<HTML> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne@nathannewman.org> ----- -All so what?  That's all part of free speech. >CB: The idea is that freedom of speech is not absolute, and that >in a socialist country one of the limitations on freedom of speech >is a prohibition on organizing the restoration of capitalism.  It is >a hierarchy of values and laws. Where the principles of free >speech and socialism are in conflict , the principle of socialism >takes precedence. So why shouldn't a capitalist state be justified in banning advocates of socialism by your logic?</BLOCKQUOTE> ^^^^^^^^^ CB:  Capitalist states,including the U.S., have "banned" advocates of socialism. I wouldn't say it was "justified" or justified by my logic though.  My logic is that a country that has won socialism is justified in banning advocacy of the restoration of capitalism, because having socialism is more important than freedom of speech for advocates of capitalism. That doesn't translate into some abstract analogous statement where you reverse the terms "socialism" and "capitalism" in the above sentence. It's not symetrical.  What's ok for socialism is not ok for capitalism, theoretcially. Of course, captialist states don't give a shit about my logic here , and go right ahead and "ban" socialist advocates. That is somewhat inconsistent from the interpretation of freedom of speech that you argue capitalist states should follow. They have not historically, as I said followed it. ^^^^^^^ <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> You seem to have repeated the arguments of the McCarthyites.  They always argued that you had free speech as long as you basically supported the system and only lost it when you advocated for fundamental change in the capitalist system.</BLOCKQUOTE> ^^^^^^^^ CB: Let me see if I can articulate this. You are treating a socialist country and a capitalist country as the same. They are "opposites" for the purposes of this discussion.  Socialism is an advance over capitalism. If you don't take that seriously, then we can't really discuss this. We have to agree to disagree. The McCarthyites trying to retain capitalism against the efforts to advance to socialism is the opposite or obverse or something of the Cubans trying to retain socialism against the efforts to go back to capitalism.  Do you see the distinction I am trying to make ? I don't mean you agree with it.   The point is that the social system is the substantive point, and the freedom of speech value is a formal point. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> And its extended logic internationally is that which justified Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Tianemen 1989, Iran 1954, Chile 1973, and any "liberation" of a country which someone else thought they needed help resisting an ideology foreign to their country.</BLOCKQUOTE> ^^^^^^ CB: See above. This is mixing apples with oranges.  (Are you saying that Hungary and Czechoslovakia were capitalist restorations ?) <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> This isn't a question of free speech versus socialism.  It's democracy versus fake socialism, since socialism without democracy is nothing of the kind.</BLOCKQUOTE> ^^^^^^^^^^ CB: Yes, you deepen the point at issue. I have to go now, and will try to respond later.  Briefly, I think that the great historic dilemma of the first historic efforts to build socialism is that capitalist war and aggression has succeeded in forcing the socialist countries to use so much undemocracy in self-defense that it has pushed the SU et al. below the minimum level of democracy necessary for socialism, to what you call fake socialism. I don't agree that that applies to Cuba. I think Cuba has more democracy than the U.S. , because  the first principle of democracy is popular sovereignty, and elections etc. are only means to that, not the essence of it. The essence is what do the People really want. I don't disagree that individual rights is a contradictory and necessary aspect to be included. But gotta go, right now <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> Which is why denouncing the Cuba repression is always timely, maybe more so now. -- Nathan Newman </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>