You can’t focus entirely on the base and utterly ignore the superstructure of society, otherwise you leave society open to reverting to capitalism and the disaster that becomes. Further, you cannot simply abolish class overnight, and the process of collectivization itself takes time, in both cases you must still employ forcible means to oppress the bourgeoisie while supporting proletarian science and culture.
Allowing fascist press does not weaken fascism, it strengthens it, and allows for manipulation that kicks off counter-revolution as was seen in history provoked by outlets like Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia (which you also linked). What this amounts to is you not taking fascism seriously at all.
Again, what have you read of Marx that leads you to believe these ideas that Marx would have supported fascist speech? Is it just that one article advocating for less censorship under capitalism, so that the working classes may more freely spread their ideas?
Censorship is a structural failure of the superstructure itself. I provided earlier a list of reasons of why I think this.
When we ‘oppress’ the bourgeoisie by silencing them, the censor’s hand is eventually covering the worker’s mouth & ears.
I’m not relying in just one specific article like it’s a bible… I’m applying a scientific approach and relying on Marx’s belief that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the self-government of the producers. You cannot govern yourself if you are wearing a blindfold.
You explained your reasoning, I just disagree with it entirely for reasons I have given. You depend on a false understanding of how ideas are spread in society in order to defend the presence of fascist press in socialism. The bourgeoisie need to be silenced because otherwise they use the press to spread misinformation and disinformation to incite counter-revolution, again, see how Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia are used historically.
You aren’t applying a scientific approach, you’re erasing concrete reality in order to appeal to how you want society to function, ie you want for open debate of fascist ideas to prevent their spread, but that’s not how ideas work and that’s not how debate works. You’re proceding from a false premise and trying to justify it by erasing the context of a single article by Marx.
The working classes know well why fascist ideas should be shut down, rather than legitimized, that’s why the working classes have shut down fascist press in socialist societies using the state. That’s the dictatorship of the proletariat in action.
I don’t believe I’m misunderstanding you at all, though I agree we are speaking in circles. I think that adds to my point, the marketplace of ideas is a fantasy.
Science is not a fantasy, and wanting to call it a “marketplace” is proof of the misunderstanding. We have historic proof of the damage to the power of the workers that dogmatic censorship, “political correctness” (ie. hiding truth) and manipulation of public perception causes, we are seeing it right now first person in the west. Doing the same thing (and more overtly) is fighting dogma with dogma, even if the ideals from one of them were fully benevolent and made people happy.
What? it’s hard to tell what did you interpret this time …but I hope you are not implying that politically correct language like “military operation” shows the whole truth, that “pacification” is the whole truth, that “terrorism” is the whole truth, that “re-education camps” are the whole truth, that “voluntary relocation” is the whole truth, that “austerity measures” are the whole truth.
“Political correctness” has often been a dogwhistle for censoring bigotry:
Political correctness (adjectivally “politically correct”; commonly abbreviated to P.C.) is a term used to describe language,[1][2][3] policies,[4] or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.[5][6][7] Since the late 1980s, the term has been used to describe a preference for inclusive language and avoidance of language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting to groups of people disadvantaged or discriminated against, particularly groups defined by ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. In public discourse and the media,[4][8][9] the term’s use is generally pejorative, with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.[10][11] It can also be humorous, or ironic in nature.
You’re referring to instead how political figures massage words.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
You can’t focus entirely on the base and utterly ignore the superstructure of society, otherwise you leave society open to reverting to capitalism and the disaster that becomes. Further, you cannot simply abolish class overnight, and the process of collectivization itself takes time, in both cases you must still employ forcible means to oppress the bourgeoisie while supporting proletarian science and culture.
Allowing fascist press does not weaken fascism, it strengthens it, and allows for manipulation that kicks off counter-revolution as was seen in history provoked by outlets like Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia (which you also linked). What this amounts to is you not taking fascism seriously at all.
Again, what have you read of Marx that leads you to believe these ideas that Marx would have supported fascist speech? Is it just that one article advocating for less censorship under capitalism, so that the working classes may more freely spread their ideas?
Censorship is a structural failure of the superstructure itself. I provided earlier a list of reasons of why I think this.
When we ‘oppress’ the bourgeoisie by silencing them, the censor’s hand is eventually covering the worker’s mouth & ears.
I’m not relying in just one specific article like it’s a bible… I’m applying a scientific approach and relying on Marx’s belief that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the self-government of the producers. You cannot govern yourself if you are wearing a blindfold.
You explained your reasoning, I just disagree with it entirely for reasons I have given. You depend on a false understanding of how ideas are spread in society in order to defend the presence of fascist press in socialism. The bourgeoisie need to be silenced because otherwise they use the press to spread misinformation and disinformation to incite counter-revolution, again, see how Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia are used historically.
You aren’t applying a scientific approach, you’re erasing concrete reality in order to appeal to how you want society to function, ie you want for open debate of fascist ideas to prevent their spread, but that’s not how ideas work and that’s not how debate works. You’re proceding from a false premise and trying to justify it by erasing the context of a single article by Marx.
The working classes know well why fascist ideas should be shut down, rather than legitimized, that’s why the working classes have shut down fascist press in socialist societies using the state. That’s the dictatorship of the proletariat in action.
You are misunderstanding me and it has become clear that I’m not gonna get through you. We are talking in circles.
I don’t believe I’m misunderstanding you at all, though I agree we are speaking in circles. I think that adds to my point, the marketplace of ideas is a fantasy.
Science is not a fantasy, and wanting to call it a “marketplace” is proof of the misunderstanding. We have historic proof of the damage to the power of the workers that dogmatic censorship, “political correctness” (ie. hiding truth) and manipulation of public perception causes, we are seeing it right now first person in the west. Doing the same thing (and more overtly) is fighting dogma with dogma, even if the ideals from one of them were fully benevolent and made people happy.
Political correctness isn’t “hiding the truth,” you’re implying that racism, homophobia, etc. are “the truth.” You’re caping for fascism and bigotry.
What? it’s hard to tell what did you interpret this time …but I hope you are not implying that politically correct language like “military operation” shows the whole truth, that “pacification” is the whole truth, that “terrorism” is the whole truth, that “re-education camps” are the whole truth, that “voluntary relocation” is the whole truth, that “austerity measures” are the whole truth.
“Political correctness” has often been a dogwhistle for censoring bigotry:
You’re referring to instead how political figures massage words.