Free Speech and Socialism
- This topic has 17 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Is free speech necessary for socialim? We in the Socialist Party believe it is. A lot of people and groups on the so-called 'left' do not believe in free speech for extreme right wing groups but we believe that it is only in the bright light of freedom of expression that ignorance can be revealed.
Censorship is the friend of power and dictators. In a socialist society power of censorship will not exist
"The Socialist Party of Great Britain is wholeheartedly in favour of the fullest freedom of speech. This is because we hold that out of full and free discussion of today's social problems only one valid conclusion can emerge: that Socialism alone will provide the framework within which they can be solved.
Full free speech means exactly what it says: any and every view should be allowed expression so that it can be examined and shown to be wrong. One of the more obnoxious views current these days is racialism, the idea that some human beings are inferior to others and ought to be treated as such."
Socialist Standard January 1979
It's practically a dead issue in these days of the Internet. That could conceivably change [anything's possible] but scarcely seems imminent.The Party has a fearless open policy, which you've outlined. What more of socialist significance need be said or can be said on this non-issue for us, in which we would always be victim, never perpetrator.I suppose, we could add — socially acknowledged censorship against us would be interesting indeed!
Freedom of speech is only a dead-issue if you have it. But you begin to see it as important when it is taken away. 'left wing' groups tend to shout down and censor opinions they dont like. We do not want to be confused with them. We need to stand apart and make our position clear. "Fools", said I, "You do not knowSilence like a cancer grows.Paul Simon
twc, can you tell me what you mean by this?What do you mean by "self-censorship" and in what context?I can infer but would rather have your input!
Hi Steve Colborn,I was trying to ward off an acrimonious thread like the recent one over religion — a new one which might invite the intolerant to intolerantly defend intolerance. I was wrong to do so, and apologize for so doing.Hi TheOldGreyWhistle,I fear that you want to treat or turn "freedom of speech" into a social or political Absolute. All Absolutes are made by us. The Party only acknowledges two social Absolutes — common ownership and democratic control. They are absolutes for us, because we have conviction that they embody our class interest. Contravening them is contravening our class interest. It is contravening us.Does "freedom of speech" occupy a similar status for us — or do we hold it to be subservient to our class interest, or do we dare hold it superior to our class interest?The answer to this question tells us how to view "freedom of speech" from our standpoint, whether we like it or not.I believe that "freedom of speech" is very much a consequence of society's social base. It will be a non issue for a common-ownership democratic-control social base. It must be a perpetual issue for a class-ownership and class-control social base.So what we can say from our standpoint about "freedom of speech" is far more important than merely what our left-wing opponents do [or don't do] say about it — that's their problem. We have ours.1. Capitalism has mastered — under compulsion to mask its class-division — the art of non-authoritarian suppression of "freedom of speech" without legislating against it [on the contrary, by extending its domain].2. As consequence of our Object [class interest] we differ from left-wing groups because we confer on our whole membership "freedom of speech". The Party is not conspiratorial. Ultimately it belongs to the whole working class, but first it must belong to its membership.3. As consequence of our Object [class interest] we differ from left-wing groups because we do not open our membership to non-class conscious members of the working class — to that extent we currently deny "freedom of speech" to the vast majority of the working class, because they currently don't want to become members of the Party. [Our non-class conscious political opponents — like the Labour Party, etc. — appear to be far more democratic, but their internal hierarchical control structure puts democracy safely in its place.]So "freedom of speech", like every aspect of our case, must be considered through the contrast between the social base of capitalism and the social base of socialism, and their implications.You challenge "But you begin to see it [freedom of speech] as important when it is taken away." This is both obvious, and still posed at the level of capitalism.I retort "If 'freedom of speech' is taken away, what do you propose we do about it when we haven't got it? That is the only possible question for us to answer then.
twc wrote:Does "freedom of speech" occupy a similar status for us — or do we hold it to be subservient to our class interest, or do we dare hold it superior to our class interest? 3. As consequence of our Object [class interest] we differ from left-wing groups because we do not open our membership of non-class conscious members of the working class — to that extent we currently deny "freedom of speech" to the vast majority of the working class, because they currently don't want to become members of the Party. [Our non-class conscious political opponents — like the Labour Party, etc. — appear to be far democratic, but their internal hierarchical control puts democracy in its place.Socialism is impossible without freedom of speech. You ask 'should we hold it superior to our class interest.?'. Do we hold common ownership superior to our class interests?Unrestricted freedom of speech IS in our class interests. It precedes common ownership. It is a necessary prerequisite. No freedom of speech – no working class movement for socialism. Nor do not deny freedom of speech to anyone. We invited the National Front and other fascist groups to open and public debate.
I see our class interest as being precisely common ownership and democratic control. If ever the capitalist class forbids "freedom of speech" [to support private ownership and non-democratic control] as it did in Soviet Russia or goes even further to outlaw socialist parties, as in Bismark's Germany, "freedom of speech" will be curtailed absolutely, and that includes ours.We'd just have to accept the fact, and compromise [as we do when compelled to do so without jeopardizing the Party case in times of war] in some common sense fashion — just as Marx recommended sections of the International and social democrats to behave and not compromise the movement.So we may very well be compelled to curtail our external "freedom of speech" in the interests of our Object, but we will never yield an inch of our Object Itself.You say "No freedom of speech – no working class movement for socialism..'" True, internally for us. But not externally, It's the capitalist class that decides such external things for us, not us. We sometimes, as in times of war, have no choice but to submit in order to keep the case alive.Please, I agree with your case. It's strictly a solved-organizational issue for us, but please don't turn i"freedom of speech" into a higher absolute than our Object.Do you really suggest modifying our Object to read. "Freedom of speech to all mankind, regardless of race, sex, religion, politics, [the more deviant the speech, the more we'll support your right to it] in order to gain common ownership and democratic control…"?Do you see what I'm driving at?I'm not trying to undermine the Party's case — as you appear to think. My opposition to your case is that it stays at the admirable level of Voltaire. But that's not our position at all.You, on the other hand, have confirmed what I feared in my original post — that you were waiting to play your trump card as "a moral stand" against all non-Party players.i wholly support the Party's case on "freedom of speech". And, yes, it sometimes hurts.As for "the moral stand" — recall that I tried to make an abortive case that vestiges of our common sociability remain even under capitalism — and these are commonly called something like morality. I try to be scrupulously accountable in everything I write, partly out of common sense but also out of that remnant something we both share.
How is it that a post has been deleted? I don't have that option. Tho' it might be a good idea
Hi twc I assume you refer to this :“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”VoltaireI am afraid death is not in my class interests and I have no intention nor desire to give my life for freedom of speech or socialism. Where do I take a moral position? Freedom of speech is in my class interests. Socialism is not a moral issue and never has been for me but that is for another thread. I have found that making inference from posts can cause problems on forums such as this, so I try to avoid it :-)I am sorry you doubt my motives.The party has many great articles on freedom of speech and it is clearly in working class interests. Here is one from Cde Colemanhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-983-july-1986/socialists-and-free-speech
I consider this to be against working class interests, for example http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13686
Dear TOGW,No, I don't doubt your motives. I honour you and yours. I see them as absolutely genuine. And you also. I was merely pointing out that the very act of placing "freedom of speech" above common ownership and democratic control [which are our class interest] is creating something moral holding suasion over something practical. You would counter that "freedom of speech" is precisely something practical. That it is practical to gaining and running socialism. I agree, although there won't be social pressures to remove it under socialism.But if it's practical to gain a practical end then it is subservient to that end.If on the other hand it dominates our practical end then it is either our true practical end [which I don't believe it is] or it's a guiding principle to achieving our end — in which case it's moral.I see it as a consequence of our own class case that must use it as a weapon to expose capitalism under capitalism and which will be a natural outcome of daily life under socialism. It is perhaps one of the greatest things we have in our favour. It is a social goal, but only establishes itself as a truly socially achievable and sustainable object under socialism.As for now, we are not alone in honoring free speech. Objective science scrupulously practices free speech. What else are the pages and pages of references in Marx's Capital but free speech. It is a confirmation that our case is scientific. But it's also our recognition that each of us is but a unit of the common humanity that will achieve something beyond anything humans have achieved before. We all contribute our voice, because we are articulating our common goal — common ownership and democratic control.We socially and communally recognize that free speech is advantageous to us in exposing caputalism.But by turning "freedom of speech" into something superior to something practical. That is turning it into a guiding principle. That is what morality is. It is also what the bourgeoisie thought was guiding them in their revolutions — from England, France, [forget the Soviet Union, which consciously abused it even in the undertaking] and in the recent flight of Eastern Europe from the clutches of mother Russia. But it was always practical to free themselves from actual unfreedom of speech.Unfreedom of speech is something that occurs far more subtly over us in capitalism.Please, I'm writing these posts at speed. When I use the word "you" I mean some nebulous generic target. Actually, I do feel that most of us, you especially, are truly inspired by Voltaire's ringing defence. I think we'd be non-human not to be shaken to our core by its stirring defiance.Please, these are my thoughts inspired by yours. They may appear to make accusations. They don't. They are free thoughts within free speech inspired by free speech.Unfortunately, that's how opposing thoughts mascarade when we exercise free speech. We must all learn to accept that sometimes we need to go beyond Voltaire, even at his level bourgeois revolutionary level and recognize that even among friends discussing the common subject we love about the common goal we desire that — we also personally have to suffer the slings and arrows of free speech. With freedom comes its correlative.[And some misguided folks don't see things dialectically. But we recognize that argument by free speech may hurt both by its very freedom as well as by its content. That's why there are always ways and means to shut it down in class-dominated societies. But even we, especially we who fight for a non-class dominated society, must acknowledge that free speech also hurts our own minds and egos in order to liberate both to achieve a truly social mind and ego.]
Socialist Party's position on free speech:“We can’t accept that all “reforms are by their nature divisive”. Many may indeed benefit just a section of the working class, but surely a reform removing restrictions on free speech or the freedom to organise would benefit all workers (and the socialist movement too)?” No. 1238 October 2007
Seeing as this thread is here, we may as well discuss a much loved topic and probably a very much misunderstood aspect of the party and its approach to the right wing.Yes, I am talking about the left wing idea that racists and extreme right wing groups are not allowed a platform for open debate.I was talking to a friend the other day about this. They said that in principle they agreed with the idea of debating with such groups. However they pointed out that these groups, as history shows us, are very likely to turn particularly vicious given half a chance (even less). And that their politics tends to resonate with the less politically aware workers in society, so allowing them to talk rubbish without being challenged, offering easy quick fixes to the problems of capitalism.My view is, that if these people despite their unpleasant attitudes, are allowed to debate with others who can expose their ideas for the utter misguided bigotry it is, then it is less likely they will win large scale support. Not exposing their misguided views allows a certain aura of mystique to surround them, as if somehow they are telling the truth but are being silenced.The left wing refuse to debate with them because essentially they support the very economic system that the right wing support, and can offer no alternative to capitalism other than vague reforms and a fascination with state capitalism. This offers no solutions to the social ills that lead to misinformed prejudiced thought and deed in the first place.Is this view too simple?I believe it is the view of many on the left that we are being naive to think that reasoned debate is enough to counter such vicious political ideology found on the right of capitalist politics?Anyone?
Capitalism's "Social Laws of Nature"Single Issues = IdealismSingle issues, like the topic of this thread "freedom of speech", but also "freedom of religion", "freedom to work", "freedom of race", "freedom of sex" [freedom for women, gays, same-sex marriage], "freedom for the environment", "freedom for animals", "freedom to bear arms", etc. are always framed in terms of rights [human, animal, environmental, whatever] — Absolutes that have been tarnished in their relative actuality, and must be restored from socially undesirable actualities into social embodiments of unsullied Absolute purities.The Idealist political stance is always that the socially inviolable has been socially violated and must be socially restored. It is what motivates non-class conscious politics.Perhaps, "motivation" is too strong a word to describe the "politically-realistic pragmatic" emasculation of inspiring social demand for actualizing a social Absolute, which always appears a ridiculous thing to do under mercenary capitalism — so that the poor non-class conscious politician must settle for second-best motivation — "we [the non-class conscious] humbly recognize that our socially-inviolable abstract Ideal is unattainable, but we still fight to reduce the extent of social violation in its concrete social actuality".Such is the feeble political residue of a century of non-class conscious politics that arrogated to itself the claim to being class conscious. Such motiveless motivation is the very embodiment of political damage control.When the materialist Marx spoke of ideals being material, he was not being perversely enigmatic. He was not referring to such trivialities as ghosts being real products of the imagination [something most three-year olds glean without parental guidance from their picture books].Marx was precisely referring to the materiality of the most insidious form of human bondage in the annals of human society — the capitalist "social laws of nature" — the forces that manifest themselves as social illusions that control each and every one of us under capitalism. The illusions that capitalism naturally creates. The illusions that sustain capitalism as a complex adaptive self-organising system. The laws that govern our lives under capitalism. The laws that we can never repeal under capitalism. The social compatriots of the natural "laws of nature".Insight into the materiality of capitalism's "social laws of nature" ranks among the deepest social insights of Marx's new materialism — the materialist conception of history — the science of our social being, that is forever eons ahead of any contender.The material might of capitalism's "social laws of nature" is precisely the reason why a century of non-class conscious politics achieved nothing to further but everything to set back the social goals that inspired it. One cannot repeal a law of nature — social as well as natural.Anything that always defeated, continually defeats and will continue to defeat every social onslaught by the greatest and finest non-class conscious minds society has to offer is quite rightly the manifestation of a "social law of nature". What inferior name would you call it?Challenge: To the brightest and finest non-class conscious minds. Capitalism's "social laws of nature" offer a perfect target for non-class conscious attack. The claim of their existence appears so obviously false. To the non-class conscious there are only natural "laws of nature". Our absurd claim should be trivial to demolish. Please try to demolish it! [Caution: Think carefully — you're taking on Marx and his materialist conception of history.]Syncretism — Collection of Single IssuesAn arbitrary collection of Absolutes does not a single Absolute make.The idealist Hegel showed the world the only possible way an Idealist can unify a collection of Ideals. Our non-class conscious opponents are incapable of recognizing their own Idealism, and would scoff at the very thought that such practical folks as they are could ever be guilty of, and motivated by, philosophical Idealism, which they totally misconceive. Unwilling to unify their Ideals in Hegelian terms, they parade their disparate Ideals as a grab bag of a single dis-united Ideal. They are intellectually insipid syncretists.Our syncretist opponents are scientifically incapable of uniting their collection of Absolutes. So they resort to moral suasion, dramatic display and grand rhetoric — as anyone must if they are fighting for grand inalienable absolute rights that have been concretely violated.We don't fight them [even when we confront them face-to-face]. Their case is beneath contempt. We choose a worthier foe. We fight the hold that the capitalist "social laws of nature" have over them. We take on the capitalist "social laws of nature".How do you Repeal a "Social Law of Nature"?The only way to repeal a "social law of nature" is to repeal the social base that raised the laws. We repeal in one fell swoop the whole grand-united capitalist "social laws of nature" by repealing the capitalist social base of ownership and control relations of social resources, instruments and labour — by the working class wresting these from capitalist-class ownership and control [class rule] to replace capitalist-class ownership and control by socialist common ownership and democratic control of the whole society's resources, instruments and labour.Social Materialism = change the social base to change the social consequences! [Changed men are the products of a changed environment].Society's working class gets to consciously wield hitherto inaccessible social power — something that forever eludes the non-class conscious politician — it gets to repeal the capitalist "social laws of nature".All "social laws of nature" are created by us — hitherto, quite unconsciouslly. We have gained the class consciousness to know how to change ourselves. Isn't that the import of Marx's 11th thesis?[A rather fun aside… We do not know how to change the natural base of which the natural "laws of nature" are our scientifically hard-won human-crafted constructions thereof. We seem to be absolutely powerless to change those natural "laws of nature" — at least at present — to generate an entirely novel natural base with associated novel laws of nature.]Now to "Freedom of Speech"Freedoms of a class-divided exploitative society are always duplicitous. But, more importantly, the capitalist "social laws of nature" ensure that its freedoms are always insidious.Because single-issue advocates of freedoms always conceive them Idealistically, they invariably see their freedoms in a great inspiring light. They delude themselves.The following rather-tame uninspiring actuality of everyday "freedoms of speech" should be enough to disabuse anyone of the existence of any such truly-inspiring Absolute.[We entirely pass over the not-so-tame insidious aspects of capitalist "freedom of speech" perhaps for another occasion.]Freedom of Speech = freedom for unsolicited communication [call-centre harassment, junk mail, SPAM], freedom for conversational drivel and viciousness, freedom for scientific plagiarism, freedom for literary and artistic forgery, freedom for lynch-mob incendiarism, freedom for political demagoguery, freedom for religious mystification, freedom for advertising fraud, freedom for political lying, freedom for direct-action incitement, freedom for shock-jock venom, freedom for celebrity gossip, … The list of freedom-of-speech actualities extends to the crack of doom.The only way to ensure that these perversions of human decency don't emerge from the very socially-necessary conditions of our capitalist social existence is to change the conditions of our social existence —To replace capitalist conditions of class ownership and control by society's capitalist class with socialist conditions of non-class ownership and control by the whole society.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.