Some Questions About Anarchism

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I've done a little bit of reading about anarchism and would consider myself an Anarchist, since I oppose both the state and capitalism but I have some questions about anarchy in theory and practice that have not been answered in my (brief) research.

1. What happens to dissenter in and anarchist community? Ie nazis, statists, capitalists. Assuming they take no violent action against the community.
2. How are murderers and rapists dealt with in an anarchist community? Is there some sort of vigilante police force or what?
3. How does an Anarchist community defend itself? Is there a formal militia? If so, how does it fuction in a battle situation without hiegharchy?
I think that just about covers it.

[#FF0000]

1) Probably nothing. I mean if they're just sort of there and saying "MAN I HATE THIS FREEDOM AND ABUNDANCE. IF ONLY SOMEONE COULD OWN ALL THIS SHIT AND MAKE ME SLAVE LIKE A DOG TO SCRAPE A MEAGER EXISTENCE OUT OF ALL THIS WEALTH, THAT'D BE THE LIFE" then there's really no reason to do anything so long as he isn't, you know, disrupting things.

2) There are a lot of different ideas. Banishment is one. Some suggest some sort of prison system. Others are proponents of the death penalty, which through some arcane witchcraft and petty wordplay, is somehow consistent with anarchist principles.

3) Yeah, militias. The Spanish Civil War had some reasonable examples of anarchist militias. They were wasteful and rather inefficient, but it doesn't surprise me given the circumstances. They still managed to, at the very least, hold off Franco's army for a long, long time.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Ok, say I'm a capitalist, nazi or statist and peacefully protest. In my opinion, nothing should happen to them, because I believe ine free speech and free expression, but does that happen in an anarchist society? And how are millitias run if there is no heigharchy? Oh and is there freedom of religion in an Anarchist community? I would believe so, since there's a handful of religious anarchists including Tolstoy, but I could be wrong.

[Misanthrope]

Ok, say I'm a capitalist, nazi or statist and peacefully protest. In my opinion, nothing should happen to them, because I believe ine free speech and free expression, but does that happen in an anarchist society? And how are millitias run if there is no heigharchy? Oh and is there freedom of religion in an Anarchist community? I would believe so, since there's a handful of religious anarchists including Tolstoy, but I could be wrong.

Nothing will happen to them but does would a white racist go into Compton and start protesting against people of African descent? Neither will a state capitalist go into a crowd of anarcho-socialists and say everything they believe in is stupid, immoral, wrong ect.

There will most likely not be a need for militias but anarchists are not against all authority, they are against illegitimate authority and in all reality, if there is a war, there needs to be leaders.

Yes there is freedom of religion.

[#FF0000]

Ok, say I'm a capitalist, nazi or statist and peacefully protest. In my opinion, nothing should happen to them, because I believe ine free speech and free expression, but does that happen in an anarchist society? And how are millitias run if there is no heigharchy? Oh and is there freedom of religion in an Anarchist community? I would believe so, since there's a handful of religious anarchists including Tolstoy, but I could be wrong.

Sure, they can protest.

Anarchist militias often just elected their leaders based on competence and experience. If the soldiers lost faith in their leader, they immediately recalled him. Or if he proved to be exceptionally incompetent, say, by throwing a grenade prematurely and giving away an ambush, he'd just be shot right there.

And, sure. Religion's a personal thing. Whatever.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

I'll preface this by mentioning an unfortunate reality: NO ONE knows the answers to these questions! BE EXTREMELY LEARY OF DEMAGOGUES WHO CLAIM TO KNOW THESE ANSWERS! These are things that people would determine collectively. But I'll give it a shot, 'cause it's fun.

I've done a little bit of reading about anarchism and would consider myself an Anarchist, since I oppose both the state and capitalism but I have some questions about anarchy in theory and practice that have not been answered in my (brief) research.

1. What happens to dissenter in and anarchist community? Ie nazis, statists, capitalists. Assuming they take no violent action against the community.

This would vary community-to-community. In larger communities, as long as the person, or group, is simply expressing themselves, i.e., rallies, marches, meetings, etc., I would say this would need to be respected. In more interpersonal communities, where it is essentially the living space of a few families communally living, I would say this community may handle it differently, as they may feel threatened if a Nazi group marches through their living space; that, to me, seems oppressive. And I think people have the liberty to defend themselves when they believe they may be threatened. This could mean that a more interpersonal community would tell the KKK or Nazis not to enter their community.

2. How are murderers and rapists dealt with in an anarchist community? Is there some sort of vigilante police force or what?

I would say that a great deal of murder and rape comes from societal oppression which forces children at an early age to oppress feelings of sexuality; this, in some cases, causes people to have violent outbursts and rape people. So, first and foremost, I would argue that, in an anarchist society, in which people are free to explore any desire that doesn't hurt others, murder and rape would be extremely rare.

That said, there is a very small percent of the population with mental illness (approx 10%) that commit violent acts. And a great deal of murder and violence stems from black market crime, i.e., poor people trying to acquire money since they have been excluded from industrial society, largely, because of their skin color.

In a free society, certainly this would still occur. And I think communities would have to choose a "lesser-evil" coercion. In other words, in an anti-oppression/domination community, you can't have someone running around dominating and oppressing people, e.g., raping and killing people. How would they choose the lesser-evil coercion? Good question. I think a viable option is to treat the person, whether at their home or in a facility. Obviously, though, a person who kills and rapes must be coerced, so as not to kill and rape. I can't imagine any kind of community that wants to be coerced by others. But individuals ultimately cannot answer this question independent of a community, so I don't know.

For me, personally, I like the idea of individuals from the community, if the person who murdered and killed agreed to it, contributing to treating and trying to figure out what went wrong with said individual. But, I think the ultimate goal would be to rehabilitate the person. If this individual refused treatment, I think the community would have to "police" such an individual, but not in the traditional manner. If he wanted to stay in the community in which he committed murder and contribute, I think it's safe to say that the community would have to pool the responsibility of insuring that the individual didn't hurt anyone else (this is if he or she refuses rehabilitation).

This would be pretty arbitrary stuff, e.g., sticking around said person's place of living to determine when he or she leaves, and basically keep an eye on this individual since they show no desire for rehabilitation (I think such a responsibility should be pooled by individuals in the community, and constantly rotating). I don't think a decent, libertarian community would have police or prisons, so I see this option as viable, though certainly not very attractive or ideal. But the only other option, seemingly, is assuming that the person will not kill again; I don't think any rational community wants a rapist/murderer walking around freely without any kind of rehabilitation.

I loathe the very notion of communities having to "police" each other, but to avoid domination and oppression, I think on rare occasions communities, at least those that aren't self destructive, would have to make tough choices like this. As I said, though, without capitalism, the state, and an all-encompassing culture of domination, I don't think we'd see much rape or murder.

3. How does an Anarchist community defend itself?

As far as I'm concerned, when a community is invaded, it has the right to self-defense. So, if we look at tangible examples, Iraq and Palestine, the formal military defends itself and so-called "insurgents" or militants that are opposed to being slaughtered and seeing children killed by armies also defend themselves. Self-defense is not glamorous, and no matter how we go about this, it's ugly. But an "Anarchist community," I would argue, if attacked by fascist private armies or the state (which is very likely if such a project was undertaken), it has every right to defend itself as it sees fit. So, whether as crude as moltov cocktails, or as sophisticated as heavy aritillery, an anarchist community has every "right" (tricky word indeed) to defend itself against invaders. It would most likely be the worst kind of invaders, too, i.e., private militaries, imperialists, etc. Of course, this is never a pretty situation.


Is there a formal militia? If so, how does it fuction in a battle situation without hiegharchy?

I personally see a formal militia as being antithetical to anarchism. Many will differ with me, though. I wouldn't want to live in a community with such a thing. Hope this helps.

[Nwoye]

How does an Anarchist community defend itself? Is there a formal militia? If so, how does it fuction in a battle situation without hiegharchy?
I think we can find this answer in the socialist militias which existed during the Spanish Civil War. In Homage to Catalonia, George Orwell describes his experience with militias organized along anarchist lines:


The essential point of the system was social equality between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette, you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.S. but there was no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society. Of course there was no perfect equality, but there was a nearer approach to it than I had ever seen or than I would have thought conceivable in time of war.

...

In practice the democratic 'revolutionary' type of discipline is more reliable than might be expected. In a workers' army discipline is theoretically voluntary. It is based on class-loyalty, whereas the discipline of a bourgeois conscript army is based ultimately on fear.Even in the exceptional circumstances of the Spanish Civil War, the Marxist and anarchist militias of the POUM and CNT (respectively) functioned quite well.