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.
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.