It is violent only because of a system that perpetuates or can perpetuate the ideals in that speech. The speech is only the verbal manifestation of a system that enables the violence in the first place. Otherwise it is just a crazy man speaking to himself. If there is an audience that resonates with those ideals, it is because that narrative provides the license for their bigotry; an explotative relationship with the “other” that they perceive to materially gain from.
The material always comes before the idea.
That does not mean the person behind the speech is not part of the violence or not an enabler of the violence or is absolved of the violence.
I am not, however, a free speech absolutist. Censorship will exist in every society, we must designate who that censorship is in favour of.
This may then sound like a caution against adventurism? Maybe, maybe we do need to be tackling the material that enables the idea but it must be noted adventurism is highly likely to happen regardless of how we feel in these trying times. It is then up to the astute ML to use the potential cataclysm to their advantage. Let these fascists be afraid.
What are the strategic consequences of decisively rejecting the tripartite social theory advanced by Orwell, and adopting Marx’s all-encompassing one instead? The basic call to action looks something like this:
Stop accusing the masses of being “brainwashed.” Stop treating them as cattle, stop attempting to rouse them into action by scolding them with exposure to “unpleasant truths.”
Accept instead that they have been avoiding those truths for a reason. You were able to break through the propaganda barrier, and so could they if they really wanted to. Many of these people see you as the fool, and in many cases not without reason.
Understanding people as intelligent beings, craft a political strategy that convincingly makes the case for why they and their lot are very likely to benefit from joining your political project. Not in some utopian infinite timescale, but soon.
If you cannot make this case, then forget about convincing the person in question. Focus instead on finding other people to whom such a case can be made. This will lead you directly to class analysis.
Speech is not violent by itself.
It is violent only because of a system that perpetuates or can perpetuate the ideals in that speech. The speech is only the verbal manifestation of a system that enables the violence in the first place. Otherwise it is just a crazy man speaking to himself. If there is an audience that resonates with those ideals, it is because that narrative provides the license for their bigotry; an explotative relationship with the “other” that they perceive to materially gain from.
The material always comes before the idea.
That does not mean the person behind the speech is not part of the violence or not an enabler of the violence or is absolved of the violence.
I am not, however, a free speech absolutist. Censorship will exist in every society, we must designate who that censorship is in favour of.
This may then sound like a caution against adventurism? Maybe, maybe we do need to be tackling the material that enables the idea but it must be noted adventurism is highly likely to happen regardless of how we feel in these trying times. It is then up to the astute ML to use the potential cataclysm to their advantage. Let these fascists be afraid.
https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/