Freedom of speech

Even though I am a socialist I still believe in freedom of speech and would gladly fight for it even the freedom of speech of fascists. I am therefore against anti-fa and all other organizations that attack people just for there beliefs. I am however OK with revolutionary violence because seizing bourgeois property is a matter of self defense. Who's with me!

Being scared of what someone might say makes you a little bitch imo. Like how weak do your ideas have to be, if you are scared senseless that someone else might say something else?
But then again leftists always were little bitches, how else would they manage to be oppressed 24/7 if they arent little bitches?

Speech itself is not the platform upon which opposing ideas proliferate

To deny others their speech is to deny the conditions that lead to their development of those ideas

that means you're liberal

You're ok with violence, but not revolutionary, because revolutionary violence is directed against your holiness like freedom of speech for fascists or the right to private property and profit for the bourgeoisie.

So you support the smashing of starbucks but not the punching of spencer, correct?

Bourgs will take it from you the second they can.

how about we are under the constant threat of violence, and people like Spencer are trying to make that worse, it is already self defence

Nice quints

Waste of quints. At least Holla Forums didn't get it, I guess.


This is true. But:


This is actually true even though is a shitpost.

Liberals are the ones to silence opposing positions, only accomplishable through the state, you fucking fraud

Posting in social democrat/radical liberal thread.

How is punching spencer even useful?
Isnt left wing basically all wimps, women, faggots, anti guns, cowards, draft dodgers, junkies, etc while right wing people are all nationalists, lifters, gun enthusiasts, innawood live amnunition larpers, patriots, fighters, fit, etc?

Keeping it non-violent is the only way leftists can win since they are majority in the public and minority in violence.

Rights are not real, and any attempt to enforce them only allows those who control communications to dictate the narrative. That said, as a matter of policy encouraging the dissemination of ideas in a socialist society is wise. Without a bourgeois media driving the narrative, bullshit gets readily recognized for what it is.

nigga lmao

I want free speech after the revolution, with some caveats:

BUT, during the revolution, reactionaries, Nazis, climate change deniers, and so on all get the wall.

but who gets to judge what is disinfo? This is the problem. It has to be 100% free, my only caveat would be if you could prove that they actually knowingly tried to deceive people.

Drop this "even though" crap.

Socialists have been at the forefront of fighting for free speech in the United States. We founded the ACLU before liberals took it over. The "fire in a crowded theater" crap was from a case where socialists got arrested for "sedition" when protesting war.

Democratic rights are not something liberals granted out of the goodness of their hearts; they were a necessity to get the proletariat onside in the American Revolution.

Since then they've fought to restrict free speech (or make endless "exceptions") when faced with popular unrest; our task is to resist such efforts.

Normally I'd agree, but I still want to bash the fash. Violence and political repression are tools, ugly tools, but important ones. Even if the left were to swear off violence, fascists certainly won't, meaning that we would cede an advantage to them as they use violence to disrupt our ability to organize and be an effective political force. Putting ourself at a disadvantage means that fascists will be all the closet to winning, and that obviously has to be stopped. When it comes down to either punching Nazis or bein ruled by them only an idiot would pick the latter.

As fun as punching Nazis is, the rest of the world doesn't see it that way and views such things as "proof" communists are evil. If we really want to be effective we need more creative forms of protest (not just smashing windows or holding signs and chanting). We should look to Colombia and see how effective their advertising campaign against guerrillas were.

Can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but yeah, apart from a few unimportant details, that's basically correct.


I support neither smashing starbucks nor Spencer. I support handing a non-smashed starbucks into the hands of the workers.


You are not under a constant threat of violence from a random weirdo peacefully standing on the street. Even if that random weirdo is currently having his five minutes of fame for his rants about white nationalism.


Play some vidya, they feature plenty of fash bashing. Or, I don't know, fly to Rojava, they have plenty of actually dangerous fashies to bash.

There is literally 0 winning with lukewarm liberals when it comes to criticizing ideas. I can't treat a fascist like a child according to liberals, I can't say what they believe in is against everything a free state stands for, I can't say that nationalism is flawed becuase then hurdur i'm not patriotic, I can't peacefully protest, I can't violently protest, I can't criticize Dick Spencer with my fists. The only thing I'm allowed to do is show them infographics debunking their views on race, when they just make up their own data anyway

I agree that sperging out and going full smashy is stupid. If we are going to use violence we have to use it carefully and surgically so as to elicit the best ratio of fash-bashing to liberal screeching. Tbh it's good that Antifa exists because they can be used to take all the flak while actual left wing political groups retain a healthy distance.

...

Read Bookchin.

I agree. Bomb banks, not reactionary speeches. Those you mock.

Not an argument

This right here.
Mostly.
Libertarian socialists and Anarchists yes. But there are also authoritarian socialists who are just as much agaisnt freedom of expression as all of the liberals and republicans.

that is some Holla Forums level tinfoil hattery

Ebin strawman m9

...

That was nominally the situation in the USSR, which had a Constitution that purported to guarantee freedom of speech.

Reality was quite different.

Once you start making dumb exceptions for SJW shit like hate speech laws, you open it for any group that is temporarily politically out of power to be targeted for prosecution, because naturally criticizing the people in power is "lying" about a "group." According to that group. Which happens to be in power.

This will eventually extend to anyone who differs from the currently ruling faction's opinion, whether that's Stalinists or the Khmer Rouge or Robespierre's Montagnards.

And it always eventually gets out of hand and at worst, you end up with a reactionary counterrevolution and that means some bourgie fucker like Napoleon in power.

The only one of these that doesn't turn into maintenance after a few years of it all being built is the electric car. It's like saying the guys who make telephone poles are part of a multi billion dollar industry. Maybe at one point, but no longer. Green energy is not lucrative which is why there is resistance. Being able to force people to continue to buy a product that is in a finite supply so that you can artificially jack up prices based on demand is lucrative for porky

Free speech is nice, but so is punching nazis. Pretty sure we can find some kind of balance here.

Look I'm for defending the rights of people like Richard Spencer but I'm not exactly happy about it.

I would rather see him in debates with smart people who will make him look retarded and have his ideas debunked than have him jailed or killed for wrong thing thus making him a martyr.

I'm okay smashing shutting down authoritarians of all stripes. Specifically because they are authoritarians that seek to take away freedom of expression.
Beating random republicans bloody on the street is not anarchism. The antifa people are fascist themselves, like the republicans say, but not for the reason that republicans say.

Free speech is a bourgeois illusion.