That’s not how any of this works.

Only the beginning, before we can abolish class distinctions and fully collectivize production and distribution globally.

Term limits also limit positive change. They are meant to prevent change in general.

To be clear, socialism retains administration and organization, it just gradually abolishes class divisions.

Oh silly me! /s

Nationalize the large firms and key industries, end all embargoes and sanctions on other countries, redistribute land from the landlords and private firms, end all overseas millitary bases, end all wars and pull out of NATO. Begin building mass rail, solar, and nuclear by engaging with strategic partnerships with China. Land back and decolonization of Turtle Island. Building up the productive forces via central planning and strong state funding, while gradually appropriating medium firms as they grow and monopolize.

Dismantling settler-colonialism and imperialism are the primary tasks of building socialism on Turtle Island.

Production and distribution will be run according to a common, scientific plan. Worker’s councils will be set up, alongside youth leagues. Social programs like free healthcare and education will be established, and a reduction to the 30 hour work week in the long-run. Full-employment will be achieved via mass infrastructure projects. The country will be connected and integrated with the city, suburbs will gradually be pivoted away from in favor of mixed-use, walkable city planning.

Full protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals and abortion protections. Religion will be purged from the state in all aspects, while being protected as an individual choice. Prison reform will be established, focusing on rehabilitation and ending the profit motive from incarceration. Police budgets will be slashed. National parks will recieve greater land and funding for protections, as will scientific advancement in medicine and more.

This seems like a lot, but it all stems from nationalizing the large firms and key industries, as well as redistribution of land, land back, and decolonization. As imperialism decays, the economic compulsion for self-reliance grows, meaning if the working classes can establish a socialist state then we can achieve the rest gradually.

If those ideas sound good to you, and you haven’t yet engaged with Marxist-Leninist theory, I made a basic study guide! Feel free to check it out!

You can expose the problems of fascist speech without legally protecting the right of fascists to spread disinformation and misinformation, which you’ve been arguing for. I don’t want to “hide” it, I want to eliminate it from public discourse and study it academically so as to prevent it from rising.

Sure, but considering this entire speech you’ve been talking about how you want to protect the rights of fascists to spew fascist bullshit, talking negatively about political correctness is almost assuredly about the modern usage. You can’t fault me for reading this as you yet again arguing for fascist speech to be protected.

“Political correctness” has often been a dogwhistle for censoring bigotry:

Political correctness (adjectivally “politically correct”; commonly abbreviated to P.C.) is a term used to describe language,[1][2][3] policies,[4] or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.[5][6][7] Since the late 1980s, the term has been used to describe a preference for inclusive language and avoidance of language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting to groups of people disadvantaged or discriminated against, particularly groups defined by ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. In public discourse and the media,[4][8][9] the term’s use is generally pejorative, with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.[10][11] It can also be humorous, or ironic in nature.

You’re referring to instead how political figures massage words.

Political correctness isn’t “hiding the truth,” you’re implying that racism, homophobia, etc. are “the truth.” You’re caping for fascism and bigotry.

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.