Crime in Anarchy

Combating crime in anarchy might seem oxymoronic, and, in a sense, it is. If we define crime strictly as things that break the law, then it certainly is an oxymoron. However, if we look at the phenomenon of crime more broadly as actions that harm others, then it becomes something that is relevant to anarchism and combating it is an essential part of anarchy.

Broadly speaking, there are two general categories of crime fighting. The first is preventative and the second is reactionary. Anarchists generally focus on the first, though don't forget about the second. States, by contrast, tend to focus on the second, though don't forget about the first.

To prevent crime, anarchists focus on the societal ills that cause it. Generally speaking, crimes are done for four reasons. First, for need. Second, for passion. Third, for maintaining power. Fourth, because of a mental disorder. The first is primarily an economic problem. Anarchists generally see their economic policies as eliminating need, but to go into this further would require its own blog post, so I'll leave it at this, for now. I'll continue having accepted this claim as true, despite not having demonstrated it, since I will in the future and there is not enough space to do so here. However, there are some which aren't economic problems. For example, rape can be, in the loosest sense, a crime of need. This is when someone has a high libido at the moment but no healthy way to express it. That form of a crime of need can be dealt with socially through sexual liberation making sex more commonplace and allowing more healthy avenues of sexual expression. Generally speaking, when it comes to crimes of passion, some can be dealt with and others will exist regardless of what is done about it, be it by state or commune. The ones that can be dealt with generally stem from broad societal problems stemming from oppressive societal institutions. These are stuff like people hanging black men in reconstruction era south. These are things the state is powerless to solve. Solving these require mass social movements from below. Indeed, that is how these are being combated. Mass movements like feminism, gay rights, anti-racism, and other such movements are fighting these oppressive institutions quite successfully, though they have a long way to go. The ones that generally aren't solvable are ones stemming from in the moment rage. This is stuff like a man killing his wife because he just caught her sleeping with another man. For the most part, these cannot be dealt with. However, they can be reduced through preemptive therapy. This is, once more, a social issue. If it is socially acceptable to visit a therapist, or, indeed, not socially acceptable to not visit a therapist, then most will visit a therapist and will have a better handle on their anger. This would reduce the amount of the second form of crimes of passion, though not as impressively as any of the other reduction techniques I have proposed, though that's no justification for the state dealing with that sort of crime since the state doesn't have any tool for preventing that sort of crime of passion unavailable to an anarchist society. Crimes for maintaining power would not be an issue in an anarchist society as in a statist society as no systems of power exist that need maintain themselves. However, as clarification, I should note I'm strictly using the second, not first, definition of crime for this, as with others. This one, in particular, is referring mainly to state or capital action to preserve its power, such as through police brutality or Pinkertons. This is a form of crime that states themselves participate in, so asking a state to fight it would be absurd. Moving on, I've already hinted at the solution to the fourth in the solution to the second. Comprehensive mental healthcare available to all and societally acceptable, with not accessing it not being societally acceptable. This isn't a complete solution, though it is certainly more effective than therapy dealing with crimes of passion. However, those who have a mental disorder which is prone to making those with it a danger to themselves and others would be far less prone to hurting others if such a system were in place.

Now, while the above would drastically reduce crime rates, crime would still happen. After the fact solutions must be put in place. Or do they? Putting someone in prison doesn't make the crime go away. Indeed, it doesn't even discourage people from committing crime. At best, it keeps those who would harm others separate from society, but it also teaches those who commit smaller crimes how to commit worse crimes, and causes people who commit crimes to become disassociated from society preventing an easy return to society which causes a return to crime. Better solutions exist in the Scandinavian countries. They engage in comprehensive rehabilitation where they send criminals that tends to be comfortable and employ many therapists and psychologists as well as teaching the criminals how to return to society. They are far more successful, and far fewer people who go to them commit crimes again. However, I still have reservations with this. For one, I think that forcing them to go is unnecessary. By discontinuing the benefits members of the commune enjoy, such as getting things for free, while giving them materials that would allow them to create what they need to survive, if they do not accept the rehabilitation, thus basically saying that, if they don't want to play nice, they can play by themselves, as well as making rehabilitation a pleasant process, we would encourage people to choose to be rehabilitated, and no coercion or force would be necessary. Then therapists and psychologists could help them through their problems and prepare them for rejoining society. In that way, they would become far less likely to return to the same patterns of crime they fell into before.

Through this two pronged effort. crime would be less of an issue than it is in modern statist societies. The state is not necessary for preventing crime and, indeed, commits crimes regularly to preserve its power.

Platformism

Platformism is a school of thought within anarchism developed by Nestor Makhno in response to his experiences with the Free Territory in the Russian Civil War and its eventual defeat at the hands of the Bolsheviks. Platformism is a theory that it's built around anarchist organizations that focus on unity. This means that everyone in the organization has the same general theoretical beliefs (so everyone is an anarcho-communist or everyone is a mutualist, though with more specifics than that, rather than combining a bunch of anarcho-communists with a bunch of mutualists), the same general tactics (so everyone is committed to, say, non-violent protests or to syndicalism and a general strike, and not a combination of people committed to the first and people committed to the second), everyone shares a collective responsibility in the struggle (this is the part I least understand the details of), and the groups are organized together through federation as we wish to see after the revolution rather than separate from each other. In addition, they tend to focus on outreach to non-anarchists and spreading the anti-authoritarian ideas as far as possible so that the revolution will have sufficient participants to be able to defeat the state.

Now, there are two general criticisms I can think of surrounding platformism. First, all the talk about "theoretical unity" or "tactical unity" sounds pretty authoritarian, like forcing everyone to believe the same things. However, this criticism ascribes to platformism  methods it just doesn't advocate. It doesn't say we should force people to all believe what we believe. Rather, it says that the anarcho-communists should gather in a group and make it a basic requirement for joining the group that one has to be an anarcho-communist. This is not all that different from, say, not letting leninists join an anarchist group.

Second, this group sounds suspiciously similar to the leninist vanguard. Are you sure that Makhno wasn't just convinced of the effectiveness of the vanguard by being beaten in by the Bolsheviks and became a crypto-leninist? Well, no. Rather, he became convinced that anarchist organizations previously, including ones he was a part of, were ineffective at combatting powerful enough states, including ones lead by leninist vanguards. Thus, anarchists needed to rethink things if they wanted to ever defeat the state. However, rather than borrowing leninist ideals, he decided that two things were necessary: unity and numbers. If we all fought together with the same goals and the same tactics, we'd work together far better allowing us to counter state power more effectively and, if we had lots of people, we'd have more people to fight the state with. You can see this in the two aspects of platformism. The talk about organization is all about unity and togetherness, while the talk about tactics is all about getting as many people as possible to become anarchists.

Those were general critiques from anarchism. There are three additional ones from specific branches of anarchism. First, the synthesist/AWA/panarchist critique, why can't we all just get along and work together? I mean, we all want to abolish the state and capitalism, can't we focus on destroying those and focus on what comes next when it comes to that? I mean, if there are more of us, surely we'll be more effective. This is the argument I find most convincing. However, I still see the platformist's point. If we're all different types of anarchism, we will be less effective because we'll constantly bicker among ourselves. In addition, how motivated would a mutualist be if everyone else was an anarcho-communist? Certainly not as motivated as if everyone else was a mutualist. In addition, if we all agree, in general, on what we want after, we can better convince people now because we'll all be arguing for the same things, so no one will be arguing against what others in the organization are arguing for, so it would hurt our ability to get a lot of people. Thus, unity of theory and tactics, not diversity of them, is better, to the platformist.

Second, a post-left/insurrectionist critique, why do we need to be so organized? It comes back to unity. This time, unity of action. If we organize ourselves, rather than acting individually or without much organization, we can all act together as a united front. This creates a strength in numbers sort of effect. One person facing a police officer will be less effective than ten people facing a police officer. In addition, ten people who don't know what each other are doing and don't have some sort of plan facing a police officer will do worse than five people with a plan (or at least general plans for how to deal with such situations) who move together against the police officer.

Third, another post-left/insurrectionist critique, why do we have to wait until we get a lot of people? Why can't we revolt *now*? Because the state has a lot of manpower and a lot to make that more effective, eg tear gas and advanced weaponry. In addition, oftentimes someone rebelling small scale can turn the ignorant away from anarchism before they learn anything about it, causing them to see it as a violent and brutish ideology because they don't know of the violence, brutality, and oppression of the state that necessitate fighting back. Not only is fighting with more people more effective, fighting before we're ready can keep more people from joining us. That's why we need to educate and promote anarchism, expanding our base, before we do a revolution.

Now, all that being said, I'm not a platformist. Why am I not one, given I've rejected every criticism of it I've presented? Well, while I don't think it is bad, I also don't think it is *necessary*. Quite frankly, I'm not convinced by the arguments that previous anarchic organization is necessarily ineffective at combatting the state. I'm not convinced that the Free Territories were crushed because of how they were organized. Rather, they were crushed because Russia is big and Ukraine is small. The people of Ukraine could've effectively won against the Ukrainian state, but the Russian state had far more people to call upon, so they stood no chance, regardless of how many Ukrainians had joined them. While I do find an appeal in platformism, and I find their arguments for unity persuasive, I also find the synthesist arguments for unifying many forms of anarchism persuasive as well. I would, personally, be more than willing to join up with platformists or sythesists.

Morality and Atheism

What is morality without any god? This is a question that perplexes theists, but atheists (used in this post to cover atheists, agnostics, ignostics, and other non-theists) seem to have it all figured out, but do we? I don't think we do, really. Rather, when it comes to morality, we can be just as sectarian as religious people. Broadly speaking, there are two camps: the moral naturalists, such as Dan Fincke or Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience or Sam Harris exemplified in the Moral Landscape, and the moral skeptics, such as Simon Blackburn or Russell Blackford or J.L. Mackie. Broadly speaking, moral naturalists posit some sort of really existing morality that can be discovered through some sort of naturalistic exploration, such as science while moral skeptics question the fundamental assumptions of morality, including if it is real, if it can be true or false, and/or if it can be discovered. The first two necessitate the third, though the third doesn't necessitate either of the others, and all oppose moral naturalism. The big name proponents of the two thus are from different sorts. The moral naturalists have a tendency toward being scientists, Dan Fincke being the one philosopher of my examples, while the moral skeptics have a tendency toward being philosophers. This is not a hard and fast rule, but a tendency I've noticed. Indeed, among atheists, those who are of a scientific bent and came to atheism from science seem to be largely moral naturalists while those who are of a philosophical bent and came to atheism from philosophy seem to be largely moral skeptics. There are certainly other views within atheism, but those are the two major camps. A good place to see this conflict is this recent reddit post. In it, a theist asks atheists where they get their ethics, and there is a roughly equal divide between people giving moral naturalist responses, such as "There are facts about what is and is not good for the health, happiness, and satisfaction of people. Being aware of these facts allows you to act morally." and people giving moral skeptical responses, such as "There is no absolute morality." Though, I should note, most seemed mostly ignorant of metaethics, while giving metaethical answers that fall within preexisting metaethical camps.

In addition, there is plenty of disagreement from within the camps. For example, Sam Harris derived his ethics from neuroscience while Dan Fincke derived his from categorical norms, such as, say, "truth" or science. However, by far, I find the divisions within the moral skeptical camp to be more interesting. Indeed, while there are differences within moral naturalism, they mostly amount to methodology, aka *how* do we naturalistically derive morals? However, the differences within moral skepticism gets down into deep metaethics. For example, Simon Blackburn is a quasi-realist, aka he believes that moral statements project emotional feelings as if they were real properties, thus, though they can't be true or false, they can be treated as true or false. In contrast, Russell Blackford is an error theorist, aka he believes moral statements *can* be true or false, but all are false. These are far more interesting to consider than whether we should discover true morals through neuroscience or through norms accepted a priori.

As for myself, I fall deep within the moral skeptics camp, aligning myself with the moral nihilistic emotivists within the camp, aka I believe morality doesn't truly exist because all moral statements are an expression of emotion, thus making "good" equivalent to "stuff I like" and, thus, meaningless as a separate concept.

Flash Flood

There have been mass flash flooding in my area. My apartment got flooded, and I've evacuating. I'm safe, for now, but the apartment might be lost for awhile.

Ableism

This is a term and concept that most people aren't very aware of. So what is it? It's oppression towards people who are "less able" to do something. This means blind people (less able to see), people without a leg (less able to walk), or people with mental disorders (less able to think normally). The most common form of ableism is the derogatory use of the word "retarded", thus reinforces the negative view of people with mental disorders. Other forms is not accommodating to people in wheelchairs or expecting everyone to be able to read things, not including any braille alternatives. Ableism is a term and concept that needs to see the light of day far more. If possible, please spread the concept as wide as you can.

Why You Shouldn't Use "You're beautiful on the inside": A look at subtle oppression and involuntary support for oppressive entities.

What is meant when one tells someone that they are beautiful on the inside? Generally, it is intended to say "You're a good person on the inside, so your outwards ugliness isn't important." That is, in of itself, a far better than "You're beautiful on the inside", so what is wrong with "You're beautiful on the inside" that isn't about its meaning? Quite simply, it equates "good" with "beautiful." Imagine, for a second, that the scenario is different. Rather than speaking to a ugly person, one is speaking to a black person. Would it be ok for one to say "You're white on the inside," and mean it as "You're a good person on the inside"? No, it wouldn't be. This is, fundamentally, a myth. Beauty does not indicate goodness and goodness doesn't necessitate beauty. When one who believes this myth, be it consciously or subconsciously, ans one encounters a good ugly person, this can be resolved three ways. First by rejecting the goodness of the ugly person. Second, by rejecting the myth itself. Third, by creating an inner beauty. This is fundamentally no different from the attitude of many Southerners in pre-Civil War America that, while black people, in general, are bad, specific black people they care about, like their Nana or favoured servant are exceptions, oftentimes using the same sort of language, calling them white "on the inside".

However, the problems with the phase run deeper. Consider a moment the meaning, "You're a good person on the inside, so you're outward ugliness isn't important." Within this meaning lies the same problem. It sees ugliness as something that's bad, and is overcome only because of the inward goodness. We must not merely remove our language from the myth, but our meaning.

In the language and meaning of the phrase, it supports oppressive myths, though often involuntarily. Oppression isn't always intended, and usually unwanted, yet many still support oppressive institutions in their speech and actions. They don't intend it, but that doesn't reduce the harm. Consider, for a moment, right-libertarian support for wage slavery and capitalism. They aren't intending to support oppression. They don't see the oppression in their actions at all. To them, it isn't oppressive because it is voluntary and contractual. However, this misses the oppression in the inequality. The boss can order around the worker just as the slave owner could order around the slave or the boss could order around the indentured servant. This oppression is not eliminated by making it voluntary.

So, having established the problems with the phrase, what are some alternatives? I mean, I don't deny that some people are helped by the phrase in individual cases, even if the phrase is a part of the societal problems that caused the problems, so we need an alternative to help them. One method would be to tell them that a lack of beauty doesn't make them a bad person and doesn't prevent everyone from seeing the goodness inside of them. Going off of that, one can show how you care for them, but not in spite of their ugliness. Rather, you care about them because of what sort of person they are and their outward looks aren't important to that.

I'm sure there are other methods, and, if you have suggestions, feel free to say so in the comments and describe your alternative.

A Lesson In Revolution

Today as I drove home from work I cried. Work was especially hard and busy, today, and my manager especially controlling and demanding. At work, I've been increasingly disassociate myself from my thoughts and my actions in order to keep myself from screaming in rage or flat out refusing to work. More troubling, I've been increasingly having trouble stopping that disassociation after work finishes. This has led to me going on little adventures after work to calm myself and reassociate myself. Today was an exception, though. I reassociated just fine, but the anger and despair I feel didn't go away. The first half of my drive home I spent angry. Angry that I was being forced to work at this job. Angry that I couldn't just leave or I would go homeless and starve. Angry that my boss could order me around like the slave I essentially am. Angry that customers don't even notice me, seeing me more a scenery than people. Angry at how powerless I felt. Angry at how hopeless my future seems sometimes. Angry just to be angry so that the despair doesn't take over.

But, despite my best efforts, the anger faded halfway through my drive home, and all that was left was horrible and soul crushing despair. So I cried as I drove home. Not because of this day of work, in particular. The anger, at least, is starting to be a regular guest in my drives home. It holds the despair at bay where my disassociation fails. At least when I'm angry, I have some hope that I'll get revenge or justice or something. When the despair sets in, it's all I have.

These are the gifts of my work. These are the gifts of wage slavery. These are the gifts of  capitalism. These are the gifts my boss gives me every time she yells at me to do something I know I shouldn't do, but I do anyway so I don't get fired, slowing myself down and hurting my sanity and the store's productivity. These are the gifts I get when I feel hungry almost every night as I fall asleep because I was only able to afford one meal that day, again, and I still have trouble finding the money to pay rent, each month. These are the gifts from guilt from the occasional splurges I make going to the movies or eating out with friends in order to keep my sanity. These are the gifts of when I know I'm powerless against all this. These are the only gift this system gives me. The gift of anger. The gift of disassociation. The gift of despair.

This is why I'm an anarchist. This is why I reject our current system. This is why I fight where I can. This is why revolution isn't merely a choice, it is a necessity.