crucial
- This topic has 17 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
what is the spgb / world socialist movements position on freedom of speech…. and would only one socialist party…. exist in wsm / spgb real socialist world
JamesH81 wrote:what is the spgb / world socialist movements position on freedom of speech…. and would only one socialist party…. exist in wsm / spgb real socialist worldI would hope that in a "real socialist world", political parties along with political power itself (the state) will disppear. In the meantime socialists cannot but be for the fullest possible freedom of speech. You cannot separate the means and the ends. The end determines the means,. A free and democratic society requires methods to bring it about that are themselves free and democratic….
In a socialist society there would not exist any political party, we would not have any need for politic. The socialist majority must respect the non socialist minority. It is going to be the most democratic society that human being have ever experienced, What we have heard about the so called communist party in a socialist party, it is just an invention of the left wingers and the Leninists, to justify the dictatorship of the party
We're in favour of free speech because its the best environment for achieving socialism. Just as there are fringe royalist restorationists under capitalism, I expect historical ideas never to completely disappear.
JamesH81 wrote:what is the spgb / world socialist movements position on freedom of speech…. and would only one socialist party…. exist in wsm / spgb real socialist worldI think this is a moot point. What exactly is meant by 'freedom of speech'?
jondwhite wrote:We're in favour of free speech because its the best environment for achieving socialism. Just as there are fringe royalist restorationists under capitalism, I expect historical ideas never to completely disappear.Small wonder this was met with a 'wow'. Does anyone out there have the faintest idea of what the second sentence means? As for free speech, there is nothing 'moot' about it. The SPGB at one time adhered to the argument in J S Mill's 'On Liberty'. Read that and you will get the idea. Latterly however, a less tolerant atitude to free speech has emerged. At a Delegate Meeting it was argued by a Party delegate that should he meet a member of a racist party selling literature the delegate would ask him, 'if he repudiated racist attacks and if he didn't ( the delegate would) try to prevent him selling.' Intolerant and potentially suicidal. Have you seen some of those members of white nationalist organisations! The tactic is that which is usually associated with the Anarcho/Bolshevik Left and a departure from the old SPGB's willingness to defend its case against the defenders of capitalism, no matter how unsavoury, with reasoned argument in open discussion.
Bob Andrews wrote:jondwhite wrote:We're in favour of free speech because its the best environment for achieving socialism. Just as there are fringe royalist restorationists under capitalism, I expect historical ideas never to completely disappear.Small wonder this was met with a 'wow'. Does anyone out there have the faintest idea of what the second sentence means? As for free speech, there is nothing 'moot' about it. The SPGB at one time adhered to the argument in J S Mill's 'On Liberty'. Read that and you will get the idea. Latterly however, a less tolerant atitude to free speech has emerged. At a Delegate Meeting it was argued by a Party delegate that should he meet a member of a racist party selling literature the delegate would ask him, 'if he repudiated racist attacks and if he didn't ( the delegate would) try to prevent him selling.' Intolerant and potentially suicidal. Have you seen some of those members of white nationalist organisations! The tactic is that which is usually associated with the Anarcho/Bolshevik Left and a departure from the old SPGB's willingness to defend its case against the defenders of capitalism, no matter how unsavoury, with reasoned argument in open discussion.
Just because a party delegate states a view, this does not make it party policy, you have not made a case to say that this has become the approach that the SPGB has ever used.The Bolshevic/Trotskyist argument of physical force toward fascists, is not only dangerous, it gives the racist/fascists a chance to take you on at something they might have a chance with (fighting) against something they have no chance with (logical argument).The view put forward by the alleged delegaate to ADM, is certainly not my view or my plan for action, or the view of the party.I agree there is no moot point about free speech in the SPGB.As to the existance of political parties in a socialist society, I think it perfectly feasible that people will organise in groups to put forward particular viewpoints on how socialist society shoud run. I think, for example there could be fierce debate between those who favour more environmentally friendly production processes and those who are less bothered about those things. I can imaging there would be parties or grouping that might form around single issues, such as th dvelopment of transport infrastructure (prehaps pro rail groups and anti rail groups) and no doubt there will be other issues about matters such as the use of resources in areas such aes health, etc.
(Moot open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful:)If we claim to stand for 'free speech' surely we need to define it? By definition it is a 'moot point'It is open for discussion and is debatable? Otherwise it is mere rheteric and platitudeBesides, how can we stand for something we can't define? Or describe?Do we mean complete unrestricted freedom of expression? Or are there caveats to our definition of free speech?
yes i would agree with full freedom of speech and no restrictions on non – socialist parties / organisations – to be a truly free socialist society – open debate across the whole political spectrum
Vin wrote:(Moot open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful:)If we claim to stand for 'free speech' surely we need to define it? By definition it is a 'moot point'It is open for discussion and is debatable? Otherwise it is mere rheteric and platitudeBesides, how can we stand for something we can't define? Or describe?Do we mean complete unrestricted freedom of expression? Or are there caveats to our definition of free speech?The expression freedom of speech under the capitalist society is like the expression: Human rights ,or Free Trade. They are cuestionable or debatable. In reality they do not exist either. Just look at the particular case of the USA, in a few days the so called bourgoise freedom of speech, and the so called human rights have been eliminated. What rights can the human have in a society where a minority owns everything ? All those things about freedom of speech in a socialist society, is part of the propaganda of the bourgoise class who have said that peoples can not express their opinion, that is also debatable, What is their definition of socialism ? What have they said about the socialist society ? It is the same garbabe spread by the leftwingers including the concept of better salary under a socialist society, instead of the elimination of the wage slavery. We would not need workers union under a socialist society. There are many terms that must be defined first
JamesH81 wrote:yes i would agree with full freedom of speech and no restrictions on non – socialist parties / organisations – to be a truly free socialist society – open debate across the whole political spectrumIf we are not going to have class struggles and class division Why are we going to need political organizations ? That is the reason why Vin said that certain terms must be defined first. Even more , socialism is not going to be an economical system either, we would not need an economcal system on a society based on social production.
socialism needs to be true manifest of populace – im a spgb / wsm member – so obviously i want real socialism and the abolition of war etc – this needs to be a natural process conclude alternative opinions shouldn't be surpressed
JamesH81 wrote:yes i would agree with full freedom of speech and no restrictions on non – socialist parties / organisations – to be a truly free socialist society – open debate across the whole political spectrumI would endorse the idea of full freedom of speech but what do you mean "non – socialist parties / organisations", James? I am not even sure we can usefully talk about parties even existing in a socialist society in the sense that parties exist today to aspire to take control of the state, when there is no longer a state to take control of in socialism. That is what a political party would seem to be about – an organisation intent upon capturing state power.There may of course be non socialist organisations in the sense of being organisations intent upon bringing about the restoration of capitalism. I would say they should be permitted to spout their ideas without any kind of restriction being put on them, They are not going to make much headway though. Try persuading an ex-slave that she needs the return of a slave society. But difficult, isnt it?
quote There may of course be non socialist organisations in the sense of being organisations intent upon bringing about the restoration of capitalism. I would say they should be permitted to spout their ideas without any kind of restriction being put on them, They are not going to make much headway though. Try persuading an ex-slave that she needs the return of a slave society. But difficult, isnt it? quoteyour answer to non-socialist organisations role in a socialist / communistic society is answered within the / your quote above
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.