Submitted by zoom_zip in Anarchy101

this part of the forum looks pretty inactive but fuck it here we gooo

content warning: discussion on cops and violence

i need some perspectives on the abolition of cops. not the abolition of cops part, but what happens after. maybe there is some theory that has covered this in depth, but i can't read theory right now because my brain has been soaked in the acid bath of the internet and i can only process information when it is provided either through the format of memes or breadtube videos. thanks for engaging with me.

whenever i have discussions on the abolition of cops, people are real real quick to bring up the question of what do you do with people that are--for whatever reason--bent on causing harm. in their eyes these are the people who will revel in the lawlessness of anomie and go on murderous rampages, rape frenzies, and reject all of those anarchist "utopian ideals" about mutual cooperation and community.

you know, people like hedge fund managers.

as misguided as the question is, it is probably true that certain kinds of harm (rape, child abuse, etc.) that are not directly caused by desperation in capitalism will not go away and will continue to need to be dealt with, and i'm not really clear on what my stance is on how that should be handled, when people interrogate me on my opinions.

it just feels like there is little consistency of thought, or that it's one of the parts of anarchist thinking that is perhaps not as fleshed out as it could be. in passing, i've heard every suggestion on how to deal with these people from "kill them" to "exile them" to "invest in rehab facilities". none of these feel great.

in discussion on the abolition of cops, one thing that consistently comes up is the idea of community policing, but it's always kind of vague on what this actually means, or how it would be implemented. for example, if you arm a militia and give them power to respond to a situation, and that militia shoots a person dead in the street; this is not too far removed from the current cop situation. the only difference really is that the militia is not state funded. the militia is removed from the dynamic of 'state control' but not removed from the dynamic of 'we will kill people who are potential threats'.

re: rehabilitation. it sounds great in principle but only works on the basis that people want to be rehabilitated, and some--a lot--won't. call that cynical if you want. if someone doesn't want to be rehabilitated then forcing them into a rehab facility to learn correct community thinking is not too different from prison. maybe you might feel like it has a more noble goal with an outcome greater than simply putting people in cages, but it's still restricting the autonomy of a person and it still creates a hierarchy of power and authority over a person.

i've seen suggestions for restorative justice, but again it only works in the examples where a situation can be mediated. if one side doesn't want to be mediated, say for example they have no remorse for their actions, then the concept fails at the starting line. it needs engagement with the idea, and if that's not there then what are your next options?

equally, on a personal stage, if someone has committed harm against you, your community, your family, and you were expected to mediate and continue to exist in society with the person that caused that harm (i'm talking significant harms here: murder, rape, child abuse) then that could be a hard pill to swallow. restorative justice makes sense for petty grievances and for wounds that can be healed, where harm was committed by accident or where a person shows true remorse for their actions, but in other examples you--the person who has been harmed--might just want to enact some retribution and rid the world of that person. in an ideal world everything could be forgiven, but i don't think i could forgive some things.

retribution also opens up the possibility of the downward spiral of bad blood. someone rapes me; i kill them in retribution; their family kills me in retribution; my family kills them in retribution; and so on and so on and nobody comes out any good.

on the opposite end of the spectrum, away from talk of rehab and restorative justice, there are anarchists who preach self-defense, arming yourself, and although it's not really said outright, this seems to imply the idea of just straight up killing anyone who threatens you with harm; or straight up killing anyone in retribution for causing you harm. i get it. still, doesn't feel good. it's a complex issue and mistakenly killing someone or... well, i don't know. it feels more complex of a situation to me than being outright ready to just put a bullet in anyone who i feel is threatening me.

exile makes the most sense, but still relies on the person going quietly to avoid violence. if someone refuses to accept exile then the only way to force the issue is through violence.

i'm 100% sold on the abolition of cops so there's no need to try and convince me on that one, but i need to hear some opinions on what happens next, especially when it comes to dealing with grievances between people related to the worst possible harm that humans can enact on each other, and especially when it comes to dealing with people who are not of a cooperative mindset to things like restorative justice and community justice.

i know this is a complex topic but i'd be interested to hear where other people stand.

peace out lovers.

8

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote (edited )

As soon as you create formal systems for dealing with "crime", you've become a cop. The point of anarchy is to negate institutional systems so they can't create authority.

So the answer to your question is: nothing happens after. If someone does something fucked up, kill them dead, or don't. It's up to you. Just don't try to create laws and institutions telling everyone how to handle their problems, because then you're a state and a hundred times more dangerous than whatever criminal activity you're trying to police.

6

zoom_zip OP wrote

i can't be bothered to re-read my own post to doublecheck because i used too many words, but i tried to be real careful not to use the word "crime". that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about harm. if someone commits harm against me or someone i care about then i may feel like i want to enact some kind of retribution against that person; i don't necessarily disagree that that should be on the table, but let's say i take that grievance to the community and say "this guy fucked me up, can we kick him out?" -- that's not killing them, but still enacting some kind of community based retribution without it being encoded into law. or, in your view here would you consider that a law?

is a community deciding to exile someone an institutional authority?

what if you witness someone else being harmed but you don't know the context of the situation? say you witness someone being killed, you think that's fucked up, so you kill that person; then someone else witnesses you killing that person, they think it's fucked up, so they kill you, etc.

i know that's an absurd hypothetical but i'm just trying to reason out the stance

4

ziq wrote

if someone commits harm against me or someone i care about then i may feel like i want to enact some kind of retribution against that person

Then do so. You don't need anyone else's permission to defend yourself.

but i tried to be real careful not to use the word "crime"

But if you create formal legitimized communal policies on responding to harm, the harm has been officiated as crime and the response has been sanctified as law.

community based retribution without it being encoded into law. or, in your view here would you consider that a law?

Pretty much. I'm not a fan of officiation. I don't think you should ask some council to do retribution, I think if what they did was really worthy of retribution then you and whoever else is affected should just do the retribution without needing permission from an authority.

is a community deciding to exile someone an institutional authority?

Yes. And exile just outsources your problems to other communities. Deal with it yourself instead of making the person someone else's problem.

you think that's fucked up, so you kill that person; then someone else witnesses you killing that person, they think it's fucked up, so they kill you, etc.

That's the beauty of anarchy. You can take direct action against someone, but don't expect an authority to protect you when you do it. With states, the police can kill people without consequence because they have an officiated monopoly on violence. In anarchy if you want to kill someone, you'd better think long and hard about the consequences first, because there's nothing protecting you from retaliation. When you do anarchy, you don't have a monopoly on violence, law and order, crime and punishment, a judge and jury, prisons and death penalties, all you have is anarchy.

4

zoom_zip OP wrote

rampant individualism feels kinda bad. like, practically opposed to ideas of mutual aid; this is darwinist, benefiting the strongest, or the groups that could amass larger numbers. if i was disabled and a group of people raped me, and i was unable to defend myself; this kind of outlook is basically "well, tough luck, you're responsible for defending yourself so if you got raped and couldn't defend yourself then i guess that's tough luck."

if i can't take that to a community and say "this dude fucked me up, can we do something as a community against that?" then it disadvantages disabled people, or people that don't have support structures, or anyone who is weaker than the person who is enacting the harm.

i get the point you're making about communities emulating that monopoly of violence; if you have some kind of council who decides who gets to live and who gets to die; sure, but there still has to exist some sort of structure of support for people who need help in these scenarios rather than just survival of the strongest.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

You don't need to ask "a community (council)" to kill for you, just friends. A community council handing out executions in your scenario is just a proto state. The only structure anarchy needs is friendship. If a friend isn't willing to kill for you, then tough shit. You don't get to build a court and a police force to get your retaliation.

And it's honestly disturbing af that these convos always, always descend into "but what if a disabled person gets raped?" It's the red version of "who will think of the children??" You give up certain institutions to do anarchy, starting with a state's monopoly on violence.

this is darwinist, benefiting the strongest, or the groups that could amass larger numbers.

No, that would be a state. This is the polar opposite of that - deliberately not affording anyone the opportunity to amass larger numbers (authority). You're proposing officiating a communal death squad, I'm saying don't do that.

w/friendship (unfinished)

5

zoom_zip OP wrote

okay this seems like an argument of pedantics to some extent. your friends are community. those aren't necessarily separate ideas. going to "a community" and saying hey this guy fucked me up, help me out and going to your friends can be the same thing.

You don't get to build a court and a police force to get your retaliation.

like, this isn't even what i was suggesting at any point.

And it's honestly disturbing af that these convos always, always descend into "but what if a disabled person gets raped?" It's the red version of "who will think of the children??"

it's just a hyperbolic example to try and get to an understanding.

1

ziq wrote

I'm not friends with anyone in my community.

5

zoom_zip OP wrote

fair enough. thanks for sharing your perspective anyway. i can't say i 100% agree with it atm but gives me something to think on.

1

moonlune wrote

There are as many answers to this question as there are anarchists, but here's my quick hot take.

  • with lots of free time on their hands, there are bound to be people who value helping others, without even having to institutionalize a neighborhood watch protocol or whatever. Either there's a problem that'll grow big enough the community to notice and do something about it before going back to their daily lives, or zealous individuals/groups that dedicate their free time got one specific thing. And every nuance in between.

  • I agree with kicking out of society people who have antisocial behavior (murder, abuse, etcs). Be it exile, death sentences, tattoos... I don't care as long as I (or my close ones) don't have to interact with them again. I also agree with rehabilitation if there's someone overzealous about rehabilitating people, more power to them. I don't care about it as long as I don't have to to deal with antisocial behaviors.

4

moonlune wrote

An anarchist society would be like shopping for bowls at a potter's market: it would be complex and each small part would be different and you'd have to think a lot and things will be slow but also unique and precious and fun and cool. Current society is like ikea.

6

zoom_zip OP wrote

yeah i guess this is the way of it. every community would have their own way of dealing with people like this. some would kill them; others would seek restorative justice. some would seek restorative justice and when it doesn't work, kill them.

5