Also "free speech" that doesn't apply to corporate platforms. Which is, you know, all of them. Love when a liberal says "that doesn't count, they're a private business" whenever you point out the blatant censorship in the West.
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
6782 readers
3 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
and this logic applies even within bourgeoisie political parties https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
Valid criticism, but let's not pretend socialism leads to better outcomes for freedom of speech or press either.
Socialism changes which class controls the speech from the capitalist class to the working classes.
This is not the case in any of the AES countries.
China, Cuba, Historical USSR. No such thing what you described. It's state-controlled. In china, it's bureaucratic class that controls the media, not average workers by any means.
The state is governed by the working classes in China, Cuba, USSR, etc. Administration is not a class, it's a subset of a broader class, ie the proletariat. Classes are relations to ownership of production and distribution, not simply job categories.
The bureaucracy is still a class category that is distinct from workers in general with its own class interests.
States such as China aren't really governed by the working classes.
No, this is not how class or the state works. Administration is a subset of a class, just like teachers and doctors are not classes.
Teachers and doctors don't get to make laws to further their own interests, make it easier for others they know to do the same, amongst the countless other power moves bureaucrats are able to pull off. This power concentrates and develops them into their own class with their own interests because they are so largely cut off and distinguished from the rest of the working population.
Teachers and doctors are nothing like bureaucrats, that's a fallacious analogy.
Teachers and doctors do get to manipulate their own positions to their own advantage. You're treating sub-categories of larger categories as distinct from said category, and not a part of it. The class interests of administrators are aligned with the rest of the working classes, towards collectivization of production and distribution and helping everyone. Corruption exists, sure, but this doesn't mean this is an impossible hurdle, just like the fact that we can get sick doesn't mean we can't exist publicly.
Teachers and doctors do not make their own laws.
I gave you reasons, you're reverting to vague responses to make generalized truisms that aren't true when analyzed specifically.
You're not engaging with my reasoning about why bureaucracy is entirely different at all.
They don't need to make their own laws to be able to abuse their positions. You're still looking at different categories within the same class as evidence of being a different class, but that's not how class works. Administration plays a necessary functional role in society, and the class character of administration comes from the distribution of ownership and control of political and economic power.
Yeah but that's a strawman. Abusing ones position ≠ the extent of control one has when they can literally write the law.
It's far worse, and the kind of power they have makes them an entirely distinct class that is incomparable to merely corrupt doctors or teachers. Doctors and teachers can't collude and compound their influence into being above the law, literally rewrite the law, be the law and easily shut down all inquiry that would hurt them or their group's interests. Doctors and teachers don't have anything like this, and their power is strictly restricted to medical/educational settings.
Having the ability to legislate does not mean one is an entirely different class. You're stuck on this idealist notion of class that divorces it from what actually determines class, that being the relationship to ownership of the means of production and distribution. Administrators that earn wages for their labor are aligned with factory workers that do the same, and both share the class interest of collectivizing production and distribution.
You're insisting that it isn't, and you're providing me with the Marxist understanding of class, but you haven't really done much to show why my reasoning is incorrect.
I think when you are saying "in lieu of," you mean "such as," not "instead of" like in lieu of means. I had assumed you were attempting to be a Marxist, but very confused, now I better understand that you are coming at this from an anarchist angle.
Your reasoning is incorrect because the interests of administrators in socialism and other workers are the same: collectivize production and distribution. They do not recieve their income via "state profits" or other such ideas, but instead as wages, same as the rest of the working class. This is why the state is not inherently opposed to the working classes and can be controlled by them.
I am indeed approaching this from an anarchist angle.
Are the wages of administrators:
- the same as the rest of the class
- something administrators cannot directly manipulate themselves?
-
Yes and no, usually it's higher but not the same difference as what classes are paid, like how doctors and factory workers are both proletarian but doctors get paid much more.
-
Kinda? You can't do that without a good deal of reason, or you'll have public backlash.
Their ability to do 2) is a big part of why I don't think they're the same class, and wage gaps with government officials is often much more stark with them living lifestyles that ordinary workers can't even dream of living.
I also do not believe they need good reason to do so, or to make other laws that benefit them directly or indirectly. Bureaucracy routinely does things in their interest first and foremost without it seeing much pushback.
You have a hypothesis, but it doesn't actually map out to the experience of socialist countries. For example, wealth inequality in the USSR was far lower than Tsarist Russia or the modern Russian Federation:
Systems like recall elections and anti-corruption campaigns exist to keep corrupt officials in check, and socialist forms of democracy require administrators to be elected, either literally working their way up from the bottom as in the PRC, or through other forms of candidate proposal and approval like in Cuba.
Freedom of press only applies to the wealthy, how do I benefit from it as a worker when all media in my country perpetuates comprador propaganda and I'm too poor to make my own press?
For sure— I'm not saying freedom of press actually exists under capitalism.
My point is that socialism doesn't have freedom of press either. Censorship and surveillance by the vanguard state (see China, Cuba, historical USSR) is routine.
"Dictatorship of the proletariat". Unfortunately, dictatorships do not have a tendency to allow for freedom of press.
Dictatorship of the proletariat means democracy for the proletariat, dictatorship against capitalists.
Those words don't mean anything when they are used to censor. The introduction of censorship allows censors to censor anything, regardless of whether or not it is "capitalist" or not.
There is no way of knowing whether only "capitalist" content is censored or if criticisms that are staunchly and directly against the state (which absolutely deserves its place in any state that doesn't want to be an echo chamber) are also being censored under the veneer of "capitalism".
Every government and even every culture practices some degree of control over how we speak and how we exist. Language itself has an impact on this. Despite this fact, it's possible to recognize proletarian control vs capitalist control.
"Everyone does it!" is literally a logical fallacy.
It's not even just "some", you're minimizing the extent of control here. You cannot have a state held accountable if it systematically suppresses criticism against it.
No it's an accurate representation of class society and what it necessitates
I'm recognizing the class nature of the state and society. I'm not trying to morally justify anything, but instead point out why it exists, both necessarily and temporarily.
It does come off as you defending it when you don't consider it bad or criticize the idea, and instead assert for it.
We can do better. Just because everyone does it, doesn't mean we can't do better.
Classes can be destroyed and we can build class-less societies without hierarchy in lieu of anarchism.
Classes can be destroyed and we can build class-less societies without hierarchy in lieu of anarchism.
The whole point of socialism is transitioning to that stage. To get there you need to supress the reactionary classes (bourgeoisie) just like how for them to stay in power they suppress the proletariat. Then they can with time be expropriated and proletarianised until their is only one class the proletariat and class antagonisms cease to be. Pressing the magic communism worldwide class destruction 9000 button isn't an option no matter how much you wish for it.
Class society can only be ended through socialism, which means we need the state and all that comes with it until we achieve communism. Even in communism, hierarchy will still exist, as administration plays a necessary role in production and distribution.
You can't be class-less and hierarchial at the same time, so I'm not sure how you concluded that class society can only be ended by socialism.
Furthermore, you are conflating organization and structure with hierarchy. You do not need hierarchy for administration.
You absolutely can be classless while still having hierarchy. A manager is not a different class from those under them unless they have a difference in ownership of the means of production and distribution. Secondly, I am not conflating organization and structure with hierarchy, you need all 3. A nuclear power plant without hierarchy is a disaster waiting to happen. Without hierarchy, you cannot coordinate the global logistics to create a smartphone. Horizontalism has regional limitations that run counter to communism and humanity's march towards collectivization.
On hierarchy:
What stops groups from sending delegates to councils of other groups' delegates? Forming councils and representative bodies is possible without hierarchy. These models can be used for federation and coordination.
In certain contexts such as time-critical crises, you may choose to follow orders from one person, such as the lead firefighter. Any power over others is limited to people giving over that power.
Horizontal infrastructure under anarchism can scale by building interconnected networks of smaller communities kept to a size that operate on direct consensus and human trust by federating those nodes.
We already maintain digital ecosystems in this way, with Linux, Git and the Fediverse being built and maintained by massive amounts of people without vertical command. Coordination with delegates sent to a council allow local syndicates to coordinate on large projects.
While scale requires structure, communication and logistics, it does not require the executive domination and subjugation that is conflated with structure.
At scale, mass production does require administration and coordination from the top-down. This administration can be more democratically accountable than modern capitalism, but nevertheless having managers in most cases will either make production more efficient, meaning fewer working hours for all, or will be absolutely critical in order for production to even be possible.
Some examples include nuclear power, PCB fabrication, the production of medicine, etc. Simply having more nodesdoesn't solve the problem of horizontally managing a clean room, for example. Administration is not the problem, class is. I have no problems with being managed as a worker, I take issue with my labor being exploited and used for profit, rather than to make a better society for everyone.
I used to be an anarchist, so I'm familiar with the arguments, it's just that at scale communism makes far more sense and socialism has actually been established for long periods of time. I work with anarchist comrades and support them, but I can't agree with them when it comes to which direction society will go in.
You assert that it requires vertical command but don't actually substantiate that claim.
My explanation covered more than merely having more nodes, but you didn't engage with it.
I take issue with hierarchy, as it is almost always inherently exploitative.
load more comments
(7 replies)
The proletariat is the majority in most if not all societies, arguing the dictatorship of the proletariat is undemocratic merely because the word "dictatorship" doesn't make sense. Democracy is [ideally, not what it is in practice] is a dictatorship of the majority, and the proletariat are the majority, surely you see how saying democracy is undemocratic makes no sense.
States are instruments of oppression weilded by classes, they are all "dictatorships" in the sense that a class oppresses the other; the question in state is, is it the capitalists oppressing the working class, or the other way around
Except in practice it's not proletarians doing these things, it's bureaucrats who end up forming their own class and class interests in the name of the proletariat. The average proletariat isn't actually the one who makes these rules or checks or applies censorships. See China, USSR, Cuba.
There shouldn't be classes to begin with. Eliminating hierarchies in lieu of anarchism deals with the issue without it being "another dictatorship"
forming their own class and class interests in the name of the proletariat.
That's not how class works, it's not like starting a new club. Class is defined by your relationship to production, not some nebulous title like "beauraucrats"
There shouldn’t be classes to begin with.
Genuinely, what is your suggested approach to rectifying this and what real world data is it based on? How do you expect to abolish class without a clear understanding of what creates it? How would a scientist expect to cure a disease without understanding what it is?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Newspapers in the USSR had the legal obligation of responding to letters from readers in the span of 2 weeks. Every workplace had its own announcement board and journal/newspaper written by workers in the worker's union. Imagine being able to publish an article to all your coworkers criticising the administration of the company and not getting fired for it.
There was freedom of press to a larger degree than in any western society because people literally made and consumed their own press.
Didn't they ban factions (perhaps this was Stalin's time)?
We can move the conversation there if you want, but I don't see how that's related to worker-owned press
load more comments
(52 replies)
Whole fuckin country is a private business
Well private entities should always allowed to choose what content they want to platform. It's only a problem if we used these privately owned platform as an official communications channel (like government relying on X to announce stuffs).
"Ha nice try! That is not real capitalism! You think workplaces would just give workers health insurance under a free market? They would just tell sick workers to figure it out themselves and replace them with healthy ones if needed!"
"Some of the first evidence of compulsory health insurance in the United States was in 1915, through the progressive reform protecting workers against medical costs and sicknesses in industrial America. Prior to this, within the Socialist and Progressive parties, health insurance and coverage was framed as not only an economic right for workers' health, but also as an employer's responsibility and liability—healthcare was in this context centered on working-class Americans and labor unions." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#The_rise_of_employer-sponsored_coverage)
Freedom is when toothbrush.
If it would have stopped at "quit a job you hate" the example wouldn't have been USian-only and I could relate, while also setting a much better standard for freedom.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not “somehow”. Quite easily. Advertising works. People are easily influenced. It wasn’t sudden; it happened little by little over a long time.
Most people do not naturally develop an advanced political education by themselves, they've got their own lives to deal with. A peasant could hold their own in a complex economics debate with a King because they weren't even taught to read nonetheless learn the intricacies of Middle Age politics.
There is a similar thing going on in the modern world, where sure most people can now read but only the capitalist class for the most part gets to access the highest levels of education. And without the tools to see beyond your cultural norms, to analyse whether they are right or wrong, what can you even do?
view more: next ›