Anarchism, speech, and democracy

See updates through May 5, 2021, at end of post.


Somewhere, I believe in Chomsky on Anarchism,[1] Noam Chomsky offers an example of himself as a grandfather holding out his hand to restrain his young granddaughter from running out into traffic.

Chomsky introduces this example to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate authority. No one would criticize his action to protect a young girl—this, we would call legitimate authority—but, as he notes, he is in fact deploying physical force and thereby impeding the girl’s autonomy. And I think we would agree that the latter framing doesn’t sound as nice.

The trouble here is that distinction between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate.’ A contrary example, for example, of Nazis in the Holocaust illustrates a clearly illegitimate, horrific exercise of authority. What about cases in between? What about the very slippery slope from the legitimate, stopping a granddaughter from running into traffic, to the illegitimate, gassing Jews?

Similarly with speech, I have seen an intentionally violent analogy: My right to swing my fist stops somewhere before your jaw. A problem here arises when my so-called “free” speech intimidates you (thus entailing violence) or in any way inhibits your free speech, suppressing your ideas, excluding them from public consideration.[2] Something has clearly gone wrong there and we cannot say that speech is inherently innocent. Again there is that very slippery slope in between, from speech that illuminates to the “speech” of burning crosses on people’s lawns and hanging effigies from oak trees.

The anarchist answer is (direct) democracy. Authority and speech are legitimate when the people say they are and only for as long as they say so.

But human rights are necessary because majorities cannot be trusted to protect minorities. To choose an intentionally evil example, in Federalist No. 10, James Madison sought to protect the minority rights not of any subaltern group, but rather the property rights of wealthy white slaveholders. In advocating a republic (so-called “representative democracy”) over a direct democracy, Madison trusted the rich to set aside their own personal interests in favor of the country’s and he distrusted popular mobs who he feared might confiscate their property, presumably including enslaved humans.[3] Again, there is the slippery slope: Few today would argue against the abolition of slavery. But what when a majority unquestioningly accepted the enslavement of human beings as normal? And how different, really, is it when capitalists, with the acquiescence of large majorities in the so-called “civilized world,” use their power over workers to pay them a pittance and require them to work in hazardous or otherwise unhealthy conditions?

A majority in Nazi Germany acquiesced to the gassing of Jews. A majority in World War II Japan acquiesced to the continuing rape of “comfort women” and to other horrors. In that very same era, the U.S., that supposed pillar of human rights and “democracy,” fighting against the other two, forced Japanese-Americans into internment camps.

Similarly, Blacks in Amerikkka can point to a long legacy of slavery, sharecropping, lynchings, and Jim Crow. No majority saves Blacks even today. And American Indians can point out that the European solution to minority status was simply to import enough whites to commit genocide against native people, reversing the majority/minority dynamic. Throughout history, majorities have stood by while minorities were vilified and attacked, even encouraging attackers as they carried out their pogroms.

I can certainly point out that these examples occur in a context of an authoritarian system of social organization in place since the Neolithic, that human nature and even our understanding of it may be constrained accordingly.[4]

But structurally—and this is where anarchists are right—a flaw lies in any power over others, whether democratic, republican, or otherwise authoritarian. The conundrum of so-called “free” speech, where my exercise of that speech might intimidate you into silence, and thus that my speech would in fact be violence, is in fact inherent to any power relationship, which is why anarchists recognize power as violence and why they are the foulest of hypocrites when they deploy violence themselves.[5]

In the past, indigenous peoples, faced with such conundrums, could simply split up, with some moving away, forming their own societies when differences were irreconcilable. But all of earth’s inhabitable land is now allocated; there is no longer any place to move to. Uri Gordon notes something similar of anti-authoritarian movements, acquiring participation only through the free choices of participants and of participating organizations.[6] But what when we are no longer speaking of social movements but rather of stable, fixed societies to which there are no alternatives?

Perplexed by the paradox of so-called “free speech” and violent “free speech,” I had written of speech and technology company censorship that,

I’m pretty clear that I’m thinking about this problem in the wrong way. I know that the high tech industry has it wrong. I know that the advocates on both sides of the conundrum have it wrong.

But I don’t know what’s right.[7]

Part of my problem seems to be that I was not thinking of it broadly enough. Another part, a part we too often deny and therefore fail to take into account, is that we are a social species, interdependent upon each other, and with very limited opportunities for separation and diversity. We are thus constrained to live with each other in some form of social organization.

And no matter how we organize ourselves, we need to be better than we are: Madison trusted the rich; in his system, elected officials and judges, or at least a sufficient number of them, must have the best interests of the country and of the people at heart. A direct democracy trusts the people; the majority must keep the best interests of minorities at heart. The dictator trusts him- or herself, needing merely to maintain a pretense of concern for the people.

But none of these solve the problem of ‘power over,’ which inherently assumes precisely that enough of those who have power will be at least among the better of us, not among the worst, not as George Monbiot noted, the psychopathic, the narcissistic, and the Machiavellian. Without explaining what his alternative would look like, he argued that we should “develop systems that encourage kindness, empathy and emotional intelligence,” that is, systems that reward psychologically healthy people rather than their opposites.[8] I’m not sure at this point in our evolution as a species we even see that such people even exist.

It would seem we have forgotten Chomsky, the grandfather. How can we encourage him?


Update, April 22, 2020: I fully develop my critique of Federalist No. 10, mentioned above in my discussion of republics, in “A constitutional oligarchy: Deconstructing Federalist No. 10.”


Update, March 12, 2021: I have been wrestling with the paradox of so-called “free” speech for a while now:

Honestly, I’m still working on it.


Update, March 13, 2021: An article in the Columbia Journalism Review[9] reminded me of my own brush with Twitter’s artificial idiots, which were unleashed in the wake of Donald Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric which the company had officially tolerated[10] until his rhetoric led[11] to a coup attempt on the U.S. Capitol,[12] and it, along with other social media companies, didn’t.[13]

In my case I had commented on the difference between old and new designs for ceremonial keys to the City of Pittsburgh by noting that they were traditionally hung on lanyards around the honoree’s neck, something the newer design would not make possible. Twitter’s artificial idiots, I suspect, saw the words ‘hung’ and ‘neck’ and concluded that my tweet was abusive. My only appeal seems to have been to the very same artificial idiot.

Facebook’s approach has hardly been better, subjecting vast numbers of poorly paid folks to endless horrifying and utterly repugnant videos, in a mass production slave-driving approach.[14] Apart from the sheer inhumanity of this approach, people working these jobs are likely to devote every bit as much thought in their decision to censor or not as they are being paid for, which isn’t much, particularly as they are pushed to “produce” ever more.

The article on Facebook’s approach is instructive, however, in that it reveals something of the sheer scope of the problem. It’s huge,[15] probably much too much for an intelligent approach. Artificial idiocy, relying not on understanding but rather on statistical correlations,[16] seems to be the only alternative.

Which is not at all satisfactory. Which is leaving me pretty damned grumpy.


Update, March 15, 2021: Twitter suspended users mentioning a city in Tennessee named Memphis. Yes, really. It was a “bug,” they say.[17] No, Twitter, no. It is far more than a bug. It’s what you get for using artificial idiocy. It’s the very sort of thing I said would happen.[18]


Update, May 5, 2021: Donald Trump built his presidency around hatred and vitriol toward subaltern groups. His followers loved it; campaign flags, banners, and bumper stickers all proclaimed, “Fuck Your Feelings,”[19] and “Make A Liberal Cry.” When this wasn’t enough to win the November 2020 general election, it culminated in a coup attempt meant to keep Trump in power on January 6, 2021.[20] Social media networks responded by banning and suspending Trump.[21]

Today, Facebook’s oversight board upheld the decision to suspend Trump but also ruled that the network lacked clear criteria for an indefinite suspension. The company will have to revisit its decision.[22]

It seems to me the question should come down to whether we see Trump’s abusive behavior as part of an “immutable essence” in George Lakoff’s critical father model or if it is possible for Trump to redeem himself, as in Lakoff’s nurturant parent model.[23] The key here should be that Trump does not get get an automatic restoration of his Facebook privileges; he must actually redeem himself, demonstrating that he will be better behaved in the future.

In at least part, that should mean a repudiation of hatred and violence. It should mean a repudiation not only of “Fuck Your Feelings” and “Make A Liberal Cry,” but of the sheer hypocrisy of those slogans.[24]

Do I think it likely Trump will indeed redeem himself? Of course not. And that’s really the point: Trump needs to win over skeptics before he should ever be allowed a megaphone on social media again.

  1. [1]Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Anarchism, ed. Barry Pateman (Edinburgh: AK, 2005).
  2. [2]David Benfell, “Cheering political incorrectness and irresponsible speech,” Not Housebroken, January 28, 2016, https://disunitedstates.org/2016/01/28/cheering-political-incorrectness-and-irresponsible-speech/; David Benfell, “The paradox of free speech and censorship,” Not Housebroken, November 1, 2019, https://disunitedstates.org/2019/11/01/the-paradox-of-free-speech-and-censorship/
  3. [3]James Madison, “Federalist No. 10,” in The Federalist Papers, ed. Garry Wills (New York: Bantam, 2003), 50-58.
  4. [4]David Benfell, “Why we won’t respond to climate change,” Not Housebroken, October 16, 2018, https://disunitedstates.org/2018/10/16/why-we-wont-respond-to-climate-change/
  5. [5]David Benfell, “Violence is the illegitimate authority that begets all other illegitimate authority,” Not Housebroken, July 1, 2019, https://disunitedstates.org/2019/07/01/violence-is-the-illegitimate-authority-that-begets-all-other-illegitimate-authority/
  6. [6]Uri Gordon, Anarchy Alive! (London: Pluto, 2008).
  7. [7]David Benfell, “The paradox of free speech and censorship,” Not Housebroken, November 1, 2019, https://disunitedstates.org/2019/11/01/the-paradox-of-free-speech-and-censorship/
  8. [8]George Monbiot, “Outer Turmoil,” June 17, 2019, https://www.monbiot.com/2019/06/17/outer-turmoil/
  9. [9]Salil Tripathi, “Twitter is caught between politics and free speech. I was collateral damage,” Columbia Journalism Review, March 12, 2021, https://www.cjr.org/first_person/twitter-is-caught-between-politics-and-free-speech-i-was-collateral-damage.php
  10. [10]Joseph Cox and Jason Koebler, “Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too,” Vice, April 25, 2019, https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too; Elizabeth Dwoskin, “Twitter adds labels for tweets that break its rules — a move with potentially stark implications for Trump’s account,” Washington Post, June 27, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/27/twitter-adds-labels-tweets-that-break-its-rules-putting-president-trump-companys-crosshairs/; Twitter, “World Leaders on Twitter,” January 5, 2018, https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/world-leaders-and-twitter.html
  11. [11]Devlin Barrett, “Trump’s remarks before Capitol riot may be investigated, says acting U.S. attorney in D.C.,” Washington Post, January 7, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/federal-investigation-capitol-riot-trump/2021/01/07/178d71ac-512c-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html; Andrew G. McCabe and David C. Williams, “Trump’s New Criminal Problem,” Politico, January 11, 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/11/trumps-new-criminal-problem-457298
  12. [12]David Benfell, “The danger that remains,” Not Housebroken, January 22, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/01/07/the-danger-that-remains/; David Benfell, “Riot or insurrection? Lies or madness?” Not Housebroken, January 22, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/01/12/riot-or-insurrection-lies-or-madness/; David Benfell, “The State of the Disunion, 2021,” Not Housebroken, January 22, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/01/10/the-state-of-the-disunion-2021/; David Benfell, “The second farce,” Not Housebroken, February 14, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/02/14/the-second-farce/
  13. [13]Margi Murphy, “Facebook, Instagram and Twitter lock Donald Trump’s accounts after praise for Capitol Hill rioters,” Telegraph, January 7, 2021, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/01/06/calls-twitter-facebook-mute-donald-trump-violence-breaks-capitol/; Tony Romm and Elizabeth Dwoskin, “Trump banned from Facebook indefinitely, CEO Mark Zuckerberg says,” Washington Post, January 7, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-resignations-25th-amendment/2021/01/07/e131ce10-50a3-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html; Nitasha Tiku, Tony Romm, and Craig Timberg, “Twitter bans Trump’s account, citing risk of further violence,” Washington Post, January 8, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/08/twitter-trump-dorsey/
  14. [14]Casey Newton, “Bodies in Seats,” Verge, June 19, 2019, https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18681845/facebook-moderator-interviews-video-trauma-ptsd-cognizant-tampa
  15. [15]Casey Newton, “Bodies in Seats,” Verge, June 19, 2019, https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18681845/facebook-moderator-interviews-video-trauma-ptsd-cognizant-tampa
  16. [16]David Benfell, “Our new Satan: artificial idiocy and big data mining,” Not Housebroken, February 23, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/01/13/our-new-satan-artificial-idiocy-and-big-data-mining/
  17. [17]Alyse Stanley, “Twitter Banned Me for Saying the ‘M’ Word: Memphis,” Gizmodo, March 15, 2021, https://gizmodo.com/twitter-banned-me-for-saying-the-m-word-memphis-1846474378
  18. [18]David Benfell, “Our new Satan: artificial idiocy and big data mining,” Not Housebroken, February 23, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/01/13/our-new-satan-artificial-idiocy-and-big-data-mining/
  19. [19]David Benfell, “The Donald Trump supporters’ campaign message: Fuck Your Feelings,” Not Housebroken, December 11, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/08/26/the-donald-trump-supporters-campaign-message-fuck-your-feelings/
  20. [20]David Benfell, “Riot or insurrection? Lies or madness?” Not Housebroken, January 22, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/01/12/riot-or-insurrection-lies-or-madness/
  21. [21]Rachel Lerman, “Trump has been suspended from YouTube,” Washington Post, January 13, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/12/trump-youtube-ban/; Margi Murphy, “Facebook, Instagram and Twitter lock Donald Trump’s accounts after praise for Capitol Hill rioters,” Telegraph, January 7, 2021, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/01/06/calls-twitter-facebook-mute-donald-trump-violence-breaks-capitol/; Tony Romm and Elizabeth Dwoskin, “Trump banned from Facebook indefinitely, CEO Mark Zuckerberg says,” Washington Post, January 7, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-resignations-25th-amendment/2021/01/07/e131ce10-50a3-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html; Nitasha Tiku, Tony Romm, and Craig Timberg, “Twitter bans Trump’s account, citing risk of further violence,” Washington Post, January 8, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/08/twitter-trump-dorsey/
  22. [22]Elizabeth Dwoskin and Cat Zakrzewski, “Facebook’s Oversight Board upheld the social network’s decision to ban Trump,” Washington Post, May 5, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/05/facebook-trump-decision/
  23. [23]George Lakoff, Moral Politics, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2002).
  24. [24]David Benfell, “The Donald Trump supporters’ campaign message: Fuck Your Feelings,” Not Housebroken, December 11, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/08/26/the-donald-trump-supporters-campaign-message-fuck-your-feelings/

2 thoughts on “Anarchism, speech, and democracy

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.