The community itself deals with it. This could be a rotating group of mediators with the ability to escalate issues as needed for resolution. The process is almost always democratic and when involving the whole is unreasonable or impractical, a rotating committee-based system is generally used. For example, when a jury, verdict, or punishment is needed.
So how do you think it should be handled when one community protects their criminal who has attacked another community? What if one community becomes richer than another and therefore the other communities are unable to project justice onto them for being assholes?
This might sound like an excuse (community deals with it), but human is wired to live in self-organized ~100 people groups. It gets nasty only if the groups get much bigger.
Problem is, in a modern society, you can’t leave every decision (like, what to teach) to the group only. Which means you need a framework in which the groups are embedded. And that framework needs mechanisms against abuse and to enforce some decisions. Which then again is a state.
I don’t think their could be anarchists society with keeping inequality. So I do agree we could not solves issue link to wealth inequality. But those inequality have to solve first. This is a common point view among libertarian communists, anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalists.
Ofr the inter-communities issues, the whole thing is to create common interests :
if a place have more funds, the production have to be split. To make this solution acceptable, the work needed could be equally distributed among thoses communities. The idea is to prevent wealth accumulation, create link among communities, and make the live more comfortable for everyone. Other solutions may be used, like cultural one to gather people from many places (physical activities, free party, …)
Some working places need people from different places to be run. Like hospital, university, or power plant. This common need may prevent those agressions, but otherwise, if one community refuse mediation, some non vital production may be stopped. Like electricity, radio, or other cultural stuff
Again, their is no common recipe. This stuff have to be experiment from now to get more and more efficient.
Ok interesting, thanks for the answer. I’m also curious what exactly “community” envisions? Does it just refer to existing towns/cities/city divisions? Or would it be necessary for the existing areas to be “broken up” into smaller, closer communities? My thinking is that in large cities there are often a huge number of people, and yet very little sense of community between them, so I am doubtful how well a community driven system could scale?
I’m not personally convinced the model is scalable. It has worked in small, mostly rural autonomous zones — provided there wasn’t a bigger, better armed government murdering them for having the gall to be independent — but I can’t imagine any way in which it scales up and remains stable.
Anarchists will generally acknowledge this issue and argue the theory that zones need to remain small and independent and must cooperate with other independent zones each with certain specializations. For example, one zone might have certain types of medical care expertise and another might grow certain types of crops and another might focus on energy production. I’m sure there are many more theories for how an ideal anarchist society would structured, but that’s the one I hear the most.
The community itself deals with it. This could be a rotating group of mediators with the ability to escalate issues as needed for resolution. The process is almost always democratic and when involving the whole is unreasonable or impractical, a rotating committee-based system is generally used. For example, when a jury, verdict, or punishment is needed.
“We don’t want police, we want a chartered committee that is authorized to use violence to impose the will of society!”
So how do you think it should be handled when one community protects their criminal who has attacked another community? What if one community becomes richer than another and therefore the other communities are unable to project justice onto them for being assholes?
This might sound like an excuse (community deals with it), but human is wired to live in self-organized ~100 people groups. It gets nasty only if the groups get much bigger.
Problem is, in a modern society, you can’t leave every decision (like, what to teach) to the group only. Which means you need a framework in which the groups are embedded. And that framework needs mechanisms against abuse and to enforce some decisions. Which then again is a state.
I don’t think their could be anarchists society with keeping inequality. So I do agree we could not solves issue link to wealth inequality. But those inequality have to solve first. This is a common point view among libertarian communists, anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalists.
Ofr the inter-communities issues, the whole thing is to create common interests :
Again, their is no common recipe. This stuff have to be experiment from now to get more and more efficient.
Ok interesting, thanks for the answer. I’m also curious what exactly “community” envisions? Does it just refer to existing towns/cities/city divisions? Or would it be necessary for the existing areas to be “broken up” into smaller, closer communities? My thinking is that in large cities there are often a huge number of people, and yet very little sense of community between them, so I am doubtful how well a community driven system could scale?
I’m not personally convinced the model is scalable. It has worked in small, mostly rural autonomous zones — provided there wasn’t a bigger, better armed government murdering them for having the gall to be independent — but I can’t imagine any way in which it scales up and remains stable.
Anarchists will generally acknowledge this issue and argue the theory that zones need to remain small and independent and must cooperate with other independent zones each with certain specializations. For example, one zone might have certain types of medical care expertise and another might grow certain types of crops and another might focus on energy production. I’m sure there are many more theories for how an ideal anarchist society would structured, but that’s the one I hear the most.
So a police force…