anarchism and crime

[danny la rouge]

I don't think a network of individual communities all with their own agendas could do this.

You don't think federation can work? Why not? International post suggests otherwise.

 

[kyser_soze]

agressive religious movements

I've been thinking about anarchism and religion generally, as I'm not one of those who thinks that religion would simply dissappear in an anarchism; I suspect that in the first case other elements of the same faith, possibly even some kind of ecumencism, would act to police itself before (possibly) involving the wider community.

Just for a quick muse, I think that religion within anarchism would be a very, very different beast to today. If you accept that religion recreates/reflects dominant structures within itself, then under an anarchism that would be very, very different. I would guess that variants on the gathered churches would be the norm. Perhaps it could even start to become a mechanism by which people understand themselves (which IMV is partly what religious faith is about) - imagine that! Religion that actually produces socially enlightened people.

As for 'aggressive' religions...while your definition isn't completely clear, such things on an individual basis tend to be long lasting, but small scale (Westboro Baptist), or spread quickly but burn out as the founder leaves/is discredited/schisms appear. Don't forget, breakaway religious sects are no different in behaviour to small political sects in terms of behaviours and psychology. Anything bigger that didn't implode or simply burn out would eventually be incorporated into something bigger, or smaller.

 

[Zachor]

You don't think federation can work? Why not? International post suggests otherwise.

I agree that federations can work (look at the USA for example) but I believe they would in general be slow in reacting to a crisis. A state can act quickly to protect its citizens when necessary.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That has been my experience of anarchists. Others may think differently.

I still think anarchism falls down against practical challenges.

Which begs the question of what you believe "anarchism" to be.

How would an anarchist society deal with such things as:

climate change
the invasion of a community by another community
agressive religious movements

You appear to be assuming that "anarchism" would have no mechanism(s) to engage in any of these issues. Do you believe that anarchism(s) don't have recourse to duly-constituted methods for engagement with such issues?

 

[dylanredefined]

I think you would still have a police force it would probably be smaller and
and be more flexible in its reponse ,but, If you roll out of the pub and decide smashing stuff up is the way to go .Still think you might end up the next morning in a cell having been placed there none too gently if you were behaving like a dick.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I agree with you (there is a first time for everything ) I think that part of the reason why Tony Martin went over the top was because the state had forgotten its obligations to protect him and his property and appeared in his eyes to be siding with the criminal.

Martin is irrelevant. If there had been no police force and his concerns hadn't already been looked into, he might be relevant. As it was, he chose to act outside of his own obligations to the "social contract".

Again agree up to a point. If we are handing the collective / state a monopoly of violence then the citizens need to be assured that this right to violence will not be abused.

You're kind of missing the point that once that monopoly is enacted, then the citizenry have precisely no power to remove it. The best they can try to do is ameliorate its' abuse.

This point has validity but I don't think that the answer is to try to create yet another failed utopia but to make democracy work better.

Interesting that you make the assumption that any anarchism would be a "failed utopia". Redolent of someone who's already made up their mind, regardless of any contrary information.

 

[danny la rouge]

I agree that federations can work (look at the USA for example) but I believe they would in general be slow in reacting to a crisis. A state can act quickly to protect its citizens when necessary.

I'll leave aside whether states always act quickly to protect citizens, and just ask why you think federations couldn't react to a crisis.

 

[Zachor]

I'll be back withh some more comments later but I've got stuff to do. Maybe some form of federations can work in certain circumstances and this is an interesting line of debate.

 

[bluestreak]

You keep saying things but you don't explain why these things are thus.

"Anarchism won't work because it won't"is not an argument. Repeating it is not an explanation. Fine if you think anarchism doesn't have the tools to deal with the social problems you suggest but believing that the answer is "because i said so" is not evidence of a well-considered argument.

 

[frogwoman]

Yes, there would.

But here we come to the point at which many people start to get irritated with anarchists, because anarchism doesn't seek to impose a blueprint on the free society. In other words, rather that say that the mechanisms for this should be x, y or z, anarchists say, 'here are the principles by which a free society should operate (in order to deserve the definition), but we don't want to pass down edicts or prejudge how a community might decide to run its affairs. That decision belongs to the community, not to a vanguard of activists who know best'.

There are discussions on how an anarchist society might want to do particular things, but there is not - there should not be - a prescription.

fair enough - but what's to stop, in an anarchist society- a community adopting something like say the "sheet test" to find out if someone is a virgin before marriage, or other oppressive forms of community tradition, which hides stuff like this? or are we assuming that the level/nature of anarchist education in the society would be such that this kind of thing would be known to be oppressive, people would know about their rights and therefore not done?

 

[kyser_soze]

You answer your own question, padawan

TBH I don't have the utopian rosy glow that says that such practices would stop altogether - at least for the first couple of generations at least before you not only had a majority of people whose culture was purely anarchist having known nothing else, but also (hopefully) having dealt with the issues surrounding how such a society at large would deal with serious anomie like that.

It does raise the question of course, if someone willingly submits to living in some form of hierarchy, what happens if they have kids? Where does the balance lie in ensuring the child isn't indoctrinated into hierarchy, and the mother's right to not have her upbringing of the child interfered with by external actors?

 

[danny la rouge]

are we assuming that the level/nature of anarchist education in the society would be such that this kind of thing would be known to be oppressive, people would know about their rights and therefore not done?

We are. In fact, we are assuming that the social revolution won't have come about in the first place without considerable groundwork.

 

[danny la rouge]

Froggie, as an aside, the Spanish Revolution is an interesting illustration here. I'm currently reading An Anarchist's Story: the life of Ethel MacDonald, by Chris Dolan. It's written by a non anarchist, and so is a bit irritating when discussing theory, but it gives the fullest portrait yet of this Scottish anarchist. She went to Spain during the revolution, and her reports back were celebrated at the time.

The picture you get is the same outlined by Bookchin in his history of the pre-revolutionary groundwork, The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years ; anarchist organisation in the decades before the revolution had meant a highly politicised working and peasant class, fully used to and in admiration of the anarchist message.

For example, according to Dolan, the work done by anarchists in the Raval area of Barcelona, where the red light district was, was extensive. There were women's colleges here, support groups, sex education work, girls' and women's literacy centres, and - significantly - work was also done with the buyers of prostitution, pointing out that prostitution was another way that traditional - Catholic - Spain subjugated women and paralysed them politically. As a result, Barcelona's sex workers were enthusiastic supporters of the revolution.

 

[bluestreak]

The thread Danny links to provides a whole raft of possible ideas that go beyond 'fuck da police' mentality (which anyone who thinks about it for more than 20 seconds moves beyond anyway)

No one is saying that there wouldn't be policing, nor that there wouldn't be a mechanism for criminal justice, just simply that any police-types that did exist would be agents to enforce/reinforce community control, rather than be state agents, acting on behalf of the state to enforce state rules on communities.

There's nothing to say that, for example, in one area/community/town that drug use wasn't tolerated by the people living there - therefore there would be some form of self-policing to make people aware of this, and to move any malefactors on. This would be done, however, within the aegis of the community, not out of blind obedience to a set of written laws.

The key difference in an anarchism is that 'policing' would start at the level of the individual 'policing' their own behaviour; rather than being told to 'be good' and having laws to reinforce this behaviour, people recognise that being good is a useful thing in and of itself. People police themselves; communities police themselves; nations police themselves.

It's not like you're simply taking existing society and removing the police - an anarchism would be populated by poeple who think in a radically different way to us about themselves and their social relationships, not in a socialist/communist ideological sense that seeks to deny any thinking that isn't communist or socialist, but that people accept and understand that certain modes of thinking are ultimately damaging to themselves and others and behave accordingly. People wouldn't behave like capiatlists because ideology tells them it's wrong and bad - they wouldn't do it because they'd know that capitalism as a set of social relations damages everyone in it - from the richest capitalist to the poorest peasant, and that there are simply better choices of behaviour to make.

Also, can I just point out what a great post this is.

 

[Zachor]

Martin is irrelevant. If there had been no police force and his concerns hadn't already been looked into, he might be relevant. As it was, he chose to act outside of his own obligations to the "social contract".

Up to a point I agree. But to him and people like him the State / Collective has reneged on the social contract. Anyway there are subtlies in that case.

You're kind of missing the point that once that monopoly is enacted, then the citizenry have precisely no power to remove it. The best they can try to do is ameliorate its' abuse.

Agreed. However, the state/collective must survive as it is what supports and protects the majority therefore there is a need for the state to have that monopoly. I think that what people crave once they start to think about society is some form of stability and this is what a state can give that other forms of society do not. I think that if the state does have a monopoly of violence then there must be effective methods to control abuses of such a monopoly.

Interesting that you make the assumption that any anarchism would be a "failed utopia". Redolent of someone who's already made up their mind, regardless of any contrary information.

I've seen and read of too many failed utopian ideas and projects. Anarchism seems to share many charactaristics of such ideas. From Soviet style communism, though fascism to minor although no less tragic attempts to have a utopia which failed such as Jonestown.

I think one of the main problems I have with anarchism is although the libertarian part appeals it doesn't look like it has answers to big problems and there is a danger that as with other similar movements what is proclaimed as a new freedom rapidly mutates into oppression of those with dissenting ideas.

 

[Zachor]

You keep saying things but you don't explain why these things are thus.

"Anarchism won't work because it won't"is not an argument. Repeating it is not an explanation. Fine if you think anarchism doesn't have the tools to deal with the social problems you suggest but believing that the answer is "because i said so" is not evidence of a well-considered argument.

I should have made myself more plain and your words are sensible and the ones I should have used.

I don't think that anarchism has anything like the tools to deal with large events and situations such as climate and environmental issues nor can it deal with famine or exchange of goods etc etc.

Even looking at the idea of what trade would be like under a global anarchist system is a nightmare. Things would be equally if not worse under this type of system than the current one. How do you deal with communities that have nothing to trade in an anarchrist 'economy' for instance? How do you prevent some communities practicing slavery in order to gain advantage over over groups? What about resource allocation?

No If you turned the country over to anarchist ideals tomorrow we would soon have mass deaths and destruction. Even if you changed the humans to educate them in the 'ideal' anarchist way of thinking you would still end up in a dangerous and violent world.

 

[danny la rouge]

Zachor, please, read some books or something. Your view of what anarchism is appears to be so bizarre that I really can't begin to know how to respond.

 

[Fruitloop]

It's some kind of sexual thing I think. 'Sadistic libidinal investments' and all that. Either way, it's like talking to a brick wall, I really wouldn't bother.

 

[phildwyer]

Just for a quick muse, I think that religion within anarchism would be a very, very different beast to today. If you accept that religion recreates/reflects dominant structures within itself, then under an anarchism that would be very, very different. I would guess that variants on the gathered churches would be the norm. Perhaps it could even start to become a mechanism by which people understand themselves (which IMV is partly what religious faith is about) - imagine that! Religion that actually produces socially enlightened people.

I suppose that anarchism applied to religion would involve the dismantling of any hierarchically-organized church, and a re-integration of spirituality into everyday life. As for example in Hindu societies, where nothing is religious because everything is spiritual.

 

[danny la rouge]

I suppose that anarchism applied to religion would involve the dismantling of any hierarchically-organized church, and a re-integration of spirituality into everyday life. As for example in Hindu societies, where nothing is religious because everything is spiritual.

Although Hinduism is about as hierarchical as you can get. That'd be the antithesis of anarchism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I suppose that anarchism applied to religion would involve the dismantling of any hierarchically-organized church, and a re-integration of spirituality into everyday life. As for example in Hindu societies, where nothing is religious because everything is spiritual.

IMHO the Society of Friends are a good example of what a religion might be if anarchism were applied to it.

 

[Azrael]

The key difference in an anarchism is that 'policing' would start at the level of the individual 'policing' their own behaviour; rather than being told to 'be good' and having laws to reinforce this behaviour, people recognise that being good is a useful thing in and of itself. People police themselves; communities police themselves; nations police themselves.

But this is what underpins the English notion of policing by consent. The police aren't close to omniscient, and rely on the majority restraining themselves. Private prosecutions used to be the norm, and the laws provided a framework for that. You can argue that laws were written by elites, but the method of enforcement remains similar to what you're talking about.

As Edward Burke said, "Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

 

[frogwoman]

Froggie, as an aside, the Spanish Revolution is an interesting illustration here. I'm currently reading An Anarchist's Story: the life of Ethel MacDonald, by Chris Dolan. It's written by a non anarchist, and so is a bit irritating when discussing theory, but it gives the fullest portrait yet of this Scottish anarchist. She went to Spain during the revolution, and her reports back were celebrated at the time.

The picture you get is the same outlined by Bookchin in his history of the pre-revolutionary groundwork, The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years ; anarchist organisation in the decades before the revolution had meant a highly politicised working and peasant class, fully used to and in admiration of the anarchist message.

For example, according to Dolan, the work done by anarchists in the Raval area of Barcelona, where the red light district was, was extensive. There were women's colleges here, support groups, sex education work, girls' and women's literacy centres, and - significantly - work was also done with the buyers of prostitution, pointing out that prostitution was another way that traditional - Catholic - Spain subjugated women and paralysed them politically. As a result, Barcelona's sex workers were enthusiastic supporters of the revolution.

that's really interesting, cheers

 

[Zachor]

IMHO the Society of Friends are a good example of what a religion might be if anarchism were applied to it.

Agree that Quakers are 'religious anarchists' but that cuts both ways both good and bad. Decision making for example is slower than a snails pace I believe.

I'm a great respecter of Quakers (related distantly to one well known 19th C one ) Which is why I feel so very shocked when they do stupid and dangerous stuff like allowing representatives of racist terrorist organisations to meet at Friends House.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/04/01/the-quakers-betray-george-fox-john-rees-disgraces-the-left/

Shame they are sometimes so open minded their fucking brains fall out sometimes.

 

[bluestreak]

I suppose that anarchism applied to religion would involve the dismantling of any hierarchically-organized church, and a re-integration of spirituality into everyday life. As for example in Hindu societies, where nothing is religious because everything is spiritual.

Well, there is a fine tradition of what has been called christian anarchism in europe in the 16-18 centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

 

[tangentlama]

Good paper here - The Autonomy-Community Balance and the Equity-Law Distinction:
Anarchy's Task for Psychological Jurisprudence, url: http://www.dennisfox.net/papers/balance.html

 

[ViolentPanda]

Agree that Quakers are 'religious anarchists' but that cuts both ways both good and bad. Decision making for example is slower than a snails pace I believe.

I'm a great respecter of Quakers (related distantly to one well known 19th C one ) Which is why I feel so very shocked when they do stupid and dangerous stuff like allowing representatives of racist terrorist organisations to meet at Friends House.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/04/01/the-quakers-betray-george-fox-john-rees-disgraces-the-left/

Shame they are sometimes so open minded their fucking brains fall out sometimes.

Both you and the author and commenters on that link seem to have a rather vague idea of Quakerism in general and the peace pledge in particular are about. May I suggest a little research.
As for your "racist terrorist organisation" quip, I suspect you're smearing HAMAS again, rather than talking about any actual racist terrorist organisation?

I can see why you love Harry's Place. It's chock-full of people as deluded and self-congratulatory as you are, all circle-jerking each other to greater heights of right-wing nonsense.

 

[tangentlama]

It's some kind of sexual thing I think. 'Sadistic libidinal investments' and all that. Either way, it's like talking to a brick wall, I really wouldn't bother.

Yes http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/sh...ighlight=keyboardJockey+masochist#post7697512

and Yes: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=254950

Can't we just put Zachor on ignore, and talk about the actual topic for a change, rather than be distracted by his o-so-predictable-trolling?