Anarchism

[la-troy]

I don't know a lot about anarchism but I would like to understand the philosophy. Firstly I would like to know if anarchism calls for the complete elimination of government and the state . If this is so I was wondering how criminal cases would be decided in a anarchist society or if there will even be laws as we know it.

I know these questions might sound stupid to an anarchist but remember I am just trying to understand the idea not attack it.

[Goatse]

Questions are never stupid...

Anyway, there wouldn't be laws as such but there would be standards people would adhere to. Criminal cases would be decided be the people. The people would just decide what a suitable punishment would be for individual cases.

[Fawkes]

I would like to know if anarchism calls for the complete elimination of government and the state
The former: no; the latter: yes. We do not wish to destroy government per se, just replace it with a much more egalitarian manner of governing.


If this is so I was wondering how criminal cases would be decided in a anarchist society or if there will even be laws as we know it.
Well, first you have to note that crime would most likely drop by an incredible amount in a communist/anarchist society due to the fact that there would no longer be much of a material incentive to steal things or rob people; social ostracizing would hopefully also be reduced, so as to minimize the amount of sociopaths that feel the need to rape and murder due to their anger with society; "hate" crimes would most likely go down due to the fact that things like racism, sexism, and homophobia would no longer be egged on by the state. So, that would drastically reduce the level of crime, but it would be naive to think that crime itself would disappear entirely. The majority of criminals left over after all of the aforementioned social problems have been dealt with would most likely be motivated by things such as psychiatric disorders, and thus, would be treated as the sick people that they are---in hospitals---, not as criminals. There still would be some criminals left over that just do what they do for the thrill of it, and if it cannot be proven that they do what they do due to a psychiatric disorder of some kind or something similar, they will be removed from the people that they endanger and rehabilitated so as to hopefully be able to assimilate back into society.


I know these questions might sound stupid to an anarchist but remember I am just trying to understand the idea not attack it.
No problem at all :).

[la-troy]

OK that was pretty easy. So the people decide what is acceptable on a case by case basis or would there be a set guideline?
Also there would not be any room for civil laws suite right, but what if the a person steals from the community would they just punish him or will he have to repay the community dearly. Like among the tainos where stealing from the community was worst than murder?

[la-troy]

this is for Fawkes
In my country and in a lot of other countries the crimes are more likely to have domestic roots. and also i don't think having an anarchist society excludes you from "hard times" and plain greed. The crimes i am talking about are the above ones.
Also you say a more egalitarian government, so will there still be politicians?

[Fawkes]

Also you say a more egalitarian government, so will there still be politicians?
No, government is just a word meaning the group or organization that has control over a certain area. The way in which the government is organized is very different in anarchism than in capitalism.


In my country and in a lot of other countries the crimes are more likely to have domestic roots
Could you elaborate on what you mean please?


and also i don't think having an anarchist society excludes you from "hard times" and plain greed.
Well, when there is no property, there isn't much to be greedy over. I do, however, understand that crime would still exist over things such as relationships---how perpetrators would be dealt with, I don't really know.



So the people decide what is acceptable on a case by case basis or would there be a set guideline?
I envision there as being a loose set of guidelines that are very flexible depending on the case and the situation surrounding it.


what if the a person steals from the community would they just punish him or will he have to repay the community dearly.
If somebody takes from the community way more than they need and that causes others to have shortages of whatever that thing is, that person [the one who took all of it] will most likely be told to give back some of what s/he took, and if they do not, they could be cut-off from non-essential goods. Hopefully, in a communist society, technology would advance to a point where things are so abundant, a situation like that would be likely to never occur.

[la-troy]

Ok it's not so bad guess its not so different from communism after all. :D thanks

Oh yea i was talking domestic violence but you pretty much explained that.

[Fawkes]

Ok it's not so bad guess its not so different from communism after all.
Well, the end result is actually the same thing: a stateless, classless society. We just disagree on how to get there, but even a lot of those disagreements are just over semantics. Anyway, no problem :) .

[Janus]

Firstly I would like to know if anarchism calls for the complete elimination of government and the state .
Anarchism seeks to eliminate the state as a manifestation of institutional government not government in general.

For starters, look around for past threads in this forum and check out the Anarchy FAQ too.

[Floyce White]

I disagree with playing some game of subtleties of interpretation, shades of meaning, "no I didn't mean that," etc. Anarchism makes a lot of noise about being against the current state--as does all bourgeois radicalism. Read what anarchists actually are in favor of, instead of putting your own wishful thinking into it. Anarchists are in favor of small family business and limited partnerships (co-operatives, syndicates, etc.). Because they are for property, they are for a class of dispossessed workers, and they are for a state-by-any-other-name.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 14, 2007 10:51 pm
I disagree with playing some game of subtleties of interpretation, shades of meaning, "no I didn't mean that," etc. Anarchism makes a lot of noise about being against the current state--as does all bourgeois radicalism. Read what anarchists actually are in favor of, instead of putting your own wishful thinking into it. Anarchists are in favor of small family business and limited partnerships (co-operatives, syndicates, etc.). Because they are for property, they are for a class of dispossessed workers, and they are for a state-by-any-other-name.
What are you rambling about?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+May 15, 2007 09:19 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ May 15, 2007 09:19 am)
Floyce [email protected] 14, 2007 10:51 pm
I disagree with playing some game of subtleties of interpretation, shades of meaning, "no I didn't mean that," etc. Anarchism makes a lot of noise about being against the current state--as does all bourgeois radicalism. Read what anarchists actually are in favor of, instead of putting your own wishful thinking into it. Anarchists are in favor of small family business and limited partnerships (co-operatives, syndicates, etc.). Because they are for property, they are for a class of dispossessed workers, and they are for a state-by-any-other-name.
What are you rambling about? [/b]
I second the question.


Floyce, Have you perhaps heard of "anarcho-communism"? I'm sure you have heard of Marxism. Anyway, the end result of Marxism is supposed to be communism right ... Well guess fucking what! "Anarcho-communism" and "communism" are the same thing really.

[Bilan]

If I can shed a little light with the crime thing, a good resource would be the ABC (Anarchist Black Cross).
Anarchist Black Cross (http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/content/index.html)

There are numerous essays on crime, punishment, prison, etc. Which the link will take you directly too.

:blush:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:42 pm
Anyway, there wouldn't be laws as such but there would be standards people would adhere to.
Urm. No there would be laws, and a police force to enforce them. Laws would be democratically decided upon and recalled by the Local and national federations, every community would be autonomous and could essentially decide its own legal system to soem extent.

The police force would be mandated by the people to enforce the laws.


Criminal cases would be decided be the people. The people would just decide what a suitable punishment would be for individual cases.

Well, it'd be much like it is now.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 15, 2007 06:51 am
Read what anarchists actually are in favor of, instead of putting your own wishful thinking into it. Anarchists are in favor of small family business and limited partnerships
Not quite comrade,

Libertarian communism, is for the abolition of all class, and the liberation of the proletariat.

Anarchism is for democratic working class control of the means of production, and the obliteration of the current value system.

It's for the distribution of goods along the lines of "from each according their ability to each according their needs"

To call it bourguisie is absurd, and an insult to the hundreds of thousands of workers who have fought and died under the banner, and those who are still struggling today.

I mean, I'm not sure if you're simply trolling, but your post contains almost no constructive content, and adds nothing productive to the debate, so this is perhaps a fair assumption.

But I'll be nice, and assume you're simply ill informed on the issue. So allow me to provide you with some links that will hopefully educate you on the issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

http://libcom.org/library/

http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php

http://www.nestormakhno.info/

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 15, 2007 02:00 am
The police force would be mandated by the people to enforce the laws.
I just couldn't see a police force in an anarchist society. I wouldn't vote for it. It would alienate you from your power. It would give the power to organize society to a group of people instead of to everyone.

[Tower of Bebel]

Not the type of police we see today of course. They will be civilian guards, not people with uniforms, weapons and privileges that separate them from ordinary civilians.

[syndicat]

well, there will need to be basic rules about how society is run, e.g. that you can't hire wage slaves, you can't privatize the land, etc. These are the equivalent of laws. They may be made by congresses of delegates from workplace and community assemblies, but they will be enforceable. A necessary institutional function of society is to protect itself. This is a governance function, as is enforcement of the basic rules, and adjudicating disputes, such as accusations of criminal conduct, such as rape, murder, etc. But this also presupposes that information is marshalled to prove an accusation. "Vigilante justice" isn't justice. It would be bound to lead to mistakes, people making accusations as a way to pay back personal grudges, etc.

Forensics and detective work is work. Just like any other form of socially necessary labor, this should be self-managed by the people who do it, but under some agreement with the community as to what is expected of them. I would assume that for dealing with major assaults on society (by gangs, ex-capitalists or whatever) the community, in an organized way, would need to maintain a militia, which is accountable to the population. Thus there are functions now performed by the police that would still need to be performed.

[Floyce White]

Hah!

Not a single one of you said you are opposed to property in any form whatsoever. Not a single one of you is opposed to property as a principle. So all of you keep rattling off property forms that you support: police, courts, syndication partnerships, etc. All you're doing is making nicey-nice euphemistic names for these forms of violence. Fools nobody but yourselves.

[JazzRemington]

:rolleyes:

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 15, 2007 08:41 pm
Hah!

Not a single one of you said you are opposed to property in any form whatsoever. Not a single one of you is opposed to property as a principle. So all of you keep rattling off property forms that you support: police, courts, syndication partnerships, etc. All you're doing is making nicey-nice euphemistic names for these forms of violence. Fools nobody but yourselves.
May I ask what is wrong with property?

[syndicat]

Not a single one of you said you are opposed to property in any form whatsoever. Not a single one of you is opposed to property as a principle.

Your inference is an elementary logical fallacy. From the fact that, in a particular context, someone doesn't say they are against X, it doesn't follow that they're not against X. It might be that X wasn't the topic of conversation in that situation.

I was writing in response to a post about the polity or governance system. However I did say:


well, there will need to be basic rules about how society is run, e.g. that you can't hire wage slaves, you can't privatize the land, etc.

Now, if you were to ask about my view about property, I'd say that, in the economic arrangement that i advocate, the means of production and land (including the ecosystem, atmosphere, bodies of water) would be owned in common by everyone. There would be private ownership of possessions, such as your furniture, clothes, the boat you go fishing in for relaxation. There is a basic distinction between ownership of personal possessions and ownership of means of production, that is, of facilities that are used in the system of social production.

But common ownership of means of production is not sufficient to define an economic system. That's because you have to also look at power, how resources are allocated in production, do people control the decisions that affect the, i.e. is there self-management?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 16, 2007 04:41 am
Hah!

Not a single one of you said you are opposed to property in any form whatsoever. Not a single one of you is opposed to property as a principle.
Oh dear comrade,
I would have thought opposition to property would have been quite explicit. Especially as we are discussing a form of Communism.

I mean, have you not looked into the history of the Libertarian movement? and seen that, when applied to coutnries, Such as Korea and Spain (for the periods that the workers held power) redistribution of wealth and the abolition of property rights has indeed been a key part of the process of reorganisation.

At the very least, do you have even a minimal understanding of Libertarian Communist theory?

Before you go on, please read the links I provided you with. It is obvious you have less than an ellementry understanding of Anarchism, there is serious debate to be had, but this is not it. This is beyond absurd. And to be quite frank, you're behaving like a member of the Opposing Ideologies forum.

Stop trolling.


So all of you keep rattling off property forms that you support: police, courts, syndication partnerships, etc.

The form of police we support will barely resemble the police force we see today. Most notably in that it will not defend private property (because it wont exist), but the democratic decisions of the working class, the courts will be the same. And the "syndicates" are nothing more than a means of organising revolution within a capitalist system, it has bugger all to do with property post-revolution.

I would expect people on this forum to know this at least.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 16, 2007 05:19 am
May I ask what is wrong with property?
I assume he means private property, means of production/land etc.

[Lynx]

I tend to confuse private property with personal property, maybe others do too.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 16, 2007 05:41 am
Hah!

Not a single one of you said you are opposed to property in any form whatsoever. Not a single one of you is opposed to property as a principle. So all of you keep rattling off property forms that you support: police, courts, syndication partnerships, etc. All you're doing is making nicey-nice euphemistic names for these forms of violence. Fools nobody but yourselves.
Are you still here...?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+May 16, 2007 12:55 am--> (Urban Spirit @ May 16, 2007 12:55 am)
Chicano [email protected] 16, 2007 05:19 am
May I ask what is wrong with property?
I assume he means private property, means of production/land etc. [/b]
I know that's why I asked :P

[Ol' Dirty]

To achieve anarchy, how would its proponents persuade the masses to the idea of no fronteras where they lived? Borders are made by political struggles, so what strategy would anarchists propose to abolish struggles against them? How would anarchists keep people from stuggling against anarchy -or for nationalism-?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:56 pm
To achieve anarchy, how would its proponents persuade the masses to the idea of no fronteras where they lived? Borders are made by political struggles, so what strategy would anarchists propose to abolish struggles against them? How would anarchists keep people from stuggling against anarchy -or for nationalism-?
By imprisoning and killing the counter-revolutionaries with a democratically mandated millitary body.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+May 16, 2007 03:37 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ May 16, 2007 03:37 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 07:56 pm
To achieve anarchy, how would its proponents persuade the masses to the idea of no fronteras where they lived? Borders are made by political struggles, so what strategy would anarchists propose to abolish struggles against them? How would anarchists keep people from stuggling against anarchy -or for nationalism-?
By imprisoning and killing the counter-revolutionaries with a democratically mandated millitary body. [/b]
Sounds like a state to me.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:40 pm
Sounds like a state to me.
No, though it is a military of sorts. With elected and recallable officers, who follow the mandates decided on by the free workers soviets.

There's no governmental body in sight, just the democratic will of the people.

[Floyce White]

Urban Spirit, there is no such thing as "libertarian communism." The term is bait. It is used to assert that communists who disagree with you--that is, all communists--are "totalitarian communists." And the only people who use that phrase are anti-communists.

Pick apart the actual proposals of "libertarian communists," and it always boils down to ordinary liberal capitalism disguised with communist-sounding rhetoric. Proof? You--slobbering and lathering about how much you like police.

All versions of "anything-but-communism" are anti-communism.

And no, I don't mean just private property. What kind of "principle" has exceptions? I mean ALL forms of property: public, private, personal, and all of the institutions of violence that uphold and further these claims.

There is no such thing as "everybody owns everything." It's dummied-down rhetoric to try to convince angry, rebellious activists from the dispossessed lower class to fight in the petty-capitalist cause to nationalize the properties of their big-capitalist rivals. "Common ownership" means the state owns big business on the behalf of whatever capitalists exist in a nation-state.

Business is not communism because exchange is not sharing. So it is not possible that nationalized business could be communism.

And don't play schoolboy one-upsmanship with me about how "no you made the logical error" "no you did" "no you did." I'll rub your noses in your ignorance.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 16, 2007 09:22 pm
All versions of "anything-but-communism" are anti-communism.
Yes that doesn't sound like totalitarian communist to me.... :blink: MY way or the highway communism leads to brain ulcers like Floyce.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 17, 2007 05:22 am
Urban Spirit, there is no such thing as "libertarian communism." The term is bait. It is used to assert that communists who disagree with you--that is, all communists--are "totalitarian communists." And the only people who use that phrase are anti-communists.
No such thing?

The phrase is used to differentiate between communists who supported the first international after the split, and those who left to from the International Workers Association. The Split, was, of course over the issue of the state post-revolution.

It's not anti-communist to be on the Libertarian side of the split, that's far too simplistic - it could just as easily be said that those on the authoritarian side of the split are anti-communists. Rather it opposes elements of the form of communism you support, and takes a critical view of the actions of the Authoritarian left over the past 80 years.

But essentially the goal of both traditions is exactly the same. The Abolition, of Capitalism, the state, Class, and the reorganisation of society along the lines of "From each according their faculties, to each according their needs"


Pick apart the actual proposals of "libertarian communists," and it always boils down to ordinary liberal capitalism disguised with communist-sounding rhetoric. Proof? You--slobbering and lathering about how much you like police.

The proposals of the Libertarian communists, are for all intents and purposes, the same as those of the authoritarian communists. With the exception of the utilisation of the state post-revolution. Look at what the Libertarian Communists achieved, in Ukraine, Korea, Spain, Mexico, for example. Were these Liberal Capitalist societies, comrade? Not to my mind. Private property had been abolished, and the means of production were being democratically controlled by the working class.

This is what Libertarian Communists fight for today, we want to destroy capitalism, and the state, to establish free workers soviets, organised along the lines of "from each according their ability, to each according their need". That's not rhetoric, those are the core principals of the ideology.

Liberal Capitalism seeks to reduce trade boundaries and tariffs whilst regulating big business! We want to abolish the value system! Surely you can tell the difference?

And as for the police force, as it exists today I want to see it utterly destroyed. ACAB.


Business is not communism because exchange is not sharing. So it is not possible that nationalized business could be communism.

Agreed.


And don't play schoolboy one-upsmanship with me about how "no you made the logical error" "no you did" "no you did." I'll rub your noses in your ignorance.

Please clam down.

[apathy maybe]

I'm going to step in here and say Urban Spirit what the fuck are you on? How the fuck do you get police force and imprisonment from anarchy? Of course it wouldn't be the sort of police we have now, but so...?!?!

If anything there would be a "sheriff" who was elected every now and again, who would then form a "posse" when needed (in each community). Or perhaps volunteers who rotate every night or something. There wouldn't be any form of permanent police force because that would create a body of armed people above the rest of the population.

On imprisonment, the only imprisonment would be for brief periods of time to prevent damage to the community or before and during a trial. It wouldn't be used as a punishment however. Exile and execution would be the harshest penalties for disruption (including murder, rape and similar violent crimes) in the community. More minor "crimes" could be "punished" by, perhaps, restricted access to luxuries. Of course, each community would have to decide such things for themselves.

[Fawkes]

There wouldn't be any form of permanent police force because that would create a body of armed people above the rest of the population.
What Urban Spirit is talking about is the democratically organized militia used to defend the society from other, not-yet-revolutionized nations also acts as a domestic police force when it is needed to. The militia is made up of everyday people with normal jobs that they partake in. Their officers are democratically elected by all of the militia members and are immediately recallable at any time. The officers, for the most part, only really have authority in times of war. Also, anyone who is physically capable and has not partaken in anti-revolution activities in the past can be a member of the militia. So, in other words, when a domestic policing force is needed---which it will be at least some of the time---, the democratic militia will act as that force. Also, when acting as police, the militia members would most likely be unarmed and serve more as watchmen than as actual police officers. Of course, this is just one way of doing; there are others I would assume. The police force would not be permanent in that it would only act as police when needed. It would also not put people above the rest of the population because, like I said earlier, it's made up of the population.

[apathy maybe]

So it isn't a police force at all, and as such should not be called such. There is a world of difference, both in organisational terms and in conceptional terms between what you describe and a "police force". A police force implies uniforms, hierarchy, oppression and so on, no thank you.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 17, 2007 11:57 am
If anything there would be a "sheriff" who was elected every now and again, who would then form a "posse" when needed (in each community). Or perhaps volunteers who rotate every night or something. There wouldn't be any form of permanent police force because that would create a body of armed people above the rest of the population.

In that case we basically agree.

But I think you're living in cookoo land if you don't think there will be serious crime (not that im saying you have claimed otherwise). We can both agree there will be. And we'll need a body to deal with it.

You're right however, that this body should be mandated, and recallable by the people. With no decision making power, other than to use it's innitiative in fulfilling it's mandate. This means that it is a branch designed to cary out democratic will of the workers councils, and not a detached, higher up section of society.

A criminal could commit mass murder, rape, peodophilia or anything, if an entire town has to wait for a single sherrif to rally up a random posse every time a crime is comitted. What if the sherrif is killed first? etc, We'd be fucked.

We need a police force, but it would be radically different to the one we have today. It would be Anarchist.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 17, 2007 09:20 pm
So it isn't a police force at all, and as such should not be called such.
HE was almost suggesting the millitary be the police. I think we should differenciate bewteen a peoples army and a peoples police force, though they should be organised similarly.


There is a world of difference, both in organisational terms and in conceptional terms between what you describe and a "police force". A police force implies uniforms, hierarchy, oppression and so on, no thank you.

My only question here is why no uniforms? It doesn't matter really, uniform or not - they wont have any more or less power.

I do think police should be distinguishable from other citizens. If I was walking through london, post revolution, and someone I dunno, assaulted me or stole something, then I'd want to be able to approach an officer to report the event. If they had no uniforms, I'd have no way of knowing if one was near, or if i'd have to walk to the station. It's practical to have uniforms, or some from of identification.

[A.J.]

http://www.mltranslations.org/NewZealand/Anarchism.htm

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:31 pm
http://www.mltranslations.org/NewZealand/Anarchism.htm
So they have picked out a group of middle class anarchist posers, and based their finding on that particular anomily.


The doctrine of anarchism has mainly been adopted by middle class people, especially young intellectuals

Bull. Shit.
Im working class, and all the anarchists I have come into contact with have also been working class. Their jobs vary from postal workers to bar workers. I know one chap who works in a court, and that's the best paid profession I've known an anarchist to have.

No doubt that there is a trend in Yuppie uni students, toward Anarchism. But the same is also true of Leninism. When I was a member of the Socialist party, almost all of the membership was composed of students without part time jobs.

In anarchist groups, this is not the case.

So, frankly, your link amounts to nothing more than a baseless sectarian rant.