How am I supposed to take Communists seriously when they spout rhetoric like this?

If they want to cut off our freedom of speech, fine, they're bourgs. I don't expect any better from them. They take away our freedom of speech, we take away their freedom to breathe.

But to pretend that while the revolution is going on that we'll allow any and all idiotic liberals and reactionaries the freedom to spread anti-commie propaganda against us is ridiculous.

I'm not in support for letting bourgs pass anti-free speech laws, they'll do that whenever they feel threatened regardless of us, I'm against the moralistic cry of 'muh free speech!' by liberals and Holla Forumstypes who want the freedom to undermine revolutionary activity. Free speech for communists, not for anti-communists.

Yeah, I understand what he's saying, but still.

This is some spooky essentialist bullshit, but it doesn't really matter anyways. Fascists aren't human :^)

No, it isn't spooky. It really is something very basic and necessary. I'd expect more from an anarchist.

Honestly, the whole "I respect your right to say whatever you want, as long as I can say whatever I want back" shtick is just smug softballing and preaching to the choir IMO. It also creates this imaginary boogeymen that there are all these people who want to silence Trump (and not keep him out of power), which really just plays into the right's hands (IMO).

Yui is only pruving that the inteligantsia cannot become leader, cause it has not the ability to talk to the people.

THIS IS WHY ONLY XEXIZY IS WORTHY OF LEADING.

As seen again here:

And who decides who the anti-communists are? A committee that can then be influenced and we go FULLSTALINISM again?
This is the central problem Leninism brings forward, and "just ban X from spreading propaganda" doesn't cut it long term.

m8, I'm just shitposting - though your argument in favor of free speech for fascists is almost as lame as the very idea of supporting free speech for fascists because it's inhumane to not allow the fascists to express themselves :'(

I've already written at length before many times on Holla Forums about why free speech is a meme and is a liberal "right" that we should only care about in the most superficial and practical of senses. But in the case of fascists: The idea of free speech for fascists is completely absurd because we already know that the position of fascists and Nazis is to essentially bully groups they don't like and in the end to systematically purge them for wrongthink. That is like the entirety of the fascist position, and especially the Nazi one; we don't need to hear what they have to say. We already know what they're going to do if they have any power, and that is more than enough to repress fascists and Nazis with extreme prejudice. Or, you could go ahead and tell minorities, workers, and queer people that they have no right to act directly against these groups who explicitly intend to repress them - because muh free speech :'(((

And Yui is right that actually believing your right to free speech extends to when you're actually a threat to the State is fucking laughable.

Xexizy's popularity here is nothing more than a cult of personality. He doesn't have any place explaining people shit about leftist theory considering that he doesn't read anything.

I don't disagree that it's essential during the revolutionary process to completely shut down their ability to assemble, organise, spread their propaganda. After all, it's a war not a pleasant social gathering.

However the (mostly) open exchange of ideas is essential to any free society. And I say mostly, because a free society can't tolerate the existence of fascist and other terrorists groups.

Well, I never said that either. I think it's a very complicated issue. I agree with many of your points though

This reminds of the case when people tried to silence a Holocaust denier but Chomsky got in trouble by saying, "Let him make a fool out of himself". We need to get more people on board first. Change cannot happen if the people do not desire it. The problem with the suppression of speech if highly risky. Who will be in charge? Under what conditions and who will they target as well as to what degree? Won't this lead to abuse in power? Will the censor or disrupt speech other than that of the originally intended opponent such as other leftists, etc. Will they censor their own competitors from the same school of thought because of personal interests? It seems highly corruptible.

I don't want Xexixy becoming any leader. Not another fucking Leninist. The furthest I can go is supporting a libertarian Marxist.

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT. THAN A MAN OF THE PEOPLE, FROM THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, LIKE THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE?

The problem with Nazis, is that they rely on power exertion.
Remove them the ability to spam, and they'll say "leftypol is banhappy". And I have no problem with that.
But they have to be able to get to the state of spamming, to ban them.

IRL, the nazi can say whatever he wants, but if he tries to step on others, i.e. shouting or even committing violence, then his "freedom of speech" is overlapping other people's freedom and he has to >>>/gulag/
(Hint: He can do nothing, if he doesn't step on others. Hitler succeeded cause he used violence).

Stalinism is as dangerous as Nazism.

PS. Sure, during the revolution uprising, there can be no "free" speech, but ther has to be a limit to this "bunkerization", in leftypol terms.

ONLY a Leninist can solve all this problems, cause ONLY a Leninist has only this problems to solve.

The roads to all others have been laid.
We now need to find out "How to Avoid getting Stalin, for dummies".

Communists, numb nuts. Preferably represented through an Athenian-type popular assembly. The way some people here are ruthlessly dedicated to destroying a proletarian revolution is fucking baffling. We need a /trot/ board to quarantine the liberals.

He has no popularity, though he posts his videos enough here to have us believe he does.

Just sounds like suppression of dissenting ideas to me.

Why pretend to have ethics? It is clear that it is simply "I want it my way, and will do anything necessary to have it that way".

No better than the US during the red scare. Just because you are in the minority view, doesn't justify it. If achieved, the only difference would be the reversal of the roles, and the shift towards the new power's view of "right".

You use your free speech to fight hate speech.

The problem is that we have things like the Espionage Act in America that fucks us over in the regards of what we have in a "free" society…

It's hypocritical really.

If another faction adopted the mindset, they'd be decrying it.

oh dude this is nothing, I see analyses more pretentious and verbose than that about Beyonce's new single on a regular basis

Our code of ethics are only the actions necessary to overturn class rule and the break down the old society. We will do anything necessary to have out way.

There was no serious threat of a communist takeover of the US, but the danger of capitalist restoration in actually communistic countries was always a present danger and eventually came to pass. If the 20th century showed us anything it's that a future hypothetical multi-party socialist state would be a suicidal regime.

Well, what kind of communists?
Judea's people's front, of People's front of Judea?

Aristophanes in Hippeis had some good critiques on that system. Popular assemble can as easily be corrupted as and other system. Don't forget, Athens killed Socrates for "inserting new deities" and "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???".

So, the problem of "Who guards the guardians is still there. And it's the central question of Leninism. (not M-L).

How can you have popular ownership of the means of production without the consent of the people?

If a socialist state is destroyed in an election, it deserves to fail for fucking up so badly that capitalism looked like a good idea.

The suppression of free speech is itself a reactionary opinion.

tbh you can easily discern liberals from revolutionaries by asking them about free speech.

spoken like a fuckin classic liberal

Isn't the point to have a state/organization/w.e that doesn't need to guarantee such a trivial right, and then use said right as social indoctrination/justification/control etc? Also isn't the left basically on the side that >"it's right to rebel against reactionaries", or are we seriously supposed to let fascists spout their bullshit. Lose the liberal dogma.

At this point in the world’s development, all forms of expression are losing their grip on reality and being reduced to self-parody.

Except the law doesn't works both ways.

But how can you be certain that censorship of the right can't also be used to censor fellow leftists

Not saying censoring reactionaries is bad though

...

Holla Forums should serve as living proof that when you let the ideas of Proudhon and Bakunin run rampant liberalism inevitably follows. If communists continue to make the same mistakes this board has then we're all finished.

Hello FULLTRIGGERDISM

...