Anarchist Theory

[l3th4l]

I've read the making sense of anarchism thread, and I understand the basics but I'm still not sure about some things...

What do people do about law and crime, for exmaple, someone kills my mother, in an anarchist society would there be anything to stop me killing the murderer? How are all the decisions made?

[violencia.Proletariat]

What do people do about law and crime, for exmaple, someone kills my mother, in an anarchist society would there be anything to stop me killing the murderer?

Well yes, if you tried to kill the person before the trial the peoples militia would stop you.


How are all the decisions made?

For a trial? The call for a trial would be put out and a large jury selected at random.

In general, the commune's production would be run through workers councils. The non work related decisions would be made by neighborhood councils. It's pretty simple but ask if you want more detail.

[l3th4l]

Thanks, That really helpsAnarchism seems much more realistic and makes much more sense to me now. Again, Thanks

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:31 PM



For a trial? The call for a trial would be put out and a large jury selected at random.

In general, the commune's production would be run through workers councils. The non work related decisions would be made by neighborhood councils. It's pretty simple but ask if you want more detail.

Well yes, if you tried to kill the person before the trial the peoples militia would stop you.

What?! That's upsurd! Whois in this bourgeousi police militia unit? Who has the authority to stop me from doing as I wish? This is anarchism buddy, I have complete freedom and there is absolutely NO hiarchy! :lol:

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:36 PM
What?! That's upsurd! Whois in this bourgeousi police militia unit? Who has the authority to stop me from doing as I wish? This is anarchism buddy, I have complete freedom and there is absolutely NO hiarchy! :lol:
Pathetic.
By killing someone you are taking away their freedom, so you would be stopped just like the state. Who has the authority to stop you from doing as you wish? The people. When "as I wish" becomes oppressive towards others, you become a ruler and must be removed from power.

Anarchy does not mean being able to do whatever you wish. It means being able to live free from coercion and violent force. When you go around killing people, you're not letting them live free from coercion.

Also, please learn the definition of bourgeoisie and anarchism. And while you're at it, learn to spell.




:AO:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Whois in this bourgeousi police militia unit?

It's a workers milita. Most likely it would be organized under neighborhood sections. It would be made up of volunteers and entirely responsible to the community.


Who has the authority to stop me from doing as I wish?

The community, and their guns.

[Ghost Mouse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:34 AM
The community, and their guns.
Shouldn't things be handled in a nonviolent manner where guns shouldnt be necessary? I agree that the people should handle that sort of situation, but guns create authority positions and the use of them involves violent coercion.

[Janus]

but guns create authority positions and the use of them involves violent coercion.
When used by the state or an elitist system, then yes. But when it's used by a mass action oriented populace then no.

[YSR]

"Coercion" is justified when in the actual interests of freedom. Are we "coercive" to Nazis? Yes. Do we plan to be "coercive" the interests of government and capital? Yes.

So if the need for the community to be "coercive" for the good of the community, to protect their freedom from one person, than coercion becomes communal and is a positive force. Plus, it's not as though "the community" is some monolithic entity. Clearly, in the case of any murder or what have you, the community would have to hear facts and argue and decide.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:12 PM
I've read the making sense of anarchism thread, and I understand the basics but I'm still not sure about some things...

What do people do about law and crime, for exmaple, someone kills my mother, in an anarchist society would there be anything to stop me killing the murderer? How are all the decisions made?
For most basic questions this should answer everything:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by l3th4l+--> (l3th4l)What do people do about law and crime, for exmaple, someone kills my mother, in an anarchist society would there be anything to stop me killing the murderer? How are all the decisions made?[/b]There are two questions here, I'll answer the first first.
Firstly, with the removal of property from the equation, many many crimes will not exist. So murder will not be common. Other things such as prejudice against minorities will also hopefully disappear.
Your own sense of justice will hopefully stop you from killing the murderer, if that doesn't hopefully a citizen's group.

Decisions on justice will be made by the community.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Anarchy does not mean being able to do whatever you wish. It means being able to live free from coercion and violent force. When you go around killing people, you're not letting them live free from coercion.Yup. And if you go around killing people, you will be stopped. There are plenty of theoretical discussions about the use of violence to stop this sort of thing.


Ghost Mouse
Shouldn't things be handled in a nonviolent manner where guns shouldnt be necessary? I agree that the people should handle that sort of situation, but guns create authority positions and the use of them involves violent coercion. Sure, but as I said above, there is theoretical justification for using coercion against violent people. If someone is a psychotic killer, the only way to stop them maybe to shoot them. I think it is justified. (See also state and capitalism.)

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Ghost Mouse+Aug 28 2006, 03:30 AM--> (Ghost Mouse @ Aug 28 2006, 03:30 AM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 02:34 AM
The community, and their guns.
Shouldn't things be handled in a nonviolent manner where guns shouldnt be necessary? I agree that the people should handle that sort of situation, but guns create authority positions and the use of them involves violent coercion. [/b]
A people's militia needs to be armed. Whether we like it or not, situations are going to come up where guns will be necessary (defeating the bourgeoisie, defeating counterrevolution, opposing an invasion from outside, dealing with psychotic violent criminals...) and somebody is going to need to have the guns when that time comes. The best somebody to have the guns is, of course, the people themselves arranged in a horizontal, non-hierarchical manner. The guns' only legitimate use would be in self-defense against people who could not be dealt with in any other way. Violent coercion against threats to the well-being of society is perfectly justified; that's the whole point of revolution, after all.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Ghost Mouse+Aug 27 2006, 08:30 PM--> (Ghost Mouse @ Aug 27 2006, 08:30 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 02:34 AM
The community, and their guns.
Shouldn't things be handled in a nonviolent manner where guns shouldnt be necessary? [/b]
Attempts will of course be made to reason with people, but if they refuse and threaten the community, it's only natural for the people's militia to oppose them.

[Red_Syphilis_Steve]

Okay, the thing I have a problem with: say there is a murder trial. the people are divided about the verdict of this trial. take into account "human nature". What's to stop these people from all out killing eachother? because people may have deep connections with this plaintiff......

[violencia.Proletariat]

"human nature"

Why don't you tell me what gene in my body would make me want to kill someone from my class over a disagreement?

Human nature does not exist in the bourgeois deffinition.


What's to stop these people from all out killing eachother?

Well if there is enough empirical evidence to convict the person, what debate would there be? This isn't a top down repressive court system. There is no reason why valid evidence on either side would be rejected. The disagreement if it had merit would easily be talked out.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:30 PM
Okay, the thing I have a problem with: say there is a murder trial. the people are divided about the verdict of this trial. take into account "human nature". What's to stop these people from all out killing eachother? because people may have deep connections with this plaintiff......
What's to stop people from all out killing each other today? Do you honestly think that simply the fear of being arrested is what stops us from killing each other?
Are you saying that humans are naturally so bloodthirsty and manic that if we could, we'd go all out and kill everyone?


EDIT:
As for "human nature," if you are trying to imply that it is human nature to be violent then why the hell would you want anybody to have power over you? Wouldn't "human nature" make them want to abuse you and hurt you? The myth of human nature works for anarchists just as much as it works for the capitalists.

[Red_Syphilis_Steve]

human nature, from my experience has been more defensive than violent. And in the case of an insufficient amount of evidence, and a mass debate, (between communities that are armed, and part of a militia) things could begin to turn violent.

and also, I must question why we would need these *militias" , and an otherwise "lawless" society.

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by Xero+Aug 28 2006, 09:19 PM--> (Xero @ Aug 28 2006, 09:19 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 02:30 PM
Okay, the thing I have a problem with: say there is a murder trial. the people are divided about the verdict of this trial. take into account "human nature". What's to stop these people from all out killing eachother? because people may have deep connections with this plaintiff......
What's to stop people from all out killing each other today? Do you honestly think that simply the fear of being arrested is what stops us from killing each other?
Are you saying that humans are naturally so bloodthirsty and manic that if we could, we'd go all out and kill everyone?


EDIT:
As for "human nature," if you are trying to imply that it is human nature to be violent then why the hell would you want anybody to have power over you? Wouldn't "human nature" make them want to abuse you and hurt you? The myth of human nature works for anarchists just as much as it works for the capitalists. [/b]
Good point. :) However, at first, there probably will be crimes such as murder, theft, etc. but I think those feelings are maintained by the capitalist system. Just read the capitalist text books. My economics book for this instance describes us as having "unlimited wants and needs" and life is just about fulfilling those wants & needs to the best of our ability. Well,there's going to be problems there. And there's going to be crime. But, when we are truly free, I think (after this first period) this will happen VERY minimally. Of course, since we don't know how to be free because we've never been free, we must learn. That would be our learning process. ;)

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 08:19 PM

and also, I must question why we would need these *militias" , and an otherwise "lawless" society.
To defend against counter revolutionaries and outside imperialist forces.

[MrDoom]

Precisely. When everyone is free, and has a gun, everyone is protected.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 02:22 AM
Precisely. When everyone is free, and has a gun, everyone is protected.
Could Charlton Heston have put it any better?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Precisely. When everyone is free, and has a gun, everyone is protected.

Do you really mean everyone?

Kids and old people should have guns?

Those with disabilities might not be able to wield weapons.

People who were in prison?

Members of the police force, soldiers etc in the regime before the revolution?


That leaves alot of people who need protection.

And those people who cannot or arnt allowed to wield weapons are at a massive disadvantage.

all sounds rather authoritarian to me.

[Delta]

Well obviously children who lack the maturity to have a weapon will not have one. The same for the mentally disabled. And soldiers and police of the capitalist state? If they are loyal to that system then they will already be dead, and if not, they will be integrated into the rest of society.


all sounds rather authoritarian to me

You actually think that is authoritarian? How? :blink:

[JKP]

There has to be an actual authoritarian power relationship before something can be called authoritarian.

The only authoritarian act in this case would be depriving someone of a gun.

[Hit The North]

Well obviously children who lack the maturity to have a weapon will not have one. The same for the mentally disabled.

Who will have the authority to designate an individual as 'mentally disabled' and how will anarchism guarantee that this authority won't be used authoritarianly?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:01 PM
There has to be an actual authoritarian power relationship before something can be called authoritarian.

The only authoritarian act in this case would be depriving someone of a gun.
Which is an authoritarian act routinely practiced by capitalist states.

However, by depriving someone of a gun, whilst everyone else has the right to one, is forcing those dis-armed people to rely on the largesse of those who do bare arms. In other words, you create an inequality of power.

Either everyone should have the right or no one should.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+Aug 30 2006, 09:37 AM--> (Citizen Zero @ Aug 30 2006, 09:37 AM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 06:01 PM
There has to be an actual authoritarian power relationship before something can be called authoritarian.

The only authoritarian act in this case would be depriving someone of a gun.
Which is an authoritarian act routinely practiced by capitalist states.

However, by depriving someone of a gun, whilst everyone else has the right to one, is forcing those dis-armed people to rely on the largesse of those who do bare arms. In other words, you create an inequality of power.

Either everyone should have the right or no one should. [/b]
I agree that everyone should have that right. But as you mentioned, peope are still limited by material conditions, namely not being able to shoot or simply being too old.

Good thing that when the revolution comes, technology will probably have a reached a point where we could simply attach cybernetic arms to people, thus giving everyone the ability to shoot and such.

[Red_Syphilis_Steve]

Everyone should have a gun? I think you are over-estimating the responsibility of the people. Guns will not only be used for protection, as we can clearly see today. Guns can corrupt innocent people alone.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

To have the general population armed is foolish.

A democratically organised force whic h has rules, codes of conduct and ways for it to be held accountable by the workers is what we need post revolution.

You need to be able to hold people accountable if they do shit wrong, but you also need to make sure that the wrong people dont get the guns.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 30 2006, 10:31 AM

Well obviously children who lack the maturity to have a weapon will not have one. The same for the mentally disabled.

Who will have the authority to designate an individual as 'mentally disabled' and how will anarchism guarantee that this authority won't be used authoritarianly?
The people in the community of course.

And you can never guarantee anything with any social system, because it really comes down to people. But you can create conditions that make it hard for unwanted circumstances to arise.

[Red_Syphilis_Steve]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:40 PM
To have the general population armed is foolish.

A democratically organised force whic h has rules, codes of conduct and ways for it to be held accountable by the workers is what we need post revolution.

You need to be able to hold people accountable if they do shit wrong, but you also need to make sure that the wrong people dont get the guns.
couldn't have said it any better myself.

[Akira]

I support a Anarchist position where there is only localized leadership of any town or village.

I am somewhat a fan of tribes and clans that run themselves in small bands and councils.

I am against centralized government.

I like Agrarianism.

[joram]

For starters, the term"militia" militia = disabled army
Do anarchists really have to maintain a disabled army?
You cannot have an army if you don't intend to kill your neighbour or carry adventurism motives.

What happenes if an anarchist kills. Simple, we should tie you on a tree and give you a one-way ticket to hell!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:19 PM
For starters, the term"militia" militia = disabled army
Do anarchists really have to maintain a disabled army?
You cannot have an army if you don't intend to kill your neighbour or carry adventurism motives.

What happenes if an anarchist kills. Simple, we should tie you on a tree and give you a one-way ticket to hell!
What on earth are you talking about!?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

For starters, the term"militia" militia = disabled army
Do anarchists really have to maintain a disabled army?
You cannot have an army if you don't intend to kill your neighbour or carry adventurism motives.

What happenes if an anarchist kills. Simple, we should tie you on a tree and give you a one-way ticket to hell!

No! ..........no anything but ........HELL :o

[joram]

No! ..........no anything but ........HELL
Apology to those that don't understand my English, Swahili is my first language.

The only fear you can plant in a would be killer is firing squard. Revolutionaries are very aware that, when they lose their gun or murder, they get a firing squard.
This does not mean that they condon killing but purifying the vanguard and not a mere change of guards.
I have friends that decided to stay home and drink milk rather than get killed if they lost their gun.
One of the reasons Chevara left Congo is because the marxists kept losing their guns and he felt guilt to put them before firing squard.

[CoexisT]

Originally posted by Xero+Aug 28 2006, 09:19 PM--> (Xero @ Aug 28 2006, 09:19 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 02:30 PM
Okay, the thing I have a problem with: say there is a murder trial. the people are divided about the verdict of this trial. take into account "human nature". What's to stop these people from all out killing eachother? because people may have deep connections with this plaintiff......
What's to stop people from all out killing each other today? Do you honestly think that simply the fear of being arrested is what stops us from killing each other?
Are you saying that humans are naturally so bloodthirsty and manic that if we could, we'd go all out and kill everyone?


EDIT:
As for "human nature," if you are trying to imply that it is human nature to be violent then why the hell would you want anybody to have power over you? Wouldn't "human nature" make them want to abuse you and hurt you? The myth of human nature works for anarchists just as much as it works for the capitalists. [/b]
You have some very interesting points.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:35 PM

No! ..........no anything but ........HELL
Apology to those that don't understand my English, Swahili is my first language.

The only fear you can plant in a would be killer is firing squard. Revolutionaries are very aware that, when they lose their gun or murder, they get a firing squard.
This does not mean that they condon killing but purifying the vanguard and not a mere change of guards.
I have friends that decided to stay home and drink milk rather than get killed if they lost their gun.
One of the reasons Chevara left Congo is because the marxists kept losing their guns and he felt guilt to put them before firing squard.
Somebody please tell me what he's going on about? Revolutions are violent and bloody, people will die and people will kill. We're not going to execute revolutionaries who kill the enemies. What is the sense in doing that?

[WUOrevolt]

If you look at how the Zapatista communities are run, it is a good example of Anarchism. When a crime is committed, and it very rarely is, the community will come together to decide what happens to the criminal. Thus the elimination of hierarchy and protection of freedom.