Let the ruling classes tremble – an Interactive Revolutionary AAR

[yourworstnightm]

Anarchist!!!

We must end Tyranny now and get rid of that evil emperor Lenin. Time for a new revolution against the new Leninist ruling class! Time for true Freedom!

[thekonkoe]

To bring this to a close essentially, my basic premise is that there are rational reasons to oppose Lenin, and that those form part of proper discourse, but that emotional reasons can be used to supplement such an argument even in the press. From what I understand of your argument, you see the inclusion of such emotionally charged material as detracting from the rational arguments and hence unworthy of the press. We essentially agree as to the substance of what the press is/was, but disagree as to what it should be. What is more the heart of the disagreement seems to lie in two different understandings of the revolution.

This disagreement over freedom of the press is unlikely to ever be truly resolved. It seems to be a matter of principles. For the anarchists, it is a moral issue, striking at a core freedom of the revolution. For the Marsixts, it is a reactionary danger that imperils the same revolution. The anarchists believe in a continuation of bourgeois freedoms as part of the heritage that has led to the inevitable and glorious revolution. The Marsixts, believe such freedoms are obsolete and even dangerous where they might interfere with what they see as the continuation of the revolution. To an anarchist this is an almost nonsensical argument since if the freedoms are surrendered the revolution is dead. Until time shifts one side's view, or else one side or the other wins, this issue will likely be a surrogate for the much broader differences in vision between the Marxists and Anarchists.

[Enewald]

Bitter much? What Lenin did may not have been right. The right thing may not always be what is necessary. However, it was necessary. The Zeal was nothing more than a pamphlet to incite revolution, and you cannot argue that it wasn't because it is.

Indeed. We demand an revolution, we strive to spread this revolution and have it finished one day.
Even you as a Marxist-Leninist agree that your party is counterrevolutionary since it works to censor revolutionary views.

Tommy, can we get to know what our sacred constitution says about Freedom of Speech?

[Communard]

Comrade Thezfel, we are in agreement. I dislike personal attacks without rational basis. But there are two things on which we differ. One is that you believe my arguments to be baseless, where I do not. I believe that Lenin's rule is becoming closer and closer in style to that of a monarch. Thus the phrase "budding kaiser" is a legitimate phrase to include, to give one example. You can disagree with me, but if you paint one set of views as entirely illegitimate, where will it end? The other point is that we must deal with irrational argument by countering them with rational ones, not on the end of the bayonet! Because once you allow the government to decide what a "rational argument" is, well, I could make some of those emotional historical appeals you just did and turn them back at you. I look at this policy and cannot help but think of piles of books, burning. Or another appeal to history. Can you list one nation that engaged in press censorship, and respected the other liberties of its citizens and allowed democracy? That never abused this power, and used it to only counter "irrational" or "attacking" arguments? They have without question been dictatorships. That is the path Lenin leads us down.

EDIT: Enewald, I don't think we have a constitution, although I could be wrong. I would like us to make one after all this is over to stop people like Lenin subverting legitimate government again.

[Tommy4ever]

Indeed. We demand an revolution, we strive to spread this revolution and have it finished one day.
Even you as a Marxist-Leninist agree that your party is counterrevolutionary since it works to censor revolutionary views.

Tommy, can we get to know what our sacred constitution says about Freedom of Speech?

Certainly. We have no constitution so it says nothing. I'd take press rights to be a good indicator of whatever the current freedom of speech is. So at the moment you can say whatever you like short of inciting a violent attack on a community or the government. But even then the Anarchists are powerful enough to stop the widespread use of the censorship laws. The attempt to bring down the Zeal was a big move and as we have seen it has really been damaging for Lenin, so at this stage the state is very wary about using the censorship laws too much.

Polls:

Total Votes: 60 - that's a record

Independents: 21

Marxist-Leninsts: 15

Anarchists: 15

Militarists: 6

Moderates: 3

[Tommy4ever]

Unity

VSVR on the Brink

Comrades, we stand at a crossroads. This is a very important vote, do not be fooled into thinking that you are merely deciding on social and political policy. At stake is no less than democracy itself!

When I first saw that infamous cartoon (the one that likened Lenin to an Egyptian Pharaoh), I chuckled. I disagreed, but I chuckled. Then Lenin censored the Zeal. My disagreement faded then and there.

Some believe that a free press will destroy our republic. On the contrary, it has led to greater freedom for all within. By encouraging a diversity of views to be shared across the country we have found the mean in all parties' ideological positions and found the best, the wisest and the most justifiable policies for all parties. This has led to better governance, with all parties advancing platforms that can appeal to everyone on some level.

I tell you, I have never been more tempted to vote Anarchist than I have during this election...and that includes the election in which I voted for them! I find more to agree with in the Anarchists' arguments in this debate every day. Truly it vindicates the idea that debate encourages moderation on all sides, drawing the best ideas out of each party. I heartily encourage the Anarchists to form a coalition with the Independents. May we both preserve our republic!

Though I love the social reforms the Marxists and the Marxist-Leninists have brought forward, I cannot in good conscience vote for them. For socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. We will all suffer equally without freedom. I will continue to advance socialism whenever possible, but I will not do so without freedom. Those who call to advance the cause of the worker may want to examine what a VSVR without freedom will look like.

Without freedom, massacres the likes of which we have not seen since the days of Blanqui will become commonplace until there is no one left to kill, while those who survive will abandon their viewpoints in exchange for anonymity and safety! Even moderate Marxists have been censored by Lenin's government. And for what? Disagreeing with him!

That is not grounds for using unkind words, much less censorship!

I cannot respect a man who cannot accept criticism of his work, constructive or otherwise! Let the people say what they will. Once the party in power makes it its business to regulate what people say in public, new ideas will become hard to come by.

The established churches of the past once demanded orthodoxy and adherence to authority. The result was scientific stagnation and a laxity of governance. Ladies and Gentlemen, our fate will be similar if we do not allow the free exchange of ideas to challenge the established paradigms. It will result in nothing less than political stagnation and corruption!

When an established government becomes lax and corrupt, the only cure is a change in regime. If we do not act now we will become a despotism in short time and our republic will ossify. I cannot believe what has happened in a mere 5 years as it is! Even our last crisis was a decade in the making! We may not get another chance to preserve our republic...

I too wish to see the worker's lot advance, but we cannot advance the worker's interests if he does not have a stake in the governance of our country. If he or she does not have the ability to make his wishes known to those in power, if he is not given the authority to overturn his government, we shall be a nation of intellectuals ruling over the proletariat. And that is not a nation I wish to live in.

Consider that when you vote, Ladies and Gentlemen of the VSVR.

- Comrade T. S. Sha

[Tommy4ever]

Thanks to Tssha for his first article. We also see a nice revival for the formely pro-United Front paper Unity. This rather rudderless paper is now a bastion for moderates of all varieties, whether they be Anarchist, Marxist or Syndacalist.

I hope Tssha doesn't mind me giving him the name T. S. Sha

[RedRoverMan]

Anarchists!

It is time to liberate our republic of the oppressive regimes that have infested themselves in the government of our republic for so many successive years.

[Enewald]

Should we not try to create a revolutionary constitution?
In case someone tries to tyrannize others or in case a party seeks to destroy and prevent our revolutionary progress?
Guaranteed fundamental freedom of speech?

[Communard]

Comrade Sha has put forth my exact argument in a way much more eloquent than I ever could. Socialism must always be about freedom. To advance socialism without freedom is a contradiction in terms. Thank you for the great article.

Certainly. We have no constitution so it says nothing. I'd take press rights to be a good indicator of whatever the current freedom of speech is. So at the moment you can say whatever you like short of inciting a violent attack on a community or the government. But even then the Anarchists are powerful enough to stop the widespread use of the censorship laws. The attempt to bring down the Zeal was a big move and as we have seen it has really been damaging for Lenin, so at this stage the state is very wary about using the censorship laws too much.

What about the censorship of the moderates? It was that that really made me take the very anti-Leninist view I've been putting forward. That was hardly avocation of a violent attack on anyone...

EDIT: I floated the idea for a constitution a while ago, but it has been rather buried in Lenin's betrayal of the press freedom. We should see what happens at the next election and perhaps we can have some sort of constitutional convention.

[Tommy4ever]

EDIT: I floated the idea for a constitution a while ago, but it has been rather buried in Lenin's betrayal of the press freedom. We should see what happens at the next election and perhaps we can have some sort of constitutional convention.

Sounds good. In the next election I'll give a faction or two the policy of establishing a constitution.

[Dyranum]

Sounds good. In the next election I'll give a faction or two the policy of establishing a constitution.

Wait, I thought you said that you wouldn't give the V.S.V.R. a constitution because you didn't want to contradict yourself?

[Tommy4ever]

Wait, I thought you said that you wouldn't give the V.S.V.R. a constitution because you didn't want to contradict yourself?

O yeah.

Well constitutions are there to be broken.

I'll give it a go anyway, if you guys vote for it ofc.

[enf91]

This thread keeps getting weirder and weirder.

[Dyranum]

This thread keeps getting weirder and weirder.

How come?
Atleast Enewald isn't as profilient (is this a real word?) with his anarchists mottos and stuff (it's kinda annoying).

[Enewald]

How come?
Atleast Enewald isn't as profilient (is this a real word?) with his anarchists mottos and stuff (it's kinda annoying).

I am too tired to yell.
More anarchy shall be unleashed tomorrow.

And if we get a constitution, then we can limit the amount of state intervening, I hope.
As long as it is a liberal-minded revolutionary piece of paper.

[keynes2.0]

If the republic has a constitution, it somewhat loses it's revolutionary flavor. Constitutions mean that liberals have become mainstream and the anarchists are being pushed to the fringe. When clear limits are being placed on the government, the marxists lose their legitimacy in calls to radical control of the economy and the rules of the land give legitimacy to the more careful agenda of the social democrats.

Personally, I think that after so many decades we should stop thinking of ourselves as a revolution and start thinking of ourselves as a nation. We desperately want for the stability that a constitution could provide. But I think I'm in the minority here and most of my comrades would prefer to keep the revolutionary character.

[Enewald]

If the republic has a constitution, it somewhat loses it's revolutionary flavor. Constitutions mean that liberals have become mainstream and the anarchists are being pushed to the fringe. When clear limits are being placed on the government, the marxists lose their legitimacy in calls to radical control of the economy and the rules of the land give legitimacy to the more careful agenda of the social democrats.

Personally, I think that after so many decades we should stop thinking of ourselves as a revolution and start thinking of ourselves as a nation. We desperately want for the stability that a constitution could provide. But I think I'm in the minority here and most of my comrades would prefer to keep the revolutionary character.

Hah, call yourself Keynesian!
The times are dire if we have to seek the help of a constitution in order to keep Lenin down... and even worse if we have anarchists working to create it.
The flames must not die, but nor can they seek to consume all the firewood too soon. Stability might be necessary when fighting foreign powers, but stability can be seen as a weakness of the revolutionary parties, exclusively Anarchists and Marxists, who are working fiercely for their own ideals to come true, stability means stagnation when we try to achieve revolution.
We have to have limits that can be broken, in order to start a new more successful revolution.

[Tommy4ever]

BTW its seems to me that the Moderates are going to hold the balance of power in this election. They may well have enough seats to push either a M-L - Mil alliance or an Anarchist-Independent alliance over that magic 50 seat mark. Or they could just stay neutral and leave us with a hung Assembly.

Pan-Marxism or Anti-Leninism. Which shall win out in Bebel and Iglesias' minds?

[marnues]

Comrade Sha has put forth my exact argument in a way much more eloquent than I ever could. Socialism must always be about freedom. To advance socialism without freedom is a contradiction in terms. Thank you for the great article.

What about the censorship of the moderates? It was that that really made me take the very anti-Leninist view I've been putting forward. That was hardly avocation of a violent attack on anyone...

First off, though Tommy4ever suggested using Press Freedoms as the Free Speech metric, let me try to drive a wedge between what is Free Speech and what is Freedom of the Press. Free speech grants any man the ability to say what he wants when he wants as long as it is neither slanderous nor riotous. Some would say the Zeal is both slanderous and riotous, and it was closed done for such. And of course any anti-revolutionary speech will be one or the other, either falsely attacking the leaders of the revolution or rousing a crowd against the ideals of our republic. These actions must not be tolerated, for weakening the state when we must remain strong in the face of monarchic and bourgeois attempts to eradicate our progress is treason. That is why Lenin acted hastily in the Brussels affair, the VSVR must be leary of civil strife.

Freedom of the Press is not Freedom of Speech. The printed word has far more power than the voice of any single man. It lasts longer, reaches a wider audience, and provides no context to the uninitiated. Stand on the street corner and blaspheme the good name of Comrade Lenin all you will, and you will rightly be labeled crazy. Print those same blasphemous phrases and your insanity gains credibility. The printed word removes the necessary emotional and situational context. The printed word can be etched away from the conflict and without immediate reprisal. The printed word is still novel to the masses and they attribute greater weight to the man who prints his words than says them. The printed word is no competing mind, ready to tackle any reply, happy to compromise or capitulate given proper cause. The printed word is copied many times over reaching far places in the republic and beyond, never flinching in their fight, unchanging in their stance. Even when the author has capitulated and moved on, young and eager minds can be influenced and subjugated to the printed word's nonsense.

I support the complete Freedom of Speech. Come tell the Politburo what you think of Lenin. We will listen. We want to listen. But when I read anti-Lenin rhetoric in print, I am disgusted by the vile, uncompromising and opportunistic trash that seeks to undermine the chairman of all credibility. Such loathsome attacks do not secure the nation. They do not put bread on the table nor do they help power the factories. And they do not make the common man more free. No, the printed word empowers the few with the press and emboldens the craziest amongst us to believe their ideals are real or valuable. No comrades, the printed word must continue to be monitored, lest we lose sight of how to bring the revolution to all corners of the Earth.