Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Good quote: Mao on freedom of speech and censorship
  • The "identity of public opinion," as Hu Feng insists, means nothing more than prohibiting counterrevolutionaries from coming out with counterrevolutionary opinions. Indeed, our system deprives all counter-revolutionaries of freedom of speech and allows it to be used only within the people. Within the people, we admit non-identity of opinions, in other words, freedom of criticism, freedom of expression of different opinions, freedom of theistic and atheistic (that is, materialistic) propaganda. In any society at any time there are two categories of people, two kinds of views - progressive and backward, which are in contradiction and fight among themselves, moreover, progressive views somehow prevail over the regressive ones, and it is impossible to make "public opinion identical", and do not do it. Only the all-round development of everything that is progressive, advanced and the overcoming regressive things ones move society forward.

    And in an era when classes and class struggle still exist outside and inside the country, the working class and the broad masses of the people who have seized state power must suppress the resistance offered to the revolution by all and all counter-revolutionary classes, groups and individuals, suppress their restoration activities, not to give any of the counter-revolutionaries the opportunity to use freedom of speech for counter-revolutionary purposes.

    That is why the Khufenites and counterrevolutionaries like them feel uncomfortable with the "identity of public opinion." And the inconvenience for them is exactly what we are trying to achieve, it is just convenient for us. Our public opinion is identical and at the same time not identical. Among the people, progressive and more conservative people are allowed to speak freely on the pages of our newspapers and magazines, from our tribunes, etc. for competition among themselves, so that progressive people, through the democratic method, through the method of persuasion, educate the conservative and regressive part, so that regressive views are overcome and the old order is eliminated.

    After overcoming some contradictions, other, new contradictions arise, and competition begins again in the same spirit. In this way, society is continuously moving forward. The presence of a contradiction in itself means non-identity. After overcoming the contradiction, a temporary identity sets in; but soon a new contradiction appears, which means a new non-identity, and again it must be overcome. As for the contradictions between the people and the counter-revolutionaries, the matter here comes down to a dictatorship over the counter-revolutionaries carried out by the people under the leadership of the working class and the Communist Party. Here, not democratic methods are used, but the methods of dictatorship, or dictatorship, in other words, counter-revolutionaries are allowed to behave only quietly and peacefully and are not allowed to go over the boundaries of what is permissible in words and actions.

    In this respect, not only public opinion is identical, but also the law. On this occasion, the Khufenites and counterrevolutionaries like them indulged in specious rhetoric, and some simpletons, having heard enough of their counterrevolutionary chatter, feel as if they were not entirely right. Listen, don't "identity of public opinion" or "lack of public opinion" or "suppression of freedom" sound bad? These people do not distinguish between two such different categories, both within the people and outside the people. Within the people, it would be a crime to suppress freedom, to suppress criticism of the mistakes and shortcomings of the Party and the government from the people, to prohibit free discussions among scientific workers — this is our system. In capitalist countries, on the contrary, all this is considered legal. Outside the people, in relation to counter-revolutionaries, it would be a crime to provide freedom to cross the border of what is permissible in words and actions, the dictatorship is legal here - this is our system. In capitalist countries, the situation is exactly the opposite: there is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, under which the revolutionary people are not allowed to go beyond what is permitted in words and actions, they are allowed to behave only quietly and peacefully. The exploiters and counter-revolutionaries are always and everywhere in the minority, and the exploited and the revolutionaries are in the majority, therefore the dictatorship of the latter is quite fair, while the dictatorship of the former is not justified by anything.

    Mao Zedong

  • 14 Replies sorted by
  • He would have been well accepted at facebook. You can disagree with us a little...just not too much jajaja

  • @kurth

    May be Facebook is some kind of communists stronghold among dictatorship of the bourgeoisie all around it?

    Facebook now merely protects ruling class and participate in small fight as little more progressive members of the class fight with most conservative ones. It seems like keeping right wing content too visible now became dangerous.

  • "May be Facebook is some kind of communists stronghold among dictatorship of the bourgeoisie all around it?"

    nope....all totalitarian dictatorships are the same

  • @kurth

    nope....all totalitarian dictatorships are the same

    Here we go again.

    @kurth, here it is not your kindergarten, and you are not 5 years old to write such things.

  • @Vitaliy....even a child would see the obvious. Well some children anyway.

  • @kurth

    Issue is that all this things are not obvious, they require reading and thinking.

    This is why posting such things is childish, as child lacks knowledge due to age.

  • @Vitaliy....actually...your childish condescending posts demonstrate not learning anything the last 50 years, emotionally, nor intellectually

  • @kurth

    My only goal is to make to read and think, not to agree. I have no interest to oppose to stupid remarks, try to become smarter opponent.

  • @Vitaliy

    Mao was a totalitarian dictator. Someone to admire for sure !

    [VK, keep to the topic]

  • @kurth

    I can't oppose someone who just retell and mirror old local (US) mass media things.

    Problem is that you can't get it. And keep coming proud of lack of knowledge.

  • When someone opposes it, you make personal post condescending their intelligence. You think you're always superior, trying to emulate your grade school heroes, little socialist realist portraits hung above the old teachers desk. Sadly you're heroes have all been sunk to the historical graveyard of old leaky ideas.

    [VK: Keep things to the topic]

  • @kurth

    Actually I always do opposite. I won't be making reply if I though you are not intelligent enough. I first very carefully ask to read about the subject if discussion stuck on the mass media cliche or elementary school level doctrine. At least read about most details, arguments of one side, better both sides.

    PV fully respect opposing views if they are well informed and have deep foundation.

  • @Vitaliy....nope. Sorry, but just like Mao, in the above quote, if the opposing ideas are outside the accept notions, they are censored, just like facebook, as well, which was my first response. Totalitarianist have a plan. Censorship is their method.

  • @kurth

    Sorry, but just like Mao, in the above quote, if the opposing ideas are outside the accept notions, they are censored.

    Do you understand basic things written in above quote?

    Idea of pushing "totalitarian" doctrine comes from capitalists, as it is intended to do only one thing - to muddy the water, make it hard to understand how things work.

    Can Facebook do that they do by present capitalist laws? Yes, they are.

    The tool was intended to shut up and silence capitalists opponents and even specific capitalists who goes against class interests (for example, by silencing independent places, forcing people to use place they control 100%, working in tight contact with Google who will derank sites). But now one part of ruling class found that tool is also useful to fight and silence, partially, other part of ruling class. It is still undecided that will be final outcome here, but it is 100% that despite who wins it will be new law changes and tool will be toned down and aimed more at original target.