@sofia@chaos.social I find this difficult to answer because of how I define 'protest'; as an expression of objection to something that one doesn't have agency over.
In a literal interpretation, a society would only be anarchist to me if it *did* give people agency over what affects them - so either protests are an impossible concept, or the society is not anarchist (and therefore not free) to begin with.
But if I interpret the term more loosely, there are certainly going to be plenty of *disagreements* and *objections* in an anarchist society, and they might be passionate and vocal. It's just that they would manifest (and be resolved) differently from what we know as 'protest' today.
@sofia@chaos.social I guess all this ultimately boils down to "people will always have disagreements because of varying needs and priorities, but that doesn't necessarily need to translate into conflict"
