I agree that your previous misunderstandings lead you to this one.
Fascist speech is to be exposed and criticised scientifically, not dogmatically. Your use of “protected” here implies something I do not defend.
I want to attack fascist speech, you want to hide it… from my point of view I could also say you are the one protecting it.
Since its inception the term has been about adherence to party lines and enforcing ideological purity. The right wants to pretend they don’t do it, so they want to attribute it to particular instances from the left, but they do the same thing all the time.
See the next paragraph on that same article you quote (Wikipedia, btw):
The phrase politically correct first appeared in the 1930s, when it was used to describe dogmatic adherence to ideology in totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.[5] Early usage of the term politically correct by leftists in the 1970s and 1980s was as self-critical satire;[8] usage was ironic, rather than a name for a serious political movement.[12][13][14] It was considered an in-joke among leftists used to satirise those who were too rigid in their adherence to political orthodoxy.[15] The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century, with many describing it as a form of censorship.[16]
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.
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.
You are misunderstanding me and it has become clear that I’m not gonna get through you. We are talking in circles.
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.
I agree with Marx there. But there is a massive difference between forcibly suppressing the economic power of the bourgeoisie (collectivizing their land) and suppressing the expression of ideas.
If you have already stripped the bourgeoisie of their factories and banks (or say… gone as far as to kill them), their “speech” loses its power. If a state is still terrified of “fascist manipulation” after the revolution, then the state hasn’t actually solved the material problems of the people.
A lot of socialists states failed because they were just a wolf in sheep’s clothing and didn’t actually solve the issues.
I think you are the one misinterpreting Marx’s context and rejecting scientific methods to truth. If you believed in the scientific method you should support open study of truth like scientific socialism does, with the will of scientifically testing the paradigm, instead of supporting the establishment of dogmatic truths through control and coercion.
Marx’s scientific socialism defends that the state -any state- is a ‘parasite’ on society (he even believed the phrase “Communist State” was a contradiction).
Are you implying that Marx was not making general claims about the nature of truth and the state, but that instead he was being opportunistic, like a tactician only interested in defending objective truth under the particular context of the state being openly capitalistic?
Truth IS objective reality. Again, you are conflating idealist ideas of truth with material truth.
If a socialist theory is true and scientific, it should be able to dismantle a fascist argument in front of a crowd of workers. If you have to put the fascist in jail to stop the workers from believing him, you are admitting that your “truth” isn’t convincing enough to win on its own.
“The censored press has a demoralizing effect. … The government hears only its own voice, it knows that it hears only its own voice, yet it harbors the illusion that it hears the voice of the people.” Karl Marx
You say it’s the “working classes” the ones censoring the speech, but you are falling into a “who watches the watchmen?” problem
Marx argued that the only way to truly defeat speech is to prove it wrong in the “light of day”
“If you do not believe in the victory of truth, you are committing a crime against truth.”
“Truth is as little modest as light… Truth is universal, it does not belong to me, it belongs to all; it owns me, I do not own it.”
Truth that requires a policeman to protect it from being challenged isn’t actually truth at all… but just some idealistic subjective point.
No, he was in favor of giving the power to the working class, not to some elite that limits what the working class can do, learn about or be exposed to.
“The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves.”
“The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul, the embodiment of a people’s faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world… It is the mind of the state that can be delivered into every cottage more cheaply than material gas.” Karl Marx
And sure, they’ll deny it.
Ah… so you admit they deny being nazis?
that’s because they’re lying liars who love to lie
I agree, they love to keep the mask on.
My point was that this is on their benefit.
As an antifascist, I want them to openly admit they are nazis so that their lies can be exposed.
Their lies not being exposed protects them. Hiding is a form of protection, truth and transparency is a great antifa tool.
Where’s the declaration? Elon has publicly said he’s not a nazi too, even as a response to that. So mask is still on.
You don’t have to look far to find people saying that they don’t believe this was meant as nazi support, so it clearly didn’t really expose him on the eyes of the public.
If their mask were off they would not need to dog whistle.
Mask-off??
Can you link to me government officials openly declaring themselves nazis? …I want the actual direct declaration.
I think the reason they got the government is PRECISELY because they keep the mask. Trump has already said multiple times he’s not a nazi, do you think he would win approval if he came out and said he is?
You are making the point for me.
Again, they should be exposed.
Europe has pro-Nazi organizations, but they are clandestine. In the same way as China opens the door for capitalist talking points by openly censoring them, Europe gives munition to nazis by refusing to let them expose themselves. Nazism is a stupid ideology that would not stand its ground were its mask to fall.
There are documentaries protesting against neonazis and talking about their proliferation and rise… but I can’t check and link them because they are not allowed, “not available in your country”, particularly in Germany.
I’m convinced that if the reality of nazism was more public, antifascist sentiment would rise.
I personally don’t think it works. The EU continues having a lot of neonazis… I’d argue it’s likely the place with most neonazis in the world for its population size (though of course I can’t say with certainty since we can’t monitor them properly).
Whether the censorship actually helps is a highly contested debate here… having nazis operating in the shadows is actually way more scary and dangerous, being unable to openly debate them makes us more vulnerable… I would personally be happier if they were exposed so they could be openly challenged and people could see what they are and how to prepare. Instead, they are selective and secretive, use the censorship as a tool to act as victims and try and recruit from clandestinity whenever they see a vulnerable target.
Wrong again. And this time Im starting to feel insulted with such gratuituous accusation. Fascism needs to be exposed, dismantled… Not allowed to fester… it should be studied in schools and disarmed… not hidden from view and let to develop in the shadows. You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting my argument.
You are the one trapped in idealism since you are unable to see the objective power imbalance and instead seem to want to look for moral benefit/happiness…
You’re focused entirely on a vague ideal over what has a concrete impact on benefiting the working classes
No, what im focusing more on is the objective balance of power when it comes to control of media and the outlets for collective expression and discussion.
The subjective idea of “benefit” and / or “happiness” is not as important for a materialist as the actual power structure.
you can’t speak freely in the EU
Yea, which is why I specifically was talking about protecting peaceful discussions about the system of governance and activism in that area.
I can link you to communist groups in the EU. Here’s one: https://www.eurcomact.org/
There, an European communist organization. Still waiting on the Chinese capitalist organization.
And to be clear: it’s not like I’m particularly fond of the way EU does things in general. They are usually quite disappointing. But protecting this kind of speech is something that I will support.
Don’t look up