Law enforcement

[Redhead]

In a state-less society, how would law be enforced? I then mean especially those small-crime stuff which isnt a big deal but still matters for example driving too fast, other traffic related issues, shop theft, disturbances etc.

[bropasaran]

Police would be replaced with something like neighborhood watch.

Bakunin, Ideas on social organisation, 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 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."

[RedWorker]

Another interesting thing to debate would be the nature of written law, itself if it at all would exist, in a communist society, along with by whom would it be written, degree of democratic participation in its writing and how that participation would be implemented, etc.

[bropasaran]

Anarchist law code written by Bakunin will be decreed as the only valid law! :grin:

But seriously, his Revolutionary Catechism has the basic framework pretty carefully elucidated.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm

[DannyMorin]

Without some kind of official law enforcement there would be chaos. The libertarian fantasy of Uncle Bubba's militia dealing out justice more effectively than a large organised police force is fanciful.

[motion denied]

Without some kind of official law enforcement there would be chaos. The libertarian fantasy of Uncle Bubba's militia dealing out justice more effectively than a large organised police force is fanciful.

Thus spoke Hobbes.

Laws would not be necessary in socialism. No state, no laws. No bullshit.

[Slavic]

Thus spoke Hobbes.

Laws would not be necessary in socialism. No state, no laws. No bullshit.

So what do you call the generally accepted norms and practices of a society that are used to legitimize, for example, the stopping of one man from committing murder of another man?

Or is the stopping of a murder not legitimate?

[motion denied]

So what do you call the generally accepted norms and practices of a society that are used to legitimize, for example, the stopping of one man from committing murder of another man?

Or is the stopping of a murder not legitimate?

A recognition that every human should live and enjoy life to the full, opposing any and everything in the way of the human community. Being for the free and omnilateral development of the human kind, I couldn't be in favour of murder.

This norm you deem "generally accepted" is, in fact, generally rejected. Every state everywhere kills, every army everywhere kills. And they do it freely, legitimally, because the bourgeoisie and its state are the judge, the jury and the executioner.

"Law" is inseparable from "State".

[Slavic]

A recognition that every human should live and enjoy life to the full, opposing any and everything in the way of the human community. Being for the free and omnilateral development of the human kind, I couldn't be in favour of murder.

This norm you deem "generally accepted" is, in fact, generally rejected. Every state everywhere kills, every army everywhere kills. And they do it freely, legitimally, because the bourgeoisie and its state are the judge and the executioner.

"Law" is inseparable from "State".

I was referring to the act of stopping a murder being a generally accepted and practiced societal norm. What gives legitimacy the stopping of a murder.

[helot]

Any force would be defensive and immediately identical to the people's own organisation of themselves. This is not a police force and the notion that a police force itself is necessary in a classless society seriously misunderstands the function of and the material conditions necessary for the the emergence of the police.

[motion denied]

I was referring to the act of stopping a murder being a generally accepted and practiced societal norm. What gives legitimacy the stopping of a murder.

Certainly not a law. People do not let others live because killing is against the law, but because most people don't want to kill other people, or see others be killed.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't think standing security detail be it militia, douches in blue or what have you. I think this will be more organic an civilized and society will police itself as it already does now on a small scale. Where I live for example, if some actual shit like abuse of women or children, rape of either and other such offenses don't go unnoticed long and even with official 'justice' going on is usually settled on the bricks or in lock up, one way or another. Right or wrong, I think it will be like this though I see crimes under anarchy stemming from deeper underlining psychological issues and think things should be handled as such.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Certainly not a law. People do not let others live because killing is against the law, but because most people don't want to kill other people, or see others be killed.

This. I think it is ridiculous to talk about "legitimacy" in socialism - if you asked a member of a socialist society why they decided to help someone they would probably respond with the same amazement we would show if asked why, when we sit down to have cereals for breakfast, we don't slit our throats with the spoon. (It's a shit example but I can't sleep.) So rules are replaced by habits.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So what do you call the generally accepted norms and practices of a society that are used to legitimize, for example, the stopping of one man from committing murder of another man?

Or is the stopping of a murder not legitimate?
Custom.

Law only recognizes the ability of "legitimate" (I.e. Capitalist ruling class) power to determine when murders are wrong or right. more general custom in capitalist society exists and doesn't always overlap with legal definitions of legitimate or illegitimate killing... War slaughter is perfectly legal and sometimes social custom still sees it as illegitimate... Not that custom is always health under capitalist society.

Without class rule and oppression it is much easier for everyone to have a "common" or customary sense of right or wrong in general and so there wouldn't be the need for special organizations to deafened on class perspective of legitimate or illegitimate violence.

[DannyMorin]

Custom.

Law only recognizes the ability of "legitimate" (I.e. Capitalist ruling class) power to determine when murders are wrong or right. more general custom in capitalist society exists and doesn't always overlap with legal definitions of legitimate or illegitimate killing... War slaughter is perfectly legal and sometimes social custom still sees it as illegitimate... Not that custom is always health under capitalist society.

Without class rule and oppression it is much easier for everyone to have a "common" or customary sense of right or wrong in general and so there wouldn't be the need for special organizations to deafened on class perspective of legitimate or illegitimate violence.

With that logic you don't end the ruling class, you make thousands of smaller ruling classes, each with their own definitions of which killings are right or wrong.

Take the George Zimmerman trial for example, Sanford said he was innocent but maybe Harlem thinks he's guilty. Thus you create a chaotic and confusing world where every city, town or street has their own code of conduct, you never know what rules you're supposed to be operating under when you pass through a certain area and even if you've been cleared of a previous crime, a different self-declared juristiction might want to hold you to their own standards if you happen to wander across their perimeter.

[Wht.Rex]

Police would be replaced with something like neighborhood watch.

This.
That is probably most simple, collective way. Year ago, there were 3 cars stolen and some of other cars broken and 1 even burned in our neiborghood. To prevent such thing, my neiborghs and I decided to have atleast 1 guy a week watch for yard.

[Slavic]

With that logic you don't end the ruling class, you make thousands of smaller ruling classes, each with their own definitions of which killings are right or wrong.

Take the George Zimmerman trial for example, Sanford said he was innocent but maybe Harlem thinks he's guilty. Thus you create a chaotic and confusing world where every city, town or street has their own code of conduct, you never know what rules you're supposed to be operating under when you pass through a certain area and even if you've been cleared of a previous crime, a different self-declared juristiction might want to hold you to their own standards if you happen to wander across their perimeter.

This is kind of where I was going with.

If customs dictate what actions are acceptable in a society, then you must agree that different societies can and will have different customs.

I do not agree that with the abolishment of class rule that there will be a "common" custom. There will still exist societies whose customs are contradictory to those of other societies. How would you determine which societies' customs are "moral" if such a thing is even possible to determine or establish?

Following DannyMorin's example.

In Town X two men get into a fight and one man kills the other during the fight. The next day the deceased man's family find and kills their family member's killer.

In Town Y two men get into a fight and one man kills the other. The next day the deceased man's family forgives the killer's actions.

Which act is "moral"?

[TC]

1. A state properly considered is nothing more or less than an organization or set of mutually supporting organizations that possesses a a local monopoly on the use of organized, socially legitimated coercive force. A "people's militia" or or "people's own organization" or "neighborhood watch" functions as a state or a branch of a state if it enforces laws and put downs through force attempts to use violence independently. Any organization or even ad hoc rule-less organization capable of reliably enforcing its will by excluding others from using violence is functionally the local authority in the area. A state.

2. Calling a low level, minimally hierarchical state something other than a state doesn't mean its not a state or not functioning as a state. If you define "a state" as "an oppressive hierarchical organization of rule by an elite over the rest of society" then your rejection of "the state" is totally uninteresting because you only reject states that you think are oppressive and harmful. Everyone does that. Calling a low level state a non-state is just playing linguistic games.

3. While a truly egalitarian society might have a radically reduced incidence of interpersonal violence, even under those conditions some interpersonal violence will persist. When people put down and resist that violence in a reliable and organized fashion, they act as an authority. A low level state but a state nonetheless.

4. I am therefore convinced that while states may be more complex or less complex, expend more resources on enforcement hardly any, employ standing armies or have a situation where people following a socially acknowledged set of rules predictably mete out 'justice' in an ad hoc fashion (such as in pre-capitalist state), whether the size of a neighborhood or the size of an empire, - to speak of a post-state society or a pre-state society is mistaken. There might be differences of degree or not of type, the state is (contra-Marx) as old as modern humans and it will likely last as long as modern humans.

5. The assertion that there is "state power" and "non-state power" is parallel to the assertion that there is "state power" and "private power". It is employed to to in some sense legitimate and naturalize the power attributed to so called "non-state actors" or to legitimate the power attributed to the state. For example a drug cartel in control of a neighborhood might be described as a "non-state actor" even though it is functionally the local state of that neighborhood, it is simply a lousy state that doesn't offer much in the way of basic services. Alternatively the patriarchal power of tribal elders over their extended relatives and husband/fathers over their wives and children might be regarded as non-state "private power" because the speaker regards it as somehow natural or fitting - not corrupted by the 'hierarchy' of a state - while the hierarchy and implied threats of violence are clearly there just rendered invisible by the outside observer privileging the 'private power'.

6. If a "state" is a coherent concept that is not actually a term standing for a "bad state" or "a state with a level of development above the ideologically preferred" then there are states everywhere and will likely always be states, even if they don't fit the mold of a UN member state in bourgeois international relations. If states mean something else then its pointless to argue about them because they really just stand for states disliked by the speaker. Either way it is not meaningful to speak of law enforcement in a post-state society.

7. If there is a widely shared recognition that murder, rape, battery, kidnapping, etc are breaches of social norms that can and should be met with a forceable response (even if that simply means seizing the assailant and expelling them from the community, or otherwise rendering them unable to continue their attack) - then there exists a functional law against murder, rape, battery, kidnapping, etc. This is the case regardless of whether the law is written in any "official" reporter. When people enforce those laws, as they must if they want to live together, they function as a state even if a state of a very small scale.



Its an article of dogmatic faith in Marxist tradition that, in Communism, the state will wither away. Likewise it is also an article of dogmatic faith in Anarchist tradition that it possible to overthrow a state and replace it with something other than a new state - a non-state - that will remain an ordered society that preserves people's basic safety needs.

I would suggest that we should more strenuously interrogate these articles of faith rather than just accepting them as the givens through which we filter our analysis.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is kind of where I was going with.

If customs dictate what actions are acceptable in a society, then you must agree that different societies can and will have different customs.

We don't agree that different societies will exist in socialism, as the current state of development of the productive forces necessitates global coordination of their employment.


1. A state properly considered is nothing more or less than an organization or set of mutually supporting organizations that possesses a a local monopoly on the use of organized, socially legitimated coercive force.

Apparently "properly considering" the matter has caused class analysis to fly out of the window, and we're left with the notion that the KKK was a state.

[Redhead]

I get how obvious crimes would be dealt with. But the police doesnt just deal with and prevent crime. They also create order. Especially what im thinking of here is traffic rules. Now, neither marx, proudhorn or bakunin had any problem with traffic at the time so this is a modern problem: someone has to enforce traffic laws to prevent an overload of accidents and traffic jams.

[Regicollis]

I'm not convinced that community guards will be able to take care of all law enforcement in a post-revolutionary society. I agree that they will be the ideal way to deal with petty crime like vandalism, bar brawls and the like. But I think those who claim that they will be able to do it all by themselves underestimate the skills needed to do law enforcement.

A lot of what today's police forces do requires skill and practice. Fighting organised crime, building a network of informants, making forensic examinations - even pacifying a violent drunk without inflicting permanent harm or driving an emergency vehicle - it is all something you need to learn to do.

One could then say that the necessary expertise would come from citizens who volunteered full time in the neighbourhood watch. But then that defeats the purpose of having a citizens' militia for all citizens and turns it into a police force in anything but name.

I have been pondering this question for a long time and haven't been able to find a satisfactory answer. I hope you will be able to help.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is kind of where I was going with.

If customs dictate what actions are acceptable in a society, then you must agree that different societies can and will have different customs.

I do not agree that with the abolishment of class rule that there will be a "common" custom. There will still exist societies whose customs are contradictory to those of other societies. How would you determine which societies' customs are "moral" if such a thing is even possible to determine or establish?

Following DannyMorin's example.

In Town X two men get into a fight and one man kills the other during the fight. The next day the deceased man's family find and kills their family member's killer.

In Town Y two men get into a fight and one man kills the other. The next day the deceased man's family forgives the killer's actions.

Which act is "moral"?custom rather than law does not mean that there won't be conflict mediation or disputes or "juries" of sorts brought together to help settle interpersonal issues. But Law is a specific historical development based in certain kinds of class societies.

In capitalist society Law acts as a force above and outside of class conflict (which is not true, it is shaped by class conflict). But Law of this sort is necessary to maintain a particular order and set the rules by which the ruling order can negotiate inherent class conflicts. This works in terms of repressive laws but also mediation laws. Laws at times (like now) might overwhelmingly favor powerful capitalists by design or by corruption; but in times of class struggle (when the ruling class is worried about loosing their legitimacy) laws may protect workers and the oppressed from individual powerful figures or larger tendencies in the system. But either way, the function is the same to maintain the overall capitalist order of society.

Even today custom largely informs our behavior, not laws and law enforcement does next to nothing to prevent interpersonal transgressions and conflicts. But in a class divided society custom can be "better than official laws" but can also be much worse (like racial profiling done by shop clerks or walmart managers getting workers to break labor laws by working longer, etc).

Theoretically I think laws will wither just as the other post-revolutionary structures (state) will wither as class society disappears into history. There will not be common custom as in everyone has the same traditions and unanimous views, but on basic views of common things there would be a classless customary sense of what is right or wrong that will guide how people act towards each-other. Basic things like the "golden rule" will be possible when rulership of society requires treating others as labor. It is impossible in class societies because killing is wrong if it's not in the interests of our rulers, workers need to show understanding to our rulers but not the other way around, etc. our common interests will allow us to have a very general "common sense".

As I said, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be council in got conflict mediation or even ad hoc democratic decisions that are made, but those would be the exceptions and circumstantial, not a whole legal code designed to permanently "maintain (the ruling) order".

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well, speaking personally, this "particular individual," sees no real difference between modern law enforcement and cops portrayed in the movie Idiocracy. Even the verbiage used is basically the same. I hate cops, I hate security culture and I'm just sick I the whole thing. I am also very concerned with the increasing militarization of law enforcement in America.

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2013/05/police-militarized1.jpg

Then:

http://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/metropolitanpoliceuniforms.jpg

Now:

http://crazyemailsandbackstories.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/police_tank_2.jpg