Black Dagger
10th November 2006, 10:34
Originally posted by Jac_Bastian+--> (Jac_Bastian)But what if the people where badly educated on, immigration for example, and did not see its econaomical values etc. and banned it [/b]
It's not possible to 'ban' immigration in an anarchist society, there is nation-state, no 'national' border, and no state to 'protect' or patrol the non-existant national border.
Originally posted by Jac_Bastian+--> (Jac_Bastian)
I think this happend in a direct democracy in Switzerland. [/b]
Switzerland has one of (if not the most) strict citizenship systems in the world, its a very racist/parochial country, not an anarchist society, though they use a form of direct democracy in making decisions (such as determing the migrant flow) this is meaningless within a racist and nationalist capitalist and state system.
Originally posted by Jac_Bastian
but if the people decide all we could do is educate them on the values of immigration, and try to persuade them not to ban it?
'The people' are not idiots, 'we' don't need to 'educate' them, as if 'we' are their enlightened teachers, and opposition to national borders is something that is intrinsic to anarchist philosophy and if this philosphy is being seized on by the people this opposition will develop consequently in their consciousness.
If a society has undergone an anarchist revolution and established an anarchist society, given the strong current of anti-racism in anarchist philosphy, and the obvious anti-statism (so nation-states, national borders etc), it's highly unlikely that the scenario you describe could eventuate.
[email protected]
would there be a police and a justice system of some sotrs?
Police, no, justice system of sorts yes.
Here's a better explanation than i can be bothered writing :P
http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci58
Anarchist FAQ
Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally disappear in a free society. Therefore, some sort of "court" system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to adjudicate disputes between citizens.
These courts would function in one of two ways. One possibility is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third party. Then the "court" in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. The second possibility is when the parties cannot not agree (or if the victim was dead). Then the issue could be raised at a communal assembly and a "court" appointed to look into the issue. These "courts" would be independent from the commune, their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a case. As Malatesta pointed out, "when differences were to arise between men [sic!], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right lies than through an irresponsible magistrate which has the right to adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent and therefore unjust?" [Anarchy, p. 43]
In the case of a "police force," this would not exist either as a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did consider that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. Such a system would "not be entrusted to, as it is today, to a special, official body: all able-bodied inhabitants [of a commune] will be called upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune." [James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 371] This system would be based around a voluntary militia system, in which all members of the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current police force or a private security firm exercising a policing function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by accustoming a population to intervene in anti-social as part of the militia, they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, so reducing the need for its services even more.
Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but would simply be on call if others required it. It would no more be a monopoly of defence (i.e. a "police force") than the current fire service is a monopoly. Individuals are not banned from putting out fires today because the fire service exists, similarly individuals will be free to help stop anti-social crime by themselves, or in association with others, in an anarchist society.
Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and so the "guilty" party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did occur we can imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of action. The injured party may look into the facts themselves or appoint an agent to do so or, more likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at a community assembly to investigate specific crimes of this sort. Such a group would be given the necessary "authority" to investigate the crime and be subject to recall by the community if they start trying to abuse whatever authority they had. Once the investigating body thought it had enough evidence it would inform the community as well as the affected parties and then organise a court. Of course, a free society will produce different solutions to such problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so these suggestions are just that, suggestions.
As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of crime as of disease. In other words, crime is best fought by rooting out its causes as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these causes. For example, it is hardly surprising that a culture that promotes individual profit and consumerism would produce individuals who do not respect other people (or themselves) and see them as purely means to an end (usually increased consumption). And, like everything else in a capitalist system, such as honour and pride, conscience is also available at the right price -- hardly an environment which encourages consideration for others, or even for oneself.