Re: Civil liberties, Environment

[Adam Levenstein <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Redaktion Red Globe <sammler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> You might take what revolution or revolutionary
> process you might, you
> will land up with the same fact: If you do not get
> the
> counter-revolutionary forces to surrender, the
> revolution will be lost
> sooner or later (it might be different, if you would
> have a revolution
> within all capitalist states at one time. I guess
> you never won't).

OK, but there's a problem with this. Does
outlawing/limiting free expression cause
counterrevolutionary forces to surrender? Does it even
stop counterrevolutionary ideas? There is no reason to
think it accomplishes either.

> You mixing things up: The question is not to limit
> the right of free
> speech within the revolution. The point is to limit
> it outside of it.

The problem with this argument is "what is outside of
the revolution?" Socialist revolution is something
that filters through all aspects of life. It is, in
effect three revolutions in one - a political, social,
*and* cultural revolution. As a friend of mine once
said at a YS convention, "in my opinion, when you go
the bathroom, it's political." I didn't ask exactly
how, but his point stands. Within the framework of an
ongoing socialist revolution, I don't think there is
such a thing as "outside the revolution."

> It would not be a good idea to accept the right to
> organise for those
> who are working against the workers power, even if
> they are worker. At
> the end of the day there are three decisions to be
> made: Get them
> silent; surrender to them, or kill them. I would
> prefer the first one.

But what will that accomplish? Will it stop them? No.
Will it slow them down? Probably not.

I would suggest a different solution: Engage with
them. Find out what they're objections are, how they
think the revolution could move in a more positive
direction. Difference of opinion, IMO, would
strengthen a revolution more than stifle it.

Not that I don't think there won't be people who are
simply reactionary jerks. There always are. But is
throwing them in jail the answer? In a "healthy"
society, people who are working against it are
typically moved to the fringe of society. For example,
and Jose can comment more about this, few people in
Cuba take the dissidents seriously. As another
example, communists in the United States aren't taken
very seriously - because the United States, as a
capitalist society, is "healthy". (Please don't take
"healthy" as a synonym for "progressive" or
"positive." I only mean "not in danger of imminent
collapse.")

When society is "unhealthy," that is another matter.
Will then outlawing "counterrevolutionary" speech
solve the problem? In my opinion, it's more like
treating lung cancer with cough drops. Society might
feel better for a little while, but the feeling is
merely an illusion.

If the revolution has become so unstable (or paranoid)
that saying "I think the Party is wrong about _____"
becomes a major threat to society, then the Party must
deal with the causes of the disease, not the symptoms.

> If you look at Nicaragua you will find that it was a
> great deal for
> civil rights (what ever that might be in reality) to
> have elections in
> the middle of a war against the contras, however, it
> was not a good
> idea for the revolution.

True, but an armed conflict is a different matter. Of
course armed opposition should be fought tooth and
nail--that's a given. But unarmed opposition is just
that--unarmed.

> The
> point is, despite
> the fact what I believe the process we face in China
> now will be, that
> a peasant is not elected by the workers (and farmers
> in this case)
> within the organisations of the revolution (for
> further information
> about what the organisation is: it is the party.

I'm not sure what your point is in this regard, but if
I read it right you're saying that it's not the
peasant's job to comment on party/government policy.

That is dead wrong.

It is *everyone's* job to comment, to discuss, to try
and push the revolution forward. That is fundamental
to popular rule. The Party, to (over?)simplify the
concept of democratic-centralism, is merely the organ
for instituting the results of those discussions.

(Incidentally, if I read you wrong, please accept my
apology.)

> But, I do not know whether you know that, you are
> pointing to a very
> important point: The way power is controlled.

Not only do I know it, but that is *exactly* my point.
What defines what is "counterrevolutionary speech?"
Opposition to a particular political individual?
Opposition to a policy?

In a society where the political, the economic, and
the cultural spheres are truly controlled *by the
populace*, by curttailing the populace's ability at
*any* level to comment about policy, individuals, or
life in general for good OR evil also curttails their
ability to govern.

Adam


=====
Adam Levenstein                          cleon42@xxxxxxxxx
ICQ: 17125158

And now, for something completely different.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/