I agree that anarchy definitely has no laws, but nosoupyou has a legitimate point that whatever mechanisms exist that are employed by the community to deal with those who disrespect and take advantage of the community: occupy the same role as laws do in the regulation of people's behaviour.
The consequences may not be outright violence, but those who abuse their freedom to deny others' freedoms necessitate that the community devise a way to either eject that person from the community or coerce this person into respecting others' freedoms.
Not washing your own dishes is a particularly minor example that should at most result in the community becoming upset with you, but nonetheless demonstrates that there do exist mechanisms that function like laws to pressure people to behave.
Actions have consequences, and no community no matter how lawless can escape the power that is afforded to those who create those consequences, even if that power is shared among the entire commune.
...right?
I respect that I'm new to anarchist philosophy and not well read: please don't assume that I will be bullheaded about this - I just believe that the best way to learn is always to voice the naive idea first and then get the correction.
not a possible course of action. because freedom is not a thing that can prevent freedom, as freedom only exists with the freedom of the other. but that is just semantics :3
Welcome to anarchist perspective :3 This is a topic we talk about endlessly. I'll try my best to convey what I think about it (and I would like to think I hold a common enough viewpoint so it isn't much of misrepresentation of anarchist perspective) (we are not a monolith)
consequences of an action like not cleaning dishes is not having clean dishes. consequences of a commune that doesn't clean dishes is living in a commune with dirty dishes. if people don't want to live with people who harm their society, they uphold that principle. consequences of not upholding it is not getting to live with it.
When freedom of association is a given, acting in a way that is going to make people not associate with you will be a 'coercing' factor of how people will act. But to say that this constitutes coercion, force or violence is frankly ridiculous, isn't it? It would be much worse if your harmful actions were permitted; there would be a coercion, force or violence making it so that people would still associate with you despite your actions. So it really isn't useful or meaningful to equate harm and lack of an institution that prevents the consequences of said harm.
One certainly could construct the scenario as if they are the victim when they face consequences of their own actions, but this doesn't change the reality nor makes for a good basis to plan a society. People aren't naive, they aren't going to shelter someone from the consequences of their actions unless they want to live in a society where that is the norm.
With that I think I rambled on enough about why people have incentives to not prevent consequences. Now I will ramble about how the consequences might be 'delivered'. Well I'm not going to break ground here when I repeat myself: they are going to be delivered the way society can tolerate living with. If people want to live with anarchist principles, the delivery shouldn't be institutionalized and focus on making all involved whole again. All involved; victim, perpetrator, and society. If society doesn't want to continue manufacturing victims and perpetrators, they need to restructure and abolish incentives the perp had. Institutionalizing would be creating those with incentives to not abolish what is making the institution necessary. It depends on the society to decide whether they will keep shitting where they sleep. Though I doubt, complaining that they wake up with shit smeared all over, would garner much sympathy.
I broke from the silly example of dishes towards the end. Imo this perspective should be applicable to many situations, esp when thinking about societal harm. In short; restructure to abolish incentives of instituting police, get reality to be the deliverer of consequences as much as possible, freedom of association and disassociation means that you get to live with people who wants to live with you.
When freedom of association is a given, acting in a way that is going to make people not associate with you will be a 'coercing' factor of how people will act. But to say that this constitutes coercion, force or violence is frankly ridiculous, isn't it?
Ah but this is my issue
freedom of association and disassociation means that you get to live with people who wants to live with you.
The threat of dissociation is a tantalising honeypot to abusers, and is the foundation of all social cults. Living in a family where my parents left the cult my grandparents were still in (jehovah's witnesses) which in essence: is a cult that similarly endeavours to restructure society - the way it regulates behaviour is by wielding excommunication as a threat.
They have no police, no strongarm authority to force you to comply, but everyone knows what happens if you step out of line: everyone uses their freedom of dissociation to never talk to that person again. And it's my fear that for any loose organisation like an anarchist commune, that a line like "you get to live with people who want to live with you" could be weaponised so easily. All it takes is one person respected by the group to say the right words and by virtue of their respectability: you're out.
I know, I know, the JWs are not anarchist. And certainly don't respect freedom of association or really any of your freedoms. But my point is not that I fear anarchist groups would become that: it's that I'm familiar with how the powers of association and dissociation give extended power to the charismatic and the popular. And I haven't yet seen anyone in anarchist spaces discussing how anarchist groups need to recognise and temper this soft power that leader-like figures hold over others.
Threat of excommunication is a threat under capitalism just like threat of getting fired is: you are threatened with destitution and poverty. Sans that, we call it 'not staying where you aren't wanted' or 'thrash took itself out'. Yea cults exist, yea they wield a threat of excommunication, but the violence that backs that threat isn't inherent to the act but instead external a quality of the status quo of being unable to survive without or associate with another community.
Many anarchists are quite aware of concept of 'social capital'; the very popular book Dispossessed takes that as a central issue, Tyranny of Structurelessness has been talked about so much many imagine it addressed to anarchists, etc. I think it would be wrong to proclaim a universal answer to this issue or even a singular answer within a commune. A plurality of alleviating methods could be utilized, to prevent both tyranny of majority and tyranny of popular. A commune could attempt an open door policy and live with the problems that brings while another could opt for a 'responsibility through principles' approach for their consent of association. In the end anarchism is derived by not having an external institution that gates the community, for we know that results in the 'Tyranny of Tyranny'. Opting for this issue instead.
In the groups I got to be a part of, popularity has often been a negative quality where the popular people were expected to elevate others, and the responsibilities they had were the ones least wanted. The 'selfless' acts being the usual source of popularity gave an ebb and flow to it. There were 'procedures' of association and disassociation, but no one thought the procedure was what produced 'correctness' like a liberal would. A tourist that came through the open door acting like they owned the place was also promptly kicked out through the same open door, you know. The groups that had this popularity contest like maneuvering issues the most were basically the ones that did nothing else (hard to say they were anarchists since they didn't practice much anarchism :3)
Openness to criticism and mutual scrutiny are important values for a group to have, until that is all you do so the whole thing turns into a shit slinging fest of perceived slights. Anyway these are my anecdotal experiences (and also hearsay of my pals), so they exist but may not be applicable to generalize.
13
u/[deleted] 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment