• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Free Speech and the Far Left

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Many contemporary political commentators would argue that the "Far Left" (often very nebulously defined) is responsible for a wave of political correctness and efforts to censor and self-censor discriminatory and offensive forms of expression in society. In the pursuit of creating more equal, inclusive and diverse societies, it is necessary to resist intolerance, bigotry and prejudice, or so the argument goes. This provides an opportunity to strike against profoundly reactionary ideologies that reinforce class divisions.

However, much of political correctness is enforced by a mass media and corporations only interested in profit, and is used by governments seeking to deny the ability to have discussion on controversial subjects. Historically, it was the far left that was responsible for defending the right to free expression as a central part of democratic societies. Many of the restrictions placed on the far-right are easily transferable to the far-left based on accusations that they are equivalent as forms of "extremism" and "totalitarianism", etc. Ultimately, it could be argued that cultural changes affecting speech or depictions of minorities in the media do not affect the underlying systems of exploitation and oppression within capitalism, nor disturb socioeconomic inequalities or the classes and class divisions that necessitate racism and sexism to rationalise class oppression in the first place. As such, political correctness simply is a way of marketing capitalism as more "inclusive" without altering the fundamental injustices of the system itself.

So Comrade, do you believe Communists can help improve society by restricting expression on "offensive" and "hateful" speech that promotes bigotry and division? Or do you feel that it doesn't lead to fundamental changes in society and only endangers restrictions on the ability to communists to express many of their own views which would be considered "controversial"? Is there a middle way or do we have to choose sides in the larger cultural divide of our times?

Welcome to the Communist Only Sub-Forum
s_l300_1.png
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
So Comrade, do you believe Communists can help improve society by restricting expression on "offensive" and "hateful" speech that promotes bigotry and division? Or do you feel that it doesn't lead to fundamental changes in society and only endangers restrictions on the ability to communists to express many of their own views which would be considered "controversial"? Is there a middle way or do we have to choose sides in the larger cultural divide of our times?
Unless someone is explicitly calling for harm the best to do is blaspheme and keep the language colorful and oppose all who say "you can't say that."
Not that I've actually known more than a few of these sorts in real life anyways. They are definitely there, but I'm starting to think it's like the recent riots. It is there, but it's blown way out of proportion.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I never really believed that political correctness or similar phenomena are the result of anything created by the far left. I think the left can be credited with their early support of civil rights and openly challenging hate groups and hateful rhetoric - often at great personal risk to themselves. Of course, it wasn't all far left, even if Communists supported the Civil Rights Movement, too. The enemies of Civil Rights often associated its supporters with Communists (such as Hoover's smear campaigns against MLK), but the general public overall never really believed it.

Back in those days, the main goal was to change racist policies such as segregation, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws - and a whole host of other such laws and gross injustices which pervaded US society since we first gained independence.

Public discussions and media coverage might have also been considered "politically incorrect" by today's standards. As far as hateful, offensive language was concerned, it was challenged differently, mainly because the people using that language were those in power, while those favoring civil rights were trying to fight that power. I don't think they cared as much about politeness or faux niceties as much as they wanted solid, tangible reforms - justice, equality, fairness. I think the far left was on board with that idea, along with many liberals and progressives to varying degrees.

The right wing also grudgingly realized that they couldn't just be openly racist, at least not publicly. They couldn't even get away with "separate but equal" anymore. The country had reached a point where support for equality and civil rights was great enough that there was no turning back.

So, I guess the perception at the time was that, if anyone wanted to make some hate-filled rant, they would have been seen as sore losers who had been made impotent. Just like Archie Bunker. The right knew it had to distance itself from that, and they tended to focus more on keeping up appearances. They made a big push towards a resurgence in laissez-faire capitalism and televangelism, while trying to give the appearance that they support equality and fairness.

It's all about appearances, and I would suggest that political correctness came more from that line of thinking than from anyone who had any sincere, genuine desire to promote equality, justice, fairness, and civil rights for all...because we sure as heck know that there are still gross deficiencies in that particular area of public policy. There are still significant disparities in education, access to healthcare, affordable housing, employment, not to mention the general oppression and police brutality.

The left wants to address these things, while the right tends to resist any changes like that. Those in the middle tend to come up with watered-down solutions which may make both sides happy, but the results are less than spectacular. But they want to make it appear like everything is hunky-dory and that they're working to make life better for people.

Of course, there's always going to be those who oppose overt hate speech and outright offensive tirades - but no one ever needed political correctness to deal with that. It's the more subtle things that political correctness tends to deal with.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I never really believed that political correctness or similar phenomena are the result of anything created by the far left. I think the left can be credited with their early support of civil rights and openly challenging hate groups and hateful rhetoric - often at great personal risk to themselves. Of course, it wasn't all far left, even if Communists supported the Civil Rights Movement, too. The enemies of Civil Rights often associated its supporters with Communists (such as Hoover's smear campaigns against MLK), but the general public overall never really believed it.
MLK was a staunch anti-capitalist. I don't remember if he himself considered himself a communist or socialist, but he surrounded himself with them. And he did include the poor and working class in many of his speeches.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I never really believed that political correctness or similar phenomena are the result of anything created by the far left.

It's debatable as the far left isn't a single monolithic group. However, Herbert Marcuse was responsible for an essay entitled "Repressive Tolerance" that would appear to describe both the situation and efforts to restrict the ability of people to express reactionary views. In the post script at the bottom on the page, Marcuse summaries the situation and his argument:

In the United States, this tendency goes hand in hand with the monopolistic or oligopolistic concentration of capital in the formation of public opinion, i.e., of the majority. The chance of influencing, in any effective way, this majority is at a price, in dollars, totally out of reach of the radical opposition. Here too, free competition and exchange of ideas have become a farce. The Left has no equal voice, no equal access to the mass media and their public facilities - not because a conspiracy excludes it, but because, in good old capitalist fashion, it does not have the required purchasing power. And the Left does not have the purchasing power because it is the Left. These conditions impose upon the radical minorities a strategy which is in essence a refusal to allow the continuous functioning of allegedly indiscriminate but in fact discriminate tolerance, for example, a strategy of protesting against the alternate matching of a spokesman for the Right (or Center) with one for the Left. Not 'equal' but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality.

Within the solid framework of pre-established inequality and power, tolerance is practiced indeed. Even outrageous opinions are expressed, outrageous incidents are televised; and the critics of established policies are interrupted by the same number of commercials as the conservative advocates. Are these interludes supposed to counteract the sheer weight, magnitude, and continuity of system-publicity, indoctrination which operates playfully through the endless commercials as well as through the entertainment?

Given this situation, I suggested in 'Repressive Tolerance' the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for 'the other side', I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.

I don't necessarily agree with him as I defend free speech, but I can see what he is getting at. This is a rather explicit argument for discrimination against reactionary views under the guise of tolerance however.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't necessarily agree with him as I defend free speech, but I can see what he is getting at. This is a rather explicit argument for discrimination against reactionary views under the guise of tolerance however.

I can understand what the author is saying, and yes, the obvious, overt examples of hate speech and other right-wing propaganda can and should be challenged (and even restricted in certain circumstances). But political correctness was never necessary for doing that. Political correctness seems to deal with subtle, inexplicable things that wouldn't necessarily be obvious to the uninitiated.

The right-wing has a field day in pointing out some of the more outrageous examples of political correctness, which seemingly have nothing to do with tolerance or human rights.

PC Culture: 2017's Most Ridiculous Moments | National Review

2018’s Politically Correct Moments Top Ten | National Review

https://clclt.com/charlotte/pc-culture-10-times-its-gone-too-far/Content?oid=16059883

The last link cites a survey in which 80% of Americans believe PC has gone too far - and the left might often get blamed for it, although I think it's probably more complicated than that.
 
Top