Freedom of Speech

Is freedom of speech essential to Marxism?
I like to think that free speech is one of the cornerstones of Marxism, or at least it should be. I'm not making a stupid libertarian leftist moralist argument, as I have no problem with bashing a fascist's skull in to a brick wall, but hear me out.

We are all quite aware that Marxism is a historically materialist analysis of society, it is Marx himself who has said that we ought to critique all that exists, unapologetically.

I am of the belief, that in order for speech to be free, it needs to cost something in the first place. Fueling racist hatred is worthless, thus I don't have a problem with the prohibition of it. But, what I mean by freedom of speech, is speaking truth to the powers that be. The state, the party, the premiere, etc.

Is it not fair to say that we should all be revisionists? In a sense, that we should examine and critically evaluate existing leftist movements?
After all, Lenin revised Marx, who revised Hegel, who revised Kant. We are all really revisionists when you think about it.

In my opinion, orthodoxy and dogmatism is bad, and it damn well won't lead us to productivity.

Marxism is authoritarian. So no.
Any of the green quarter ideologies however, have it as a central part.

yes, Marx supported freedom of the press and any consistent leftist should support free speech as well. Reactionary ideals don't get their power from speech and trying to censor and push them underground will just fuel their victim complex.

Marx and Engels were both free speech absolutists. Even bringing this up like there's actually a debate about this in any serious academic circles is ridiculous.

inb4 tankies and SJWs

Yes. We can all look historically at how Marx supported free press and speech in the name of ruthless critique and the communist principle so on, but one of the best arguments I found IMO recently came to me through the latest Zero Books podcast: Varn notes that there is immense value in simply knowing of everyone's opinions, especially your enemies, because it makes you aware of the trajectory of the dominant ideologies. On even the bourgeois legal level communists should be defenders of all types of free speech if not solely because of this fact.

The Left has always been in favour of freedom of speech. The notion that it wasn't is an SJW lie. And the "paradox of tolerance" was invented by a fucking neoliberal.

I believe freedom of speech is crucial to any society. That's why extremely authoritarian societies collapse, they do not listen to the many who may decide to tear the government down if you piss them off enough. People tried to assassinate Stalin numerous times and Mao had the people rise against him.

I think democracy based on the popular vote is key to a communist society because the workers are the many anyway.

I don't get why people are so harped on free speech today. It's not like free speech even exists outside of private conversations. The idea that people should be free to say whatever they want through any medium without consequences is a fantasy. The left should be focusing on liberating the workers and destroying the capitalist system and class hierarchies before worrying about establishing "free speech".

almost all of the individual parts of liberalism must be destroyed, or else you are a liberal, get out of my safe space reeeeeeee

The freedom of speech is a liberal propaganda.

It is assumed, that absolutely any idea, opinion, statement, or piece of information may be freely proclaimed without repression, repercussion or discrimination.

It is obviously never true. No society has free speech. The true state of things is that society only tolerates that which is in its interest (or in the ruling class' interest) to tolerate.

That is not was free speech is or ever was or what anyone (worth bothering with) is claiming.

People who say shit like this just haven't read a fucking word into the history and concept of free speech.

By free speech I mean any speech that is not used with malicious intent and that does not incite someone to commit a crime.

Then what is your definition of free speech?

dude, you can say almost anything political you want in liberal democratic countries, and almost nothing political you want in M-L countries. Seriously free speech is a good part of liberalism that Marx identified as good, for good reasons. That Marxist revisionists threw out free speech… I don't care, their societies have fallen, and rightly so.

Everything inside liberalism is cancer except gender equality.

Sure but without the freedom to protest government actions it's like wandering the woods without a compass. It's best a government listens to it's people. If you don't you get little to no warning when they decide to take you out for running the country poorly and that almost always happens at some point.

dude you know that "muh trans liberation" or whatever 3 social issues are at your core is a piss way to build an ideology right?

It's a moral principle and human right which says all viewpoints have a right to be expressed and articulated. Note that this does not mean that anything done with words counts as free speech.

Honestly the word "speech" is misleading. It should be called freedom of viewpoints or something.

So no protected speech? Like people can express their viewpoints but they are not free from the consequences that come with expressing their opinion.

Actually in my country they call it "Freedom of expression" then they place reasonable limits on it in another part of the constitution.

"Consequences" is a vacuous word in this context. Literally everything has consequences.

By consequences i'm referring to physical violence or imprisonment being used to silence someone.

Then yes. Bourgeois state doesn't get to decide which viewpoints are legitimate and which aren't, nor should it.