No, I believe it is possible. The Ukrainian Black Army and CNT-FAI came remarkably close. There are other examples as well, but most relevant is the Zapatistas who have existed since 1994 and still exist today. I think it is simply really fucking hard, and we are still learning what works versus what doesnt. I feel it is telling that anarchists are successful right up until the are betrayed and end up having to fight everyone at once. It tells me it takes everyone teaming up to beat us. It tells me we are a threat, and we are a threat becauss we could win
“At the Cafe” by Errico Malatesta paired with the documentary “Living in Utopia” (available on Zoe Baker’s youtube channel) was what convinced me of its feasibility. But I was also already a Council Communist by then so it wasnt a huge leap for me.
I think one of the strongest arguments about anarchism is how do you ensure a group of armed, violent men does not take over the entire group? How do you avoid it from collapsing?
We do it by empowering the communities itself, and teaching them to liberate themselves. Its not perfect, but afterall no solution is. You still get cases like the atrocities individuals of the Black Army committed against the Mennonites, and the ones committed by the CNT-FAI against nuns and priests. They are horrible actions, and while I still support and admire the groups I still condemn those actions and wish to learn from and prevent them in the future. And not that I am excusing it with whataboutism (just trying to avoid anybsort of singling out of anarchists about this), but this is not a unique problem with anarchists. Every group is guilty of doing similar stuff, and I feel anarchists are better about reducing, resisting, and condeming those actions than other groups. I think part of it is simply the culture and beliefs of anarchists that helps prevent these kinds of acts, but also like I said the community empowerment that comes with anarchism. I think it is also important to build a culture of accountability within anarchist groups, and to develop structures that reinforce that. What all of that looks like is stuff we are still figuring out and learnjng from, but we have progress made in that regard. “What about the rapists” is a good book discussing ideas on community safety and justice without cops, which some could be extrapolated to revolutionary militias
Read some of it, but like most anarchist readings, it’s too unrealistic. When people ask ‘what about the rapists?’ They don’t mean sexual transgressions, they mean powerful people with powerful friends not caring for an anarchist society, or rules, and instead having their way with anyone they want through force or coercion. The book seems to larp on with the typical naive approach of ‘Oh, in our society, we’d change the system so no one actually thinks about rape or crime!’
That’s impossible so long as people remember what the previous system was like.
That’s not even mentioning that some people are more naturally inclined towards violence, and by natural, I mean biologically. This isn’t mentioned at all in the text.
Unless I read it wrong, if so, can you direct me to what parts actually go on about how to punish and prevent criminals without forming a state apparatus? Group therapy and magically waving a wand of ‘nuh the system is different’ isn’t going to stop criminals.
It’s not that different in anarchy, it just doesn’t work the way you are accustomed to.
When I mention a ‘trial’ it doesn’t refer to someone being a judge - judges are individuals who are supposed to be impartial, and that is impossible.
There is no requirement for how the equivalent of a trial would proceed, but people would discuss it in an open forum, figure out evidence, ask questions, and build a consensus on both the perpetrator and actions to take.
Any action taken, of course, is open to consequences. If it turns out that the people who formed an opinion on guilt and punishment were prejudice against the accused, then they would have to face that too.
There is no requirement for how the equivalent of a trial would proceed, but people would discuss it in an open forum, figure out evidence, ask questions, and build a consensus on both the perpetrator and actions to take.
This just sounds like every trial will be like DSA conventions where they vote on everything and then vote on having votes and then argue about the voting.
Apropos that, what about the violent groups I suggested?
The groups of rapists? Do you intend to prosecute them as a group?
Edit: and modern systems are incapable of preventing rape, or any crime. The threat of prison time does not prevent crime. Crime still happens. Crimes are not identical to one another.
No, I believe it is possible. The Ukrainian Black Army and CNT-FAI came remarkably close. There are other examples as well, but most relevant is the Zapatistas who have existed since 1994 and still exist today. I think it is simply really fucking hard, and we are still learning what works versus what doesnt. I feel it is telling that anarchists are successful right up until the are betrayed and end up having to fight everyone at once. It tells me it takes everyone teaming up to beat us. It tells me we are a threat, and we are a threat becauss we could win
Well, I’m certainly not opposed to anarchism, though I do have some worries about its feasibility
“At the Cafe” by Errico Malatesta paired with the documentary “Living in Utopia” (available on Zoe Baker’s youtube channel) was what convinced me of its feasibility. But I was also already a Council Communist by then so it wasnt a huge leap for me.
I think one of the strongest arguments about anarchism is how do you ensure a group of armed, violent men does not take over the entire group? How do you avoid it from collapsing?
We do it by empowering the communities itself, and teaching them to liberate themselves. Its not perfect, but afterall no solution is. You still get cases like the atrocities individuals of the Black Army committed against the Mennonites, and the ones committed by the CNT-FAI against nuns and priests. They are horrible actions, and while I still support and admire the groups I still condemn those actions and wish to learn from and prevent them in the future. And not that I am excusing it with whataboutism (just trying to avoid anybsort of singling out of anarchists about this), but this is not a unique problem with anarchists. Every group is guilty of doing similar stuff, and I feel anarchists are better about reducing, resisting, and condeming those actions than other groups. I think part of it is simply the culture and beliefs of anarchists that helps prevent these kinds of acts, but also like I said the community empowerment that comes with anarchism. I think it is also important to build a culture of accountability within anarchist groups, and to develop structures that reinforce that. What all of that looks like is stuff we are still figuring out and learnjng from, but we have progress made in that regard. “What about the rapists” is a good book discussing ideas on community safety and justice without cops, which some could be extrapolated to revolutionary militias
Read some of it, but like most anarchist readings, it’s too unrealistic. When people ask ‘what about the rapists?’ They don’t mean sexual transgressions, they mean powerful people with powerful friends not caring for an anarchist society, or rules, and instead having their way with anyone they want through force or coercion. The book seems to larp on with the typical naive approach of ‘Oh, in our society, we’d change the system so no one actually thinks about rape or crime!’
That’s impossible so long as people remember what the previous system was like.
That’s not even mentioning that some people are more naturally inclined towards violence, and by natural, I mean biologically. This isn’t mentioned at all in the text.
Unless I read it wrong, if so, can you direct me to what parts actually go on about how to punish and prevent criminals without forming a state apparatus? Group therapy and magically waving a wand of ‘nuh the system is different’ isn’t going to stop criminals.
It’s not that different in anarchy, it just doesn’t work the way you are accustomed to.
When I mention a ‘trial’ it doesn’t refer to someone being a judge - judges are individuals who are supposed to be impartial, and that is impossible.
There is no requirement for how the equivalent of a trial would proceed, but people would discuss it in an open forum, figure out evidence, ask questions, and build a consensus on both the perpetrator and actions to take.
Any action taken, of course, is open to consequences. If it turns out that the people who formed an opinion on guilt and punishment were prejudice against the accused, then they would have to face that too.
This just sounds like every trial will be like DSA conventions where they vote on everything and then vote on having votes and then argue about the voting.
Apropos that, what about the violent groups I suggested?
The groups of rapists? Do you intend to prosecute them as a group?
Edit: and modern systems are incapable of preventing rape, or any crime. The threat of prison time does not prevent crime. Crime still happens. Crimes are not identical to one another.