Alright, which one of you cringeworthy r/socialism rejects is this?

I thought Marxfags of all people would appreciate Anarchists realizing the necessity of gulags. Or is this one of those things where it's only bad when someone you don't like does it?

"surely no Marxist has criticized the soviets' use of gulags"

Then what is the Marxist who will not use gulags like those other Marxists plan to address counterrevolutionary ideas? Tell the Nazis to cut it out?

What in the actual fuck

I'm not moralistic about the anarchist use of labor camps and other less savory tactics to deal with counter-revolutionaries. However, I know a lot of anarchists who are extremely idealistic and moralistic when it comes to say the Soviet use of gulags without considering the fact that anarchists did similar things and I think that's hypocritical on their part.

Bad ideas and opinions never spread when they have to actually compete with good ones.

You're thinking of ayncraps whose NAP bullshit demands everyone sit on their hands and do nothing.
Actual anarchists are against the state, as such it is the duty of the individual (and those that they have organized with) to intervene against fascists.

My gott

I agree about hypocrisy, but isn't it a good thing that Anarchists realize the need to crack down on reactionaries? Furthermore if we're going to strawman about how anarchists will gulag you for saying idiot, doesn't the same apply to Marxists? r/FULLCOMMUNISM is run by marxists after all, and they do the same shit the other left reddit shitholes do.

Fuck off, liberals.

ISHYGDDT

...

anarchists are their own worst enemy, that's why you need a constitut-oh wait there's no state.

libertarian vs authoritarian dichotomy does not make sense, as I explained. Perhaps it was too strong of a statement to say that it's contradictory in all cases as I have not proven that, but freedom of one individual often comes at the cost of the freedoms of other individuals. This is especially true in the case of free speech.

well marxists generally believe that general opinion is a product of the mode of production and material conditions. Meaning for example that in capitalism only a portion of the proletariat can be class conscious at a time. In a communist society, therefore, it follows that fascists will likely continue to be a fringe group just as they generally are when capitalism is not in a state of crisis. They should be prevented from doing stupid shit like terrorist attacks, and perhaps intentionally marginalized from discussion (kept out of the media etc.) but just letting them talk/exist is probably not an issue.

read Areopagitica tbh. It has its flaws, of course, but it makes some valid points as far as the issues with censorship go.

One of the more important points he makes in understanding the problems with censorship here is that ultimately someone or a group of people will be in charge of who can say what. If for example as was brought up here, the reddit anarchists have any influence at all in their "not a state," then you can look forward to r/@-tier censorship policy irl. Or you could leave it to one of the retards here. Not a much better option.

Let antifags continue believing they're "protecting us against the rise of fascism" or whatever, but thank God they don't have any influence in our current society, because these fuckers are batshit.

How is it zero sum? If you want to get deep game theoretic on this I'm willing to go there. In any case I see authoritarianism as relating to stopping the spread of dangerous IDEAS, granting certain ideas a pernicious, corrosive influence on their own. Other forms of justifiably restricted speech are not in this category. It's not really an idea that there is a fire in the crowded theatre. It's really not that overly complicated unless you fall for the idpol memes about this meanwhile they largely own speech online and elsewhere lmao.

Most anarchists' make believe society's are authoritarian but this isn't surprising tbh. You can't create a cookbook recipe in your head sketching out a post-capitalist post-state society (or an ancap one for that matter) with the power structures fundamentally altered, it's just not possible at all, not even remotely. All we can do is create the conditions that may reliably lead us to something better, that's it, we can't imagine and build it any more in the mind any more than we can imagine a 4D object. We can only see why specific plans fail. Hint: they all will.

I don't want to listen to your nazi faggotry, which is why I will silence you, it's in my self interest not to listen to your verbal diarrhea

i literally don't give a shit about the free speech spook, fucking statists and fascists

...

I'm not necessarily saying "never restrict speech." But I'm saying the sort of games anarchists play to justify calling it free are ridiculous. It's probably the reason why they haven't been able to rid themselves of the ancap trash that's infested anarchism (online, at least). One side says "we want to free workers from exploitation and unjustified hierarchy" the other side says "we want capitalists to be free to exploit" (perhaps phrased in a way that is more appealing but you get the point).

This whole concept of "libertarianism" is just meaningless in these sorts of discussions and can be used to justify basically anything. In this case, the anarchist in question said "true anarchists don't believe in free speech because it's an authoritarian construction," but once again, I'm asking, what exactly is not "authoritarian" about living in constant fear of a majority of people in your community suddenly becoming pissed off at you one day and democratically horizontally voting you to be executed or whatever?

The anarchist here has argued that some force keeping a community of people from showing an individual the consequences of their speech (i.e. beating up someone cause they said something I don't like) is authoritarian. Perhaps it is. My point is that there is no "libertarian" alternative here. If I'm living in a town made up of reddit "leftists," I am living in constant fear of offending their delicate sensibilities. This is not "libertarian." No matter how many mind games you play there's no changing the fact. It's like saying capitalism is "libertarian." But once again, anarchists have had quite a lot of trouble dealing with that stance. Wonder why? Maybe because the concept doesn't make sense as a guide to policy to begin with.

Who would you have enforce the freedom of speech.

assmad nazi detected

I don't care, speak all you want but don't speak your nazi faggotry near me or my property, which is in this case, everything

The key difference is your enemies are might-is-right self interested but from an overwhelming position of strength, whereas you'll always come from a position of weakness. This may not be obvious in your street battles, but fascism proper is basically all of society pulling together to eradicate you first, which are not great odds. The only thing you accomplish is providing justification and free propaganda for the actual fascists.

...

Not good enough. If you are going yo enforce free speech, then you need somebody to do it. Who will do it?

I don't disagree that tumblr leftists dreaming up their stateless society are really just authoritarians who are butthurt about not having the power. Just because the way they, and ancaps/lolberts, tend to use and construct these ideas in a stupid way, doesn't mean they are meaningless. It just means most of the political spectrum is populated with trash,

if you were replying to me (>>1157046), that's actually an interesting and valid point. Ultimately I would say that what's important here is to have a culture that values free speech such that uninvolved parties generally intervene on the side of the speaker.

Of course, there are no perfect examples, here. But in our society people generally are pro-free speech enough to where commies are allowed to speak, exist, voice their opinions, etc. That's in part difficult to maintain because in a capitalist society, you can be fired from your job if what you're saying is a danger to your boss's profits, but generally I'd say there's value to a culture of free speech and in a socialist society, free speech could actually be much more manageable (no state, no capitalism).

I suppose you better hope that no one stronger than you (or a group of people) don't want to listen to your Stirnerite faggotry. Or that you never end up changing your views politically and philosophically in this Stirnerite society of yours.

What are you even saying here? You're a rapist? Or you're just perma-mad and don't have empathy?

I could have told you either of those things

So Trump lost to Sanders?

Democratically ratifying a constitution is probably the first step to setting up an anarchist system

perhaps that's fair. I'm a lot more pro-free speech than most leftists (not sargon-tier, but still pretty for it) so when anarchists take a stance against free speech it irks me a bit.

I don't want to enforce anything but my self interest

they literally lost to the soviets in ww2 and are regularly cucked by neoliberals

saying "might is right" and then trying to stablish a social order is fucking dumb, which is what fascists are

Attempting to communicate with Crusties. Not even once.

thats not an argument

Fuck you property. Shut up. I own you. You're mine. p

Being essentially an ancap only unemployable is not an argument either

You seem european, if so you guys do good music, and do cool shit in riots that i watch on the youtube, so that's cool tho. Sorry about the scabies

then take care of me, anscaps are not egoists, they do not care about their property, they let goverment laws dictate what is theirs

I will nurture you to good health. Let's do something about the heroin first.

either way, I'm not sure the majority of people will be all that willing to put up with your egoism bs irl. If they were not kept from harassing you, they probably would. Egoists that I've run into on Holla Forums always seem very short-term oriented. It makes you wonder how they're not all completely braindead heroin addicts by now.

You haven't taken your anti-free speech policy to its logical conclusion. If the strong enforce what is and isn't ok to say and believe then you better hope that, by coincidence, your views are always inline with the stronger side. Clearly it's in your self-interest to promote a society in which you have a little more leeway than that.

Pic related is the only legit leftist position on free speech.

Free speech means you are free to say whatever you want without the state censoring your words. This doesn't mean you're entitled to state police protection if you offend someone else.

ahh just like how you can murder but I cannot guarantee that you won't be thrown in jail after.

Or kind of like how taxes are bad because the government does it, but exploitation is not bad because the capitalists are not a part of the government. Yes let's make a distinction between freedoms infringed upon by the state and freedoms infringed upon by everyone else. That doesn't sound ancap-ish at all

Nope. It's individuals that are freely retaliating against the verbal offense not the state.

People that insult others and call for mass deportations or killings of others are the ones that are infringing upon other people's freedoms. If anything, it's they who should be punished but I don't go that further and believe that people should freely resolve their disputes without interference from authorities.

It's good to the extent they realize this fact, which certainly many anarchists do not, they merely assume you throw enough molotovs, beat up enough fascists/"statists" and do enough language policing and the state falls and the class system along with it–in reality it isn't that simple. I realize I'm nitpicking here since the majority of people who think this way can't really be called true anarchists, but from my experience these faux-anarchists happen to be the majority of self-identified anarchists I've met. And the post-Left anarchist current has not helped by rubber-stamping the position that "if it feels like its anarchist to me then its real anarchism" and other assorted lifestylist fallacies.

Yeah, those are shit, the Left does have a problem doesn't it? When expression is so thoroughly policed that it stifles proper criticism and it either goes nowhere or even slides backwards. When the Left refuses to police the speech and ideological infiltration of reactionaries it ends up doing nothing and running in circles of confusion. The problem is where to draw the line.

Well it's in your best interest to support society supporting freedom of speech, as you probably have a few opinions that others would want to shut down.

i only care about me, the egoist