Anarchist and self defense.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I have seen 2 ideals so far on how the anarchist plan to defended themselves if a state (like the United States) comes and try to retake their property.

1. The Rambo defense. Some Anarchist thinks that one of them alone is all they need to stop a “state” from taking their land.

2. The Militia defense. They will form posse to take on the state military.

Is there any other ideals then this?

[ed miliband]

How about reading about how anarchists fought in Spain, Ukraine, Shinmin, etc. and applying what you have read to your question? Not to suggest that Spain, Ukraine, etc. were wonderfully succesful, just that the fly in the face of your mocking characterisation of anarchist self-defense as a weak, Dad's Army style affair.

Plenty of anarchists have written in detail about defending the revolution anyway, and I suppose I should post this as a start:

The defence of the revolution is also one of the problems of "day one". Essentially, the revolution's mightiest defence is the successful resolution of the challenges facing it: the problems of production and consumption, and the land question. Once these matters have been correctly resolved, no counter-revolutionary force will be able to change or shake the workers’ free society. However, the workers will nonetheless have to face a bitter struggle against the enemies of the revolution in order to defend its physical existence. The social revolution, which threatens the privileges and the very existence of the non-working classes of the present society, will inevitably provoke the desperate resistance of these classes that will take the form of a vicious civil war .
As the Russian experience has shown, such a civil war will not be a matter of a few months, but rather of several years.
As successful as the workers' first steps may be at the outset of the revolution, the ruling classes will nonetheless retain a huge capacity for resistance for quite some time, and over a period of several years they will unleash attacks on the revolution, trying to snatch back the power and privileges that have been taken from them.
A sizeable and well-equipped army, supported by military strategists and backed by capital - all this will be pitted against the victorious workers.
If the workers are to preserve the gains of the revolution, they will have to set up organs for defence of the revolution, in order to field a fighting force that is equal to the task, against the onslaught of the reaction. In the earliest days of the revolution, that fighting force will be made up of all the workers and peasants in arms. But that makeshift armed force will only be viable in the earliest days, when the civil war has not yet reached its peak and the two opposing sides have not yet established regular military organizations.
The most critical juncture in the social revolution is not the moment when authority is overthrown, but the time thereafter when the forces of the ousted regime unleash a general offensive against the workers, when the gains that have been achieved must be safeguarded.
The nature of that offensive, the weaponry used and the course of the civil war will require that the workers create specific military revolutionary bodies. The nature and underlying principles of these units must be laid down in advance. In rejecting statist and authoritarian methods of controlling the masses, we consequently reject the statist manner of organizing the workers’ military forces, i.e. we reject the principle of an army based on compulsory military service. It is the volunteer principle, in accordance with the basic tenets of anarchism, which should provide the basis for the workers' military bodies. The revolutionary partisan detachments of workers and peasants during the Russian revolution might be cited as examples of such structures.
Yet voluntary revolutionary service and partisan activity should not be construed in the narrow sense, i.e. as a struggle waged by worker and peasant forces against a local enemy, without coordination in the shape of an overall operational plan, each unit acting on its own initiative. When they are fully developed, partisan action and tactics in the revolution should be guided by a common military and revolutionary strategy.
Like any war, civil war can only be waged successfully by the workers if two principles fundamental to all military activity are observed: unity of operational planning and unity of common command. The most critical time for the revolution will be when the bourgeoisie marches as an organized force against the revolution and will require the workers to have recourse to these principles of military strategy.
Thus, given the requirements of military strategy and the strategy of the counter-revolution, the armed forces of the revolution will inevitably have to amalgamate into a common revolutionary army with a common command and a common operational plan.
That army will be founded on the following basic principles:


the class nature of the army;
voluntary military service (all coercion is excluded in the matter of the defence of the revolution);
revolutionary self-discipline (voluntary military service and revolutionary self-discipline are mutually complementary in every way, and serve to make the revolutionary army psychologically stronger than any state army);
total subordination of the revolutionary army to the worker and peasant masses as represented by the general worker and peasant bodies throughout the land, which will be created by the masses at the moment of revolution and given the task of overseeing the country’s economic and social life.

In other words, the organ for the defence of the revolution, which is charged with combating the counter-revolution both on the open military fronts as well as on the covert fronts of the civil war (plots by the bourgeoisie, the preparation of rebellions, etc.), will be under the complete control of the highest workers' and peasants' productive organizations - it will be answerable to them and under their political direction. NB: While the revolutionary army must of necessity be structured in accordance with specifically anarchist principles, it should not be regarded as a point of principle. It is merely the consequence of military strategy in the revolution, a strategic measure which the process of civil war will inevitably force the workers to take. But this measure should be the focus of attention even now. It must be thoroughly studied even now so as to avoid any fatal delays in protecting and defending the revolution, for in times of civil war, delays can prove fatal to the outcome of the whole social revolution.

[Comrade_Stalin]

How about reading about how anarchists fought in Spain, Ukraine, Shinmin, etc. and applying what you have read to your question? Not to suggest that Spain, Ukraine, etc. were wonderfully succesful, just that the fly in the face of your mocking characterisation of anarchist self-defense as a weak, Dad's Army style affair.

Plenty of anarchists have written in detail about defending the revolution anyway, and I suppose I should post this as a start:



It a real mocking, when you copy some one else work and call it you own. Most of the things list under "Spoil" can be found in the communist goverment found by the communist party that sent you packing in all the places you listed. The main differnece is that the party replaced the weak Red guard with the better Red army.

[Vendetta]

It a real mocking, when you copy some one else work and call it you own. Most of the things list under "Spoil" can be found in the communist goverment found by the communist party that sent you packing in all the places you listed. The main differnece is that the party replaced the weak Red guard with the better Red army.

What does this post even signify?

As for the rest, I don't think I've ever heard of an anarchist anti-Rambo defending the revolution all on his own.

[PoliticalNightmare]

What does this post even signify?

That we should all live under an authoritarian Stalinist regime because they have a "superior military".

Ever hear of Guerilla warfare?

[syndicat]

The main differnece is that the party replaced the weak Red guard with the better Red army.

hiring tens of thousands of tsarist officers to run it. no doubt it was "better" for the bureaucratic class to have a large top-down armed body controlled by them rather than a more democratic force answerable to working class democracy.

[RedStarBlackFlag]

I don't think that any anarchist is so naive to believe that some small community of anarchists could coexist along side global capitalism and United Stated imperialism. Marx said no islands of socialism would able to permanently survive in a capitalist world, i believe the same holds true for anarchy. Its about smashing the state first on a global scale not attempting to create and then defend against capitalism.

[syndicat]

I don't think that any anarchist is so naive to believe that some small community of anarchists could coexist along side global capitalism and United Stated imperialism. Marx said no islands of socialism would able to permanently survive in a capitalist world, i believe the same holds true for anarchy. Its about smashing the state first on a global scale not attempting to create and then defend against capitalism.


this doctrine makes little sense because historically revolutions always break out in a particular country first. this is because a revolution is a supremely political occurrence and thus is dependent on the dynamic of politics, which vary within each territorial state.

now of course we want a revolution to expand as soon as it can to at least a varied region of countries with various resources to defend itself and produce for social benefit and so on. but this does not get around the fact that a simultaneoous worldwide revolution is a chimera. it ain't gonna happen.

[tboneanthony]

defend the land using guerilla tactics, che style.

when someone invades your home, history has taught us that knowing is half the battle (sry for the g.i. joe quote). no matter what intelligence they have, no one invading party will know the land as well as the person that has lived there theyre whole lives, use this to your advantage. by using scare tactics and confusion, you can effectively defend your homeland from a much larger opposing force (i.e. vietnam, iraq, afghanistan 1980s against the soviets and now against the u.s., the american revolution, bay of pigs invasion the list goes on and on....) As a general rule, the oposing force will be using expensive high technology, so you must use the most inexpensive low technology. Did you know that drones can be knocked out of the sky with sufficient microwave interference? this can be acheived with a wireless internet card, a microwave signal amp, and the proper antennae. The same device can also knock out all microwave based communication. you can also block most RF comms with sufficient RF interference, such as broadcasting a strong signal in several broadspectrum transmitters, or making a large electromagnetic field (even easier to do), these are examples. What then? the invaders are deaf, blind, dumb, moraly distrught and just plain unprepared. Combine this with scare tactics and controlled confusion tactics and soon the invaders are utterly beaten, which sends a message to the world stating that you are free people and you will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. As far as organization goes: discipline, strategy, tactics, practice, teamwork, leadership and attention to detail. These things win wars. ///

[Comrade_Stalin]

hiring tens of thousands of tsarist officers to run it. no doubt it was "better" for the bureaucratic class to have a large top-down armed body controlled by them rather than a more democratic force answerable to working class democracy.

:glare: First off, the tsarist officers were form when Lenin was in power, and was Trotsky ideal. Trotsky was also for conscription. Stalin was for elected offices we call today commissar, you know the ones you all hate. But here I will list my book as a sources for you.

The Russina Civil War (1) : THe Red Army.

Pg.10

"Working closely with Lenin, Trotsky played a vital part in the conversion of the Red Army into an effective fighting force - brushing aside the opposition of men such as Stalin and Voroshilov, who were against conscription and the employment of former Tsarist officers as 'military specialists'."

The book as a ver negative view of Stalin, as long as conscription and the employment of former Tsarist officers is a postive thing

[Comrade_Stalin]

this doctrine makes little sense because historically revolutions always break out in a particular country first. this is because a revolution is a supremely political occurrence and thus is dependent on the dynamic of politics, which vary within each territorial state.

now of course we want a revolution to expand as soon as it can to at least a varied region of countries with various resources to defend itself and produce for social benefit and so on. but this does not get around the fact that a simultaneoous worldwide revolution is a chimera. it ain't gonna happen.

Yes I agree it like saying that a Trade union will not work unless ever worker in the world is a part of it.

[NGNM85]

There are a number of problems with the question. First, it treats Anarchism as an end, and not a means, as if we just change factor x and boom! we have Anarchism. Anarchism is not static, it is a process.

I assume you mean some kind of Libertarian Socialist society, a real democracy. I don't know what you mean by the United States re-taking it's property. Unless you mean a revolution in Hawaii, or a revolution in a part of the US, like if North Dakota just split off to become an Anarchosyndicalist collective or something. Or, you mean a country that has transformed into a Socialist country that might be undermined by the US govt.

First, I have doubts about the first idea, I think the second idea is probably a very bad idea. Except in certain cases, where a partition essentially already exists or there is an ethnic devide, or something, building a seperate community within a state is fruitless. Some lifestyle Anarchists get all dreamy-eyed about building autonomous zones within capitalism but a lot of this involves really bogus ideas. Any kind of revolution or whatever within the United States would probably have to encompass at least most of the United States.

The last idea is very plausible. During the Cold War the US was knocking off governments left and right, usually with horrific human consequences. However, the policy in these cases was usually to find at least a pocket of resistence within these states and to give them lots of funding and firepower, to manufacture a coup. In the few modern cases where a major power has directly occupied a foreign country the results haven't been very good. Invasion has a way of polarizing the population. There have been long, bloody internecine conflicts between citizens, but foreign invaders seem to arouse the population in a way that is truly unique. This generally leads to protracted campaigns of 'asymmetrical' or 'guerilla' warfare. Modern sophisticated armies have shown they are not very good at this kind of warfare. Basically it comes down to the will of the people to resist versus the will, as well as the resources, of the invading power. The US ultimately had to leave Vietnam, I have no doubt the Pentagon will eventually give up on this nightmare in Afghanistan. It's largely a matter of time.