Re: Civil Rights

[Adam Levenstein <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Redaktion Red Globe <sammler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> we are talking obviousely about two different
> things: You are talking
> about human rights in a post-revolutionary society,
> I was talking
> about the revolutionary process itself.

Partially. But I don't think there is such a thing as
"post-revolutionary society." Unlike Henry Liu, I *do*
think communism is a movement, not an "end state." The
universe is entirely too dynamic to have a single
permanent society that never changes.

I do agree with you that we need to figure out what
the hell we're talking about.

By "free expression," I mean:

A) The right to voice, publicly or privately, your
opinions.
B) The right to publish said opinions.
C) The right to demonstrate for said opinions.
D) The right to *legally* attempt to change the
existing laws in favor of them.

Now, A) and B) both have an important caveat attached.
In a socialist society, society as a whole controls
the print media. I don't think people have a right or
expectation to have the media cater to every opinion,
idea, or belief on the planet. Also, not everything is
society-owned; specifically during the beginning
stages of revolution (post-military conflict, if one
occurs), there is still private property. I think
people who publish their ideas using private materials
- or even those who get published in popular media
outlets - should be punished for doing so.

C) and D) also have practical strings attached. As I
believe Lenin pointed out, striking is progressive in
capitalist society - but reactionary under socialism.
Publishing your ideas hurts no-one, but depriving
people of, say, food because you don't want to work
democratically to get what you want is harmful to
society.

Now, I'd like to sum up why I don't think the above
should be limited, suppressed, or outlawed:

1) I don't think such suppression will accomplish its
desired goal, which is the defeat of
counter-revolutionism (is that a word?). I don't think
it would even be a step in that direction.
2) I think it doesn't treat the true source of the
problem. In essence, it diverts attention away from
the very real question of "why are there
counterrevolutionaries?" That question, I think, is
more important than who's printing what. It deals with
the very heart of the matter.
3) It opens the door for witchhunts. What defines
"counterrevolutionary?" Who defines it? Is the
definition a truly objective analysis, or is it a
self-serving reactionary attempt for a certain person
or clique to stay in power? The problem is that if
it's the latter, there's no way to oppose it. There's
no way to open the door for needed change.

You have alluded to my argument as "bourgeois," and
Henry Liu has called it an out-and-out "anarchist
view." That would make me, in the framework of a
socialist society, a "counterrevolutionary." Should I
go to jail, or be whisked off to a "reeducation camp?"
Where do you draw the line between acceptable opinions
and unacceptable opinions?

4) Finally, I think such suppression is
counterproductive. Socialism *relies* on popular,
democratic rule. By limiting the ability of people to
voice what they think in *any* way, you limit their
ability to criticize policy. By limiting their ability
to criticize policy, you limit their ability to change
it. By limiting their ability to change policy, you
limit popular, democratic rule - and thus your society
is no longer democratic-centralist, but merely
centralist. In other words, a dictatorship.

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/