Does Communism support free speech?

submitted by LarrySwinger2 from scontent-ams4-1.xx.fbcdn.net

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]joogabah 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

Which communism? Where? Under what circumstances? Too much is subsumed under this term for this to be a meaningful question. Stalinism, the legacy of the Russian Revolution, does not, no. But the French Communards? The Socialist Party of Great Britain (which precedes the Russian Revolution and criticized it at the time)? Regarding Stalinism, it doesn't exist in a vacuum, but surrounded by hostile capitalist states hell bent on destroying it. That makes it paranoid (understandably).

[–]ctvzbuxr 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

Capitalism is based on live and let live, meaning that nobody gets hurt by capitalism. The supposed injustices of capitalism are either a result of nature, or a result of government action, which is arguably not a capitalist institution, since it violates property rights to exist. As a result, free speech is possible in capitslism as there are no victims of the system that could speak out against it (or in the case of limited state campitalism, only relatively few). Only some communists, who are usually upper or middle class yuppies who are larping as oppressed victim classes.
In communism, the system is based on aggression - the property of the productive is stolen and distributed to serve the powerful, poverty and crime are rampant as a result of the catasrophic lack of productivity. Of course such a system would, even in the best scenario, not allow for poeple to tell the truth about their living conditions. Once the revolution is won, there is a small time period where the whealth of the former capitalist society is plundered, in which the supposed success of the revolution is celebrated, and once the revolution runs out of poeple's money, the curtain falls.

[–]flugegeheimen 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The supposed injustices of capitalism are either a result of nature, or a result of government action, which is arguably not a capitalist institution, since it violates property rights to exist.

So if a corporation instigates or supports in some way a coup in a country to protect their economical interests what would it be? A result of nature or a result of government action?

[–]ctvzbuxr 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

A result of government action of course. What else is a coup if not an attempt to install or take over a government in that country?

[–]flugegeheimen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't see how these two sentences related. Coup is an attempt to install or take over a government, this is correct. How does it make coup a result of government action?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

if a corporation buys off politicians and has the govt's CIA go and do the coup, does that make it a govt coup? Truth is there is no capitalism or socialism just a mix of the two, both get blamed for the world's ills by different people while the rulers laugh.

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So there are corporations and governments, and sometimes corporation bribe governments. And you think the problem are corporations?
Look, corporations are just people working together. They can't do anything any other person can't do. Governments on the other hand are people with the right to initiate the use of force against others. That is the problem right there. These are people who are given extra rights that other people don't have. If a corporation has rights they shouldn't have, those rights are always granted by the state. The problem is always socialism.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah people working together. But to do what? Sometimes to break laws so we need govt to put a stop to that, which they usually don't since they're owned by "people working together". Families, nepotism. Govts are people working together too but the idea behind democracy was letting everyone vote and having a say in who represents them at least instead of power only in a very small percentage of people's hands. Of course in reality our votes don't matter much, not compared to the lobbyists who vote with money. And the private owned federal reserve cares not who makes the laws.

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you understand that government doesn't work in practice, but you still defend it in theory. Maybe something is wrong with your theory.

[–]flugegeheimen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Look, corporations are just people working together. They can't do anything any other person can't do.

They can do a lot the things you can't, it's just governments don't let them. For example in a perfect capitalist world nothing stops a corporation from hiring mercenaries to kick you from your property (ironically by violating your property rights to exist). However in our less perfect world corporations have to bribe CIA to instigate coups rather than hiring mercs directly and you can sue McDonald's for coffee that is too hot.

[–]ctvzbuxr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If a corporation were to hire mercenaries to control a piece of land that they don't own, that corporation (if successful) would be the government of that land. I want to prevent that. The way to get rid of government is not to install another government.
What you are essentially saying is that a stateless society would be impossible. I disagree. If people can abolish their current government, they can prevent a new government from forming.
There is plenty of libertarian theory on how a stateless society could work, and how violent takeovers would not only be impractical, but outright impossible. I'm not going to go over all of it here, but in short, a company can only make money in the long run if it fullfills the needs of it's customers. And people in general have a desire to not be aggressed against. In other words, there is much more profit (and thus, economic power) in protecting people from aggression, rather than trying to forcefully rule them.

[–]flugegeheimen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If a corporation were to hire mercenaries to control a piece of land that they don't own, that corporation (if successful) would be the government of that land.

Their goal is still making profit, they just made your private property their private property. I don't want to go over libertarianism too, my only issue was with the claim

Capitalism is based on live and let live, meaning that nobody gets hurt by capitalism. The supposed injustices of capitalism are either a result of nature, or a result of government action

It's demonstrably false (unless you redefine capitalism), privately owned profit-based enterprises disregard your rights (including property rights) and will infringe them just as happily as any socialistic state. There is nothing intrinsic in capitalism that makes it "based on live and let live", when corporations can get away with fucking you up they do it, when they can't they can't because of external pressure (government).

[–]joogabah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Capitalism is based on a tiny class of owners exploiting the labor of the masses. It permitted literal chattel slavery for centuries. The workplace is authoritarian. Nobody gets hurt by capitalism? What capitalism? It isn't all just first world service sector "labor aristocracy" jobs out there. Remember the chimney sweeps and child labor in Britain during the Industrial Revolution? Look, if capitalism were not oppressive, communism would not exist. Communism is a reaction to the brutality of capitalism. If capitalists don't want communism, treat workers well. If a revolution happens and a communist dictatorship results, the blame lies with the prior sociopathic ruling class abusing people with overwork and low wages and gross inequality. All wealth is reducible to human labor power. All wealth is produced by workers. Capitalist rentiers earn passive income (profit, interest and rent) by virtue of a legal title and no work at all! They can pay managers to oversee their enterprises, and most just own stocks in businesses they don't even have to think about. They are the real welfare queens.

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The children who worked during the industrial revolution would have died prior to the industrial revolution, before capitalism raised living standards to a point where most children didn't die as infants, and provided the opportunity to earn their living. Nobody wants children to work in coal mines, but it is preferable to them dying. Their poor living conditions were a condition of nature, counteracted by capitalism. As soon as living standards raised to a point where child labour was rendered obsolete by the market and had fallen largely out of practice, the british govenment prohibited it and claimed that it saved the poor children from the "evil capitalists".
If you think that business owners don't have to work, you are clearly ignorant of how busines works. If it was easy, everyone would do it. 99% of people in business work crazy hours, and the other 1% had such a great idea that they produced enough value in one go that they don't have to work anymore (most of them still do). Not to mention the risk that entrepeneurs take, and all the regulations and taxes they have to deal with already.

[–]joogabah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Marxists are not opponents of capitalism. They are awed by it. But they see it as a transitional state, one that at a certain point becomes overwhelmed by its own contradictions. To be blind to the trajectory of capitalism is just as erroneous as to be blind to its accomplishments. Marx compared it to a tie on a sapling that helps its growth early on but distorts it if left for too long. Capitalism is not evil. It is antiquated. The evidence is that private property, divided into competing national states, threatens to end all life on the planet, via nuclear war, climate change and overpopulation. Exponential growth has limits. Capitalist thinking tends to ignore "dialectics" or the idea that change is fundamental to our reality. Everything is born, grows and then dies. Quantitative changes eventually turn into qualitative changes that can negate the earlier condition. The same is true of capitalist markets and private property. They are human innovations, appropriate to their time, not eternal unchanging truths.

[–]ctvzbuxr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What an interesting perspective, to view people's property rights as a transitional state.
"Yes, you own that thing you workd hard for, but only as long as we deem it appropriate, and once we decide to have our revolution we will take it from you at a whim, in order to alleviate you from such an antiquated burden."
The truth is, people could already live in socialism right now if they wanted to. Socialists all around the world could put their money in a big pool, govern it as they see fit, and no capitalist in the world would do anything to prevent it. The truth is, capitalists have no problem with socialism either, as long as it's voluntary. But the truth is, voluntary socialism is just another form of capitalism. Capitalism is simply what you get when you let people choose how they govern what is rightfully theirs.