Law and Anarchism

sup guy, I'm very ignorant on anarchism.
assuming rules and law as a concept won't be completely abolished, how is law enforced in an anarchist state?
or would an anarchist argue that there would not be a need for law or enforcement of it?
I know anarchism isn't a unified ideology but bear with me. I'd just like you hear your thoughts on my baby's first anarchism problem.

Attached: 1200px-Anarchy-symbol.svg.png (1200x1200, 40.21K)

I should have said "commune" or something instead

consensus based based mob violence, presumably

Entierly depends on which anarchists you ask, responses will vary. I think any honest anarchist would tell you that we are so far away from there ideal future that it really would be disingenuous to say what it would look like.

Anarchism isn't about establishing some new order

like said, it depends on which anarchists you ask, but i've seen some suggest a law enforcing agency with rotatory volunteers [and community appointed chiefs that are also rotatory] that receive basic training but aren't cops as a full time job, which would limit corruption greatly. i'm not well versed in anarchist theory either though so don't take my word for it

Concencus (un)based decision making is a non starter. We tried that shit and it really didn't work. we need to drop it at this point.

This. I think to many come at anarchy like it's a traditional ideology and this really shows in a bad way on the internet, leading to a bunch of weird meme ideologies.

Pic related. Stirnerist-Maoist-WeakChin-Anarchist? Die.

Attached: 10488230_1620657858219929_259350165772490741_n.jpg (434x434, 14.48K)

this just seems like a cop-out

fucking lol

Elborate?

unless you argue there is no need for law or law enforcement in an anarchist society, this is an obvious problem that anarchists (regardless of type) need an answer to if anyone is supposed to take them seriously.

see>>2755262

Many anarchists are simply not about creating blueprints for the future world. Many of us also arn't that interested in being taken seriously by others that we do not know or care about. Why should i answer to anyone?
I'm still not getting how it is a cop-out, tbh.

that's the whole fucking point, yes

You're in!


Seriously though, read the conquest of bread

Ignore this guy user, Read Novatore, Stirner and Nietzsche. All you will ever need.

Attached: Bruno_Filippi.jpg (319x400, 20.35K)

broke

woke

...

it is this idea that makes anarchism basically the same as libertarianism, but with raggedy aesthetic.
both rely entirely on everyone being rational, well informed and having good intentions.

No, this isn't what anarchists are saying.

see

how will there not be need for any enforcement of rules then?
since everyone isn't well informed, rational and good willed, there will be violence, bullying and accumulation of resources.

I totally disagree. You guys always mention the CNT-FAI and the Free territory as your "working" anarchist examples. In those examples there totally is a new order.
If you don't seek to establish some new order you are harmless.

those are social-anarchists like aka the "just don't call it a state" people
contemporary anarchism is all about that perpetual strife and delusion with any kind of politics

then your just an agent of chaos and destruction

as long as there is more then one person on this planet, there will always be politics

So, contemporary anarchism is individualist nonsense.


I'd say more than two, actually. /semantics

You're not really getting this point about not creating programs for the future, are you?


Yes. And?

Attached: ConspiracyCellsofFire.jpg (226x223, 7.69K)

do you really want to live in that world?

you might as well be a libertarian then.

I'm not making the same point i've made to you multiple times. at this point you're just being willfully ignorant.

What i am looking at it the world we live in only.

A. Liberterian is just a 'neutral' way of saying (usually, social-)anarchist, you mong.
B. Why is what you think i might as well be in any way relivent to me?

it's not and that's not the point.
I'm just trying to get a sense of what a anarchists actually want and if their ideology has any productive/pragmatic value.
so far it seems not.

Anarchists are so fucking embarrassing.

Attached: almostunpleasant.png (384x390, 174.71K)

ANARCHISTS: Let's opt out of society
SOCIETY: Okay but I'm not going anywhere

*ANARCHISTS DO REVOLUTION*
ANARCHISTS: At last we are free of society
PEOPLE: hey let's build a system by which we can ensure we're all fed
OTHER PEOPLE: okay but it should be fair
PEOPLE: fine, then let's agree to some rules

etc etc

Stirner was a selfish idiot.

Don't try to understand anarchy as an ideology. you will always fall short of really understanding.

If you are looking for a productive ideology then anarchy really isn't for you.

Attached: Revolutionary_Struggle_Bombing_Athens.jpg (594x396, 97.96K)

Attached: 1527176109604.jpg (697x1160, 101.93K)

No mate, i'm just saying that we clearly want very different things. idk why u all gotta get so autistic about that.

Attached: PaganSectofMountainMEXICO.jpg (600x340, 31.99K)

Everything is ideological and political. Even making descriptive statements harbors some idea about what we ought or not to do because we are humans with specific needs and environment.
What is exactly the point of anarchism?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (600x580, 525.01K)

i've realized that but i've been trying to figure out if i should respect it or not.
As i see it, anarchists typically don't like capitalism, yet they are trying to do away with the only entity that keeps capitalists from having complete free reign, i.e. the state.

Don't listen to this guy , just stick to Syndicalism and Anarcho communism avoid all other meme ideology. Don't waste your time on them, like I did.

Attached: 1524616989697.jpg (550x661, 69.2K)

got any literature recommendations?

Kropotkin. He even proves wrong those "No such thing as morals" anarchists Nietzsche, nihilists in his book ethics. Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman, Nestor Makhno don't fall for his sectarianism, many anarchists today are sectarian asf, which I hate. Bakunin,Malatesta,Rudolf Rocker. Skip transhumanism, Nihilism,Individualism. Those are memes.

Attached: 006owOrYly1fwu95ifspaj31hf1hfnox.jpg (1923x1842, 786.03K)

Mate. Do ancoms even still exist offline except in >10 people AFed groups?

There are some pretty big Syndicates, the CGT in spain and the Bangladesh Syndicate is getting pretty big.

The opposite, read Lenin

Yea, not in my country. They're useless larpers that whine about other anarchists in there do-nothing glorified reading clubs because it makes them feel better about themselves.

Really? That's prettt stupid, I'm sure there are some who try to recruit. But since the media gives off anarchists as teen rebels they have a hard time. But this is proven with all the retarded meme ideologies.

Today i learned that 'meme ideologies' actually just means 'things i don't like' in Zig Forums language. thanks user!

Attached: guillotine_tiles.png (219x528, 65.88K)

Well, I mean yeah

Well for me when i use the term i'm generally referring to ideologies that exist souly by shutins on the internet, i.e. nazbol, excelerationism and all those other nonsense things that are for imageboard and twitter larpers.

Laws are rules created by the state in the interest of the state enforced with violence or the threats of it, which the state has the only legitimate monopoly on. Under anarchy rules will likely still exist, but they will be closer to the norms of a tribe. They will exist for the (believed) common good of everyone, they're not unilaterally imposed by some individual or entity, and they are only enforced with violence as a last resort, otherwise restorative justice would be the main principle, where the goal isn't to punish, but to learn what caused the infraction and to figure out what would be a solution that is acceptable to both parties.
The people armed. This isn't to imply that there is no organization and it's just mob rule (which is a ruling-class ideology boogeyman). People will still act as soldiers and security forces, but these people won't have some spooky authority based on those roles: if the guy acting as security savagely beats you, it won't be treated any different then some random guy on the street.

It doesn't depend on that at all. There will still be people who act anti-socially, but those people can be handled without some uncontrollable entity with the monopoly on violence.

An anarchist community is fundamentally different than a state. It's only the same as a state if you think

Are you falseflagging or just uneducated?

uwot, even Marxists believe that the state currently exists as the main tool of class rule. The state only seems like it keeps capitalists in line because it's trying to keep the entire system intact, and one group getting too greedy and powerful fucks that up.

You need to think bigger m8

To me a meme ideology is one that only exists because it's easy to meme. Meme ideologies can be popular in real life.

How do you mean?


Fair enough. Doesn't most ideology rely on memetics though, when it comes down to it? 'Workers of the World Unite' is a good example of a common ideological driven meme.

Btw, keep being awesome, Freud poster.

I mean you're saying things the vast majority of anarchists would disagree with, like it's not an ideology that can be understood and that it's not productive. To me that means you're either pretending to act like an anarchist to defame anarchism, or that you haven't actually studied anarchism.

Says who? that's certainly not my experience from a long time interacting with the anarchist space.

So, I'm assuming you've mainly familiar with Anarcho-Nihilism, and are speaking from that standpoint, but most of anarchism and anarchists don't agree with that ideology. Anarcho-Nihilism is not a productive ideology and does not plain for the future, but Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Syndicalism, for instance, are and do.

I'm familiar with a wide range of anarchist stances. Anarchists despite differences generally tend to know/live/work/fight together, in my experience at least.

I don't tend to put myself in the anarcho-boxes that the internet seems to have become so fond of over the last few years (is this an american thing? i honstly have no clue.) but yes, if you were to put me in one where i am right now is probably closes to that tendency.

Yes, i understand that is what anarcho-communists do, I just really do not think they're that numerous anymore. I know hundreds of anarchists of the more individualist/'lifestylist' sort, I know only a few dozen active anarcho-communists (if we consider people active in anarcho-communist groups such as AFed and broad alliances such as those against austerity.). But even then some of those Comms generally hold the position of the importance of fighting in the now rather than theorizing for a future we do not even know the physical conditions of and cannot honestly predict. This was never actually my position when i was an anarcho-communist, incidentally but i have certainly found it to be quite common.

Attached: LaTensionAnarquista.jpg (485x713, 27.41K)

so with mob justice then?
compared to mobs, police are very controllable

I've yet to see any real answer that doesn't just boil down to this. No anarchist can answer this without telling you to just go read - but if there's a real solution it should be simple and explainable.

There are several different methods. One is going back to beck and call.
Others would just have democratically controlled police forces but these aren't only options. Another method is making certain crimes impossible to do by design such as cars that wont start if you're drunk or are auto driven.

Is this Democratic Conderalism.

Attached: 99F2E396-D5D2-4F50-AE2A-187E0D757EE5.jpeg (726x500, 81.77K)

Really? How so

No courts, no banks, no government or functional bureaucracy (Khmer Rouge rulled as an underground secret insurgency), no police and no currency.

Attached: A37741EA-F6AF-461F-B21C-7CBF5294CE03.png (612x759, 198.03K)

Anarchists support restorative justice and non-adversarial justice systems. Treating the symptoms of crime rather than punishing criminals, and a focus on mediation where conflicts arise instead of a guy in a robe declaring a winner.

As far as how the law would be enforced, a community defense force would do it. Such a force would lead to a hierarchy so measures would have to be taken against it, say three month officer stints of people selected by lot, also you have to peel vegetables and clean toilets so no one would want to do it.

That's not the only answer, it can be a cop out to say "We don't want to create a blueprint", and you're not wrong for wanting a possible answer so I gave you one, but Anarchists are very flexible with possibilities (including ones that can't be thought up right now). It might help to think of how you enforce the law in your household. If someone isn't washing their dishes what do you do?

Laws or something like them have been enforced by people without central authority in the past. Check out Brehon law if you're interested (basically extended families of victims enforced the law). Central Authorities have elbowed their way into most of our lives, but 100 years ago that was far from the case.

The key word that would brake your assumption would be ruled, no? Kinda fucks the whole 'no rulers' part.

This boils down to "rule of the strong". Everywhere that law is enforced like this there is always a group strong enough that no one can enforce the law upon them. This allows them to kill with impunity and/or start demanding tribute/taxes/protection fees.

are you for real?

...

We're forgetting here the economic part and the human relationships in an anarchist society. As everyone produces according to his ability there would be groups of people with more knowledge in criminology (if the situation requires it). Those groups would produce in exchange from all the benefits of society. As it has been proven than the productivity in an anarchist society is whole lot bigger than in a capitalist one, there would be a lot of volunteers who would learn a lot of new things that would develop them as human beings, and those new things to learn would, per example, be "catching those criminals"

source?

I lived in an anarchist commune for several weeks. There was no written law but lived basic democracy. We gathered in assemblies and discussed the situation. Most of the time the keynote was restorative justice. The clear advantage of this method is that it can adapt to individual lifes and involve context. Most of the decisions were done by three quarters majority, unless someone had a reasonable argument which wasn't refuted yet. Fundamental decisions needed consensus though. Instead of substanzialized categories which written law inheres, provisional imperatives were formed which challenged the more naive and dissembling comrades. The decisions were executed by alternating volunteers and everyone could scrutinize if some volunteer wasn't responsible enough for the task when he or she gave reasoned it.
By the way, if someone would be an existential threat to other communes or environment, something like a nonviolent gulag was conceptualized :^) However, this was just a theoretical discussion.

Why did you stop after only three weeks, primmy -user?! I miss living communally and with radicals.. Q.Q

I miss it, too. But one the one hand, I'm more like a nomad und connect to different grassroot movements and projects. To be prepared for life after revolution is needed and such experiences are underestimated, especially here with all these drawing-room leftists. My materialist approach drives me to do a PhD, so I can contribute more to the resistance with a better societal recognition and redistributed goods. [spoiler]Actually, I'm an eco-anarcho-communist with transhumanist tendencies.

Glad not everyone is a internet theorist. The internet to often gives the impression that the anarchist space is in an absolute state these days. Keep up the good work, user!

Lol have you talked to a cop before? If it was hard to be one they wouldn't hire high school drop outs and they would fire them when they hit 300 lbs.

Some training would be necessary but that can be given to everyone.

yes, and most of them are sadistic bastards, I'm not denying that.
this isn't a valid criticism of police as a concept as this mostly describes American police.
In my country you have to do at least what equates to 2 years of American college to qualify for the police academy and your not allowed to get fat as it is required for officers to to regular fitness tests to keep their jobs.

how many people were in your commune?

I'm not meaning to imply that anarchists don't have a broad solidarity across ideological differences.
Regardless, your position seemed to me like it was saying that anarchism is identical to the brand of anarchism you are familiar with.
There has been plenty of theorizing done already. The Conquest of Bread is one of the primary books on anarchism and it is entirely about a future society.

I'm having difficultly interpreting your position in a way that is not elitist and contemptful of the proletariat. The fear around mobs is a boogeyman that the ruling class love to promote. In reality, instances of "mob justice" were not savage masses rebelling against the enlightened actions of the courts or police, but essentially extrajudicial actions condoned by the police. A group of people deciding to beat or murder someone based on an unproven crime wouldn't be tolerated in anarchy as it would defy the very principles of anarchism.

No, the answer is not mob justice. Most anarchists support organization, part of that organization would be a system that processes criminal complaints according to due process. This would look radically different than the current "justice" systems, partly due to it only having as much legitimacy as the people impart on it and therefor does not have the power to impose its decisions on the people, partly because it would not be made up of an educated class of people separated from the masses, and partly because its mission would be to restore peace and cooperation, not to impose revenge dictated by the judge or the majority.

First of, many police in the US don't even know the law, all they know is what they've been ordered and trained to do, which often has more to do with writing tickets and filling quotas than it does methodically understanding and applying the law. Secondly, there would be no law in anarchy, any rules that existed would be common knowledge and communally agreed on. Lawyers wouldn't be needed because most people could probably name all the rules off the top of their head.

To add a philsophical side note: Whereas libertarians believe in laws of economy and marxists believe in laws of society, anarchists dont believe in neither of both. With such lack of aposteriori from which practical laws conventionally can be deduced or induced, emergence of hierarchical structures are easier to be prevented. Instead the apriori of everyone's own reason is ideally targeted and most laws are mere hypotheses by abduction.


Between 40 and 60 people.


Unfortunately, I still feel like an internet theorist. Stationary life got me again.

No, that only goes for statism, if you trust a authority (the government, the police, the army, etc.) that can be used against you, because the authority can be corrupt and use that power in an unlawful way.

yet you fail to provide a reasonable alternative.
if you think there shouldn't be any law and central authority to enforce it, you either don't realize the violence an bullying that will ensue from those who are strong enough to inflict it on the weak, or you are arguing that might makes right and no government should interfere with that.

Another thing anarchists fail to realize is even if you make it work internally, it will leave your nation weak to those with an organized government and military.