Quick Question on Anarchy

[Everyday Anarchy]

Today a fascist at my school (yes, he really is a fascist. I'm not just using it as an insult) saw me drawing a hammer and sickle with a circle A next to it and he said "You know, communism and anarchism are both flawed systems." I looked up at him and said "And fascism isn't?" He ignored that and went on with this...

In today's world, if I kill someone and run to Florida, I'll be caught because there is a police force that is above the people. In anarchy, it would be the community's responsibility to deal with their crime so if I killed you and ran to Florida, nobody would ever catch me. The community in Florida I escape to would have no idea what I did to you here.

I responded to this by explaining how the technology we have today would make dealing with it easy. Access to the Internet would be free for all so there would be nothing stopping the people from creating a sort of database to keep track of people who are a threat to society. The same technology used by today's police force to trace criminals could be given to the people who could then protect themselves as well as all others in their area and beyond.

Anyone care to explain how you think it would be handled in anarchy?

[Janus]

His arguement is based on the assumption of divides between the various communities; something that will most likely not occur as communism requires a strong technological and interconnective system for success.

[apathy maybe]

So, if someone commits a crime in Mexico and then goes to the US, the Mexican police are going to be able to arrest them? No ...

In fact, if he kills someone and runs to Florida (from with in the USA) he isn't likely to be caught (if he doesn't leave many clues as to his identity). In fact, if he is really good, he could commit a crime, and stay put!

In an anarchist society, it depends. If it is a highly connected society like some of the technocrats around here would like, then there is just as much chance that they would be brought to "justice" as in our present system.

Technology is a great thing, and it isn't going to disappear when we have a revolution.


On the matter of crime, I can't be fucked looking up the writings now (someone else will I'm sure), but lots has been written on the subject. Basically, most crime that occurs in society is a result of property and unequal power distribution in society. Once you remove that, most "crime" cannot exist (how can you steal something, if there is no property?).

[bcbm]

You know he's a fascist and you talk to him? Just break his jaw and cut the foreplay.

[Fawkes]

The community in Florida I escape to would have no idea what I did to you here.
What, does he think that all leftists are primitivists and are against technology? Though crime would be cut down to a nearly non-existent state, it still would exist. If somebody murders someone and then flees somewhere else, information will be spread most likely via the internet about the fugitive so as to help find them. He [the fascist] seems to think that every commune or whatever you wish to call it would be separate from each other and there would be little communication between the groups, which there most definitely would be. Also, I like BCBM's suggestion a lot.

[( R )evolution]

Explain to the idiot that communism is not against technology and under communism technology will reach and expand greater than ever able under capitalism. Also, as others have pointed out. The communities under communism need to be inter dependent to exist so this leads to communication between all communities and using the technology within communism it would be relatively easy to track the criminal down.

Also, capitalism spawns crimes because usually those crimes are because of the economic inequality and the battle to survive (get food, shelter, shit like that) So when communism is reached and there is economic equality, the crime rate will drop to never seen levels. But there will always be crazy ass physco who want to kill innocent people because they are messed up in the head and when this occurs the community will take care of them with the help of some bullets or re-educationing them.

[chimx]

My apologies for playing devil's advocate, but could anyone be more precise on how technology will cure this situation? You say that information will be easily spread thanks to things like the internet, but given a decentralized community structure, whose authority is spreading the information, or possibly disinformation.

I have a blog, I could tell my friends in florida that Fawkes is a paedophile if I really wanted to. That doesn't make it a legitimate claim. How do you suggest a system of accountability works that maintains a non-coersive relationship?

[apathy maybe]

The community as a whole would make the decision. It would not say that Fawkes is a paedophile, but that Fawkes is accused of being a paedophile.

Private pages, such as your own, would be discounted. After all, anyone could set up a page with misinformation.

There are various technological possibilities, perhaps a page with information on people accused of crime from all around the place.

Interpol and such manage to do these things now, why couldn't we do them in a anarchistic future?