this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
14 points (93.8% liked)

Anarchism and Social Ecology

1356 readers
42 users here now

[email protected]

A community about anarchy. anarchism, social ecology, and communalism for SLRPNK! Solarpunk anarchists unite!

Feel free to ask questions here. We aspire to make this space a safe space. SLRPNK.net's basic rules apply here, but generally don't be a dick and don't be an authoritarian.

Anarchism

Anarchism is a social and political theory and practice that works for a free society without domination and hierarchy.

Social Ecology

Social Ecology, developed from green anarchism, is the idea that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in our social problems. This is because the domination of nature and our ecology by humanity has its ultimate roots in the domination humanity by humans. Therefore, the solutions to our ecological problems are found by addressing our social and ecological problems simultaneously.

Libraries

Audiobooks

Quotes

Poetry and imagination must be integrated with science and technology, for we have evolved beyond an innocence that can be nourished exclusively by myths and dreams.

~ Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom

People want to treat ‘we’ll figure it out by working to get there’ as some sort of rhetorical evasion instead of being a fundamental expression of trust in the power of conscious collective effort.

~Anonymous, but quoted by Mariame Kaba, We Do This 'Til We Free Us

The end justifies the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have is means.

~Ursula K. Le Guin, The Lathe of Heaven

The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.

~Murray Bookchin, "A Politics for the Twenty-First Century"

There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration must be achieved by means of self-administration.

~Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism

In modern times humans have become a wolf not only to humans, but to all nature.

~Abdullah Öcalan

The ecological question is fundamentally solved as the system is repressed and a socialist social system develops. That does not mean you cannot do something for the environment right away. On the contrary, it is necessary to combine the fight for the environment with the struggle for a general social revolution...

~Abdullah Öcalan

Social ecology advances a message that calls not only for a society free of hierarchy and hierarchical sensibilities, but for an ethics that places humanity in the natural world as an agent for rendering evolution social and natural fully self-conscious.

~ Murray Bookchin

Network

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

We anarchists are generally averse to cooperating with the police, for very good reasons. However, as I understand it, at times the only real way to protect the community in the society we currently live in seems to be talking with the pigs.

Suppose you believe yourself to have evidence incriminating a serial killer. In an anarchistic society the serial killer could be sent to the psych ward and dealt with humanely. But what about the modern day? Do you turn over the evidence to the police?

This question has been bothering me for about 3 days now. It was provoked by learning about Aufhebengate. It made me wonder under what circumstances snitching is justifiable.

top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

However, as I understand it, at times the only real way to protect the community in the society we currently live in seems to be talking with the pigs.

I think this is true in some situations and imo its okay to call the cops in a situation that not only endangers the community but also oneself. Like people trying to physically harm you and you don't have any safer alternatives to protect yourself. Sadly many people are not part of communities that enable them to fully skip every interaction with cops.

To your serial killer example: If in your hypothetical situation there is a key benefit in turning the evidence over to the police in comparison to just publishing it so everyone(including the police)/only your local community can access the evidence, I dont see why not. Its also not something I would call "snitching".

In an anarchistic society the serial killer could be sent to the psych ward and dealt with humanely.

Also I just want to mention, I think this is not something with a consensus in anarchist circles.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I have had many encounters with cops, and I decide about the extent of cooperating with them on a case-by-case basis.

  • landlord is illegally evicting my mother's neighbour --> I call cops and they prove how useless they are at prevention, but the matter goes to court and the landlord gets convicted later, and it was my only time to testify in court
  • cops accuse me of ignoring their lawful order --> sorry, I was listening to music, didn't hear nothing, no comment, no comment, I admit nothing (nothing came of it)
  • cops intrude into the squat yard without knowing it's a squat --> "the ~~droids~~ drunken people you look for are elsewhere" --> the cops go elsewhere
  • cops raid the squat --> refuse to provide documents until threatened, require cops to provide their own ID, contest every statement and discuss the matter publicly in media
  • cops try to steal equipment during a demonstration --> pull the equipment back and yell to them a description of what it is (I assume they thought I was planting a bomb instead of packing up)
  • cops want to interview me about illegal demonstrations --> I politely tell them to fuck off, then call back and volunteer for the interview to convey the opinion of other anarchists :D
  • a new squat is being established --> establish a security perimeter that is watched with attention and never let cops close
  • an attempted squat gets burglarized and set on fire -> inform the fire brigade that a bottle of propane could be present (fortunately it was stolen), the fire brigade had better things to do than involve cops
  • a new squat gets burglarized --> pepper spray the burglar and take their tools, without involving cops
  • a new squat gets burglarized, episode N --> threaten the burglars and take their tools, without involving cops
  • cops try to fall into a hole in ground during a stupid training excercise --> tell the cops not to go there, as they might fall in (leave untold: it would be a major embarrasment for squatters to rescue them)
  • the squat is suddenly in the security perimeter of a NATO summit --> find some military lurking in the yard and invite them into the squat so they could be reasonably certain we don't have anything that shoots down planes :P (runway was about 250 m away)
  • a drunken person tries to SWAT me at a street party --> fully explain the situation to the SWAT team and later participate in amateur theatre with cops to get the drunken person safely removed from the police station :o
  • one drunken neighbour hits their spouse and when I forbid, hits me --> seeing that the neigbour has already paid for his deed since pepper was 100% effective and he'll feel extremely bad for many hours, I did not file a complaint to cops, although they were called and showed up
  • after two geniuses tried to steal my car, but fled after a warning shot --> I did not involve cops
  • after some person attacked his partner and hit her on street --> I pepper sprayed him, and since he took out a knife and attempted to come at me (I evaded, no harm occurred to me), I did call cops and make a complaint, as did the woman he had hit
  • cops call me about one neigbour's car --> I don't remember anything (I did actually remember, but wasn't in a mood for helping them repress a neighbour)
  • my car gets burglarized --> I ask the cops for info, they have none, I don't involve them beyond that

...etc.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

In an anarchistic society the serial killer could be sent to the psych ward and dealt with humanely.

I suspect, in an anarchistic society, serial killers would be killed in turn by the victims' friends and relatives, and the rest of society would shrug and say "murdering people is wrong but in this case we can't really blame them".

Anarchists aren't necessarily pacifists, after all.

Really, if you ask yourself "what would happen to someone in an anarchist society who killed a serial killer/rapist/molester/etc etc in revenge" and the answer is "little or nothing" you probably have your answer to how that society would handle serial killers, rapists, molesters, etc.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Really, if you ask yourself “what would happen to someone in an anarchist society who killed a serial killer/rapist/molester/etc etc in revenge” and the answer is “little or nothing” you probably have your answer to how that society would handle serial killers, rapists, molesters, etc.

A rapist/murderer might be just a rapist/murderer to some, to others the person might alsl be friend, relative, lover, child or parent. While I do not see myself in the position to stop someones revenge against their abuser or the killer of a loved one, I really hope this will not be the norm. Because as I said, the killed person might have people that care about them that most likely will get hurt by this and also might want to do revenge for that. I also believe that the act of killing can be very harmful to those doing the killing.

I think anarchist societies should focus on prevention and doing things that actually help those that got harmed, which might vary widely by the individual.

[–] rambling_lunatic 2 points 1 month ago

Read my post again. I'm not asking about the shining glorious utopia we're building. I'm asking about now.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And then the friends and family of the unconvicted serial killer will say he was innocent and you got the wrong guy, then carry out reprisal killings against the self-appointed judge, jury, and executioners of their guy, then their friends and families will want to settle the score, etc. Or most people would support a mafia- or taliban-like group that provides some semblance of a justice system.

Just like in plenty of places where the government can't or won't do the job.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The USA had this sort of thing burning for a long time in the early days of the country. The Hatfield and McCoy blood feud is probably the most famous.

[–] merde 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

also, what kind of an "anarchist society"?

put 10 anarchists together and you would have 10 different visions of an "anarchist society"

[–] rambling_lunatic 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Irrelevant for the question, honestly

[–] merde 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

it is relevant, as every society has its own solutions to "safety"

if you've visited anarchist communities, you've probably seen that they invented their ways of dealing with "problematic" individuals

[–] rambling_lunatic 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not talking about an anarchist society. I'm asking what we should do now, as anarchists in a statist society.

[–] merde 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

calling for help of people who are experienced in dealing with these kind of situations, without using pejorative names for their profession, would be reasonable

as an anarchist living on a state controlled territory, you need not feel guilty about communicating with the police

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

as an anarchist living on a state controlled territory, you need not feel guilty about communicating with the police

Unless you're calling them about something stupid or petty or irrelevant or outside their skill set or a situation which would not be improved by angry men with guns - and that covers like 95% of typical civilian interactions with police.

Reporting information about a serial killer probably falls in the 5%.

[–] merde 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

where did you get these numbers? Are they national or global?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I made them up. To express my belief that the vast majority of stuff people call the police for is not stuff the police should be involved in. Would you argue otherwise?

(I mean, I could dig into statistics about the reasons people call the police and formally analyze how many of those reasons, from an anarchist standpoint, are not valid reasons to call the police, but I think bullshitting a 95% number is fine. I'm not being peer-reviewed here.)

[–] rambling_lunatic 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] merde 2 points 2 months ago

see, i'm not a rambling lunatic 😁 i had to ask myself so many times these same questions and i'm sure i will be asking them again 🤷

[–] merde 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What makes you think that a "psych ward" would be an acceptable solution in an anarchist society?

confinement would still be involuntary and an imposition.

[–] rambling_lunatic 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Because the alternatives are:

  • Prison

  • Execution

  • Exile, which offloads your problem to some other community

  • Letting someone who is a danger to themselves and others continue to be a danger

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think there are far more alternatives and also ways to mix them.

One more alternative would be constant care taking by one or more people. In case the community cant/doesnt want to provide that full time, it might be possible to mix this with other options that might reduce the persons autonomy.

[–] rambling_lunatic 4 points 2 months ago

Reasonable idea. Thank you.

[–] merde 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

you're writing that in your anarchist society there would be a "psyche ward" where people deemed dangerous by the society would be incarcerated.

Is that correct?

[–] rambling_lunatic 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not really incarcerated, per se. And only a subset of the dangerous people.

If someone commits murder in a fit of rage and regrets it afterwards, they would not need any obligation or coercion to undergo psychiatric treatment.

[–] merde 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

are you familiar with Foucault's work?

[–] rambling_lunatic 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not much, but I am aware that some of it had to do with psychiatry.

[–] merde 2 points 2 months ago

psychology, psychiatry, hospitals and of course what you may call "psyche wards" (among many other subjects)

the question of when we started to establish psychiatric institutions; who did we incarcerate in them and with what justifications. If this and similar subjects interest you, there you have a person who spent their life examining them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

confinement would still be involuntary and an imposition.

A worse imposition that being murdered by a serial killer?

[–] merde 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

most anarchisms (again the plurality) have problems with the community imposing choices over individuals.

justification of this or that as "better" or "worse" are personal or communal choices (and it shouldn't surprise you to find an "anarchist community" with despotic tendencies. Unlike theory, flesh degenerates with time 🤷

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think that more anarchisms have problems with individuals (serial killers) imposing harm over other individuals.

Collectivist anarchism doesn't really have a problem with establishing rules, to my understanding.

[–] merde 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

why go to extremes? Let's say a thief? An alcoholic who gets aggressive every time they're drunk? A man who beats their companion? Or a woman who beats their companion? A dog that shares the same space and bites your friends. A woodchuck in your garden?

"collectivity" may establish rules but people who are sharing the same spaces, with or without similar world views, have no obligations to follow these rules. Solving these kinds of problems while trying to respect anarchist ideals are not as easy as you think.

Communists are more comfortable with these kinds of solutions. One shouldn't confuse the two (while there, of course, is an expansive common ground called anarcho-communism)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

why go to extremes?

Extremes are interesting sanity checks for theories

Let's say a thief? An alcoholic ...

I'm currently not interested in these examples. You're whataboutising my point.

"collectivity" may establish rules but people who are sharing the same spaces, with or without similar world views, have no obligations to follow these rules

You have an obligation to follow the rules of a community if you are a part of that community. Also, a community has an obligation to their members. That can include protection.

Communists are more comfortable with these kinds of solutions. One shouldn't confuse the two (while there, of course, is an expansive common ground called anarcho-communism)

I'm an anarcho-communist myself so... thanks for the explanation, I guess?

[–] merde -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

you're welcome

anarcho-communists were always too communist for my anarchist tastes. Let's part ways, nothing would come of our pseudo conversation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't confuse that with "most anarchisms", please. Individualist anarchism is fine, but collectivist anarchism makes up a lot of the theoretic field.

[–] merde 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

you already have your response, if you call the police "pigs" and alerting "snitching".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Hey if you have multiple things to say, please try to add them to one comment with the edit feature instead of making multiple top level commands.

[–] merde 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

they were all on different subjects but 👍

[–] ThrowawayPermanente -2 points 2 months ago

Remember kids, if you see someone brutally murder an innocent person, no you didn't.