Add new comment

I've heard of conflicts being settled in the "fight room" in squats associated with the freight train riders. That's kinda like a duel. I guess what soccer hooligans get up to is kinda a group duel as well, though I think that's just for the thrills. There's also a few indigenous groups who have "hit whoever you like" days. Like, the Guarani just take a few days out to bash each other with sticks. I wouldn't like to advance too much analysis here because it's hard to tell the boundaries between fighting as conflict resolution, as thrill-seeking, as machismo, and as dominance. I'd add there's a literature on "peacebuilding" and "conflict transformation" which comes from the research on civil wars and overlaps with NVC and NVDA stuff. Main takeaways from this AFAIK are the importance of addressing root grievances and unmet needs, and the importance of people feeling they've been listened to and their concerns addressed. As well as the familiar restorative stuff (see: Bob Black on indigenous justice) there seems to be a pattern of (indigenous, medieval, ancient...) people seeing conflicts in terms of cosmic balance, "karma", etc - like there's some invisible harmony of forces which gets imbalanced when a grievance arises, and the balance can only be restored by tipping the balance equally the other way. This is probably where ideas of revenge and justice come from, though at root it's restorative.

I've had lots of experiences of conflict but not many of conflicts being worked-out well. Some of conflicts being patched-up to restore a working relationship with a lower level of trust. Lots of verbal duels which go nowhere because the other side plays dirty. Lots of getting ostracised or banned, especially online. I'm generally banishment-averse but also find it hard to get over grudges. Within the IRL anarchist scene: In the old days people would fall out, then either talk it through and make it up, or just stop working on the same projects. The really serious stuff, they would tend to monitor the person in the way suggested above (not leave them with newbies), and would also tend to warn people if someone had a rep (then it's also up to them to be careful). I remember a lot of ad hoc stuff, people close to a person talking to them and acting as intermediaries. In very extreme cases someone might be banished. Mostly it worked OK. Though, you'd get people self-excluding because they don't like this or that person, are scared of them, etc. I remember a situation in a squat where some assholes took over, physically bullied other people, and everyone else left. Straightforward case where we could have done with someone fighting them. Other cases where there probably should have been conflict resolution but wasn't. Like, someone who thought other people in their squat were doing a bunch of nasty stuff they probably weren't, felt unsafe to stay there but didn't want to give their room up. The others just voted to assume they left and take the room, a friend stood up for them, but it wasn't really resolved.

After the rise of cancel culture, it gets a lot more messy. Started with purges of serial abusers and such, but extended to thought-crimes, rumours and "microaggressions" by mission-creep. It's never worked well and has driven away a lot of people beyond those who were actually purged, mostly without the people who self-exclude feeling any safer. At one point my local scene had a big-shot who tended to dominate everything. He was top of the do-ocracy, physically intimidating, and good at mean-girls shit as well. He had a band of shy inquisitorial mice who took orders from him (based on a mix of idpol and charisma) and couldn't be levered away unless he made the mistake of bullying them too openly. A lot of the conflicts were basically him starting shit to shift things his own way, which often meant his own benefit.