- 0 Posts
- 87 Comments
Since its inception the term has been about adherence to party lines and enforcing ideological purity. The right wants to pretend they don’t do it, so they want to attribute it to particular instances from the left, but they do the same thing all the time.
See the next line on that same article you quote (Wikipedia, btw):
The phrase politically correct first appeared in the 1930s, when it was used to describe dogmatic adherence to ideology in totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.[5] Early usage of the term politically correct by leftists in the 1970s and 1980s was as self-critical satire;[8] usage was ironic, rather than a name for a serious political movement.[12][13][14] It was considered an in-joke among leftists used to satirise those who were too rigid in their adherence to political orthodoxy.[15] The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century, with many describing it as a form of censorship.[16]
What? it’s hard to tell what did you interpret this time …but I hope you are not implying that politically correct language like “military operation” shows the whole truth, that “pacification” is the whole truth, that “terrorism” is the whole truth, that “re-education camps” are the whole truth, that “voluntary relocation” is the whole truth, that “austerity measures” are the whole truth.
Science is not a fantasy, and wanting to call it a “marketplace” is proof of the misunderstanding. We have historic proof of the damage to the power of the workers that dogmatic censorship, “political correctness” (ie. hiding truth) and manipulation of public perception causes, we are seeing it right now first person in the west. Doing the same thing (and more overtly) is fighting dogma with dogma, even if the ideals from one of them were fully benevolent and made people happy.
Censorship is a structural failure of the superstructure itself. I provided earlier a list of reasons of why I think this.
When we ‘oppress’ the bourgeoisie by silencing them, the censor’s hand is eventually covering the worker’s mouth & ears.
I’m not relying in just one specific article like it’s a bible… I’m applying a scientific approach and relying on Marx’s belief that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the self-government of the producers. You cannot govern yourself if you are wearing a blindfold.
I agree with Marx there. But there is a massive difference between forcibly suppressing the economic power of the bourgeoisie (collectivizing their land) and suppressing the expression of ideas.
If you have already stripped the bourgeoisie of their factories and banks (or say… gone as far as to kill them), their “speech” loses its power. If a state is still terrified of “fascist manipulation” after the revolution, then the state hasn’t actually solved the material problems of the people.
A lot of socialists states failed because they were just a wolf in sheep’s clothing and didn’t actually solve the issues.
I think you are the one misinterpreting Marx’s context and rejecting scientific methods to truth. If you believed in the scientific method you should support open study of truth like scientific socialism does, with the will of scientifically testing the paradigm, instead of supporting the establishment of dogmatic truths through control and coercion.
Marx’s scientific socialism defends that the state -any state- is a ‘parasite’ on society (he even believed the phrase “Communist State” was a contradiction).
Are you implying that Marx was not making general claims about the nature of truth and the state, but that instead he was being opportunistic, like a tactician only interested in defending objective truth under the particular context of the state being openly capitalistic?
Truth IS objective reality. Again, you are conflating idealist ideas of truth with material truth.
If a socialist theory is true and scientific, it should be able to dismantle a fascist argument in front of a crowd of workers. If you have to put the fascist in jail to stop the workers from believing him, you are admitting that your “truth” isn’t convincing enough to win on its own.
“The censored press has a demoralizing effect. … The government hears only its own voice, it knows that it hears only its own voice, yet it harbors the illusion that it hears the voice of the people.” Karl Marx
You say it’s the “working classes” the ones censoring the speech, but you are falling into a “who watches the watchmen?” problem
Marx argued that the only way to truly defeat speech is to prove it wrong in the “light of day”
“If you do not believe in the victory of truth, you are committing a crime against truth.”
“Truth is as little modest as light… Truth is universal, it does not belong to me, it belongs to all; it owns me, I do not own it.”
Truth that requires a policeman to protect it from being challenged isn’t actually truth at all… but just some idealistic subjective point.
“The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul, the embodiment of a people’s faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world… It is the mind of the state that can be delivered into every cottage more cheaply than material gas.” Karl Marx
And sure, they’ll deny it.
Ah… so you admit they deny being nazis?
that’s because they’re lying liars who love to lie
I agree, they love to keep the mask on.
My point was that this is on their benefit.
As an antifascist, I want them to openly admit they are nazis so that their lies can be exposed.
Their lies not being exposed protects them. Hiding is a form of protection, truth and transparency is a great antifa tool.
Where’s the declaration? Elon has publicly said he’s not a nazi too, even as a response to that. So mask is still on.
You don’t have to look far to find people saying that they don’t believe this was meant as nazi support, so it clearly didn’t really expose him on the eyes of the public.
If their mask were off they would not need to dog whistle.
Mask-off??
Can you link to me government officials openly declaring themselves nazis? …I want the actual direct declaration.
I think the reason they got the government is PRECISELY because they keep the mask. Trump has already said multiple times he’s not a nazi, do you think he would win approval if he came out and said he is?
You are making the point for me.
Again, they should be exposed.
Europe has pro-Nazi organizations, but they are clandestine. In the same way as China opens the door for capitalist talking points by openly censoring them, Europe gives munition to nazis by refusing to let them expose themselves. Nazism is a stupid ideology that would not stand its ground were its mask to fall.
There are documentaries protesting against neonazis and talking about their proliferation and rise… but I can’t check and link them because they are not allowed, “not available in your country”, particularly in Germany.
I’m convinced that if the reality of nazism was more public, antifascist sentiment would rise.
I personally don’t think it works. The EU continues having a lot of neonazis… I’d argue it’s likely the place with most neonazis in the world for its population size (though of course I can’t say with certainty since we can’t monitor them properly).
Whether the censorship actually helps is a highly contested debate here… having nazis operating in the shadows is actually way more scary and dangerous, being unable to openly debate them makes us more vulnerable… I would personally be happier if they were exposed so they could be openly challenged and people could see what they are and how to prepare. Instead, they are selective and secretive, use the censorship as a tool to act as victims and try and recruit from clandestinity whenever they see a vulnerable target.
Wrong again. And this time Im starting to feel insulted with such gratuituous accusation. Fascism needs to be exposed, dismantled… Not allowed to fester… it should be studied in schools and disarmed… not hidden from view and let to develop in the shadows. You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting my argument.
You are the one trapped in idealism since you are unable to see the objective power imbalance and instead seem to want to look for moral benefit/happiness…
You’re focused entirely on a vague ideal over what has a concrete impact on benefiting the working classes
No, what im focusing more on is the objective balance of power when it comes to control of media and the outlets for collective expression and discussion.
The subjective idea of “benefit” and / or “happiness” is not as important for a materialist as the actual power structure.
you can’t speak freely in the EU
Yea, which is why I specifically was talking about protecting peaceful discussions about the system of governance and activism in that area.
I can link you to communist groups in the EU. Here’s one: https://www.eurcomact.org/
There, an European communist organization. Still waiting on the Chinese capitalist organization.
And to be clear: it’s not like I’m particularly fond of the way EU does things in general. They are usually quite disappointing. But protecting this kind of speech is something that I will support.
I was not talking about “the speech of capitalists”… this is why I was telling you that you don’t suddenly stop being a worker just because you had the wrong thought… and that the “capitalist class” is not a state of mind… I was always referring to “capitalist speech”, particularly when it comes from regular citizens.
the ones that would undermine socialism and restore capitalism are censored or shunned, as they should be.
Ah thanks, so you confirm that the working class is not allowed to spread anti-system speech.
This is not what we do in the EU, where being able to discuss peaceful orchestration of changes in our government is explicitly protected. As it should be.
Ah really? can you link me a true main-China capitalist group organized by the working class? and I mean proper capitalist, not some pro-market CCP-friendly commerce, give me a CCP-adverse one.
Let me know where is the Chinese social media group (ideally with a .cn domain) where the working class can discuss alternative forms of government and are allowed to organize discussions about how to peacefully orchestrate a change of system.
Categorically different situation, that was before the US empire was firmly established as the hegemon.
The situation was: people having a need / cause of suffering “imposed from the outside by factors outside of the system’s control”.
Whether the outside oppressor is an “hegemon” under some third party point of view is not necessarily relevant if the consequences are the same. If I’m pushed to the limit, I don’t care who it is that makes me go past my breaking point or threatens to murder me and my family, hegemon or not, they would get the same reaction from me.
What’s worse: being forced into american “freedom”… or death?
But either way, our answers to that don’t matter. Cos my point was that this is a decision for the working class of that country to make. Not for you, not for me, not for any political leader, not even for the political leader that governs that country.
The government & the country are there to serve the workers, it’s not the workers the ones that have to listen to what the “leaders” say, it’s the other way around.
I’m not an idealist, my politics are not based in ideas but on history. I understand that, without censorship, you get counterrevolution and imperial domination and slavery and death.
Do you think the counterrevolutionaries, the imperialists, the slavers and the killers don’t use censorship and manipulation as tools?
I’m not an idealist, my politics are not based in ideas but on history. I understand that, with censorship, you get counterrevolution and imperial domination and slavery and death.
So far, there has not been in history a system that was fully transparent and allowed their citizens to be aware of everything that goes on, owners of their own decisions.
A strong form of slavery/domination to me, would be getting connected to a matrix-like machine that constantly supplies me with chemicals to keep me happy, but renders me unable to take decisions by myself, just left in a state of happy comma, at the mercy of a benevolent machine dictator … would you agree with that being undesirable? …or is it compatible with your ideal state?
If you think a benevolent dictator acting with good intentions and keeping people happy is enough, then you are the idealist… in Marxist materialism, that is still a form of alienation, where the masses are robbed of real agency over their own material lives.
“The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves.”
To Marx, any freedom granted by a ruler (benevolent or otherwise) was fragile and fundamentally anti-revolutionary because it kept the people in a state of passive “political childhood.”
For a Marxist, “benevolence” is just a subjective idea that masks an objective and real power structure.
I think history can conclusively answer this for us - it’s always better to repel the US. No one benefits when the US comes bringing “”“freedom”“”.
Do you think Japan should have continued to repel and antagonize the US after the H bomb? Would they have been better off if they had continued?
I agree that no one benefits when the an outside force exerts pressure, but US not attacking is not an option in the outside invader scenario.
This entirely depends on the level of pressure and the consequences. It’s very possible that in most cases repelling might be the right choice… but this depends a lot on the situation and on what the population is willing to sacrifice.
And China is doing fine
This is not what I was contesting, even the most authoritative and controlling state can “do fine” and get 90% approval. But by principle, controlling and manipulating the working class is against the idea of letting the working class be the ones, in community, who decide their own destiny on their own will. As mature people who have “come of age”. As Marx put it, "censorship is a most reasonable means of hindering the human race from coming of age.”
But this can be imposed from the outside by factors outside of the system’s control, such as if there’s a global hegemon that can blockade the economy and make people suffer.
I think this then becomes a question of seeking for the route that is best for the working class…
Is it better for the working class to starve/defend against the outside factor or to capitulate to the outside invader?
My opinion is that this is something for the working class to decide. Not by some overprotective elites that want to control public opinion in order to keep the system running even if that’s at the cost of the lives of its own people.
If you really want to fix this, you need a more global / international solution.
By your logic the “undercover censorship the existing system is exerting” should actually make anti-system reforms from a left-wing perspective easier to push for, because by your logic the censorship should be helping.
Yes, I explicitly said “undercover” because the minute the censorship is exposed then it becomes counterproductive. China has made censorship “business as usual”, you have a whole system of public officials doing the work without it being at all something that is “undercover”.
Every time the manipulation from the elites gets exposed, it’s a win for anti-system sentiment. Because it makes the system less and less defensible.
The only “useful” censorship is so subtle that the one being censored does not even have evidence of it.
However, undercover censorship being “useful” does not make me stop despising it by principle… since it’s a method of control used against the workers.
people are hungry for answers that reaction pretends to provide
This is exactly the problem. Fascism can only rise in situations where people have a need that has enough importance to silence reason.
The biggest enemy of Fascism is offering populist answers from a more rational perspective.
In the same way you can push for anti-system reforms from a right-wing perspective, you can also push for anti-system reforms from a left-wing perspective…
Reforming things is something the left should be more open to do, imho. Otherwise fascists will be the ones attracting the attention of the masses. And you need to be able to criticize your own system to be able to reform it.
Of course gathering support is much harder to do in a system that already is right-wing tilted… but that’s precisely because of the bias and undercover censorship the existing system is exerting.
If you don’t silence them they can recruit. Fascists are friends of censorship because silencing your enemies works.
If you silence them they will recruit in the shadows and now with an extra argument, since them being silenced is gonna reaffirm their position about the state being unable to take that “hunger for answers” seriously.
I think this might clarify things:
- Capitalist speech in a communist system is “anti-system” speech.
- Communist speech in a capitalist system is “anti-system” speech.
I want to defend the right of the working class for spreading anti-system speech without fear of oppression from any elite.
To me, this (along with transparency) is more important than the economic system, because it establishes a basis for the workers to be able to react and mandate change… if a fully transparent system were put in place properly, I believe ultimately the rest of the pieces will slowly fall into place.
Marx talking about censorship in the context of 0 existing socialist states
Ok, so you are saying that Marx has never had a context that allowed him to make the statement you just made about him before.
This implies you admit Marx never said what you attributed to him. You can make hypothesis of what he would say, but I can make mine too. I don’t necessarily think he would be ok with censorship in a mature communist state, he’ll see that as a means to keep people from “coming of age”, a form of oppression. Free workers don’t need an elite to to tell them what they need to think.
whether or not the capitalist class should be given free reign and control of the press
But that was not the point. Where did I say that the capitalist class should be given free reign and control of the press?
You talk as if any thought that’s anti-system must automatically make the person who had it part of the capitalist class.
The “capitalist class” is not a state of mind… it’s a real oppressor with economic power… one does not become “capitalist class” just because they have a wrong thought. For me, as a materialist, “thought” is not really relevant when it comes to modelling the economic power structure.
I can despise that choice while recognizing its strategic advantage for capitalists
Then that’s our difference. I despise that strategy because it’s fundamentally flawed, for the reasons I provided before.
equating the oppression of capitalists by the working classes with the oppression of workers by the capitalist classes
I did not say or imply that, this is another strawman.
A worker is not a state of mind, it’s a real person at the bottom of the hierarchy… you don’t suddenly stop being a worker just because you had the wrong thought.
Marx didn’t also believe that it is necessary for the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and strip them of their political power, including their speech:
Marx believed the bourgeoisie must be stripped of class power, but he was a lifelong opponent of state censorship.
One quote from him (source):
“If the immaturity of the human race is the mystical ground for opposing freedom of the press, then certainly censorship is a most reasonable means of hindering the human race from coming of age.”
As for capitalist countries censoring the speech of communists, they already do this. Always have and always will.
You are avoiding the question: do you think it’s wise or not?
Personally, I despise when capitalist states censor communist speech… just as much as I despise it when socialist states censor capitalist speech.
If you think I’m a sympathizer or glosser of the way capitalist states operate, you are wrong. I’m highly critic of them, systemically. And I’d rather continue being able to openly criticize whatever system I find has systemic problems.
For me, transparency is more important than the economic model. I’ll openly embrace a fully transparent communist country, in the same way that I might embrace a fully transparent capitalist one (provided there’s still agreed-upon social control, I don’t want a wild west situation).
The thing is that, as things stand, China would not be as happy to have me criticize it as the West does. And that tilts the balance to one of the sides when in comes to that principle.
Is the system so fragile that it can be undermined just by speech?
Marx had a strong belief that communism was inevitable. I’d argue censoring capitalist speech shouldn’t be necessary. Do you think it would be wise for capitalists systems to openly censor communist speech? I disagree.
In fact I feel directly going after “anti-system” propaganda might actually be counterproductive, for more than one reason:
-
It makes the population more vulnerable to that rhetoric as soon as they leave the protective environment, since they will now be exposed to propaganda they were being shielded from.
-
Censorship and transparency are not exactly compatible, and in my mind, transparency is the best defense against corruption… there’s a reason why many right-wing dictatorships have been heavy censors, transparency is the enemy of elitist authoritarianism. The reason why China can act on local officials is because the criticism to local officials in particular is one thing that’s not being censored… but the minute you start organizing a form of collective expression that’s critic with the system, then it’ll get shut down (there’s a University study about this).
-
It just gives ammunition to the capitalist side, since it helps spread the idea of China being a state very close-minded towards different opinions at a level that is not seen in other nations without explicit censorship, so one could argue that this undermines the image of the Chinese Government just as much (or maybe more, depending on the ideals of the person judging).
-
Given that the information people receive is explicitly filtered and curated (and one’s opinion is necessarily influenced by the information they have), then it follows (using cold logic) that the filter influences the opinion people have. This is true of any subgroup with any level of propaganda (ie. all nations) but in nations without open censorship the filter is more decentralized, allowing for pockets of conflicting opinions / subgroups to emerge that allows routes to challenge the status Quo.
While RFA’s funding is American, the evidence they present (videos of floods, leaked documents, interviews with locals) is often corroborated by non-Western sources like Al Jazeera, The Straits Times, or CNA (Singapore). If the “bad news” is happening, the source’s funding doesn’t make the flooded house or the frozen bank account any less real.
If you know people from China, then you’d know they are very critic of the local level, they are ok with criticising the local landlord, a corrupt mayor, or a lazy bureaucrat. But the “criticism” stops the moment it touches the systemic level (e.g., “Maybe we need a different party” or “The top leadership made a mistake”).
If the government is truly doing a “good job at addressing real problems,” then why is censorship increasing? If 90% of people are happy, the government shouldn’t need to delete videos of a flood or a bank run. The fact that they do delete them suggests the government itself is worried that the 10% of “bad news” could quickly erode that 90% support.
That’s true. The way China treats people as if they should be protected from bad news that could be perceived as negative or destabilizing (at least without some “massaging” of its statistics), is the reason why they have always good news and high approval rate.
Personally, I feel that being in either of the extremes when it comes to reports of satisfaction is a bad sign. I feel a healthy relationship always requires acknowledging the failures of its own government and being critic on the things that are not being done right… and there’s always something not being done right…
I agree, which is why I think running those open source apps in a separate computer, isolating infotainment from the more critical software, would be a stronger safety layer.
Them being separated should, imho, be a precondition, so that it can minimize accidents and exploits in cars that might be running software that is not immediately up to date as a result from publicly and well known vulnerabilities being discovered as the code evolves.
Open source software is not bug free. I’d argue there are more vulnerabilities caused by human error than there are caused by malicious actors. More often than not, malicious actors are just exploiting the errors/gaps left by completely legit designers.
Running those open source apps in a separate computer, isolating infotainment from the actual important software, would be an even stronger safety layer, imho.
Running it through the same computer is a bad practice, imho. Remember the Jeep Hack where researchers were able to dig into the integrated infotainment system and control the brakes?
I wouldn’t want to have critical car functions (or emissions control, regulatory software, ADAS, telematics, etc) depend on the same device that someone might be using to connect to the internet and/or run Android Auto apps. Regardless of whether it’s integrated or not.
I guess it might be ok to share energy and some non-critical capabilities with the infotainment system… but you can do that through a USB-C connection without requiring it be integrated directly in the vehicle. Imho they should be isolated, and what best way of isolating it than being completely different computers?
Most people already carry infotainment devices in their pockets that can be attached to holders and charging ports in the car. Even better if you connect a hub with some SSD storage to keep movies/music.
I feel infotainment systems bundled in cars are mostly redundant and explicitly made to be non-modular so that they can get you into their walled garden.
you shouldn’t be adjusting it while driving but, my response is why have it in the first place.
Exactly. If you shouldn’t be adjusting it, then why is the touchscreen even accepting adjustments in the first place? … it should be rejecting all touches whenever the engine is running to prevent people from even trying, which completely defeats the point of having a touchscreen in the first place anyway…
It makes no sense to have an input that explicitly requires you to take your eyes away from the road in order to operate it.
It’s meant in the sense of “underwhelming” (as shown by the follow-up comment the article references). It’s not incompatible to be surprised at how capable AI is (ie. being “impressed”) and at the same time be also unwilling to pay the costs / repercussions and want to ban / regulate it.
In this context, being deeply unimpressed with something is equivalent to calling that something “irrelevant” / “incapable”. If AI was no more impressive than it was before the LLM boom then there wouldn’t have been such a reaction against it to begin with. If anything, people being now opposed to modern AI is proof of how impactful AI has become.
I agree that your previous misunderstandings lead you to this one.
Fascist speech is to be exposed and criticised scientifically, not dogmatically. Your use of “protected” here implies something I do not defend.
I want to attack fascist speech, you want to hide it… from my point of view I could also say you are the one protecting it.