Anarchist viewpoint on crime/policing

[BurnedFlagz]

This is the biggest argument i get from non anarchists.. That anyone could kill, rob, cheat, and hurt anyone in an anarchic society and get away with it. They say we would need some militia but then the militia could seize power.. and so on and so forth. So 1: how do i retaliate against that statement and 2. Truly what would happen in an anarchic society if lets say Jeff disagrees with Bob and Jeff gets angry enough and kills Bob. Would Jeff go free? Would there be "justice" should a militia be formed?

[Narodnik]

Michael Bakunin
A Biographical Sketch

James Guillaume 1876
Ideas on Social Organization



F. Security

This service embraces the necessary measures to guarantee to all inhabitants of the commune the security of their person and the protection of their homes, their possessions, etc., against deprivation and accident (fire, floods, etc.).

There will probably be very little brigandage and robbery in a society where each lives in full freedom to enjoy the fruits of his labor and where almost all his needs will be abundantly fulfilled. Material well-being, as well as the intellectual and moral progress which are the products of a truly humane education, available to all, will almost eliminate crimes due to perversion, brutality, and other infirmities. It will nevertheless still he necessary to take precautions for the security of persons. This service, which can be called (if the phrase has not too bad a connotation) the Communal Police, will not be entrusted, as it is today, to a special, official body; all able-bodied inhabitants will be called upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune.

It will doubtless be asked how those committing murder and other violent crimes will be treated in the new equalization society. Obviously society cannot, on the pretext of respect for individual rights – and the negation of authority, permit a murderer to run loose, or wait for a friend of the victim to avenge him. The murderer will have to be deprived of his liberty and confined to a special house until he can without danger be returned to society. How is the criminal to be treated during his confinement? And according to what principles should his term be fixed? These are delicate questions on which opinions vary widely. We must learn from experience, but this much we already know: that thanks to the beneficent effects of education (see below) crimes will he rare. Criminals being an exception, they will be treated like the sick and the deranged; the problem of crime which today gives so many jobs to judges, jailers, and police will lose its social importance and become simply a chapter in medical history.

[Mather]

This is the biggest argument i get from non anarchists.. That anyone could kill, rob, cheat, and hurt anyone in an anarchic society and get away with it.

The people you are debating with are just flat out wrong on this point.

First off, theft and fraud would cease to exist in an anarchist society as money would have already been abolished. This means that things would no longer have the value of monetary cost and social status that they once did under capitalism, their only true value in an anarchist society would be a practical and utilitarian one. As things would be distributed for free based on the principle of from each according to his ability to each according to his need, no one would even need to resort to theft or fraud in the first place. Phenomena such as theft and fraud will cease to be once the material conditions that give rise to them under capitalism have been abolished.

Anarchists accept that some forms of violent crime such as murder and rape will happen regardless of the prevailing material conditions as these crimes differ to those that are of a purely economic and acquisitive nature such as theft and fraud. Anarchists do not advocate for chaos and perpetual social conflict and our opposition to the bourgeois state and capitalism does not mean that anarchists wish to see no form of social organisation at all. Anarchists struggle against the 'justice system' of the bourgeoisie because it is an instrument of class rule and oppression against the working class, not because we wish to see all forms of dealing with anti-social criminality done away with. Anarchists advocate that crime be dealt with in a socially collective and democratic manner and that such tasks can only be carried out by the working class themselves.


They say we would need some militia but then the militia could seize power.. and so on and so forth.

If the entirety of the means of production has been fully socialised in an anarchist society, how would such a militia seize power?

Unlike capitalist societies where the centres of power are concentrated in a few specific locations, such a militia would need to seize the entirety of the means of production to overthrow the rule of the working class. That is a much, much harder task than simply pulling off a military coup by seizing a few important strategic buildings such as parliament and TV/radio stations.

Lastly, I would like to add that the armed forces of a bourgeois state and an anarchist militia are two totally different entities both in their structure and in their very nature. In an anarchist society the militia would be socialised in the same manner as the means of production would have been. An anarchist militia would truely serve the working class and not only that, an anarchist militia would also be under the collective command of the working class. Unlike the armed forces of a bourgeois state, an anarchist militia would be organised in such a manner that people would not be alienated from it anymore than they would be alienated from the means of production. The officer class would be abolished and replaced with a system of commanders who would be directly elected and fully accountable to those who choose them. Such commanders would be kept in check via a process of recallability and wider supervision. All of this means that the working class can collectively run the militia in a way that would be impossible under capitalism and such a system would not be conducive to coup plots and authoritarianism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think it's worth pointing out that human society precedes states and their attendant repressive apparatuses by millennia. Very obviously, traditional societies, while by no means perfect nor a ready-made model for future social organization, weren't defined by wanton murder and antisocial behaviour. If anything, communal forms of life, where people are directly engaged in the matters of organizing their communities, tend to be more pacific. As for what is done with people who do "fucked up shit" - answers have varied wildly, and trying to find a "one size fits all" solution is counter-intuitive. In fact, where people are directly engaged in making decisions as communities, specific and apt decisions about what is to be done with individuals is far more possible than can be conceived of in a society where "justice" is the business of specialists and entrenched institutions of repression.

[No_Leaders]

So the way i see it is that the few crimes that anarchist must accept would happen can be dealt with in two ways, simple mob rule (that is, a family member beats some guy up for raping someone), or civil proceedings whereby all of those involved get together and deal out the punishment.

Note that this is distinct from law. The few crimes you could commit in anarchy are pretty darn reprehensible. When you are a child in modern society, and you take something from a store shelf, you don't wind up being sent to prison, you get a slap on your wrist and are told to apologise. Likewise most modern "crimes" would be dealt with that way. What then we have is that those crimes that cannot be reasonably dealt with that way will require spontaneous gatherings of individuals to democratically dole out the punishment (be it simple rehabilitation, or exile, or, worst case, execution).

Given that police organizations are essentially private corporate endeavors, they have no motivation to actually help people, however, a collective of individuals who is out to solve crime (possibly composed of people who have been victimized in the past), with access to forensics tools, would quickly and readily solve as many crimes as they can. Having any sort of body that is recognized as the "policing force" can only lead down a path of authoritarianism. People self-ruling would work kinda like this:

Someone gets killed. People who are respected with regards to their crime scene investigation would come in, do their analysis, and then present this analysis to the loved ones of those involved (or to those who would like to rectify a situation).

They will then at their own discretion consider what they should do. Some may wish to kill the person, some may wish to exile or banish the person from the commune, some may opt for rehabilitation, some may want to brand the person with a big old tattoo across their chest saying "I'm a murderer," who knows. The point is that the situation would be discussed by those directly involved in the situation, and not some other governing body whose interests could be incidental to the act. Just my take anyways.

[BTMFPHumanStrike]

Two things:

1) I think it's really strange that anarchists and communists are still operating with this idea of Justice and the idea that people need to be punished. Not only does it reek of Christian concepts of morality and free will (that there are "bad" things that people do out of their God-given free will, and therefore must be punished unless they only do "good" things), but it is also firmly seated within a Liberal (and I don't mean Democratic Party liberal, but the Classic Liberalism of the Enlightenment) understanding of the body as (private) property.

Now, I want to clarify that I don't intend to say that people should just do nothing if they are being assaulted or something. Clearly there is a difference between defending yourself or reducing the power of your enemies (like if there is someone that is raping people, i dont see any problem with them getting the shit kicked out of them or their house set on fire or whatever), and abstracting this violence in the form of a specialized, "neutral" group that seeks to deal out Justice/punishment.

2) I think the idea of self-policing as anarchism is complete garbage and should be purged from your minds immediately. We live in a society that is already self-policed. If it wasn't, then why is it necessary to look around before one steals something? Or, in states that have more conservative drug laws, why is it necessary to go deep in the woods to smoke weed? There is very little difference between the cop-calling citizen (most of them) and the police, ethically. In fact, the only way police can function at this point (highly surveilled cities like London aside) is if people take on an aspect of that role themselves. The thought of this relationship being perfected in the form of a completely self-policing "community" (as some people have talked about above) sounds awful and utterly alienating, and the complete opposite of what communism should be.

Wasn't it the Situationists who said "kill the cop in your head" ?

[Poison Frog]

Whether it "reeks of Christian concepts" or not (which I think is ludicrous, tbh), if someone commits rape, murder, etc, then justice, if that's what you want to call it, is required.

[Quail]

It makes me cringe when anarchists or communists advocate "punishment" as "justice" when dealing with criminals. My view would be to remove the individual who committed the crime (by which i mean serious crime such as murder or rape) from society and rehabilitate them in a facility which operates more like a mental health institution than a prison, but still allow them access to education, hobbies, to things that allow them to grow as a person. Then when or if they are deemed to be no longer a danger to society they will still be a part of the community and that should be an incentive not to reoffend.

[Strider]

Anarchist intellectuals, such as Bakunin and Kropotkin, have given some quite good answers in your question. I suggest studying them further in order to attain the arguments needed. However, i think the most important thing is getting your friends, who have such doubts about an anarchist society, do the reading themselves. Then they might understand that they are wrong, simply because their thesis is built upon the status quo of today 's society (capitalism, hierarchy e.t.c). There are problems concerning an anarchist society and how it would function, but they most certainly are not "what to do with outlaws". They are more like "what to do with laws". But anyway, that is a different discussion. Study anarchism (and Marxism as well because whether one is a marxist or not, Marx is always useful), get other people to do the same. The problems of an anarchist society are not the same as those of a capitalist one.

[BTMFPHumanStrike]

Whether it "reeks of Christian concepts" or not (which I think is ludicrous, tbh),

You can think all you want. The world is what it is, regardless of what goes on in your head. There are direct etymological and historical links between capitalism (and all of the Ideas that it has spawned - or has spawned it, however you want to look at it) and Christianity. I seriously don't mean to throw around "Christian" as a derogatory term as some Leftists might.

A vulgar materialist approach to history might prove right the idea that it is just economic developments that guide history, the most base and raw of what should be deemed "material," but a thoughtful, and more critical, approach shows that what some Marxists might still refer to as the "superstructure," The Idea (in the most abstract sense), is actually just as much a conductor of History as the economic.

How else do you explain the process of colonialism? Property, and then capital, requires a specific relation to the world in order for it to be a thing. Why do you think it had to be forced on to the native americans? And better yet, why is it that Native Americans, or any other culture for that matter, never developed those sorts of relationships until their contact with Christian Europeans?

Property, especially private property, absolutely requires, among other things, the belief that there is free will. Not just because of the importance of the contract and the legal binding that that creates, but also because of the fact that those who amass power find it necessary to declare the guilt of those who might be bold enough to trespass the boundaries laid out by this relation, and then punish them (in order to make an example of them to everyone else) with the righteous fist of Justice.

Linguistically, the term "economy" stems directly from the greek term "oikonomia," which is an early Christian concept that described the idea of housekeeping, and of managing the world of humans until salvation. I think it is fairly easy to see how this would orient the Christian people in a certain direction that has thus far led to severe environmental degradation and the enslavement and perpetual servitude of the entire human race.



if someone commits rape, murder, etc, then justice, if that's what you want to call it, is required.

If you think what I outlined above as Justice is required then you're a fucking cop. Seriously, go back and read - because I have a feeling you didn't actually read it - and then if you still think what I'm calling Justice is required then I would seriously be puzzled as to how you could call yourself a communist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How else do you explain the process of colonialism? Property, and then capital, requires a specific relation to the world in order for it to be a thing. Why do you think it had to be forced on to the native americans? And better yet, why is it that Native Americans, or any other culture for that matter, never developed those sorts of relationships until their contact with Christian Europeans?
While I don't disagree with you on the point about ideas actually mattering, I don't think your example here is correct.

European ideas about people in other regions was definatly in the specific character of the ruling ideas and religious ideas of that time, but I don't think this was a driving or fundamental cause of these sorts of developments. European ideas about Native Americans, for example, changed along with changes in the relationship of the Europeans to the Americans. "Noble Savage" and "heathen Savage" ideas both reflect christian ideas and both were dominant ideas at various points. Where religion was seen as an ultimate authority, explanations/apologies for colonial exploitation, slavery and so on tend to use religion. After the American revolution, while some generally religious language was used to justify these things, the tendency increasingly became to explain oppression in scientific terms, rather than relgious.


Linguistically, the term "economy" stems directly from the greek term "oikonomia," which is an early Christian concept that described the idea of housekeeping, and of managing the world of humans until salvation. I think it is fairly easy to see how this would orient the Christian people in a certain direction that has thus far led to severe environmental degradation and the enslavement and perpetual servitude of the entire human race.And yet Christian practices for hundreds of years also included restrictions on "usury" - not to mention, the Roman Church was sort of the bulwark of feudal powers for a long time.

But there is a connection and as capitalism began developing, many of the new religious ideas fit into capitalist worldviews. But again, not as a driving force; more of an expression of ideas emerging from a new way of life; these ideas may then may help bolster and organize these views which then may then further impact society.

However I don't think you need Christianity specifically for capitalism to have emerged. In fact, I've been reading about how capitalist relationships developed and then retreated in Europe earlier than thought as well as how these sorts of relationships developed in China hundreds of years before they did in Europe - the rise of an urban class there also brought an "enlightenment"-style change in ideology and culture too.

[BTMFPHumanStrike]

While I don't disagree with you on the point about ideas actually mattering, I don't think your example here is correct.

European ideas about people in other regions was definatly in the specific character of the ruling ideas and religious ideas of that time, but I don't think this was a driving or fundamental cause of these sorts of developments. European ideas about Native Americans, for example, changed along with changes in the relationship of the Europeans to the Americans. "Noble Savage" and "heathen Savage" ideas both reflect christian ideas and both were dominant ideas at various points. Where religion was seen as an ultimate authority, explanations/apologies for colonial exploitation, slavery and so on tend to use religion. After the American revolution, while some generally religious language was used to justify these things, the tendency increasingly became to explain oppression in scientific terms, rather than relgious.

Perhaps I am being too abstract with what I am saying. I am not talking about the image that European settlers created of indigenous people, but rather the stimmung that allowed for people to see the world not only as something separate from them, but also something that can be owned - that there can be property in the sense that we understand it.

I mean, shit, this is precisely why there was such shit relations with native americans, especially in the beginning. They didn't have concepts of property as the europeans did, so when they bought land from them, the natives understood it as a use of land and that this ended at a particular point, perhaps when there was a new chief, whereas the europeans understood property as something much different, obviously. It is a particular way of relating to each other and the world.




And yet Christian practices for hundreds of years also included restrictions on "usury" - not to mention, the Roman Church was sort of the bulwark of feudal powers for a long time. things change. there is nothing more certain than that. The Catholic Church also used to think it was a cool idea to burn gay people and women.


But there is a connection and as capitalism began developing, many of the new religious ideas fit into capitalist worldviews. But again, not as a driving force; more of an expression of ideas emerging from a new way of life; these ideas may then may help bolster and organize these views which then may then further impact society. You just said exactly what I was saying - that Ideas push history as much as material economic developments do. the two are intimately linked, with one influencing the other, and vice versa.


However I don't think you need Christianity specifically for capitalism to have emerged. In fact, I've been reading about how capitalist relationships developed and then retreated in Europe earlier than thought as well as how these sorts of relationships developed in China hundreds of years before they did in Europe - the rise of an urban class there also brought an "enlightenment"-style change in ideology and culture too.

And yet... they didn't develop in the way they did in Europe and America until contact with Europeans. I have no desire to speculate about alternative histories that could have happened. That certain cultures developed similar ideas, and similar relations to the world, actually proves what I'm saying to be correct. There are certain ways of viewing the world that lend themselves toward capitalist relations - its not very surprising that China, having a long tradition of ideas of Order and the Individual, is now a capitalist superpower.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Perhaps I am being too abstract with what I am saying. I am not talking about the image that European settlers created of indigenous people, but rather the stimmung that allowed for people to see the world not only as something separate from them, but also something that can be owned - that there can be property in the sense that we understand it.But the generalization of these ideas was predated by hundreds of years of Christian thinking of a feudal type where custom (such as use of the commons etc) and a static view of the world were the "common sense" for Christians.

Theological and philosophical changes took place along with the emergence of a new way of looking at and relating to the world. Feudal christianity emphasized worldly suffering for the masses - get through this lot, fufil your social role as God has destined you. With the reformation came new ideas about iduviduality, human agency, the morality of hard-work and thrift, and so on, a reflection of the class realities of merchants and people who use their professional skills (and other people's labor) to make their wealth, rather than heredity.


I mean, shit, this is precisely why there was such shit relations with native americans, especially in the beginning. They didn't have concepts of property as the europeans did, so when they bought land from them, the natives understood it as a use of land and that this ended at a particular point, perhaps when there was a new chief, whereas the europeans understood property as something much different, obviously. It is a particular way of relating to each other and the world. Sure, but I think it's the needs of accumulation, clearing land for farming cash-crops and so on that is the fundamental thing, christian explainations and justifications of that are not the cuase. Again, Christianity was dominant for a long time in conditions where privite property in this sense (rather than feudal estates) was not widespread or common.


You just said exactly what I was saying - that Ideas push history as much as material economic developments do. the two are intimately linked, with one influencing the other, and vice versa. I think there's a relationship, but it's sort of like water flowing down a hill - a river might go this way or that depending on the specific terrain of the land and the way the soil and rocks are distributed, but ultimately it's not the rocks or soil that make the water flow downhill, it's more general and fundamental forces. In this case, it's the development of new relations which is reflected into ideology (religion) and the use of these ideas in turn helps guide the specific ways things develop, but not in a fundamental or deterministic way.

No doubt specific Chineese customs and tradditions would have adapted to a new social condition and organization and reflected this reality in various specific ways that would have been different than christian prodestant ideas. But the ideas themselves do not create the social changes - they would not have created, for example, the need to exploit for surplus value, they would have just found ways to adapt existing ideas to the new realities.

Going back to the original arugment: I don't think, for example, it would be enough to try and convince everyone of the idea that cops are illegitamate alone to produce any changes. As long as the profit system remained, cops do serve a purpose for the rich and property owners; as long as capitalism makes our lives chaotic and causes petty theft and random violence as well as the violence of black markets, then there's probably going to be a chunk of workers, who without other "realistic" alternatives, will think police are necissary. But the ideas about the cops, marxist and anarchist analysis of policing in capitalism can, however, organize some people to try and create an alternative - both in the sense of within capitalism, dealing with the isse of "crime and violence" through our own organization and fighting for alternatives to the official police and ultimately through building a movement that can abolish capitalism and therefore the police.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think in an egalitarian society, crime would be a much rarer thing, and certain kinds of crime would be much rarer (some like ponzi schemes would obviously not be possible). However it would still exist. The trick is to avoid the same pitfalls of "bourgeois society" on this issue.

In capitalism there is the alienation between the police and the community as well as the alienation between the imprisoned and the community, and this alienation is caused by social and economic inequality. The alienation between police and community means that the police in a sense operate as a separate interest group whose interests match up with a particular class in society. This leads to an air of unaccountability in policing as the classes which support the police rally behind them unquestioningly and those who are largely harmed by the police react. The word of 2 cops will always be taken over the word of one young black 16 year old in our courts. The alienation between the community and imprisoned people means that the interests of people as such and the interests of people incarcerated also diverge. Criminals become alien others who we need to wall off. Presumably, in a communist society, any kind of "policing" would be done in an open, accountable way, and any kind of punishment/re-socialization/whatever you want to call it is not designed to destroy the links between the "criminal" and society but to renew them.

I like the form of punishment taken in some rural villages in Latin America. When you commit a crime, the community or respected people within the community demand that a certain kind of labor is done to the rest of the community. This allows the culprit to "pay back" whatever bad they did to everyone in their community through their work without denying the humanity of the person accused.


Two random thoughts:

The way we view punishment in Europe and the US is very Christian but punishment as a way of exacting some kind of social revenge against someone who owes a sort of metaphysical debt is common. What is interesting however is some societies don't view this punishment as something which necessitates suffering, of if it does, it is a kind of bearable suffering with socially beneficial consequence.

I think it's odd that people argue that there's no theft in a communist society. No there is no private property but there IS personal property. Say a man in a communist society gifts beautiful jewelry to the woman he loves and then dies - if someone steals that woman's jewelry because they think it looks pretty on them and are somewhat antisocial, there is still a cost being imposed on this woman by someone else who is merely selfish and lacks any concern for her sentimental attachments. It's still THEFT.

[BIXX]

I think it's odd that people argue that there's no theft in a communist society. No there is no private property but there IS personal property. Say a man in a communist society gifts beautiful jewelry to the woman he loves and then dies - if someone steals that woman's jewelry because they think it looks pretty on them and are somewhat antisocial, there is still a cost being imposed on this woman by someone else who is merely selfish and lacks any concern for her sentimental attachments. It's still THEFT.

I never thought of it that way, thank you for that perspective.


While I do believe that there would be some form of communal justice or policing or whatever you wanna call it, and I don't know how, there is one argument that my parents and friends have frequently brought up and I'm not sure how to counter it.

Alright, say I'm not very popular. And then I piss off this guy- lets call him John. So, John is very charismatic. Not necessarily better, but his charisma has made it so people like him a lot and he is very popular. So, John is angry, and eventually gets everyone to hate me more or less for something relatively minor (like we have a stupid argument), what is to stop mob mentality from kicking in and they all decide collectively that maybe death is an appropriate punishment- what would keep this from happening?

Basically, what do we do to keep mob mentality from being the primary force of law? And what if someone has more charisma, do they just get their way? How do we prevent this?

[BIXX]

I hate to be bumping up an old topic but I really am curious about the mob mentality question.

[cyu]

They say we would need some militia

If there were no judges, juries, and executioners, would it be different if everyone was a judge, jury, and executioner? Not purely anarchist, but from http://www.revleft.com/vb/law-anarchy-t175858/index2.html

In Marinaleda, there is no police force and political decisions are taken by an assembly in which all citizens are asked to participate. "It is not a group of elected officials. It is people who, together, decide how to allocate tasks and what needs to be done in the best interest of the village."


Jeff gets angry enough and kills Bob. Would Jeff go free?

If Mary then kills Jeff, would Mary go free? If Heather then kills Mary, would Heather go free? And so on... the point is that even without traditional laws, you can still expect the people around you to observe and respond to your behavior. If they don't like it and see Jeff as dangerous, different anarchists would support different sanctions against Jeff.

If Mary carries out a sanction against Jeff that is also seen as dangerous, then it would be likely that the threat represented by Mary will be dealt with as well.

If you were afraid that what you wanted to do to Jeff would get you in trouble, then it's up to you convince others what the right course of action is (or to hide in a corner and not get involved in the world).


his charisma has made it so people like him a lot and he is very popular

Anarchism itself is not just about the distribution of wealth, but the distribution of power as well - and by power, I don't just mean military power, but psychological power. If you want a quick lesson in persuasion, here's a short one right now:

Play to other people's pride. Try to make sure everything you say makes them proud of themselves in some way. Reword things and describe things from different viewpoints, until you've changed what once they may have been ashamed of, into something they're proud of.

For more details, see the chapter headings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

[Crixus]

I think it's worth pointing out that human society precedes states and their attendant repressive apparatuses by millennia. Very obviously, traditional societies, while by no means perfect nor a ready-made model for future social organization, weren't defined by wanton murder and antisocial behaviour. If anything, communal forms of life, where people are directly engaged in the matters of organizing their communities, tend to be more pacific. As for what is done with people who do "fucked up shit" - answers have varied wildly, and trying to find a "one size fits all" solution is counter-intuitive. In fact, where people are directly engaged in making decisions as communities, specific and apt decisions about what is to be done with individuals is far more possible than can be conceived of in a society where "justice" is the business of specialists and entrenched institutions of repression.

Small primitive communist tribes had community connections. Larger industrial cities would harvest anonymity which leads people do do, lets say, bad things at times. I think an advanced communist society (anarchist society) would need community police but done so in a revolving door fashion under democratic conditions where they all answer to the community. What I mean by revolving door fashion is it would be no ones 'set job'. Rotate periods where people volunteer to investigate crimes and patrol neighborhoods. I'd imagine it would be nothing like the system we have today especially since the officers would be rotated and from the actual community under direct democratic control of the community and with no paramilitary training other than investigative training in order to have the skills to solve the crimes that do take place. More emphasis on detective work and less on authoritarian community patrols. To think all criminal behavior will stop is utopian.

Also, when people, when Marxists ask this question as asked in the OP they need to realize Marxists and anarchists advocate the same thing (a stateless society) just different paths.

[melvin]

So the way i see it is that the few crimes that anarchist must accept would happen can be dealt with in two ways, simple mob rule (that is, a family member beats some guy up for raping someone), or civil proceedings whereby all of those involved get together and deal out the punishment.So in other words, vigilantism.


Note that this is distinct from law. The few crimes you could commit in anarchy are pretty darn reprehensible. When you are a child in modern society, and you take something from a store shelf, you don't wind up being sent to prison, you get a slap on your wrist and are told to apologise.Children already don't go to prison for taking something from a store. In fact, modern society treats that pretty much the same as you just said it'd be dealt with in an anarchist society...


Likewise most modern "crimes" would be dealt with that way. What then we have is that those crimes that cannot be reasonably dealt with that way will require spontaneous gatherings of individuals to democratically dole out the punishment (be it simple rehabilitation, or exile, or, worst case, execution).oh lord. you are literally so dedicated to being anti-prison for the sake of an anarchist image that you've come up with solutions that are worse than prison.

[Deity]

I'm not too sure how any anarchist would want "policing". Humans do not need people put in a position to ensure they do nothing wrong. Its downright degrading.

I do not have a clear solution for you as there isn't one. This is not an issue that you can solve with "peoples detectives" or a community militia. It's a much more in-depth issue than that and I think any response you make should have more thought into it than that.

[TomVine92]

We've seen, though, that self-policing can actually be quite dangerous. Look at the recent SWP crisis for example: rapists were protected and the victim was basically told to f off

[cyu]

rapists were protected and the victim was basically told to f off

Well, if there were a whole lot of anarchists running around, I'm pretty sure at least one of the anarchists would be pissed off enough to put the fear of God into them ;)

[BIXX]

Anarchism itself is not just about the distribution of wealth, but the distribution of power as well - and by power, I don't just mean military power, but psychological power. If you want a quick lesson in persuasion, here's a short one right now:

Play to other people's pride. Try to make sure everything you say makes them proud of themselves in some way. Reword things and describe things from different viewpoints, until you've changed what once they may have been ashamed of, into something they're proud of.

For more details, see the chapter headings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

While I agree to an extent, there will always be some people who aren't as good at that as others. And then mob mentality could still have a strong effect on people.

[cyu]

there will always be some people who aren't as good at that as others

Just like some will be better shots than others ;)


mob mentality could still have a strong effect on people.

It's basically the same problem you have in democracy. If 51% can do as they please, then you still have mob mentality.

What anarchism encourages is distribution and equality of power - and when used with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action to solve the problems you most care about, well, in a democracy you're actually discouraged from acting on your own, because it has to be put to a vote first - which will never help if you're worried about mob mentality. Direct action in fact encourages the opposite - you take action to solve your problems now.

In the past, we had issues like state's-rights segregationalists vs a federal government who came in and "rescued" people from segregation. Is that proof that decentralization can't work? I would say not at all. For example, what if it was state's-rights abolitionists vs a federal government who came in and "rescued" slave holders?

Anarchists encourage ultimate decentralization - where slaves are encouraged to take power into their own hands, and help them right wrongs by empowering them to do so, rather than allowing them no power, but rather rely on outsiders to "rescue" them. This isn't to say outsiders will not be allowed to help - in fact, I would encourage outsiders to help as well - however, the slaves themselves should never be prevented from taking power into their own hands.

[Craig_J]

I refer you to one of my all time favourite quotes from John Fire Lame Deer, a Native American chief. Learn it well my friend, I always say this quote when someone says that. Generally silences them or actually leaves them with very deep thoughts about the argument they've made.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ixu7e1Sq1r4vpxio1_500.jpg