How do anarchists deal with this.....

[gorillafuck]

What if there's a wingnut group in an anarchist society stockpiling up on weapons that they get for free?

Obviously forcibly taking the weapons away or denying them the right to have access to the gift economy would be authoritarian and hence statist, so how will anarchists deal with this in an anti-authoritarian way?

[syndicat]

why would weapons be free? in a libertarian socialist society the dominant armed organization is the people's militia which is controlled by the comunity and workplace assemblies ultimately. if some private group is arming and is a threat, the militia can deal with them, take their arms away. that's coercive but it doesn't require any bureaucratic apparatus apart from the mass popular democracy & its democratic militia. hence not a state.

[Dimmu]

why would weapons be free? in a libertarian socialist society the dominant armed organization is the people's militia which is controlled by the comunity and workplace assemblies ultimately. if some private group is arming and is a threat, the militia can deal with them, take their arms away. that's coercive but it doesn't require any bureaucratic apparatus apart from the mass popular democracy & its democratic militia. hence not a state.


Exactly.. IMHO things that would be free are housing, food and other important things. Guns certainly do not fall into that category..

[PhoenixAsh]

What if there's a wingnut group in an anarchist society stockpiling up on weapons that they get for free?

What is a wingnut group? I am not familiar with the connotation of the word.

Anyways. Workers will be in the militia so they probably have weapons. I do not see a reason to make weapons outside that line other than hunting equipment. Nor do I see a reason to make them absolutely free.

Without context I see no need to take weapons away from anybody who has not violated any signs that they obviously can not handle them or the responsibility.


if some private group is arming and is a threat, the militia can deal with them, take their arms away. that's coercive but it doesn't require any bureaucratic apparatus apart from the mass popular democracy & its democratic militia. hence not a state.

this



Exactly.. IMHO things that would be free are housing, food and other important things. Guns certainly do not fall into that category..

more or less this also; unless you are in the militia.

[Tommy4ever]

What happens if a particular militia group or several militia groups become dominated by some authoritarian types and start trying to exert their will on other sections of the wider community?

Is there anything to stop something like that happening?

[Ele'ill]

What happens if a particular militia group or several militia groups become dominated by some authoritarian types and start trying to exert their will on other sections of the wider community?

How would doing that benefit the community?


Is there anything to stop something like that happening?

The lack of incentive- 'neighboring' militias- the clear intent of those trying to obtain a position of power- the problem with this discussion is that it then immediately leads to semantics of 'well what if this person said this and did this and then someone else supported them and this was like this and that was this' etc and it's important- it's possible- but a lot of these situations can't be planned for ahead of time- only the general ideas can be.

[Paulappaul]

My understanding Tommy is that militia groups consist of community members, elected and recallable to their electors. I think if they started going towards an authoritarian attitude, that would represent the will of the community, or say if they minority outside the community, they could be recalled and stripped of their weapons.

[Dimmu]

What happens if a particular militia group or several militia groups become dominated by some authoritarian types and start trying to exert their will on other sections of the wider community?

Is there anything to stop something like that happening?


You remove them.. If some people start exploiting others, then they need to be replaced.

[Ele'ill]

Yeah, I mean, there's nothing inherently authoritarian about defending yourself and your community from established power structures as well as from potential threats of the like.

[Tommy4ever]

OK, but what if the people with guns don't want to be removed?

[Paulappaul]

If they do something bad, shoot them :thumbup1:

[PhoenixAsh]

OK, but what if the people with guns don't want to be removed?


Then obviously they are using violence against their community by imposing their authority. This means the community can use violence to protect itself you obviously have a counter revolution going on in that community....so when more militia groups are available then they solve the problem.

And if that is not working or if the community asks for help or is unable to remove the thread they can always ask for temporary assistence from neighboring communities.

[Ele'ill]

OK, but what if the people with guns don't want to be removed?

At that point, having over thrown the ruling class once already, I don't think it would be much of a question.

[Omsk]

But how can a community progress if it is basically always under threat from another group of people with guns?

[PhoenixAsh]

well...humanity has always progressed under those circumstances. But most of these conflicts or threats have always been material resources, strategic motivations or religion. Most of this would not be a factor in an anarchist society.

[Magón]

But how can a community progress if it is basically always under threat from another group of people with guns?

It wouldn't be.

Obviously if society was able to reach the achieved goal, that this society is already formed around, the revolution would already have happened, and people would have achieved communism. The question isn't how do we Anarchists defend ourselves from crazy groups, in the current state of the world, or during revolutionary times, it's obviously post-revolutionary times that have been won. This hypothetical group of crazies are probably either remnants of counter-revolutionaries from during the revolutionary times, or people who've been taken in by the other side's mindset, making them the new counter-revolutionaries.

Progress can always be had, even in the most dire of situations. I mean, War itself is, to a certain point, is one of the most progressive acts if you look at the technological progress that comes from them. But nobody's saying communities would constantly be under threat by another group, just what would be the reaction if a particular group of people were to come together and try assembling an arsenal of their own, to do with it, whatever they will, that's obviously not in favor of the community itself.

[Knight of Cydonia]

guns/firearms in anarchist society would be only for defending each of individual. though each individual should keep the society less violent. and if somekind of group in an anarchist society is stockpiling a large amound of guns/free guns,then IMO, that would be a threat of mutiny in the future, therefore we should take all of the guns from this kind of group.

[Psy]

Anyways. Workers will be in the militia so they probably have weapons. I do not see a reason to make weapons outside that line other than hunting equipment. Nor do I see a reason to make them absolutely free.

Why would we limit access to weapons? As for being free won't the late phase of communism abolish exchange value all together meaning a firearm would have no price tag?

I don't see any risk in giving access to weapons to general population though it should be regulated to ensure only those that show they can safely use them in a mature and proper manner will allow access to them.

As for what happens with wing-nuts, they will be no match for the defense abilities communist world as larger weapons are simply too large to not consider means of production meaning they won't be able to get access to them.

[Tommy4ever]

Then obviously they are using violence against their community by imposing their authority. This means the community can use violence to protect itself you obviously have a counter revolution going on in that community....so when more militia groups are available then they solve the problem.

And if that is not working or if the community asks for help or is unable to remove the thread they can always ask for temporary assistence from neighboring communities.

But what if the counter revolutionaries are grouped quite strongly in a particular area. Say they have a firm grip over a particular city and the immediate area around it - having the weaponary and perhaps some degree of popular support the people can't overthrow them alone.

In a perhaps even worse situation these counter revolutionaries might then show no signs of wanting to violently expand the area they control beyond their city - this would make people from other cities near by much less willing to go out and fight against them.

[Summerspeaker]

Obviously forcibly taking the weapons away or denying them the right to have access to the gift economy would be authoritarian and hence statist, so how will anarchists deal with this in an anti-authoritarian way?

Wait a second. If stealing/smashing weapons is authoritarian or statist, then I guess I'm not an anarchist at all. When scary folks (i.e the U.S. military) stockpile instruments of destruction, direct action to hinder their capacity for violence strikes me as appropriate.

[PhoenixAsh]

But what if the counter revolutionaries are grouped quite strongly in a particular area. Say they have a firm grip over a particular city and the immediate area around it - having the weaponary and perhaps some degree of popular support the people can't overthrow them alone.

Which is why I stated that they could get assistance from other communities.


In a perhaps even worse situation these counter revolutionaries might then show no signs of wanting to violently expand the area they control beyond their city - this would make people from other cities near by much less willing to go out and fight against them.

I do not see that as worse. Dominance and authority are established, coercion is made. There is really no other reason necessary to liberate the city from that. I also do not see how that would other communities less wlling to go fight as this is also a threat which could be happening to them.

[Ele'ill]

But what if the counter revolutionaries are grouped quite strongly in a particular area. Say they have a firm grip over a particular city and the immediate area around it - having the weaponary and perhaps some degree of popular support the people can't overthrow them alone.

In a perhaps even worse situation these counter revolutionaries might then show no signs of wanting to violently expand the area they control beyond their city - this would make people from other cities near by much less willing to go out and fight against them.

Again, the militias would be made up of the community- what you're saying implies that an entire city of people would want power and nothing to do with anyone else without any desire to expand. Good. Pull collective support. Perhaps this isn't true across the board but most cities are not self sufficient and depend on the transport of 'materials' to them.

[PhoenixAsh]

Why would we limit access to weapons? As for being free won't the late phase of communism abolish exchange value all together meaning a firearm would have no price tag?

Even a better question...why would we need them at all?
After all...they take resources away from what is more important...


I don't see any risk in giving access to weapons to general population though it should be regulated to ensure only those that show they can safely use them in a mature and proper manner will allow access to them.

Me neither...and since most of them are goign to be in the militia they are goign to have weapons. This will take care off all problems with learning how to use them and keep them in a safe way. It also tests for those who obviously can not handle them.



As for what happens with wing-nuts, they will be no match for the defense abilities communist world as larger weapons are simply too large to not consider means of production meaning they won't be able to get access to them.

Weapons are never a means of production. But I basically agree.

[Psy]

Even a better question...why would we need them at all?
After all...they take resources away from what is more important...




Me neither...and since most of them are goign to be in the militia they are goign to have weapons. This will take care off all problems with learning how to use them and keep them in a safe way. It also tests for those who obviously can not handle them.

Personal security especially in rural communities where wildlife is still a threat to humans. For when survey crews are working the middle of a forest it would be good idea to arm them so they don't get injured by a bear or something.




Weapons are never a means of production. But I basically agree.
Depending on how you view utility, if the utility you are looking for is firepower then they are a means of productizing such utility.

[Summerspeaker]

For when survey crews are working the middle of a forest it would be good idea to arm them so they don't get injured by a bear or something.

:confused: Really? I've somehow survived spending tons of time in forests without being attacked by wild animals. They're simply not that dangerous, at least these days. The kinds that are dangerous - venomous snakes in some regions, big cats - strike by surprise. Guns wouldn't be much help under those circumstances.

[Psy]

:confused: Really? I've somehow survived spending tons of time in forests without being attacked by wild animals. They're simply not that dangerous, at least these days.

There are work crews that venture deep into wilderness where animals still have little interaction with humans.



The kinds that are dangerous - venomous snakes in some regions, big cats - strike by surprise. Guns wouldn't be much help under those circumstances.
True but when talking about a work crew it means they do as the attacking animal can't attack all of the workers at once.

[syndicat]

OK, but what if the people with guns don't want to be removed?


we're talking about a society based on an armed people. consider Switzerland. adult males are required to have a rifle or machine gun.

in a libertarian socialist society this is organized via the militia which is based on elected officers and is controlled by the mass democratic bodies...community and workplace assemblies and the delegate bodies they elect, including coordinating committees. this is how the militia is kept accountable. it requires an active, partitipatory form of governance, so that it's not a question of some small group getting control.