How do anarchists solve problems of environment and discrimination?

[Revolutionary Daft]

I've been reading about anarchism for a while, I'm still new, but there are some issues that I've been thinking about, and which were also brought up by someone else in another discussion I took part it.

Basically, we know there are a whole host of environmental problems going on, from global warming to resource depletion. Removing capitalism would obviously solve part of the problem, but if in the post-capitalist society, the amount of production and consumption required to live our comfortable, convenient and modern lifestyle still wasn't sustainable, how would we solve that?

One of the reasons I'm asking is that even though most of us are aware that our current lifestyle is unsustainable, we keep on living it. I'm reminded of the history of Easter Island, where the first settlers caused an ecological disaster by over-harvesting the trees they needed to build canoes and other necessities. As the trees started to get fewer and fewer, they could surely see what was going on, but they needed to keep building canoes in order to acquire food. The civilization eventually died out, along with major parts of the ecosystem.

If we ever face a similar situation, how will we ensure that people are willing to make the necessary sacrifices, or even recognize that there is a real threat before it's too late? I'm thinking specifically about situations where the point of no return happens way before people are naturally inclined to make the necessary changes (as may be the case with global warming)?

The second problem: discrimination. Anarchists want a society free from discrimination, and I definitely think the inclusiveness and direct face-to-face democracy will help immensely, but there are some situations, present in todays society, that I wonder how anarchism will handle. Take an example: Some of you have probably heard stories about women who are raped, report the rape to the police and are then ostracized by the local community, because the rapist was a well-liked and popular person. Both the victim and perpetrator may be productive and well-known members of the community, and both may be known by the people that are ostracizing, but one faces a very severe form of discrimination. So basically, how do we solve rape culture?

[BIXX]

As to the environment, we could do a multitude of things. And most likely, we wouldn't have to sacrifice much in regards to our lifestyle. I mean, increase dependence on solar and wind energy, everybody lives in earthships, etc...
This depends more on scientific advancement than telling people to go without this or that.

Now, as to your question regarding discrimination, there is a few options. You can educate people (which in a post-revolution society will help the most in my opinion). Explain racial, gender, and other issues and whatnot. You could also physically confront it, if there was a militant group of fascists or racists of whatever. That one is pretty self-explanatory. The final option (at least, of the ones coming right off the top of my head) is that the community as a whole would gather and if someone were to do racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever things, it could be brought up at the community gathering. The community then would decide what happens. Of course this option wouldn't be suitable for your example. However, in a society that is post revolution, the revolution will most likely have re-educated people, and there most likely wouldn't be to much of the rape culture problem left, anyway. And hopefully, due to this, less rape.

[Ace High]

I've been reading about anarchism for a while, I'm still new, but there are some issues that I've been thinking about, and which were also brought up by someone else in another discussion I took part it.

Basically, we know there are a whole host of environmental problems going on, from global warming to resource depletion. Removing capitalism would obviously solve part of the problem, but if in the post-capitalist society, the amount of production and consumption required to live our comfortable, convenient and modern lifestyle still wasn't sustainable, how would we solve that?

One of the reasons I'm asking is that even though most of us are aware that our current lifestyle is unsustainable, we keep on living it. I'm reminded of the history of Easter Island, where the first settlers caused an ecological disaster by over-harvesting the trees they needed to build canoes and other necessities. As the trees started to get fewer and fewer, they could surely see what was going on, but they needed to keep building canoes in order to acquire food. The civilization eventually died out, along with major parts of the ecosystem.

If we ever face a similar situation, how will we ensure that people are willing to make the necessary sacrifices, or even recognize that there is a real threat before it's too late? I'm thinking specifically about situations where the point of no return happens way before people are naturally inclined to make the necessary changes (as may be the case with global warming)?

The second problem: discrimination. Anarchists want a society free from discrimination, and I definitely think the inclusiveness and direct face-to-face democracy will help immensely, but there are some situations, present in todays society, that I wonder how anarchism will handle. Take an example: Some of you have probably heard stories about women who are raped, report the rape to the police and are then ostracized by the local community, because the rapist was a well-liked and popular person. Both the victim and perpetrator may be productive and well-known members of the community, and both may be known by the people that are ostracizing, but one faces a very severe form of discrimination. So basically, how do we solve rape culture?

Very good questions!

First of all, an anarchist society based on local collectivism and community planning will cut out two things. It will cut out any central state and it will cut out corporations. These are obvious statements but my point is that the workers of the community will have absolute control over their own community.

In today's world we are unable to solve the crisis of climate change because we do not have control over the means of production or our own infrastructure or our own laws to prevent environmental disasters. In an anarchist society, all of the sudden, the people have the power in the form of central planning committees for specific communities, they directly produce for each other and consume what they produce, and also must organize a group effort to maintain their infrastructure.

So essentially, by eliminating the state and capitalism (meaning we don't sell our labor to white men in suits), we directly take charge of our community as revolutionaries building a better society. Meaning we are FORCED to maintain our own environment. If we compromise our environment, we compromise everything we have worked for in the revolution.

As with dealing with rape culture, I feel like the answer is obvious. The community the rape takes place in will assemble a team of armed citizens to seek out and confront the rapist. Then, they will decide the rapist's fate.

But I feel like your real question is how to deal with violent crime? The answer is, you arm and train the members of the community, as many as want to learn. Instead of the current system we have today with a police force that acts as the henchmen of the corrupt state, an anarchist justice force will serve TRUE justice, in the interest of the people, as they will BE "the people" themselves and not separate from the people.

So yeah.

[BIXX]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA anarchists justice force sounds hilarious.

I like your ideas regarding the environment as well.

However, ace, I disagree with you regarding the discrimination question. I believe we shouldn't arm people and send them to confront the rapist, as most likely they'd simply put him to death. Personally, I think I would. I don't like that I would, but I probably would.

Regarding how I believe we should deal with justice, I think leave it primarily up to the community. The way I would personally advocate is that if someone commits a violent crime, I'd disassociate with them, and take the benefits of associating with me away from them by doing so.

Another problem is how do we discover the truth behind a crime? Say someone kills another person, how do we prove it was or wasn't self defense? Do we have a jury decide that? Do we "discover" laws like in the Xeer system (which, despite the hatred of the Somali system, I find this to be a relatively good idea if we change it a bit), or do we decide on them beforehand? There are so many questions to be answered, but I can't wait to see what solutions people come up with.

Also I believe the question was how we solve rape culture, not how to deal with the rapists themselves. Like I said above, I think the revolution will for the most part, being rape culture, homophobia, racism, sexism, queerphobia etc... To an end.

[The Feral Underclass]

Your questions are predicated on the idea that "anarchists" have some kind of political role to play in a post-capitalist society. It's not for "anarchists" to solve these problems.

[Revolutionary Daft]

Thanks for the answers guys, I really appreciate it, but would you mind elaborating on some things? Ace said that we don't "have control over the means of production or our own infrastructure or our own laws to prevent environmental disasters." and that's true, but we DO have control over our own personal consumption, and we are consuming far beyond what is necessary and what is responsible. If we are irresponsible consumers in the current society, then what is stopping us from being irresponsible consumers in the next one? I understand that a planning committee could limit what goods we have available, but it would be dependent on people agreeing with those limitations, wouldn't it?

Which brings me to what Echoshoc said: "most likely, we wouldn't have to sacrifice much in regards to our lifestyle." I'm sceptical. Most of us live a lifestyle that is dependent on all sorts of home applications, electronics, mechanical devices and infrastructure. Some of these requiring rare and/or non-renewable resources. Just take a look at petroleum for example. It's used to make plastics, detergents, fertilizers, synthetic fibers, candles, medicines, paints, bunker fuel, asphalt ink etc. the rare resource helium is used in MRIs, welding and to make semiconducters (which are used in nearly all electronic devices). Both of these resources are required in high volume if we want to keep on living our lifestyle.

We can't keep on using cars that run on fossil fuels, because of the pollution they cause, but according to Meridian International Research, we can't rely heavily on lithium-battery cars either because of lithium depletion.

Not all of these things have workable, practical alternatives. How willing do you think people would be when it comes to sacrificing convenience? I'm not just talking about in our present situation, but in future situations as well, where availability might be limited due to whatever circumstances. Do you think people would be willing to give away their cars? Ban airtravel? Rationing healthcare?

[Ace High]

Right, we do have control over consumption. We are to blame, but what is also to blame are forces beyond our control. Capitalists manipulate and move money and labor. They outsource labor to third world countries where they pay people basically slave wages to produce what we consume. It's not as if we can really stop consuming under this current system. Because what are we producing? A revolution would put that to a halt because we would be FORCED to produce and consume what we produce. We literally wouldn't be able to exploit others for our consumption even if we wanted to when you take the capitalists out of the picture. It's just right now, what choice do we have? The choice to make a revolution is the answer.

[Sea]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA anarchists justice force sounds hilarious.I love it. Like, when there aren't any riots going on, the anarcho-cops can be called out to start one... :laugh:

Thanks for the answers guys, I really appreciate it, but would you mind elaborating on some things? Ace said that we don't "have control over the means of production or our own infrastructure or our own laws to prevent environmental disasters." and that's true, but we DO have control over our own personal consumption, and we are consuming far beyond what is necessary and what is responsible. If we are irresponsible consumers in the current society, then what is stopping us from being irresponsible consumers in the next one?The lack of commodity fetishism, the lack of consumerism, etc. The logical conclusion is to see both the environmental problems and we're facing and our state of high technological advancement as products (pun intended) of capitalism. Primitivists, for instance, take another route. They link our environmental problems to the technology, and the technology to capitalism in turn. You seem to be deceived by the latter line of reasoning.

It's also not only a problem of consumption. We have the technology to consume well beyond what we do with a much lower environmental impact than what we are making.
Right, we do have control over consumption. We are to blame, but what is also to blame are forces beyond our control.These are completely inseparable.

[BIXX]

Well, Ace dealt with the primary way to deal with our over-consumption, but we can also educate people, which, despite the resources available to many people, still hasn't been adequately explained to them. Then we also would probably be able to come up with alternatives to these things we do not yet know about. If there's one thing humans are really really good at, it's creating ways to avoid having to bunker down and stop over consuming. I mean, that's the great achievement of Haber, is that he was able to make it so more people could be sustained on our planet. Who knows what workaround a we will come up with in a future where we don't need money/ the support of capital to help our research along?

[Ace High]

Well, Ace dealt with the primary way to deal with our over-consumption, but we can also educate people, which, despite the resources available to many people, still hasn't been adequately explained to them. Then we also would probably be able to come up with alternatives to these things we do not yet know about. If there's one thing humans are really really good at, it's creating ways to avoid having to bunker down and stop over consuming. I mean, that's the great achievement of Haber, is that he was able to make it so more people could be sustained on our planet. Who knows what workaround a we will come up with in a future where we don't need money/ the support of capital to help our research along?

Exactly like I said, we have the technology and resources, and we even know how, we just think we don't. For instance, we know how to use geothermal power, we just don't because the capitalists control OPEC. We also could feed the entire world with only $35 billion. A huge number, but not if you consider how easily that money can be acquired if the elites weren't such sadistic sociopaths.

[Revolutionary Daft]

I understand: The fall of capitalism will reduce consumption, we have some alternative technologies we can use, we can educate people, and we may possibly invent new technologies and discover solutions that will fix our problems... But what if we don't?

I don't want to seem quarrelsome, I've read your posts and taken them into account, and I wish I shared your optimism, but I'm a skeptic. A fervent stubborn skeptic. Now, I'm not an expert on the environment or anything for that matter. I don't know what will or won't work, or what will happen, but I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that the collapse of capitalism is enough, and that we currently HAVE sustainable alternatives to all our technology and infrastructure, or that we WILL invent the technology required before it's to late, or that people WILL listen and do what's necessary. I want to know if there is a plan B that can be put into action, that we KNOW we have the means implement (or will have the means to in the new society).

I just want to present a hypothetical scenario: Say that we were living in an anarchy today. We were told by meteorologists that the point of no return for global warming was close. It could happen somewhere between next week or 2 months from now, and the only solution we have available is to stop using all fossil fuels. That means no more airplanes, no more trucks, no more fuel-driven ships, many industries will have to stop, and it will be a disaster for everyone, but it will prevent an even bigger disaster from happening 50-100 years from now.

Would you support this measure if it happened today, right this moment? Do you think others would, even though they can't immediately see the consequences of global warming? If they oppose it, do you implement it by force? This question can be extended to any issue we face where - no matter what we choose - sacrifices have to be made. People don't always realize how urgent things are before they're to late, which I would say global warming is a perfect example of, nor do they always vote for what is right, especially when it negatively effects them.

Once again, I really appreciate your answers guys, and thank you for being patient with me.

[BIXX]

I understand: The fall of capitalism will reduce consumption, we have some alternative technologies we can use, we can educate people, and we may possibly invent new technologies and discover solutions that will fix our problems... But what if we don't?

I don't want to seem quarrelsome, I've read your posts and taken them into account, and I wish I shared your optimism, but I'm a skeptic. A fervent stubborn skeptic. Now, I'm not an expert on the environment or anything for that matter. I don't know what will or won't work, or what will happen, but I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that the collapse of capitalism is enough, and that we currently HAVE sustainable alternatives to all our technology and infrastructure, or that we WILL invent the technology required before it's to late, or that people WILL listen and do what's necessary. I want to know if there is a plan B that can be put into action, that we KNOW we have the means implement (or will have the means to in the new society).

I just want to present a hypothetical scenario: Say that we were living in an anarchy today. We were told by meteorologists that the point of no return for global warming was close. It could happen somewhere between next week or 2 months from now, and the only solution we have available is to stop using all fossil fuels. That means no more airplanes, no more trucks, no more fuel-driven ships, many industries will have to stop, and it will be a disaster for everyone, but it will prevent an even bigger disaster from happening 50-100 years from now.

Would you support this measure if it happened today, right this moment? Do you think others would, even though they can't immediately see the consequences of global warming? If they oppose it, do you implement it by force? This question can be extended to any issue we face where - no matter what we choose - sacrifices have to be made. People don't always realize how urgent things are before they're to late, which I would say global warming is a perfect example of, nor do they always vote for what is right, especially when it negatively effects them.

Once again, I really appreciate your answers guys, and thank you for being patient with me.

While I would like to say they'd just listen, they might not. And we can't force them too. That is not our role.

However, look at the ability of humans to avoid certain, inevitable extinction in the past. It has happened enough times to where I believe that we will find a way, even if the future looks grim now.

Regarding everyday life, your home can be taken care of by living in an Earthship. It has practically (if not entirely) no ecological footprint. For cars if we switch to electric generated by wind/solar power (I would say we should use hydrodams but as far as I know we have no current way to keep them from fucking with fish pretty badly) that will save a lot. Thus alone if enough time to allow us to figure out more, and better solutions.

Also I ride my bike and walk most places. I could prolly get by without fossil fuel. And in an anarchist society it would be easier to go green, so I imagine people would be more willing to do so.

[cyu]

Questions of environment deal with what people want. Questions of discrimination deal with how people behave.

I generally boil down discussions of desires and behaviors into 3 basic components: life, reproduction, and pride.

Humans have 2 basic biological motivations that are similar to just about all lifeforms: to live and to reproduce. Most of our desires for creature comforts can probably be distilled into either promoting our ability to live, or our ability to reproduce.

Beyond the 2 biological motivations, I would add a 3rd psychological one: that of pride. I would say this covers just about everything else beyond improving our ability to live and reproduce.

What if we removed the "pride" aspects from the consumerism and materialism in capitalist-run culture? I would assume that would actually leave very little left out of what people desire. Gone would be all sorts of expensive status symbols (like designer labels, expensive car brands, things you "own" just to be able to say you "own" it) - for the rich, there's actually a huge part of the economy that's devoted almost exclusively to producing things that feed their ego - ie. their pride.

Pride itself is very malleable. Those that are skilled in psychology get very good at manipulating it. Some become religious leaders. Some become millitary leaders. Others work for advertising firms and use their skills to victimize those with various amounts of disposable income.

Personally I'm not against capitalism for its environmental effects as much as I'm against it for what it does to the poor. However, with the end of capitalism, I'd assume the environment would naturally improve as the side-effects of consumer-advertising-led culture fade away.

Discrimination doesn't really factor into life or reproduction, however, pride does play a significant role it in. Those who happen to be both good at manipulating psychology and have access to mass media, gain the ability to manipulate mass psychology. Since the ruling class grants access to mass media, they are then able play on people's pride to create racism, sexism, or what-have-you. Why would they want to do it? Because the ruling class believes people are easier to conquer when they are divided.

[TooManyQuestions]

I haven't seen an answer to what would happen if a popular person were to rape a woman, and the woman were ostracized by the community for bringing it to the public. The community in this case assumes that the woman is a liar or "was asking for it." I don't know what the answer to this is, as I am not sure that a community based answer would be more adept at this than the known incompetence and uncaring we see when the police handle things. I have personally witnessed an episode where a woman disclosed a sexual assault, only to see half the campus up in arms about the rape and the other half accuse her of racism. (they were from an all-black college nearby, she was assumed to be white). There were untold meetings about this, and it boiled now to political stances, whether it was more important to be anti-racist or pro-feminist. I was sickened by how little people cared about the victim.

In the end, people are not perfect so societies will never be perfect. A post-revolutionary world will not be free of problems. No one has claimed that it would be. Some problems will be solved, others may arise. The point is to make the world better, not perfect.

Another example I can think of is a cult-of-personality type of 'leader' arising in an isolated community. With social pressure, a small group can seem like a majority. They could shade their actions in a way that don't seem authoritarian, but still nudge individuals to play along an be quiet. Like the pigs in Animal Farm. Again, there are no guarantees in life. Maybe a post-revolutionary society would experience wars between a group of statist central planners and nearby anarchists. But who can say? The end of feudalism wasn't pretty, but no one wants it back (except capitalist oligarchs).

[cyu]

If everyone has a sniper rifle and sniper rifle training, you'd expect them to learn to be nicer to each other - the easy way ...or the hard way ;)

...in fact, I'd say traditional codes of conduct and morality partly developed out of just how easy it was for ancient people to kill each other. We are but soft meat, after all...

[UncleLenin]

As to the environment, we could do a multitude of things. And most likely, we wouldn't have to sacrifice much in regards to our lifestyle. I mean, increase dependence on solar and wind energy, everybody lives in earthships, etc...
This depends more on scientific advancement than telling people to go without this or that.

Now, as to your question regarding discrimination, there is a few options. You can educate people (which in a post-revolution society will help the most in my opinion). Explain racial, gender, and other issues and whatnot. You could also physically confront it, if there was a militant group of fascists or racists of whatever. That one is pretty self-explanatory. The final option (at least, of the ones coming right off the top of my head) is that the community as a whole would gather and if someone were to do racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever things, it could be brought up at the community gathering. The community then would decide what happens. Of course this option wouldn't be suitable for your example. However, in a society that is post revolution, the revolution will most likely have re-educated people, and there most likely wouldn't be to much of the rape culture problem left, anyway. And hopefully, due to this, less rape.

Educate?
How could you educate in an anarchist society when nobody would listen to you?
There has to be some form of discipline.This is my opinion of course.
If anyone could explain how this would work, please do.

[BIXX]

Educate?
How could you educate in an anarchist society when nobody would listen to you?
There has to be some form of discipline.This is my opinion of course.
If anyone could explain how this would work, please do.

Yo, there is a difference between school and saying "y'all need to stop this shit or we are all gonna die". The first is a good way to educate people, the second makes you sound like you're trying for some agenda.

In school, (and maybe outside of it, if people wanna learn) you teach them about the environment and let them form their own conclusions.

[cyu]

How could you educate in an anarchist society when nobody would listen to you?



If people don't like listening to you, it may be because you're treating them like idiots instead of as equals =]

Might want to consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed as well - a non-anarchist text.

[Sotionov]

Anarchist view of:


B.1.4 Why do racism, sexism and homophobia exist? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB1.html#secb14)


D.9.3 What causes justifications for racism to appear? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secD9.html#secd93)


.

D.4 What is the relationship between capitalism and the ecological crisis? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secD4.html)


E.1 What are the root causes of our ecological problems? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secE1.html)
E.1.1 Is industry the cause of environmental problems? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secE1.html#sece11)
E.1.2 What is the difference between environmentalism and ecology? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secE1.html#sece12)

E.2 What do eco-anarchists propose instead of capitalism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secE2.html)