Lenin the God on "freedom of criticism"

southpawstyle

Superstar
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
4,029
Reputation
1,250
Daps
14,682
Reppin
California
Thread inspired by Right wing snowflakes who cry about being oppressed because they don't feel safe telling people they're Republicans.



Lenin's What Is To Be Done?: Dogmatism And 'Freedom of Criticism'

From "What is to be Done":

“Freedom of criticism” is undoubtedly the most fashionable slogan at the present time, and the one most frequently employed in the controversies between socialists and democrats in all countries. At first sight, nothing would appear to be more strange than the solemn appeals to freedom of criticism made by one of the parties to the dispute. Have voices been raised in the advanced parties against the constitutional law of the majority of European countries which guarantees freedom to science and scientific investigation? “Something must be wrong here,” will be the comment of the onlooker who has heard this fashionable slogan repeated at every turn but has not yet penetrated the essence of the disagreement among the disputants; evidently this slogan is one of the conventional phrases which, like nicknames, become legitimised by use, and become almost generic terms.”

Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of well-attuned “new” arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, “ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc.


He who does not deliberately close his eyes cannot fail to see that the new “critical” trend in socialism is nothing more nor less than a new variety of opportunism. And if we judge people, not by the glittering uniforms they don or by the highsounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that “freedom of criticism” means’ freedom for an opportunist trend in Social-Democracy, freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism.

“Freedom” is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term “freedom of criticism” contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old. The cry heard today, “Long live freedom of criticism”, is too strongly reminiscent of the fable of the empty barrel.

We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are “free” to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!





Edit: This isnt directed at Republicans with a cohesive train of thought. It's for.....well you know who :mjpls:
 
Last edited:

David_TheMan

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
36,805
Reputation
-3,531
Daps
82,825
Lenin was literally arguing against freedom of speech. You understand that right.
Either you are for freedom of speech or you aren't.
If you think the government should have the right to tell people what they can say or can't, just always do this little self check, how would you feel if those in the government thought the exact opposite of you in political thought and opinion, would you want them to have the power to say what speech is permitted and what speech isn't? If you are intellectually honest and not a hypocrite the answer is clear, you side with freedom of speech. If you aren't actually after freedom and liberty, but power the answer reveals itself in thinking the government should have the power to ultimately kill those who it deems speakers of untruth.
 

southpawstyle

Superstar
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
4,029
Reputation
1,250
Daps
14,682
Reppin
California
Lenin was literally arguing against freedom of speech. You understand that right.
Either you are for freedom of speech or you aren't.
If you think the government should have the right to tell people what they can say or can't, just always do this little self check, how would you feel if those in the government thought the exact opposite of you in political thought and opinion, would you want them to have the power to say what speech is permitted and what speech isn't? If you are intellectually honest and not a hypocrite the answer is clear, you side with freedom of speech. If you aren't actually after freedom and liberty, but power the answer reveals itself in thinking the government should have the power to ultimately kill those who it deems speakers of untruth.
Your freedom to be racist should not hold back scientific evidence and the advancement of humanity.

And your posts generally read like a fence walking contrarian Jr. Paralegal
 

David_TheMan

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
36,805
Reputation
-3,531
Daps
82,825
Your freedom to be racist should not hold back scientific evidence and the advancement of humanity.

And your posts generally read like a fence walking contrarian Jr. Paralegal
You don't own anyone mind. If people don't accept scienfitic results they don't, all the individuals have the right and freedom to reject it.
That said being able to jail or kill people who disagree with scientific discovery isn't advancement of humanity, mass murder isn't advancement.
As for what my posts read like, I notice you couldn't actually reply with substance to anything I said. Telling.
 

southpawstyle

Superstar
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
4,029
Reputation
1,250
Daps
14,682
Reppin
California
You are free to say whatever you want. Jail and death aren't the only options if we believe in the scientific method. Giving the 3% of scientists who deny climate change a platform is like giving the minority of scientific racists the same privilege. Gulags aren't necessary if we can present enough evidence to shame the fukk out of the minority who hold us back. It might be too late considering everything now is a hoax or fake news.
 

David_TheMan

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
36,805
Reputation
-3,531
Daps
82,825
You are free to say whatever you want. Jail and death aren't the only options if we believe in the scientific method. Giving the 3% of scientists who deny climate change a platform is like giving the minority of scientific racists the same privilege. Gulags aren't necessary if we can present enough evidence to shame the fukk out of the minority who hold us back. It might be too late considering everything now is a hoax or fake news.
Scientific method is methology on scientific research. To use scientific method when talking about politics and free speech is absurd.
Last time I checked there isn't officially any government media, if a media outlet chooses to let people who are deniers or revisionists talk on their station by their choice its their progagative. Same with racists.
Who said gulags are necessary? Strawman argument.
Yes if you want to socially ostracize and publicly shame great, attempt to do so, but if it doesn't work then you have to accept it and move on, you don't have a right to what people believe in.
If people believe in alternative or fake new or dismiss what you believe in you live with it or you do a better job selling what you believe in, trying to advocate removing liberties and freedom to promote freedom is ridiculous and the sign or a poorly thoughtout rationale.
 

EndDomination

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
31,448
Reputation
7,115
Daps
110,140
The concept of freedom of speech is loaded bullshyt.
It gives "equal footing" to outrageous, libelous, completely false, bigoted, and otherwise mind-numbingly claims and rational, truthful claims, under the guise that "everyone should have a voice" and that evidence can convince.
This is simply not the case, the rights of my people should not have equal footing with the claims of fascists.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
9,457
Reputation
-564
Daps
15,340
Reppin
WestMidWest
The concept of freedom of speech is loaded bullshyt.
It gives "equal footing" to outrageous, libelous, completely false, bigoted, and otherwise mind-numbingly claims and rational, truthful claims, under the guise that "everyone should have a voice" and that evidence can convince.
This is simply not the case, the rights of my people should not have equal footing with the claims of fascists.
freedom of speech is to protect "offensive speech" aka, shyt we disagree with
That is an unique, fantastic, and important concept for any society to progress
 

Meta Reign

I walk the streets like, ''say something, n!gga!''
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
3,220
Reputation
-3,571
Daps
6,588
Reppin
Franklin ave.
Dudes are outright saying fukk freedom of speech. Dudes really believe that the scientific establishment is in no way manipultaed or politicized.

It's literally being used to turn y'all into evil. This is history repeating itself.

Don't you guys understand that there's nothing new under the sun?

You're being used!
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-150
Daps
65,108
Reppin
NULL
Dudes are outright saying fukk freedom of speech. Dudes really believe that the scientific establishment is in no way manipultaed or politicized.

It's literally being used to turn y'all into evil. This is history repeating itself.

Don't you guys understand that there's nothing new under the sun?

You're being used!

These are the same people quiet about the atheist communist regimes that murdered millions.
 

southpawstyle

Superstar
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
4,029
Reputation
1,250
Daps
14,682
Reppin
California
Dudes are outright saying fukk freedom of speech. Dudes really believe that the scientific establishment is in no way manipultaed or politicized.

It's literally being used to turn y'all into evil. This is history repeating itself.

Don't you guys understand that there's nothing new under the sun?

You're being used!
Science has no agenda. Special interests have agendas and obfuscate science as a way to keeping outdated systems in place. It's the reason coal jobs are still taken into consideration even though the industry employs less people than Arbys. Because we give a platform to everyone with an opinion regardless of the validity.

This is the reason white nationalist Trump supporters have resorted to "free speech rallies" that are essentially racist circle jerks. It is a backlash to the (admittedly symbolic) women's and science marches that have taken place. "All Lives Matter" is an example of regressive freedom of speech that could be reasonably dealt with if the media cared about real journalism instead of click bait headlines and sensationalism.
 
Top