism).

The major "innovation" of the "woke" form of organized religion is of course the lack of supernatural believes, that's why they could fly under the radar for so long. Of course that's not going to remain unnoticed much longer and very soon we will have lots of new secular religions copying that scheme. It's going to be really unpleasant.

I think the 20th century style of curtailing religious imposition made the mistake of focusing too much on refuting the content of the believe systems, and didn't do enough detached analysis of the behavioral and organizational structures.

>>471844
>You can have religions based on secular believes as well. For example the phenomenon that is colloquially called "woke-ism" is already exhibiting certain pattern of organized religion.
I think you're trying to project your hatred of religion onto other things, when what you really have a problem with is fundamental flaws in human psychology. People can construct authority-driven beliefs and behavioral patterns out of anything. While there may be reason to believe that financialized economies have a higher incidence of narcissism and purity obsession than others (due to an induced culture of speculation and self-promotion), there's no reason to believe these traits will disappear in a post-capitalist economy. And you should be very wary that people could act the same way in support of the things you believe in.

>>471854
>when what you really have a problem with is fundamental flaws in human psychology.
<it's human nature
Kek, the last refuge of those without an argument.

You're just another zealot that's trying to normalize shitty aggressive anti-social behavior to impose your believes on others. You can't blame nature for that, this is all on you.

>>471871
>no argument
No anon, what you just posted was not an argument. Shall I restate mine? The overwhelming evidence is that people will construct authority-driven belief systems and behavioral patterns out of anything. The recent response to a global pandemic is another good example. In fact, to move closer to home, observe how dogmatic and myopic people become in their tiny Marxist sects or how state capitalist bureaucrats have imposed a fake Marxist orthodoxy on their populations that cannot be questioned. To pretend this is a behavior exclusive to religion will only result in half-baked solutions.

>>471891
Not sure what to make of this.
You might be trying to blur the lines between state and religion and undermine separation of state and church. Which would also apply to a new type of religion that has no supernatural believes.

>observe how dogmatic and myopic people become in their tiny Marxist sects
>how state capitalist bureaucrats have imposed a fake Marxist orthodoxy on their populations that cannot be questioned.
Right now the threat against freedom of thought comes from neoliberal aligned stuff, like the coalescing "woke" secular religion. Small groups of Marxists or potential but non-existing Marxist state-capitalism, are no threat to anybody. It makes you seem very disingenuous if you try to shift the focus from an actual threat to an hypothetical one.

>To pretend this is a behavior exclusive to religion will only result in half-baked solutions.
Fair enough, we could broaden the scope of what counts as religion.

>>471943
>Small groups of Marxists or potential but non-existing Marxist state-capitalism, are no threat to anybody.
And that's a bad thing.

>>471944
>And that's a bad thing.
Sure. I think that the problem is how to overcome imperialism. If you look at Latin America for example there are plenty of successful socialist revolutions as well as also successful social democrat reformers overcoming capitalism locally. So the old question of re-form vs revolution is moot, both work. But when ever somebody does one of these, outside imperial capitalism begins attacking those projects and even if they can survive, they'll get stuck in lower stage socialism because they have to deal with siege conditions.

The other question about attacks on intellectual freedom remain as well. Why did neo-liberalism bring about those secular theocratic tendencies ?

I am against censorship because I want to know what my enemies are thinking and whether or not my subjects will oppose my rule.