View Full Version : Defence of an anarchist/communist society?
Mannimarco
17th July 2010, 15:01
After an anarchist or communist society was created ,how would they defend themselves from simply being invaded by foreign capitalist powers, or being destroyed from inside my a power hungry fascist war leader trying to seize control?
Holger Meins
17th July 2010, 16:52
Guns is a good idea.
Adil3tr
17th July 2010, 16:52
Internationalism is a better one
Holger Meins
17th July 2010, 16:58
You can't ward off enemies with internationalism.
Adil3tr
17th July 2010, 17:35
no, but the workers will fight.
Wait, if the US fell to socialism, how would Europe not? or any of the third world nations?
Also, we would still have our military infrastructure.
Most of all, THE 40,000 GODDAMN NUKES
JonnyCommy
17th July 2010, 19:05
Comrades, there is no way to beat worker organised guerilla warfare. Furthermore, with worker owned production, there will be nothing for the would be invaders to take over in a capitalist/state capitalist manner
Stephen Colbert
17th July 2010, 19:10
Solidarity would thwart most nationalist interventions. It's one thing to fight the U.S. army but its another to fight a quarter of a billion militant workers
bricolage
17th July 2010, 20:25
Also, we would still have our military infrastructure.
Most of all, THE 40,000 GODDAMN NUKES
A 'communist' society that has to resort to nuclear weapons is doomed from the start.
StoneFrog
17th July 2010, 20:30
You can't form a communist society until majority of the world has gone through the revolution. The conditions have to be right for wide spread unrest, so capitalist countries will be to busy sorting out their own home uprising to worry about another countries.
ContrarianLemming
17th July 2010, 21:23
The same way a normal nation would be defended, with an army.
bricolage
17th July 2010, 21:53
The same way a normal nation would be defended, with an army.
We are not trying to defend 'normal nations'.
Armies are not revolutionary (despite what a certain user here might like to say...).
ContrarianLemming
17th July 2010, 21:59
We are not trying to defend 'normal nations'.
Armies are not revolutionary (despite what a certain user here might like to say...).
How do you expect a revolution to come about?
Every past revolution has used an army, if an anarchy gets attacked by surviving capitalist armies then you're gonna need one.
StoneFrog
17th July 2010, 22:34
How do you expect a revolution to come about?
Every past revolution has used an army, if an anarchy gets attacked by surviving capitalist armies then you're gonna need one.
No revolution had an Army... USSR and other countries had an army after the revolution.
An army and a revolutionary worker uprising is not the same in the least.
ContrarianLemming
17th July 2010, 22:40
No revolution had an Army... USSR and other countries had an army after the revolution.
An army and a revolutionary worker uprising is not the same in the least.
Every revolution has used an organized military force to defend it (an army).
StoneFrog
17th July 2010, 22:42
Every revolution has used an organized military force to defend it (an army).
A militia is not an army.
If an army were to be involved in a revolution its not a revolution, its a Coup and not a class tool.
ContrarianLemming
17th July 2010, 22:49
A militia is not an army.
If an army were to be involved in a revolution its not a revolution, its a Coup and not a class tool.
you mean a nations army.
A militia is a form of non standing army.
not arguing this, it couldn't be more trivial.
StoneFrog
17th July 2010, 23:03
you mean a nations army.
A militia is a form of non standing army.
not arguing this, it couldn't be more trivial.
A Worker Militia and an Army aren't in least similar, but if you wish you not discuss this fine.
Die Rote Fahne
17th July 2010, 23:54
Those who fought in the revolution should be expected to keep fighting to defend the revolution.
It's about organization and militia training of the workers. Once that's done, at a whim they should be prepared to fight off any invaders or counter-revolutions.
There is no guarantee of victory, as is evident of Franco's victory in the Spanish Civil War and the end of Anarchist Spain.
Lyev
17th July 2010, 23:57
Isn't it a tad more convenient to try and win people over to our ideas and our vision of a post-capitalist society instead of shooting them?
Glenn Beck
18th July 2010, 00:12
Lots and lots and lots and lots of tanks
The Ben G
18th July 2010, 00:15
no, but the workers will fight.
Wait, if the US fell to socialism, how would Europe not? or any of the third world nations?
Also, we would still have our military infrastructure.
Most of all, THE 40,000 GODDAMN NUKES
Would you really want another Cold War scenario?
The Ben G
18th July 2010, 00:18
With a few well trained Militias.
Os Cangaceiros
18th July 2010, 00:31
Most social revolutions throughout history have come about as the result of a long, protracted struggle spanning hundreds of years. Certainly that's how capitalism came into existence; the political upheaval that accompanied it (best embodied in the various revolutions in the United States, France and Britain) came about almost as an afterthought*. That's why I'm of the opinion that all the procrastination about Red Armies and whatnot is a little silly. Also, I think it's important to point out that when you view revolution as primarily a political and/or military initiative, filled with fronts, offensives and ramparts, it takes away from dramatically from the fundamental transformation of society that needs to accompany it ("war devours the revolution").
*Although there are those such as Ken Knabb who feel that a dramatic cataclysm is the only way to destroy capitalism, as capitalism has substantial means to appropriate resistance movements in a way that feudalism did not.
Isn't it a tad more convenient to try and win people over to our ideas and our vision of a post-capitalist society instead of shooting them?
Tell that to the guys inside this when they're already over our heads:
http://www.nriinternet.com/NRI_terrorist/USA/Noshir_Gowadia/B2_bomber3.jpg
Sir Comradical
18th July 2010, 02:14
Internationalism is a better one
If a region liberates itself from capitalism, how is it possible to respond to imperialist aggression with 'Internationalism'? If a revolution is powerful enough to simultaneously erupt across the entire planet, then there is no need to resist imperialist aggression, is there? So you've basically dodged the question.
John "Eh" MacDonald
18th July 2010, 02:16
Furthermore, with worker owned production, there will be nothing for the would be invaders to take over in a capitalist/state capitalist manner
Well depending were you live there is always oil, gold, diamonds and other resources / luxuries to start a war if history hasn't taught us anything.
Sir Comradical
18th July 2010, 02:19
Lots and lots and lots and lots of tanks
May I suggest an organization like the Cheka?
Lyev
18th July 2010, 02:21
Tell that to the guys inside this when they're already over our heads:
http://www.nriinternet.com/NRI_terrorist/USA/Noshir_Gowadia/B2_bomber3.jpgUrm, why on earth would I try talking to a soldier about socialism whilst they're in the plane already dropping bombs? The point was, it can be often beneficial to our cause to win over soldiers, police etc. (typically "bodies of armed men", in Lenin's words) providing struggle and consciousness is at its peak so that they aren't used by the state to drop bombs or break a strike or something. But context can differ, depending on conscription and whatnot.
Sir Comradical
18th July 2010, 02:27
Urm, why on earth would I try talking to a soldier about socialism whilst they're in the plane already dropping bombs? The point was, it can be often beneficial to our cause to win over soldiers, police etc. (typically "bodies of armed men, in Lenin's words) while struggle and consciousness has peaked so that they aren't used by the state to drop bombs or break a strike or something. But context can differ, depending on conscription and whatnot.
Point is, sometimes dialogue isn't enough. If history has taught us anything it's that sometimes you need guns, tanks, grenades and missiles. A few summary executions would also help.
Glenn Beck
18th July 2010, 02:35
Serious response: They'd have no choice but to raise an army or militia of some sort. Practically every socialist country has had to deal with invasion at some point. As for the internal threats you mentioned they would also have no choice but to form something analogous to a state police agency which may at certain periods require exceptional powers.
And then everyone will pretend these are unique characteristics of revolutionary governments instead of natural and inevitable instruments that will always develop whenever someone tries to establish any kind of sovereign order in the face of opposition.
Os Cangaceiros
18th July 2010, 02:37
And then everyone will pretend these are unique characteristics of revolutionary governments instead of natural and inevitable instruments that will always develop whenever someone tries to establish any kind of sovereign order in the face of opposition.
LOL so true.
Lyev
18th July 2010, 02:39
Point is, sometimes dialogue isn't enough. If history has taught us anything it's that sometimes you need guns, tanks, grenades and missiles. A few summary executions would also help.No no no, I tried to emphasize that dialogue should happen before you're getting hammered by tanks - the tanks, guns, missiles, lasers, helicopters, etc. will not work, clearly, if there's no one to man them.
Adil3tr
18th July 2010, 02:40
No revolution had an Army... USSR and other countries had an army after the revolution.
An army and a revolutionary worker uprising is not the same in the least.
no, the russian revolution had the red guard and the revolutionaries in the military.
Urm, why on earth would I try talking to a soldier about socialism whilst they're in the plane already dropping bombs? The point was, it can be often beneficial to our cause to win over soldiers, police etc. (typically "bodies of armed men, in Lenin's words) providing struggle and consciousness is at its peak so that they aren't used by the state to drop bombs or break a strike or something. But context can differ, depending on conscription and whatnot.
It is always the preferred course of action, yes, but we were talking about the defence of an already existing society and you said it would be easier to talk than to shoot. This assumes that if we are faced with the option of shooting, there are already invaders.
Raúl Duke
18th July 2010, 05:04
After an anarchist or communist society was created ,how would they defend themselves from simply being invaded by foreign capitalist powers, or being destroyed from inside my a power hungry fascist war leader trying to seize control?
I'm assuming, since it could take many different scenarios, that anarchist/communist defense would be organized by a rotational standing militia. It would be similar to the national guard in the sense that from a volunteer pool (people sign up) militia members will be activated and rotated for "standing army" defensive duty and than after some time rotated out (and this cycle continues until that volunteer resigns). Besides this standing army, another pool of militia reserve (also, from a volunteer pool although in this case I would be ok with the commune deciding to conscript people unto the reserve if the people of the commune voted for it) will be available but will only be activated during times of war/emergencies and for short rotational training sessions.
Lyev
18th July 2010, 16:46
It is always the preferred course of action, yes, but we were talking about the defence of an already existing society and you said it would be easier to talk than to shoot. This assumes that if we are faced with the option of shooting, there are already invaders.Oh yeah, I'm a sandal-wearing hippy, I want to sing poetry to the soldiers and stick flowers down their guns. In all serious, I believe prevention to be the best cure: i.e., surely we're better off winning over some policemen, soldiers etc. before the shit really hits fan.
IllicitPopsicle
18th July 2010, 17:20
Makhno seemed to have the right idea.:thumbup1:
Oh yeah, I'm a sandal-wearing hippy, I want to sing poetry to the soldiers and stick flowers down their guns. In all serious, I believe prevention to be the best cure: i.e., surely we're better off winning over some policemen, soldiers etc. before the shit really hits fan.
Precisely, but I was under the impression that the situation we were talking about was one where the already established anarchist/socialist/communist society was being invaded.
But what you said could also apply to that case - so it is, again, still the preferred course of action (however hard it may be).
HammerAlias
19th July 2010, 21:34
I would assume that the workers would form some sort of militia to maintain defense and security.
DenisDenis
20th July 2010, 21:09
what comes to mind is anarchist spain actually, franco got so many people
to believe they needed a strong leader, that he actualy won the war, even
when he was opposed by workers militia's...
people will be convinced once they lived the socialist society, but what if an
invasion comes directly after the revolution, when people are still susceptible
to things like fascism(as some people are)
what comes to mind is anarchist spain actually, franco got so many people
to believe they needed a strong leader, that he actualy won the war, even
when he was opposed by workers militia's...
people will be convinced once they lived the socialist society, but what if an
invasion comes directly after the revolution, when people are still susceptible
to things like fascism(as some people are)
Well then we increase our focus on propaganda and the spreading of revolution and support for the revolution in other countries so workers there may organise, protest, riot, revolt, etc. if their state launches a counter-revolution.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.