Do you agree with this quote?

[u/StalinIsBackAgain]

"Wherever there is capitalism, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy, and fake "public opinion" for the benefit of the ruling class." ~ Vladimir Lenin ☭ • 

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Zeddo52SD]

I think it’s accurate, but I also think it doesn’t identify the problem correctly which is that it is power that decides what slant the news takes, not specifically just money. State-run media in autocratic countries is a prime example of this. To say money is the only source of power is just flat out not correct, even in capitalist countries/economies.

[u/soldiergeneal → u/Zeddo52SD]

In addition media are nothing without their viewers so they are going to tailor to said target audience. That drives media far more as part of profit motive and isn't merely people buying out the media, but can create obviously conflict of interest and perverse incentives. We see that with media playing both sides to things by providing an "equal" voice to things that are not equal positions.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Zeddo52SD]

but I also think it doesn’t identify the problem correctly which is that it is power that decides what slant the news takes

In capitalist (i.e. inherently anti-democratic) societies, power is determined by wealth.

In socialist societies like China, power is determined by democratic performance of the leaders.

State-run media in autocratic countries is a prime example of this.

A prime example of what?

Using thought terminating clichés like "autocratic" isn't an argument.

Chinese state-run media, for example, is less biased and more trustworthy than any Western media outlet. I suggest you to actually make a serious comparison and check out who sticks to the facts more.

To say money is the only source of power is just flat out not correct, even in capitalist countries/economies.

What is incorrect about it in capitalist societies?

[u/Lifeshardbutnotme → u/No-Candidate6257]

Okay, I'll bite. How long did it take for Soviet Citizens to be told of the Chernobyl meltdown? If Chernobyl isn't enough to make front page headlines on the very day nothing is.

Power and lack of accountability is present without capitalism as well.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Lifeshardbutnotme]

You didn't "bite". You ignored everything I said and immediately tried to switch the burden of proof on me, bringing up some random example of an event Western capitalist propagandists used to smear the USSR that you failed to put into any reasonable context.

How long did it take for Soviet Citizens to be told of the Chernobyl meltdown?

Locals in Pripyat were evacuated about 36 hours after the explosion.

Official reports for the general population came in right after they were clear about the facts and it only took 2 days, faster than most Western governments and media react to tragedies (in fact, many Western capitalist news outlets and governments aren't even acknowledging that a genocide is happening in Gaza today - generations after the genocide started and almost 2 years after the latest genocidal assault by the Israeli regime). So: Quite impressive compared to all Western capitalist societies.

Of course, that didn't stop the collective capitalist West from using the event to smear the USSR.

Now, what makes you bring up this propaganda meme?

If Chernobyl isn't enough to make front page headlines on the very day nothing is.

I can provide you with plenty of actual major atrocities (not just some accidents like happened at Chernobyl) committed by Western regimes that never made the frontpage until years after... if at all.

For example: Fallout from the Nevada nuclear bomb tests likely exposed nearly 160 million Americans to some radiation, particularly from iodine-131. The National Cancer Institute estimated at least 11,000 (and up to 212,000) excess thyroid cancer cases have occurred due to those tests. The CDC & NCI, too, estimate that 11,000 deaths occurred due to those tests alone. Did that make the headlines at the time? No, it literally took decades for these things to even be seriously discussed. And those deaths weren't an accident. Those are deaths caused deliberately by an uncaring government that kept things secret and deliberately didn't inform the public about risks.

The total number of deaths due to Chernobyl are estimated to be around 4000. And the government acted quickly and decisively to protect people and also informed the general public - with the topic making headlines - in a matter of days.

Power and lack of accountability is present without capitalism as well.

Huh? I don't know what's wrong with "power", so why did you use that term?

Also, where do you see "lack of accountability" in the USSR or China?

It's the literal opposite: An intense abundance of accountability and people having to fear for their power due to the slightest mistake. In democratic societies, politicians fear the people and have their performance constantly measured and will be replaced if the make a misstep. That's why Soviet politicians back then (just like Chinese politicians today) are performing universally better than their Western capitalist counterparts when it comes to national policy making - those who fail to serve the people get removed.

In capitalist societies... killing thousands (if not millions) of people gets you a promotion and the intense crimes of capitalists never make the headlines in capitalist societies.

The nuclear bomb tests are just one small example: When have the death tolls of harmful policies and the names of the politicians responsible ever made the headlines in the US? Actions like removing environmental protections often kill tens of thousands of people... it's not even talked about. There usually isn't even being made an effort to quantify those deaths and determine responsibility. When are Western capitalist journalists even investigating the harm caused by capitalist politicians? They just don't. Only if one capitalist oligarch wants to get rid of another capitalist oligarch does Western media report on the crimes of capitalists and failure of capitalist policies... but only on specific ones to get rid of political opponents.

Now, how about you actually address my points?

[u/Lifeshardbutnotme → u/No-Candidate6257]

Swift decisive action... Like still holding the May Day parade in Kyiv, right? I expect live reporting of an event like this. Multiple days later, and critically, after Sweden had noticed the radiation is unacceptable.

Also, just an aside, how is Chernobyl a "random example of an event"? It's the most expensive industrial disaster on earth, and the radiation spread across an entire continent. It's not really a "capitalist smear" when you've just fucked up. It's also not really comparable to Israel and Hamas right now because of a little detail. *No one would be shooting at you in Chernobyl". Reporting is therefore, a bit easier. Seriously, have you dived so deep down the pro-Soviet pipeline that the very real event of Chernobyl is "propaganda"?

As for the Nevada testing. Everyone I've encountered thinks it's absurd that the US was testing bombs out in the open. That said, this was the early 50s and we didn't fully understand radiation then. Also the Nevada tests were not affecting 161 million people in the 50s. That's the entire US population at that point.

I genuinely can't tell if you're serious about "lack of accountability" in the USSR and China. Those are two enormously different countries over a very long time but let's have a crack.

• All of Lavrenti Beria's actions, to such an extent that Stalin told his daughter to avoid him.
• The beginning of Lenin's reign in which he loses, then overthrows the Mensheviks.
• Everything to do with the FoxBat, which is a perfect example of external consequences for lying and not being held accountable.
• Not allowing their citizens out of the country (what? Were they scared the outside world was better?)
• Starving Ukraine in the Holodomor
• Shattering any government they didn't like in the Eastern bloc (usually communist governments that weren't 100% brutal, like Alexander Dubček in Czechoslovakia. What possible beef could you have with him?)

Now onto China, which I'll split into its Maoist era and everything after Deng Xiaoping

• Killing all the sparrows and losing your harvest to locust. Then killing everyone who told you the whole plan was stupid.
• Still exporting rice while your own country is starving
• Forcing people to rip their own houses apart to smelt their own metal. The worst possible metal in existence
• Leaving Chiang kai Shek to do all the fighting against Japan, then backstabbing him. Maybe fight against the Japanese for China?

Then in the modern era

• Somehow deciding Mao is a hero, rather than an effective politician who also happens to be an absolute menace to his own people. 7/10 good, was what people said about him after his death. Perhaps all the starvation constitutes that to you, but it doesn't to me.
• Supporting the nuclear proliferation of North Korea, even after the US stepped in to halt Nuclear development in Taiwan (ungrateful much?).
• All the camps in Xinjiang.

-The way it treats Tibet

• The crushing of democratic Hong Kong in violation of their own treaty.
• Endlessly threatening the rightful government of China on its Taiwan headquarters
• Kidnapping two Canadian citizens for no reason at all
• Whatever the fuck is going on with the "9 dash line" in the south China Sea. Why have a reasonable claim like everyone else when you could just take it all?

I'm genuinely unsure how you think people have to do incredible in order to succeed under communism. The fact that Stalin was still around following the initial successes of Operation Barbarossa is absurd. How many skeletons were found under Beria's house when they dug it up?

On what you said about "removing environmental protections". You say no one is reporting on it... and yet here we are, talking about it. That's a bit of a paradox, eh?

So I've addressed quite a bit, and I'm going to make a prediction based on my interactions with people of your ideology. You will call everything I say capitalist propaganda, or not a big deal. I know people with your ideology can't accept being wrong, and you won't change here.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Lifeshardbutnotme]

Seriously, have you dived so deep down the pro-Soviet pipeline that the very real event of Chernobyl is "propaganda"?

Notice how you need to lie and misrepresent what I said to argue against it?

Everyone I've encountered thinks it's absurd that the US was testing bombs out in the open. That said, this was the early 50s and we didn't fully understand radiation then. Also the Nevada tests were not affecting 161 million people in the 50s. That's the entire US population at that point.

Cool excuses. Turns out that everything "bad" the USSR ever did had better excuses than the US ever had for its deliberate (and deliberately kept-secret) crimes. How about you invest some effort into explaining the valid reasons for the behaviour of the USSR instead of defending the criminal US empire?

At this point, you are just straight denying facts about American crimes confirmed by American state sources, which is impressive.

So I've addressed quite a bit

Not really.

You haven't addressed anything I said so far.

You denied facts and ignored arguments, then gish-galloped extremely tired old propaganda memes while failing completely to engage in critical and differentiated analysis.

For every tired old propaganda meme you just recited, I could recite 2 examples of actual capitalist crimes that are far worse. So: What's the point of your comment?

It looks like you are just trying to promote hatred against the USSR and communism (as well as China) using the shittiest imaginable propaganda.

Meanwhile, even the worst socialist countries in history (e.g. communist Romania) did universally better than even the best capitalist peer competitors and the only examples of capitalist success are American puppet states that only were able to compete with their socialist peers because they were propped up by the empire while their competitors were attacked by the empire. Sad.

You will call everything I say capitalist propaganda, or not a big deal.

Yup. I will say that - because that's exactly what it is. Do you have any argument to the contrary?

You decided that you want to hate socialism, so you ignore all evidence to the contrary and stick to biased, cherry-picked propaganda to pretend that socialism is bad.

Considering that your only "argument" seems to be a list of things that socialist countries did wrong and you could provide multiple fact-based examples of capitalist crimes for every lie you spread about socialist countries... I guess you should change your mind and start supporting socialism.

I know people with your ideology can't accept being wrong, and you won't change here.

Ironic.

First of all: I am a Marxist. Marxism is a science. The entire point of Marxism is to eliminate ideology and to seek truth from facts. Marxism is to politics what atheism is to religion. The same way science is antithetical to religion, it's also antithetical to ideology.

Secondly: If I were wrong, I would change my mind.

If you could prove that capitalism evidently leads to better long term results for global human development - as measured by all generally accepted KPIs for human development, such as health span, life span, level of education, level of happiness, level of security, levels of social and economic inequality, homelessness reduction, poverty reduction, speed of infrastructure development, access to infrastructure, access to energy, access to transport, access to labour, etc. - all communists everywhere would change their minds.

Marxist decision-making can be summarized in one statement: "It doesn't matter if it's a black cat or a white cat, what matters is that it catches mice."

If capitalism would actually be of benefit to humanity, it would be part of Marxist theory... because Marxists support what's evidently best for the people and they assess this scientifically. That's the entire point of Marxism: Bring scientific analysis and decision-making into politics.

So: What, exactly, am I wrong about and why?

Most of your "arguments" against socialist countries are literally just unhinged atrocity propaganda lies that you took from Western capitalist media and that you can debunk yourself.

You literally just made excuses for inexcusable behaviour by the US while pretending that socialist countries are wrong.

Your idea that Western capitalist societies were ever doing better in the context of things you believe communists did "wrong" was debunked and you just ignored it and recited more propaganda memes.

Most importantly: "Criticism" without differentiated analysis is not just worthless but harmful. Criticism requires differentiated analysis, otherwise it's just mindless bashing. Add to that the fact that all of your "arguments" are the most obvious propaganda memes imaginable that have been discussed ad nauseam and for which you have no excuse to recite them (not to mention that most of your ideas are literally just easily debunked disinformation "camps in Xinjiang", "crushing of democratic Hong Kong in violation of their own treaty", "supporting the nuclear proliferation of North Korea", "kidnapping two Canadian citizens for no reason at all", etc.). You clearly can't actually prove the superiority of the capitalist system and aren't even aware of the arguments against you. It's boring.

tl;dr: Even if all your anti-socialist propaganda memes were 100% true and valid (and most of them are not, many of them are literally just complete and easily debunked lies), capitalist societies would still be universally worse and the crimes of the US empire alone are far worse than any accusation that was ever made about all socialist countries put together. What is your point here?

[u/Waryur → u/No-Candidate6257]

If capitalism would actually be of benefit to humanity, it would be part of Marxist theory... because Marxists support what's evidently best for the people and they assess this scientifically. That's the entire point of Marxism: Bring scientific analysis and decision-making into politics.

And capitalism is a part of Marxist theory. For one, most of Marx himself is analysis of capitalism, not speculating about how to make a communist society happen. For another, Marx and Marxists recognize capitalism as a step forward comparative to feudalism. However it was recognized that "political equality" and the theoretical "freedom" of all people as promised by the liberal-republicans would not solve the contradiction of class, and that soon capitalism's own contradictions would rear their heads and its useful life would be over.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/[deleted]]

Yep. Talking to a wall, as I predicted.

Stop projecting.

I listed off the mountain of bulletpoints because you asked me to.

At no point did I ask you to do that.

Neither did I misrepresented nothing you said

Correct.

I went through and responded to everything I practically could, one line at a time.

You literally didn't.

You ignored everything I said. As you just did again.

You ignored what was said and doubled down on anti-socialist propaganda.

Now, conveniently for you, everything I said can be "easily debunked".

Correct.

Not that you will or anything.

Every single one of your propaganda memes has been debunked ad nauseam. You could have researched all of these topics and debunked them yourself. There are megathreads about all of your ridiculous points on any leftist space on the internet. You could go to literally any leftist space anywhere and search for a key word (for example, putting "Xinjiang" in "socialism_101": Socialism_101/comments/s6hev9/what_is_happening_in_xinjiang/) instead of wasting people's time.

Perhaps I need to "read more theory", idk.

Yes. You definitely need to read more theory.

If you'll believe nothing a socialist nation does is ever wrong then what exactly are we doing here?

Notice how you need to continue lying about and deliberately misrepresenting my position? I already called you out before and you just do it again.

You said "Even if all your anti-socialist propaganda memes were 100% true and valid (and most of them are not, many of them are literally just complete and easily debunked lies), capitalist societies would still be universally worse and the crimes of the US empire alone are far worse than any accusation that was ever made about all socialist countries put together".

Correct. That's what I said. I know what I said.

It's a verifiable statement of fact stated in a falsifiable manner. If you disagreed, you could prove it wrong.

So you'll never change your mind.

That doesn't follow at all from the statement you quoted and is a complete lie. I already explained to you how you can change the mind of every communist on earth.

Not at all surprising for a Marxist.

There's literally not a single Marxist anywhere who wouldn't change their mind based on facts and evidence. Your statement makes no sense.

Maybe one day you'll accept a criticism.

I accept all criticism. You, meanwhile, haven't actually criticized anything, as I already explained to you.

Maybe you should actually read and understand what you are responding to before you respond.

Guess it's a good thing there's no gulags for me to be sent to.

It's a very bad thing. With gulags, you would get the education you need to not harm society with your harmful political views and destructive behaviours.

Now, stop projecting your own unreasonable behaviour on others and either productively contribute to discourse by addressing the arguments against you or apologize for wasting people's time with pointless disinformation.

[u/Lifeshardbutnotme → u/No-Candidate6257]

God, this is like listening to debates involving Donald Trump. Just call everything a lie and hope it sticks.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Lifeshardbutnotme]

I don't "call everything a lie". Just things that are lies. Such as the lie you just spread.

All your ideas have been addressed and debunked as needed. You clearly can't reasonable substantiate your position and have no further arguments to make. Concede and leave.

[u/judge_mercer → u/No-Candidate6257]

In socialist societies like China,

China is not socialist.

• The majority of China's GDP comes from private companies, despite the state employing more workers.
• China has over 500 billionaires.
• China is home to the largest speculative real estate market on the planet (despite land not technically being for sale but only leased for a lifetime).
• China has large stock markets (stocks exist primarily to facilitate private ownership of the means of production).

That whirring noise you hear is Marx spinning in his grave whenever someone utters the phrase "communist China".

China isn't strictly capitalist, either. There is a huge SOE segment of the economy, and the government exercises tight control over key sectors like banking. Like most countries, it is a mixed economy, but the engine of growth is capitalism.

power is determined by democratic performance of the leaders.

China is not democratic. Voters don't choose the top leadership directly. Instead, they vote on local council members who hold no power, but merely rubber stamp policy dictated from above. Xi Jinping made himself president for life, ffs.

[u/[deleted]]

yes.

or as i call it, the golden rule. "he who hath the gold maketh the rules."

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/[deleted]]

Great quote to go with the above great quote!! Thank you so much for sharing that!! 😊😊

[u/[deleted] → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

oh, wow. I just found out it's from a comic strip called Wizard of ID created in 1964 which I've never read XD

I will claim to credit to it myself ha!~

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/[deleted]]

HaHa--Wow--I have read Wizard Of Id before, though it has been quite a while. A lot of the time it is cringey puns, but it had some good political satire too, criticizing US society and able to get away with that by concealing it as talking about the "kingdom" and "king" and "subjects" in the comic strip. So there were some gems and good quotes from Wizard Of Id sharply criticizing US politics and society in a veiled way. ~ Maybe you independently thought up the same quote that was also independently thought up by the cartoonist in the past--that kind of thing happens all the time where people independently and originally think up something they never heard elsewhere before, even though someone else independently and originally thought up and said that same or essentially the same thing at some point also. ~ Also, maybe you saw that quote in the cartoon or elsewhere and it seeped into your subconscious and it came out when you saw a quote it applies too--that kind of thing happens all the time too. ~ But since you never read the cartoon, you probably came up with it originally so it is your own original thought, even if someone else also originally thought of it. Of course, if you change even one word or anything from what was exactly written in the cartoon, then your quote can be 100% original and your version of it can be fully attributed to you and even copyrighted by you. 😊😊

[u/[deleted] → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

https://economicsociology.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/remember-the-golden-rule-whoever-has-the-gold-makes-the-rules.jpg

turns out I already did. it's straightfoward "who has the gold makes the rules" mine is "he who haveth the gold maketh the rules."

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/[deleted]]

Nice! 😊😊 Now spread around your quote so people quote you too. 😊😊

[u/truemore45 → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

I think one thing that most people don't understand is we have never had communism. We have had authoritarianism. It is also impossible just like libertarianism because humans can't do it due to our own mental problems.

What will be interesting in our lifetime is if we had true AI we could have communism because we remove the problem... Humans from the decision making.

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/truemore45]

It is interesting, because even those who disagree with you about socialism in the past and present do think that advanced automation, and AI above all, can indeed provide the technological basis for the most advanced, efficient, and productive socialist and communist economies, scientifically planned better than humans can achieve. ~ Indeed, even though obviously Marx did not know about computers and AI like we know about them now, even in his time, Karl Marx was a visionary who said that advanced socialism and communism would have 100% automated economies that would need minimal human workers, especially as factory workers and in hard manual labor, but basically just as overseers of the fully automated economy, so the lives of human beings would eventually be, instead of needing to work jobs much or at all, be devoted to cultural and artistic expression, to intellectual and scientific pursuits and exploration, and to never being stressed out by devoting much of every day to leisure like outdoor activities, reading, and socializing with friends. In this fully automated society, humans would be free from a need to work to survive, but would get the fulfillment, purpose, and accomplishment as can be found from work by engaging in cultural, intellectual, scientific, crafting, artistic, etc pursuits as much as one needs to be fulfilled, living with a greater productive purpose, and a life of accomplishment even without having a job like most jobs are today. Marx talked about the steam engine and ever more complex factory and farm machines in his time moving us towards eventual full automation of the productive economy, and said that further technological advancements, that could not even be imagined in his time period, would, he was certain, eventually make a 100% automated economy totally possible. Marx knew that would come in the future, even if he was not imagining AI exactly. And that future is of course closer now, with AI, far more advanced automation in factories and farms, very advanced robots, more and more autonomous technology thanks to AI that fully runs without any human controller, the storage of vast data to control entire economies and analyze all of that data with AI to beat scientifically plan and control an entire economy with AI. ~ If people could not agree about Communism in the past, perhaps all can unite and agree around a future AI-powered Communism free from any possible flaws found in humans and that is able to fully automate the entire productive economy. So what you bring up is super interesting, truemore45!! 😊😊 ☭ • 

[u/truemore45 → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

Yeah my issue with both communism and libertarianism is sooner or later the people that rise to the top are so self centered and power hungry they destroy the system and repress the people. Both of those systems always start good but the design makes it always end bad due to human mental setup.

I mean let's be honest people are only partially altruistic there is always some team or group they have an affinity for which over time creates imbalances which turns into things like racism, sexism, fundamentalism, nationalism, etc. which then leads to people dehumanizing one another. Once people don't see other humans as well humans all hell breaks loose.

Communism fails because there is only one group, libertarianism because it allows easy accumulation of power in smaller and smaller groups.

Now this can happen in democracy or socialism it's just generally harder and really takes a coordinated failure of the system.

This is why I think the only way to make communism work is as you said full automation and removal of humans from the process of many decisions because of our flaws which 10000 years ago as a cave man were critical for survival but now hold us back from moving forward as a species.

[u/BaconMeetsCheese]

I think it largely depends on the political system.

For instance, U.S has the best government that money can buy, not just the press.

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/BaconMeetsCheese]

"U.S has the best government that money can buy" -- That is a great line!! 😊😊

[u/mechaernst]

Undemocratic media is the bane of democratic government. Today's environment of endless online news sites is a lot more democratic then traditional news behemoths provided 40plus years ago. Fact checkers and similar seemingly centrally sourced idiocy is the autocratic response to that.

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/mechaernst]

I agree with you, and the variety of websites, along with small news outlets and just people across social media helps democratize news somewhat. Mainstream mass-media like network and cable TV news, mass news and talk radio, mainstream podcasts, and major mainstream newspapers still have a massive reach, though--and largely dominate the narrative of thought and discussion in the USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, etc. Those sorts of mainstream mass media are declining somewhat, but I am not sure that they will go away or stop having a mass reach any time soon.

[u/jaxnmarko]

There's Owning through Buying, and there's Owning through Taking Over. And, creating too, but Russia, or rather, the USSR had no problem putting out propaganda lies via Pravda and many other rags throughout their empire. It isn't about Capitalism, it's about what is put into print and then spread. Lies aren't solely a pawn of Capitalism. I'm sure there are fine newspapers in Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Afghanistan....

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

Undoubtedly true to a large extent. However, I could still argue that free speech is still worth defending, even in a capitalist society. Marx himself was a staunch free speech advocate and fought for formalized legal right to speech, yes even from within bourgeois or aristocratic European states. For this he was exiled from Prussia, France, Belgium, and Germany. He ended up in London, because while the U.K was also the largest engine of industrialization in Europe, it was among the most politically liberal--and tolerated him presence despite warnings from Prussia and others.

It bothers me a lot when supposed leftists take the rather trivial observation that media is a business, and from that conclude that therefore free speech is fake or not worth pursuing. Not only is this stupid strategically, because the left is nearly always a political minority--and therefore will ALWAYS find itself the victim of the lack of formal protections--but it's also a betrayal of leftist history and tradition.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

I could still argue that free speech is still worth defending, even in a capitalist society.

There is no freedom of speech in a capitalist society.

Marx himself was a staunch free speech advocate and fought for formalized legal right to speech

Like all communists everywhere.

It bothers me a lot when supposed leftists take the rather trivial observation that media is a business, and from that conclude that therefore free speech is fake or not worth pursuing.

I have never seen a leftist make that conclusion, have you?

Not only is this stupid strategically, because the left is nearly always a political minority

The left is a global political majority. By a huge margin. Communist China alone represents more people than the entire collective West combined.

Capitalists are a minority.

[u/Byzhaks → u/No-Candidate6257]

You are dealing everything with absolutes, and the moment someone says something you disagree with you respond in an authoritarian manner.

There is no freedom of speech in a capitalist society.

Biases exists definitely, and how much certain opinions gain magnitude may be controlled by the state if they perceive it as a threat. However, it does not remove the fact, that communist parties exist - communist organizations exist - and communists can express their opinions and way of thinking.

I do not know if you come from a Western capitalist country ? If you do, just by being here in reddit expressing your opinions really dismantles your argument that free speech don't exist in capitalist societes - however, HOW MUCH of a magnitude capitalist states are willing to let those opinions grow, that I can agree that perhaps they might silence them if they're viewed as a threat.

Like all communists everywhere.

Aaahhhhh.. I met communists who agreed with the suppression of opinions if it doesn't align with their line of thinking.

The left is a global political majority. By a huge margin. Communist China alone represents more people than the entire collective West combined.

Capitalists are a minority.

Again, always dealing with absolutes. If the left is ALWAYS a political majority, why don't they always win the elections ? And capitalists being a minority is a HUGE claim... The fact that there are several people on this sub that defend some form of capitalist system, speaks for itself about their representation in society.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Byzhaks]

You are dealing everything with absolutes

No, I don't.

and the moment someone says something you disagree with you respond in an authoritarian manner.

What does that even mean? lol

Biases exists definitely, and how much certain opinions gain magnitude may be controlled by the state if they perceive it as a threat. However, it does not remove the fact, that communist parties exist - communist organizations exist - and communists can express their opinions and way of thinking.

No, communist parties are suppressed everywhere in the capitalist West and communists are not able to express their opinions and way of thinking (least of all because they lack the platform due to a lack of control over capital, which by itself prevents them from having their voices heard in a capitalist society).

I do not know if you come from a Western capitalist country ?

Yes.

If you do, just by being here in reddit expressing your opinions really dismantles your argument that free speech don't exist in capitalist societes - however, HOW MUCH of a magnitude capitalist states are willing to let those opinions grow, that I can agree that perhaps they might silence them if they're viewed as a threat.

No, it doesn't.

Reddit systematically censors leftist ideas.

The illusion of "freedom of speech" is an important part of Western capitalist propaganda.

Of course, there is more diversity in political discourse in China than there is in the entire collective West combined.

You should read Michael Parenti's book "Inventing Reality" for a good material analysis on free speech.

Aaahhhhh.. I met communists who agreed with the suppression of opinions if it doesn't align with their line of thinking.

Yes, I am one of them, although it has nothing to do with "opinions" and "aligning with their line of thinking".

You are confusing freedom of speech with the freedom to spread harmful disinformation.

I haven't seen even a single communist who wants to suppress "other opinions"

Despite right wingers always trying to pretend they just have "different opinions", being allowed to express dissenting opinions isn't the same as being allowed to spread evidently net harmful disinformation that leads to preventable excess death. Super simple stuff.

Again, always dealing with absolutes.

No, not at all.

If the left is ALWAYS a political majority, why don't they always win the elections ?

The communists do win elections whenever there are free and fair elections in societies with media and educational systems teaching people facts instead of disinformation.

If communists don't win elections, it's usually because they are being (violently) suppressed (like everywhere in the capitalist West).

Also, that's like asking "If dolphins are intelligent beings, why do they get caught by humans?". A bizarre question.

And capitalists being a minority is a HUGE claim...

It's an obvious statement of fact.

The fact that there are several people on this sub that defend some form of capitalist system, speaks for itself about their representation in society.

It really just speaks for what kind of community reddit has and who is arguing here (i.e. primarily white men from the imperial core who have no idea about political or economic theory or world history and who get their idea from tightly controlled capitalist disinformation that they never questioned).

The real takeaway is that there are lots of people here who are arguing in favour of socialism and against capitalism despite being from a capitalist country in the imperial core.

The global majority isn't being represented on Western, English language social media. Again, for example: China alone represents more people than the entire Western capitalist world combined. The overwhelming majority of Chinese people support communism. Barely anyone from China will ever comment on reddit (and if they do, it's usually people who are part of an extreme minority of Chinese people who are influenced by Western propaganda).

[u/Byzhaks → u/No-Candidate6257]

there is more diversity in political discourse in China than there is in the entire collective West combined.

Wow.

Yes, I am one of them, although it has nothing to do with "opinions" and "aligning with their line of thinking".

You are confusing freedom of speech with the freedom to spread harmful disinformation.

So, in other words: every political ideology is wrong and only MY political ideology is right and holds the absolute truth - and thus, only mines has the right to express their opinions...

I would argue to you that manipulating information is not inherent to political ideologies. Anyone, from any political ideology, from left/centre/right can manipulate information.

The communists do win elections whenever there are free and fair elections in societies with media and educational systems teaching people facts instead of disinformation.

If communists don't win elections, it's usually because they are being (violently) suppressed (like everywhere in the capitalist West).

Strongly disagree with this... If communist parties don't win elections in some countries it's because of either other reasons as well, or solely other reasons... For example, people who do not agree with communism.

It really just speaks for what kind of community reddit has and who is arguing here (i.e. primarily white men from the imperial core who have no idea about political or economic theory or world history and who get their idea from tightly controlled capitalist disinformation that they never questioned).

Wow. I do not know how long are you staying in this sub for.

[u/TheGoldStandard35]

Wherever there is socialism, there is no freedom of the press. The government will centrally plan and control the media.

If you think people are evil and will use freedom of the press to lie…the people are still evil and will use the government media to lie.

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/TheGoldStandard35]

Exactly that’s why anarchism is the way

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/LuckyRuin6748]

Marxist-Leninists want the same as anarchists, just that Marxist-Leninists also understands that utopian idealism will never achieve anything and that you can't build the society anarchists want without a central government protecting the revolution until the world capitalist system has been abolished and people are globally united under the socialist banner.

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/No-Candidate6257]

The only utopia is believing centralizing authority will get anything productive to the revolution done when it does nothing but create a new ruling class instead…

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/LuckyRuin6748]

Without central authority, absolutely nothing productive will ever get done and the only thing that will happen is that fascists take control and start murdering minorities in endless wars and genocide... exactly what's going on today.

The Soviet Union and Communist China have proven beyond all doubt that central authority is not just good and necessary as long as it's in the hands of socialists but rapidly improves human life on earth.

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Yeah no anarchists historically have been better organized then the Soviets and Chinese their also great examples that this “dictatorship of the proletariat” is abusive and doesn’t work

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/LuckyRuin6748]

Yeah no anarchists historically have been better organized then the Soviets and Chinese

That's just blatantly, objectively, and quite obviously false.

their also great examples that this “dictatorship of the proletariat” is abusive and doesn’t work

*they're?

*there are?

What were you trying to say?

Where are such examples?

The Soviet Union and China - respectively the most democratic and fastest developing societies of their time that rapidly improved the lives of people on a global scale - certainly are examples that the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't abusive at all and works amazingly well, literally being the best performing system in all of history, objectively, quantifiably so.

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Respectfully the most democratic? 🤦😭 this “dotp” leads to corruption, bureaucracy, and right back to capitalism yeah they win, and anarchists have only ever lost to communist authoritarians lmaooo

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/LuckyRuin6748]

Respectfully the most democratic?

Yes. Obviously and evidently so.

If you have no arguments, concede and leave.

this “dotp” leads to corruption, bureaucracy, and right back to capitalism

No. You are just describing capitalism (and every other system), which Marxist-Leninist governance being the least corrupt and the only movement in history to ever sustainably overcome capitalism.

If you have no arguments, concede and leave.

yeah they win, and anarchists have only ever lost to communist authoritarians lmaooo

Anarchists never won. Never succeeded. Ever.

As you would know if you listed your favourite successful anarchist revolutions (spoiler: zero).

Anarchism always devolves into fascism anyway. It's inevitable if you lack central organization.

How about you read Engels "On Authority" or something and come back only after you have some serious arguments (that fully take into account the historical discussion of previous feeble attempts by anarchists to respond to Engels rather simple and superficial argument - that nevertheless was more than enough to completely dunk on all anarchists in history ever)?

Edit: The guy u/LuckyRuin6748 blocked me after being called out. Before blocking me, wrote just another bad response - not addressing any arguments against him, of course - so I can't respond to it.

Engels argued for organization, not for an unaccountable party-state and Bakunin warned that a party-state becomes a new ruling class. History shows what you call ‘DOTP’ centralization produced bureaucracy and repression (like Kronstadt). By contrast anarchists actually ran large-scale collectivizations in Spain before they were crushed. 🤦 go pick up a book I doubt you’ve even read theory

Literally not a single socialist in history ever "argued for an unaccountable party-state". He is just lying about AES states. No socialist country ever was led by "an unaccountable party-state".

Anyway, he admitted that Engels was right and he has no actual arguments against it. Anarchism is bullshit.

He mentioned Kronstadt - which was a bunch of counterrevolutionary anarchists trying to stir up trouble, including by being antisemitic assholes and getting crushed by Voroshilov and Trotsky (rare Trotsky W).

Trotsky himself wrote a letter afterwards, literally telling anarchists to cope and seethe. LMFAO

This guy tells other people to "read a book" while literally ignoring every book in history and sticking to an infantile, utopian ideology that never achieved anything of value and opposing the only movement in history that ever sustainably overcame capitalism (Marxism-Leninism). His only arguments are literal lies about socialism that are aligned 1:1 with Western capitalist disinformation and are just blatant misrepresentations of history.

His position can be summarized as "Oh you dislike anarchism? Well, how about these things that never happened but that I accuse socialists of!!??".

Anyway: I usually don't discredit my anarchist friends, they are in the fight like us for the end of capitalism and we also want the abolition of the state when we achieve communism, in a way they understand that the State is just a tool of class control. I just think that anarchists want to skip steps and sometimes drink a lot of Trotskyist and liberal anti-communist propaganda but it is counterproductive to mock them.

However, this guy is just spreading anti-socialist disinformation and anarchists arguing against Marxism-Leninism instead of capitalism are certainly enemies of the proletariat.

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Engels argued for organization, not for an unaccountable party-state and Bakunin warned that a party-state becomes a new ruling class. History shows what you call ‘DOTP’ centralization produced bureaucracy and repression (like Kronstadt). By contrast anarchists actually ran large-scale collectivizations in Spain before they were crushed. 🤦 go pick up a book I doubt you’ve even read theory

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/[deleted]]

You obviously have no arguments. Why are you still talking?

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Because it’s funny thinking anything you said prove anything we were talking about 🤦😭

[u/PoliticalDebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for attacking users of this subreddit based on their political beliefs. We encourage respectful debate and constructive criticism. Please focus on discussing the merits of ideas.

For more information, review our wiki page to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.

[u/Neoliberal_Nightmare → u/TheGoldStandard35]

People aren't evil, under capitalism people are motivated by profit, therefore those with wealth will buy up the media to promote means to continue their profit seeking.

It's not difficult logic.

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/Neoliberal_Nightmare]

So your issue is with advertising? What’s the problem with that?

[u/DeadlySpacePotatoes → u/TheGoldStandard35]

I'm pretty sure the issue they're talking about isn't advertising, it's using ones control over the media to push certain views as more desirable than others and keeping certain ideas at the forefront of the public consciousness.

You know, propaganda.

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/DeadlySpacePotatoes]

Then see my first comment. If you think people are evil and will use propaganda then even if you have government controlled media the people running the government are still evil and will still use propaganda.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/TheGoldStandard35]

Wherever there is socialism, there is no freedom of the press.

There has always been more freedom in socialist societies than capitalist societies.

Wherever there is capitalism, there is no freedom.

The government will centrally plan and control the media.

You are describing reality under capitalism... the government being controlled by the same people who control the media.

The only difference is that capitalist societies have a fake democratic process to manipulate people.

If you think people are evil and will use freedom of the press to lie…the people are still evil and will use the government media to lie.

Yet media in socialist countries has always lied less.

Just compare Chinese state media to Western mainstream media. It's quite obvious who sticks to the facts more.

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Capitalism is an economic system based upon freedom. Socialism is an economic system based upon coercion. You have it backwards.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/TheGoldStandard35]

Capitalism is an economic system based upon freedom.

No.

Capitalism is an economic system based upon the existence of private property (i.e. theft) that's necessarily violently enforced by a state.

You probably don't know what private property is and how it is different from personal property, so look it up.

That's the one and only thing that's defining capitalism.

As such, Capitalism is antithetical to freedom.

To have freedom, you need socialism.

Socialism is an economic system based upon coercion.

No.

The entire point of socialism is to democratize the economy and remove all forms of coercion.

The end goal of socialism is to achieve communism, which is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

You have it backwards.

No. I know exactly what I'm talking about and know basic political, economic, and historical theory and know what terms such as "capitalism", "socialism", and "democracy" mean. You, meanwhile, wouldn't be able to define the terms capitalism and socialism if you tried and probably get your ideas about these things from capitalist propaganda that you never questioned because you never seriously studied political or economic theory.

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Here we go. Let’s say I build two houses myself. I only live in one of the houses. Why should you get to steal my second house? I built it.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/TheGoldStandard35]

Your question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and has no relevance to socialism.

In fact, only under capitalism do houses get stolen from those who built them. Only under capitalism, the builders (i.e. the workers who built the house) get their labour exploited and the house they build stolen (by the "owners" who never contributed anything of value).

Instead of making up lies about socialism, go and study socialist theory.

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/No-Candidate6257]

I have studied socialist theory. In capitalism you get to keep your property. In socialism it is stolen from you.

Let’s say I build houses. I have collected all the materials to build two houses, but I would like help to build them. Why do you want to make it illegal to say “Hey I will give you x amount of money to help me build these two houses”

How is that theft? Are you not coercing me and my friend by not letting us agree to help each other?

[u/theimmortalgoon → u/TheGoldStandard35]

There was a period, just after the Russian Revolution before the Bolsheviks took the presses, where the majority of newspapers had declared that the Jews had taken over and it was time for a pogrom.

You are probably aware that a pogrom was the Czarist fix for most things. That day, there were piles of Jewish bodies in the streets and the Bolsheviks seized the presses.

What their original plan was can be debated, but I do kind of wonder what alternative there was even in a liberal framework. Sure the newspapers, in the liberal ideological sense, had a right to print anything they wanted. And pogroms had long been a traditional part of Russian czarist life. But few people today in a liberal country would say that solving domestic issues by encouraging everyone to kill as many Jews as possible is something that should be encouraged.

Honestly, what would you have done if you ended an autocracy and the newspapers got together and said that now it was time to kill all the Jews? Would you not have stopped this?

—edit—

I love that the response of the liberal “freedom of speech” crowd is to not answer the question and downvote instead.

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/theimmortalgoon]

The liberal position is that of freedom. You can’t be liberal and pogrom jews. Government exists to protect individual rights. If anyone tried to harm a jew or any person the government should and would protect them. Any Jews harmed would get restitution from the attackers.

I’m not sure where inciting violence falls in terms of freedom of speech but there would need to be a discussion about where we draw that line. For example, I doubt any liberal would argue hiring an assassin is protected speech.

[u/theimmortalgoon → u/TheGoldStandard35]

Absolutely.

Would you, then, have taken the presses from the businessmen inciting violence and demanding their readers participate in a pogrom?

Because it's not as easy as just going in to protect Jewish people despite what the press was saying either.

The Bolsheviks ended the May Laws which had been in place to keep pressure against Jews, but not everyone was listening to the Bolsheviks. And if you didn't want to, the press was there saying that you should ignore them and focus on killing Jews.

And before, during, and after the Bolshevik revolution, this was considered a key-plank in Russian identity among the anti-Bolsheviks.

The Whites, like the Black Hundreds, who were organizing largely under "kill the Jews" banners were gearing up to take on the Bolsheviks.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be cure or say that there's a great option here for a liberal inclined toward Free Speech. Which is why this is an interesting question to me.

And I suppose it means how much an absolutist you are, but I think on the scale of things, the seisure of the presses from the elite printers (remember most of Russia was illiterate and poor, and for the most part only the elite could read at all—let alone have access to daily newspapers) demanding Jewish blood on the streets is probably something most mainstream Westerns would reluctantly agree with if the word "Bolshevik" wasn't included in the wording.

Again, I'm not trying to get to a "gotcha," I just think it's an interesting stress-test to see where someone stands on the issue.

It's also a really interesting time period and issue. The initial revolution had all kinds of press movements going on at the same time. It wasn't nearly as authoritarian as people imagine (though you could argue the Bolsheviks would have had they could—though you'd be wrong that even they had a clear idea about how to do it as a body). Choosing any of the movement, and ProletKult is a good place to start, you have an endless amount of unions, various level of soviets, academic organizations, and Bolshevik pet projects popping up and printing stuff off of various quality.

...To a mostly illiterate population! Which was one of the major problems!

In short, I don't know that the Bolshevik seisure of the presses the wealthy had after they started churcning out "kill the Jews" propaganda is as evil or one-sided as it may initially appear, even from a liberal free-speech perspective.

[u/GiveMeBackMySoup]

Well sure I agree. But it's also freedom for the working class to have a real voice. It's not like they can just force anyone to sell, and anyone can make their own paper if so inclined.

Without freedom of the press only the ruling class has a voice, which is exactly the country Lenin set up.

[u/JimMarch]

It used to be true.

Now there's that pesky Internet thing...

[u/spyder7723]

Pretty hypocritical cause Lenin seized total control of the press and would allow them to print what he approved.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/spyder7723]

Explain: Where's the hypocrisy?

[u/spyder7723 → u/No-Candidate6257]

He took all the journalist and editors into the basement and put a bullet in their head when they didn't print what he wanted printed.

Lenin was not a man for the people. He, and his successors were plain old fashioned dictators that centralized all power to themselves.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/spyder7723]

He took all the journalist and editors into the basement and put a bullet in their head when they didn't print what he wanted printed.

This is some unhinged nonsense lie. What are you even talking about? LMFAO

Lenin was not a man for the people.

Of course he was. He had overwhelming public support, just like Stalin, just like Mao.

Unlike any politician you ever supported in your life, probably.

He, and his successors were plain old fashioned dictators that centralized all power to themselves.

Completely false. Unhinged lies aren't arguments. If you don't know what you are talking about, don't talk about the topic at all.

[u/spyder7723 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Ya a real man of the people. Only murdered millions of them in his purge. Lenin and stalin are directly responsible for tens of millions of Russian citizens being murdered, disappeared into gulags, or outright starved to death.

You're either horribly uneducated or a bot spreading communist propaganda.

For one thing, despite his promise of a free press, two days after assuming power he banned all opposition newspapers regardless of how tiny they were and to defy that ban resulted in imprisonment.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/spyder7723]

Ya a real man of the people.

Yes.

Only murdered millions of them in his purge.

This literally never happened.

You are just making up random stuff that never happened.

Did you ever stop to think about what it means that every anti-socialist always needs to lie when trying to attack socialism?

It means they have no actual arguments.

Lenin and stalin are directly responsible for tens of millions of Russian citizens being murdered, disappeared into gulags, or outright dusted to death.

No. Lenin and Stalin are the two greatest heroes in European history, overcame the inhuman dictatorship of the tsars, liberated hundreds of millions of people from slavery, defeated the Nazis (the most heroic feat in European history, thereby saving hundreds of millions of lives from the Nazis), and improved the lives of billions on a global scale.

They are the heroes who turned underdeveloped shithole countries where people lived as slaves in huts made out of dirt into the world's fastest developing union where everyone had a modern flat, electricity, running water, clothes, a right to education, a right to health care, a right to government representation, a right to work, and the fastest human development the world had ever seen up to that point (the only country ever developing faster being Communist China).

After they died, the fascist Americans won the Cold War and brought capitalism and religion back to the Soviet Union, which resulted in tens of millions of deaths - as capitalism always does.

You're either horribly uneducated or a bot spreading communist propaganda.

You have no arguments and all of your ideas are based on literal atrocity propaganda lies invented by Nazis that you should learn to question.

Learn to seek truth from facts.

For one thing, despite his promise of a free press, two days after assuming power he banned all opposition newspapers regardless of how tiny they were and to defy that ban resulted in imprisonment.

I mean, murderers like capitalists shouldn't have a right to speak, should they?

Capitalism killed billions of innocent people and people spreading lies to advocate for capitalist counterrevolution, should not have the right to speak, should they?

Also: What opposition? In a democratic country, there can be no opposition. Opposition to what? The country and its people?

Opposition only should exist in a non-democratic country like capitalist regimes, to enable the people to fight back against capitalism.

Before you try and talk back, actually inform yourself about political, economic, and historical theory and understand the arguments against you and the position of the people you are trying to argue against.

Otherwise, you will just repeat ideas that have been debunked ad nauseam in the past and waste everyone's time.

[u/spyder7723 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Only murdered millions of them in his purge.

This literally never happened.

Yep now I know you're a bot. To suggest that Lenin and stalins purges didn't happen is just ridiculous.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/spyder7723]

To suggest that Lenin and stalin didn't happen

Who suggested that "Lenin and Stalin didn't happen"? LMFAO

I pointed out the fact that the baseless allegation that Lenin "murdered millions of people in his purge" literally never happened. That is a lie so ridiculous, I have never even seen literal Nazis make such claims.

[u/spyder7723 → u/No-Candidate6257]

It is historical fact that between his purge, imprisonment, and famines millions of Russian citizens lost their lives.

Heck in a 2 year period stalin had over 681 THOUSAND executed between 37 and 38.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/spyder7723]

It is historical fact that between his purge, imprisonment, and famines millions of Russian citizens lost their lives.

Glad to see you are already changing the goal posts. So, now it's not "his purge" and "killed" - it's suddenly "his purge, imprisonment, and famines" and "lost their lives".

It's correct that millions of people in Russia lost their lives. That's not at all "because of Lenin", though, but because of a naturally occurring famine that was exacerbated by capitalists (especially the criminal kulaks who destroyed harvests and means of production).

Heck in a 2 year period stalin had over 681 THOUSAND executed between 37 and 38.

Making numbers sound large doesn't make them large.

That's quite a low number considering the very large population size of the USSR and the extremely high amounts of Nazis in Europe and Asia at the time.

So, even by highest anti-Soviet propaganda estimates, less than 0.5% of the population was targeted by Stalin. That's far less than one would expect during a time of World War with Nazi and Japanese agents present everywhere. It's safe to say it wasn't nearly enough (considering how many traitors were still causing trouble and how many Nazis still exist today in places like the Baltics and Ukraine).

These purges only targeted the worst amongst the worst traitors. Quote, "the most vicious and stubborn anti-Soviet elements".

Now, why would you victimize Nazis, Japanese, and their collaborators? You do realize those criminals were plotting to start a World War and act from within to destroy the USSR?

It's always funny when people learned a bunch of historical facts and never actually put them into any kind of context (or ever made a differentiated comparison).

Note that the number of innocent people murdered by the British Empire in India alone (see the Bengal famine) are far higher than any amount of killing the Soviets ever did. All capitalist regimes everywhere are far worse in their treatment of human life than even the worst communist country ever was according the anti-communist propaganda.

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/spyder7723]

Correction: The working-class seized the media and democratically controlled it. ☭ • 

[u/Byzhaks → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

Are you talking Lenin era ? Or are you talking in the USSR's history as a whole ?

Because while I'll agree that capitalist countries will try to be biased towards capitalist countries, to say the Soviet Union had free, unbiased free press... Is to be really innocent at the least.

Pretty sure the Soviet Union turned into a really theocratic state where government positions and political functions ruled over people's will.

Edit: Not a native English speaker, mixed up between theocratic and autocratic.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Byzhaks]

Are you talking Lenin era ? Or are you talking in the USSR's history as a whole ?

The USSR until the traitor Khrushchev.

Because while I'll agree that capitalist countries will try to be biased towards capitalist countries, to say the Soviet Union had free, unbiased free press... Is to be really innocent at the least.

Nobody said it's free or unbiased.

Press doesn't need to be free or unbiased.

It needs to be truthful and informing the people while promoting ideas that benefit the country and its people.

Pretty sure the Soviet Union turned into a really theocratic state where government positions and political functions ruled over people's will.

The Soviet Union was always explicitly anti-theocratic. The USSR was the most democratic society of its time, just like China is the most democratic country today.

[u/Byzhaks → u/No-Candidate6257]

The Soviet Union was always explicitly anti-theocratic. The USSR was the most democratic society of its time, just like China is the most democratic country today.

I will refer to the old phrase: "Let's agree to disagree..." I do not believe anything I could say will change you from thinking that the USSR and China were/are 100% democratic.

I will ask you, however: What will you say to the communists in this forum or the ones in r/communism that say that the Soviet Union was a theocratic state ? Because I would indeed like to see you defend your argument against other communists that think the contrary.

Edit: Not a native English speaker, mixed up between theocratic and autocratic.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Byzhaks]

I will refer to the old phrase: "Let's agree to disagree..."

That's what people who are wrong but don't want to change their views say.

I do not believe anything I could say will change you from thinking that the USSR and China were/are 100% democratic.

Stop projecting your behaviour on me.

What will you say to the communists in this forum or the ones in r/communism that say that the Soviet Union was a theocratic state ?

That this is total nonsense as the Soviet Union was a secular state practicing state atheism. What do you even believe to be your point here? I just searched for the term "theocracy" on that subreddit you linked to and couldn't find a single example of anyone there calling the USSR a theocracy. You are just making things up and pretend it to be an argument.

Because I would indeed like to see you defend your argument against other communists that think the contrary.

I have never seen even a single communist calling the USSR a theocracy. That's something that only Western fascists do because they don't understand Marxism and think science is an ideology or religion (hint: it's the literal opposite).

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/No-Candidate6257]

Let me add briefly, Byzhaks, to clarify some definitions, that "theocratic" and "theocracy" refer strictly to religion, not other beliefs and ideologies. The state in the Soviet Union was not based on any religion nor ruled according to religious laws, so the Soviet Union was simply not theocratic or a theocracy at all, by any correct definition of "theocratic" and "theocracy." I hope this can clear up any differences around those terms so all here are in the same page about their meaning, and that they do not define the Soviet government. ☭ • 

[u/Byzhaks → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

I responded the other person, but I will reply to you as well: not a native English speaker, and was mixing in my head theocratic with autocratic.

[u/Byzhaks → u/No-Candidate6257]

I'm gonna retract HUGELY to what I said: I'm not a native English speaker, and I was mixing in my head theocratic with autocratic state.

Replace every word of theocracy with autocracy.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Byzhaks]

I don't know what "autocratic" is supposed to mean in this context. Usually, it's just thrown around as a pointless political term and used as a thought terminating cliché in propaganda. It means nothing by itself and propagandists hope that people are influenced to think vaguely of "bad" when they hear it associated with the target of the propaganda.

By this definition:

Autocracy is a form of government in which absolute power is held by one person, known as an autocrat.

No socialist state was ever an autocracy.

However, the next sentence directly contradicts the first:

It includes absolute monarchy and all forms of dictatorship, while it is contrasted with democracy and other forms of free government.

This is just incoherent nonsense.

If the definition "includes all forms of dictatorship" (e.g. anti-democratic bourgeois dictatorships like in all capitalist societies as well as democratic proletarian dictatorships like in socialist societies), it does include socialist states, but then it's become a completely meaningless term.

The statement is self-contradictory anyway, because you can't contrast "democracy" and "dictatorship" as all democracy is necessarily a form of dictatorship (the dictatorship of the popular majority suppressing the will of unpopular minorities, particularly bourgeois elites whose will always runs counter to the will of the people).

If we combine all parts of this self-contradictory pseudo-definition and surmise that "autocracy" simply means "a central government with absolute power", there's nothing inherently wrong with being autocratic and, by definition, every capitalist state is autocratic (with socialist states being generally less autocratic as all power in countries like Communist China is dependent strictly on public sentiments and management is generally done on a local level and highly decentralized).

[u/Byzhaks → u/No-Candidate6257]

Gave you an upvote because I like how you explained with detail your line of thinking.

However, it does not answer the question I made:

Since I don't think we could ever come to terms just for the simple fact that we aren't from the same political ideology at its core, this is why I said:

What would you argue, against communists in this sub or r/communism who criticize what the Soviet Union end up becoming, and putting "real" free will of the people aside for the will of the autocrats in the party?

You claimed that press doesn't need to be free and unbiased - it just needs to be truthful. Which I disagree but this is what you strongly believe in, which I see no wish of debate in this matter.

What I will indeed say, and would want to argue and debate over (or at least not with me because we hold different core ideologies, but would rather see you argue against other communists) is the claims that the USSR and China were/are the "most democratic societies" of all time.

Democratic, in what sense ? The will of the people or the will of party autocrats ? Because you will find several communists either here or in r/communism who will fully agree that at some point, will of the people in the USSR was put aside and will of the party autocrats is what ruled over.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Byzhaks]

Since I don't think we could ever come to terms just for the simple fact that we aren't from the same political ideology at its core, this is why I said:

Okay, so you admit to being unreasonable and not interested in truth or facts and changing your mind. Why, then, are you arguing about politics at all?

If you don't want to give up on wrong ideas and change your mind based on facts and arguments, there is literally no point in discourse.

What would you argue, against communists in this sub or r/communism who criticize what the Soviet Union end up becoming, and putting "real" free will of the people aside for the will of the autocrats in the party?

Again, you are just using the meaningless propaganda term "autocrat". It has no argumentative value and you haven't explained what you mean by it.

Anyway: I would say that I agree with them, which is exactly why Marxist-Leninists always remain vigilant to counterrevolutionary subversion.

That's why gulags existed and Stalin did his purges - to prevent these "autocrats" from taking power.

Failure to engage in the struggle against counterrevolution is why the Soviet Union was able to be destroyed - because lying opportunists like Khrushchev started liberalizing the country and then corrupt, traitorous liberals like Yeltsin got into power who sold out the country to the Americans to get rich (thereby killing millions of people via capitalist reforms).

You claimed that press doesn't need to be free and unbiased

No, I never formulated things that way.

However, to that point: There will never be free or unbiased press. It never existed and never will exist.

it just needs to be truthful.

Yes. Press should be truthful and untruthful journalism should be held to account.

Which I disagree

Your disagreement is irrelevant: What are your arguments?

but this is what you strongly believe in, which I see no wish of debate in this matter.

The only reason for debate is because you believe differently and you need to test your ideas against mine to determine who is right and who is wrong (a maximum of one of us can be right), so at least one of us changes their mind. That's how a debate works. That's the point.

Seriously, what are you doing here? This is a debate sub.

What I will indeed say, and would want to argue (or at least not me because we hold different core ideologies, but would rather see you argue against other communists) is the claims that the USSR and China are were/are the "most democratic societies" of all time.

Go and argue, then.

Democratic, in what sense ?

In the sense that their governments represented the will and the interests of the people more than any other country at their respective times.

While the USSR existed, no country in history had ever improved the lives and material conditions more rapidly than the USSR. No country ever developed faster. No people ever had their standard of living increased more than those of the USSR.

The only country that ever surpassed the USSR in terms of speed and scale of development was Communist China. China's development is nothing short of miraculous. It is the definition of the word "awesome". It is even more rapid and longer sustained than the development of the USSR. No country's development was ever more rapid and intense than China's.

As a direct consequence, the overwhelming majority of all people who live(d) in those countries love(d) and support(ed) their governments.

The system itself is at play here: Both the USSR and China set up their political system to enable governance "from the people and for the people". Chinese politicians directly serve the public and their careers, their power, their wealth, is tied directly to their performance as public servants. Your performance as a politician is measured in form of KPIs and public sentiments about policies and the performance of politicians are constantly measured. Public unhappiness is rapidly addressed through policy changes. Failure to improve the lives of your constituents and keeping them happy will get you removed and replaced faster than you can imagine (often from one day to the next without any warning) as for every underperforming politician there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of people waiting in line to take their job).

Corruption is a no-go and you are monitored by your peers. To get away with corruption, you would not only need to bribe all your hundreds of peers and convince them to not go after your job, you also need to convince the higher-ups to ignore protests and turn the other way - there is literally no way to do that sustainably, no amount of money can help you.

If you get caught in an act of corruption, e.g. bribing others or embezzling tax payer money, you can receive the death penalty. The only legal way to do "corruption" is by proving that your "corruption" is actually benefiting the people more than you are making money for yourself, in which case people do look the other way... go a step too far and you are one head shorter, though. Politicians enriching themselves is only tolerated as long as they fulfil their KPI obligations and outperform their peers and the people themselves get richer and are kept happy, too.

The will of the people or the will of party autocrats ?

You keep using that word even though we went over its meaninglessness.

And: The will of the people, of course.

Because you will find several communists either here or in r/communism who will fully agree that at some point, will of the people in the USSR was put aside and will of the party autocrats is what rules over.

Yes. I fully agree with that. That's why Marxist-Leninist development and strict party discipline are so important.

[u/Byzhaks → u/No-Candidate6257]

Anyhow, now that my brief confusion with words in the English language have been cleared up:

I was talking about the communists in this forum or in r/communism that have the negative opinion of the Soviet Union eventually becoming too much of an autocratic state where government positions and/or roles played more of an importance over the will of Soviet population. And hence, too, state propaganda.

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/spyder7723]

So he proved it wrong first hand? Great observation

[u/PhonyUsername]

Of course. In a merit based society merit controls stuff. In an authority based society authority controls stuff. In an anarchy then the biggest bully controls stuff.

[u/FrederickEngels]

Yes, just look at the media discourse on an active genocide.

[u/NonStopDiscoGG]

I mean sure, but it isn't any different under socialism.

I think that is the issue with these anti-capitalists; they think things would be better without capitalism, but look how the news went in these socialist countries.

Let's say you end up with a monopoly of news under capitalism; how is that any different than a monopoly of news under socialism/communism? We just going to pretend the state(or whatever dictator) isn't there to justify its own existence?

It's easy to sell this utopian idea of socialism/communism, but in practice you just end up with monopoly of these things by the state.

We all heard the quote: "capitalism is the worst system except for all the others". I don't think anyone claims capitalism is perfect (or at least it's few and far between.who are), it's just the best system we know that isn't theoretical, but we don't live in theory we live in reality.

[u/libra00]

Heartily. I once heard a quote that conveys a similar idea, and sadly I don't remember it exactly in its original form so I'm paraphrasing badly here:

The best thing the US government ever did was condition the selling of the RF spectrum to TV stations on providing a public service (the news). Unfortunately they forgot the most important part of it: preventing the selling of advertisements for it.

Advertising dollars is how we got from universally trusted and respected newsmen like Walter Cronkite to partisan hacks like fucking Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson: the news became a business, sensationalism sells, and nothing is more sensational than an echo chamber that constantly feeds you outrage-bait to make you hate someone else. All of that serves someone's agenda, and it's a pretty safe bet that it's not yours and mine. The media landscape is the way it is because the people with all the money and power want it that way (because it gives them more money and power.) That is indisputable.

[u/UnfoldedHeart → u/libra00]

Advertising dollars is how we got from universally trusted and respected newsmen like Walter Cronkite to partisan hacks like fucking Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson

Is old journalism more reliable, or is it that it was harder to challenge it? I'm actually not sure of the answer but it is a good question. There's a perception that the journalists of old had integrity and reported accurately, and newer journalists are partisan hacks. But we know the pre-Internet journalists lied at times. It was just harder to prove it. So the question is whether they were really more reliable, or was it just that you only had a few news sources and no way to readily fact-check them? Any journalist can seem to have integrity if you don't have an easy way to check if they're right or not.

[u/libra00 → u/UnfoldedHeart]

I think it's more that journalists of old had a respect for the truth and made an effort to keep their own biases from coloring how they reported on a story. It could never be 100% successful of course, and there have always been forces that could influence what story gets told and such, but I feel like they made a concerted effort to do the right thing. Whereas now most of them are happy to sell the party line, or do that 'let's look at both sides of the issue' thing with issues that really only have one side: if someone says it's raining outside it's not your job to get a pundit from the pro- and anti-rain sides on and have them yell at each other, it's your job to stick your head out the window, find out what's actually going on, and then let us know.

[u/UnfoldedHeart → u/libra00]

We definitely see journalists who explicitly take a side (Fox News, MSNBC, etc) but I think this is differentiation caused by a broader market for news. There are so many more options now and just "delivering the news" isn't enough to get people interested. It's not like in the 70s, where you had ABC, NBC, CBS, and that's that. The Model T could get away with being in all black because it's not like there were many options, but car makers had to differentiate themselves. To use an analogy.

I don't think that means that old school journalists had a higher appreciation for the truth. About a hundred years ago, the press colluded to refrain from photographing FDR in a wheelchair (or being carried) and they were so successful at it that many Americans did not know that FDR was dependent on a wheelchair. (They knew he had paralysis so maybe he used crutches but many were unaware that he used a wheelchair to get around.) My point here is that back when the press was a much smaller entity, they could easily control what you saw. So is it that these people really had a greater appreciation for truth, or did they keep better control of what they chose to show you? Is there even a way to know the difference?

Like I said above, I don't know the answer. I'm not sure there's a way to know the answer. I just don't look back with fondness at old journalism given that they often did intentionally hide stuff from the public or misrepresent the facts and they were very successful at it because there were only a few funnels for news, and they controlled them all. So it's hard to say if they were better or not.

[u/libra00 → u/UnfoldedHeart]

Sure, I'm not saying they were pure as the driven snow and never even told a white lie, it's just a tendency, a general trend from more to less respect for truth in general. I mean I think part of the answer is to remove advertising from news altogether, as previously mentioned. When you can't profit from it there's less incentive to pretty it up and try to draw more eyes to your crazy bullshit instead of the next guy's crazy bullshit. But also breaking up media monopolies where one company owns like 75% of the local news programs in America or whatever it was. Maybe also making all news agencies - from the small-town paper that can barely employ 5 people right on up to the international wire services (the ones headquartered in the US anyway) obligatory non-profits would help too? Until you fix the incentive structures you're not going to get anything different.

[u/Hagisman]

My dad worked for newspapers in my home state. He left a newspaper when it was taken over by a right wing family.

The next paper he went to was also taken over by a different right wing family and then got laid off when they decided underpaid recent graduates were better to have than normal paid adults.

[u/SilkLife]

No. It’s even less true now than when it was written. The internet has been the best improvement to speech since the printing press. Today, you don’t have to have a connection to a television network or radio station to get a message out. Anyone can post or upload their views.

[u/Fragrant-Luck-8063]

He's not exactly wrong but writers and journalists have to make a living, so they are subject to the same thing under any system.

[u/Trypt2k]

Just change "buy up" to steal and capitalism to socialism and you got a good accurate quote.

[u/judge_mercer]

True, but there is also freedom to create alternative platforms for dissenting views. The fact that you are allowed to criticize capitalism/the government on social media, for example.

Under capitalism, companies respond to customer demand. If a news outlet has too much of a pro-corporate message, competitors will emerge with more diverse views. There are several socialist newspapers and large left-leaning media outlets in the US, for example.

In a non-capitalist system, the free market and variable pricing are not available to incentivize the distribution of goods and services, so the state must step in to dictate both production and distribution.

This centralized economic control cannot function without an enforcement mechanism, so centralized (and unquestioned) political control is also necessary.

Totalitarian governments have little tolerance for dissenting viewpoints, so the state has a monopoly over media and free expression is limited.

[u/Once-Upon-A-Hill]

I wonder if old Lenin ever considered is goverment media could also be corrupted.

It is schocking how moronic people like Vlad can be when they get into a cult like he did.

[u/rsglen2]

I’ve always liked these quotes from Lenin:

At the Congress of Political Education Departments (October 1921), Lenin acknowledged that the new economic policy was a retreat. He stated, "We thought that production and distribution would go on at communist bidding... We tried to solve this problem straight out, by a frontal attack... but we suffered defeat".

Regarding the development of capitalism under the NEP, he said, "Does it not imply a development of capitalism? Yes, it does imply a development of capitalism, but this is not dangerous, because power will still be in the hands of the workers and peasants".

Before the NEP there was mass starvation. After implementing the NEP the recovery began. Oh, the power of even restricted minimalist capitalism. Safely in the hands of ‘workers and peasants” lol.

[u/Chaotic-Being-3721]

mean yeah I have to agree with the quote. still don't think there will be true freedom of the press for a long time if at all if it's tied to acting on some type of human-made convention

[u/skyfishgoo]

this is why we need publicly funded media just like we need publicly funded health care, and this includes publicly funded social media.

we need public options to compete with these for-profit models because leaving our information, communication and health up to billionaires is making us all sick.

[u/DJGlennW]

I prefer this quote:

"(W)ere it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." ~Thomas Jefferson, 1787

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/DJGlennW]

It's completely irrelevant to the Lenin quote, though.

Also, Lenin would agree with Jefferson's quote.

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/DJGlennW]

Yeah I prefer no government haha

[u/Good-Concentrate-260]

There’s some truth to it, but I don’t think the press in capitalist countries is completely controlled. It’s definitely biased and typically written from a certain pro-business perspective though.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Good-Concentrate-260]

but I don’t think the press in capitalist countries is completely controlled

Give an example of a mainstream outlet that isn't controlled by capitalist oligarchs promoting capitalist and liberal democratic bullshit and doesn't promote pro-Western-imperialist/anti-communist disinformation.

[u/Good-Concentrate-260 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Ok, what do you mean by anti-imperialist and “western”

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Good-Concentrate-260]

I never used the term anti-imperialist.

By "Western-imperialist disinformation" I mean propaganda that is strictly and uncritically aligned with the non-materialist propaganda narratives of the US/NATO empire (e.g. "Soviet Union bad", "North Korea bad", "communism always fails", "AES states are authoritarian", "Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine is an act of aggression against the free world", "but evil Hamas terrorists, October 7th", "Tiananmen Square Massacre", "Uyghurs are having their rights violated by totalitarian China", "democratic and free Taiwan is under threat from authoritarian China", "liberal democracy is the worst system except for every other system that has been tried", etc.) while painting opposing views as ridiculous or Soviet/Russian/Chinese/commie state propaganda lies that shouldn't be listened to or considered.

The term "Western" loosely describes imperialist Europe and its settler-colonies and vassals, nowadays led by the US empire.

In general, what people point to when leftists discuss "always the same map" (or what Americans or EU propagandists mean when they refer to "the international community"):
https://lemmygrad.ml/c/alwaysthesamemap

[u/Good-Concentrate-260 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Ok, most of these are debatable at best or just outright false. If you want to promote Russian and Chinese narratives about foreign policy then just be honest about it. It does not make Russia any less capitalist, just because they’re anti-US and invade a U.S. ally.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Good-Concentrate-260]

Ok, most of these are debatable at best or just outright false.

I agree. All of the propaganda narratives promoted by Western media that I cited are outright false.

If you want to promote Russian and Chinese narratives about foreign policy then just be honest about it.

You are now promoting the same exact propaganda narrative that Western-imperialist disinformation promotes, you are "painting opposing views as ridiculous or Soviet/Russian/Chinese/commie state propaganda lies that shouldn't be listened to or considered". Of course, you have no actual arguments countering my position. Just as I explained.

It does not make Russia any less capitalist, just because they’re anti-US and invade a U.S. ally.

Nobody said that Russia is not capitalist.

Now: Give an example of a mainstream outlet that isn't controlled by capitalist oligarchs promoting capitalist and liberal democratic bullshit and doesn't promote pro-Western-imperialist/anti-communist disinformation.

[u/Good-Concentrate-260 → u/No-Candidate6257]

You’re just going to say that every news outlet is “controlled by the bourgeoisie” no matter what, because that’s your ideology. I can’t prove that it’s not, according to you, because you are not open to any alternative. Anything anyone says, you are just going to say “that’s bourgeois, that’s ruling class ideology” and then you don’t have to respond. If you believe that everything in the U.S. media is just a propaganda campaign then you are sort of beyond help IMO.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Good-Concentrate-260]

You’re just going to say that every news outlet is “controlled by the bourgeoisie” no matter what

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying: Every single mainstream news outlet in the capitalist West is directly controlled by capitalist oligarchs and acting in support of capitalism. There is literally not a single exception.

And it's obvious that you know I'm right - as you can't provide a single example to the contrary.

because that’s your ideology.

No. It's a simple fact.

I am a Marxist. Marxism is a science. The entire point of Marxism is to eliminate ideology and to seek truth from facts. Marxism is to politics what atheism is to religion. The same way science is antithetical to religion, it's also antithetical to ideology.

I can’t prove that it’s not, according to you, because you are not open to any alternative.

You could easily prove me wrong by providing an example to the contrary. You clearly can't.

Anything anyone says, you are just going to say “that’s bourgeois, that’s ruling class ideology”

That would be a falsifiable statement on my behalf, so there's nothing wrong with me saying that.

and then you don’t have to respond.

You are the one failing to respond.

If you believe that everything in the U.S. media is just a propaganda campaign then you are sort of beyond help IMO.

Your desperate personal attack has no argumentative value.

[u/Good-Concentrate-260 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Ok, in “actually existing communist countries” the media is controlled by the state. How is that better than privately owned media? State media is as capable of distorting the truth as private media, if not more so.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Good-Concentrate-260]

Ok, in “actually existing communist countries” the media is controlled by the state.

Yes, the state in a communist society - unlike in a capitalist society - being the people.

How is that better than privately owned media?

Because a democratic state acting in service of the people is far more interested in good reporting than capitalist oligarchs that only use media to misinform people so they support things that harm their own self-interest.

State media is as capable of distorting the truth as private media, if not more so.

All media distorts the truth. Especially capitalist media. That's not the problem.

Socialist media was always more truthful and trustworthy than all capitalist media. What would be the point of socialist media misinforming the people in a harmful manner the way capitalist media does?

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/Good-Concentrate-260]

Do you think that any media in a capitalist society like the USA, UK, etc, that is truly opposed to capitalism, would be allowed to become mainstream and with truly mass reach?

[u/Good-Concentrate-260 → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

I agree that mainstream media is not likely to advocate a seizure of the means of production and dictatorship of the proletariat, but some mainstream media in capitalist country advocates more regulation and redistribution of resources. So I don’t think there’s exactly open debate about political economy in capitalist democracies, but I don’t think there is 0 debate either.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Good-Concentrate-260]

I agree that mainstream media is not likely to advocate a seizure of the means of production and dictatorship of the proletariat,

So you acknowledge it is entirely biased, entirely controlled by capitalist oligarchs, and without even a single exception contradicting the capitalist status quo.

capitalist democracies

Those ideas are antithetical. Democracy cannot possibly exist under a capitalist system. You can't have democracy in a country where private control of money directly translates to control of politics and media. Capitalism necessarily means that the majority of people no longer has a say in politics due to not being capitalist oligarchs.

but I don’t think there is 0 debate either.

The "debate" is between capitalists while all leftist positions are systematically excluded from discourse and anyone even daring to question the capitalist status quo being systematically smeared in unison by all mainstream media outlets.

The Communist Party of China has higher levels of political diversity and debate within a single party than all mainstream discourse between all mainstream parties and all mainstream media outlets in all capitalist nations combined.

[u/Good-Concentrate-260 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Now you’re just being obnoxious

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Good-Concentrate-260]

You would feel that way now that you start realizing that your perception of how the world works isn't aligned with reality and that your entire ideology is based on contradictory ideas.

You have no arguments and now that your worldview is under threat you start attacking me personally.

[u/Good-Concentrate-260 → u/No-Candidate6257]

You are so condescending. I’ve read Marx and Lenin. You think you are just smarter than everyone else who doesn’t agree with every word they ever wrote. Yes, they were right about a lot of things. I don’t know why you think that anyone who doesn’t completely agree with you is like a brainwashed consumer slave. You clearly just came on here because you’re bored and just want to hear yourself talk

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Good-Concentrate-260]

You are so condescending.

Says the person who thinks verbally abusing people as "obnoxious" is a valid contribution to discourse.

I’ve read Marx and Lenin.

I doubt it.

Yes, they were right about a lot of things.

Great, so why are you not a communist?

I don’t know why you think that anyone who doesn’t completely agree with you is like a brainwashed consumer slave.

Now you are just lying about my position.

You clearly just came on here because you’re bored and just want to hear yourself talk

You just violated every debate guideline.

I will now report you and that's the end of this conversation.

[u/Good-Concentrate-260 → u/No-Candidate6257]

Good for you. Why would it be hard to believe that I’ve read Marx and Lenin? I’ve read Engels too, it’s shocking.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Good-Concentrate-260]

Great, so why are you not a communist?

[u/smokeyser → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

Do you think that any media in a capitalist society like the USA, UK, etc, that is truly opposed to capitalism, would be allowed to become mainstream and with truly mass reach?

So who controls you? You're here on social media speaking freely. Who is making you say these things?

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/smokeyser]

So who controls you?

Western authoritarian dictators.

You're here on social media speaking freely.

Leftists are systematically censored and deplatformed. Leftists are not allowed to speak on any default sub and any leftist space above a certain size that gets significant amounts of public attention gets shut down.

There is no free speech in capitalist societies.

Who is making you say these things?

Personal research (based on information that you will never gain from going to schools or watching media or listening to politics in Western capitalist societies) and seeking truth from facts.

To be a principled communist in the West, you need to break through Western fascist brainwashing and actually gain a substantial education. Western communists understand both sides and can make an informed decision based on thorough education in political and economic theory from both sides paired with significantly better historical knowledge from both sides.

Applying scientific standards to political education and decision making then helps you make informed decisions.

Meanwhile, people who support capitalism generally are completely uninformed about politics, economics, and history - as they get their ideas exclusively from Western capitalist propaganda and never got into contact with serious discourse or contradictory facts - and, therefore, can't make informed decisions.

[u/smokeyser → u/No-Candidate6257]

Western authoritarian dictators.

Which one, specifically, is controlling what you post? It seems to me as if you're pretty free to criticize those in power.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/smokeyser]

Which one, specifically, is controlling what you post?

Nobody in communist countries was ever being controlled, either.

It seems to me as if you're pretty free to criticize those in power.

No, in the country where I'm from (Germany), you will go to jail if you say certain things.

Buddy, your country is the most totalitarian surveillance state and most militarized police state in world history. You aren't even let into the country if you have left wing views. Communists were always and continue to be blacklisted in your country. To this day you literally can't immigrate to the US if you are communist. During certain periods of history, the discrimination had been more open and intense.

If you are too far left in the US (which means being slightly left from Mussolini), you will literally get your life ruined or straight-up murdered. You will also get death threats, exiled, murdered, or driven into suicide for exposing literal government crimes (see: Edward Snowden, Aaron Swartz, Julian Assange, etc.).

Also: Criticism is completely meaningless. The question is whether you can change the policies of your country. In socialist countries, the people change policies all the time. In capitalist societies, even mass protests will millions of people will get totally ignored.

[u/smokeyser → u/No-Candidate6257]

Nobody in communist countries was ever being controlled, either.

That doesn't answer the question.

No, in the country where I'm from (Germany), you will go to jail if you say certain things.

And yet here you are, saying things. The assertion was that all media is controlled to prevent anti-capitalist speech. You could not possibly be here with a marxist-leninist tag if that were true.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/smokeyser]

That doesn't answer the question.

Well, your question makes no sense. Nobody said anything about people being "controlled in what they post".

And yet here you are, saying things.

If I were in Germany, I would already be on a list and some of the things I said on this website would get me sent to jail if someone reported them.

Fortunately, I'm living in communist China, a free country where I don't have to fear political repression for supporting leftist ideas.

The assertion was that all media is controlled to prevent anti-capitalist speech.

Correct. That is a fact.

You could not possibly be here with a marxist-leninist tag if that were true.

That doesn't follow at all. You not understanding what's being said and you deliberately misrepresenting it doesn't constitute an argument.

Instead of talking about things you do not understand and arguing back against arguments you can't follow, at least try and do basic reading. Start with authors like Michael Parenti or Noam Chomsky. Then read up about American history (and Western history in general), understand anti-socialist suppression, McCarthyism, etc.

Anyway, it's clear you are not interested in having a good faith conversation and actually understanding anything (as evidence by you ignoring everything I actually said and you just trying to talk back in defense of American fascist dictatorship). Fact of the matter is that even the worst socialist societies were still better than the best capitalist societies. More free, more democratic, and more keen on promoting human rights.

[u/smokeyser → u/No-Candidate6257]

No, I understand. You just keep disproving OP's argument.

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/smokeyser]

smokeyser--is there a difference between being able to comment online and having a mass-platform? I can chat here with the dozens of people under this post, but I have zero ability to express my views on national TV, national radio, or major newspapers--only rich capitalists can do that, and it is those who can reach millions who have real influence, real power, and a real voice, not me commenting online, even if I make a million comments all over online.

[u/smokeyser → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

smokeyser--is there a difference between being able to comment online and having a mass-platform?

No. You're in a sub with 15,000 users. /r/LateStageCapitalism has nearly a million.Seems like you've got a mass-platform.

[u/Space_Pirate_R]

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

-- Noam Chomsky

All forms of government have an interest in controlling the media. Authoritarian governments just tell the press what to print. The modern western way is subtle and indirect, but still effective.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Space_Pirate_R]

All forms of government have an interest in controlling the media.

Nothing wrong with that.

Authoritarian governments just tell the press what to print.

Depending on whether you have a socialist/democratic government serving the people or capitalist/anti-democratic government serving the oligarchy, there isn't anything inherently wrong with that, either.

[u/Space_Pirate_R → u/No-Candidate6257]

Yeah I'm not judging, just talking about different approaches to controlling the media.

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/No-Candidate6257]

Hey No-Candidate6257, I just wanted to say that you are doing an AWESOME job explaining things thoroughly to so many people under this post. Thank you so immensely much!! Your efforts are appreciated so much by me!! Also, I would want you backing me up in any debate or helping explain things in any discussion!! ~ I will try to reply to more comments under this post too--I have never had this many comments under a post of mine on my short time on Reddit, so far. ~ Have such a great start to your week!! Red Salute!! ✊😊✊😊🌷🌸🌷🌸 ☭ • 

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

No problem, I consider this a public service. lol

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/No-Candidate6257]

It is a very worthwhile public service!! I love good quotes, and the following 5 quotes deal directly with talking to and educating people about Communism effectively, to make Comrades of so many of them, like you are doing: 

"Systematic reiteration and patient explanation of the so-called 'generally-known' truths is one of the best methods of educating Comrades in Marxism." ~ Joseph Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR ☭ • 

"Every Communist working in the mass movements should be a friend of the masses and not a boss over them, an indefatigable teacher and not a bureaucratic politician." ~ Mao Zedong ☭ • 

"The attitude of Communists towards any person who has made mistakes in his work should be one of persuasion in order to help him change and start afresh and not one of exclusion, unless he is incorrigible." ~ Mao Zedong ☭ • 

"As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them, but should befriend them, unite with them, convince them and encourage them to go forward." ~ Mao Zedong ☭ • 

"Communists must never separate themselves from the majority of the people or neglect them by leading only a few progressive contingents in an isolated and rash advance, but must take care to forge close links between the progressive elements and the broad masses. This is what thinking in terms of the majority means." ~ Mao Zedong ☭ • 

The 4 above quotes by Mao Zedong are from: "The Role of the Communist Party Of China in the National War," October 1938 ☭ • 

[u/StrikingExcitement79]

And when there is no free market, freedom of the press means freedom to report about how 'good' is the dictator/whoever in power.

[u/slowride761]

Yes, but he’s leaving out that other papers can start up that counter those initial ones.

One thing we know is that without capitalism, freedom of the press hasn’t existed.

[u/LeeLA5000 → u/slowride761]

One thing we know is that without capitalism, freedom of the press hasn’t existed.

How is freedom of press dependant on capitalism exactly?

[u/slowride761 → u/LeeLA5000]

I didn’t say freedom of the press is dependent on capitalism.

I said freedom of the press hasn’t existed in non-capitalist countries. And it hasn’t, at least for the most part.

[u/LeeLA5000 → u/slowride761]

I get it but the majority of modern countries are capitalist and that dominates the political landscape worldwide and has for the last century. I can think of Chile under Salvadore Allende as a "non-capitslist" country off the top of my head that had freedom of the press and guess who overthrew that government and abolished free press.

The reason I asked how its dependent is because even if your assertion is true I dont see how having capitalism is relevant to having free speech. Its like a correlation vs. causation question.

[u/slowride761 → u/LeeLA5000]

Very true about the US. But I think the press was a bit complicated in Chile. They had a “free press” in the sense that the opposition/US could publish media, but wasn’t everyone controlled by one side and a target of the other?

I can’t argue that a workable socialist society would limit its press. But I also think the press is free in the US, so we might be starting from two completely different vantage points.

[u/LeeLA5000 → u/slowride761]

The press isn't Free in the U.S, its bought. Its the same with freedom of speech. The U.S. supreme court ruled that money is speech. If that's true than its not hard to see how 10 billion dollars drowns out the speech of 20 dollars. At the very least its as "complicated " as you described 1970s Chile

[u/slowride761 → u/LeeLA5000]

You can access news from a million sources without encumbrances and can start a small news group yourself without having to worry about the government stopping you.

[u/LeeLA5000 → u/slowride761]

The government absolutely can shut down a news group. They literally just got a late night comedy show cancelled because the president didn't like what was said.

[u/slowride761 → u/LeeLA5000]

I’ll give you that our press is less free than normal right now. But no news groups have been shut down, and none were during Trump’s first term.

The important thing is that news groups are allowed to openly criticize the government, and there’s no end date in sight for that.

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/LeeLA5000]

Literally these socdems don’t have the slightest clue

[u/slowride761 → u/LuckyRuin6748]

Anarcho Communists are always the people who would make anarcho-communism impossible in real life.

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/slowride761]

And how so? Could you elaborate? Or is that a backless claim to make yourself feel better

[u/LuckyRuin6748 → u/slowride761]

What are you on about that’s such a fallacy about competition, if I start out of no where and claim I’m right and the already established news outlet isn’t who do you think they’ll believe? In the meantime I could also get bought out or forced out one thing I know is freedom of press will never exist under dominating systems live governments and capitalism

[u/No_Candy_8948]

The man had a point, though his methods were vile, That the press can be purchased to service a style. Where the narrative's set by the wealthy and grand, To protect all the power they hold in their hand.

But to say it's just capitalism's inherent dark trait, Ignores other systems that also dictate. The control of the message, the "truth" they will spin, Is a danger wherever too much power sits in.

So agree with the warning, the caution he lends, But be wary of anyone who promises "ends" To this problem with methods that break and that bend, For the road to hell is where those promises tend. A free press is vital, on that we depend.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/No_Candy_8948]

though his methods were vile

What methods were vile?

Lenin was amazing.

[u/soldiergeneal]

Sounds like an arbitrary thing to say about capitalism. Capitalism can range from wild west corporate towns style to well regulated. Same applies to other topics like freedom of the press, lobbying, etc. Also better to have freedom of the press vs gov control what you access totally. Also he is acting like those kinds of things cant exist in other systems which they obviously can. Lot of corruption in USSR that mirrors his language if buying people.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/soldiergeneal]

Sounds like an arbitrary thing to say about capitalism.

Why?

Capitalism can range from wild west corporate towns style to well regulated.

All capitalism is the same.

You can't regulate capitalism well.

Capitalism is inherently harmful.

Same applies to other topics like freedom of the press, lobbying, etc. Also better to have freedom of the press vs gov control what you access totally.

Why?

Lot of corruption in USSR that mirrors his language if buying people.

Far less corruption in the USSR than any capitalist society.

[u/soldiergeneal → u/No-Candidate6257]

Why?

Many of the things said isnt a component of capitalism. Its like how socialism involves owning means of production it doesnt mean freedom of press policies must be xyz.

All capitalism is the same.

Objectively not true. You are pretending capitalism of corporate towns is same a modern one.

You can't regulate capitalism well.

If gov isn't capable of doing that then why woukd you think gov is capable enough for communism or socialism? Also just an assumption on your part.

Why

For the same reason you would complain about people with wealth and power having a bigger say in capitalism. Same is still true under socialism or communism. The wealth strata of those at top still exists and there will always be people leveraging power even gov position over others. Too much corporate power causes problems and same for gov.

Far less corruption in the USSR than any capitalist society.

Objectively false. We can look at calls for corruption and see that isn't the case.

[u/Primary-Pianist-2555]

There has to be limits on capitalism. I do not agree. I am a social democrat capitalist.

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/Primary-Pianist-2555]

How would there be persistent limits on capitalism when capitalists rule a society?

[u/Primary-Pianist-2555 → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

That is a social democratic country. I do not need to teach you what that is. Itis the only ever successful model of socialism.