6/22/97, Karl Carlile wrote:
>Given that social revolution entails violent conflict
>between the forces of socialism and the forces of capitalism is free
>speech not to be denied to the latter (including fascists). Does
>this mean that in the violence of the class war we may direct our
>fire power at the forces of capitalism while not denying them free
>speech...
>It is not, as some lefties mistakenly believe, an absolute question
>of either invariable support or denial of free speech for
>fascists. Transcendental absolutes, such as these, revolutionaries
>leave to scholastics.
These are rantings one would rightly associate with a Stalinist. Socialism
without democracy is simply another form of tyranny, and democracy without
free speech is an oxymoron.
Socialism is not simply the fairer distribution of bread, but a vision of
government responsive to people's needs and desires - it is the inevitable
economic system in any truly democratic society. By socialism I don't
refer exclusively to state ownership, but to whatever pragmatic mechanisms
achieve an economy which serves the people, including private enterprise or
even corporations where appropriate.
Socialist revolution in a modern state can only come about by peaceful
means, through political organization. Violent revolution, even if it were
feasible, which it is not, would be much more likely to lead to
totalitarianism (ala French Revolution) than to democracy.
To be sure a peaceful and effective socialist movement would involve
violence - suppressive violence initiated by the state, as we saw for
example in the sixties. For the left to initiate violence would be
suicidal.
Karl - your agenda is so counterproductive that I'm finding it increasingly
difficult to retain faith in your sincerity.
rkm