Kick the Cops off your Block

KICK THE COPS OFF YOUR BLOCK: 

Introduction:

For contemplative and practical purposes, we need worldviews and theories that have explanatory power, that trace causes, effects, forms, functions, contents, qualities, and relations of various institutions. Different institutions enable and constrain different activities and practices. If specific institutions and kinds of institutions are proven to be ethically unjustified, they should be dismantled and replaced by what are at least good-enough institutions and relations. One such institution to analyze and critique is the police. The existence of the police is often taken for granted rather than properly scrutinized. Whether one is operating from a place of wanting to defend good rights, and/or to do good duties, and/or to achieve good consequences, and/or to develop a virtuous society, etc., a well informed person would want to abolish the police. The critique of the police that we put forward touches upon universal features that police forces have to have in order for them to be police forces. The arguments we give later on in this paper will categorically critique police, other state security forces, as well as other hierarchical security forces more broadly. A coherent categorical critique of police needs to reason about and critique the essential unjust forms/qualities/functions of police and statecraft and other entangled hierarchies. 

We wrote this essay because we think a more holistic understanding of the police– and alternatives to the police– is needed in society, in social movements, and even in anti-police social movements. This essay is influenced by different tendencies, approaches and worldviews which we think provide ethical and effective ways of dealing with disputes and injustice/harm without police and prisons. Mediation, restorative justice and transformative justice approaches have done a lot to move in the right direction. Specifically, abolitionist praxis and transformative justice have made some of the greatest strides in regards to various alternatives to the police. There are ways such approaches are similar to how many egalitarian groups in history have handled domination. Many egalitarian groups today and in history, in various contexts, have used some version of the following for disputes and domination: mediation, dialogue driven justice/problem solving, reconciliation processes, free association, graduated informal social disapproval, and in more extreme cases self-defense, defense of others, and expulsion. There are also alternatives to police within anarchist theory and history which for the most part tend to use specific versions of the above approaches used by different kinds of egalitarian groups. There is significant convergent evolution and diffusion of various ways groups can defend themselves and each other from rulership and domination. There are group qualities that are necessary for and contribute to the likelihood of maintaining horizontal power relations against hierarchical rule– group qualities that must be sufficiently reproduced, developed, and recreated for such horizontal power relations to survive overtime. 

Meanwhile, many contemporary social movements fall apart or are significantly stifled because of insufficiently good approaches to decision making, disputes, and harms/injustices (on group and interpersonal levels). Absent good-enough ways to deal with such issues, hierarchical and/or arbitrary rule prevails. This can look like: disputes and harms not being meaningfully addressed, to a myriad of authoritarian or otherwise unwise ways of addressing disputes and harms. There are ways state agencies, abusers, and other wreckers can take advantage of this weakness of many social movements. For social movements to develop liberatory qualities, practices, and goals over sustained long periods of time, they need to come up with some good-enough alternatives to hierarchical and arbitrary conflict resolution. A failure of social movements to develop such good enough practices will make social movements brittle in the face of various kinds of disputes and harms.

We see a need for a greater integration of alternatives to state justice systems; a spectrum of good-enough approaches to dealing with conflict and harm with various “thresholds” that lead to further options. This must be general enough to be applied in a plurality of contexts and in a plurality of different ways, and specific enough to be substantial and actually tell us ways different kinds disputes and harms/injustices can be addressed without creating something wicked in the process. There are more than enough examples in history of detrimental and fundamentally flawed ways of changing the world. Given that fundamentally reshaping society can create terrible processes and results, social movements should have good-enough alternatives to “business as usual” being proposed, practiced and aimed towards. Such alternatives to business as usual to propose, practice, and aim towards should include ways of dealing with disputes and harms. We hope this essay can aid people in critical reflection and argumentation in favor of abolishing the police and the hierarchical relations they protect and serve. We hope this essay can help people think about an array of ways to deal with conflict and harm without the state. We also hope this essay can assist people in thinking about ways to bridge current conditions towards better ones.  

A coherent approach to abolishing police and prisons leads to other issues very quickly: a problem of the state as such, a problem of any kind of state security force by extension, the problem of the state being related to and infused with other kinds of hierarchies (such as but not limited to enforcement of capitalism, and racist and patriarchal divisions of power and labor within political and economic hierarchies, empire, colonization, etc.), the necessity of developing self-managed organizations as alternatives to hierarchical organizations, the necessity of aiming towards a self-managed political/economic/social world, the necessity of meeting needs of people along the way, the necessity of mutual aid and direct action to meet short term, mid term, and long term needs of people, the necessity of groups uniting and federating for common goals, the necessity of developing a plurality of good-enough ways of dealing with disputes and harms, and ultimately the necessity of social revolution etc. All of a sudden social revolution for and through self-management and against hierarchy becomes crucial to what may at first seem like one much more simple issue. Abolishing not just the police but essential policing functions is something not on the table for states to do; states require some kind of violent enforcement agency to enforce class rule (within and beyond the context of capitalism). 

Analysis and critique of police, state security forces, and hierarchical security forces:

• Police are defined as a kind of hierarchical security force of a specific unit of hierarchical politics that at least protects and enforces capitalism, hierarchical politics (statecraft), the requisite domination, exploitation, class relations and private and state property that the enforcement of capitalism and statecraft entails, as well as relevant statist laws more broadly within given jurisdictions.
  1. Hierarchical institutions refer to organizations with institutionalized top-down command and obedience relations
  2. Statist laws are being used to refer to laws that protect and enforce hierarchical politics
  3. Class rule refers to hierarchical rule/power over a ruled and exploited class (or exploited classes) by a ruling class (or ruling classes) which can happen via hierarchical ownership and management of politics, and/or means of production, and/or means of existence, and/or surplus.  
  4. Police protect and enforce the rule of both the economic ruling class and political ruling class. 
  5. Police, similar and connected to yet distinct from other kinds of state security forces, were historically developed through capitalist class relations to enforce capitalist class relations and police the working class, the dispossessed, and slaves. 
  6. The police are a historically constituted group in relation to the development and enforcement of capitalism, but: other state security forces enforce capitalism as well, and it is possible for the police to evolve as a local enforcement agency of some other hierarchical political economic order.
  7. On top of class rule and class relations as such (which existed thousands of years before capitalism), capitalism is additionally qualified by wage labor and commodity production for markets as well as specific kinds of class relations. 
• Class relations are inherently at the expense of human freedom/self-management, happiness, and virtues.
  1. hierarchical rule and class rule (of any kind) necessitate and lead to the quashing of people’s participatory activity/self-management.
  2. And additionally hierarchical rule and class rule create suffering and viciousness societally compared to their abolition (in tandem with the presence of positive social relations and institutional qualities) 
• Freedom/self-management is good for people
  1. And self-management of each and all helps contribute to happiness and virtues (which are other goods for people). 
  2. Good is defined by the flourishing of beings which includes freedom, happiness, and virtues of such beings, the means thereof (including the relations and conditions that enable such goods), and activities entangled with such goods, etc. 
• Therefore the flourishing of that which is good for people requires police abolition (and state abolition, and class abolition, and the abolition of hierarchy more broadly). 
• And therefore police are defined by (at least) enforcing that which destroys what is good for people
• And additionally, by the logic used above: the flourishing of that which is good for people requires the abolition of all hierarchical security forces. For the police AND other hierarchical security forces besides the police (such as the military) are also defined by (at least) enforcing that which destroys what is good for people.

Police additionally go over and above the features and functions police are minimally defined by: Police enforce a whole swath of unjust rules– a whole panoply of arbitrary restriction of freedoms such as but not limited to laws that put people in prison for possession of drugs or free movement across borders etc. The unjust laws on the books are changing overtime and are too numerous to practically list here. Police have enforced everything from the capitalist-wage laborer relationship, local statecraft, to colonial relations, to slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to contemporary prison slavery, to the war on drugs, and beyond. 

Police help protect and enforce the greatest causes of overall unjust violence and unmet needs, as the police enforce political and economic class property and class rule. Class relations are constituted by and perpetuating factors of hierarchical power, hierarchical ownership of the means of production and means of existence, and structural violence (absolute and relative deprivation). And absolute and relative deprivation of resources increases violence, mortality rates, addiction rates, and lowers overall happiness, freedom, and social trust (Wilkinson and Pickett 2011). Such hierarchical power the police are defined by protecting and enforcing inhibits the political, economic, and social self-determination of people. Self-determination is causally essential and partially definitive of human flourishing (Ryan and Deci 2000, 2008). Through enforcing the greatest root causes of unmet needs and unjust violence and unjust laws, police are structurally vicious (regardless of the intent of any cop involved). 

Police enforce specific unjust laws related to the protection and enforcement of capitalist and state class relations and property. And by the police protecting and enforcing the reproduction and development of political and economic class rule, the police extensionally reinforce structural forms of oppression such as racialized and gendered divisions of power and labor. And additionally, police go above and beyond such a minimal “call of duty” of merely enforcing class rule and hierarchical laws; police characteristically and systematically target specific populations more than others. The police specifically target the working class, the poor, the dispossessed, and various oppressed and discriminated against populations (which vary in important respects across social contexts, timespace locations, country to country etc.). Police forces have patterns of being intertwined with white supremacy and racism, nationalism, colonialism, patriarchal gender roles, queerphobia, transphobia, and a whole panoply of bigotry. The police are not neutral arbiters of the very unjust rules they enforce– and even if they were they would still have inherent structural problems via their essential functions.  

Although the police are a contemporary development from the last few hundred years, the history of the police can be traced to a broader history of the military and violent enforcement wing of state power going back thousands of years ago to the beginning of statecraft (Bookchin 2005). States (hierarchical political units) have always had a coercive enforcement wing to enforce against external forces and internal uprisings. Under the nation-state and capitalist politics and economics, police forces were developed to protect and enforce capitalist property, hierarchical politics, slavery, to control the behavior of the working class and the unemployed, and to provide a way to control and disperse crowds of people organizing and rebelling against class rule  (Whitehouse 2014, Williams 2015). Compared to sending in the army to slaughter people en masse, the police provide states with comparatively non-lethal ways to control and disperse crowds (Whitehouse 2014). The above still remains true even though police forces have become increasingly industrialized and militarized since their origins. Police have changed overtime and vary in different contexts while retaining their essential functions and features as police– protection and enforcement of capitalism, hierarchical politics, and laws internal to the state carved up jurisdictionally. And those very essential features of the police are inherently detrimental to the freedom and flourishing of people.

Whenever there are significant movements for positive change that go against any hierarchical law or government, it is and has been the task of the police and/or military and/or other state security forces to destroy such movements through state violence. This is demonstrated definitionally, functionally, and historically. In order to seize the means of production and existence–and make such means of production and existence held in common and self-managed by those who need and use the commons– people must overthrow hierarchical politics and the enforcement thereof. And in the interim, people must be able to achieve short term and mid term goals and secure and defend gains against statist security forces (and private police and military and other agents of reaction such as non-state right wing militias and unions of capitalists).

Hierarchical security forces do not just inhibit human freedom; they also help to destroy the entire ecological world. The following is a brief yet intense ecological critique of the cops (and hierarchical security forces more broadly): 

1. Hierarchical security forces protect and enforce political/economic/social hierarchies. 
2. Political/economic/social hierarchies are the greatest causes of ecological destruction. 
3. By extension hierarchical security forces protect and enforce the greatest causes of ecological destruction. 

The above is quite the claim, but follows if the basics of social ecology are true. Social ecology claims that root causes of ecological problems are caused by social problems, specifically the problem of hierarchy (Bookchin 2007).  

The essential qualities and functions of the police (and other hierarchical security forces) are inherently detrimental to that which is good for people and the ecological world. Even the cops that are genuinely trying to do what is good and help people still reproduce and perpetuate the intrinsic functions and evils of being a cop. The police have categorical and structural problems regardless of the intent of any cop; cops do not have to have evil intention to do evil– despite the extensive resemblances cops do have with Disney villains. And although the position of police officer and the like attracts AND forms vicious character traits: outside of the monetary incentives and various false premises and wrong systematic worldviews, many people who are cops would otherwise enthusiastically direct their efforts elsewhere. Yet nonetheless, to the extent the police merely follow orders and the laws they enforce (and reproduce and develop such an institution), they will perpetuate the most fundamental and essential problems of the police– which protect and enforce the most fundamental and essential problems of hierarchical society and ecological destruction.  

By nature of hierarchical society and structural violence, people are coerced in various ways to participate in various hierarchical institutions. But cops are a role incomparable to people who are merely working jobs in unjust institutions of various kinds in order to live; to be a cop is to enforce unjust laws, to enforce state and capitalist rule, and to dominate others for the reproduction and expansion of hierarchical rule.

A Brief critique of Prisons: 

Prisons are defined by institutionalized coercive confinement. Prisons continuously deprive people of basic human needs for self-determination and free association. “The primary functions of prisons are control and punishment,” rather than defending against harm (PREAP 2005).  Prisons functionally are forms of continuous domination to people and propagate more of such domination through their effects; for even IF “prisons might deter a very small percentage of those who have done time,…they encourage post-release crime in a far greater number of ex-prisoners,” (PREAP 2005). On a rights and freedom based level, prisons continuously violate essential freedoms of people, and on a consequential level do more damage than they shield against. Additionally, “those who find themselves entrapped in the criminal (in)justice systems most often are a select group, usually stereotype “criminals”-a threat in some way to those in power: the poor, minorities, the young,” (PREAP 2005). “Abolishing the punishment of prison is a fundamental step in abolishing the present punitive criminal (in)justice systems. Helping both wrongdoer and wronged to resolve their differences thru mediation, restitution and other reconciliatory practices, are alternatives we can build into the new system of justice,” (PREAP 2005).

A large percentage of people who are coercively confined have not been convicted or have merely been convicted of a non-violent crime (or have been convicted of a violent crime that is often far less extreme than the violent crime of imprisoning people!!!). And even for those who have done unjust violence, imprisonment is NOT a justified response. Prisons are not a way to stop unjust violence from continuing as prisons are constituted by such unjust violence, as well as “universities of crime” that contribute to high rates of repeat violent offenses. Unjust violence is for the most part caused directly and indirectly by some combination of the following: capitalism, socioeconomic hierarchy/structural violence, official violence of statecraft, patriarchal gender roles and norms, racism, bigotry in its various forms, ableism, lack of meaning and purpose in society, hierarchically organized crime (combined with profit incentives), cycles of abuse and unmet needs, lack of positive social relations and support, etc. We would be far more free if such root causes of unjust violence were transformed and if violent offenses were dealt with through a plurality of good-enough alternatives to police and prisons.

Alternatives to the police, hierarchical security forces, and prisons: 

First off, “Police don’t promote safety, they prevent it” (Kaba and Ritchie 2022). As noted earlier, the police protect and enforce detrimental unjust rules and unjust institutions that eviscerate human freedom and equality. The police enforce laws related to the protection, enforcement and development of statecraft, capitalist property, entangled hierarchies such as racism, patriarchy, imperialism, nationalism, ableism etc. and unjust restrictions on human liberty. On top of creating systematic evisceration of freedom, the hierarchical rules that police protect and serve are the very root causes of the worst kinds of individual human behavior.  

In a good society–one without police, prisons, states, hierarchies, etc.– there are rights, duties, institutional qualities, processes, and practices that are part of good and free political economic social life. “A world without policing is not a world where violence is allowed to proceed unchecked. To the contrary,… it is a world that creates greater possibilities for prevention, interruption, healing, and repair of violence by meeting material needs, fostering mutual accountability, and imposing effective consequences when necessary,” (Kaba and Ritchie 2022). “What should be minimal freedoms” of people include the freedoms of people to self-determine their activities within the bounds of the freedoms of others to self-determine their activities (which entails everything from freedom to the means of existence, production, and horizontal politics, to freedom from domination and exploitation). And there are real and hypothetical emergencies where we would want other people to help us and others out in some way or another. And as demonstrated in the above section, cops are not mere third parties, but instead are defined by functional and formal features related to enforcement of class rule and property, entangled hierarchies, and a whole array of unjust rules. If and when we develop a free and egalitarian society, there will continue to be some disputes, harmful actions, and remaining social problems of various kinds (even if the root causes of social problems are structurally abolished). Fortunately, there are many ways to protect what-should-be minimal freedoms of people and deal with disputes and harms without the police and the like. In fact, given that police and states definitionally and functionally enforce against what should be minimal freedoms of people, non-police and non-state forms of justice  are necessary to have a holistic way of dealing with disputes and harms.

There are some good protocols for how to handle different kinds of disputes, repair and transform different kinds of harms, and defend against unjust violence (and how not to) but there are also case by case dimensions to each dispute and/or harmful conflict and persons involved. It is rare that there is just one way forward: good protocols of this sort point to a “choose your own path” within specific bounds of self-management of each and all, rights and duties in relationship to such self-management of each and all, and the means thereof. There is granularity when it comes to understanding different kinds and specific instances of harms as well as general and specific causes and effects of harms. Further reasons that good-enough protocols are necessary and desirable but not sufficient is that such good-enough protocols do not exhaustively encompass the broader social means of such good-enough protocols, nor the compassion, fairness, truth seeking, and courage we need to use when dealing with specific grievances, disputes, and harms. 

***Although notions of harm/injustice/unjust violence/violations of what-should-be minimal freedoms of persons are used in this essay, we want to note something very important: not all harm/unjust violence/violations of what-should-be minimal freedoms of persons are equivalent;  the above can differ in qualitative and magnitudinal ways. For example, episodic harm is distinct patterns of harm from a specific person or within a specific relationship, which is distinct from hierarchical rule and structural violence within institutions etc. And each of the above are differentiated as there are different kinds of episodic harm, patterns of doing harm, and hierarchical rule/structural violence. And each of the above have there own internal differentiations. For example, a specific instance of harm can consist of everything from starting an unjust fistfight with someone else, to sexual assault, to murder, to stopping someone from freely choosing permissible associations and activities, etc. Although different qualities and magnitudes of harm are all harm, carelessly conflating different parts of such a harm spectrum together can create false equivalences between them and obscure the unique causes, effects, kinds, instances, and patterns of harm. It is also crucial to note that many people use various definitions of harm that are so loose that they encompass a whole host of what-should-be completely permissible behaviors (some of which might very well “not be good behaviors” in various respects yet still do not count as harmful or ethically impermissible/unjust). And some conceptions of harm narrow harm to specific instances of physical violence in such a way that makes structural violence, institutional hierarchy, and various kinds of relational domination invisible. There is actual harm that can happen when what-should-be permissible activities are treated as harmful and when harmful acts and institutions are treated as if they should-be permissible. Loose definitions/usages of harm are distinct from a tighter notion of harm as systemic injustice, unjust violence, and domination against a person’s right to self determine their own activities (within the bounds of the self determination of others) and the like. We are using such a tight definition of harm throughout this essay. But we are also speaking in this essay about harm in general. For practical purposes, when dealing with specific harms, it is often important to specify what they are rather than merely reverting to the catch all phrase of harm. The relevant variables of a specific harmful action, pattern, or institutional quality will help determine how to respond wisely.

 Here are several elements of what alternatives to the police and prisons can look like: 

1. Dealing with systemic root causes and solutions of social problems, reducing overall violations of what should be people’s freedoms. 

Human behavior and rates of violence, harm, unmet needs, and abuse are radically malleable; people have formed egalitarian societies and hierarchical societies (Bookchin 2005) as well as societies with low rates of violence and societies with high rates of violence, etc. (Wilkinson and Pickett 2011). Depending on conditions, social relations, and institutions more broadly, the worst kinds of behavior can be practically eliminated or brought down to extremely low levels.  Capitalism, the state, patriarchy, white supremacy, gerontocracy etc. create structural violence, systematic physical violence to reproduce such systems, and create the biggest causes of violence done by individuals.  An absence of the root causes of abuse and unmet needs (such as hierarchical institutions, relations, and culture and lack of distribution according to needs) will of course lead to far less abuse and unmet needs compared to their presence. Additionally, the presence of positive social relations will help contribute to a caring rational culture that tends to inculcate non-authoritarian and even virtuous people.  Rights and duties in harmony with the self-management of each and all provide people with radical self-determination on every scale of societal life bounded by and enriched by the self-determination of others. A good society would provide every person with self-management on every scale of life, and access to means of horizontal politics, means of production, means of existence, a good quality of life, and a good material standard of living. Such a shift would eliminate structural violence and eliminate the vast majority of violence and theft. A good society makes it so that self-interest and social interest are merged in a win-win game in such a way that is likely to create pro-social behavior even in crude egoists– as well as generalized internalized motivation to contribute to such a good society with good rights and duties (or as Ryan and Deci would put it “integrated and identified regulation” with good rights and duties). Even after root social problems are resolved, there are continuous issues to be addressed. In this sense, transforming causes of harm is a continuous process– even in a utopian or relevantly utopian society. Continued vigilance against domination and would be-tyrants is crucial to reproducing egalitarian social relations (Boehm 2001).  When it comes to the long term work of transforming root causes of social problems, It is important to draw the right inferences about what 1. social relations are causing harmful behaviors and 2.  what kind of new social relations would generate more positive behaviors and 3.  how to develop such better social relations out of current conditions (and an understanding of current conditions and their relevant causes). 

2. Mediation, Restorative Justice, and Transformative justice: 

Mediation, restorative justice, transformative justice, are distinct from each other but have some crucial lower common denominators, similarities, and family resemblances. They all involve forms of voluntary, self-managed, and dialogue driven processes. But they each have some qualities and functions that make them unique– making different approaches more appropriate and applicable in different contexts. Mediation is more focused on dispute resolution, restorative justice is more focused on harm resolution, and transformative justice is rooted in repairing and transforming causes of harm. 

Mediation is rooted in dialogue about a dispute, with participation by those in a dispute, with the assistance of a mediator (or mediation team) and relevant protocols, to find out how to resolve a dispute in some kind of way through mutual agreements of those involved. “Mediation is primarily motivated by the need to resolve a dispute or conflict. It does not proceed on the assumption that addressing harm or repairing a relationship is the – or even an – objective.” Although sometimes addressing harm and repairing a relationship can be part of such a process,  the main goal of mediation “is to establish agreement on how parties will relate to or engage with each other in the future and how they can avoid subsequent conflicts.” (Brookes and McDonough 2006). “There are many agreements created by mediation that are strong, enduring and have enormous value for all the parties involved, but where those parties did not (and did not want to) express their feelings to each other, or admit responsibility for their part, or apologise. They did not want, nor did they get, a ‘therapeutic process’: they only wanted to resolve the dispute, and get on with their lives; and mediation was very successful in achieving that aim,” (Brookes and McDonough 2006). 

“Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible,” (Zehr 2002). Restorative justice approaches have been shown to decrease recidivism, increase restitution compliance, and increase victim satisfaction compared to courts and prisons (Sherman and Strang 2007, Latimer 2005, Umbreit 1998). Restorative justice has the added benefit of not having the extensive negatives of police and prison systems. Even having identical recidivism rates without the detriments of prisons, courts, and police would be a massive victory for restorative justice processes (and other similar yet distinct approaches). Restorative justice gives victims information they want, an opportunity for truth telling, empowerment, and restitution (Zehr 2002). Restorative justice gives offenders a process that addresses harm and encourages empathy and responsibility, encouragement to experience transformation, and potential ways to reintegrate with others (Zehr 2002). Restorative justice processes and the like are designed for and work best in regards to more extreme offenses and harms and are not a way of dealing with minor offenses (Zehr 2002).

Transformative justice is rooted in the above qualities of restorative justice as well as transforming causes of harm. Transformative justice “is distinct from restorative justice practices that focus on addressing harm among individuals without addressing the larger conditions that contributed to it, ” (Kaba and Ritchie 2022). Transformative justice locates root social problems in hierarchies, domination, exploitation, and oppression. And transformative justice is an explicitly police and prison abolitionist praxis whereas restorative justice models do not categorically stand in opposition to police and prisons (although some restorative justice approaches and practitioners are abolitionist). And despite significant lower common denominators and mutual influence between restorative justice and transformative justice, transformative justice has its own unique history and practices emerging from abolitionist social movements against unjust violence. Most transformative justice processes involve a few members of the community working with someone who agrees to a transformative justice process– often after an intervention requesting someone to participate. “This process, in the best-case scenario, works so that the person who caused harm understands their actions and the impact they had on the survivor(s) and others involved, apologizes, makes amends, repairs damage caused by their actions and–most importantly–works to change their behavior so that the harm doesn’t happen again. Changing… behavior is a fundamental part of taking accountability for harm… and it is often one of the main things survivors want,” (Mingus 2018). Transformative justice is an approach that also involves social action to address hierarchy, domination, exploitation, and oppression in society beyond specific instances of harm. 

The multi-pronged approach we advocate for includes mediation, restorative justice, and transformative justice– while acknowledging the different qualities and functions each has. Mediation makes sense when the goal is finding mutual agreements and moving forward. Transformative justice has the potential to help deal with causes of harm while containing the most crucial qualities from restorative justice. But restorative justice can make sense for conflicts that can be sufficiently resolved through it (and as its own tendency, restorative justice has developed some processes and practices that can make a lot of sense in specific contexts– such as when the more approximate causes of harm are more shallow than deep). Mediation can achieve restorative outcomes or be a precursor to restorative justice and/or transformative justice processes. And there are various ways mediation, restorative justice practices, and transformative justice practices can be integrated (when that is agreed to by people involved and the goal is to both deal with disputes as well as harms). And there are ways restorative justice processes can spill into or include features/practices from transformative justice. 

Synthesizing and including a plurality of the above approaches together: If possible, people can attempt to resolve various disputes and issues with each other through direct dialogue with each other or informally with mutually agreed upon third parties. As needed and desired, formal dialogue driven self-managed justice processes involving disputes and/or harms between persons can be agreed to and assisted by an agreed upon third party person or team. People involved can decide if mediation and/or restorative justice and/or transformative justice make sense for the given dispute and/or harm and/or harmful conflict. Coherent versions of mediation, restorative justice, and transformative justice have respect for guaranteed freedoms for those involved and have their own protocols and processes opposed to hierarchical and arbitrary rule. Mediation makes sense when people agree to it and there is a dispute between people trying to reach some kind of resolution. Mediation can lead to mutual agreements about how to move forward in the case of disputes (and potentially restorative/transformative outcomes and/or mutual agreements about what happened– although that is not the primary goal of mere/pure mediation). When there is at least someone acknowledging they caused harm, restorative and transformative justice processes can make sense (although these processes can also involve various disputes along with acknowledgements). And if agreed to by participants, there can be a combination of mediation/restorative justice/transformative justice focusing on dealing with disputes and harms, causes thereof, and setting things right and transforming causes of injustice/harm. If the sole reason for people, “coming together is to address the harm that has been caused, whichever of them caused the harm in question, then they need to use a restorative… (or transformative)… approach. If they want solely to resolve a dispute, then they need to use mediation. If they are meeting in order to address harm and resolve a related dispute, then – within the context of the restorative,” or transformative “process – the facilitator will need to employ mediative skills,” (Brookes and McDonough 2006). Federated collectives can provide one another with impartial mediators and/or facilitators for mediation and/or restorative and transformative justice processes. Depending on what those involved agree to, mediation, restorative justice, and transformative justice can be done through: processes involving impartial facilitators with victims and offenders, to processes that include loved ones of those affected to different degrees, to community circles, to a mix of the above. When there is broader communal involvement, “discussions within the circle are often more wide-ranging than in other restorative justice models. Participants may address situations in the community that are giving rise to the offense, the support needs of victims and offenders, the obligations that the community might have, community norms, or other related community issues,” (Zehr 2002). It is important to note that “unlike arbitrators, conference or circle facilitators do not impose settlements. Each model allows an opportunity for participants to explore facts, feelings, and resolutions,” (2002). And when a dispute, grievance, harm, injustice, or dispute is at the level of group organizational form/content/processes/functions, then such issues should be deliberated at relevant group assemblies and decided by such group assemblies through deliberation and direct democracy within the bounds of non-hierarchical rights and duties. Through these self-managed dialogical justice processes, people try to find out how to move forward which can include: resolution of a dispute, the repairing of harm done, the stopping of ongoing/future harm, the ending to an organizational injustice, the development of the right kind of organizational qualities and practices, mutual understanding, people making sufficient amends to continue co-existing in specific kinds of relations, the transformation of social causes of harm and/or harmful patterns of behavior, etc. (Arid et al 2020). 

***If the offender acknowledges the harm they have caused, and it is impossible or inappropriate for victim and offender to be in such a process face-to-face, it is possible for restorative justice processes and the like to be initiated and happen without a direct encounter between victim and offender (Zehr 2002). Sometimes “representatives or surrogates may be used” and/or “letters or videos are used in preparation for, or in place of a direct meeting” between victim and offender (Zehr 2002). When victims “have some needs that involve the offender, they also have needs that do not. Similarly, offenders have needs and obligations that have nothing to do with the victim,” (Zehr 2002). It is also crucial to note that in at least some contexts everyone or multiple people involved are in some respects both offenders and victims (Zehr 2002). 

Mediation, restorative justice processes, and transformative justice processes have their own practices, criteria, and protocols. Yet, “we are still on a steep learning curve in this field. The most exciting practices that have emerged in the past years were not even imagined by those of us who began the first programs, and many more new ideas will surely emerge through dialogue and experimentation,” (Zehr 2002). Mediation, peacemaking, and restorative and transformative justice processes can be continually updated with new data and research to show how such processes can function better in general and in specific contexts. There are also other similar-enough ways of dealing with disputes and harms that come from their own unique traditions with their own unique practices that don’t go under the labels of restorative justice and transformative justice. Dialogue driven justice “should be built from the bottom up, by communities in dialogue assessing their needs and resources and applying the principles to their own situations,” (Zehr 2002). Such processes are not only to help those immediately involved but society as a whole through the repairing and transforming of harm, mechanisms to deal with harm and injustice, and protection of individuals against hierarchical and arbitrary sanctions. For further inquiry into such processes, we recommend “Fumbling Towards Repair” by Kaba And Hassan (Kaba and Hassan 2019) as well as educational materials put out by INCITE, The Zehr Institute, Neighborhood Anarchist Collective, and Critical Resistance. 

3. Free association:

Free association involves freedom of, from, and within associations. Sometimes, people just leaving each other alone formally and informally for periods of time can defuse unwanted interactions (such as those that could escalate into violence, or are defined by various sufficiently negatively veillanced patterns or dynamics). This can include leaving informal or formal associations of various kinds according to needs and desires of persons. For such free association, people require means of free association such as means of existence and production. Full means of free association include: a plurality of free communities and collectives, as well as means of existence and production in common. Robust free association and means of free association enables people to more easily leave dynamics they do not want to be involved with (including but not limited to domestic violence). Free association should exist within the bounds of self-management of each and all. Given such criteria, one does not have the right to freely disassociate and then enact domination, exploitation, and authoritarian relations upon people. While it is true that sometimes people leaving each other alone is a tragic failure to deal with an issue that might have been better resolved otherwise, even then it is within people’s rights to do so. Moreover, it is not always such a tragic failure– far from it. Freedom of, from, and within associations is a crucial way for people to choose the kinds of relations, collectives, and activities they want and do not want.   

4. Informal social disapproval:

Informal social disapproval can help to de-incentivize anti-social kinds of behaviors and help incentivize positive behaviors (Boehm 2001).  Informal social disapproval can include disagreement, criticism, expressing grievances etc. The more extreme ends of informal social disapproval include ridicule, mockery, and temporary or more prolonged avoidance (Boehm 2001, Lewis 2014).  Some kinds of informal social disapproval are rather gentle and and other kinds of informal social disapproval are more intense. Graduated Informal social disapproval against truly anti-social behavior and domineering behavior can make it in the interest of people to not do anti-social and domineering acts even if they want to, as life is easier with the presence of informal social approval and without more intensified versions of informal social disapproval. Inversely, informal social approval can help to motivate prosocial behavior (although it is no replacement for 1. internal motivation to do prosocial behavior as well as 2. the social relations that institute prosocial behavior via common economics and self-management of each and all as a normal part of political economic social life). 

However, informal social approval and disapproval are not always wielded wisely; FAR from it. Informal social disapproval beyond mere disagreement and the like can be rather harsh if not used appropriately/proportionately and against truly anti-social and domineering behaviors. Arbitrary, overly-escalated, and unjust uses of informal social disapproval can lead to bullying and a cruel society where people feel like they are metaphorically walking on landmines as opposed to living in a truly caring, rational, and free society. And a society using such informal social disapproval in sufficiently unwise ways can disincentivize what should be completely permissible behavior and/or dissent and lead to an overly conformist type of society where people feel afraid to be agents. When informal social disapproval makes sense, ideally and when meaningfully possible and practical, more benign informal social disapproval should be sufficiently tried before escalations. Additionally it is important to note that informal social disapproval can potentially be wielded to defend any set of norms– not just liberatory ones. Informal social disapproval can be weaponized to subvert egalitarianism and freedom or to defend it. Although sometimes informal social disapproval is sufficient to remedy issues, informal social disapproval is a supplement and not replacement for the kind of formal dialogue driven and self-managed justice processes that are ideal to use in the cases of intense disputes and/or interpersonal and group level harm/injustice. 

5. Calling a Friend, Neighbor, or Loved One: 

In many emergency situations, if one needs a third party for some reason, calling a friend, neighbor, loved one, etc. can be a good enough option. A lot of the back up people need in dire emergencies can be done by friends, neighbors, loved ones, and even people and strangers nearby. By itself, this is far from sufficient. But when combined with a gestalt of other features, this actually goes a surprisingly long way. In fact, this can even be a first line of support in a great many emergency situations. Communal group text chats for emergencies can help supplement this. 

6. More people having more and better communal ties and more and better friends and acquaintances:

Under hierarchical society, people are deeply alienated and atomized and it makes it easier for various malicious actors to harm people. In an egalitarian communal society, it is known that everyone or most everyone (some may choose to be an extremely isolated hermit if that is their wish) has communal ties as well as friendship ties. Self-management on a communal level combined with people having more and better communal and social ties simultaneously inhibits people from abusing and bullying people and also gives people a sense of individual and collective purpose that can play a role in helping to form good behaviors and character traits (Martin 2014). Knowing people generally have back up from others can be an inhibiting factor for abusers, bullies, and would be hierarchical authority. Increased communal ties (of the right kinds) can create webs of mutual responsibility to others in a way where domineering behaviors are disincentivized; even crude egoists trying to selfishly self-maximize at the expense of others will find they are able to live a better quality life in a communal and cooperative society by being mutualistic and contributing to the goods of others (politically, economically, and socially). And if and when some harm does happen, people have more potential to reach out to others for help in a society with robust social and communal ties that have a plurality of good-enough ways of responding to harm. 

7. Non-Violent unarmed help teams: 

These kinds of groups can be third parties to call in case of non-violent (or not yet violent) emergencies that can help with meeting a plurality of needs, providing emergency mediation, emergency medical help and first aid, helping to stop fights before they happen/deescalation, providing people support to move away from someone else, being witnesses to a conflict etc. Groups providing this emergency help can be in blocks and neighborhoods, or even citywide and can be contacted via digital chat  or through a phone call. Good and more popularized training in various methods for dealing with various kinds of conflicts will decrease the extent to which people will need to contact such third parties while also increasing the capacity of people to help others out and act ethically and effectively. It is important to note that these kinds of unarmed third party teams are exclusively for responding through non-violent means. 

8. Deescalation: 

When it seems like unjust violence is about to happen, deescalation can be tried by those involved, nearby people, or people on call. The goal of deescalation is to stop unjust violence from happening. A significant amount of violence can be deescalated if the right methods are used in the right ways at the right times. Some guidelines for good deescalation include: being empathetic, respecting personal space, using non-threatening nonverbal communication, remaining calm and rational, focusing on feelings, redirecting confrontational questions, setting boundaries, using wise choices in what is negotiable and non-negotiable, allowing silence for reflection, and allowing time for people to make decisions (Neighborhood Anarchist Collective 2019). For some more information about how to do deescalation well, we recommend checking out the “Deescalation Skills & Mindset” document put out by the Neighborhood Anarchist Collective.  

9. Dispersal of good practical and propositional knowledge: 

Dispersal of the right kinds of practical and propositional knowledge will give more people tools to deal with harms and conflicts themselves, and give more capacity for people to help others out. This also helps people better deal with various everyday conflicts in such a way that can help prevent unjust conflicts from occurring. Dispersal of knowledge can include skills related to: deliberation, respecting, recognizing, and setting boundaries, making collective and individual decisions within the bounds of self-management of each and all, conflict resolution, negotiation, mediation and facilitation, self-defense, and deescalation skills etc. Dispersal of knowledge can include a whole array of practical knowledge that enables people to help themselves and each other meet needs and desires. This overall spreading of knowledge includes a broader philosophical education and ethical education which can help inform actions, goals, and reasoning. Theory and practice are distinct but each can (and do) help to shape one another. All else being equal, better theory helps contribute to better practice. Wise praxis consists of good theory and good practice interwoven and contextually applied. 

Education is FAR from reducible to scholastic and academic education, formal education, and other environments specifically designated as educational. Education happens through everyday life and activities, practices, organizations, relations with others, etc. Education most broadly is related to all of philosophy (and its subfields) and all practical activities, and can happen via all sorts of contemplative and practical activities. Education is also related to ethical education and the development of virtues. And the development of the virtues (character traits that contribute to happiness and wellbeing in self and others) helps to contribute to caring, rational, courageous, just, and wise persons, practices, and actions. But far more important than mere virtues in persons are the political, economic, and social institutional qualities and relations conducive to the overall flourishing of virtues and virtuous practices. Some of such political, economic, and social qualities are even constitutive of the overall flourishing of virtues in persons– for example political, economic, and social qualities such as horizontality, free association, direct democracy, federalism, justice, etc. Humans have needs for self-determined activity, relatedness, and competence (Ryan and Deci 2017). Self-determined activities, good social relations and relatedness, cooperative conflict, and participatory education processes help A. contribute to excellence in regards to knowledge acquisition and critical thinking, and B. help develop participatory practices, excellence in such practices, and virtuous character traits and actions C. contribute immensely towards happiness and wellbeing (Kohn 2017, 2018) (Ryan and Deci 2000, 2008, 2017). This brings us to a brief recursive excursion to the first point on this list, dealing with root social problems: The development of good institutional and relational qualities contributes to the flourishing of virtues and virtuous actions and the flourishing of caring and rational, theoretically and practically wise society. And the development of good institutional and relational qualities are consistent with what is prescribed by libertarian communism and the social transformations that transformative justice points towards. Such libertarian, egalitarian, solidaristic, caring, rational, and more broadly and specifically wise societies (nourished, enriched and constituted by its political, economic, and social qualities) will have drastically less harm and injustice than hierarchical orders that incentivize and inculcate authoritarian behaviors.   

***Although the above includes a brief excursion including features from virtue ethics and virtue theory, it is not true that we have to wait until people become virtuous to abolish the police. But if people are sufficiently virtuous, we do not need a special strata of hierarchical enforcers– and if people are not sufficiently virtuous, then we cannot trust them to have such power-over others and all the double standards that come with it. And even more importantly, the development of any hierarchical power structure requires and contributes to vicious collective traits, vicious character traits, and vicious practices. Hierarchical organizations inhibit self-determined activities of people, inhibit the good kinds of relatedness that enable flourishing, and inhibit people from having full access to the means of competence and mastery of various practices they want to do. Inversely, horizontal organizations (and a society based on them) provide people with self-managed decision making and implementation, the kinds of relatedness and mutual aid that leads towards mutual thriving, and provide everyone with the means to excel at practices of their choosing.  Human nature is neither inherently virtuous nor inherently vicious; depending on institutions, relations, culture and practices, different kinds of collective traits and character traits flourish and diminish. 

***If the above points are not sufficient to stop continuing harm, injustice, and violations of what should be freedoms of persons, then more extreme anti-authoritarian sanctions can be done via self defense and defense of others (in the case of stopping people from violating freedoms of others) or expulsion. 

10. Self defense and defense of others:

“Active intervention of friends, neighbours, passers-by would prevent a large proportion of conflicts. Let it be everybody’s duty… to interfere between fighting people, and police will not be required at all,” (Kropotkin 1902). In the case of unjust violence, persons have the right to defend themselves and defend others. When possible, this can take the forms of breaking up fights as well as many people taking up the initiative to do so. When breaking up a fight is not as immediately possible, there can be more escalated forms of self-defense and defense of others as needed until the violation of freedom caused through unjust violence ceases. Self defense and defense of others is rooted in stopping harm and preserving the right to self-management of each and all. Defense of self-management through self-management provides a standard of violence against a monopolization thereof. This approach of self defense and defense of others means that the least violent possible methods are used to protect the self-management of each and all (for through such an approach, defensive violence is done away with as soon as possible to do so without enabling destruction of freedom/greater harm). Self-defense on a communal scale can mean collectively organized defense against hierarchical rule and domination.

11.  Expulsion: 

In worst case scenarios, collectives can choose to expel someone. Such expulsion should only be reserved for the worst possible offenses and repeat offenses; that is reserved for the most extreme forms of “dangerous… behavior not as a way of getting rid of someone whom some group members simply find unpleasant or inconvenient,” (Vanucci and Singer 2010). Especially In the case of political economic groups, this should not be arbitrary but based on explicit standards and as a last case resort. These decisions would be made by groups as a whole through specific protocols and processes, only after sufficient extreme harm has been proven through more than sufficient evidence (the specifics of which need to be worked out well by relevant collectives). Additionally, “If you are asked to join in malicious gossip or sign a petition that makes statements against someone or calls for his expulsion… it is your responsibility to say no until you can be sure in your knowledge of the situation” and “especially if the issue is expulsion it is better to err in pursuit of fairness,” (Vanucci and Singer 2010). Due process is essential and must not be sacrificed for reasons of efficiency and extremity of allegations or popularity of people involved (or lack thereof) etc. (Vanucci and Singer 2010). A formal collective expelling a person is not about taking away every social tie such a person has and will ever have; it is instead about keeping collectives and persons free from being dominated (and free from being forced to be in relations of continuous domination) as well as creating collective anti-authoritarian defense against domination as needed. 

Expelling someone from a formal group is no silver bullet; the person expelled will go elsewhere and may even try to continue to violate people’s freedoms (although getting kicked out of self-managed collectives will certainly make that more difficult), the group could be wrong about their judgment and/or what to do (and can actually be engaged in a unjust expulsion), the group could be ignoring the social conditions that caused harm etc. Yet expelling an extreme freedom violator from a specific formal group can be in harmony with and protective of the freedom of people to self-determine their lives. Sometimes there are no real or apparent better options. Expulsion of a person can come with certain conditions for reintegration. Because expulsion can be overused and done in extremely terrible ways it is risky to put on the table, but it is more risky to not have it as a last resort. Expulsion and self-defense and defense of others can help to defend persons and groups from being ruled over and dominated (Boehm 2001). 

***If expulsion of someone (or lack of expulsion of someone) is particularly contentious and sufficiently drives people apart, it may very well be that such a conflict can split a group into multiple groups through “schismogenesis”.  

12. Popular militias as needed: 

Popular militias would have no class structures, enforce no class structures, enforce no hierarchical laws, would be made out of volunteer members, would have no professional strata, and would  be accountable to, mandated by, and recallable to horizontal communal assemblies.  Imperfect but good examples of popular militias include: The original Zapatista Militias, The Black Army, the popular militia’s of anarchist Spain, the YPG, and the contemporary Zapatista militias. Popular militias are good for defense of the revolution from hierarchy and as last resort mechanisms that can be formed in defense of people against authoritarian rule (not as a standing army or as a distinct class). Policy for such popular militias would be set by: Minimum features of a non-hierarchical rights and duties, direct collective decisions by communal assemblies, implementation that is self-managed within bounds of mandates from below. 

CONCLUDING THIS SECTION:

The above ways of solving social problems correspond to specific kinds and magnitudes of social problems. There are various conditions that need to be present for the above to truly bloom and thrive. However, the above features can be developed overtime bit by bit. The above features can be prefigured prior to revolution but can not truly fully thrive on a mass scale until near revolutionary, revolutionary, and post-revolutionary conditions. They all need to be used and developed wisely and contextually. When and how to use various methods well is more tricky. 

Summarizing the above section: When it comes to disputes and conflicts, there are multiple paths for how people can move forward that are ethically permissible but some are better than others ideally, and some are better than others given the relevant variables at hand. Additionally, not all disputes and conflicts are in regards to injustice/harm/violations of essential freedoms– far from it. And not all conflicts need to be resolved. Disagreement, differentiation, conflict, and plurality are a part of the human condition. A social world free of all such conflict and plurality is indeed an authoritarian dystopia of absurd proportions. Unity in diversity implies both the right kinds of unity, plurality, and the right kinds of respect for differences.  However, some conflicts either involve injustice/harm/violations of what-should-be essential freedoms, or are otherwise more important to resolve (as not all conflicts involving completely permissible behavior are conflicts that are best left unresolved). Depending on relevant variables of a social problem, or dispute, or conflict, or harm: People can choose to talk something out, people can express disagreements, people can get to know each other’s perspectives, there can be mutual understanding and recognition and amelioration, etc. People can leave each other alone for varying amounts of time– everything from people briefly leaving one another alone, to people not wanting to be close with one another and sufficiently freely associating and disassociating to do so informally and/or formally.  People can give graduated informal social disapproval of various kinds against domineering and authoritarian behavior. When needed in emergencies, people can call friends, neighbors, and loved ones for help. People can also contact specifically non-violent third party help teams for assistance of various kinds. When it seems like unjust violence is about to happen, people can try deescalation techniques. When the above is not enough to resolve a dispute, or repair harm, or stop future harm, a more formal mediation, peacemaking and/or restorative/transformative justice process can be proposed and agreed to (and can be ignited through communal interventions/requests). If there is a dispute between persons in search of a resolution of some kind, then mediation makes sense. Mediation can even lead to restorative justice/transformative justice processes or restorative/transformative outcomes. If there is acknowledgement of harm caused from relevant offenders, then restorative and transformative justice processes can make sense to make things right and resolve causes of harm. When there are some disputes and some harms acknowledged, there can be mediation within the context of a restorative justice/transformative justice process. When there are injustices and grievances at a group level in regards to organization, decisions, and actions, then group deliberation and democracy within the bounds of non-hierarchical rights/duties can figure out how to resolve an issue and move forward. At the most extreme ends of harm/unjust conflicts, self-managed organizations can choose to expel the worst kinds of freedom-violators from their formal associations after they have been sufficiently verified through due process as having committed the most extreme kinds of harm (and being continuous threats to freedoms of persons). Expulsions can include conditions for rejoining. When there is active unjust violence/ destruction of self-management of people, then sufficient self defense and defense of others to stop such harm is needed. The elimination of root social problems (specifically hierarchies) combined with the presence of libertarian and egalitarian relations will make harm less common, frequent, and extreme AND would be accompanied by good protocols for dealing with violations of what should be essential freedoms, AND would give rise to people who are more likely to act wisely in a myriad of different situations. Good protocols are desirable but not sufficient conditions for dealing with harms and conflicts. There is also a case by case nature to practical problem solving even when various good-enough protocols are carried through entirely. When it comes to dealing with conflicts and/or harm/injustice, one way to go about it is to: define the problem, define criteria for resolution or paths forward (ideal and good enough options), look at a plurality of ethically-permissible options going forward given the quality and magnitude of the situation, look at the pros and cons of such options, and find what seems like the best way forward. It is often that there are multiple options that will lead to good-enough resolutions or ways to move forward– some of which might be far better than others in every or most every relevant respect, and some of which might be more optimal in some respects and less optimal in regards to other dimensions.  

Additionally, the above solutions can exist in distorted ways; it is possible to have attempts at mediation or justice that are nothing more than glorified kangaroo courts– or otherwise fail to live up to their own standards and/or fail to achieve good results (through lack of sufficiently good protocols/processes, through lack of know-how, through lack of will on the part of the person who caused harm, etc.). It is possible to attempt self-defense in foolish ways or in ways that reproduce arbitrary violence beyond what is needed for defense against domination. It is possible to wield social disapproval, free association, and expulsion in ignorant and even cruel and anti-social ways (and even in ways where people wielding such methods are manipulated by an abusive person to go after their targets!), etc. Claims of harm/injustice can be weaponized by rulers and abusers alike. People and groups can be far too quick to resort to expulsion and by extension contribute to disposability culture; a culture without sufficient respect for human freedom, due process, and exploring less heavy handed methods. And it is possible for people and groups to treat what should be completely permissible behavior as impermissible (a relatively infinite amount of possible differences, disagreements, annoyances, various mannerisms, postures, moods, expressions etc.) and then lash out against perfectly permissible behavior as if it is behavior that should be impermissible. Yet the methods as enumerated in the above section, when developed and used well, give people viable alternatives to police, state security forces, states, prisons, hierarchical rule, and arbitrary rule. 

Quoting Angela Davis, “rather than try to imagine one single alternative to the existing system of incarceration, we might envision an array of alternatives that will require radical transformations of many aspects of our society,” (Davis 2011). None of the above in isolation are silver bullets to solving all social problems; But the above together, each used sufficiently well and appropriately, are far more effective than cops, courts, and prisons for dealing with stopping unjust violations of freedoms of persons, mitigating harm, and working towards positive solutions for the future. The above is not a panacea to all violations of what should be minimal freedoms of persons, but something like it is an approximation of such an ideal. The absence of any perfect alternative does not mean that we do not have significantly better alternatives to police when it comes to dealing with various kinds of disputes, harms, injustices, and grievances and moving forward in positive ways (given the goals of freedom, equality, solidarity, happiness, wellbeing, the flourishing of virtues etc). 

***On a tangential but important note, the above section of the essay points towards the kinds of dispute resolution and justice compatible with Elinor Ostrom’s eight rules for governing the commons well (Ostrom 2015). In this sense, the above approach has immense social-ecological relevance. And the above section of this essay points towards what a libertarian communist approach to dispute resolution and justice can look like.

Despite appearing like a normal aspect of political life to many people, the contemporary police forces are only a few hundred years old (Whitehouse 2014), and state security forces more broadly only exist within the last 5% of human temporal existence (Bookchin 2005). There are examples of classless societies with means of existence in common that utilize formal and informal dialogue between people, informal social disapproval, free association and dissociation, self-defense, defense of others, and expulsion as mechanisms for dealing with injustices/domination. The above mechanisms have been used by egalitarian hunter gatherer bands, other kinds of communities in villages, rural environments, and urban environments, to social movement groups of various kinds in various contexts, to full blown libertarian socialist societies (and approximations thereof). Egalitarian social groups have functional conflict resolution systems that are conducive to human freedom and wellbeing (especially compared to military, police, and prison systems). Egalitarian and libertarian societies function in part through being able to oppose domination and people trying to become rulers through multiple approaches (Boehm 2001). The multi-sided approach to conflict resolution we advocate has the presence of mediation, dialogue driven justice systems, free association and disassociation of persons, graduated informal sanctions against domination and injustice, as well as recourse of self defense, defense of others, collective forms thereof, and expulsion in the worst case scenarios. The above features enable collectives to protect egalitarian functioning against domination of various kinds without reproducing hierarchical rule (hierarchy as defined by Bookchin, not as defined by Boehm). 

From here to there:

The abolition of the police, and other hierarchical security forces, requires nothing less than social revolution towards a free and egalitarian society. Police and prison “abolitionists want to end the whole system of mutually reinforcing relationships between surveillance, policing, the courts, the imprisonment that fuel, maintain, and expand social and economic oppression, structural racist, patriarchy, ableism, and imperialism. It’s not just about prisons or even police, but the entire world they reflect and produce,” (Kaba and Ritchie 2022).  The military, the police and groups that perform essential military and police functions are essential to the functioning of capitalism, statecraft, and entangled hierarchies such as the racist and patriarchal divisions of power and labor within class society. To achieve a world without hierarchical security forces, people must develop the capacity to seize means of existence, production, and politics (not to be confused with statecraft) from hierarchical rule and then defend such gains against encroachment from hierarchical forces on both local and federated inter-local scales. The above can be actuated by developing and participating in social movements and popular organizations that functionally do oppositional politics and reconstructive politics; that is through self-managed organizations and actions that can meet people’s needs and oppose hierarchical power via direct action and mutual aid (strategically adapted to relevant variables) through decentralized, and federated organizations (Usufruct Collective 2022). 

A coherent notion of police abolition– that abolishes the police and creates something truly positive in its stead– is thus not merely police abolition; it is also class abolition, state abolition, and the abolition of social hierarchy more broadly. And a coherent approach to police abolition includes the reconstruction of society along radially egalitarian and libertarian lines. The abolition of hierarchical power and hierarchical security forces requires horizontal-democratic organizations that achieve various short term, mid-term, and long term goals, solve root causes of major social problems, and create a political economy and society rooted in the self-management of each and all (including rights and duties blossoming from such a freedom ethic). And if and when such a good society develops, and on the way there, we need to find good enough non-hierarchical ways of dealing with disputes, harm, and harmful conflicts without resorting to unjust violations of what should be guaranteed liberties. 

There is no mere reform that will bring about the abolition of police and state security forces entirely without also toppling the primary violent protective and enforcement mechanisms of hierarchical politics and economics within a given territory. On top of the police being an organ of hierarchical politics, the development of statecraft and capitalism overtime requires protection and enforcement. Without sufficient protection and enforcement, hierarchical political and economic rule can be toppled by popular movements (or by hierarchical formations). Any realistic approach to police and prison abolition must be idealistic in that it must be revolutionary, anti-hierarchical, and in favor of self-managed popular power as part of a revolutionary process and as a goal.  If such a political trajectory is not revolutionary, it will fail to get to the root causes of social problems and solutions (by leaving hierarchical systems and their requisite security forces alive). If a politics is hierarchical in its means and/or aims, then it will tend towards reproducing hierarchical structures and enforcement thereof at the expense of goals worth developing. And if a politics is not self-managed and not rooted in popular power, then such a politics will not have the requisite positive features nor capacity it needs to develop meaningful freedom and overall goals worth achieving. And if a movement is revolutionary but not connected to meeting the needs of people, it will not develop adequate social force to achieve such long term goals (FARJ 2008). 

***State power reproduces itself at the expense of self-management with recourse to violence to protect class rule/class relations. Such a statement about the state and state security forces (including the police and other statist security forces) is a universal claim of state systems. Social “democratic” and state “socialist” systems  are neither socialist nor meaningfully democratic– in the sense that they exist at the expense of common means of production and self-managed decisions. Social democratic and state socialist systems– in common with other states– depend upon a ruling class and hierarchical security forces that defend class rule and authoritarian power. Fortunately, an alternative to state politics exists in anti-state revolutionary socialist approaches. 

The following section is an incomplete exploration of how to get to an abolitionist future. Some of the following groups, qualities, and practices listed are more general and others are more specific. And some of the following groups, qualities, and practices listed are more and essential to a strategy of coherent police abolition while others are more contingent. For any of the following to function well they of course need to be adapted to relevant variables and developed strategically. 

Elements of a path towards police abolition: 

The general strategy for abolishing the police, the state, and hierarchy more broadly consists of self-managed organizations that can meet needs, oppose hierarchical power, fight for better conditions, build capacity, develop common infrastructure, multiply, and federate towards a revolution based on self-management of each and all– and more broadly the qualities of a libertarian socialist, communist, and communalist society. This looks like self-managed communal assemblies, labor unions, prisoners’ unions, students’ unions, tenants’ unions, issue and function specific social movement groups, and collective actions and projects for short term, mid-term, and long term goals (based on meeting needs of people). Such a development would consist of oppositional politics and reconstructive politics–rather than some either/or false dichotomy that doesn’t see the positives in each and the ways they can and should combine. The institution of a horizontal political economy can only happen through revolution against hierarchical politics and hierarchical economics. By extension of the functions of the police, the police will try to quash social movements that are in opposition to the hierarchical order the police protect and serve. Overcoming the obstacle of state security forces is crucial for revolutionary change and for achieving short-term and mid-term goals through direct action. In order to develop a free society, the form and content of direct democracy, horizontality, free association, direct action, and mutual aid must be wielded by many collectives deciding on particular content, tactics, sub-strategies, as well as elaborated and context-adapted versions of such a general strategy and goal orientation. 

Self-managed organizations are able to achieve collective goals of people through direct collective deliberation, decisions, and actions. Self-management is both a process and a goal orientation. Robust self-management of each and all requires horizontality, direct democracy, and free association and the means thereof. Decentralized, federated, and self-managed organizations enable flexibility, resilience, and deliberative participation. Because self-managed organizations have shared power, participants have a stake in them (leading to incentives for mutual thriving). And because self-managed organizations are participatory, people involved are empowered to be full agents. Well done deliberation enables collectives to make good decisions for achieving collective goals because decisions become rounded out by relevant needs, preferences, knowledge, abilities, etc of those involved. “It is true that there is [in the people] a great elementary force, a force that without any doubt is superior to [that of ] the government, and to [that of] the ruling classes taken together; but without organisation an elementary force is not a real force,” (FARJ 2008). When social movements and organizations are populated, multiplied, federated, and sustained overtime, they have capacity to achieve radical social change. People want to implement decisions they like or sufficiently agree with– and participatory movements and groups create decisions that everyone or most people agree with after deliberation. Self-managed organizations can aim for full agreement and fall back to majority decisions within free association (and minimal non-hierarchical rights and duties) when there is not full agreement. Self-managed groups are needed to have collective deliberation, decisions, actions, and goals without reproducing hierarchical form and content. 

Self-managed organizations can do direct actions against hierarchical rule to meet needs of people and aim towards short term, mid term, and long term goals. Direct action refers to people taking action directly in opposing injustice/exploitation/domination/oppression. Direct action can be contrasted to relying on rulers to solve social problems. Direct action can include occupations, expropriations, strikes, blockades, boycotts, and a whole array of other tactics. Direct actions can be done against any hierarchical institution in a plurality of ways by a plurality of groups and kinds of groups. In order for a libertarian socialist revolution to happen, there must be the development of popular organizations that use direct action against hierarchical institutions, the expropriation of class property, and the institution of political, economic, and social self-management. Sufficient expropriation of hierarchical property combined with defense of revolutionary gains are both needed for large scale and sustained zones free from hierarchical rule. Building enough local and interlocal capacity to make and defend such gains is crucial for such revolutionary goals. Such a revolution cannot happen without the presence of popular support, mass inter-local and inter-regional support, organizations that can sustain themselves over-time, and a content of direct action against hierarchical rule. More modest direct actions towards short-term and mid-term goals are not incompatible with a path towards revolution; in fact they are crucial to building adequate capacity and meeting the needs of people in the meantime. Achieving short-term and mid-term goals through direct action contributes to popular support, capacity, and organization to achieve long-term goals such as local and interlocal revolution and the defense thereof. Short-term and mid-term goals can be achieved through self-management, direct action, and mutual aid–meeting needs of people while building collective power and aiming towards a self-managed society. Such an approach, if done well, contributes to both revolutionary goals and more immediate less grand goals at the same time– bridging short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals together without subordinating long term goals and the final objective of a truly liberatory world. 

Mutual aid functions are crucial to means and ends of developing a free society. Mutual aid practices and projects meet people’s needs through multidirectional, horizontal, and participatory activities and methods. Mutual aid functions are crucial for social movements aimed towards common goals. There is of course the essential mutual aid that happens when collaborating with others for various life functions. And there is the essential mutual aid that happens through collaboration for direct actions through self-managed organization. Mutual aid activities can also include the reproduction of self-managed organizations, including everything from providing food, childcare, developing common infrastructure, providing meeting spaces, pooling resources, provision of medical supplies, provision of defensive equipment, skill training, etc. Mutual aid practices and projects, when done well, enable more needs to be met with less overall labor. Such mutual aid practices and projects help to sustain prolonged movement activity and enable more people to participate in social movements. Shared reproductive labor within movements helps abolish gendered divisions of labor and power and enables more generalized skill sets. All social movements need to reproduce themselves, require multi-directional support, and help to take care of members and others (especially members and others most in need). Mutual aid disproportionately helps those in most need within and outside of specific groups and movements. A plurality of mutual aid functions and groups helping people and/or social movements and/or popular organizations to meet needs is essential and indispensable to overall movement sustenance, growth, and functions. And mutual aid is NOT a mere means to an end to be instrumentalized; mutual aid is also a necessary part of a free and egalitarian world– a crucial quality among others to be continuously developed and recreated. Sufficient webs of mutual aid create cornucopian conditions that can meet the needs of everyone. Intra-group and inter-group mutual aid can be used by a plurality of groups towards common goals.  “The abolition of policing is about building a new world centered around the commons,” (Kaba and Ritchie 2022). The development of a common sphere and networks of mutual aid should be a part of social movement processes, functionally fueling direct actions and social movement ecosystems, and should eventually become the political economic fabric of a good society. Given the context of living in a hierarchical political economy, the development of a common sphere with robust mutual aid and an overflowing cornucopia for all does not just happen through pooling and mutual aid– as indispensable as those are– but also through oppositional politics of direct action and expropriation.  

Although most all the following groups in this paragraph are FAR from reducible to opposition against police and prisons, the following paragraph gives examples of how many self-managed direct action organizations can do actions specifically related to opposition against the police. There are many groups that can do police abolition work. For some examples: Community assemblies and federations thereof can create and/or assist with 1. direct actions against hierarchical institutions and infrastructure on local and interlocal levels in general and as specifically related to struggles against state rule and state security forces and 2. Providing common infrastructure and mutual aid functions to help direct actions, social movements and participants, and those in need. Community assemblies can do everything from occupations, to community defense, to expropriations, to direct actions at relevant pressure points. Community assemblies can also be formed out of anti-police social movements in some contexts as a way of creating sustained opposition to the police (as well as groups that can do other functions). Squatters’ assemblies and allied groups can help defend squatted spaces from police encroachment. Prisoners’ unions can do prison strikes, sabotage, rebellions, etc. Radical Labor Unions can do direct actions against capitalists, be oppositional against the state, do solidarity strikes with prisoners, and assist prisoners unions from outside the bars– and even do general strikes in tandem with mass street actions potentially connecting labor struggles with broader community struggles and anti-police struggles. Students’ unions can kick the cops out of their schools fight against authoritarianism towards and the policing of the youth. When social movements and groups have an anti-cop ethos, they are less assimilated into the state as such, and more open towards radical form and content. Through a plurality of groups fighting for greater freedoms and self-management for themselves and for others– and meeting needs of themselves and others in the process while building lasting ways to do so– individual interest, group interest, and broader social interest can become harmonized. Alliances of social movement groups united around short-term, mid-term, and long-term liberatory goals can coordinate on multiple fronts to do more powerful measures than they can do by themselves. 

By extension of the fact that sufficient oppositional and reconstructive politics in multiple spheres of life are needed for social revolution and coherent state and police abolition to take place, most of the groups mentioned in the above paragraph have their most important functions in general–and their most important functions related to police abolition– through their functions and activities that are not directly/merely in regards to police abolition. For example, radical community assemblies and radical unions are potentially revolutionary organizations that are able to develop the power to seize the means of existence, production, and politics away from hierarchical rule while meeting needs of people along the way through mutual aid and direct action. The development of popular organizations in multiple spheres of life that are self-managed and that use mutual aid and direct action to meet needs of people includes but goes far beyond police abolition and opposition to the police; it includes broader opposition to hierarchies AND extends beyond oppositional politics into reconstructive politics of developing a self-managed world. Popular organizations strategically oriented around direct actions at multiple pressure points are able to potentially outnumber and overwhelm state security forces to the point of them defecting, surrendering en masse, or otherwise not being able to function. The defeat of a contemporary state structure by grassroots social movements happens through a long multi-year process of movement activity that eventually leads to popular organizations being able to stop the state and capitalism from functioning. The final showdown is won before it happens through sufficient organization, action, and mobilization of popular forces. At that point, popular organizations can fully defend themselves and their gains, expropriate class property, topple the remnants of the old order, and institute a new order based on self-management of each and all and the means thereof. 

There are of course many other possible liberatory anti-police groups and specific anti-police functions besides the ones mentioned prior: Networks of loved ones of victims of direct police violence can meet up together for support, solidarity, and connections to movements. Medic collectives can help with first aid and spreading basic first aid and medical knowledge to people in movements. Function specific mutual aid groups can emerge around needs people have– such as childcare collectives, food provision collectives, etc. Function specific affinity groups can form and disperse as needed and desired. Research collectives researching the composition of state and capitalist forces can give relevant intelligence to movements allowing them to act more effectively against various class enemies. Copwatch groups and/or functions can help document, spread awareness about the evils of, and mitigate against police forces (and can operate through specific neighborhoods and downtown areas). Radical jail support and radical lawyers can help mitigate against police repression of social movements. Grassroots media projects can help cover social movements in a way that helps to give social movements a voice. Education and skillshare groups can help provide movements with literature, participatory study groups, and democratization of relevant practical knowledge. 

There are other state security forces besides the police– from the military to an entire alphabet soup. Even if the police in one location were to be abolished, other state security forces would still exist for protection of the state and capitalism. The task of abolishing all state security forces (in and outside of the state one is located in) highlights the need for nothing less than something beyond police abolition and mere local action to do police abolition well. Even massive liberated regions in the context of a broader interstate system and world market economy exist under the threat of state and capitalist encroachment– and exist in a specific context and mode of having to navigate relations in a broader hierarchical world order made out of a plurality of hierarchical institutions and incentives. Given a broader goal of opposition to statecraft, opposition to the military power of states is crucial. Coherent anti-military movements can help take actions against militarism without moral double standards and without liberal, and/or nationalist, and/or imperialist, and/or state-socialist co-optation. Hollowing out states of their military and police power is important for revolutionary goals.  

As part of movements against state violence: People can oppose the building of police, prison, and military infrastructure. There can be mass occupations and blockades at relevant pressure points to stop police and military functioning and expansion. There can be direct actions against relevant agencies involved in maintaining and expanding police and state security forces. When particularly extreme instances of police brutality and military activity occur, there can be mass protests and rebellions in response in addition to and meaningfully connected to more sustained social movements against the police and the military. There can be mass interlocal support and actions when specific movements are attacked. Direct actions can be used to achieve various demands such as decarceration, stopping a specific war, stopping a specific prison from being built, the demilitarizing, disarming, minimizing, and defunding of police and military, etc. Such demands can be made by movements and groups that have goals of full military, police, and prison abolition. It is possible to make meaningfully liberatory demands with no illusions that mere reforms are sufficient. Achieving significant reforms that are in a good direction (not to be confused with the milquetoast reforms that either increase state violence or do not meaningfully curtail it) through self-determined action in opposition to the state is distinct from mere reformism. Achieving gains through self-managed formations and methods empowers people to fight for further goals and helps to build movement momentum. 

It is crucial to get large segments of the police and the military to defect from their positions and quit their jobs. The following are some examples of what can be done to achieve such a goal of mass refusal to be part of the police and the military: 1. Movements and actions against the hierarchical order that state security forces are part of and defend 2. Movements and actions against state security forces in particular 3. Spreading awareness of specific instances of police and military brutality combined with spreading awareness of how such instances relate to deeper systemic problems and causes 4. Actions against specific instances of police and military brutality 5. Protests against police and military recruiters 6. Creating conditions of mass social persuasion to NOT be in state security forces from friends, loved ones, neighbors, strangers, and social groupings of as many people as possible.

Popular self-defense lessons can accompany social movements. The more people have self-defense skills, the more people are able to defend themselves and others against unjust violence. This enables overall resiliency against injustice and can have a mitigating effect on people being willing to initiate unjust violence. When needed, groups and persons can defend themselves and others from hierarchy and domination. Non-hierarchical self-defense collectives/popular militias that are mandated by and recallable to popular organizations can form when the conditions call for it. These kinds of groups have a radically different form and content than police. Such popular militias, “would not be a party vanguard, a police force or a standing Army in the Statist sense, but would rather be defense units self-managed by the workers and community itself, or in other words the people-in-arms” (Ervin 1995). Such popular militias are accountable to horizontal forms/horizontal assemblies that mandate them, self-manage within their mandates from below, are accountable to rights and duties in harmony with the self-management of each and all, and exist for the defense of self-management. These kinds of groups make sense for high stages of revolutionary development for defense of the revolution and gains of popular organizations.

Grassroots organizations can create mediation/peacemaking/restorative and transformative justice processes and practices and provide mediators and facilitators to each other as needed and desired. As illustrated earlier in this essay, the above approaches to dispute resolution and justice can help people in and out of movements deal with various conflicts independent of statist, authoritarian, and arbitrary ways of dealing with conflicts. This dimension of organization can exist before, during, and after revolutions. Social movements and organizations are needed for adequate social force. But sometimes there will be intense disputes and/or harmful acts and/or harmful conflicts that happen between persons (even if such harmful acts and harmful conflicts are very rare). Groups can develop internal mechanisms for mediation and restorative/transformative justice. And groups can also contact groups they are in federation with (and/or mediation/restorative justice/transformative justice collectives) to help assist when needed/desired. A failure to deal with this, and deal with this in a good enough way, can lead to the destruction of groups, liberatory features thereof, or otherwise serious roadblocks. When done sufficiently well, such dialogical dispute resolution and justice processes can lead to mutually agreed upon resolutions, can lead to reconciliation and people continuing to associate with each other, can lead to people leaving each other alone formally and/or informally, can stop future harm towards other people, can lead towards the repairing of harm done, can allow groups to continue doing work without imploding, can lead to multiple groups forming through “schismogenesis”, and can help educate people and propagate crucial practical knowledge for various kinds of problem solving (which will be crucial in any long term social movement process, any revolutionary process, as well as post-revolution). 

The flourishing of participatory and egalitarian relations and institutions requires development away from and against hierarchical institutions as well as development away from extra-institutional hierarchical dimensions of culture– institutional and cultural features of and that support capitalism, the state, white supremacy, patriarchy, nationalism, imperialism, queerphobia, transphobia, ableism, antisemitism, etc. If hierarchical features of culture are not wisely addressed and opposed within and beyond social movement processes, then they will infect the content of movements and get in the way of liberatory goals, liberatory processes, and solidarity. Self-managed politics and economics and self-managed struggle against hierarchical institutions are necessary but not sufficient to deal with societal patterns of bigoted ideologies, beliefs, and behaviors. To effectively oppose hierarchical dimensions of culture, there needs to be both institutional shifts and extra-institutional cultural changes towards egalitarianism and the freedom of each and all (and the means thereof). It is crucial for social movements to actively oppose domination, exploitation, oppression, discrimination, and prejudice (and cultural patterns thereof) to develop an ethical movement and an ethical society. A moral community rooted in egalitarianism is important for fending off hierarchical consolidation (Boehm 2011). A mix between 1. developing formally egalitarian groups that meet needs of people, fight for better conditions, and build capacity for further actions 2. effective collective actions and projects 3. bridging values and interests together 4. content related to both universal liberation and liberation of particular oppressed populations– and the connections between the two 5. and well done popular education can go a long way towards building solidarity between people and fostering formal horizontality in tandem with egalitarian cultural shifts away from racism, patriarchy, nationalism, etc. 

Ideologically specific libertarian socialist groups can help spread a coherent anti-police, anti-prison, and anti-state practices within social movements. This would be a coordinated effort done by members of ideologically specific libertarian socialist groups; the goal being to spread a cluster of liberatory institutional qualities and practices (such as direct democracy, direct action, mutual aid, federalism, opposition to hierarchy, class struggle, autonomy from and combativeness against the state etc.)  within social movements and organizations (Farj 2008). This can be done by demonstration, dialogue, and co-authoring and implementing actions alongside people in movements. Such a strategy of anarchist social work and social insertion is a way to help catalyze an anti-cop ethos within movements as well as ethical and effective practices more broadly. Such anarchist social work and social insertion can also help defend movements from tendencies that try to transform movements into top-down organizing, or appendages of electoralism, Leninism, liberalism, right wing positions, and other counterproductive paths. 

An anti-cop ethos can help contribute to greater class consciousness and consciousness of the structural evils of the state, consciousness of the state’s enforcement of capitalism, and consciousness of how cops enforce gendered and racist hierarchies entangled within an overall hierarchical division of power and labor. Such an anti-cop ethos also helps movements stay independent from the state, helps movements achieve short term goals through autonomy from and combativeness against the state, and can help movements continue forward beyond a focus on mere short-term goals that are insufficient for more ultimate objectives.  

Popular education can help spread an anti-cop ethos beyond those who already agree and help anarchists and police-abolitionists to have better theories and practices. Popular education efforts can be directed both at movement participants and the broader population. Without mass support, police abolition movements will not be able to achieve their goals. Well done education and propaganda efforts can invigorate people for action, help movements gain supporters, and help minimize opposition to social movements.

In Conclusion: 

The above has been an analysis on the police and hierarchical security forces more broadly; their intrinsic qualities and functions, their intrinsic vices/evils, what good alternatives to the police (and hierarchical security forces) look like, and some general and specific ways to move towards a future without hierarchical security forces and without the hierarchies that they enforce. Given that police abolition done well is not merely police abolition, this essay required many seeming excursions and tangents such as but not limited to a rearticulation of essential libertarian socialist practices and goals. The above analysis is heavily influenced by anarchism, libertarian socialism, social ecology, transformative justice, and broader police and prison abolitionist tendencies. This analysis, and plurality of ways towards a future without cops, is incomplete and you can help by adding onto it. 

Endnotes:

Agid, Shana, Brooks Berndt, Rachel Herzig, and Ari Wohlfeiler. “The Abolitionist Toolkit.” https://criticalresistance.org, 2020. https://criticalresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CR-Abolitionist-Toolkit-online.pdf.

Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. AK Press, 2005.

Bookchin, Murray. Social Ecology and Communalism. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2007.

Boehm, Cristopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University, 2001. 

Davis, Angela. Are Prisons Obsolete? Seven Stories Press, 2011.

Brookes, Derek, and Ian McDonough. “The Differences between Mediation and Restorative Justice/Practice,” 2006. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335704100_The_Differences_between_Mediation_and_Restorative_JusticePractice. 

Ervin, Loenzo Kom’boa. “Manifesto to the International Anarchist Movement ,” 1995. https://azinelibrary.org/approved/manifesto-international-anarchist-movement-and-call-international-revolutionary-resistance-movement-1.pdf

FARJ. Social Anarchism and Organisation , 2008.

Kaba, Mariame, and Shira Hassan. Fumbling towards Repair: A Workbook for Community Accountability Facilitators. Chicago: Project NIA, 2019.

Kaba, Mariame, and Andrea J. Ritchie. No More Police: A Case for Abolition. New York: The New Press, 2022.

Kohn, Alfie. No Contest: The Case against Competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2017. 

Kohn, Alfie. Punished by Rewards. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Trade & Reference Publishers, 2018.

Kropotkin, Peter. Organized Vengeance Called Justice. Freedom Press, 1902. 

Latimer et al. “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis,” 2005. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0032885505276969.

Lewis, Jerome. “Egalitarian Social Organisation among Hunter-Gatherers: the Case of the Mbendjele Bayaka .” libcom.org, 2014. https://libcom.org/article/egalitarian-social-organisation-among-hunter-gatherers-case-mbendjele-bayaka-jerome-lewis.

Martin, Jose. “Six Ideas for a Cop-Free World.” Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone, 2014. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/police-brutality-cop-free-world-protest-199465/. 

Mingus, Mia. “Transformative Justice: A Brief Description.” TransformHarm.org, 2018. https://transformharm.org/tj_resource/transformative-justice-a-brief-description/. 

Neighborhood Anarchist Collective . SSF Deescalation Skills & Mindset Handout, 2019. https://neighborhoodanarchists.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SSF-Deescalation-Skills-Mindset-Handout.pdf. 

Neighborhood Anarchist Collective. “Mediation / Supported Conversation Guide.” Neighborhood Anarchist Collective, October 10, 2021. https://neighborhoodanarchists.org/mediation. 

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, 2015. 

Prison Research Education Action Project (PREAP). Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists. Critical Resistance, 2005.

Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.” American Psychologist 55, no. 1 (2000): 68-78.

Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. “Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health.” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 49, no. 3 (2008): 182-185.

Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press, 2017. 

Sherman, Lawrence, and Heather Strang. “Restorative Justice: the Evidence.” https://restorativejustice.org.uk, 2007. https://restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/Restorative%20JusticeThe%20evidence%20-%20Professor%20Lawrence%20Sherman%20and%20Dr%20Heather%20Strang.pdf.

Wilkinson, Richard G., and Kate Pickett. The Spirit Level Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. New York: Bloomsbury, 2011.

Williams, Kristian. Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America. Edinburgh: AK Press, 2015.

Umbreit, Mark S. westerncriminology.org, 1998. http://www.westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v01n1/Umbreit/Umbreit.html.

Usufruct Collective. “Notes on: Forms of Freedom, Forms of Struggle, Universality, Particularity, Form, and Content.” Usufruct Collective. Usufruct Collective , July 2022. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2022/07/28/notes-on-forms-of-freedom-forms-of-struggle-universality-and-particularity/.

Vannucci, Delfina, and Richard Singer. Come Hell or High Water: A Handbook on Collective Process Gone Awry. Edinburgh: A K Press, 2010. 

Whitehouse, David. “Origins of the Police .” Libcom, 2014. https://files.libcom.org/files/Origins%20of%20the%20police.pdf.

Zehr, Howard. The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Good Books, 2002.