anarchist law

Part of the Politics series on Anarchism

Schools of thought Buddhist • Capitalist • Christian Collectivist • Communist • Crypto Feminist • Green • Individualist Info • Insurrectionary • Left Mutualist • Philosophical Platformism • Post-left • Primitivist Social • Syndicalist Without adjectives Theory and practice Anarchy • Black bloc Co-operatives • Counter-economics Direct action • Direct democracy Economics • Especifismo Illegalism • Law • Mutual aid Propaganda of the deed Self-ownership • Social ecology Spontaneous order Squatting • Theorists Workers' self-management Issues Anarcho-capitalism • Animal rights Capitalism • Criticisms • Islam Marxism • Nationalism Orthodox Judaism • Religion Violence History Amakasu Incident Anarchy in Somalia Australian Centenary Celebrations Barcelona May Days Escuela Moderna • Hague Congress Haymarket Riot High Treason Incident Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine International Congress of Amsterdam Kate Sharpley Library Kronstadt rebellion Labadie Collection • LIP • May 1968 May Day • Paris Commune Spanish Revolution • Tragic Week Culture Anarcho-punk • Arts Black anarchism • Culture jamming DIY culture • Freeganism Free school • Free store • Indymedia Infoshop • Jewish anarchism Popular education • Symbolism By region Africa • Austria • Brazil • China England • France • Greece Ireland • Israel • Italy • Mexico Russia • Spain • Sweden Ukraine • USA Lists Books • Communities • Concepts Fictional characters • Musicians Movements by region Organizations • Periodicals Poets • Anarcho-punk bands Related Anti-capitalism • Anti-communism Anti-consumerism • Anti-corporatism Anti-globalization • Antimilitarism Anti-statism • Antiwar Labour movement • Situationism Anarchism Portal Politics Portal ·

Anarchist law refers to a series of ongoing debates within the various branches of anarchist theory regarding if and how norms of individual and/or collective behavior, decision-making and actions should be created and enforced. Although many anarchists would consider "anarchist law" simply synonymous with natural law, others contend law in anarchy would have additional, unique elements. Over the course of the last two hundred years as Anarchism has grown and evolved to include dozens of diverse strains (as discussed in the main article on Anarchism), there have been literally dozens of different conceptions of "anarchist law" produced and discussed, or used in practice by anarchist networks such as Peoples' Global Action^[1] or Indymedia^[2]

The common elements of these differing perspectives are as follows:

Non-Coercion

The most fundamental maxim of anarchism is that no individual has the right to coerce another individual, and that everyone has the right to defend his or her self against coercion. This basic principle forms the basis of all anarchist law, and indeed of virtually all anarchist theory. "It is best summed up by the maxim 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (quoting Kropotkin, quoting Jesus), with the additional provision that if others try to do things to you that violate your rights you have the right to stop them. In short, anarchist philosophy includes the 'golden rule', but does not include "turning the other cheek."

Consensus-based Social Contracts

Since the principle of non-coercion makes hierarchical State structures unfeasible, anarchist communities must find an alternative basis for setting the rules of engagement within a collectivity. Accordingly, virtually all anarchist legal models begin with the assumption that whatever rules are set in place must be freely agreed to by the entirety of the community that is to be governed by them in a setting free from coercion or intimidation. Such freely given consent constitutes a social contract, though the exact nature of such contracts is a matter of heated debate.

Free Association

Within an anarchist framework all individuals have the right to freely associate (or not associate) with whomever they choose, and so any attempt to limit that freedom via a social contract would be problematic. Free association also implies the right of individuals to form those exact social contracts, while the freedom to not associate means that if the terms of a social contract become unacceptable to individual members or to some sub-group within a larger collective then the discontented have the right to secede from the contract and form new associations with others that more closely fit their needs.

Mutual Aid

The principle of Mutual aid, originally identified by Kropotkin as arising from natural law, is that since evolution occurs in groups - not individuals - it is evolutionarily advantageous for members of a community to assist each other. The anarchist approach to building power - and structuring power relationships - is derived from this evolutionary and biological imperative. In a nutshell the argument is that since individuals require the assistance of groups to self-actualize individuals have a strong self-interest in the good of the community to which they belong. It follows that (freely associating) collectives of individuals working for mutual improvement and mutual goals must form the basis of any anarchist society, thus providing the sociological and economic imperative for the creation of social contracts capable of binding these self-selecting groups together.

In a pre-revolutionary situation, the principle of 'mutual aid' is the moral imperative that drives efforts by contemporary anarchists to provide material aid to victims of natural disasters^[3], homeless and poor people, and others who have been left without access to food, water, and other basic necessities. The concept is thus derived from scientific research^{[citation needed]} but carries with it a moral imperative.

Enforceability

Enforceability is one of the most controversial areas of Anarchist law. Early writers such as Proudhon argued that it was legitimate for working-class people to self-organize against criminals who prey on the weak, a process which would doubtless entail some degree of coercion.

Proudhonian mutualists (and many others) have argued that such use of force by a collective against individuals is justifiable since it is fundamentally defensive in nature. As a more coherent example, communities have a clear interest in tracking down and isolating child molesters, rapists, psychopaths, and others who regularly employ coercion against their victims. The right of ordinary people to not be victimized and coerced by such individuals legitimizes their use of coercive force to eliminate such threats. Some modern "individualist" anarchists (who argue that any collective action against an individual is illegitimate) hotly dispute this point.

The issue of mandate (on whose behalf an action is being carried out) is much more significant, however, when approaching larger-scale provisions for self defense such as armies and militias. For individualist anarchists the right of individuals to not be coerced legitimizes the use of coercive violence for personal self-defense only, while for collectivists it is legitimized both for personal self-defense and for defense of ones community. This issue is critical since, while the individualist model makes warfare far less likely by eliminating the rational for the creation of large bodies of armed men, the collectivist approach makes it much more likely that the community in question will be able to defend itself against a hostile invader should one appear. Both schools, however, agree that the right and responsibility of self-defense cannot be delegated to a third party - such as a professional police department or standing army - since as soon as a third party becomes involved it is not longer self defense. A non-hierarchal militia composed of members of a community self-organizing for mutual self-defense against a hostile neighbor (such as that organized by the CNT during the Spanish Civil War) would thus be valid in a collectivist (anarchist-communist, social anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist, market-syndicalist, etc) setting and invalid in an individualist (anarchocapitalist, egoist, etc) setting. Both, by contrast, would reject a standing army or police department.

Decision making in anarchist organisations

Common techniques for decision making, including decisions about the de facto laws themselves, among non-hierarchical societies include various forms of formal consensus^[2], supermajority voting, "consensus minus one" and direct democracy^[4]

More information

This is only a very brief overview of a few of the most commonly agreed upon principles of anarchist organization as they pertain to the function of law within an anarchist society. For more in-depth discussion of Anarchism as a system of Law, as well as the other issues raised here, please refer to "Anarchism as an International Relations Theory"^[5] by Emcee Lynx, and The Anarchist FAQ^[6]. An in depth academic analysis of the subject, which has been out of print for some time, is Holterman and van Maarseveen's "Law and Anarchism".^[7]

References

1. ^ Organisational Principles. Peoples' Global Action. Retrieved on 2006-10-29.
2. ^ ^{a b} Principles of Unity. Indymedia. Retrieved on 2006-10-28.
3. ^ http://www.foodnotbombs.net/katrina.html
4. ^ A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?. Infoshop. Retrieved on 2006-10-28.
5. ^ [1]
6. ^ http://infoshop.org/faq/
7. ^ Holterman, Thom; Henc van Maarseveen. Law and anarchism. Black Rose Books, Montreal. Retrieved on 2007-09-11.

Donate to Wikimedia