You must log in or register to comment.

tranarchy wrote

Hate speech loses a lot of its power in an anarchist society. Without a mechanism to turn individual bigotry into a system of oppression, hate speech really is just words and can be dealt with through social mediation.

"If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power. Racism gets its power from capitalism. Thus, if you're anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude." - Stokely Carmichael


rmblock wrote

This is still a hypothetical utopia though, correct? One where group identities have dissolved and there is no such thing as a mob mentality, no scarcity of resources... Right? I agree with you in spirit but I'd just like to clarify what you mean by 'in an anarchist society.' Many other leftists don't have the luxury of pointing to an ideal that has never existed at scale for an extended period in modern history.

For example, were I to say 'well, the state gradually withers away in a communist society' I'd be laughed away because we have examples to point to and no concrete case of that happening, even if it is the ideal we are striving towards.

(Not trying to troll, this is a genuine question/clarification coming from a libertarian socialist.)


tranarchy wrote

"An anarchist society" as in a hypothetical society without a coercive hierarchical structure that also actively inhibits the construction of such.

I wouldn't call it a utopia per se, because that implies that it's not possible to create such a society, whereas I am of the opinion that we don't yet know for sure what the limits of human society are. I think we need to explore these limits and push towards a better society. The anarchist experiment is just that, an experiment, and even though we can't be sure whether it will work until we try it, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try it.

I'm definitely, despite my username, more of a libertarian socialist than a strict anarchist, but only because of the aforementioned fact that we don't know what the limits are. I'm not going to put all my eggs in one basket and say anything short of total anarchy is insufficient. But I'm not going to say anarchism is unrealistic when it hasn't been tried to any significant extent.


zorblax wrote

anarchism can only work when people are conscientious and considerate of other people. A natural outcome of that is less hate speech.

Of course, there would be some outliers, but some old crotchety racist calling black people n****** isn't nearly as bad of a problem as a society where hate speech is socially accepted(like we have in the US now)


NeoliberalismKills wrote

Zorblax isn't wrong. But different communities will handle "discipline" differently. There will be an effort to point out why what they are saying is hurtful. If that doesn't work they could be denied privelages. If that doesn't work they could just be expelled from the community.

The problem with "how will anarchists deal with x problem" question is that anarchism isn't monolithic. That's the point. It can only be answered with a x number of possibilities.


tnstaec wrote

I get really weary of the "how will X be done in anarchy" genre of questions.

To many assumptions built into that very framing that are incongruent with anarchism.


ziq wrote

Since when does the state stop hate speech? They do the opposite, they give it protection.


goof_goat wrote (edited )

what do you mean by 'hate speech?' this is a very broad question and i think a liberal way of looking at the problem... i mean you're talking about anything from my uncle saying a slur at thanksgiving dinner all the way up to trump's racist rambles...

i think if you're looking at this through the concept of 'hate speech' you will be definition find yourself turning to the state. there are other ways of looking at the world: hate speech is a manifestation of the racism & sexism that capitalist nations rely upon. the system we currently live in creates the space for hate speech and then attempts to suppress it... it's creating problems for itself to solve and positioning itself as the only solution


Enkara wrote

It can easily be done with batons and pepper spray.


SenorMeltyface wrote

Well first, there's the cop-out answer that there wouldn't be hate speech, or at least nowhere near as much, but the real answer is that it would have to be handled based on ties between individuals, like most things that are cultural in nature. If you faced ostracism for being a racist asshat, you wouldn't do it anymore, would you?


NeoliberalismKills wrote

And in the real communities that anarchism would form this ostracization would be especially profound.


Mance wrote

By definition an anarchist should not care about anyone else's speech, good or bad. My enforcing of arbitrary rules on someone else's actions goes against the whole gist of anarchy.


WTB_Nukes_130e wrote (edited )

If I see a wasp in nature enjoying itself, I leave it alone.
If I see a wasp in my home, I make it leave.
If I see a wasp attack me, I kill it.

If I see a colony of wasps in nature, I leave it alone.
If I see a colony of wasps near my home, I kill it.
If I see a colony of wasps attack me, I'm dead.