Newbie Question: Crime

[BlessedBesse]

Forgive me if this has been asked elsewhere. I'm trying to understand what an anarchic society would look like...

Let's say we're living in anarchist utopia.

What forces prevent or discourage me from stealing, raping, killing my fellow man?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Up to the community of the commune really.

If you raped and killed somone i would consider calling for your execution.
If you stole something id ask for you to spend some time in jail (which would hopefully be diffrent to current jails)
or if you did something quite serious i might ask you to be thrown out of the commune

but bare in mind many things would not be an issue it is much more unlikely you would be so hungry you would shoplift food as is common in todays socitey. Nor would anyone give a toss if you smoked pot.

[F9]

Forgive me if this has been asked elsewhere. I'm trying to understand what an anarchic society would look like...

Let's say we're living in anarchist utopia.

What forces prevent or discourage me from stealing, raping, killing my fellow man?

Common sense, maybe?Do you want to kill, rape, steal etc your fellow man?Then you have "mental issues" and the community will take care of you mentally and physically to support you overcome it!

Fuserg9:star:

[BlessedBesse]

Up to the community of the commune really.

If you raped and killed somone i would consider calling for your execution.
If you stole something id ask for you to spend some time in jail (which would hopefully be diffrent to current jails)
or if you did something quite serious i might ask you to be thrown out of the commune

Who would decide that something needs to be done about me?
Who would be my jailor?
And who would execute me?

I mean, don't you need some sort of force to regulate the people that don't want to be a part of the existing order?


but bare in mind many things would not be an issue it is much more unlikely you would be so hungry you would shoplift food as is common in todays socitey. Nor would anyone give a toss if you smoked pot.


Common sense, maybe?Do you want to kill, rape, steal etc your fellow man?Then you have "mental issues" and the community will take care of you mentally and physically to support you overcome it!

I dunno, I think both of these replies imply that crime is based on need - that people steal because they're hungry, or whatever. I disagree, I think there's a lot of "crime" that goes on because it's fun, or people are bored, or there's a way to personally profit from it. I don't think that people will lose the drive to fuck over their fellow monkeys just because society is adequately sustaining them.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Who would decide that something needs to be done about me?

I reckon there would be mass trials with hundreds of people to decide what would happen to you.


Who would be my jailor?

It def should be rotatory (cuz jailors have a habbit of becoming wankers) and i suspect it would just be trusted members of the community.


And who would execute me?

If enough people have called for your execution then chances are theres going to be somone who would be willing to do it.


I mean, don't you need some sort of force to regulate the people that don't want to be a part of the existing order?

They can either vote and debate to change it or go to another area where they like things more.






I dunno, I think both of these replies imply that crime is based on need - that people steal because they're hungry,

Not all crime but most crime.


or whatever. I disagree, I think there's a lot of "crime" that goes on because it's fun, or people are bored,

The problem here is that people are bored and have nothing better to do. I dont know where you live but in the UK we have this "evil teenagers steal more stuff" trend within the media. The reason why kids commit crime like that is because there is nothing to do.



or there's a way to personally profit from it.

I think rejection by your community and exile is not really profit to be honest.

[Black Sheep]

I think the problem of communist/anarchist societies will be the punishment of petty crimes, or crimes to which the 'appropriate' punishment cannot and could not be objectively measured.

[which doctor]

What forces prevent or discourage me from stealing, raping, killing my fellow man?
Your conscience I hope.

[Annie K.]

Crime is fun. That is true.

But crime is a legal category. As legality can't exist without authority, crime can't exist in an anarchic society.
In today's autoritharian societies, needs are socially constructed. Consumption needs, sexual needs, relationnal needs... But they are also legally constructed : consumption needs are organized around the right of property, sexual needs are organized around the legal family and the moral legislation of sexual activities, relationnal needs are organized also around the legal family and around the restrictions to the freedom of movement...
If, for any reason, one can't attain the satisfaction of these needs through the authorized ways, crime is the only alternative to frustration.

Of course, where property does not exist, theft don't exist.
But that's valid for every other crime. Without authority, crime don't exist. Without morality, rape isn't more destructive than any aggression. Without the subordination of human relations to the stabilty of the communities (family, company, state...), murder is no worse than any death.

So, if you were to ask who would decide that something needs to be done about you ? Who would be your jailor ? And who would execute you ?
The answer is : not me. And not any anarchist.
Anarchy and direct democracy are two really different things.


Then you have "mental issues" and the community will take care of you mentally and physically to support you overcome it!Yeah. But everyone has mental issues, and the community will take care of everyone.




This thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-and-courts-t88835/index.html?t=88835) may be interesting for you. At least the original question don't contain the answer.

[BlessedBesse]

good post, annie. Are you indicating that you don't think justice is possible under anarchy?



what troubles me most about the "the group will decide" solutions is that historically, mob justice is very hamfisted. Rule by consensus rapidly erodes into the tyranny of the majority.

When someone volunteers to be the jailor of the month, are there any checks in place to make sure they don't abuse their prisoners?


Society has people who do not want to live by its rules. TONS of them. It's not a matter of those people just going elsewhere; they are content parasites. There will never be a society that eliminates, hm, "uncooperative individuals", it's part of human nature. And I have yet to learn of any system which abolishes the police that does not also empower those uncooperative individuals.

[Poison]

What forces prevent or discourage me from...raping...my fellow man?

Well, if you're heterosexual...:lol:

[Annie K.]

Are you indicating that you don't think justice is possible under anarchy? Yes. But that's not my wish : that is the meaning of "anarchy".


There will never be a society that eliminates, hm, "uncooperative individuals"Right. That's why we have to create a society that does not need cooperation.

[BlessedBesse]

That's why we have to create a society that does not need cooperation.


I'm not sure that I follow.


the link you provided earlier is very good reading BTW - addressing a lot of my questions.

correct me if I'm wrong - I'm reading that your stance is that under anarchy, nobody should bother themselves trying to stop "uncooperative individuals" ranging from drunk drivers to serial killers?

[Annie K.]

More exactly, no one should bother to make them cooperate. But why not accomodate to them ? For drunks, that's easy. For serial killers, most of them act on behalf of a frustration that can be compensated, or that don't exist in a society built to eliminate any form of misery.

For the rest, well, death happens. For them too. I'm opposed to punishment, not to resistance.

[revolution inaction]

Annie K do you need to talk crap about anarchism?
Obviously if some one doesn't want to cooperate with the rest of society but does nothing that is harmful to it then they would be left alone, but this thread was about seriously anti social acts and if people want do thinks like rape, murder, and other serious crimes then then action would be taken against them, they are to dangerous to let them go free, but if we execute people sometimes we would get the wrong ones, so they should be imprisoned, probably forever.
For less serious crimes, they could be forced to attend therapy or do extra work or something, depends on what they did, like if you vandalise a bus shelter you have to build a new one.

[revolution inaction]

Ok was thinking we sould make a standard response since this gets asked so much then I remembered the anarchist faq

here's what it says about crime

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI5.html#seci58
(paste the link into your browser the anonmiser seems to fuck up links with a hash in it)




...
However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would be the only option and such people may have to be isolated from others for their own, and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be used, or an area quarantined for their use created (perhaps an island, for example). However, such cases (we hope) would be rare.
...

[Annie K.]

Annie K do you need to talk crap about anarchism?No, I just felt like it. But you, why do you need to talk about the crappy current system of justice in a thread about anarchy ?
Hm ?
Oh wait, my bad, I read too fast. You're not talking about the current system. The system you propose is far less comprehensive and far more violent... Life sentence for crimes and forced therapy for offences, that's your understanding of "order without power" ?

Murder and rape are serious crimes now. It has not been always that way, and it will not be that way forever.
Rape is the most evidently linked to the legal gestion of the populations under democratic capitalist systems, because the moral norms of sexual relations are in contradiction with the development of capitalism, and the oppositions to it are more easily diffused. The destructive consequences of these acts are largely independent to the level of physical damage. They are mainly done upon the social capacities of the individual assaulted, who has to be destroyed, to become a victim, or to keep silent.
But murder are not less a social construct. All humans die. That is tragic. And therefore that is not antisocial. What is antisocial is the organisation of the incapacity to reestablish constantly one's human relations : by enclosing individuals in families, communities, countries, jails, hospitals, etc. As for rape, decency prevails on the happiness of the individuals.


there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are too dangerous to be allowed to walk freelyWhat does that mean, too dangerous ? Walking is dangerous. When we quit our beds at night, we take great risks. That's what we do as human people.
And what does that mean, to walk freely ? One can't walk freely if he needs a permission. And how can one who walks with the urge to supress a frustration be considered more free than one who walks to his work ?

The revolution should destroy first the dominant ideology.

[#FF0000]

Forgive me if this has been asked elsewhere. I'm trying to understand what an anarchic society would look like...

Let's say we're living in anarchist utopia.

What forces prevent or discourage me from stealing, raping, killing my fellow man?

Generally, most crime should disappear, because the vast majority of all crime, I would argue, is economically motivated. People steal for goods or money. People deal drugs because of money. And so on.

Other crimes, that aren't motivated by insufficient bulk in one's wallet, would also become less common. Why? Because in an anarchist, classless society, the more common problems that lead later to criminal behavior are gone. For example, why do most kids join gangs? Usually, it's to belong to a group, to feel wanted, to effectively take the place of parents who are busy working (or, as it often is, drowning their misery).

An anarchist society would not have the conditions that drive people to crime. After all, why steal, or fight over the profits of a drug running business, when your needs are met, and work is non-exploitative? That's the rationale a sane, healthy, reasonable person would use. Unfortunately, not everybody is sane, healthy, and reasonable all of the time.

Getting rid of the economic benefit of crime doesn't get rid of jilted lovers (as someone else on the forum put it), jealousy, short tempers, and insanity. Crimes of passion would still exist, and there will almost certainly be a small group of criminally insane.

For crimes of passion, punishment as deterrence doesn't work. In the heat of the moment, a person isn't going to be thinking rationally. In this case, I personally don't know what should be done. That would be up to the individuals involved to decide.

As for those of unsound mind (psychopaths, pedophiles, sociopaths...etc), the only options that I can see are rehabilitation, and institutionalization.

Rehabilitation, of course, always comes first. If rehabilitation fails, and the individual proves to be a real threat to the well-being of themselves and others, then they should be put into some sort of home, where they would be cared for and kept from hurting others, or themselves.

Of course, the bit on institutionalization is my idea. There's no one answer that all anarchists agree on to this question. However, going from what Errico Malatesta says in his essay "Crime and Punishment", punishment should be completely avoided in favor of rehabilitation.

[Anarch_Mesa]

Who would decide that something needs to be done about me?The family members who you raped, killed or stole from, if not the person. The community as a whole, not neccissarily through a unity, but through each mans will to survive.

Who would be my jailor?I doubt there would be any sort of major public jailing system, in fact in the case of "true anarchy" people would gather in tribe-like communities. This would leave the community or even the person you stole from responsible for your actions. If you steal from me I might just take your hand, if you rape my wife I might just take your groin, If you kill someone close to me, then you deserve to die. There is not "true" way of saying how things would go down.

And who would execute me?Once again, the people. If you broke into my house I would gun you dead and ask you who you were afterwards.

People will steal, kill, and rape always. You may think in an "anarchist" society everyone would be doing this because there are no laws. Well, if you want to risk being killed for a "Plasma T.V." then go ahead. As for the Rapist/Killers if they are sick enough to do it then the political system won't prevent them.


I mean, don't you need some sort of force to regulate the people that don't want to be a part of the existing order?People are the regulating force. In more primitive societies you "wrong you die" method is working just fine.

[#FF0000]

People are the regulating force. In more primitive societies you "wrong you die" method is working just fine.

It is, but that isn't justice. That is retribution. An Anarchist society wouldn't have summary executions like that.

[#FF0000]

I dunno, I think both of these replies imply that crime is based on need - that people steal because they're hungry, or whatever. I disagree, I think there's a lot of "crime" that goes on because it's fun, or people are bored, or there's a way to personally profit from it. I don't think that people will lose the drive to fuck over their fellow monkeys just because society is adequately sustaining them.Oh I just saw this. Yeah, I think you're just wrong about humans and their behavior. People do not naturally just want to fuck others over. I'd need to see proof of that, and I really doubt you could produce it.

To support my argument, however, I have history. Prehistory, to be exact. Before we even knew how to tend to crops, us humans went around picking berries and roots and killing big fucking elephants with hair and tusks that'd pierce through you entirely. Those were simpler times. Simpler, and yet thoroughly hardcore.

So, here we have Us, in the crystal clear dawn of our time, where any inherent traits in our nature would be most obvious.

We have societies with no gender roles, no hierarchy, no authority (other than the wisdom of the elder, which we didn't always listen to) and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, in others, it was the exact opposite. Men did this, women did that. That elder guy gave some good advice and had men with sharp rocks make sure we followed it.

Some places, we had people stealing. In others, we didn't.

Some places, we had one thing, and in others, we had something completely different.

And so, I don't think it's possible to say that there is anything inherent in humans other than the will to survive and change our environment, whether it be through work or reproducing. Exactly how we go about that is entirely cultural.

[paolo22]

I think the first reply to this thread says it all.

[#FF0000]

I think the first reply to this thread says it all.

No... It really doesn't. The first reply in this thread, to be honest, is wrong. :/

[revolution inaction]

No, I just felt like it. But you, why do you need to talk about the crappy current system of justice in a thread about anarchy ?
Hm ?
Oh wait, my bad, I read too fast. You're not talking about the current system. The system you propose is far less comprehensive and far more violent... Life sentence for crimes and forced therapy for offences, that's your understanding of "order without power" ?

I don't propose a full system, so comprehensively is irrelevant. I was drunk so i could be bothered to go into a lot of detail, but I don't see how it is more violent then what we have now.
"order without power" I haven't heard that before, I'm in favour of freedom not opposed to power, But power of individuals over others needs to be limited as far as possible, and that includes the power to kill, rape or other wise cause harm to them.



Murder and rape are serious crimes now. It has not been always that way, and it will not be that way forever.
Rape is the most evidently linked to the legal gestion of the populations under democratic capitalist systems, because the moral norms of sexual relations are in contradiction with the development of capitalism, and the oppositions to it are more easily diffused. The destructive consequences of these acts are largely independent to the level of physical damage. They are mainly done upon the social capacities of the individual assaulted, who has to be destroyed, to become a victim, or to keep silent.
But murder are not less a social construct. All humans die. That is tragic. And therefore that is not antisocial. What is antisocial is the organisation of the incapacity to reestablish constantly one's human relations : by enclosing individuals in families, communities, countries, jails, hospitals, etc. As for rape, decency prevails on the happiness of the individuals.

Here your just talking shit. Murder, rape and assault are not bad because capitalism says so, they are bad because they limit the victims freedom.




What does that mean, too dangerous ? Walking is dangerous. When we quit our beds at night, we take great risks. That's what we do as human people.
And what does that mean, to walk freely ? One can't walk freely if he needs a permission. And how can one who walks with the urge to supress a frustration be considered more free than one who walks to his work ?

The revolution should destroy first the dominant ideology.

I didn't write that, I quoted it from the anarchist faq. If you don't understand it thats your problem

[Annie K.]

It is more violent because most criminals are not sentenced to life in prison, and those who are are usually liberated before their death.
But i forgot to precise that I was talking about european penal systems.

"Anarchy is order without power" is a quote from élisée reclus. If you want to limit the power of individuals over others, why are you favorable to the constitution of a repressive power ?


Murder, rape and assault are not bad because capitalism says so, they are bad because they limit the victims freedom.Murder doesn't limit the victim freedom : a heap of meat has no will. That is why the status of victim is a social construct : it can exist even when the subjectivity has disappeared. And this status implies limits to the freedom of the individuals who are associated to it (the victims first if they are still alive, the circles of friends or relatives, the individuals charged for the crime, the jury and judges and cops and politicians...). Rape and assault limit the freedom of the individual, that's right, at least during the assault itself. It should be considered as such : generally, these limits are lift during the day, or the following months if the injuries are very disabling. It is very rare that an assault (especially a sexual assault) end in a life-long disability. Anyway, physical damage is the only "natural" limitation of the freedom of the individuals.
If your idea of justice is dependent of medical progress, if the seriousness of the assault is dependent on the ability of the medical services to nullify its consequences, then effectively that's not a justice based on social control necessities. If not, if you want to punish criminals rather than to destroy all limits to freedom, then without doubts it's "because capitalism says so".


I quoted it from the anarchist faq. If you don't understand it thats your problemI thought you were willing to explain all of your posts, even what you quote. Does that mean that these claims does not make sense for you either ?

[BlessedBesse]

Oh I just saw this. Yeah, I think you're just wrong about humans and their behavior. People do not naturally just want to fuck others over. I'd need to see proof of that, and I really doubt you could produce it.

I think it would be a simple exercise to find evidence of antisocial behavior where there is no profit involved.

To cite a really simple example: radicals who bomb abortion clinics. There is no money changing hands. This is an example of two ideologies that have trouble coexisting, and one group resolving their conflict with violence. Without the presence of the law, it's very plausable that the stronger group would simply wipe out the weaker group.

In a tribalistic setting, I can only imagine the absurd heights this could be taken to. Imagine if the tribe next to yours dissaproves of something your tribe does. Were they stronger, they could simply roll over your tribe and coerce you into stopping said behavior.

Is that freedom to enact violence upon others better than being protected by the law?

If you're strong willed, well armed, and have a lot of friends, it sure is.


To support my argument, however, I have history. Prehistory, to be exact. Before we even knew how to tend to crops, us humans went around picking berries and roots and killing big fucking elephants with hair and tusks that'd pierce through you entirely. Those were simpler times. Simpler, and yet thoroughly hardcore.

So, here we have Us, in the crystal clear dawn of our time, where any inherent traits in our nature would be most obvious.

We have societies with no gender roles, no hierarchy, no authority (other than the wisdom of the elder, which we didn't always listen to) and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, in others, it was the exact opposite. Men did this, women did that. That elder guy gave some good advice and had men with sharp rocks make sure we followed it.

Some places, we had people stealing. In others, we didn't.

Some places, we had one thing, and in others, we had something completely different.


I'm going to have to ask for citations on these points. As far as I've read, hierarchy and gender roles were pretty well established in prehistoric man. (here's one paper on the matter of gender: http://www.anthro.appstate.edu/ebooks/gender/ch04.html)

But furthermore, I'm not sure why the narrative that prehistoric man lived in a certain way should be an indicator of how we should live today.

[BlessedBesse]

Annie K,

I'm trying to wrap my head around the points you've been making:



Murder and rape are serious crimes now. It has not been always that way, and it will not be that way forever.

Rape is the most evidently linked to the legal gestion of the populations under democratic capitalist systems, because the moral norms of sexual relations are in contradiction with the development of capitalism, and the oppositions to it are more easily diffused. The destructive consequences of these acts are largely independent to the level of physical damage. They are mainly done upon the social capacities of the individual assaulted, who has to be destroyed, to become a victim, or to keep silent.

But murder are not less a social construct. All humans die. That is tragic. And therefore that is not antisocial. What is antisocial is the organisation of the incapacity to reestablish constantly one's human relations : by enclosing individuals in families, communities, countries, jails, hospitals, etc. As for rape, decency prevails on the happiness of the individuals.


Murder doesn't limit the victim freedom : a heap of meat has no will. That is why the status of victim is a social construct : it can exist even when the subjectivity has disappeared. And this status implies limits to the freedom of the individuals who are associated to it (the victims first if they are still alive, the circles of friends or relatives, the individuals charged for the crime, the jury and judges and cops and politicians...). Rape and assault limit the freedom of the individual, that's right, at least during the assault itself. It should be considered as such : generally, these limits are lift during the day, or the following months if the injuries are very disabling. It is very rare that an assault (especially a sexual assault) end in a life-long disability. Anyway, physical damage is the only "natural" limitation of the freedom of the individuals.

So to summarize (as I'm understanding it):


murder isn't such a big deal because it leaves behind no victim, only meat
and rape isn't such a big deal because the person's freedom is only limited for the 15 minutes or so they're being held down
In a perfect world, there would be no deterrance against rape or murder


is that more or less what you're saying?

[Annie K.]

On the two first points, you're right.
On the third, my point is that a society is not anarchic if the order is dependent of the control of "dangerous individuals". And I want to show that the concepts of dangerous populations and protective power are a part of the modern capitalism's dominant ideology.
But I think also that murder and rape are mainly motivated by today's moral and legal restrictions on sexual and relationnal behaviours. As we want to replace merchant economy by gift economy, I want to replace exchange- and property-based relationships.
If that is done, murder and rape, which are as conditioned as are the legal models to which they are opposed, but in a negative way, would no longer exist. As one said earlier "crime is fun". Where there is no crime and no victims, death and forced sexual intercourse are not really so much fun.
And of course, the reduction of all sorts of misery will have an impact.

In a perfect world, murder is just surrealist poetry.


to wrap my head around the points you've been makingI like the imagery.

[#FF0000]

I think it would be a simple exercise to find evidence of antisocial behavior where there is no profit involved.

To cite a really simple example: radicals who bomb abortion clinics. There is no money changing hands. This is an example of two ideologies that have trouble coexisting, and one group resolving their conflict with violence. Without the presence of the law, it's very plausable that the stronger group would simply wipe out the weaker group.

That really isn't the best of examples, but I won't waste time picking it apart. I get what you mean. :)

However, in that sort of situation, where a group of people want to impose their will upon the commune like that, violence against that group would be totally acceptable, as it is self-defense.


In a tribalistic setting, I can only imagine the absurd heights this could be taken to. Imagine if the tribe next to yours dissaproves of something your tribe does. Were they stronger, they could simply roll over your tribe and coerce you into stopping said behavior.

First of all, don't let my constant references to hunter-gatherer society get you thinking I'm some sort of primitivist. :p When those societies were violent, they were violent. I remember reading somewhere that the wars carried out by the Aztecs lead to casualties that rivaled both World Wars.

However, ignoring the fact that warlike societies such as the aztecs were hierarchical, when societies fight like that, it is almost always for some sort of profit. As long as people in a commune are living comfortably and working in a non-exploitative environment, I don't see what would incite them to violence against another commune, other than fanaticism, which I would argue would be much more common in a class society.


Is that freedom to enact violence upon others better than being protected by the law?

Throughout history, I'd say those who are sworn to uphold and enforce the law have enacted more violence than common people ever have. Also, in an anarchist society, it would be safe to assume that the workers would all be armed to protect themselves and their fellow workers, so even in the event that a war did break out (for whatever reason), it would not be easy.



I'm going to have to ask for citations on these points. As far as I've read, hierarchy and gender roles were pretty well established in prehistoric man. (here's one paper on the matter of gender: http://www.anthro.appstate.edu/ebooks/gender/ch04.html)

The thing about these early hunter-gatherer societies is that one can't make generalizations about them. Take this quote from "Woman the Gatherer":

"As is typical of hunting-gathering societies, no formal, institutionalized authority base exists. The nuclear family is the decision maker concerning residence, work, and relations with other people. Older, respected indivudals, often parents and granparents of group members, may be consulted, but their opinions are not binding."
Further, I've taken classes with different teachers, and they often contradict each other entirely, one saying that hierarchy and aggression is the norm, and many others saying the opposite. Given what I've read, I just concede that some were authoritarian, and some were not.[/quote]


But furthermore, I'm not sure why the narrative that prehistoric man lived in a certain way should be an indicator of how we should live today.

The point of the narrative was that there is nothing inherently in our nature that keeps us from living in a non-hierarchical society. I prefer steel tools to stone ones, anyway.

So to recap:

a) Individuals who commit crimes would be rehabilitated, or institutionalized if they prove to be a danger to themselves or others. For regular old anti-social violence, something like the Community Restorative Justice project would be used, where the attacker is confronted with their victim, made to realize what they have done, and then a deal is worked out to repay the victim for damages in some way.

b) Groups who use violence against the commune to impose its will on the workers will be met with violence out of self-defense.

c) The majority of crimes are economically based. Getting rid of the profit motive for crime, we are left with the mentally ill, and crimes of passion, which would be dealt with in accordance with point A.