[kiliantics]

> The point of anarchism is that you can basically do what you want.

This is a simplistic characterisation. Anarchists hold individual liberty in the highest regard but also believe in solidarity and mutual aid. You can "basically do what you want" as long as you aren't restricting the individual freedom of others but rather supporting everyone in having access to the same means and rights as you do. Since exploitation of people is so endemic in our society, anarchists work mainly to free themselves and others from oppressive systems. Right now we can't do what we want, so anarchists fight against the social dynamics which are preventing this.

[PeterisP]

Well, but in the absence of an overriding rulership, i.e. anarchy, you actually can do what you want even if you're restricting the individual freedom of others and denying them access to the same means and rights as you do. There's clear motivation for some people to do that, and what's going to prevent them from doing that to weaker or less resourceful people? And a system capable and intent on effectively doing that essentially becomes a de facto system of governance, and the situation ceases to be an anarchy.

[kiliantics]

System of governance is different to a state. Anarchists are against the state but not necessarily against government, as long as that government's power comes from voluntary association and not by coercion.

[spraak]

This is a great clarification, not sure why the downvotes.

[IanDrake]

“Right now we can’t do what we want...”

What is it you want to do that you’re not allowed to?

Also, why are anarchist teaming up with communist in order to limit free speech?

I’m specifically talking about Antifa trying to stop a jew (Shapiro) and a gay man married to a black man (Milo) from speaking at Berkeley?

Do anarchists support free speech or not?

[dnautics]

Anarchists are not a monolithic block.

Communism is an anarchist philosophy, ultimately... Agree with it or not, a (simplified) original reading of the Marxist historical programme involves a dialectic model whereby you wind up in a stateless society by building up and tearing down a central state.

This would contrast with anarchocapitalists who arguably advocate a more direct route to anarchy, usually tinged with crypto conservative sentiments...

And probably a classical socialist (as in Benjamin Tucker) take on anarchism would be still different, but I don't think there are many of them left, though there might be some contemporary philosophical adherents to Max stirner that live in that space there.

[kiliantics]

I don't consider anarchocapitalists part of the Anarchist tradition. Even Rothbard said "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."

Anarchists, like other communists, have as their goal a "classless, moneyless, stateless society". This absolutely cannot include capitalism because any capitalist society inherently allows for classes to exist and would probably require money. Furthermore, it is pretty evident that capitalism cannot exist without a state and therefore the term "anarchocapitalism" is an oxymoron.

[dnautics]

Anarchocapitalists are not strongly connected to the anarchist tradition, though they do inherit a thin thread via Benjamin Tucker, and American libertarianism. They are still anarchists in the strictest sense in that they are for the abolition of the state (open question of if property rights make sense in a stateless society), even if they got there via a largely different tradition. Classless and moneyless attributes are optional in anarchism though they are features of some branches of the tradition, in particular those that emerged from the Marx branch. I doubt Tucker, for example, would have claimed a moneyless and classless society as necessary attributes of his social ideal, and he was definitely a classical socialist anarchist.

[panarky]

In most cases, the antidote to dangerous speech is more speech.

But history shows that when fascists have free speech, they use that freedom to take away the right to free speech and free assembly from their opponents.

And it gets much, much worse after that.

Fascism is so dangerous that it cannot be allowed a foothold. That's why Antifa shut down fascist speech.

Being gay, black or Jewish has nothing to do with it.

[IanDrake]

Cool. I’m glad you said that.

Who dictates what is dangerous speech? You? A mob?

Now do yourself a favor and go and watch their speeches, then come back and quote the facist bits. I bet you can’t...because I know you can’t.

[kiliantics]

You are really stretching the idea of free speech. The point is that you are free from state repression of your speech because the state is supposed to have a monopoly on force. If the only legitimate use of force in society is used against those that speak out against it, you are living in a very unfree society.

I'll frame the antifa situation in more microcosmical terms that make it simpler to understand: Say some survivors from a natural disaster at a village down the road have shown up in your town and are camping at the outskirts, trying to get back on their feet. There have always been some cultural animosities towards these people but they haven't done any harm to the townspeople. Some farmers have recently lost some chickens, probably due to an increase of the local fox population as the foxes also move away from the natural disaster. A local schemer sees an opportunity to gain power and starts convincing everyone that the villagers from out of town have been stealing chickens and that it is the current mayor's fault for allowing them to stay at the outskirts.

The schemer never says to do so himself, but knows that there are other townspeople that are willing to commit violent acts towards the blow-ins, particularly some of the farmers that have been poorly affected by the loss of chickens. Despite the knowledge that his words - especially when amplified by an audience of followers - will embolden the more violent factions in their aims, he continues to speak out loudly against the outsiders because it is gaining him so much popularity.

Another group, who are friendly towards the poor sods that lost their homes and entire livelihoods, have noticed the dangerous dynamic that is brewing among the violent groups that are threatening the outsiders. They see that the dangerous words of the schemer are turning more people to support the violent acts. They see that the mayor has been put in a tough place by the schemer's words, and any denunciation of the schemer's agenda would appear an abuse of his power - shutting down the "free speech" of the schemer - or an intolerance that would lose him the chance of re-election. They decide to take matters into their own hands and themselves denounce the schemer and his tirades. They go to his speaking events to disrupt them and point out his hypocrisy. This leads to clashes between them and the violent followers of the schemer. The schemer appeals to the townspeople as a victim, claiming that the friendly group are violent instigators of injustice against his freedom to speak ill of the outsiders...

I think it's obvious who's who in the story. Shapiro and Yiannopoulos have absolutely said fascist things. (Hitler sounded reasonable to many people at the time too.) Even if they don't themselves believe in fascism, their failure to denounce the violent groups who have used their rhetoric to justify violence is damning enough.

> Who dictates what is dangerous speech?

Maybe the people that are on the receiving end of actual violence that is being motivated by said speech. It's all around you and you're just choosing not to see it because it's not affecting you personally.

[IanDrake]

I asked for quotes and got:

“Shapiro and Yiannopoulos have absolutely said fascist things.”

So no quotes then? We’ll just take your word for it?

[TACIXAT]

It is likely that they view the speakers as advocates of ideas that limit the individual freedoms of others. Making it about free speech is a bit of a misdirection. When that speech furthers a system they disagree with, they are likely to make a stand against that speech.