A KARL CARLILE MESSAGE:
RICHARD: Civil libertarians - by which I mean those who understand
and support the original intent of the Bill of Rights - must support
the inviolability of freedom of speech for _all_ political points of
view. Any support for selective censorship - even against fascists -
has only one lasting institutional consequence: it serves to grant to
the government the right to decide what speech is permissable.
KARL: As I intimated in previous postings the question of
supporting the denial of free speech to fascism is a tactical or
strategical matter.
At present it would be politically incorrect to seek the denial of
free speech to fascism. In other words there is nothing to be gained
politically by denying free speech to fascism under circumstances
that are not alone unrevolutionary but not even "partially
revolutionary".
Under circumstances where a significant revolutionary working class
movement exists together with a significant fascist movement then the
conditions for seeking the denial of free speech for fascism might
exist. Under circumstances where the class struggle has developed to
fever pitch and the question of seizing state power is increasingly
becoming an issue then it might make sense to seek to deny free
speech to fascism. Under such a scenario the conditions may exist for
marxism and social democracy taking joint action to fight fascism and
deny it freedom of speech. Under these circumstances too the
conditions for forcing the capitalist state through mass pressure
to institutionally deny free speech to fascism may be present.
On the other hand if the state fails to yield to mass popular
pressure then this reveals all the more starkly the class character
of the state and its inability to resist fascism. Such a development
raises all the more urgently the need for the proletariat to attack
the capitalist state and seize state power as the only effective
means to defeat fascism. It makes acutely clear to the masses that
the only way to abolish fascism is by abolishing the state and the
capitalist system that is the source of fasicism. In seizing state
power the working class will be forced to close down parliamentary
institutions replacing them with directly democratic proletarian
organs of power. The revolutionary proletariat will be compelled to
expropriate bourgeois newspapers, radio and television stations. In
other words it will be compelled in its class interests to deny
freedom of speech to the bourgeoisie.
Furthermore seizing state power will most probably entail a certain
amount of bloodshed which in itself cosnstitutes a further denial of
free speech.
Overall then the right to free speech is not an absolute
transhistorical right. The bourgeoisie concede free speech when
it suits their class interests to institute this formal right. However
it must be understood that is merely a formal right and not
necessarily a substantive right. The daily experience of the working
class supports this observation. If workers in a factory exercise
free speech by urging fellow workers to join a workers' union in a
traditionally non-unionised firm they will quickly discover how
substantive freedom of speech as a right is. There exists copious
other evidence in support of this observation. We only have to look
back to the McCathyite era in the US to understand that free speech
is not an absolute right.
Communists have never viewed free speech as an absolute right. Indeed in a
genuinely free society, a communist society, free speech would not
exist as a formal right since it would form a constituent
part of one's day to day existence.
Communists do not absolutely support freedom of speech for a
bourgeoisie that can utlise it to mobilise support against the working
class movement. When communists do not seek the denial of free speech
to capitalists and their ideologues it is a tactical matter and not a
matter of universal norms.
Tactically it, in general, makes sense to seek to deny the
capitalist class free speech when the revolutionary movement is a
significant and growing political force engaged in the revolutionary
development of the class struggle. Indeed the revolutionary
development of the struggle against the bourgoeoisie is a development
of the struggle to deny the bourgeoisie free speech.The working class
struggle to seize state power in order to crush the capitalist class.
When in power the working class. to protect its interests. deny the
bourgeoisie right to free speech.
The struggle, then, to abolish capitalism and introduce communist
relations is a struggle to progressively deny the capitalist class
free speech. As the struggle develops the working class progressively
establish political spaces, such as workers' councils, that
increasingly deny the bourgeoisie free speech such as workers
councils.
Furthermore the right to free speech as a formal right is in many
ways a farce and merely designed to disguise the inherently
exploitative, oppressive and unfree nature of capitalism. It cannot
be successfully argued that free speech is an inherent democratic
right within western democracies: For example within western Europe,
or indeed the US, one cannot validly argue that the semi-illiterate
incoherent drop-out from a heavily disadvantaged background has
freedom of speech in the same measure as the clever Harvard educated
middle class person. In other words discursivity is assymetrical and
invested with the power relations of capital.
Greetings,
Karl