I don’t believe I’m misunderstanding you at all, though I agree we are speaking in circles. I think that adds to my point, the marketplace of ideas is a fantasy.

You explained your reasoning, I just disagree with it entirely for reasons I have given. You depend on a false understanding of how ideas are spread in society in order to defend the presence of fascist press in socialism. The bourgeoisie need to be silenced because otherwise they use the press to spread misinformation and disinformation to incite counter-revolution, again, see how Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia are used historically.

You aren’t applying a scientific approach, you’re erasing concrete reality in order to appeal to how you want society to function, ie you want for open debate of fascist ideas to prevent their spread, but that’s not how ideas work and that’s not how debate works. You’re proceding from a false premise and trying to justify it by erasing the context of a single article by Marx.

The working classes know well why fascist ideas should be shut down, rather than legitimized, that’s why the working classes have shut down fascist press in socialist societies using the state. That’s the dictatorship of the proletariat in action.

You can’t focus entirely on the base and utterly ignore the superstructure of society, otherwise you leave society open to reverting to capitalism and the disaster that becomes. Further, you cannot simply abolish class overnight, and the process of collectivization itself takes time, in both cases you must still employ forcible means to oppress the bourgeoisie while supporting proletarian science and culture.

Allowing fascist press does not weaken fascism, it strengthens it, and allows for manipulation that kicks off counter-revolution as was seen in history provoked by outlets like Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia (which you also linked). What this amounts to is you not taking fascism seriously at all.

Again, what have you read of Marx that leads you to believe these ideas that Marx would have supported fascist speech? Is it just that one article advocating for less censorship under capitalism, so that the working classes may more freely spread their ideas?

I agree with open study of truth, what I disagree with is giving fascists the tools to manipulate public opinion and undermine socialism.

Secondly, yes, communism is stateless. Socialism is not, though, socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. This is where the proletariat strips the bourgeoisie of all political power using the state, so that class may be abolished through collectivization of all production and distribution. See Marx responding to Bakunin:

(Bakunin:) We have already stated our deep opposition to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as final ideal then at least as the next major aim — the foundation of a people’s state, which, as they have expressed it, will be none other than the proletariat organized as ruling class. The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state.

(Marx:) It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened.

Socialism is not “big government,” nor is it antagonistic to the state. Socialism is the transition between capitalism and communism, when the proletariat has control of the state and uses forcible means to end class society. Socialism is a mode of production by which public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state, using it to oppress the former ruling classes and abolish class in general alongside collectivization of production and distribution.

What have you read of Marx that leads you to believe he supported free speech for fascists and was against the dictatorship of the proletariat? This is a deeply confused understanding of Marxism you have.

Marx was a scientific socialist, and developed dialectical materialism. One of the key advances of dialectical materialism, as opposed to vulgar materialism or metaphysical materialism, is that everything must be considered in its necessary context. In the context of the press and the state, Marx is advocating for the “free press” as it can only exist in the hands of the working classes, in other words as collectively owned. Marx is not arguing for everyone to be able to own the press, including capitalists and fascists, but instead the working classes.

What you are doing is erasing Marx’s class analysis from his arguments to argue for letting fascists own and run their own press and spread their ideas. The reasoning you claim to be doing so is because “truth will win in the argument,” but that’s not how debates work or are “won.” People already have their minds made up before debates happen, and are inclined to side with their percieved class interest. What you are advocating for is making it easier for fascists to organize and more difficult to stop that from happening.

The last century has proven the danger of not addressing the class nature of culture and the press. You’re using Marx as though he were a prophet and not a scientific socialist, and are throwing away his dialectical method in favor of metaphysics, in order to support fascists undermining socialism.

Again, you’re talking about Marx arguing for freedom of speech in the context of capitalist states censoring communists, and trying to apply it to socialist states censoring liberals and fascists. The “marketplace of ideas” is liberal bullshit, the one that controls the press controls which class’s point of view is espoused in society. Debate and critique happen all the time in socialist countries, just not in ways that platform liberals and fascists (and even then, sometimes that still does happen).

You’re treating Marx like a religious figure, trying to take a quote out of its necessary context and dogmatically applying it to circumstances that only arose after Marx died. Truth isn’t what “wins in debate,” it’s objective reality, and allowing the bourgeoisie as a class to dominate the press and make their point of view dominant from a misguided idea that this will “expose their flaws” shows that you’ve learned nothing from the real experience of a century of existing socialism.

Yes, so the working classes censoring the speech of liberals and fascists to prevent the restoration of bourgeois rule is absolutely in the rights of the working classes to do. A socialist state thetefore should be able to crack down on liberals and fascists, and not let their ideas fester freely.

Yes, what context was he writing about here? Do you think he was also in favor of asking the bourgeoisie nicely to give up their power? Here’s Marx talking about putting “right” over the level of development of society:

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

A genuine free press can only happen in communist society after class struggle has ended.

Allowing fascist newspapers and fascist speech to fester out in the open, rather than shutting it doen, is letting it grow. I’m not at all “trapped in idealism” by saying that fascist speech should be censored by the working classes.

No, you’re trapped in idealism by insisting on an abstract “right to organize against the system,” without contextualizing if the system is socialist or capitalist. You’re arguing for unrestrained liberalism and fascism in socialist systems. Protecting “speech” even if it is in service of fascism is not a good thing.

This is just nonsense, though. You’re focused entirely on a vague ideal over what has a concrete impact on benefiting the working classes. Further, no, you can’t speak freely in the EU, pro-Palestine protestors are arrested frequently in Europe. Of course you don’t embody a class based on ideas, but you did say capitalist speech, as in the speech of capitalists in my interpretation.

You’re talking about something different now. Pro-capitalist speech is different from the speech of capitalists. Either way, there are liberal groups in China, but the ones that would undermine socialism and restore capitalism are censored or shunned, as they should be. Socialists should protect socialism and build communism, not give free reign to reactionaries to do as they please.

And both healthy and tasty!

Sure, but then this isn’t about China at all. Further, the working classes in China can and do critique the government.

I don’t follow your logic here. Marx was explicit in saying the working classes need to establish state power over capitalists, and control the means of communication and transport. Any elements used by the capitalists to maintain or gain political power should be stripped away from them, including killing them if necessary. When you speak of freedom of speech in “mature communist society,” you’re speaking of a society beyond class struggle, which has never existed. Socialist states have ongoing class struggle.

Secondly, regarding “anti-system” speech vs. Capitalist speech. You quite literally said you despise it when socialist states control the speech of capitalists earlier. In China, our relevant example, speech criticizing the system and the government is allowed and happens all the time. Of course capitalist isn’t a “state of mind,” but private, bourgeois press is the mouthpiece of the capitalist class. This is what is held in higher scrutiny.

I have never once indicated that being in a class is determined by what you believe. What I have done is recognized the class character of the press as it relates to the overall mode of production and the classes governing it. In capitalist society, I would frustrate for freedom of speech for the working classes, but in socialist society I would advocate for controlling the speech of capitalists. In classless, communist society, we will have moved beyond such a struggle and can begin to truly speak of genuine freedom of speech for all.

Marx talking about censorship in the context of 0 existing socialist states is entirely different from the question of whether or not the capitalist class should be given free reign and control of the press, by which it can freely espouse disinformation and attempt to undermine democratic institutions for the purposes of restoring their class power. You cannot simply take a statement outside of its necessary context, Marx advocating for freedom of the press within capitalism does not at all mean he believes capitalists should be able to undermine socialism once established.

As for whether or not it is “wise” for capitalists to censor communist speech, the answer is yes, for capitalists to protect their class interests. I can despise that choice while recognizing its strategic advantage for capitalists, just like I can approve of socialists restricting bourgeois class power. By equating the oppression of capitalists by the working classes with the oppression of workers by the capitalist classes, you’re reducing your analysis to simple phrasemongering. As long as class struggle is alive, the working classes must make use of what they can to prevent capitalists from regaining control. Allowing the spread of misinformation and disinformation out of some abstract moral virtue is to sabotage the working class.

They aren’t working, but they still gain traction because they represent the class interests of imperialists.

Why would you hope I’m right? You want Argentina to collapse?

You’re looking at how well the wealthiest are doing, when poverty is now far worse, and these “gains” are built on unsustainable loans from the IMF to “fake” economic growth. Argentina is on a path to absolute devastation.

Allowing the free speech of capitalists is what contributed to undermining socialism in Eastern Europe through outlets like Radio Free Europe. Marx’s belief that communism is economically compelled by existing systems does not mean 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:

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

…

Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

As for capitalist countries censoring the speech of communists, they already do this. Always have and always will. For all of your theories about how censoring the speech of capitalists and fascists might backfire, this doesn’t actually bear fruit in reality. Combatting misinformation and disinformation that have the explicit purpose of undermining socialism has been very good at protecting truth and social cohesion. VPNs are commonly used by people in China anyways, and this isn’t punished, so Chinese citizens can still access whatever it is you fear they cannot.