35
what do you guys generally think about freedom of speech
(lemmygrad.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
35 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
1315 readers
59 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Under socialism, I don't believe there should be freedom of speech for reactionaries, there's still an active class struggle going on in the ideological sphere. Letting old ideas fester in the superstructure runs the risk of capitalist restoration.
Under communism, sure whatever, it's not like any remaining reactionaries can do anything at that point.
This is actually a valid point with a historical precedent.
Notice how nearly nobody is genuinely advocating for the return of feudalism. It's dead in the water, its few defenders so inconsequential that they're politically impotent. Same for monarchism. The bourgeois revolution succeeded at killing those ideas entirely and as such there's no real reason to suppress ideologies calling for their return.
Capitalism and liberalism will join them under a communist society. Isolated groups of nobodies who don't understand history will call for their return, but there will be no actual weight behind their calls. No action will follow and any movements they develop will stagnant or wither and die.
There are fringe (and very strange) people that do support the return to monarchy, and their clearly absurd stance can be seen with two pieces of information:
For a socialist educated populace, the idea of bringing back capitalism sounds ridiculous. It's why the revisionists had to boil the frog to bring about capitalist restoration in socialist countries, and this was possible because there are capitalist elements within socialism as socialism emerges from capitalism.
Under communism, even the most clever revisionists can't do anything to revive the corpse of capitalism because it's just straight up dead on a world scale and the capitalist elements are all but gone.
Hi, can you please explain to me what you see as differences between socialism and communism? Thanks.
Socialism: what comes after a successful proletarian revolution; proletarian dictatorship, a proletarian controlled state; the big bourgeoisie has been liquidated but other classes might still exist within the society as proletarianization is an ongoing process.
Communism: what comes after socialism has developed to a high stage world-wide; stateless, classless, and moneyless society; the working classes have been merged into one class, the bourgeoisie worldwide has been liquidated.
Thank you so much. I wasn't sure if you were using it in this manner or some Western laissez - faire , nebulous sense many in the West use it.
its similar to what happened in china. in early unstable days repression was harsher but nowadays reactionaries are allowed to do their bullshit (within limits) because theres very low threat to the party. there are also many traitors in china going against the party who face no repression in china before they eventually run to the US
Honestly, they might be a bit too soft on these reactionaries because they can be a toxic influence on socialism.
What worries me about this are states like USA and Israel sending in ops to stir the pot, then when things pop off and the state is forced to step in, we get Western narratives about Christians/Falun Gong being persecuted, or operatives and their gullible victims being carried off to jail or being killed in armed confrontation, such as seen in color revolutions, and Western narratives and headlines and a bajillion gazillion "peaceful protesters" being murdered by the government. And people very much believe this despite their own peaceful protesters being imprisoned, killed, decitizenized, deported.
I doubt reactionaries would exist in any concentrated or significant sense, so there would really be no need to enforce freedom of speech when such reaction would no longer exist.