Booklet Two: Is This the Just Society We Want to Model?

A Model for Justice?

Collectives who choose to base their organizational structure on equality, direct democracy, and/or consensus usually do so, at least in part, to model the just society we would like to see in the world at large. Social change involves not only campaigning for radical reform in the broader society but also being, or embodying, the better world we hope to bring about through activism. This fundamental belief can and should be used by egalitarian collectives to inform the decisions and actions they take, especially when it comes to how group members treat one another.

It doesn’t make any sense for an activist organization to be fighting for justice and social equality while at the same time allowing back-stabbing, nasty rumors, and manipulative power plays to dominate or influence the internal interactions of the group. Yet, this happens all the time. At times it’s intentional: one or a few members control the group by creating feuds and distrust; the persons or positions they favor prevail while those they wish to eliminate are made to seem suspect and fall by the wayside. Other times injustice is the result of bungling ineptitude or lack of clarity or knowledge about how egalitarian systems can be expected to work.

Often, an organization insists on using consensus, which in many activist scenes is treated as the only acceptable form of decision making for any group that wants to call itself radical--to the point of faddishness--without any real understanding of how consensus functions and what it can and cannot accomplish. People may expect that cooperation and mutual understanding will automatically flow out of the consensus process. As a result, the group creates no guidelines for dealing with friction or other interpersonal difficulties. They may even feel that rules are antithetical to personal autonomy. Autonomy is itself interpreted as being synonymous with selfishness, therefore selfishness is considered well and good.

When the inevitable conflicts crop up, the radical egalitarian collective often does not even have in place the conventional forms of fair dealing that are built into the mainstream society that we so abhor, such as the judicial process. Instead, in handling (real or perceived) offenders, collective members tend to skip right over any notions of due process, since they don’t think a consensus-based group should have any need for all that bureaucratic baggage, and proceed straight to the basest of human instincts: name-calling, spreading or repeating baseless allegations, lying to cover up one’s own bad behavior, and--everyone’s favorite--banning, usually perpetrated out of hand and in anger, without anyone looking into any of the alleged facts nor allowing the accused to offer any defense.

We need to ask ourselves: is this the just society that we want to model? Wholesale expulsion from an activist group is painful enough, but when that happens one can still go on with the rest of one’s life. What if the group in question were the community where one lives, works and has familial ties: would we want to be a part of a world where a person can be expelled from his community because others find him annoying or inconvenient, or because he loses his temper, and where people can malign, slander, and judge him without even his having a fundamental right to a forum where he can speak up for himself?

Many of us rightly condemn the injustices of the societies in which we live, but then we fail to turn that same scrutiny and skepticism onto our own activist organizations and anti-authoritarian collectives. Do we accord one another at least the rights that are written into the United States’ system of justice? (The authors live in the U.S.) Or are we even more authoritarian and less just than mainstream institutions whenever we condone the wholesale condemnation of people and behaviors we may not even know firsthand and when we fail to establish fair procedures to air grievances and resolve conflicts?

The Dearth of Due Process

"Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

While discussing collective process, we have, so far, delved into a number of aspects of process that we feel are pertinent to fair decision-making within egalitarian groups. However, these different aspects might have varying degrees of importance with regard to broader concepts of how a fair and democratic society should function. And in that broader sense, few aspects are nearly as essential as due process.

Among actual definitions of due process, we find that the item above, from Black's Law Dictionary, will suffice as well as any. The basic concept of due process is that no one should be assumed to have committed any violation of legal or ethical codes without having a fair hearing in front of people who can judge him or her impartially according to reasonable objective standards and without prejudice. Essential to the fairness of such a hearing is the idea that anyone accused has the right to face his accusers and defend himself (or have someone of adequate expertise defend him, if the complexity of the laws or process so require). Stated most simply, everyone is innocent until proven guilty by just and fair means.

This idea is very well established in mainstream culture and society. In fact, it has been established in all concepts of modern democracy ever since modern democracy developed, during the Middle Ages. (Most wisdom traces the origins of modern due process back to English common law and the Magna Carta or restatements thereof - which would mean, depending on how you look at it, the year 1215 or, at latest, say, 1355 (see, for example, "Due Process of Law," by Barnabas D. Johnson, http://www.jurianda.am/dueprocess.htm).) This is why a basic text such as Black's Law Dictionary (a very mainstream text found in any stuffy law firm) contains such a good, concise and fair definition of the term. It is also why you will find significant references to due process in two Amendments to the U.S.Constitution (Fifth and Fourteenth). While we might worry that the legal systems and agents of the State often do things to undermine due process, and while we might say that the police and courts sometimes blatantly violate it, the concept itself is considered quite legitimate in all corners of legal argument; it is not, by any means, a radical or utopian idea.

Unfortunately, once we look at the conduct of many egalitarian collectives, due process does begin to look like a radical idea. This is an irony that truly puzzles us. Egalitarian collectives are supposed to build upon the basic concepts of democracy and strive to make things more democratic. The people within these collectives are supposed to view the basic standards of fairness within conventional society as being relatively minimal compared to those of the society that we all want to build. And yet, we are sorry to say, as we examine the process (or lack thereof) among many of our "radical-democratic" comrades, such standards often seem to comprise a maximal, nearly unattainable goal.

In a number of cases, we have witnessed the following sort of process take place after someone has been accused:

The accused may be told about problems that people are having with something he or she did, but specifics are rarely mentioned, and a fair hearing is never suggested. Bad word and rumor are accumulated against the accused, often in forums that s/he cannot access, such as hidden meetings or special e-mail lists. A closed-door meeting takes place in which it is decided that the accused has caused certain problems or committed certain violations or crimes. Evidence is said to have been produced, but the accused never knows what that evidence, exactly, was. A judgment is made in the accused's absence, and the poor accused individual becomes the last person to know about the conviction and the sentence (which usually involves some deprivation of liberty - such as ending or limiting that person's participation in a community, forum, or group). In sum, there is no fair hearing, no right of self-defense by the accused against the accusers, and no adequate revelation of charges or reasons provided for consequent penalties. Some sort of trial takes place in which everything is wrong.

We would find it somewhat outrageous if this happened within a single collective, but we have found that this truly awful kind of process occurs in more than a few. This mockery of justice is so common, it has actually happened to a few of our friends; in fact, it has even happened to some of us.

There may be a number of reasons why we are experiencing this dearth of due process. The most common may be that people who call themselves "anarchists" or "anti-authoritarians" are used to rebelling against rules, and many will use their opposition to authority as an excuse to reject any and all rules at their convenience. Unfortunately, this eagerness to break the rules in defiance of authority often leads people straight into the hands of the real authoritarians, who will be all too happy to manipulate others into breaking the rules in order to pursue a specific personal agenda.

Contrary to the sloppy thinking that we've occasionally encountered, there is no situation in which someone has been accused of something serious (i.e., something that might warrant limitation of freedoms or exclusion entirely) which can be addressed fairly while ignoring due process. Moreover, due process is not, contrary to what some might think, merely a way that a society deals with the commission of crimes. One of the main reasons for due process is that we often don't even know, until there has been a fair and impartial proceeding, whether a crime or transgression has been committed. Even more often, even when we can be certain that someone has done something that upset people, we simply cannot be certain of the nature, degree, or seriousness of such an act - at least not until the act can be investigated in a fair and impartial way.

Without due process, not only do we risk the unfair treatment of known criminals and a poorly planned way of dealing with crime; we also run the risk that crimes might be completely invented and people might be turned into criminals for reasons that have nothing to do with anything that actually happened. Without due process, anybody runs the risk of being criminalized by individuals or cliques who hold power, who feel in any way challenged or threatened by the accused. Without due process, even people who do not have any power or influence might easily vilify someone who is innocent if they can figure out how to influence or manipulate a powerful individual or clique. Due process, followed correctly, is the specific mechanism through which innocent dissenters and iconoclasts can often make sure that they are not instantly, unjustly turned into villains or pariahs.

Sometimes, people think that due process can be altered or circumvented when the person or people making the accusations belong to a traditionally oppressed group. This is a problematical concept that is actually supported by many people on the left. For instance, an accusation of racism stemming from an argument might be acted upon without adequate investigation of the contents of the disagreement or the evident intentions of the accused. Intentions are sometimes simply assumed, without anyone asking for proof. The same problem might occur when the issue revolves around a woman accusing a man of sexism. Often, out of some eagerness to pursue an "anti-oppressive" policy, an egalitarian collective will approach an accusation with particularly strong prejudice against the accused. At best, the burden of proof then falls upon the accused (i.e., s/he is guilty until proven innocent); at worst, there is no proof even requested, as the accusation itself is considered sufficient.

With regard to such matters, we'd like to call readers' attention to the last sentence of the excellent definition of due process above: "If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." In the world of left-leaning or egalitarian groups and collectives, where people might have particularly strong desires to right certain wrongs found within our society, that is a thought well worth keeping in mind. Prejudice in judgment is unacceptable regardless of the gender, race, or ethnic identity of the accuser or the accused.

Prejudicial presumption in general is an even more common problem than the blatant violation of due process that we described earlier. As we discussed in "Creating Pariahs," there are numerous ways that accusers and their allies can spread ill opinion long before a supposedly fair and just trial takes place. It is a frequent tactic of vilifiers to spread the bad word in forums to which the accused does not have access. (E-mail lists can be particularly good for that. The accused might not have access to e-mail, or simply might not have access to a particular list.) As we have said before, when this sort of tactic is taken to the extreme in advance of any trial, then the trial might as well not happen.

In standard legal practice here in the U.S., the accused theoretically has recourse to change the place of trial when the immediate surroundings have already been inundated with news or publicity creating prejudice. True, this happens most often when the accused is wealthy or famous or is being accused of a particularly infamous crime. However, this is a right that seems to be universally recognized, at least in principle. Unfortunately, within many egalitarian collectives, such a right seems not to be known at all. Thus, in circles within which someone has been totally vilified, and people have discussed and built upon rumors to which the accused might not even have had access, the local "fair trial" is pursued anyway, as though it still could be fair.

In our opinion, this kind of situation is unacceptable. When local rumors and accusations spread like wildfire, it is important to move the trial beyond the places where the fire has spread. That is why, contrary to the practice of some unions, organizations and networks, the local group from which a case originated is often the last place where that case should be tried. If there is another place within the larger organization where a controversial or much-talked-about case might be moved, then it should be moved as soon as possible. If there is no group outside of the small local group involved, then maybe outside judges or mediators should be seriously considered right away.

There are probably many more specific examples of the violation of due process that takes place within collectives, surely enough to fill a few books. Nonetheless, it would be advantageous for existing collectives to address the most obvious and immediate problems, at least as a start. Egalitarian collectives owe it to themselves and others to pursue important principles such as due process in more advanced ways than conventional society, rather than acting as though they are ignorant of the conventions of justice that most people already recognize.

Admittedly, in the present day, due process isn't in such great shape in mainstream society either. In the age of the Patriot Act, secret military tribunals, and the "War on Terrorism," we see the conventional rights that everyone knows about repeatedly trampled upon or ignored. Many egalitarian groups, among other factions (both left and right), are fighting the good fight to protect people's civil liberties. However, groups will probably lose credibility if they don't protect the civil liberties of their own members as well. (This is why many groups on the left have found themselves discredited by groups on the right who have seized upon and publicized the most obvious infringements on personal expression resulting from left political correctness. It is true that the stereotype is an exaggeration, but it is not completely false; it is not simply an invention of right-wing propaganda, as some "progressives" might proclaim.)

It is also important for people within egalitarian collectives simply to know what they're fighting for. By addressing the dearth of due process in their own circles and communities, these activists will probably learn a few more things, becoming more skilled and articulate in advocating for the new world that they would like to create. If they lose track of the basic principles of due process at the same time that due process is being stifled in the mainstream community, then the outcome might not be so good. The dearth of due process within our collectives might simply contribute to the death of due process everywhere.

What About Free Speech?

Everyone who seeks a more democratic society would naturally agree that freedom of speech is essential. Moreover, no egalitarian collective would ever claim to oppose freedom of speech. Yet, in practice, not all collectives (nor lefty groups in general) support free speech, whether it means allowing free speech in debate or on e-mail lists, or allowing other groups the same freedom to express themselves and demonstrate their own beliefs freely.

Regarding Free Speech at Meetings

In order to allow freedom of speech at meetings, groups need to create an atmosphere in which all the participants feel maximally comfortable about expressing themselves. If any people feel at any time that their ways of self-expression, their choice of words, or their tone or approach simply can 't meet a group's particular standards, then they certainly will not have a chance to enjoy the true freedom to speak or participate.

This is true whenever the homogeneity of a group might be seen by an interested observer as intimidating or unwelcoming. Many of us are aware that more effort should be made in activist circles to include diverse viewpoints, yet we overlook some simple steps we could take to be more inclusive and approachable, such as easing up on demanding that people adhere to the most stringently correct jargon. Whenever we raise a collective eyebrow at someone who says “reform” instead of “shut down” or “vote” instead of “reach consensus,” we are stifling dialogue.

Now, of course, there are limits in terms of propriety. It is understood that people shouldn't be espousing views that are way off the mark in terms of the focus of the collective - e.g., in most collectives, it is not be appropriate to launch into a completely right-wing kind of agenda. However, it is extremely rare when this problem occurs, and when it does occur, the instigator is usually simply ignored. More often, people at a meeting whose opinions are perfectly relevant will feel overly inhibited or cautious regarding how they express those opinions. Too often, for example, members of a collective feel pressured to watch every word they speak for fear that they might unknowingly and unintentionally reveal some connotations of racism or sexism. Unfortunately, this strict kind of political correctness often helps to ensure that the group's true reach remains limited to an extremely narrow range of people, i.e., those who are well trained regarding what terms, phrases, or methods of speaking are politically fashionable and acceptable.

We are not saying that people should be encouraged to babble sexist or racist slurs - and if they do, certainly other members of a group have the right to protest freely. Yet, self-conscious political correctness within these groups has sometimes gotten extreme enough that some participants - especially among those who cannot claim to be part of an oppressed identity group - are double-checking every word they say. We think it's a shame that people feel a need to be this self-conscious.

At the same time, the patterns that have allowed the bossy and outspoken to dominate agendas persist. The sense of entitlement that is wrought by a privileged upbringing, the self-congratulation that comes from a lifetime of praise and approbation, the self-doubt brought about by scorn and oppression: group members’ feelings of inadequacy or grandeur are not erased by an insistence on proper terminology.

Sometimes statements that no one would even think of considering as racist or sexist when said in isolation are read as such depending on the identity the participants. A good example of this problem once occurred when a white male member of our collective was admonished at a coalition meeting for telling a woman of color that he would like to hear a more rational argument for the position that she was taking. He was told, subsequent to the debate, that his request for rational argument was both racist and sexist. The reason given was that white men throughout history have dismissed the opinions of women and people of color as not being sufficiently rational, and that rationality itself is a concept repeatedly used to reinforce patriarchy--which is, as a point of fact, demonstrably true. Yet in the situation that existed, this member of our collective honestly didn't think that the other party in the debate was making any sense. And if there is no rationality in a debate, then what is the point of having a debate? Moreover, is there a politically correct way to tell someone that you find her argument irrational and cannot make sense of it?

It would be a shame if a large number of people in our community even occasionally resisted expressing their opinions simply because they felt that their comments might seem politically incorrect due to the race, gender, or ethnicity of the people involved in the debate. Likewise, those who aren’t versed in the rhetoric of activism should not be made to feel that if they speak up they will be chastised on their choice of words. It is bad enough to feel overcautious about the content of one's arguments, but it is simply stifling to know that such content will also be heavily judged according to context. That situation would certainly not be conducive to free speech; in fact, it might result in an atmosphere that diminishes free expression for everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.

Regarding Free Speech in E-Mail

Within the radical community, especially among anarchists, there has lately been a frenzy to limit e-mail exchanges, establish strict guidelines for e-mail lists, and purge people whose comments on those lists are considered provocative or upsetting. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, as e-mail used to be a very free medium, back in the earlier days of the Internet.

Too often lately, we have seen e-mail lists flooded with ideas about strict protocol to limit the things that are said. Very often now, there are rules against "flaming," meaning that no one should say something on an e-mail list that might be interpreted as a direct insult or attack on another person. While it is understandable that we don't want people to be scared away from lists by nasty or vicious infighting, we also think that honest conflict is essential to open debate. Moreover, it always becomes quite apparent that anti-flaming rules, by nature, are extremely subjective, and that the decision to ban or restrict list participation usually is made by the list administrator and, possibly, the supporting clique in power.

As with all the kinds of purges that we discussed in "Creating Pariahs," the people who are usually kicked off e-mail lists present no threat to the group and hold no power. They are often kicked off or restricted because people who do hold greater power or influence consider them to be annoying or disruptive. Yet the people who are kicked off these lists are rarely the true disrupters. While we often hear about how listserves need to guard against provocateurs and saboteurs, the people who deliberately provoke to undermine a group's politics are usually sufficiently shouted down and leave soon enough anyway.

Often, there are urgent pleas to silence or ban disruptive posters on the grounds that the group’s work needs to be protected and given priority. Yet the work could very well continue unimpeded if people were willing simply to disregard postings they found offensive or personally disruptive instead of engaging and encouraging them. We have found that after an annoying subscriber is removed from a list, the traffic on that list often ceases, since there is no longer any provocation to get heated about. We believe that banning from a list should be only an absolutely last resort that almost never needs to occur. (Perhaps only if the volume of mail sent by one person is untenable; say, more than ten posts a day….)

Meanwhile, we can't help noticing that those who do have power and influence with groups are rarely watched or criticized for any of their own aggressive list behavior, even as they drive to get others silenced or expelled. In other words, the people who are most eager to silence others are often simply the kind who can dish it out but can't take it. If too many such people are allowed to have their way, then the freedom that was once so prevalent in Net discussions will probably be lost forever.

Regarding Free Speech for Others

Just as we need to allow maximum freedom of speech within our own circles, we need to extend this principle outside of our circles, even if it means allowing the expression of views that horrify or disgust us. Otherwise, we will not truly be sticking to our own principles, we will lose moral credibility, and we might even leave ourselves open to charges of hypocrisy.

Ironically, some of the people on the left who make the most noise about not being allowed to speak or assemble freely are the same ones who might violently try to stop ideological opponents from exercising those freedoms.

We have been baffled by certain anarchist groups who've actively sought to threaten or perpetrate violence against radical right-wingers in order to stop them from peaceably demonstrating in the streets. This approach is problematical for a number of reasons, including the fact that too much time might be wasted on some small collection of fascist wing nuts while everyone ignores the more powerful fascists sitting in the seats of our government. However, this tactic is also seriously problematical according to our own principles. Assuming that a right-wing group is not itself setting out to cause violence or terrorize anyone (even if the agenda that it espouses could ultimately have those effects if ever followed), it has as much right to march in the streets espousing its views as we do.

This is not to say that people shouldn't counter-demonstrate. If a collective decides that some parading collection of right-wing nuts is actually worth its time and attention, then this collective has every right to counter-demonstrate along with any coalition that it might join . Yet, counter-demonstration is not the same as threatening to beat up the other demonstrators and initiating some thuggish turf war. If such a scenario develops, actions may speak louder than words as confused onlookers begin to wonder which group, exactly, is the one that wants to quash other people's liberties.

Regarding Free Speech in Publications

Publications - such as newspapers and magazines - become a more complicated issue, because of limited space and editorial prerogative. Clearly, a publication devoted to a certain kind of viewpoint has a right to reject articles that are completely inappropriate, especially when space is limited. Nonetheless, a publication should at least stick to its own professed values. If a publication professes openness to a wide range of left-radical or anarchist viewpoints, then it shouldn't suddenly turn around and suppress some viewpoints for fear that they might be too radical. If a publication has a letters or feedback section that is supposed to be open, then the editors shouldn't be cautiously screening those who disagree with them.

Freedom of speech becomes a bigger issue at a publication when the editors follow inconsistent or sloppy process. A publication that is supposed to be run or edited by a collective should stick to this principle. Unfortunately, some publications that claim to be run collectively really do have an editorial hierarchy with some chief editor to whom almost everyone defers, and that chief editor often is the ultimate judge of content. When that sort of hierarchy occurs, there is more danger that collective members may find their viewpoints suppressed.

One important guideline to keep in mind with regard to all editorial work is whether the editing done is actually necessary and/or helps to make the writing stronger, or whether the piece is chopped up more arbitrarily, for reasons having little to do with the strength of the writing. If the piece is edited in such a way as to cut out certain opinions being expressed, then we might begin to ask questions regarding freedom of expression. If the writer of the piece consistently finds that her articles are being chopped up more severely than others' even though the quality of her original writing might be at least as good as anyone else's (or perhaps even better), then it becomes clear that she is being subject to some arbitrary standards: Are some editors who have more influence and power suppressing her writing because of their general opinions regarding her or her viewpoints? That sort of question certainly will raise issues regarding freedom of speech.

In General

We admit that freedom of speech or expression is not always a 100 percent clear issue, especially when it must be weighed against seemingly contradictory principles such as editorial prerogative or the right of any given group or individual not to be treated disrespectfully. Nonetheless, in most cases, the choices are quite clear. Distasteful speech needs to be addressed with dialogue and engagement, in the spirit of increasing awareness and understanding on both sides. There are many ways in which groups that theoretically support freedom of speech need to be more careful about following their own stated principles. Almost always, if this kind of question even arises, it is best to err on the side of maximum freedom.

Cruelty

How we choose to treat each other in a group that is committed to equality and justice goes to the core of what we hope to accomplish as activists. If we hope to bring about a more fair and compassionate world, we have to start with our most basic interactions. For instance, it should be obvious that you cannot achieve greater justice through deliberate cruelty.

The same behavior we saw as children in school playgrounds--where an individual is singled out for no reason other than being an easy mark and then is subjected to a gleeful campaign of abuse--is much too often at work in our activist collectives. Are we so conditioned by our upbringing in a society that forces us to conform to authority that whenever the mantle of established authority is removed (as it is in an egalitarian collective or in a playground), we can think of nothing better to do than prey on each other with cruel name-calling and senseless attacks? And must we always establish and follow new informal hierarchies based on who is more popular or stronger or the best at manipulation versus who is unpopular and out of the group's mainstream? (We've seen that happen often enough--it's just like Lord of the Flies!)

Individuals who believe they have been mistreated by their fellow group members feel genuine pain. It is not possible or appropriate, in our view, to explain away somebody's pain by pointing to the group's positive work or invoking regulations that the pariah in question may or may not have properly followed.

Nor is it possible, in our view, for the person who feels pushed out or abused to simply be mistaken in perceiving a sustained campaign of attacks and vilification by the group (or a faction of the group) against him/herself. The hurt that is expressed over and over in situation after situation is undoubtedly real, and it should not be dismissed, regardless of whether or not the person experiencing it was originally (or continues to be) at fault.

Regardless of the merits or faults present in each situation, it's not okay for us to inflict emotional pain on one another. That should be a basic tenet. A commitment to compassion and justice and against cruelty (yes, that's what it is) should be overtly stated in the goals of any egalitarian group.

We only need to look at the current political situation to see the wages of indifference and casual acceptance of cruelty. Once we have relinquished our moral compass, we can condone both small and huge moral insults with logical arguments and pragmatism. Where is the outrage of the American public at the thousands of deaths and injuries of Iraqi civilians? Even for those who believe the war to be politically justified, how can ecstatic cheering be the overwhelming reaction to death, suffering and destruction on a massive scale? Wouldn’t the more human reaction be sober regretfulness that sometimes harm is done in order to achieve a purportedly worthwhile objective?

Yet even among the activists who vehemently oppose war, many do so for political reasons, because they object to imperialism or other political forces they believe to be at play in this conflict, not out of moral outrage. And of those who invoke humanitarian objections to war, many adopt that view as a persuasive arguing position, not as a deeply held revulsion to causing suffering.

The purpose of activism, fundamentally, is to create a better world, one where there is greater justice, equality, and harmony and less pain and hardship. It is not to put forward a particular agenda. When we overlook this basic truth and allow ourselves to act with deliberate cruelty toward people in our own collectives, then go on to justify our actions by saying that we vilified or attacked our comrades because they were interfering with important political organizing, we have twisted our motives into an indefensible moral pretzel.

The Collective Is Not Always More Correct Than The Individual

One mistake often made by people who want to strive for a more collective society -- whether that society might be called anarchist, communist, or "small-d" democratic -- is to assume that the collective can always be trusted above the individual. Unfortunately, in many radical-left circles, if we talk too much about individual rights and even suggest that an individual's opinions and observations might be closer to the truth than the votes or consensus of the collective, we might be accused of pushing "individualism," which supposedly is a bad trait typical of capitalist and "bourgeois" society, not to be tolerated in egalitarian circles. Yet, this kind of mentality, at least when taken to the extreme, enabled a lot of really nasty totalitarian societies to exist in the past century, and the history of those societies basically proves the point that individuals (who were suppressed) can often be more correct than the group

If we are really striving for a fair and egalitarian society, then we need to give utmost importance to the rights and liberties of the individual. This does not mean promoting the kind of "individualism" that dictates that each person must look out for her/himself and that collective decision making and concern for the community are a hindrance to true liberty. What it does mean is that each of us is unique and must be considered, judged and observed according to our own unique combination of circumstances. This means that our behaviors are far more complex than might be assumed by the knee-jerk sort of ideologue who would say, for instance, that any of us enjoys certain privileges above others for belonging to one particular group based on race, gender, or ethnic origins. It also means that nobody's behavior should be judged by a formulaic check list, so that in any given situation, one person must be assumed to have certain politically undesirable characteristics based on a particular incident when we don't know the backgrounds, tendencies, or histories of the individuals involved. (So, for example, a man who shouts at a woman or says something vaguely disrespectful to her is automatically assumed to be "sexist" when a closer examination of the histories of the individuals involved might reveal a dynamic that is far more complex, with more equal hostilities, etc., than anyone realized.) When we fail to recognize the potential uniqueness and complexity of the individual, then we are failing to create a situation in which each individual might enjoy a maximum amount of freedom and liberty.

Sometimes, moreover, the individual can be really badly misunderstood by a group which has made assumptions or followed presumptions that might not really apply to the person involved. In judging individuals, groups can make terrible mistakes, sometimes based on a lot of bias and prejudice. This is illustrated not only by the countless collectivist mistakes made throughout history, but also by the many smaller examples of collective injustice and manipulation that we have already discussed in our Collective Book. When a group is manipulated, becomes misguided, or simply fails to be vigilant about judging everyone fairly and equally, it can become more wrong than any single member.

The individual also might have a particular outlook or opinion in a given situation that ultimately proves to be wiser or more accurate than the outlook of the group. This is why it really is necessary to listen to the opinions of individuals within the group who may not be going so well with the collective flow. Dissenting opinions sometimes can change the mind of the entire group, once the group considers the dissenting opinion fairly, allowing each person within that group to weigh the merits of each (differing) point of view.

In examining other literature dealing with problems within collectives, we have seen quite a few articles talking about how to deal with the difficult person who won't go along with the group, the ornery person, the malcontent whose behavior or opinions seem to disrupt the group's smooth functioning. The issue is thus usually depicted as finding a good way for the group to collectively deal with a problem member. Unfortunately, this is only one way of looking at things.

A truly democratic and egalitarian collective can't always assume that the only problem to be considered in group-versus-individual conflicts is protecting the integrity of the group against the disruptive individual. Sometimes, the problem involves protecting the individual against the group.

Home Back to Booklet One Continue to Booklet Three