No free speech for Communists?

[quirk]

Quirk you don't seriously call the USSR, North Korea and Cuba socialist states?
If thats your model your gonna scare the living ************************ out of people

No I dont. The only socialist states we have had is USSR up until the mid 1950's and China until 1976. Plus the Paris commune of course.

[Worldbystorm]

But that is not the point. You still cannot say free speech exsists. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat it will be a criminal offence to call for a counter revolution. This will restrict free speech also but at least we admit it. Using your own logic terry I hope when we have socialism here you will support such a restriction as it is only restricting something which will be illegal.

You didn't answer my post above. What if the people -having lived under socialism -reject it? Do you believe in democracy? If the people choose private property, private business, how can you justify preventing these people expressing their opinions?

Depends what you mean by democracy. If you mean like what we have today in Ireland then I dont support it one bit. The ruling class hold power and rule in their own intrest. They do not have to use force to hold power in most instances but do so through much more subtle means such as control of the media. What the people want or what is in their best intrests does not matter one bit.

Under socialism there would be no going back to capitalism no matter what. You dont go and have a revolution just to turn around and surrender it. That would be stupid and in my opinion criminal. Criminal to restore a system where people are destined to spend their lives slaving for crumbs. Where you have starvation and homelesness and rape and no real efforts are made to combat this.

People would however get to express their opinions even those who are completely oppossed to the system. Enough of this didn't happen in past socialist states but lessons have been learned. However people who actively promote things like counter revolution or sabotage would have to be repressed. It has taken the bourgeoise state 100's of years to perfect the way in which it keeps the majority of people in a situation where they work against their own intrests. In the beginning the socialist state may have to use much less subtle methods but this will only be directed at a tiny minority.

So someone who said, for example, I want to start my own restaurant, would be imprisoned? Or someone who said, this is economically an unviable system? They would go to jail too? Would you ban books which discussed the merits or otherwise of a free market? At what point would you draw the line?

You talk about how 'socialists states' weren't open enough, but in the end the only means you would have to stop this would be significant repression. I think that a coercive socialism is one bound to fail.

As for 'no-going back', well that too is a pretty dismal thing to hear someone of the left say. Firstly it implies that your belief system is somehow inherently superior to any other, history teaches otherwise about all such systems. Secondly that you don't actually believe that people might buy into it and might want to change it. Thirdly that they would having made a choice, have no option to rescind that choice. In other words you would want the choice made but would then immediately remove all autonomy from them. That's dishonest in so many ways it's hardly worth articulating them.

What you describe is arguably objectively worse than the current situation.

[Universal_001]

That kind of "top down" socialsim of central economic planning was hardly a success story was it?
Not to metion it was a one party state with no free speach or press...

In fact I'd say that the USSR destroyed any hope of real socialism ever...EVER happening because whenever you say socialism now people just picture ques around the block for basic consumer goods...consumer goods of low quality I might add....

...they picture a state so decrepid with such a low quality of life they had to keep people in with a wall..

[quirk]

So someone who said, for example, I want to start my own restaurant, would be imprisoned? Or someone who said, this is economically an unviable system? They would go to jail too? Would you ban books which discussed the merits or otherwise of a free market? At what point would you draw the line?

I already said that people can say what they want but you cannot allow people to activly promote counter revolution. People would be welcome to bring up all of what you say above.I think there would be lots that could be learned from people who said for example "this is economically an unviable system" as they may be pointing to things that actually need changed.

[Universal_001]

So someone who said, for example, I want to start my own restaurant, would be imprisoned? Or someone who said, this is economically an unviable system? They would go to jail too? Would you ban books which discussed the merits or otherwise of a free market? At what point would you draw the line?

You talk about how 'socialists states' weren't open enough, but in the end the only means you would have to stop this would be significant repression. I think that a coercive socialism is one bound to fail.

As your probably already aware, most socialist parties today including our own would run a million miles form this form of statism, in fact the Irish SP mocks the common characature of socialism by saying that "it's not as if you won't be allowd start your own restraunt"

I personally think any socialist economic model (there is more than one) that could not withstand the debate with free market economics is not worth defending.

[XRoot]

In the beginning the socialist state may have to use much less subtle methods but this will only be directed at a tiny minority.

You drugged-up communist!!

[sackville]

Free speech is indivisible. End of story.

Time to limit stupid, pointless threads, more like.

[Wolverine]

I also believe nazis should have the crap kicked out of them and be denied a political platform .

Merle, just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower, you go and do this.







And totally redeem yourself!

[Twin Towers]

Aren't you just Desmond back again? Or that other guy, Prophet&Seer?

Secondly, if you're interested, I was informed that you post from the same I.P. address as 'ailish'. I'm not going to tell you who told me, but I found it convincing.

You should know!

Wheres your convincing informer?

[Jozer]

Unless someone is inciting violence, they should be allowed to speak their mind. If they are full of s**t, then a grown-up population should be able to see that for themselves.

David Irving is a case in point. He was utterly discredited in an open debate, which he chose to conduct via a libel trial. His subsequent conviction in Austria has actually given him a lifeline, as he can now present himself as a victim of censorship.