Current Events > No investigation, No right to speak

(+) Yeah! (+)

Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won' t do!
It won't do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!

-Mao Zedong, Select Works Vol. 6

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm

Yeah, people are allowed to say dumb shit. We can't allow a third party to determine when you're sufficiently educated to speak on a thing.

---

vigorm0rtis posted...

Yeah, people are allowed to say dumb shit. We can't allow a third party to determine when you're sufficiently educated to speak on a thing.

No investigation, no right to speak

anti-vaxxers who speak non-sense without proper investigation should be deprived of speech. non-sense talk is harmful and causes pointless death (see COVID, the anti-vax movement, etc.). having legitimate criticism is fine and discussion is central to being informed, but without investigation you will only cause harm.

shockthemonkey posted...

How long till this account gets banned?

well the mods hate communists, so probably soon

Doesnt matter still massacred people

It looks like this was written before the purges. Oh well, at least China won the long game.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Doesnt matter still massacred people

no investigation

no right to speak

have you investigated the history of china and its circumstances during the early rise of the cpc?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



have you investigated this matter? if not, no right to speak!

What if Im speaking to investigate?

---

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

no investigation

no right to speak

have you investigated the history of china and its circumstances during the early rise of the cpc?

I can't speak, how do I investigate if I cant speak?

---

Lost_All_Senses posted...

What if Im speaking to investigate?

II. TO INVESTIGATE A PROBLEM IS TO SOLVE IT

You can' t solve a problem? Well, get down and investigate the present facts and its past history! When you have investigated the problem thoroughly, you will know how to solve it. Conclusions invariably come after investigation, and not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together with a group, to "find solution" or "evolve an idea" without making any investigation. It must be stressed that this cannot possibly lead to any effective solution or any good idea. In other words, he is bound to arrive at a wrong solution and a wrong idea.

if investigating involves speaking and asking questions to those who are informed, then it is considered investigation. talking about things of which you know nothing with people who also know nothing is pointless and harmful to the cause of which you're fighting for.

example: speaking to an agricultural scientist so you can formulate a plan to provide food for your people. asking them questions, thoroughly examining their answers, and discussing your informed plan in open debate is a part of investigation. If one were to not properly investigate this matter and went on you would fail catastrophically. How would one without knowledge of an issue know how to solve it? they cannot. only through investigation can they come to a solution.

There looks to be quite a few sources for the massacres during the cultural revolution...

---

shockthemonkey posted...

How many people died during the Great Leap Forward?

Well if you cant trust a book it can be hard to say, I'd imagine

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

There looks to be quite a few sources for the massacres during the cultural revolution...

have you investigated this matter? if not, no right to speak.

let us see your sources and information if you claim to have them. state your position so that we may know what you know.

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

if investigating involves speaking and asking questions to those who are informed, then it is considered investigation. talking about things of which you know nothing with people who also know nothing is pointless and harmful to the cause of which you're fighting for.

example: speaking to an agricultural scientist so you can formulate a plan to provide food for your people. asking them questions, thoroughly examining their answers, and discussing your informed plan in open debate is a part of investigation. If one were to not properly investigate this matter and went on you would fail catastrophically. How would one without knowledge of an issue know how to solve it? they cannot. only through investigation can they come to a solution.

Word. You sound like someone who hates casual discussion and wants to push that onto the world. I guess I get it in a world that is this out of control with misinformation. But going to the other extreme and cutting out any conversation that is just for fun, isn't the way to go. Sometimes talking about shit you barely know and throwing some jokes at it is just a good time. Therapeutic even.

---

he says, hypocritically having clearly done no investigation into the legal idea of "free speech"

fucking fascists, man.

---

For a second I thought this was a right-wing shitposter going as far left as possible for a shitty joke. Now it just looks like a China shill account.

---

This becomes people like Trump tell doctors and lawyers who do know what they are talking about that they failed to research and jail them when they try to prove otherwise.
It is no surprise that communism always turns into this type of dictatorship.

Without the guaranteed right to speech, you cannot uncover corruption, malpractice, abuses etc.

Right to speech even if you have no idea what you are talking about is fundamental to freedom.

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

have you investigated this matter? if not, no right to speak.

let us see your sources and information if you claim to have them. state your position so that we may know what you know.

Just check wiki

---

shockthemonkey posted...

How many people died during the Great Leap Forward?

This is hard to determine due to the lack of record keeping in china during that time. but:

Estimates of deaths during the the Great Leap Forward range from as high as 46 million to as little as 200,000. None of these estimates are based on any serious demographic analysis, simply for the reason there is no reliable census data to go on. Pre-communist population estimates for China differ by hundreds of millions. The first modern census was done by the communists, and the PRC census in 1953 shows China had 582,603,417. The next census done in 1964 shows China had 694,581,759, an increase of 111,978,342 people. The Great Leap Forward covers a period between 1958-1961. What is the methodology various anti-communists use to say there should have been an increase of 156 million more people, instead of the mere 111 million more between 1953 and 1964? They usually never say, and if they bother to tell people how they arrived at what the population totals should have been, would reveal to everyone that the numbers-games they are playing have nothing to do with serious demography. More over, any critical interrogation of these stupid numbers games will reveal that people NOT EVEN BORN are being counted as "death to communism" or whatever. This is the problem with trusting non-mathematically trained academic hacks with a political axe to grind with telling you anything about how many people die anywhere

context to the GLF:

For the case of China, what has to be remembered is that there were famines ALL THE TIME in China. One of the best books on the subject, written long before the communists came to power in China, is "China: Land of Famine" by Walter H. Mallory. Mallory was the General Secretary of the China International Famine Relief Commission, and as Finley put it in the introduction to Mallory's book:
"It is a shocking fact that with all of the labor expended and virtues practiced, nearly a fourth of the people of the globe live in a land of famine--not of general famine at any one time nor of continuous famine in any one place, but of famine in one or another province or locality all the time."

The Chinese refer to this period as the 100 Years of Shame. This is when the West and Japan were treating China like their own personal property, starting with Britain forcing drugs on the people of China for their own benefit. Millions and millions died during this period, but people who like to talk about famines under the Communists don't like to talk about it. This is because it would force people to recognize two important facts: China was an underdeveloped country that was very, very vulnerable to famines (and the West/Japanese didn't give a shit), and famines in China WERE HALTED by the Chinese Communist Party. Just as in the Russian case, where Russia had experienced a famine every couple of years in the last thousand years of its history, the Bolsheviks were finally able to stop them and make them a thing of the past. It took communist parties in both of these horribly backward countries to finally put a stop to famines as a menace to their people.

There is truth that the during the GLF was large mismanagement, though some elements extremely exaggerated by western sources (ex. backyard pig iron), but given the context and present history of china, we can say that they have not had any famines since then, and in fact, have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

---

Lost_All_Senses posted...

Word. You sound like someone who hates casual discussion and wants to push that onto the world. I guess I get it in a world that is this out of control with misinformation. But going to the other extreme and cutting out any conversation that is just for fun, isn't the way to go. Sometimes talking about shit you barely know and throwing some jokes at it is just a good time. Therapeutic even.

true. this is not concerning casual discussion, moreso when serious action is needed, such as in the example i gave. we must remember that all serious discussion arises from casual, which itself comes from material circumstance.

there is no harm in discussing political issues with your friends. but if you are discussing them with intent to run for office or stage a political movement, then one must be informed. and this is why without investigation there should be no right to speak.

I'd love to jump in on the discourse, but Mao Zedong spends all day eating red-hot stones in Hell and frankly that's enough for me.

---

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

true. this is not concerning casual discussion, moreso when serious action is needed, such as in the example i gave. we must remember that all serious discussion arises from casual, which itself comes from material circumstance.

I do like when the higher ups seemed way more professional and less to just spew whatever was currently on their mind. But I literally have no importance and nothing I say makes it anywhere. So, I should be free to talk my shit for funzies.

---

Medussa posted...

he says, hypocritically having clearly done no investigation into the legal idea of "free speech"

fucking fascists, man.

free speech is a idealist notion that is useless from a material perspective.

do nazis deserve the right to speech even though they advocate for the death and subjection of my people?

do pedophiles deserve the right to spread harmful ideas to our children?

does the prisoner thrown in jail, removed of the right to vote, solely for the crime of being poor, have free speech?

The united states has made it illegal for communists to immigrate here, do communists have free speech?

does Gamefaqs allow free speech when they remove an inflammatory post? when they remove political post such as mine? is it a violation of your free speech to be restricted in what you can post?

you see; free speech does not exist. in one way or another all speech is restricted, whether by societal pressure, authority, or violence.

i do not believe nazis should have the right to speak, as their speech inevitably leads to the murder of my people, and from a material point them being deprived of speech is for the best. would you not agree?

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Just check wiki

wikipedia is not an investigation. if one thinks they have the right to speak, they must investigate and come with their own arguments, data, and sources.

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

idealist

You lifted this from Mao's book and have no idea what it means

---

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

wikipedia is not an investigation. if one thinks they have the right to speak, they must investigate and come with their own arguments, data, and sources.

Your argument is shitty because Mao's logic concludes you need an entire government to investigate

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

You lifted this from Mao's book and have no idea what it means

Idealism is a non-material perspective and is useless to those who subscribe to a materialist and scientific method of analysis. Abstract notions such as free speech do not exist when one examines reality and views how this idea has historically been enacted.

The U.S. has "free speech" yet has historically murdered its communist, black civil rights, labor leaders, in addition to suppressing their right to speak freely. While on the contrary they promoted the free speech of reactionaries, fascists and other pro-capital running dogs. What free speech is that?

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Your argument is shitty because Mao's logic concludes you need an entire government to investigate

what government? investigation must take place on an individual as well as society level; in all things. Investigation is an individual as well as collective process. How will one investigate things they know nothing about? they can't. This is why we have society; so we can learn from one another.

II. TO INVESTIGATE A PROBLEM IS TO SOLVE IT

There are not a few comrades doing inspection work, as well as guerrilla leaders and cadres newly in office, who like to make political pronouncements the moment they arrive at a place and who strut about, criticizing this and condemning that when they have only seen the surface of things or minor details. Such purely subjective nonsensical talk is indeed detestable. These people are bound to make a mess of things, lose the confidence of the masses and prove incapable of solving any problem at all.
When they come across difficult problems, quite a number of people in leading positions simply heave a sigh without being able to solve them. They lose patience and ask to be transferred on the ground that they "have not the ability and cannot do the job"; These are cowards' words. Just get moving on your two legs, go the rounds of every section placed under your charge and "inquire into everything''[1] as Confucius did, and then you will be able to solve the problems, however little is your ability; for although your head may be empty before you go out of doors, it will be empty no longer when you return but will contain all sorts of material necessary for the solution of the problems, and that is how problems are solved. Must you go out of doors? Not necessarily. You can call a fact-finding meeting of people familiar with the situation in order to get at the source of what you call a difficult problem and come to know how it stands now, and then it will be easy to solve your difficult problem.
Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.

besides, you have not even investigated the most basic thing, why do you feel the right to speak on it?

shockthemonkey posted...

Only 46 million people died and we swear its been good since sure is some fucked up tankie logic

Hey TC whats your stance on the Holodomor?

no investigation, no right to speak.

i seriously regret posting in this topic. every time i see the new post dot, i'm going to be compelled to look. and who fucking knows how many brain cells i'm going to lose in so doing.

---

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

Idealism is a non-material perspective and is useless to those who subscribe to a materialist and scientific method of analysis. Abstract notions such as free speech do not exist when one examines reality and views how this idea has historically been enacted.

The U.S. has "free speech" yet has historically murdered its communist, black civil rights, labor leaders, in addition to suppressing their right to speak freely. While on the contrary they promoted the free speech of reactionaries, fascists and other pro-capital running dogs. What free speech is that?

Idealism doesn't deny that matter exists. It denies that matter is a substance that can exist in a universe without consciousness.

Next part is hard for me, but, if you have an abstract object with no referent, that doesnt meant the object will never have a referent: human technics like speech or technology freely apply abstract concepts with no concrete reference. Concepts, Hegel says, are just ideas with no objectivity.

Free speech has several concrete references: the press, wives' gossip, the agora, I'm sure there are more.
Re: the US, they have de re free speech obviously, see the constitution; no government will have de facto free speech, that is "bad" leadership. Governments control people. They can also enslave and kill.

---

"There are not a few comrades doing inspection work, as well as guerrilla leaders and cadres newly in office, who like to make political pronouncements the moment they arrive at a place and who strut about, "

It's advice for government officials, not joe blow. And the results weren't great in the short term.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

no government will have de facto free speech, that is "bad" leadership. Governments control people. They can also enslave and kill.

then there is no such thing as free speech. you have admitted it yourself through investigation, well done my friend.

we live in a world of people who have contrasting goals, ideologies, believes and actions. Governments cannot be "bad" through a material perspective; they can only do things, to which we, as people, prescribe morality to. for example, we all (i hope) agree that hitler was bad as his ideology was one of fascism, which is a reactionary ideology harmful to anyone not fit within their acceptable definition of "human". However, a nazi, who prescribes to the fascists' ideology, will think hitler and his genocide and suppression of communists, jews, gays and other minority groups was good.

Likewise, in the U.S., certain groups are deprived of free speech. a federal employee cannot bring religion into his workplace, is that not a violation of his free speech? A prisoner convicted of a felon cannot voice his opinion through the electoral process, is that not suppression of speech? Most certainly some people here believe this to be a good thing. etc. etc.

On the opposite end, however much you disagree with it, are those defined as reactionary in the PRC, such as the falun golag, are they not being deprived of free speech much like those elsewhere throughout place and time? similarily, people living in the PRC may view this as a good thing despite it violating the notion of free speech.

you see already though that free speech exist only as an ideal.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

"There are not a few comrades doing inspection work, as well as guerrilla leaders and cadres newly in office, who like to make political pronouncements the moment they arrive at a place and who strut about, "

It's advice for government officials, not joe blow. And the results weren't great in the short term.

indeed. but it is an important reminder to be informed before speaking, which is the point of this topic, and it can be applied to any matter of importance.

without investigation there should be no right to speak. Would you not agree that a college professor ignorant of his subject should be allowed to speak foolishly to his students? Or the doctor to his patient, the father to his son, etc.?

shockthemonkey posted...

Your gimmick sucks and your refusal to condemn genocide is terrifying.

genocide implies concerted effort. you equating the famine during the GLF to the likes of hitler, who systematically exterminated millions and led us into a world war which killed even more.

you are being disingenuous and are ill-informed. do more investigation, and then you will have the right to speak.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

there is no denial of the holocaust. it is well documented by countless and multiple independent sources, soviet, american, british, german, etc. which tell us what occurred then.
likewise, we have evidence of what happened during the GLF, which I have posted sources to earlier, and will post more if required.

16-BITTER posted...

What Mao conveniently fails to mention is that you get no right to investigate either.

what investigation have you done to come to this conclusion?

Tankies are the worst.

---

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

then there is no such thing as free speech. you have admitted it yourself through investigation, well done my friend.

De re free speech is still a concrete example of free speech in the world, so not quite. Free speech can be STIFLED but it still clearly exists, there are degrees of it it. I gave you examples you chose to ignore. You can't say it doesnt exist when there are political documents saying it does.

you're saying that people are deprived of free speech AND free speech doesnt exist? Sounds like a contradiction:

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

Likewise, in the U.S., certain groups are deprived of free speech.

Cf the first thing I quoted.

Re: governments being extra-moral entities
... well that is a different subject. At the end of the day people dont want genocide and look down on leaders who promote it...

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

indeed. but it is an important reminder to be informed before speaking, which is the point of this topic, and it can be applied to any matter of importance.

without investigation there should be no right to speak. Would you not agree that a college professor ignorant of his subject should be allowed to speak foolishly to his students? Or the doctor to his patient, the father to his son, etc.?

Such a rule exists to control people, it's not to the benefit of the citizenry

---

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

genocide implies concerted effort. you equating the famine during the GLF to the likes of hitler, who systematically exterminated millions and led us into a world war which killed even more.

you are being disingenuous and are ill-informed. do more investigation, and then you will have the right to speak.

there is no denial of the holocaust. it is well documented by countless and multiple independent sources, soviet, american, british, german, etc. which tell us what occurred then.
likewise, we have evidence of what happened during the GLF, which I have posted sources to earlier, and will post more if required.

What about the Cultural Revolution?

---