Worker's militia

[Code]

I know that in an anarchist society to inforce the "guide-lines" there's a "worker's militia"

How's this work?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Well I'm no anarchist, but I would suggest that such a militia (presumably during a non-war time situation) would be operated on democratic, and rotational means; where the people who are chosen to serve in the militia (through a vote, or demarchic "random" manner) would be justified to use force against counter-revolutionaries, criminals etc only as far as whatever rules or guidelines entail. It would be wary for anarchists to assign someone permanently to a militia "policing" position, since this is against the basic anarchist principal of not allowing authority to be undertaken by one person over another.

[Code]

But without long term membership wouldn't it be impossible to train?

[apathy maybe]

Dude, the trouble is, your "police/army" is not the same as a militia. A police force is a hierarchical, permanent, professional, non-rotating organisation. An anarchist militia is hierarchical only to a limited extent (if at all), non-permanent (only raised when needed), and is comprised of everyone (who wants to be involved), with rotas.

In other words, police are fundamentally objectionable to an anarchist because they are a force of power in a society which is not meant to have any. If you want a police force (and you have stated in another thread that you don't see a problem with permanent, professional and non-rotating), then I don't think you are an anarchist. Please just keep calling yourself "libertarian communist" rather than "anarchist communist", because you don't quite want the same thing.

Will add more soon.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-and-courts-t88835/index.html?t=88835&highlight=militia
http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-anarchist-society-t70732/index.html?t=70732&highlight=militia
http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-anarchist-society-t64367/index.html?t=64367&highlight=militia

From those threads we get these other quotes (all from me):

There might be a rotating people's militia that would assist visitors, and deal with violent crime etc. However, they would have no more power or prestige then any other individual. (I.e. anyone could help visitors and attempt to stop violent acts.) The difference would be that the militia would carry weaponry, communications equipment (to contact emergency services etc.) and other things that most people wouldn't be carrying normally. Also, the militia would not be involved in collecting evidence of "crimes". (One of the big problems with the police today, is that those people who "keep the peace", have a vested interest in prosecuting.)

I stand by my comments in that thread, police and anarchism are two incompatible ideas. You can't have one, and the other.

Yes, there could be some sort of "people's militia" that might fulfil many of the roles currently taken by the police, but they would not be a police force, and they would be no more special then the rest of the population (unlike a police force).

There may well be a "people's militia" type thing, a rotating group of individuals who act as a sort of police force (helping little old ladies across the road, giving directions to tourists, breaking up fights, detaining temporarily people who are acting anti-social (all of these things (except the last) will also be done by the general populace)), but there will not be a police force.

Police implies a lot of things that are not consistent with an anarchist society. It implies hierarchical organisation, it implies permanent positions, it implies uniforms (OK, not automatically inconsistent with anarchist thought), it implies a group of people above the rest of society with powers the rest of society doesn't have.

When you have an armed body of people with a hierarchy and powers above the rest of society, well that isn't consistent with anarchist theory.

[mykittyhasaboner]

But without long term membership wouldn't it be impossible to train?
That is something I didn't even think about, good point. I'm not sure about this, but I know even anarchists practice long term membership if there is an armed conflict going on. See Spanish Civil War. So training would run along similar lines as regular armed bodies. But if we are talking about an already established anarchist society, that isn't in the midst of war, then I don't really know how a rotational force would be trained; I'm assuming train each and every new group of people? Even though that would be difficult.

But I'm no proponent of anarchism, so I'll leave it to someone else to answer your question better.

[Code]

Well sense this would give "more control" to ppl rotated In then couldn't EVERYBODY be able to apprehend?

But then yet again they wouldn't be trained and would could use force to apprehend :confused:

[apathy maybe]

But without long term membership wouldn't it be impossible to train?

What training needs to be undertaken?

I'm sure that there is nothing that couldn't happen in a couple of weekends every six months.

[Code]

I guess so if all people eligable for rotation had to go to training each weekend

But that's kinda forcing them isn't it?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I guess so if all people eligable for rotation had to go to training each weekend

But that's kinda forcing them isn't it?

Nah because you would volunteer to be in the militia.

[Code]

Ok. Cool.

So then what about use of lethal force?

Also what equipment if any would they have?

[Black Sheep]

I know that in an anarchist society to inforce the "guide-lines" there's a "worker's militia"
There may be.The form,apparatus and instruments in the anarchist society are decided by the commune.So there may be a workers' militia.

The important thing you have to distinguish between a workers' militia and the police is that the first exist due to a voting passed in favour if its existence, and that they are imediately recallable,checked and controlled tight by the rest of the commune, exactly because they have not a monopoly, but a decent capability of exercising force.

Which is why i imagine the members would be rotated (imagine, i.e., that in Mondays + Thursdays it is your shift to be a cop, in Wednesdays + Fridays you work at the field, and that in Saturdays you work in a steel industry), or even it would be absent.
I can imagine ananarchist society where everyone is a militia member."A default altruistic society,where the altruists strike back at the selfish offenders is the most evolutionary stable tactic" Dawkins

[#FF0000]

Ok. Cool.

So then what about use of lethal force?

Also what equipment if any would they have?

The militias would only come about to defend the commune from invaders. Thus, lethal force would only be used in self-defense.

They would probably use guns but who knows really.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The militias would only come about to defend the commune from invaders. Thus, lethal force would only be used in self-defense.

They would probably use guns but who knows really.

Exactly. We can never know until the situation arises what force will need to be undertaken or what shape the workers militias will take on. Problems that arise at the time will be dealt with at that time. Until then there is no telling what problems will arise and what the workers militia's duties will be.

[Vendetta]

Exactly. We can never know until the situation arises what force will need to be undertaken or what shape the workers militias will take on. Problems that arise at the time will be dealt with at that time. Until then there is no telling what problems will arise and what the workers militia's duties will be.

Although, it is always good to have some sense of preparedness.

[Invincible Summer]

I guess so if all people eligable for rotation had to go to training each weekend

But that's kinda forcing them isn't it?

It's not conscription.



Ok. Cool.

So then what about use of lethal force?

Also what equipment if any would they have?

Did you really need to ask this? IMHO, a "worker's militia" clearly implies an armed force that will act in defense of the worker's society.

Armed = shooting people, not writing songs in order to make them feel bad.

[Code]

So I was talking to my friend and he asked "so what keeps the militia from having a take-over?"

Any answers?

[JohnnyC]

So I was talking to my friend and he asked "so what keeps the militia from having a take-over?"

Any answers?
Worker militias are not separated from workers.They are elected by workers, controlled by workers and only exist to protect the interests of the working class.If workers are revolutionary then so are their militias.

[Velkas]

Worker militias are not separated from workers.They are elected by workers, controlled by workers and only exist to protect the interests of the working class.If workers are revolutionary then so are their militias.Exactly. The worker's militia is a way for the workers to protect their interests, from both internal and external threats.

[Killfacer]

So I was talking to my friend and he asked "so what keeps the militia from having a take-over?"

Any answers?

Firstly i assume it's not a permemant proffesional army kind of a thing. It's simply volounteers who are willing to fight when needed. Then there are no officers and no one to instigate any kind of take over as nobody has any more power than anyone else.

[Delirium]

I know that in an anarchist society to inforce the "guide-lines" there's a "worker's militia"

How's this work?

Nobody exactly knows how this would work, it is something that has to be experimented with. I doubt there would be a single model for every situation either.

You could use a system of rotation. Each citizen would be a militaperson for a set period of time, while the whole time being recallable and accountable to a community council or something. The same idea could be applied to any administrative position.

[Delirium]

This zine by Rose City Copwatch, out of Portland, is a compilation of case-studies on alternatives to cops. The zine focuses on projects that don't collaborate with the state or court system in any way. A long bibliography for further reading is also included.

http://zinelibrary.info/files/alternatives%20to%20police2.pdf (http://zinelibrary.info/files/alternatives%20to%20police2.pdf)

[FreeFocus]

Nobody exactly knows how this would work, it is something that has to be experimented with. I doubt there would be a single model for every situation either.

You could use a system of rotation. Each citizen would be a militaperson for a set period of time, while the whole time being recallable and accountable to a community council or something. The same idea could be applied to any administrative position.

The thing is, unlike with worker's councils for example where if they aren't following the will of the people they can be ignored and effectively disbanded, how do you discourage an armed group from doing what they please? Words on paper won't stop them. They wouldn't be "accountable," and I'm very skeptical, from a social scientific perspective, that an armed group would prostrate itself before an unarmed council.

In my opinion, everyone should be trained and armed with basic weaponry. Of course, I also like the general idea of popular militias/worker's militias, but there has to be some check in place to prevent a seizure of power or bullying.

[Delirium]

The thing is, unlike with worker's councils for example where if they aren't following the will of the people they can be ignored and effectively disbanded, how do you discourage an armed group from doing what they please? Words on paper won't stop them. They wouldn't be "accountable," and I'm very skeptical, from a social scientific perspective, that an armed group would prostrate itself before an unarmed council.

In my opinion, everyone should be trained and armed with basic weaponry. Of course, I also like the general idea of popular militias/worker's militias, but there has to be some check in place to prevent a seizure of power or bullying.

Essentially an armed populace would put a check on any rouge milita. Any group attempting a coup would be put down by the general population. Post revolutionary society would likely be decent at combat.

Again this could be a rotation of community members, reducing the likelihood of abuse of authority (compared to a professional force)

In a stable communist society hopefully people would have no motivation to seize power.

Its all hypothetical, this has never been tried on a large scale that i know of.

[Code]

Greed is human nature. The persute of power will never be quelled.

[Delirium]

Greed is human nature. The persute of power will never be quelled.

No, humans are products of their upbringing (socialization). People are greedy and seek power because we are taught that these things will bring us social status and happiness.

One thing that is clear in human history is that our species is extremely adaptable. We have lived in myriad social, political, and economic arrangments. We can make ourselves into anything that we have the will to.

[Code]

Ok

So by that, sence south Africa, Europe, south America, native Americans, and east Asians all became empires on independently then at least one should be greedless, right? Well there's also eskamos, central Americans, nomads of the himalayas, Arabs, India, Russia, middle Africa, caribeans, native northern canadians, Persia, philapines, and even more!

I agree that alot is nurture but I also know that many things (greed, friendship, love, curiosity, etc) are human nature!