The problem with the concept of justice in an anarchist society.
Charles the II was put on trial for treason by Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army. The concept of a justice system in the UK at that time stemmed from power given to judges and parliament by the king. Things were done in the name of the king – the divine right of kings to rule and the absolute foundation of all law.
To try a king required a complete re-write of the legal system, and Charles, when he was put in front of the judges for his show trial demanded to know “of what am I charged, and in whose name?” All authority stems from a system of power.
Show trials are a prominent part of Stalinism – everyone is equal but some are more equal than others. The dictatorship of the proletariat, an idea that got Bakunin thrown out of the first congress for saying that those in power will never give up power, that’s the point of revolutions – leading to anarchism as a political theory for the first time.
Bakunin is an idealist, in his idea of anarchism there is a revolution (he is vague on against who and fought by whom, much less on who is organizing the army and making the plans) that results in the victory of the oppressed worker. Humanity then goes on to live a simple life with nature and technology existing together and people generally being nice to one another.
Bakunin was correct in pointing out the flaws in communism’s steps to political power of the working classes: power. He was incorrect in what the next step should be. The utopianism of simple black anarchism is what leads to the denunciation of anarchism as a serious political movement, if you become a party then you are a part of the state and then you are counterrevolutionary.
Things should be defined as what they are, not what they are not. Modern anarchism defines itself easily as “against the state/capitol/war/oil/pollution/starbucks” but does not define itself other than what it opposes.
There is a point and a purpose to black anarchism. Complete destruction of the current political and social system is required in order to move forward. While Marx and Bakunin were vague on the gory details of who would be in charge after the revolution and before the utopia, black anarchism nihilistically declares that future details are not their problem. There are creators and there are destroyers, black anarchism is a destroyer. It is a difficult, brave, necessary and morally justifiable stance to take.
But what about after the destruction, in the utopian ideal that is trying to deal with reorganizing society upon the grounds of anarchism.
Most anarchists agree that after the revolution and complete destruction of society and capitalism we will live in societies that are self organized,societies answerable only to themselves. Pastoralism is espoused by the green anarchists. This seems to be a step backwards, pastoral life is not equal, tribalism is not and has never been a system of equality. So the hippies and green anarchists would rather live in a utopian agrarian landscape like Mary Antoinette’s pretend farmhouse, with polished eggs, no dysentery and no starvation. This is a naïve position and the green anarchists are wrong.
The only form of anarchism that has been proven in modern times is the anarcho-syndaclism of the CNT/FAI and the anarchists of the Spanish Civil War. As the only viable form of non utopian, non nihilistic anarchism red anarchism creates communities that organize themselves, but what happens when, inevitably, humans act as humans do and start killing and raping. Stealing is a whole different issue entirely, but none the less complicated*.
Lets’s say there is a murder in hypothetical community A. The community knows who did it, a person killed another person. There was a reason for the murder, there often is. What does the community do? Any step sets a precedent:
1. The society does nothing and then sets the precedent that taking a life is O.K in an unqualified way. Everything is allowable in a truly free society, the concept of allowing someone to do something implies that you have a right to judge others and that fundamentally goes against the spirit of anarchism.
2. The society does nothing, but only because the murder was considered justifiable. This sets the precedent that there is a scale of what is and what is not justifiable, and then who decides that, and with what right?
3. The society kills or imprisons the murderer, as a punishment. This sets the precedent of judgement, prisons and the lack of organization begets the rule of the mob.
4. In classic leftist fashion the community sets up a committee to decide what is to be done about the murder. The committee is now empowered to give out ‘justice’ and to judge others, creating inequality and the basic rule of law that would stem from such a committee would simply be the creation of a governing body.
5. The society sets up committees and argues, while this is happening a friend of the murdered kills the murderer. This is individualistic enough to be morally justifiable under pure anarchism, but sets the precedent that taking a life is ok. An eye for and eye and so on.
The anarcho-syndaclist would argue that the creation of a ‘police committee’ and a ‘justice committee’ would take care of such matters, and, empowered by the people carry out sentences. Then there is a government, structured horizontally, but a government none the less.
John Hutt 