One of the common misconceptions one comes across as a socialist is the idea that there is no freedom of speech within socialism. During socialism you would have exactly the same rights to speech as you do during capitalism. The right to free speech only gives you the right not to be killed or imprisoned by the state for what you say. It doesn’t give anyone or any organisation the obligation to listen to you or to facilitate you in spreading your message. It also certainly does not provide any protections once speech crosses over into action.
Just as the capitalist state and other capitalist organisations gives no platform to Marxist speech (or any radical left speech) and actively promotes their opposite, the worker’s state and other workers organisations too would completely ignore any anti-worker, pro-bourgeois or pro-fascist speech and actively promote their opposite. People are perfectly free to stand on street corners and try to spread their fascist ideas if they feel like it but that is it. There is only freedom of speech, not freedom of action. Once speech becomes action against the people you speak against they are well within their rights to prevent you from acting against them.
The difference between freedom of speech and action is often (deliberately in some cases) confused when arguments regarding free speech in socialist countries arise. I wont address specific instances but will comment generally on the matter. In these arguments a profound double standard comes into play. why is it workers-states are criticised for suppressing actions that are an existential threat to itself, while the capitalist-state does exactly the same?
At the heart of the capitalist system is an irreconcilable conflict between classes; between the bourgeoisie and the working-class. At any point in time one class is dominant over the other. This domination is achieved though an assortment of repressive state apparatus and ideological structures. As it stands the bourgeoisie totally dominate the working class mostly though complex ideological means but when these fail, the working class can be subjugated forcefully by the law, police, army etc… These repressive structures are an absolute necessity in class society, as the interests of the two classes are diametrically opposed and detrimental to the other. The capitalist must mitigate and suppress the worker’s interests because they are disruptive and ultimately incompatible with capitalism.
In former and current socialist counties, where the working-class seized state power and came to dominate the capitalist class, exactly the same happened and is happening, only in the opposite direction. It was the worker-state suppressing the bourgeois class, as their interests was and still is incompatible with a society where the economy is orientated towards the provision of needs and wants and the betterment of the vast majority of people.
I’d also like to add that the bourgeoisie do not live up to their ideals of free speech for all. There are countless examples of the bourgeoisie persecuting left wing speech, not just left wing action. I wont reference specific examples here as anyone interested can easily find examples with a simple search but I will link this account of the harassment and suppression left wing speech has faced in the past.
I will end with an eye-witness account of socialist democracy and free speech in the GDR, (Margrit and John Pittman, Sense and Nonsense About Berlin, 1962, pp. 36-37):
We attended a forum of working and student youth in the university town of Jena. Present were officials of the GDR government, the city administration, the Socialist Unity Party, and the Free German Youth. The hall was packed to the rafters, which is the only place where we found seats. We had been informed that these forums are held at regular intervals all over the GDR. Their aim is to enlist the interest and participation of young Germans in efforts to solve the problems of local communities, cities, and the GDR as a whole. The youth are encouraged to raise any question that concerns them. No holds are barred. . .
They spoke without restraint or self-consciousness. They vied for the chance to speak. They heckled one another as well as the speakers on the platform. If they didn’t like a speech or a statement, they booed. If they liked it, they whistled and stamped their feet. The one point in which they differed from most American student audiences was this: they were amazingly well-informed on international and national affairs.
Here are some of the questions they asked:
– Why did we have to postpone the realization of our economic plan for overtaking West Germany from 1961 to 1965?– Why did we make such a difficult plan in the first place?
– Why did our newspapers publicize the goals so much?
– Why did we cut out our airplane industry, and who was responsible for this mistake?
There were, of course, other questions to be expected from an assemblage of youth: Why is Jena so dull for youth? Why does our radio plague us on Saturdays and Sundays with broadcasts about collective farms?
Marx in the Carparx 