• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
@marnues Actually, Free Speech means that you can say whatever you want without any retribution.
 
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. :eek:

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

I'm not so sure about that, there's been a lot of newspaper articles from "the minority" within the M-L.
 
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.

In the real world, it is difficult for ordinary proletarians to just come to the Politburo and speak their minds. The division between speech and press can only ever be a practical one, not ever a matter of principle. It seems to me that what you want to do is apply a kind of token freedom, so people can look on and say: "How free our nation is! Every man can speak his mind!" whilst completely neutralising any organised threat, however peaceful it may be, against the current ruling faction. Would you retain these ideals if it were Kropotkin shutting down Spark, I wonder? The fact of the matter is that freedom of speech and freedom of the press go hand in hand, for just the reasons you describe. What good is the freedom to shout? You may reach a few hundred ears, but in truth your ability to convey your message to a wider audience is totally destroyed.

@Tommy: I may be accused of bias toward my faction here, but I simply cannot see Bebel getting on with the Militarists. Just not his style, you know?
 
Last edited:
I think that the independents and moderates should refuse to support any coalition that is not lead and dominated by members of their block. What's the alternative? The Anarchists and Marxists forming a coalition? The center block should have a commanding share of the votes, even if not the majority, and should be unafraid to press a hard bargin with both extremes. Both Marxists and Anarchists will want to be the one forming an alliance with the center block and that tendency can be used to come out on top.
 
Hmm, this election will be tight, but I think it's clear Lenin won't win, and that's most important. An Independent- Anarchist coalition could be necessary to create a large enough coalition against the Leninists.
 
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.
 
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.

That is wrong. Either we have freedom of speech, or not. No censoring.
Freedom of speech is so fundamental for a democracy, censorship is a step away from democracy, equality and tolerance.
Some slander should not be written, but freedom of speech still guarantees everyone's right to say and write whatever they want.

Let any man profess whatever comes to his mind.
And that is what makes different from the counterrevolutionary bourgeoisie states.
We are free and equal. Which does not mean we cannot become more free and equal in the future.
 
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.

Why would the Independents favour the anarchists any more than the Marxist-Leninists? I thought they were anti-Militarist not anti-Marxist.

Also, isn't it about time you update your sig?
 
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?

Ha.
I let you also slander me, anyone can speak against me, for freedom of speech guarantees that.
I do not try to silence the opposition, for sooner or later they shall see the bright sun of anarchy.
Should we tolerate? Should we allow equality? Can we be equal if we have others censored and others uncensored?
Do you want a Marxist Dictatorship, a state ruled by one party?
Or do you want to preserve our Volksrepublik?

What is a democracy without freedom of speech?
 
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.
 
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?

Preciously my point! We must have a higher threshold for personal speech as Enewald will deal with the social hierarchy. The printed word follows no such rules and must report to the state. I cannot suggest I am surprised by the baseless responses, but I hope I have reached the many here!
 
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.

Your republic? Traitor! Usurper! Tyrannical Blanqui-Lenin Hybrid, to the gallows with you!

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?
Yes we should, after all look at what happened to the last guy who tried to get rid of the anarchists.
 
Your republic? Traitor! Usurper! Tyrannical Blanqui-Lenin Hybrid, to the gallows with you!

It was only a manner of speaking. The fact you use that to attack him instead logical arguments shows you have no one.

Yes we should, after all look at what happened to the last guy who tried to get rid of the anarchists.

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.
I wasn't being serious...
Do you mean Blanqui, victim of Anarchists and their tyrannical bloodlust?
Exactly, the anarchists gave Blanqui enough rope and he hung himself.
 
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?

How can anarchists be tyrannical?
Or their 'bloodlust'?
Is tyranny not the opposite of anarchy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.