Anarchist argument from a friend

[IClibsoc]

I'm new to anarchism and I'm having a hard time trying to explain to my friends that anarchism would be a good alternative to government. Here is my friend's argument: anarchism does not posess any military power since, according to him, it has no organization, therefore, anarchist areas are 100% sure to be defeated. Does anyone have a counterargument to this statement?
THANKS!

[Le Socialiste]

He clearly has no idea about the Spanish Anarchists...:rolleyes:

They held their ground during the Spanish Civil War pretty well.

[Tablo]

Anarchism does have organization and it does have government. The difference from what we have today is that anarchists promote extreme grass roots direct democracy with a socialist economy. Anarchists reject the illegitimate authority of the state, not the ability for people to organize decision making structures. Anarchists are capable of forming a military, I assume it would just be more militia volunteer based. Suggest you read some more anarchist theory so you can better formulate your own arguments. ;)

[genstrike]

"Anarchism has no organization" - that's just wrong and dumb. I'm sure a google search would reveal hundreds of anarchist organizations.

"anarchism does not posess military power" - well, the Spanish anarchists defended themselves from fascism pretty well. Secondly, beyond some basic self defense from attacks by capitalist forces, what do you need military power for - imperialist interventions? No, I'd rather have resources going to actually productive things like education and healthcare than new fighter jets.

[IClibsoc]

Thanks for your opinions! I'll try to read more about how anarchists organize and I will make a great argument next time. Continue with the ideas comrades!

[Magón]

I'm new to anarchism and I'm having a hard time trying to explain to my friends that anarchism would be a good alternative to government. Here is my friend's argument: anarchism does not posess any military power since, according to him, it has no organization, therefore, anarchist areas are 100% sure to be defeated. Does anyone have a counterargument to this statement?
THANKS!

1. Your friend doesn't know anything more about Anarchism, than the stereotypical line anyone else who doesn't know about Anarchism, says.

2. Anarchism has plenty of organization within it's theory, but just not what most people are used to in todays world. We're against a hierarchal form of government and living, hence why we don't want bosses at our jobs, or any of that other stuff that comes with hierarchy that can't be pulled down. We're for what is known as Direct Democracy, which leads the people to choosing for themselves, and coming to a proper consensus without the bureaucratic bullshit that other political theories come with.

So for example, if we're living in an Anarchist society, the workers of say a factory somewhere, would come together to choose the person(s) best suited for leading them, but the moment the workers see them as being a hazard, and not helping in one way or another, they can be immediately recall that person(s) back, and a new person(s) can be chosen to lead, or whatever.

3. The Military I suppose, would be the same way when it came how things were organized and set up, but the military wouldn't just be a select few of people like it is today, and has been since the beginning of militaries, it'd be made up of the regular people you see everyday. Not necessarily everyone would be trained to fight, but if for some reason an Anarchist society came under threat, the call to arms could be met by a majority of the people in said society, rather than a small elite group of people, trained to do nothing but fight.

Similar to how the Anarchists in Spain made their military, but I think it would have to be better defined than they were back then, and not so rushed as they were in organizing. But it's a good stepping stone.

[MarxSchmarx]

anarchism does not posess any military power since, according to him, it has no organization, therefore, anarchist areas are 100% sure to be defeated.

who is going to be doing the defeating? basically, rank and file soldiers, made up of the children of the working class. When the soldiers fight no more, for they are answerable not only to their officers, but also to their parents, their co-workers and siblings and the like. What do they have to gain by slaughtering fellow workers working for their liberation?

As far as the threat of military discipline and reprisal, that only works if a large majority of soldiers already accept the legitimacy of the military. Indeed, soldiers throwing down their arms played a major role in providing the breathing room for large scale social change to occur in many historically dynamic moments.

[AntifaArnhem]

If you wan't to give your friend a proper answer read the following books. Most of them can be find online aswell so that would safe you some money.

God and State, Mikhail Bakunin.

The ABC of Anarchism, Alexander Berkman.

Barcelona 1936, Kaminski H.E. (not to be mistaken with Bronislav Kaminski).

The short summer of anarchy, Hans Magnus Enzensberger.

[Tablo]

If you wan't to give your friend a proper answer read the following books. Most of them can be find online aswell so that would safe you some money.

God and State, Mikhail Bakunin.

The ABC of Anarchism, Alexander Berkman.

Barcelona 1936, Kaminski H.E. (not to be mistaken with Bronislav Kaminski).

The short summer of anarchy, Hans Magnus Enzensberger.
Good list. I would also add

Fields, Factories and Workshops
Red Emma Speaks(best compilation of essays by Emma Goldman, probably my favorite person ever)
Mutual Aid(outdated in many ways, but still worthwhile)
The Conquest of Bread(very basic, but good to start with along with The ABC of Anarchism and some Emma Goldman stuff)

I would also recommend reading some Marxist works too. Marxism and Anarchism have always had very close ties and I really do think there is a lot to gain from studying it. I've been strongly influenced by it.

[ZrianKobani]

Anarchism does have organization and it does have government. Oxymoron.


Democracy with a socialist economy. So... you're a Democratic Socialist?

[AntifaArnhem]

So... you're a Democratic Socialist?

That kinda depents how you define democratie, nowdays democraties have little to do with the old Greek defenition of democratie. If you breakdown and translate the word democratie it means the people dicide. (In the old Greek society it meant all the male free man could dicide over every issue, at least in Athens, Sparta was a kingdom.)

So in that way all anarchists are democrats because we believe that in order to break down the power of others we should all have to be equal in decision making and wealth.

[Magón]

Oxymoron.

Nope. As it's already been said, Anarchists are opposed to the form of organizations & governments that implement a hierarchal form of doing things, regardless of what it is, and so we're pro-Direct Democracy from a grass roots, bottom up route, rather than the top down hierarchal form of governing and organizing.

[ZrianKobani]

I quote Wikipedia,

"Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. Democratic socialism is contrasted with political movements that resort to authoritarian (Stalinist Communism) means to achieve a transition to socialism , instead advocating for the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy from the grassroots level, undertaken by and for the working class itself."

[Fawkes]

So... you're a Democratic Socialist?

http://www.roflcorner.com/wp-content/gallery/facepalm/facepalm.jpg

Socialism = communal ownership and control of the means of production

Democracy = governmental model where every individual in a given community has an equal say in decision making processes

[hatzel]

I quote Wikipedia

That might be your first problem. Considering socialism is by nature democratic, the phrase 'democratic socialism' must be referring to something specific, rather than just socialism that is democratic (which is what you're assuming it means). What it is referring to also just so happens to be on Wikipedia, under the word 'definition': "all forms of socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one." That is to say, Chávez-style stuff. Whilst anarchism is both democratic and socialist, we don't refer to it as 'democratic socialism' - we refer to it as 'anarchism'...

[Black Sheep]

It's the common fallacy that, allegedly, lack of hierarchy = lack of organization.

[Dimmu]

It's the common fallacy that, allegedly, lack of hierarchy = lack of organization.

Pretty much.. I face that argument every single time i am debating about anarchism.

[Forward Union]

I'm new to anarchism and I'm having a hard time trying to explain to my friends that anarchism would be a good alternative to government. Here is my friend's argument: anarchism does not posess any military power since, according to him, it has no organization, therefore, anarchist areas are 100% sure to be defeated. Does anyone have a counterargument to this statement?
THANKS!

Well Anarchists seek to create democratically managed community/workplace regions, managed federally. And these bodies certainly would possess democratically controlled military power. If they didn't, they wouldn't be free, but subordinate to those with military power. So you are arguing on behalf of an abstract which can't be defended.

[IClibsoc]

Pretty much.. I face that argument every single time i am debating about anarchism.

That is my problem right now. He believes that government=order, prosperity, and power, so of course he would say that no government=disorder, no power, and chaos.