What do anarchists want to achieve?
- Thread starter max_freakout
- Start date
max_freakout
Nothing matters
max_freakout
Nothing matters
what do you do with criminals in an anarchist society?
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
Punishment beatings.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Eat them with baby coulis.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Much of what is now defined as crime would no longer exist. The vast majority of crime is property crime. (73% of all crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2005/6 - Office for National Statistics, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nscl.asp?id=5685). The communalisation of property and an ethic of mutual aid would reduce both the necessity and the motivation for property crimes. Anarchists predict that as the anarchist society was built, these crimes would decrease.
Crimes against people seem more complex, but if we are right that many of those stem from societally caused disorders, these should manifest differently in a different society, as well as reduce in incidence in a society tuned to human co-operation and mutual aid. Current society is sick, and that pathology manifests in maladapted behaviours. As social animals, we are evolved to interact. Even our sense of self is built by feedback from our social group. (c/f Mead).
In a social anarchist society, crime would be redefined as an act harmful to the liberties of others. Hostile acts against the community could be prevented as an anarchist society matures, above all, by imbuing a respect for the dignity of each person, a sense of solidarity with your community, and a recognition that your community will reciprocate if you act well, but will not long tolerate anti social behaviour. (If you need your comrades’ help, it is in your interests not to piss them off). Healthy communities have always tended towards this, but the breakdown of community and the atomisation of society has progressively meant these traditional mechanisms have broken down. If you know none of your neighbours beyond saying hello on the stair, then those mechanisms will not be there at all. An anarchist society would seek to reverse that.
Anarchist values would be reinforced with the strongest of human bonds, those of solidarity and self-respect. Many studies show that humans, and indeed primates in general, value fairness and justice. If the right conditions are provided, those instincts will be properly enabled. That does not mean no crimes will exists. But those remaining crimes would not be administered by a permanent criminal justice class of lawyers, police and judges; and criminals would not be tossed into prisons, (which Kropotkin once labelled 'universities of crime'). Common law and regularly rotated juries could decide whether a particular act was a crime, and could criticize, censure, ostracize or even banish the criminal. However, in most cases we anticipate that criminals would be placed in the care and guidance of members of the community, since they have to better learn solidarity and self respect.
Crimes against people seem more complex, but if we are right that many of those stem from societally caused disorders, these should manifest differently in a different society, as well as reduce in incidence in a society tuned to human co-operation and mutual aid. Current society is sick, and that pathology manifests in maladapted behaviours. As social animals, we are evolved to interact. Even our sense of self is built by feedback from our social group. (c/f Mead).
In a social anarchist society, crime would be redefined as an act harmful to the liberties of others. Hostile acts against the community could be prevented as an anarchist society matures, above all, by imbuing a respect for the dignity of each person, a sense of solidarity with your community, and a recognition that your community will reciprocate if you act well, but will not long tolerate anti social behaviour. (If you need your comrades’ help, it is in your interests not to piss them off). Healthy communities have always tended towards this, but the breakdown of community and the atomisation of society has progressively meant these traditional mechanisms have broken down. If you know none of your neighbours beyond saying hello on the stair, then those mechanisms will not be there at all. An anarchist society would seek to reverse that.
Anarchist values would be reinforced with the strongest of human bonds, those of solidarity and self-respect. Many studies show that humans, and indeed primates in general, value fairness and justice. If the right conditions are provided, those instincts will be properly enabled. That does not mean no crimes will exists. But those remaining crimes would not be administered by a permanent criminal justice class of lawyers, police and judges; and criminals would not be tossed into prisons, (which Kropotkin once labelled 'universities of crime'). Common law and regularly rotated juries could decide whether a particular act was a crime, and could criticize, censure, ostracize or even banish the criminal. However, in most cases we anticipate that criminals would be placed in the care and guidance of members of the community, since they have to better learn solidarity and self respect.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
/derail
That makes me think of very early English law - the legal reforms of Alfred the Great. I saw it in one of those Tony Robinson programs iirc. About how communities agreed on law, and those that broke it became outlaws - outside the law. But then the law would have been extremely community based at the time. (of course such societies were also hierachal and not anarchist, just made me think).
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Cripes, outbreak of perfect sense shocker on max thread!!!!
(very well argued dtr
)max_freakout
Nothing matters
what would happen to violent, psychopathic criminals?
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I wonder if you know what psychopathy is, or if you're using it as an intensifier?
According to ICD-10 (http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/), psychopathy is a synonym for Dissocial Personality Disorder, which is given as those showing:
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
- Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
- Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
- Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
- Marked proneness to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.
- Persistent irritability.
Most people with the disorder go undiagnosed, so estimates as to how many there are vary. In the UK it is generally agreed around 0.5% - 1% of the population have Dissocial Personality Disorder, and more men than women.
Most do not go into what we currently call crime. Most are highly successful, and become captains of industry, or go into politics. (It is my serious contention that Margaret Thatcher displayed many of the classic characteristics). Most do not commit violent crime.
There is some overlap with Antisocial Behaviour Disorder, which is the term used by DSM-IV (diagnostic handbook of the American Psychiatric Association). But interestingly, when American prisoners are diagnosed with this, more come out (about 80% of prisoners) as having the condition than when diagnosed with the ICD-10 criteria (around 34%). Some argue that therefore DSM-IV is merely describing those we tend to put in prison.
In general, though, UK professionals use ICD-10, and American use DSM-IV.
There is now evidence to suggest neurological damage is the cause, suggesting a medical therapy may be found. Currently behavioural therapies don't work.
While all of this is interesting, none of it is outside the scope of my post about an anarchist approach to crime, above.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
There is also evidence to show that attachment problems in early life can lead to personality disorders. Attachment problems are exacerbated by the isolated individualised lives that a lot of mothers lead in our society. In a anarchist society, children would also be the responsibility of the wider community, giving mothers much more support and reducing attachment problems.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
(Mothers and fathers). Absolutely. For the avoidance of doubt, Max, psychopathy is a small subset of personality disorder.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
so what would happen to violent, psychopathic criminals in an anarchist society?
Cid
Proper break this time
Incidentally, because my understanding of anarchism only goes so far, is there provision made for professions that actually need a degree of centralisation? Largely talking about scientific research which requires massive amounts of input in both materials and manpower (and imo if we stop progressing in this sense then we are pretty much dooming ourselves), but also what about academia (a lot of which has no immediate or obvious benefit to a community), international aid etc?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yes, I did. Clever boy.
Now, why not reflect on the difference between "police", and "policing".
Hint: The latter is not merely the action of the former.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I've already answered that in post #253.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That would depend on the construction of the community that was offended against.
I'd suggest that you read up on pre-modern law for an idea of how communities dealt with such matters prior to/outwith a national criminal justice system. It might assuage some of your ignorance, stop you repeating yourself and inform you as to how the answer to your question might pan out.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
no you didnt, please explain, in a practical sense, what an anarchist society would do with a criminal (particularly in view of the fact that an anarchist society, according to you, doent have any police)
ie, there is a violent criminal causing harm to others, what can be done to stop him?
the button
out on the kocker
Neckshot.
the button
out on the kocker
Oh, you meant criminals.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
i mean the typical kind of community in the anarchist society that the "anarchists" posting here want to achieve
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I outlined the general principles above. The specifics would depend on two things: 1, the circumstances. 2, the community.
The second is the bit that non anarchists find frustrating. But what anarchists want is bottom-up decision making. It is up to the community to make decisions. If anarchist activists laid out tablets of stone for all circumstances, that'd be regarded by most anarchists today as dangerous vanguardism.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
im not asking about the principles, im asking about what would actually happen, in a real situation, to a violent psychopathic criminal, in an anarchist society
Cid
Proper break this time
You're completely missing the point, the community decides what is done with him dependent on the case.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Danny, one thing that's just occured to me...
Re: your post about the usefulness of psychopathic personailty traits in succeeding in business, would this mean that such personalities would become more of a social probelem - or at least a different one - if they existed in a society that allowed no legitimate outlet for them? This pre-supposes that the prime cause is physiological, with environmental conditioning being higly influential in how that personality develops of course, but given what you were saying about the failings of behavioural techniques to deal with such personalities, it would suggest that aberrant behaviours (which within an anarchy would be even more aberrant to the prevailing consensus of acceptable behaviours) like this have a physical cause.
Interesting thread - I remember asking the same things as Max on here about 4/5 years ago, but getting the whole sel-policing concept a bit quicker...and one of teh things that led me to develop my own ideas about anarchism...
Re: your post about the usefulness of psychopathic personailty traits in succeeding in business, would this mean that such personalities would become more of a social probelem - or at least a different one - if they existed in a society that allowed no legitimate outlet for them? This pre-supposes that the prime cause is physiological, with environmental conditioning being higly influential in how that personality develops of course, but given what you were saying about the failings of behavioural techniques to deal with such personalities, it would suggest that aberrant behaviours (which within an anarchy would be even more aberrant to the prevailing consensus of acceptable behaviours) like this have a physical cause.
Interesting thread - I remember asking the same things as Max on here about 4/5 years ago, but getting the whole sel-policing concept a bit quicker...and one of teh things that led me to develop my own ideas about anarchism...
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
The community would decide. That's how community self management works.
I envisage autonomous communities at about the size of modern Scottish community council areas. (I assume that's roughly equivalent to English parish council areas, but I don't know for certain). They'd be federated with other communities for those things they couldn't do alone.
But I'm guessing what you're interested in is how this extreme case affects the notion of individual liberty, so I'll outline how I see it. (I stress, this is my view; other anarchists might disagree).
We each have total liberty, in an anarchist society. However, we are a social animal, and those around us also have total liberty. This is where equality and solidarity come into the picture. Freedom, equality and solidarity are all aspects of the same thing. Freedom is not possible without equality, and equality is not possible without freedom.
Another way of describing freedom is to call it individual autonomy. If you have access to more power than I do (wealth, means of production, status etc), then you, by definition, infringe my individual autonomy. To put it simply, if you can boss me, then I don't have individual autonomy, and we don't have equality. This is balanced by the mechanism of solidarity. In other words, there is a triangle of total liberty, with the three equal sides being freedom, equality and solidarity. As social animals, we achieve more if we co-operate, in other words by mutual aid. A community which runs itself consensually, in a libertarian way, will be the best way of ensuring that the individual autonomy of all its members is safeguarded.
(*as an aside, I personally believe that it is well within order if an individualist wants to live outside of the community, perhaps in an family unit, in whatever way they see fit. That would not be for the community to interfere with, so long as they did not interfere with the community).
Now we come to anti social behaviour. If you infringe my individual autonomy in some way, I am entitled to defend my freedom against your coercion. That could be on a large scale: defending freedom from tyranny. Or on a small scale: defending myself from an attacker.
It is important to recognise that if you come at me with a weapon, you are the instigator of the violence. I may use whatever means necessary to repel your attack on me, but the responsibility for both the force you used and the force I use to repel you is yours.
Thus if a violent criminal is attacking a community (and this is an extreme case: random violence is rare), then that community will obviously defend itself. Anarchists are not Amish. We have learned from Winstanley and the Diggers, for example, that a community must defend itself, just as a revolutionary society must defend the revolution.
So if (in an anarchist society) a homicidal maniac is coming at my family with a knife, I will use whatever means is at my disposal to defend them. Just as I would now. And if I could help another family under attack, I hope I would, just as I hope they would help me.
Does that answer your question?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Chine Melviele using the phrase 'choice theft' to describe crimes in an anarchist society in the book Perdido street station. One character has commited a choice theft in full knowledge of exactly what they were doing - in this case it was what we call rape, but this society's view was not informed by any of the 'moral' notions we have about it, but about the implication for the choices that the 'victim' could make in the future may have been reduced, and that the perp knew that this would happen. And it was for the theft of choice, not the act itself, that the character is hunted and punished for.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I don't believe an anarchist society to be aberrant. I believe we are currently (to use the jargon) alienated from our species being. And that an anarchist society would be healthier for humans. This is obviously an opinion, but one I think is well founded.
The thing about psychopathic personalities is that if a medical intervention isn't found before a libertarian society is established (grin), and if those individuals don't see cooperating within a community as being in their best interests, then perhaps they are the type of people who will operate outside communities. Setting up their own Waldens, if you like.
Similar threads
