Censorship is a structural failure of the superstructure itself. I provided earlier a list of reasons of why I think this.
When we ‘oppress’ the bourgeoisie by silencing them, the censor’s hand is eventually covering the worker’s mouth & ears.
I’m not relying in just one specific article like it’s a bible… I’m applying a scientific approach and relying on Marx’s belief that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the self-government of the producers. You cannot govern yourself if you are wearing a blindfold.
You explained your reasoning, I just disagree with it entirely for reasons I have given. You depend on a false understanding of how ideas are spread in society in order to defend the presence of fascist press in socialism. The bourgeoisie need to be silenced because otherwise they use the press to spread misinformation and disinformation to incite counter-revolution, again, see how Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia are used historically.
You aren’t applying a scientific approach, you’re erasing concrete reality in order to appeal to how you want society to function, ie you want for open debate of fascist ideas to prevent their spread, but that’s not how ideas work and that’s not how debate works. You’re proceding from a false premise and trying to justify it by erasing the context of a single article by Marx.
The working classes know well why fascist ideas should be shut down, rather than legitimized, that’s why the working classes have shut down fascist press in socialist societies using the state. That’s the dictatorship of the proletariat in action.
I don’t believe I’m misunderstanding you at all, though I agree we are speaking in circles. I think that adds to my point, the marketplace of ideas is a fantasy.
Science is not a fantasy, and wanting to call it a “marketplace” is proof of the misunderstanding. We have historic proof of the damage to the power of the workers that dogmatic censorship, “political correctness” (ie. hiding truth) and manipulation of public perception causes, we are seeing it right now first person in the west. Doing the same thing (and more overtly) is fighting dogma with dogma, even if the ideals from one of them were fully benevolent and made people happy.
What? it’s hard to tell what did you interpret this time …but I hope you are not implying that politically correct language like “military operation” shows the whole truth, that “pacification” is the whole truth, that “terrorism” is the whole truth, that “re-education camps” are the whole truth, that “voluntary relocation” is the whole truth, that “austerity measures” are the whole truth.
“Political correctness” has often been a dogwhistle for censoring bigotry:
Political correctness (adjectivally “politically correct”; commonly abbreviated to P.C.) is a term used to describe language,[1][2][3] policies,[4] or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.[5][6][7] Since the late 1980s, the term has been used to describe a preference for inclusive language and avoidance of language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting to groups of people disadvantaged or discriminated against, particularly groups defined by ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. In public discourse and the media,[4][8][9] the term’s use is generally pejorative, with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.[10][11] It can also be humorous, or ironic in nature.
You’re referring to instead how political figures massage words.
Since its inception the term has been about adherence to party lines and enforcing ideological purity. The right wants to pretend they don’t do it, so they want to attribute it to particular instances from the left, but they do the same thing all the time.
See the next paragraph on that same article you quote (Wikipedia, btw):
The phrase politically correct first appeared in the 1930s, when it was used to describe dogmatic adherence to ideology in totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.[5] Early usage of the term politically correct by leftists in the 1970s and 1980s was as self-critical satire;[8] usage was ironic, rather than a name for a serious political movement.[12][13][14] It was considered an in-joke among leftists used to satirise those who were too rigid in their adherence to political orthodoxy.[15] The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century, with many describing it as a form of censorship.[16]
Censorship is a structural failure of the superstructure itself. I provided earlier a list of reasons of why I think this.
When we ‘oppress’ the bourgeoisie by silencing them, the censor’s hand is eventually covering the worker’s mouth & ears.
I’m not relying in just one specific article like it’s a bible… I’m applying a scientific approach and relying on Marx’s belief that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the self-government of the producers. You cannot govern yourself if you are wearing a blindfold.
You explained your reasoning, I just disagree with it entirely for reasons I have given. You depend on a false understanding of how ideas are spread in society in order to defend the presence of fascist press in socialism. The bourgeoisie need to be silenced because otherwise they use the press to spread misinformation and disinformation to incite counter-revolution, again, see how Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia are used historically.
You aren’t applying a scientific approach, you’re erasing concrete reality in order to appeal to how you want society to function, ie you want for open debate of fascist ideas to prevent their spread, but that’s not how ideas work and that’s not how debate works. You’re proceding from a false premise and trying to justify it by erasing the context of a single article by Marx.
The working classes know well why fascist ideas should be shut down, rather than legitimized, that’s why the working classes have shut down fascist press in socialist societies using the state. That’s the dictatorship of the proletariat in action.
You are misunderstanding me and it has become clear that I’m not gonna get through you. We are talking in circles.
I don’t believe I’m misunderstanding you at all, though I agree we are speaking in circles. I think that adds to my point, the marketplace of ideas is a fantasy.
Science is not a fantasy, and wanting to call it a “marketplace” is proof of the misunderstanding. We have historic proof of the damage to the power of the workers that dogmatic censorship, “political correctness” (ie. hiding truth) and manipulation of public perception causes, we are seeing it right now first person in the west. Doing the same thing (and more overtly) is fighting dogma with dogma, even if the ideals from one of them were fully benevolent and made people happy.
Political correctness isn’t “hiding the truth,” you’re implying that racism, homophobia, etc. are “the truth.” You’re caping for fascism and bigotry.
What? it’s hard to tell what did you interpret this time …but I hope you are not implying that politically correct language like “military operation” shows the whole truth, that “pacification” is the whole truth, that “terrorism” is the whole truth, that “re-education camps” are the whole truth, that “voluntary relocation” is the whole truth, that “austerity measures” are the whole truth.
“Political correctness” has often been a dogwhistle for censoring bigotry:
You’re referring to instead how political figures massage words.
Since its inception the term has been about adherence to party lines and enforcing ideological purity. The right wants to pretend they don’t do it, so they want to attribute it to particular instances from the left, but they do the same thing all the time.
See the next paragraph on that same article you quote (Wikipedia, btw):