[Reader-list] Fwd: who resolves disputes in an anarchist society

[arisen silently]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jet_black at ntlworld.com <jet_black at ntlworld.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:07:25 +0000
Subject: Re: who resolves disputes in an anarchist society
To: Situationist <situationist at lists.nothingness.org>

No society in which there are disputes is truly anarchist in the first
place. Anarchism pre-posits a post-scarcity environment in which
individuals are immersed in the mechanisms of controlling their own
essentials and production (a priori). To install anarchism is to promote
such productive control mechanisms. Conflict and anarchism are in a
sense semantic opposites and it is therefore gibberish to conceive of
a society which is both anarchist and has conflict.

Some will probably think that such a definition of anarchism is pedantic,
because in practice nothing will ever be perfect. However, if one
refuses to imagine a perfect world one must cease to demand a perfect
anarchism.
On the other hand, if one anticipates an imperfect future
world, one must not complain if the policies of its anarchists are a
mere approximation to an anarchist society. One must be consistent.

In other words, the question is unfairly conceived -- (you are
implicitly expecting "Anarchism" to be immaculate when confronted by a
world you refuse to believe an be immaculate too).

In the meantime, in this undoubtedly imperfect world, the practices of
any anarchist worth his or her salt are confined by NO pedantic
idealisms, an anarchist resorts to whatever available method is most
effective in the place and time he dinds himself (what law should he
allow to deter him?) The modern difference between an anarchist and a
non-anarchist is a different interpretation of "best method", hinging
upon a different image of the desirable Future -- a different morality
based upon result, not upon taboos about methods (By Any Means
Necessary). To hone this anarchist strategy (if that's what you still
want to call it -- I for one am indifferent) is what we should be here
to do: another word for it is morality, a morality of consequences not
tablets of stone (karma not taboo); a morality which permits anarchists
to use *anything* to resolve conflicts, so long as they understand the
consequences of what they do and are choosing the best of them.

-ku

guyot jean-marc wrote:
>Hi Dan,
>
>I'm a frenchspoker, so sorry for my broken english...
>But I'll try to answer your question.
>
>This question of resolving disputes or any problems in
>an anarchist society seem the most important question.
>
>Repression or neighborhood control is not acceptable.
>I thing that all go through education of people,
>beginings by our childrens to values as liberty (I may
>say me free only when all the people around me is also
>free...) and,consequence, brotherhoodness. I've in the
>ears the words of Imagine by John Lennon...
>
>Education of ours childrens, sure. But also our
>self-education, without gods or masters (god is not
>good ;-)).
>
>What do you says about this necessary self education?
>
>Thanks for your answers.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jean-Marc.