practical Anarchism & Armed Forces

this depends a lot on context. all revolutions have some sort of defense. but in a peaceful state of anarchism I don't see why there would be cops or "workers militia" patrolling the the streets. people always say stuff like "but what about serial killers?" but this is a ridiculous justification for police to be on patrol. police don't patrol the streets on the off chance that they might witness a serial killing.

Mate, I'm not trying to be a dick, but AnCap isn't anarchism and isn't worth discussion. I also think you're seeing a divide between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism that just isn't there. AFAIK, all Anarcho-syndicalists see anarcho-syndicalism as a means to anarcho-communism. Granted, not all anarcho-communists are anarcho-syndicalist, but it's a matter of tactics, not goals, if you know what I mean.

Also, Zennka, I think that's a slightly different (though connected) question.

For me, it's all about structure. If there's a need for popular militias, it's imperative they be directly democratic, federated, and that anyone in a position of decision making power be instantly recallable.

In any case, I like how in Homage to Catalonia Orwell talks about the militias being the "engines of the revolution" (paraphrasing) and how they generated most militant and radical forms of egalitarianism.

All that needs to be said, really.

That guy (the writer of that article) is hilarious!

Check out the "statement of purpose" of that band of half-wits he's part of:
http://attackthesystem.com/about-2/

Interesting bits, so far so good:

And now get a load of this:

Had a good laugh out of that one.

"Anarcho-monarchism"? "Queer national-anarchism"? Shit, ain't heard of those before.

And talk about ahistorical view on "the central focus of the historic anarchist movement: overthrowing states, ruling classes, and empires".

Ah well... sorry for the offtopic.

This is the best anarcho-list i have ever read!

Some of these may be rather surreal and small movements:

http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Anarcho-monarchism

Haha, I have no friggin' idea.

It's one thing to call for big tent anarchism but those guys must have awfully large tents if they want to unify so diametrically opposed schools of thought.

I call the validity of that wiki entry into question... just take a look at the "criticism":

Anarcho-monarchism can be compared to Anarchist communism in its clear contradiction to the world of reality.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Anarcho-fascism

Chili, I agree with your point 100%, as far as it goes.

I'd like to tease out some issues/problems that I think appear if we take things a bit further, but given that I seem to get called a 'troll' (not by you, I hasten to add) almost everytime I try to probe issues 'dear to the heart' of some posters, if you'd rather not discuss it further, I'll understand.

To be honest, I tend to stray away from any in-depth discussion of theoretical issues unrelated to my actual practical activities and stick to short little nuggets like I provided in my previous post. (FWIW, I tended to have the more theoretical discussions about teh revolution and post-capitalism before moving toward trying to implement my politics in the workplace and in an actual functioning anarchist organisation.) But yeah, shoot away comrade, let's slaughter some sacred cows, whadya' got?

It took me too long to realise that was a joke

Actually Tolkein was something of a fan as well, which probably explains a lot.

Thanks, Chili.

Your post about ‘militia structures’ seems to hinge on three points: direct democracy, a federated structure (built from below, I presume you’d agree) and instant recall (of ‘officer’ delegates). Furthermore, I think these issues are a microcosm of wider issues with our notions of our forthcoming Communist social structures, and should be discussed in that wider light.

On directly elected and recallable delegates, I don’t think we’d have any disagreement. But the issues of ‘instant’ recall and ‘federation’ are more problematic, in my opinion.

On ‘instant’ recall, this seems impossible at all times within a militia unit in action. I think we’d have to define a more elastic notion of ‘instant’: perhaps ‘instant’ when outside of the battle line or the immediate danger of close proximity of enemies, but ‘delayed’ when under ‘certain conditions’. Of course, the timing and extent of any ‘delay’ would have to be specified, and the ‘certain conditions’ when the ‘delay’ comes into play would also have to be carefully defined.

Nevertheless, I think the notion of ‘delayed recall’ is worth some discussion, not least because I think some circumstances that apply in a military context would also appear in a civil context: ie. in Workers’ Councils/Assemblies facing emergencies.

On ‘federation’, the problem is that once entered into, who has the power to dissolve the federation? Its constituent militia units, or only an elected, delegate body which heads the federation? In other words, could a militia unit which wished to leave be out-voted by other militia units on the question of its separation, and so have to remain? Remember, this decision might have to be taken under the threat of an enemy, which means unity is of the utmost importance. And again, I think this issue applies to the civil context, too.

On ‘structures’, I have some further comments to make about the need for specialisation and control, but I’ll leave them for now, and wait for your response so far.

If you don’t feel happy continuing this discussion, Chili, please ignore my post. I do not want to be thought a ‘troll’, which seems to be the fashionable insult to hurl at those who persist with ‘difficult’ questions in the face of evasion.

I think it's a totally fair enough discussion, on recallability, you've described something very similar to what they had in Spain. During battle, elected officers had the authority to command. They could be recalled afterwords, but military necessity dictated that on the battle field they issued orders. That and that fact that deserters were shot.

On federations, that's a much larger question and I'll have to get back to you.

Although Cipriano Mera, the CNT commander said that orders went sometimes unheeded, with men just too frightened or unorganised to act on them and that you couldn't rely solely on solidarity to fight effectively.

Apparently Deng Xaoping, the architect of many of China's neoliberal reforms in the 80's was educated through a program created by anarchists in the Chinese nationalist government.

From Wikipedia:

anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism, anarcho-feudalism, national-anarchism, tribal-anarchism, paleo-anarchism and Christian anarchism from the Right

This is the best list of oxymorons I have ever seen!!

This kind of question varies hugely depending on the situation, as does the matter of 'crime and punishment' in an anarchist society. I would imagine that in some sort of crisis or external attack, military defence would be organised through some sort of localised voluntary, syndicalist militia, (similar to in Orwell's Homage to Catalonia sense). Furthermore, these localised groups would answer to a federated structure in solidarity, working towards the retainment of anarcho-communist political and social environments.

<<<My avatar should cover it.