Would you support reactionaries?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

OK, here's a hypothetical situation for all of you; it's the time after a popular revolution by a mass movement of workers with a revolutionary consciousness - in other words, it is a classless, stateless society.

Now in this hypothetical scenario, there exists a sexist, racist, homophobic newspaper called the Gusano Daily. In order to operate as a newspaper, it requires printing paper, electricity, internet access and similar resources for their website, and of course the paper has to be distributed.

My question is, would any of you be willing to labour in order to provide the services necessary for this newspaper to operate? Remember that you need not worry about providing for yourself if you decide not to - there's no boss with a (metaphorical) whip standing behind you.

[Winter]

I would assume if we were at a trully Communist point of society the people would not allow this newspaper to even operate.

But if it did, I wouldn't do any labor that directly benefitted this newspaper.

[LiberaCHE]

Well this is one of the stranger hypotheticals I have come across.

It could be interpreted as being analagous to dozens of scenarios depending on one's Marxist leanings.

What exactly is the point ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well this is one of the stranger hypotheticals I have come across.

It could be interpreted as being analagous to dozens of scenarios depending on one's Marxist leanings.

What exactly is the point ?

The point is an attempt to determine what would the actions be of those with a revolutionary consciousness (that's the membership of this forum, one would hope) in a post-revolutationary situation.

Not exactly 100% scientific, but I wanted more than mere guesswork on my part.

[LiberaCHE]

So they are a classless & stateless society, with a sexist, racist, and homophobic newspaper ?

And you are wondering if we would assist such a paper ?

[RedAnarchist]

Never in a million years.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So they are a classless & stateless society, with a sexist, racist, and homophobic newspaper ?

And you are wondering if we would assist such a paper ?

Yes. It might strike you as a strange question, but I believe it's an important one. A question that this poll might help to answer.

[RedAnarchist]

Perhaps hes trying to find people to restrict?:lol:

[Plagueround]

I answered yes. I would give them the resources because they have the right to free speech and should be given the same opportunities as others. I then realized what they are promoting would have no value in a communist society and would simply end up being a waste of resources...so, my answer changes to yes, I will give them a single wooden box to stand on and be a dumb bigot, but they wouldn't be allowed resources beyond that.

[Jazzratt]

Of course not. Sure they can try to get their crap sold, but they'll have to do it without my help and (I suspect) the help of much of society. Their freedom of speech does not trump the freedom of others to refuse to lend them a hand.


Perhaps hes trying to find people to restrict?

A strict adherence to the concept of freedom of speech, even to the point where it goes against common sense, is not a restrictable position.

[Post-Something]

This is a very interesting question. But I'm guessing that post-revolution, things like that would be so much easier. With the internet and all, it wouldn't be very difficult to spread your ideas and really vocalize them. Would I personally provide my labor and resources? No. Will somebody else? Most likely yes. If so, should this newspaper be allowed to exist? Well, I think that's up to the community to decide.

[al8]

I singlemindedly voted a resolute NO. I could even be tempted to confront them and give them some hassle if they get somewhere near off foot.

[LiberaCHE]

Whenever I come across "Gusanos" - I get that small throw up taste in my mouth and wish that I could have been sipping a mojito with Che at La Cabana ... so on that alone I voted no.

[spartan]

If so, should this newspaper be allowed to exist? Well, I think that's up to the community to decide.
Free speech is not something any "community" can decide on as it's a fundamental right to all from the first moment you can speak a word (indeed communities deciding on absolutely everything are liable to descend into mob rule sooner than later).

Back on topic i cant see how people speaking freely should be an issue in a socialist society exactly?

Sure you might not like what some misguided people have to say but censoring them is only going to create sympathy for their cause and cast us in a bad light.

I would like to think that we could challenge their views in debates and not resort to preventing them what they need to exercise their fundamental right or censoring what they say outright.

I agree that it's not nice to hear some of there (right-wing) views but i sure as hell am not going to stop them from saying what they say as it would be a bit hypocritical of me as a communist seeing as all we blabber on about is freedom of speech and then dont allow it to certain people we dont like when we create our ideal society.

Individually yes you can not build them what they need to produce their shite, but if someone else agrees to do it then we have absolutely no right to stop them from doing this.

Personally i wouldn't want to use my labour to benefit them but like i just said if someone else wants to then i am not going to stop them.

[The Author]

This is a good question. However,


it's the time after a popular revolution by a mass movement of workers with a revolutionary consciousness - in other words, it is a classless, stateless society.if we are referring to the period after the socialist revolution, during the transition, there will still be classes and a state- the dictatorship of the proletariat. So, under such conditions,


there exists a sexist, racist, homophobic newspaper called the Gusano Daily. In order to operate as a newspaper, it requires printing paper, electricity, internet access and similar resources for their website, and of course the paper has to be distributed.

My question is, would any of you be willing to labour in order to provide the services necessary for this newspaper to operate? Remember that you need not worry about providing for yourself if you decide not to - there's no boss with a (metaphorical) whip standing behind you.my response would be no. The Gusano Daily would be blacklisted and banned immediately as counterrevolutionary literature, and the authors would be imprisoned for spreading their wrong, dangerous ideas. If said authors encouraged people to rise up, or if after serving their prison term they continued distributing similar literature- showing that they did not reform their ways- they would be shot.

In the stateless, classless society (communism)- a society where cultural and economic upbringing is at a high level- such ideas would most likely be extinct like the notions of cannibalism and human sacrifice. If they did, it would be up to the commune to decide the fate of such writers.

[534634634265]

my response would be no. The Gusano Daily would be blacklisted and banned immediately as counterrevolutionary literature, and the authors would be imprisoned for spreading their wrong, dangerous ideas. If said authors encouraged people to rise up, or if after serving their prison term they continued distributing similar literature- showing that they did not reform their ways- they would be shot.
and this is why people think leftists are all extremists who seek to stifle any dissent to their glorious ideals. people like you set the prospects of socialism and communism back to the 1950's. the ideals you espouse are the very things the red scare sought to stop. i don't condone McCarthyism any more than i condone your extremist views.

i voted yes, because in theory no one should see their rights to freedom of speech restricted. people who espouse such views cannot be stopped by violent reactions. you fight ignorance with education, not jail time and death.

[FreeFocus]

I, personally, would be unwilling to labor in order to produce the paper they needed. I would not physically prevent others from doing so, although they should rightly be criticized. Since you said the workers have revolutionary consciousness, however, all of this operates under the assumption that the people writing for and distributing the newspaper are the ones making the paper for it, as hopefully no one else would be participating in the production of such a backwards publication.

And honestly, lol at all the dictatorial statists in this thread talking about abolishing the right of free speech for people who may be spreading these ideas. You may not like them, fine. They may provide ideological support for oppressive systems, fine (which is ethically criminal). But as long as they are not physically acting on their opinions, e.g. attacking gays, inciting racial attacks, etc, you can't justify killing them or even imprisoning them. To argue that doing so is justifiable merely proves that you are little better than the people you claim to be fighting (capitalists, fascists, Nazis, whomever). In other words, if they're only spouting ideas, fight them with ideas. If they try to use violence, smash them, because then they are directly impeding upon the rights of people and their ability to lead enjoyable lives free of terror.

[RHIZOMES]

No. They're allowed to do what they want on the net though, but I doubt in a future stateless, classless society enough people like that would EXIST.

[Plagueround]

i voted yes, because in theory no one should see their rights to freedom of speech restricted. people who espouse such views cannot be stopped by violent reactions. you fight ignorance with education, not jail time and death.

Yes, but allocating them resources would be the equivalent of donating money to stormfront because you support free speech. They can have all the free speech they want, they just can't use community resources to be bigots.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

My question is, would any of you be willing to labour in order to provide the services necessary for this newspaper to operate? Remember that you need not worry about providing for yourself if you decide not to - there's no boss with a (metaphorical) whip standing behind you.
To this question, my answer is a resolute no. I will not give any help to reactionaries.

...however, I would not try to forcibly silence them either. If other people want to give their labour to the Gusano Daily, they should be free to do so.

[RedAnarchist]

A strict adherence to the concept of freedom of speech, even to the point where it goes against common sense, is not a restrictable position.

I wasn't being serious.

[Invader Zim]

Of course not. Sure they can try to get their crap sold, but they'll have to do it without my help and (I suspect) the help of much of society. Their freedom of speech does not trump the freedom of others to refuse to lend them a hand.



A strict adherence to the concept of freedom of speech, even to the point where it goes against common sense, is not a restrictable position.

But there is, of course, a difference between being an advocate of freedom of speech and aiding those with odious views propagate those views.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I notice that some people are saying, to paraphrase, "oh, they can just go on the internet" - but somebody has to provide them with a server to host the website on, a functioning internet connection so that it can be accessed, and so on and so forth. If that somebody was me, I would most definately refuse them.


Free speech is not something any "community" can decide on as it's a fundamental right to all from the first moment you can speak a word (indeed communities deciding on absolutely everything are liable to descend into mob rule sooner than later).

What an absurd caricature! You sound like an uninformed aristo complaining about bourgeouis democracy.

No rights are "fundamental" - rights are entirely human constructs which are assembled and dismantled as humans see fit. The idea that "rights" are inviolable, eternal things with an independant existance of their own is a bourgeouis fantasy. It was progressive in the era of Thomas Paine, but it's quite frankly backward nowadays.


Back on topic i cant see how people speaking freely should be an issue in a socialist society exactly?

Sure you might not like what some misguided people have to say but censoring them is only going to create sympathy for their cause and cast us in a bad light.Do you "sympathise" with Nazis every time one of them gets their head smashed in?

I don't.

Bourgeouis liberals may use progressive violence against reactionaries as an excuse to paint us in a bad light... but who gives a fuck what they think?


I would like to think that we could challenge their views in debates and not resort to preventing them what they need to exercise their fundamental right or censoring what they say outright.Reactionaries are not interested in debate, you should bloody well know this by now.


I agree that it's not nice to hear some of there (right-wing) views but i sure as hell am not going to stop them from saying what they say as it would be a bit hypocritical of me as a communist seeing as all we blabber on about is freedom of speech and then dont allow it to certain people we dont like when we create our ideal society.
Newsflash: everyone has certain speech that they consider offensive, and would suppress with violence if necessary.

"blabbering" about "free speech" is the job of liberals not revolutionaries.


Individually yes you can not build them what they need to produce their shite, but if someone else agrees to do it then we have absolutely no right to stop them from doing this.
Maybe not... But I would sure as all hell raise a stink about it!


i voted yes, because in theory no one should see their rights to freedom of speech restricted. people who espouse such views cannot be stopped by violent reactions. you fight ignorance with education, not jail time and death.

Who said anything about imprisoning or killing anyone?

I'm simply asking a question - would you willingly allow reactionaries to benefit from the fruits of your labour?

Your answer, if you haven't misunderstood the question, is yes. Why? Would you happy providing goods and services for a Nazi newspaper? A capitalist newspaper that sought to put you back in the chains of wage-slavery?

Clearly, we all have a long way to go... some more than others.


But there is, of course, a difference between being an advocate of freedom of speech and aiding those with odious views propagate those views.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head. In classless society, things are no longer "someone else's problem" - no longer are you just wacking out goods and services just to get the next paycheque, but you have to care about your labour and the fruits thereof.

If you refuse to enable reactionary speech, but you're still seeing it in the streets, newspaper stalls and on the internet, that means that someone else is enabling reactionary speech... why? Apart from the most obvious answer, that is - that the enablers themselves are reactionaries!

[GeezAF]

Any workers who supported the views would allocate the fruits of their own labour to the production of the paper, any who didn't believe in that nonsense wouldn't bother. And since I fall into the latter camp I wouldn't. Since in a post-revolutionary society (or, at least the one I would like to see, Anarchist-Communism) you would choose your work.

[spartan]

No rights are "fundamental" - rights are entirely human constructs which are assembled and dismantled as humans see fit.

Perhaps not but there are things which simply shouldn't be done like censoring someone's right to say what they want just because you disagree with it.

If a community decided to get rid of all it's black inhabitants would you support this just because the majority decided this? (and dont come out with utopian nonsense about people not caring about race anymore as you can't predict the future and everyone's mindset).

Like it or not but the majority aren't always right (Hitler getting enough votes to force Hindenburg to appoint him chancellor more then proves this).


Do you "sympathise" with Nazis every time one of them gets their head smashed in?

Personally no but i know alot of people who do sympathise with moderate closet Nazis like the BNP and the people feeling sympathy aren't racist or nationalists either, just normal hard working people who face the same problems that every low income family or person faces in our society.

If you ask them about anarchists then they just think of teenage hoodies graffiting all over walls and a Sex Pistols song, so it looks like anarchists have a lot more work to do in the public perception department compared to the once openly Nazi BNP (who are getting stronger every election).


Reactionaries are not interested in debate, you should bloody well know this by now.

Hmm i debate with reactionaries all the time on other forums.

Anyway what i meant was rebutting their ideas via the use of our press (debate was the first thing that came into my head at the time).

They can have their little press or blog to shout their mouths in and we can have our own to shout in as well.

How they get the materials to produce their crap is up to them and them alone, and if they cant then that's their problem which we can either alleviate or not (it's up to the individuals who are asked by them to help out whether or not they want to, personally i wouldn't).


Newsflash: everyone has certain speech that they consider offensive, and would suppress with violence if necessary.

Why sink to their level?

They have already won the fight if this is done as your violent actions in the face of mear words will allow them to paint you in a bad light thus creating sympathy for them.

There's an old saying which goes "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me."

Perhaps i have thicker skin then you but i couldn't give a rat's ass what some right-winger thinks of left-wingers or socialism, but what i do care about is socialism being cast in a bad light because of an over reaction to the provocative words of people who are desperate to get headlines.

Don't fall into their traps.


Maybe not... But I would sure as all hell raise a stink about it!

As would i but what right have we to physically stop them? (i have no problem with refusing to give your labour to them).

If we do forcefully stop them then who's going to be doing the forcing? The inhabitants of the commune? What if they don't want to, are you going to force them to force others to stop printing stuff that perhaps only you don't like?

If this is the case then i fear that it will only be a matter of time before some self-appointed censorship body is set up and the beginings of a new hierarchy in an anarchist society (of all places) dictating what people should and shouldn't like or print.

At the end of the day it's just words, stuff that can be easily rebutted with little effort on our part.

What are you afraid of exactly? That people will listen to their views and agree?

If that is the case then our future society seems doomed from the start, and no amount of force on our part will stop this (indeed it will be counterproductive as it will create more sympathy for them).

Perhaps this is something that we have overlooked in our analysis of how our future society will be and work?

It certainly makes things a bit shall we say uncomfortable as it directly challenges our supposed core values that we see as being naturally prevalent in our future society.

[loveme4whoiam]

This is a more complicated question than it looks at first glance. At a gut level, I of course say no, I wouldn't voluntarily give my labour in order to help a reactionary group spread its message. As someone very accurately said, there is a difference between respecting free speech and actively enabling free speech that you personally do not agree with.

There will always be reactionary groups which recoil from the changes of society, often by claiming that a return to the "good old days", which were in fact very bad days for those not a part of those groups. In this hypothetical society, I would hope that a far higher social awareness and consciousness of the meaning and intent of all political groups, reactionary and revolutionary and centrist, and that free speech would be an integral part of assisting a vibrant dialogue of political thought in society. From that I would hope that people would embrace the leftist virtues over the right-wing cautioning of change (to put it mildly), and that this paper would find a very small audience, and consequently less people would invest their own labour in promoting its message. In such a society, I would hope that the two most powerful political influencers, education and personal conscience, would work against the reactionaries, with a more benefical effect on society than any violent action I may take privately to stop the reactionaries from reaching people.

Did that make sense? Either way, no, I would never voluntarily work or provide material support for a reactionary cause.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I notice that some people are saying, to paraphrase, "oh, they can just go on the internet" - but somebody has to provide them with a server to host the website on, a functioning internet connection so that it can be accessed, and so on and so forth. If that somebody was me, I would most definately refuse them.
Well, you seem to be assuming a rather extreme level of knowledge about the exact destination of the fruits of your labour.

Presumably someone would have to supply the reactionaries with electricity, too. But do you think a worker at the power plant has any way of knowing which electrons are the ones he produces, and where they are going? Most modern production processes are social and collective - in most cases you can't separate the fruits of your individual labour from the fruits of your coworkers' labour.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well, you seem to be assuming a rather extreme level of knowledge about the exact destination of the fruits of your labour.

Presumably someone would have to supply the reactionaries with electricity, too. But do you think a worker at the power plant has any way of knowing which electrons are the ones he produces, and where they are going? Most modern production processes are social and collective - in most cases you can't separate the fruits of your individual labour from the fruits of your coworkers' labour.

I suspect the power plant worker would work out there is a reactionaries and he/she is getting electricity. The worker would then see if its its possible to cut it off within the power plant.

If not you may find out the electricians decide not to lay electric lines or whatever leading into the reactionaries printing area. Or prehaps just refuse to fix it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I suspect the power plant worker would work out there is a reactionaries and he/she is getting electricity. The worker would then see if its its possible to cut it off within the power plant.
Well yes, but the worker would have to be vigilent and paranoid enough to actively check the list of electricity recipients and see if any of them are known reactionaries. Some people might do this, but the vast majority won't - it just seems like a huge waste of time and effort. I certainly wouldn't bother.

[Chapter 24]

No. Under any condition, I would refuse to give my labor to these maniacs. They are entitled to say what they choose, but when it comes down to it they are not going to receive much if any support. Freedom of speech=/= you get to say whatever you want while simultaneously it is my obligation to provide your voice with the resources necessary for you to express yourself

[bcbm]

I suspect the power plant worker would work out there is a reactionaries and he/she is getting electricity. The worker would then see if its its possible to cut it off within the power plant.

If not you may find out the electricians decide not to lay electric lines or whatever leading into the reactionaries printing area. Or prehaps just refuse to fix it.

So if one day you say something that offends me, I can cut off your power? And hey, let's say some community decided something I didn't like, I'll just shut off their power too, eh?

This is a rather dangerous road you're traveling.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

So if one day you say something that offends me, I can cut off your power? And hey, let's say some community decided something I didn't like, I'll just shut off their power too, eh?

This is a rather dangerous road you're traveling.

Yeah and if you do that the community will (unless they go insane) decide your a prat and aint getting any resources until you turn it back on.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well yes, but the worker would have to be vigilent and paranoid enough to actively check the list of electricity recipients and see if any of them are known reactionaries. Some people might do this, but the vast majority won't - it just seems like a huge waste of time and effort. I certainly wouldn't bother.

No that would be abit creepy but if you know a right winger near you or whatever you may just look up there name and disconnect it that way.

[Mala Tha Testa]

if they wanted to i they can but i'm not going to labor for it. so no.

[Red_Dialectics]

No, I wouldn't help them one bit. Though they deserve to speak their piece, I don't think they would find much support anyway. I hope that in the great tradition of Marxists since Marx himself, we would use criticism, debate, and dialectics to ideologically crush them. We already know those ideas are backward, reactionary and morally inferior, so it would be really easy to prove they are just whackos. Although, if they did anything to physically act on those hateful, putrid ideals I'm sure the rest of the community would be pointing AKs in their direction in no-time.

[TheGonz]

I think it is a fundamental contradiction of the whole idea of communism to answer this question as a "no." Freedom to choose means that if you want to be a homophobic, racist, sexist, pigfucker, then you have as much of a right to do so as I do to think otherwise. Real liberty is the inexorable human ability to say, and more importantly think, whatever you want. You can't pick and choose what ideas you think people should have, and you can't limit freedom of speech-freedom of expression. To do so would be authoritarian, closed-minded, and borderline fascist. Propogating one idea over another is not freedom, it is the path to propaganda of the most base and virulent kind. Although I would not actively support such a newspaper, if my job made it necessary to provide them some kind of support, I would do so because I believe in the right to think differently, not because I believe in their cause. I voted yes.

[Sentinel]

No, and I'd try to persuade others from doing it as well.

[rocker935]

I answered yes. I would give them the resources because they have the right to free speech and should be given the same opportunities as others. I then realized what they are promoting would have no value in a communist society and would simply end up being a waste of resources...so, my answer changes to yes, I will give them a single wooden box to stand on and be a dumb bigot, but they wouldn't be allowed resources beyond that.

I agree, except my answer was no because I wouldn't go out of my way to help them(not even a wooden box) but I would not stop them from doing the stupid shit that they are doing.

[bcbm]

Yeah and if you do that the community will (unless they go insane) decide your a prat and aint getting any resources until you turn it back on.

A power plant would probably supply a number of communities in any given area, so I could probably make do without their resources anyway. You're rather missing the point of the example anyway. Are we allowed to deny people the basics of modern civilization because we disagree with them? How deep does the disagreement have to go before we can start denying power, or food, or water, or land? Again this is a dangerous road. Your scenario also gives far too much power to the individual worker.

[Decolonize The Left]

I voted no - there's no way I would willingly aid/perpetuate/condone racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...

That is unless I had some elaborate plan to convince the other workers not to support such ideas from the inside of the organization (and hence to organize some sort of strike), but I doubt I would do this, so no.

- August

[Labor Shall Rule]

At that point in time, I doubt if the printed press would even be important. The Internet Will Rule alongside with Labor.

[ckaihatsu]

I think the point here is that should the ruling masses, in a true workers state, really have to respond to backwardness in an ad-hoc fashion?

Obviously *someone* will feel personally offended by the filth put out by some overlooked holdout bigot, in this hypothetical post-revolution scenario. Would they *have* to deal with this offense themselves, or would they just be able to just call 9-1-1, so that the state can handle it?

It can simply be called a public nuisance, and be handled appropriately. If the same person has cause to be offended a second time, or a second person for the first time, then there could be injunctions, seizure, jail time, etc.


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Revolutiondownunder]

Is it just me or is this a bit of a silly question.

In a classless society why would such a paper even exist?

[Raúl Duke]

NO.

and if other collectives refuse to provide them with materials I will support them.
Absolute free press probably never existed and maybe never will. In capitalism the elite can widely disseminate their stuff and stuff they agree on yet other ideas (that they don't view favorably,etc) or controversial news (which might blame the parent company for some work-place atrocity, etc) gets shut out of the mass media.

In a revolutionary society, the masses will decide instead of the elite.

However, the internet is another thing. They might get more leverage on that yet maybe even IT internet server workers might refuse to host reactionary sites.

The only way they could pull that off is if the reactionaries made a collective for every process in the making, publishing, and distribution of such magazine/website/newspaper, etc.

[Dr Mindbender]

To this question, my answer is a resolute no. I will not give any help to reactionaries.

...however, I would not try to forcibly silence them either. If other people want to give their labour to the Gusano Daily, they should be free to do so.

this.

but i doubt that such a publication would last long anyway. Under post capitalist conciousness, racism, homophobia etc would quickly become as irrelevant and as stupid as the slave trade or the idea that the sun orbits the earth.

[Slovo]

As most other people did, I voted no. To those who say that everybody is deserving of free speech, that does not mean that anybody is obliged to provide reactionary views a platform in the ability to distribute a newspaper. That paper, electricity etc. can go to something far more useful that the workers who provided those things, and general society as a whole, can agree is worthwhile. :)

[Abluegreen7]

No I would not isnt that what we fight against on this forum.

[Goose]

Well I for one can't envisage why this paper would exist, but since I am actually a journalist, and you've thrown this weird paper that I'd have shut down immediately post-revolution, fuck it yeah - I'd love to write about tits, and the fact that Gypsies are slowly taking over our country.

What sort of a dumb question is this?

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

My question is, would any of you be willing to labour in order to provide the services necessary for this newspaper to operate?
Wouldn't even ever consider it.
In fact I would be one of the first to start opposition against it.

[BraneMatter]

...sexist, racist, homophobic ...


Sexist: Do I have the free speech right to advocate that women are somehow less human than men, and therefore not entitled to fair and equal treatment, and it's ok to abuse them?

Racist: Do I have the free speech right to advocate the slavery and the genocide of other men because of their race?

Homophobic: Do I have the free speech right to advocate that persecution and violence be directed against those who have a sexual orientation that is not 'approved' of by some authority? Can I advocate beating them up, killing them, or maybe just denying them a job to earn a living?

Did some "god" give me the above 'authorities' and 'rights' to advocate against other men and women in such manner? Which god? Apollo, Jupiter, Venus, Jesus, Shiva?

Did 'nature' give me the right? I checked the library, and there are no authors of any law books named "nature."

Did the state? Which state? And why should I accept its authority as opposed to another? And who was it that said, "government is force" (hint: last name starts with "W")? So is that the rule?

So from whence do I derive these 'free speech rights,' that allow one to advocate such things as sexism, racism, and homophobia?

Who is it that agrees to this "list of rights," and by what authority must I obey them or even agree?

Should I be free to solicit murder (of "sub-humans," or anyone I consider worthless or offensive)? Slavery (after all, they're just savages)? Gang rape (well, women are only "sex objects" for men's use, right?)?

Yes, it's an interesting question.

I remember when I was in the Navy, and a certain bully in the barracks told a friend of mine that he had no rights. My friend answered that he had whatsoever rights he chose to defend, and made it clear to the bully that he fully intended to defend them. The bully decided he was not such an easy pushover! Wise choice, as my friend was an All-State tackle on the State Championship AAAA football team from Texas, and not easily intimidated.

Perhaps political power is not the only thing that comes out of the barrel of a gun...

Oh, I know, government of, by and for the people, and all that. But it is backed up by the Second Amendment!

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

A power plant would probably supply a number of communities in any given area, so I could probably make do without their resources anyway. You're rather missing the point of the example anyway. Are we allowed to deny people the basics of modern civilization because we disagree with them? How deep does the disagreement have to go before we can start denying power, or food, or water, or land? Again this is a dangerous road. Your scenario also gives far too much power to the individual worker.

I think the disagreement should be into the worker/majority of workforce themselves believes its right to cut off power, food or whatever. Off course this will need the acceptance of the community for example if roy the farmer refuses to give any of his food to scot because scot farts on public transport , the community will just stop supplying stuff to roy the farmer until he grows up.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would assume if we were at a trully Communist point of society the people would not allow this newspaper to even operate.

Sentiment like this weakens the left.

[Vendetta]

No.