@marnues Actually, Free Speech means that you can say whatever you want without any retribution.
@marnues Actually, Free Speech means that you can say whatever you want without any retribution.
Or, my preferance, a Marxist-Leninist - Moderates - Independents united front coalition (or at least a singificant fraction of the M-Ls if Lenin is unwilling to compromise)?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?
@ Kalelovil Unfortunately I think the Marxists that would have gone against Lenin are already in the Moderate Party. Also I doubt the Independents would be happy in a coalition with the ML. realistic coalition leaders are ML with Militarists and if needed Moderates. Independents with Moderates and if needed Anarchists or ML. And Anarchists with either Independents, Moderates or both. The Anarchists would be better partners for the independents because they re more dependent. The ML has the power to create significant internal opposition against the Independents and if they can turn the moderates, break the coalition.
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.
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.
If on-the-fence Marxist-Leninists desire to prevent an Anarchist victory they might want to change their votes to the Moderates, a party which is in a better position to negotiate a coalition with the Independents which could keep the Anarchists away from Government.
We let Enewald speak as he wishes, and all he does is incite to revolt. He is obviously abusing the right, as did the Zeal. Should we let them?
We let Enewald speak as he wishes, and all he does is incite to revolt. He is obviously abusing the right, as did the Zeal. Should we let them?
We let Enewald speak as he wishes, and all he does is incite to revolt. He is obviously abusing the right, as did the Zeal. Should we let them?
Hearing a few crazy ideas is the price one must pay for freedom. The minute they start actually planning a revolt, by all means, bring down the full force of the law on them. But simply speaking your mind being a crime? Not in my republic.
Yes we should, after all look at what happened to the last guy who tried to get rid of the anarchists.We let Enewald speak as he wishes, and all he does is incite to revolt. He is obviously abusing the right, as did the Zeal. Should we let them?
Your republic? Traitor! Usurper! Tyrannical Blanqui-Lenin Hybrid, to the gallows with you!
Yes we should, after all look at what happened to the last guy who tried to get rid of the anarchists.
I wasn't being serious...It was only a manner of speaking. The fact you use that to attack him instead logical arguments shows you have no one.
Exactly, the anarchists gave Blanqui enough rope and he hung himself.Do you mean Blanqui, victim of Anarchists and their tyrannical bloodlust?
It was only a manner of speaking. The fact you use that to attack him instead logical arguments shows you have no one.
Do you mean Blanqui, victim of Anarchists and their tyrannical bloodlust?