Police in an anarchist society

[phasmid]

If I'm understanding anarchy correctly, the ideal would be a society that doesn't allow the populace to be governed or ordered by either an individual or a group. If such a society existed, how would the population be kept safe from criminals? Aren't judges and police a governing body? I like the idea of a free society, but I don't see how it's supposed to work.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'm not an anarchist, but here's my understanding of it:

First of all, most crime is driven by economic conditions. Poor people turn to crime because they have no other means to make a living (or, at least, no other means to lift themselves out of poverty). Rich people turn to crime because (1) capitalism enforces private property rights, giving them an incentive to accumulate property, and (2) they can get away with accumulating property by illegal means, being rich and all.

Once capitalism and private property are out of the way, it will no longer be possible to accumulate property, removing the incentive for economic crime. What's the point in killing a guy to steal his stuff if you can't keep it?

With economic crime eliminated, overall crime levels will be dramatically reduced. Some crime will remain, of course, but only the kind of crime that is motivated primarily by emotional factors - vengeance, jealousy and so on.

A workers' militia can be used to deal with these remaining crimes. A permanent law enforcement organization will not exist - at most, there might be a permanent group of people who investigate crimes, but the actual power to deal judgement and punishment will rest with the community as a whole. Also, all workers will be armed so that they can defend themselves.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 18, 2007 02:33 am
A workers' militia can be used to deal with these remaining crimes. A permanent law enforcement organization will not exist - at most, there might be a permanent group of people who investigate crimes, but the actual power to deal judgement and punishment will rest with the community as a whole. Also, all workers will be armed so that they can defend themselves.
In other words, a political and legal system would still exist? THATS STATISM!

[rouchambeau]

In other words, a political and legal system would still exist? THATS STATISM!

Edric said he wasn't an anarchist. But nice try attempting to make him feel like a hypocrite.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Anarchism means "without rulers," not "without politics." Direct democracy is not statist. The state is recognized to be separate from ordinary citizens, "us" and "them."

In fact the only group I know who would reject direct democracy would be anarcho-individualists.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:03 am

In other words, a political and legal system would still exist? THATS STATISM!
No it is not. You cannot remove the last necessary residues of authority but it is not a state. There is qualative difference between that and any states that have ever existed.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:16 am

In other words, a political and legal system would still exist? THATS STATISM!

Edric said he wasn't an anarchist. But nice try attempting to make him feel like a hypocrite.
I knew he wasn't an anarchist, I was merely pretending to be an anarchist that was responding to his post. I am obviously in agreement with what he wrote.

Nusocialist, a state represents the ruling class. You seem to deduct it all to a notion of "the" state embodying all that is tyrannical and evil. But in actuality, it exists in a specific time, in a specific place, and it operates under specific conditions while representing a specific class. The nature of class society is an unending struggle for power – power as exercised by a class is always political power, organized in a state. If it is contolled by the bourgeoisie in Germany corresponding with the rise of Hitler, it will be oppressive because the state was adapted to wipe out dangerous elements that could threaten the ruling class in the long run. If it is controlled by the proletariat, the original armed bodies of the capitalist machinery would be abolished, and replaced with the control of armed workers.

[Tatarin]

I don't think anyone would want to live in a society where anyone can murder another person and get away with it.

To add to "economic criminals", I also believe that capitalism can lead to serious mental decease, alienation, depression and so on, thus even more crime in that kind of sense.

I think the question of a "police" in a communist society would be dependent on the general number of criminals - which would probably mean larger communities would most of the time have groups of "police" and "investigators"...

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:41 am
If I'm understanding anarchy correctly, the ideal would be a society that doesn't allow the populace to be governed or ordered by either an individual or a group. If such a society existed, how would the population be kept safe from criminals? Aren't judges and police a governing body? I like the idea of a free society, but I don't see how it's supposed to work.


i think that some indigenous groups have fairly decent models to study, personally i favor a sort of nieghborhood watch program in which each citizen in responsible for the saftey of the others in their community (in oaxaca recently their have been some good examples of this) the judges an police only constitute a governing body if they are seperate from the populace andact in a 'professional' capacity instead of roatating people in and out of the group( members instantly recallable of course).
as for sentancing i suggest bringing the person before a council where you have some people present evidence for either side much like in a court room, you can have an apeals process etc. the difference is that it is the people from your community, not a professional force perfoming the function. anarchism is not so much the abolishion of goverment as it is allowing all citizens to be come a member of the governing body.
hope that helps!


Red Dali- this is not an exact blueprint of exactly how it will function, anarchists try to avoid such things favoring experimentation with what works (within the boundaries of a few basic principles) over following a rigid party line

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by abbielives!@September 18, 2007 04:38 am
Red Dali- this is not an exact blueprint of exactly how it will function, anarchists try to avoid such things favoring experimentation with what works (within the boundaries of a few basic principles) over following a rigid party line
I never laid down a 'blueprint', I merely acknowledged that what Edric O proposed takes a legal and political form that would require a certain level of centralization. Don't bring your sectarianism about a "rigid party line" into this thread, which has nothing to do with the subject being debated within this thread, which is the security and law that exists under a 'anarchist' society.

[phasmid]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 18, 2007 02:33 am
A workers' militia can be used to deal with these remaining crimes. A permanent law enforcement organization will not exist - at most, there might be a permanent group of people who investigate crimes, but the actual power to deal judgement and punishment will rest with the community as a whole.
What if the community is divided? Who then decides what is to be done? Whichever action is carried out, well wouldn't that be imposing an enforcement on the 50% or so who didn't agree?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Alicia+September 18, 2007 06:56 am--> (Alicia @ September 18, 2007 06:56 am)
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 18, 2007 02:33 am
A workers' militia can be used to deal with these remaining crimes. A permanent law enforcement organization will not exist - at most, there might be a permanent group of people who investigate crimes, but the actual power to deal judgement and punishment will rest with the community as a whole.
What if the community is divided? Who then decides what is to be done? Whichever action is carried out, well wouldn't that be imposing an enforcement on the 50% or so who didn't agree? [/b]
It is inevitable that there will be people who disagree with a decision, no matter how that decision is made. There is no possible way to create a society where everyone is always in perfect agreement. Yes, a democratic process can sometimes involve the majority imposing its will on a minority. But the only alternative is a minority imposing its will on the majority, which is worse.

Having said that, in cases of judgement and punishment it would be reasonable to require a supermajority in order to pass a certain verdict or give a certain penalty. For instance, a community could decide that a criminal can only be exiled (that is, thrown out of the community) if over 66% of people agree to exile him, or it could decide that the death penalty can only be used if there is absolute consensus on the matter.


RedDali
I never laid down a 'blueprint', I merely acknowledged that what Edric O proposed takes a legal and political form that would require a certain level of centralization.
*high-fives Dali and does the secret Leninist handshake*

If I may diverge from the topic a little, one of the main reasons why I'm not an anarchist is because I can't see how any advanced industrial society can avoid a certain degree of centralization and integration. For instance, I cannot see how an economy could function if the workers in one factory could make decisions about what to produce independent of the workers in all the other factories.

[Enragé]

if you want to get the in-depth answer regarding the anarchist view on law and shit related to it, read Law And Authority by Kropotkin. Very interesting and he hits the nail right on the head

Also, under communism there isnt a police either, actually even under decent socialism there wouldnt be police but militias under the control of the people

Law and Authority: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archi...ndauthority.htm (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/lawandauthority.htm)


If I may diverge from the topic a little, one of the main reasons why I'm not an anarchist is because I can't see how any advanced industrial society can avoid a certain degree of centralization and integration. For instance, I cannot see how an economy could function if the workers in one factory could make decisions about what to produce independent of the workers in all the other factories.


Sure, some degree.
But may i remind you that communism, as in marxism's end goal, which is the same as anarchism, is decentralized as well. The point is that there should be no greater centralisation than absolutely necessary, since that removes power from the people.

As to your example, if those workers in that factory were to do so in such a manner that it would negatively affect other people, how'd you think those other people would respond? They'd make decisions without taking the workers of that factory into consideration. The point being, centralisation in that case isnt necessary since simple self-preservation will keep the workers' of that factory from making stupid decisions, and more importantly, any worker of any factory or place of work with half a brain would realise that it is the smart thing to do to co-ordinate your efforts with other workers from other factories/workplaces.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

I take issue with the claim that in an anarchist society, the authority to decide what happens to offenders will reside with the whole of society. Not at all. Rather, such authority would likely reside in the victim(s), who could chose the form of punishment, etc., due the offender.

I highly recommend "For a World Without Moral Order" (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/moral/moral.html) for an exposition on a communist society without police or any other law enforcement mechanism.


For instance, I cannot see how an economy could function if the workers in one factory could make decisions about what to produce independent of the workers in all the other factories.

I can't imagine how an economy could function if each factory had to get the input from every other worker in every other factory; if every worker had to give input on every decision in every factory.

[acornsr4squirrels]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:21 pm
I take issue with the claim that in an anarchist society, the authority to decide what happens to offenders will reside with the whole of society. Not at all. Rather, such authority would likely reside in the victim(s), who could chose the form of punishment, etc., due the offender.
That kind of system scares me.

[Enragé]

so it does me

i dont want to be gutted, cut in to four, for e.g slapping someone in the face in rage simply because the one i slapped in the face wants it to

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's all well and nice to think we can just operate as individuals in a collective way, but the truth is we're a social species who like to stray once in awhile. Rejection of RULERS is NOT the same as rejection of power. Direct Democracy can operate during a period of big A anarchy.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:40 pm
so it does me

i dont want to be gutted, cut in to four, for e.g slapping someone in the face in rage simply because the one i slapped in the face wants it to

What's the difference between one person and everyone deciding? They're equally arbitrary. Yet, if a matter of contention stays between the parties involved (and perhaps their immediate relations), it's much more likely the individuals will reach the solution that satisfies them both -- the alternative is leaving one's fate up to an uninvolved, apathetic and impersonal audience, just as likely to demand cruel punishment to satisfy their own bloodlust.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:41 am
If such a society existed, how would the population be kept safe from criminals?
There would be police in an anarchist society. They would be accountable, and strictly mandated by the democratic workers councils on a local basis. Thus, they couldn't exercise undue power over the majority of the population, they would in fact be subject to the will of it.

Furthermore, each community would only be able to make decisions of law enforcement relative to themselves, so the police would only be able to act within that jurisdiction. Obviously with property laws gone they would have a very different function, and would perhaps be unrecognisable as an institution.

People (anarchists or communists) who say that crime will dramatically decrease in a communist society are being a tad utopian. It's a possibility, perhaps even very likely, but we can't be sure. I am of the opinion that it wont go down for a long time after the revolution, and unrest will probably increase to begin with. Although obviously, property is 9/10ths of the law, so with that bit gone, there will be less crimes for there to be less offenders.


for an exposition on a communist society without police or any other law enforcement mechanism.


The criticism is invalid. There would be police and formal law.


That kind of system scares me.

In an anarchist society the laws wouldn't be decided case by case as fearmongers like AmbitiousHedonism seem to imply. There would be established law, subject to revision at later dates.

[apathy maybe]

Sorry Urban Spirit, but no.

There may well be a "people's militia" type thing, a rotating group of individuals who act as a sort of police force (helping little old ladies across the road, giving directions to tourists, breaking up fights, detaining temporarily people who are acting anti-social (all of these things (except the last) will also be done by the general populace)), but there will not be a police force.

Police implies a lot of things that are not consistent with an anarchist society. It implies hierarchical organisation, it implies permanent positions, it implies uniforms (OK, not automatically inconsistent with anarchist thought), it implies a group of people above the rest of society with powers the rest of society doesn't have.

When you have an armed body of people with a hierarchy and powers above the rest of society, well that isn't consistent with anarchist theory.


As to laws, formal laws, of what sort? What are you going to outlaw in an anarchist society? Are you going to implement drink-driving laws (and have the police have random breath testing)? What about seat-belt wearing? Maybe a law against incest?

OK, I guess you really meant simply laws against things such as murder. Interference with the freedom of another or the general community. In which case, why not simply have that as an unwritten general knowledge law?

OK, so you have your laws and police, what about a legal system? Permanent judges?

How are these laws going to be introduced? An elected parliament perhaps?

Oh wait, it seems we have a state and we didn't mean to.

[Forward Union]

I cleary defined it as being subject to the will of democratic workers councils, mandated by these councils and also, localised. I even said that the sort of police we talk abotu existing in an anarchist society would be unrecognisable, from the police today. The only thing I have slight objection to is this 'rotation system' that you mentioned, (mainly as some areas, such as forensic investigation requires people with very specialisded knowlege to have a permenant presance) but im not dead against it.

Your objection seems semantic from where I am sitting. I know the word "police" triggers many anarchists to go into 'attack mode' but really, lets be sensible for a moment.

[apathy maybe]

The word "police" has a definition (my small dictionary just in front of me says "members of a force employed by the state or nation to keep order and to protect life and property"), it has implications (such as hierarchy, and being a body above the rest of society).

You can't just take that word and use it to mean something else entirely without resistance.

I admit, I did just jump in and start replying to your post before finishing reading it properly. But my points remain as attacks on a police force.

I'm sure we have similar ideas about what the "people's militia" will do, and many of our differences are semantical, but semantics are important in debates like this. Having definitions of terms agreed upon means that we can actually reach an understanding of what we are debating.

And you using words like "police" and "formal law", well now...


OK, onto investigative and forensics. Why do these need to be part of the "police" at all? Part of the problem today with the police is that they have an incentive to have prosecutions (in other words they aren't impartial). Scientists who do forensics don't need to be part of a permanent armed body of people, what would be the point?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 01:08 pm
The word "police" has a definition (my small dictionary just in front of me says "members of a force employed by the state or nation to keep order and to protect life and property"),
Ok well then that confirms that it is infact, semantic. If you don't want to call this new institution "the police" then for clarification, when i talk about 'police' in an anarchist society, im talking about what will replace the police in said society.


I'm sure we have similar ideas about what the "people's militia" will do, and many of our differences are semantical, but semantics are important in debates like this. Having definitions of terms agreed upon means that we can actually reach an understanding of what we are debating.

Fair enough. But if this "peoples militia" basically fills the vaccume left by the police, and serves a similar function, then after the old organs of power are gone, I have no objection to calling the peoples militia "the police" (of course that would require a new definition of polcie)

I suppose I like to over-emphasise the fact that there will be some form of institutional force to uphold law in an anarchist society. Too often people like ambitioushedonism like to jump on the "there will be no police" assertion, and respond with "mob rule" hence showing a complete lack of understanding of the mechanisms of "law enforcement" in a democratic workers society.


And you using words like "police" and "formal law", well now...

I think there will be formal law. Autonomous communitites will have to decide upon what is and isn't acceptable (what is and isn't a crime). For example, in Zapatista territory the laws have been democratically decided and written down. But are subject to change by reffurendum.

Sorry if i missed anything, im at work again!

[AmbitiousHedonism]

The criticism is invalid. There would be police and formal law.

Did you even bother reading the piece?



Too often people like ambitioushedonism like to jump on the "there will be no police" assertion, and respond with "mob rule" hence showing a complete lack of understanding of the mechanisms of "law enforcement" in a democratic workers society.

Uh, for one I'm not "jumping on" any assertions and I didn't advocate mob rule. The idea is "individual sovereignty," a fundamental precept of anarchism. This means that an individual is not subject to the authority of a community; and while democratic decision making may be the best way for a group of people to make decisions, those decisions will not have to be "enforced" (except to the degree to which the society is not anarchist) and hence the law enforcement mechanism will be obsolete.


Zapatista territory the laws have been democratically decided and written down. But are subject to change by reffurendum.

That's fine and good, but the Zapatistas aren't anarchists.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If issues require more than one person to operate, they must be subject to something -- for Leftists [I assume all of us agree] direct democracy is the best option. If others are not affected, the issue is left alone. Most of the laws on the book are either "indecency"-based [public nudity, bad speech, gambling, prostitution, drug use] or capitalist-based. Those all need to be abolished in favor of personal liberty.

If person X kills person Y, I certainly wouldn't want Family Y doing whatever they want... I don't think that's anarchy, though. Sounds more like chaos. :huh: At the very least we can agree any "police"-like force will be subject to the people and not the town elite or corporations.

[syndicat]

Various functions now performed by the state are functions that are useful or necessary functions, and would still need to be performed even if there is no state. The state is a hierarchical structure, run by managers and professionals (lawyers, engineers, etc); in this respect the state is structured in a top down way similar to the corporations. The state is a class institution, an institution that has to be separate from the people so that it can protect the elite classes.

However, it's possible for governance functions to be performed by a type of social organization that is based on direct, participatory democracy, and does not have the sort of hierarchical structure characteristic of a state.

We could think of the basic governance structure being local assemblies of residents in neighborhoods, assemblies in workplaces, citywide federations with their meetings of delegates, and congresses of delegates over a broader region, and so on. We can think of these bodies as making decisions about the basic rules for a society. This includes things like how use of the commonly owned land and productive facilities is to be allocated. So it's not quite correct to say there wouldn't be anything comparable to "property law" in a society without a state or class division. For example, it would be against the rules in such a society to hire someone as a wage-slave, that is, to work as your employee. But there would presumably also be rules about things like not driving through red lights.

But the rules are meaningless if the community has no way to enforce them.

When accusations of criminal conduct are made against someone, there needs to be a trial where the evidence is presented and the accused can defend themselves. A society where people are free and self-determining also presupposes they are secure against arbitrary forms of attack, such as being accused of doing something they didn't do and then harmed due to this. Thus there will need to be courts. These could be based on panels formed by people in the community drawing lots, e.g.

And there will need to be a kind of staff association of the community governance organization that does investigations related to criminal actions. I'm assuming this would be an internally self-managing worker organization, like the other organizations of workers who self-manage the various industries.

A militia comes into play when there are cases where the community needs to deal with violent people, either individuals or gangs or counter-revolutionaries. But the militia is not a hierarchical army at the beck and call of some group of politicians, or some leftist party, to do its bidding.

In regard to the issue of how a particular factory relates to its distant customers or suppliers, central planning is not a desireable solution, as it will inevitably violate self-management of both workers and people who consume products. Another solution is to have a structured system of negotiation between the factory and its suppliers and customers. The idea of participatory planning was developed as a model of how to do social planning in a horizontal way, without setting up a central planning elite to give everyone orders.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:45 pm
Did you even bother reading the piece?

No, your blurb was enough to go by.


an individual is not subject to the authority of a community;

They are in the anarchism I envisage, and every form of contemporary anarchism I have ever read of (with the exeption of Malatestas writings, but they're of far less significant than Makhno or Durrutis) collective responsibility is an important part of a functioning anarchist organisation. You must be refering to some sort of american teenage pop-article you read. There would be a police force (sorry, workers millitia) and formal law in place.


and while democratic decision making may be the best way for a group of people to make decisions, those decisions will not have to be "enforced"

They obviously will have to be enforced, or the decision making process is useless. If not by material circumstances then by a community body. Where do you get of telling an anarchist what anarchism is? I suppose you've read all about it in Socialist Review.


That's fine and good, but the Zapatistas aren't anarchists.

No, but many characteristics of the zapatista form of organisation are Anarchist, particularly their means of deciding upon laws (which is why I referenced it). While I was there I discussed this with them, and all the zapatistas I spoke to seemed to agree. They have named a few communities after Anarchists, including Flores Magon.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Where do you get of telling an anarchist what anarchism is? I suppose you've read all about it in Socialist Review.

Ooh, you have a membership card for some anarchist org and that makes you an official anarchist. Only anarchists can criticize the program, and to criticize the program discounts you from being anarchist!

Don't even start with me, Platformist. :wacko: Where do you get off assuming I'm a socialist, anyway?


They are in the anarchism I envisage, and every form of contemporary anarchism I have ever read of (with the exeption of Malatestas writings, but they're of far less significant than Makhno or Durrutis) collective responsibility is an important part of a functioning anarchist organisation.

Collective responsibility, yes. Police, no. Whether as police or workers' militia, the creation of a specialized law enforcement & criminal justice division is not anarchist. Neither are prisons.


You must be refering to some sort of american teenage pop-article you read. There would be a police force (sorry, workers millitia) and formal law in place.

This is obviously just going to become a name-calling contest, so I'll stop before I end up on a list for the Platformist Gulag for Unorthodox Anarchists after the revolution.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Collective responsibility, yes. Police, no. Whether as police or workers' militia, the creation of a specialized law enforcement & criminal justice division is not anarchist. Neither are prisons.

Where do rulers come ino play with the existance of prisons? :huh:

[syndicat]

AH:
Collective responsibility, yes. Police, no. Whether as police or workers' militia, the creation of a specialized law enforcement & criminal justice division is not anarchist. Neither are prisons.

well i guess you've decided you're the Pope of anarchism.

now it would be better, i suggest, to admit that "anarchism" means a variety of things, or has a variety of interpretations. this is why i try to avoid using the term "anarchism". it's too vague for clear communication.

rather than arguing over what is or is not "anarchist" -- a hopeless discussion -- one might try discussing whether the law enforcement function is needed in a classless society, and if so, why, and if not, why not.

no society that is self-governing will lack basic rules -- that is, laws -- and there is no point to having rules if they cannot be enforced. that seems fairly obvious to me.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:12 pm
Don't even start with me, Platformist. :wacko: Where do you get off assuming I'm a socialist, anyway?

When did I call you a socialist? Lets's try and keep the debate productive, shall we?.


Collective responsibility, yes. Police, no. Whether as police or workers' militia, the creation of a specialized law enforcement & criminal justice division is not anarchist. Neither are prisons.

Granted, there are some forms of ultra-pure anarchist anti-organisational philosophy, which can be examined on websites such as 'crimethink'. But they're politically, completely and utterly irrelvant. No contemporary Anarchist theorist, comentator or soldier has ever objected to the existance of a criminal justice "institution" of some form. And in every example of anarchism, including Catalonia in 1936 and Ukraine under the Makhnovists, not only did the anarchists run prisons, but also had (and used) the death penalty. I guess the FAI (Anarchist Federation of Iberia) and the Makhnovists (Revolutionary Insurectionary army of Ukraine) weren't anarchists after all? The history books will have to be re-written.

But really, it doesn't matter whether prisons are "anarchist" or not, a society must have them to function, there will always be murders and rape, and although emphasis should be on rehabilitation, punishment serves a vital role in some cases.

Also, it's common sense. If an individual is dangerous, they need to be kept apart from the rest of society. I work in the medical records section of a mental health hospital, and I can tell you now, the risk assesments that get filed, are very, very important when it comes to deciding how best to help some one who is mentally ill (and in terms of keeping their family and friends safe). Anarchism is against the state and other forms of hierachical organiusation, not order. People can and must democratically run the justice system from below, deciding the laws and mandating a body to uphold them.

Sorry if this isn't fun enough.

[Red Scare]

police=fash :star: :star: :star: :star:

[lombas]

Defence is a service like any other service; that it is labour both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices.

(...)

Anarchism does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force.

Benjamin Tucker

[Red Scare]

a military in an anarchist society are you crazy!!!!!!!!!??????

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 20, 2007 01:49 pm
Your objection seems semantic from where I am sitting.
It's not semantic at all.

What apathy maybe proposed was a social necessary task fulfilled by an entire community on a rotation basis, designed specifically to assist communities with daily functions and ensure people are not being hurt.

What you suggested was an institutionalised law enforcement who act according to specifically defined laws (determined by who I couldn't begin to imagine).

That difference is far from semantic.


I know the word "police" triggers many anarchists to go into 'attack mode' but really, lets be sensible for a moment.

So people who oppose institutionalised police forces are not being sensible? Are you a lunatic?


No contemporary Anarchist theorist, comentator or soldier has ever objected to the existance of a criminal justice "institution" of some form.

Name them.


Anarchism is against the state and other forms of hierachical organiusation, not order. People can and must democratically run the justice system from below, deciding the laws and mandating a body to uphold them.

You are suggesting that society mandate an institution to have power over individuals to uphold laws? This is essentially the creation of a centralised system that has authority over society; thus a hierarchy.

Why are you an anarchist?

[lombas]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 21, 2007 02:52 pm
a military in an anarchist society are you crazy!!!!!!!!!??????
If the people set up a civil guard of some kind to defend themselves non-aggressively, who are you to stop them?

Think Rembrandt.

http://www.tamsquare.com/thumbnail/The_Company_of_Frans_Baning_Cock_Preparing_To_Marc h_Out,_Known_As_The_Nightwatch_Rembrandt_van_Rijn. jpg

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 21, 2007 02:52 pm
a military in an anarchist society are you crazy!!!!!!!!!??????
I will accept that police in an anarchist society is a point of contention, something to debate. But arguing against a military in an anarchist society (during and immediately following its inception) is utterly ridiculous, and I wont even debate it. There is discussion over whether or not to have a regularly constituted military organization or "irregular militia consisting of affinity groups of revolutionaries that come together to seize and defend their workplaces and communities" I would prefer something between the two. Please, read the following links.

Friends of Durruti (http://libcom.org/intro/friends-durruti)

The makhnovists (http://libcom.org/history/1917-1921-the-ukrainian-makhnovist-movement)

Anarchism in Korea (http://libcom.org/history/1894-1931-anarchism-in-korea)

[The Feral Underclass]

I think he was making a joke?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:01 pm
What you suggested was an institutionalised law enforcement who act according to specifically defined laws (determined by who I couldn't begin to imagine).

Determined by democratic workers councils. Or are they not trust worthy enough for you?


So people who oppose institutionalised police forces are not being sensible? Are you a lunatic?

No, I was referring to the police as a concept. I was not referring to the actually police force(s) in existence today. Although, not all assaults on the police are acceptable, some are counter productive to the long term destruction of the police, and some are carried out toward the wrong end. We have already established we were using different definitions of 'police' anyway.


Name them.

Well, I can't recall any writings that completely write off and condemn some form of bottom-up justice system? Unless you do, I include all class struggle theorists.


You are suggesting that society mandate an institution to have power over individuals to uphold laws? This is essentially the creation of a centralised system that has authority over society; thus a hierarchy.

It's exercising the democratic will of everyone. Thus it embodies the authority of the community, not of itself. It has no decision making capabilities, it can only do what it is mandated to do. That to me, is not a hierarchy, furthermore I wouldn't argue that the force itself be organised in a centralised manner. I don't altogether agree with Apathy's definition.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 04:10 pm
I think he was making a joke?
oh :blush:

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+September 21, 2007 11:20 am--> (Urban Spirit @ September 21, 2007 11:20 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 04:10 pm
I think he was making a joke?
oh :blush: [/b]
yes I was joking, took you a while to figure that out, I think the only military needed would be anarchist/communist militias similar to the ones uesed during the spanish civil war to fight fascism
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPdurruticolumn.JPG

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+September 21, 2007 11:20 am--> (Urban Spirit @ September 21, 2007 11:20 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:01 pm
What you suggested was an institutionalised law enforcement who act according to specifically defined laws (determined by who I couldn't begin to imagine).

Determined by democratic workers councils. Or are they not trust worthy enough for you?


So people who oppose institutionalised police forces are not being sensible? Are you a lunatic?

No, I was referring to the police as a concept. I was not referring to the actually police force(s) in existence today. Although, not all assaults on the police are acceptable, some are counter productive to the long term destruction of the police, and some are carried out toward the wrong end. We have already established we were using different definitions of 'police' anyway.


Name them.

Well, I can't recall any writings that completely write off and condemn some form of bottom-up justice system? Unless you do, I include all class struggle theorists.


You are suggesting that society mandate an institution to have power over individuals to uphold laws? This is essentially the creation of a centralised system that has authority over society; thus a hierarchy.

It's exercising the democratic will of everyone. Thus it embodies the authority of the community, not of itself. It has no decision making capabilities, it can only do what it is mandated to do. That to me, is not a hierarchy, furthermore I wouldn't argue that the force itself be organised in a centralised manner. I don't altogether agree with Apathy's definition. [/b]
yes, when I said police=fash I meant the modern police, democratically elected temporary law enforcement probably would work

[lombas]

Originally posted by Red Scare+September 21, 2007 07:42 pm--> (Red Scare @ September 21, 2007 07:42 pm)
Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 21, 2007 11:20 am

The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 04:10 pm
I think he was making a joke?
oh :blush:
yes I was joking, took you a while to figure that out, I think the only military needed would be anarchist/communist militias similar to the ones uesed during the spanish civil war to fight fascism
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPdurruticolumn.JPG [/b]
As it was the CNT's policy from November 1936 on to oblige men to take up arms, I utterly reject such policy as statist and repressive.

[lombas]

Originally posted by Red Scare+September 21, 2007 07:48 pm--> (Red Scare @ September 21, 2007 07:48 pm)
Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 21, 2007 11:20 am

The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:01 pm
What you suggested was an institutionalised law enforcement who act according to specifically defined laws (determined by who I couldn't begin to imagine).

Determined by democratic workers councils. Or are they not trust worthy enough for you?


So people who oppose institutionalised police forces are not being sensible? Are you a lunatic?

No, I was referring to the police as a concept. I was not referring to the actually police force(s) in existence today. Although, not all assaults on the police are acceptable, some are counter productive to the long term destruction of the police, and some are carried out toward the wrong end. We have already established we were using different definitions of 'police' anyway.


Name them.

Well, I can't recall any writings that completely write off and condemn some form of bottom-up justice system? Unless you do, I include all class struggle theorists.


You are suggesting that society mandate an institution to have power over individuals to uphold laws? This is essentially the creation of a centralised system that has authority over society; thus a hierarchy.

It's exercising the democratic will of everyone. Thus it embodies the authority of the community, not of itself. It has no decision making capabilities, it can only do what it is mandated to do. That to me, is not a hierarchy, furthermore I wouldn't argue that the force itself be organised in a centralised manner. I don't altogether agree with Apathy's definition.
yes, when I said police=fash I meant the modern police, democratically elected temporary law enforcement probably would work [/b]
That is not an anarchist but a statist policy.

[syndicat]

an individual is not subject to the authority of a community;

This is an individualist position. That's because you are treating individuals as absolutely prior to the social collectivity. That viewpoint of the individual as a social atom prior to the social collectivity first shows up historically in the writing of social contract philosophers like Locke and Hobbes, and became an essential premise of bourgeois liberal individualism.

The reality is that individuals only grow up as a part of social collectivities, are shaped by them, have loyalties to them....families, ethnic communities, classes. Part of a person's nature is formed in this way.

And the "free market" fetish of Tucker is another example of an anarchist view that is based on liberal individualism. A free market means inevitable "losers" in competition, it means a labor market, and it thus means division of society into classes, and class oppression.

again we come around to the problem that "anarchism" has a variety of interpretations and forms. There is no one thing it means. It's entirely useless to debate whether police would exist under "anarchism" because there will be no consensus on what "anarchism" is. It is more fruitful to ask whether the police function would still be needed in a society controlled by the working class as this society emerges from capitalism, or in a society without class division and without a state.

[Enragé]

What's the difference between one person and everyone deciding? They're equally arbitrary. Yet, if a matter of contention stays between the parties involved (and perhaps their immediate relations), it's much more likely the individuals will reach the solution that satisfies them both -- the alternative is leaving one's fate up to an uninvolved, apathetic and impersonal audience, just as likely to demand cruel punishment to satisfy their own bloodlust.


People who are not directly involved in the crime or whatever that has been committed can take more distance from the matter and reasonably decide what is to be done. Vengeance does not equal justice.


the alternative is leaving one's fate up to an uninvolved, apathetic and impersonal audience, just as likely to demand cruel punishment to satisfy their own bloodlust.

Bloodlust? What bloodlust? where does the bloodlust come from?
With the victim or the victims family, its obvious where it comes from, however with a group of people who are not linked directly to what has occurred bloodlust will be absent, to claim otherwise is to claim that people naturally lust for blood, which is both nonsensical as well as reactionary to the core.

[RGacky3]

First of all, its been pointed out before, that crime will drop significantly as most of it has economic reasons, even crime that seams like it has nothing to do with economics could have an economic underlying reason.

i.e. a boy grows up in a poor area, both his parents work, their marriage is strained due to money problems, the son does'nt get enough attention from his parents, he grows up with out proper parenting and bitter, which leads to violent behavior.

Obviously some crime will just happen none the less, many from people that have some Mental Issues, (Most people that will Kill over something like jelousy or something like that generally have mental issues), in those cases those people should be treated as Mentally Ill people, sometimes it oculd be just lack of self-control, i.e. a guy gets drunk and angry at another guy and stabs him. In those cases the Community as a whole can do something to punish him and stop cases like that from happening. I think the way the Zapatistas do it is good, a killer must provide materially for the family of the person he killed, for the rest of his life.

Arguing about what consists a State or not or what is Anarchism is pointless, because then it comes down to just a matter of definition and it does'nt mean anything.

But you can't look at the problem of crime from the Status Quo now, because the nature of criminalization and the cause of crime now, is way way different than it would be in an Anarchist Society, case in point: What percentage of the Prisoners in California are in prison for drug related charges, a lot :P.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+September 21, 2007 05:20 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ September 21, 2007 05:20 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:01 pm
What you suggested was an institutionalised law enforcement who act according to specifically defined laws (determined by who I couldn't begin to imagine).

Determined by democratic workers councils. Or are they not trust worthy enough for you? [/b]
How democratic can a centralised, institutionalised law enforcement agency actually be? What are these workers councils and who sits on them?

It's easy for you to say "determined by democratic workers councils" and then try and attach a straw man argument to that by implying I don't trust workers, but your suggestion requires a justification that you aren't giving.

Using rhetorical soundbites like "determined by democratic workers councils" is no more believable than the slogan "power to the soviets."



So people who oppose institutionalised police forces are not being sensible? Are you a lunatic?

No, I was referring to the police as a concept. I was not referring to the actually police force(s) in existence today. Although, not all assaults on the police are acceptable, some are counter productive to the long term destruction of the police, and some are carried out toward the wrong end. We have already established we were using different definitions of 'police' anyway.

You are talking about an institutionalised police force whether it's the "concept" of one or the actual practical existence of one.



Name them.

Well, I can't recall any writings that completely write off and condemn some form of bottom-up justice system?

That's not what you said though, is it? You said: "No contemporary Anarchist theorist, comentator or soldier has ever objected to the existance of a criminal justice "institution" of some form."

Nobody here is arguing against a "system" of some kind or another, they are arguing against criminal "institutions" which you claim no contemporary anarchist theorist has objected to.

If that is the case I would like to know who they are because as far as I'm concerned every major anarchist theorist has argued against institutionalisation of this nature.



You are suggesting that society mandate an institution to have power over individuals to uphold laws? This is essentially the creation of a centralised system that has authority over society; thus a hierarchy.

It's exercising the democratic will of everyone.

Leninists use this same excuse to justify their own institutions. How are we to expect institutionalised, armed enforces to respect the democratic will of everyone? Why would we do that? Why should we?


Thus it embodies the authority of the community, not of itself.

Then the community can do it themselves and to ensure that it remains democratic it can be done on a rotational basis and has no institutionalised or enforcement responsibility other than to ensure the safety of individuals freedom and to help secure the community.

It will not be responsible to "democratic workers councils" but to communities as a whole.


It has no decision making capabilities, it can only do what it is mandated to do.

What happens if their mandate is changed by themselves or by some kind of power move?

As we have seen throughout history those kinds of Utopian theoretical soundbites are never true. We need to ensure there is no counter-revolution and giving mandates to enforce law to institutionalised and armed bodies of professional police is not how you do that.

[syndicat]

Thus it embodies the authority of the community, not of itself.



Then the community can do it themselves and to ensure that it remains democratic it can be done on a rotational basis and has no institutionalised or enforcement responsibility other than to ensure the safety of individuals freedom and to help secure the community.

why doesn't this same line of argument then apply to any line of work? Does everybody make their own shoes?

It would in principle rule out any form of delegation...electing someone to chair a meeting, electing delegates to go to a regional or national congress to work out social and economic proposals for the whole region or nation, even if these are only proposals voted on by everyone at base assemblies, not everyone has participated in the discussions that crafted the proposals.

If the community is to be run its own affairs, it must exercise authority over that community, and this means enforcement of the rules it decides on...or it has no power over that community. Making rules that can't be enforced is useless.

But there is no reason that everyone has to be involved in the actual police work any more than everyone has to make shoes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:53 pm

Thus it embodies the authority of the community, not of itself.



Then the community can do it themselves and to ensure that it remains democratic it can be done on a rotational basis and has no institutionalised or enforcement responsibility other than to ensure the safety of individuals freedom and to help secure the community.

why doesn't this same line of argument then apply to any line of work? Does everybody make their own shoes?
That is nothing like what I said.


It would in principle rule out any form of delegation...electing someone to chair a meeting, electing delegates to go to a regional or national congress to work out social and economic proposals for the whole region or nation, even if these are only proposals voted on by everyone at base assemblies, not everyone has participated in the discussions that crafted the proposals.

I am not opposed to delegating people with mandates, I am opposed to institutionalising these mandates into professional bodies.

The key word I use is rotational.


If the community is to be run its own affairs, it must exercise authority over that community, and this means enforcement of the rules it decides on...or it has no power over that community. Making rules that can't be enforced is useless.

Ok...?


But there is no reason that everyone has to be involved in the actual police work any more than everyone has to make shoes.

If making shoes and policing a community are socially necessary work then individuals within a society will be expected to contribute to these tasks if they wish to benefit from what they provide.

This is a basic principle of a gift-economy. I.e. communism. If you don't agree with that, then I am not prepared to regress this discussion to a communist vs non-communist economics debate. I'm really not interested.

[syndicat]

AT:
I am not opposed to delegating people with mandates, I am opposed to institutionalising these mandates into professional bodies.

The key word I use is rotational.

Two problems. Mandates are inconsistent with the whole purpose of sending delegates to a conference. They must be free to engage in discussion and give and take and come back with a proposal that may be different than the mandate or sending them is useless. mandates assume that everyone at every locality already knows everything that could be learned from other community's reps at a conference. in that case, why have the conference? and how do they learn that?

Second, a person can't do every possible task. Nor is rotation even sufficient to avoid hierarchy. If the boss does the janitor's job once a week that's just slumming.


If making shoes and policing a community are socially necessary work then individuals within a society will be expected to contribute to these tasks if they wish to benefit from what they provide.

Again it isn't a feasible proposal to suggest that each person will learn every form of expertise and do every possible task.


This is a basic principle of a gift-economy. I.e. communism. If you don't agree with that, then I am not prepared to regress this discussion to a communist vs non-communist economics debate. I'm really not interested.

but now you've changed the terms of the debate. it isn't about whether there would be police in an anarchist society but whether there would be in your peculiar conception of socio-economic organization.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:42 am
AT:
I am not opposed to delegating people with mandates, I am opposed to institutionalising these mandates into professional bodies.

The key word I use is rotational.

Two problems. Mandates are inconsistent with the whole purpose of sending delegates to a conference. They must be free to engage in discussion and give and take and come back with a proposal that may be different than the mandate or sending them is useless. mandates assume that everyone at every locality already knows everything that could be learned from other community's reps at a conference. in that case, why have the conference? and how do they learn that?


Ok...?


Second, a person can't do every possible task. Nor is rotation even sufficient to avoid hierarchy. If the boss does the janitor's job once a week that's just slumming.

I have made no claim that resembles at all the opinion that every person would need to be able to do every task necessary.

What I have suggested is that socially necessary work will be done by society on a rotational basis and that there shall be no institutionalisation of law enforcement.



If making shoes and policing a community are socially necessary work then individuals within a society will be expected to contribute to these tasks if they wish to benefit from what they provide.

Again it isn't a feasible proposal to suggest that each person will learn every form of expertise and do every possible task.

That's not what I have suggested.




This is a basic principle of a gift-economy. I.e. communism. If you don't agree with that, then I am not prepared to regress this discussion to a communist vs non-communist economics debate. I'm really not interested.

but now you've changed the terms of the debate. it isn't about whether there would be police in an anarchist society but whether there would be in your peculiar conception of socio-economic organization.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[syndicat]

okay, if you agree that it is not the case that everyone does every task, then it follows that there is no reason for everyone to do policing. If not everyone does policing, then only some people do policing. Those people are called "police."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:06 am
okay, if you agree that it is not the case that everyone does every task, then it follows that there is no reason for everyone to do policing. If not everyone does policing, then only some people do policing. Those people are called "police."
You seem to be very confused.

This argument is not about the word police. It is about the instituionalisation of law enforcement. Whether the rotational and non-institutionalised groups of people who help secure a community and ensure the safety of its members are called the police is of little importance to me, although I would think it in bad taste if they were called the police.