Criticism of Anarchism

[UncleLenin]

I have been thinking about how Anarchism would work lately.

One concern I have is that of Imperialism. If the workers somehow succeeded in abolishing the state, there would be nobody in charge, which would mean that it would be extremely easy for another country to take over.

Could someone please explain how this could be avoided.

[The Feral Underclass]

Your understanding of organisation and political power is predicated on the assumption that centralised, hierarchical authority is the only effective way to co-ordinate political power.

In other words, why does someone "being in charge" mean that it would be more "easy" for a country to be taken over?

What you need to do is to start interrogating all of the assumptions you have come to believe are truths by questioning the foundations of why you believe them.

Also, this is probably a learning thread.

[The Idler]

You're taking over a (possibly armed) population who refuse to recognise authority? You and whose army? Good luck.

[Ace High]

Yeah, The Idler is correct, once you have a group of armed people who reject authority and who have worked so hard to bring about the revolution, they are not going to give up. Remember Vietnam? Vietnam was never an anarchist society or anywhere close, but the resistance there won because they knew the land, they hated imperialism, and were able to make good use of guerrilla warfare because of their knowledge of their surrounding land.

[1RebelSoul]

Any revolution needs to be global in effect, else it's no revolution.

[Brutus]

Any revolution needs to be global in effect, else it's no revolution.

It's still a revolution, it's just doomed to fail.

[Fred]

Kind of shocking that the Anarchist comrades don't mention the need for global revolution. Is that because you guys really think locally? I mean a revolution in one country -- even led by anarchists would face the military might of surrounding countries. No hierarchy? Not too easy to fight a war that way.

Is this just another example of the thorough going lack of materialist understanding that crops up for anarchists? I have a hard time getting past the obvious issue that although Marxists and anarchists want pretty much the same end, Anarchists are hopelessly romantic in the way that the proletariat will get there.

[BIXX]

Kind of shocking that the Anarchist comrades don't mention the need for global revolution. Is that because you guys really think locally? I mean a revolution in one country -- even led by anarchists would face the military might of surrounding countries. No hierarchy? Not too easy to fight a war that way.

Is this just another example of the thorough going lack of materialist understanding that crops up for anarchists? I have a hard time getting past the obvious issue that although Marxists and anarchists want pretty much the same end, Anarchists are hopelessly romantic in the way that the proletariat will get there.

This kinda seems like a sectarian attack with a whole lot of misunderstanding about anarchism. I'll tackle it though. Or rather, I'll tackle the first half, as the second half you are just whining about anarchists.


Kind of shocking that the Anarchist comrades don't mention the need for global revolution. Is that because you guys really think locally?

I support a global revolution, and in fact,I have no idea where you get the idea that we don't. You're just kinda pulling this out of your ass.


I mean a revolution in one country -- even led by anarchists would face the military might of surrounding countries.

Like I said, we don't favor a local revolution, I also think that we may have to deal with less military than you might think (still a lot, but there will be a good amount of deserters when they realize they are being told to shoot homeland citizens, plus those who will actually join our struggle).


No hierarchy? Not too easy to fight a war that way.

It's not easy to fight a war, hierarchy or not...

And I doubt that a hierarchy really makes it much easier in any way. What matters most is cutting of supply lines and storage facilities (I would imagine (unless it was easy to cannibalize them for our own usage, I would imagine we'd just destroy them).

Then we also have the issue of hierarchy being able to respond to the will of the people. I'll need to go back in out records to find it, but a comrade mentioned how it was mathematically proven that the more hierarchical levels there are, the less accountability there is.

Historically, the anarchists have been able to hold their own against far larger and more equipped armies as well.

As a final note, as anarchists, we don't hold the illusion that it will be an anarchist revolution, but simply a worker's revolution. We just believe organizing according to anarchist ideas is the only way, and best way for there to be a successful revolution. So despite me believing a revolution can be completed if we (the workers) organize under non-hierarchical lines, I can't make everyone do so, so it's a non-issue.

[Sasha]

No hierarchy? Not too easy to fight a war that way.


yeah, because conventional warfare against invading imperialist states has been so successful the last decades, esp in contrast with insurgent tactics... maybe the fact that even major conventional armies like the US increasingly put the brunt of combat on special forces who fight essentially like a decentralized "cell structure" guerrilla force should tell you something?

[The Douche]

yeah, because conventional warfare against invading imperialist states has been so successful the last decades, esp in contrast with insurgent tactics... maybe the fact that even major conventional armies like the US increasingly put the brunt of combat on special forces who fight essentially like a decentralized "cell structure" guerrilla force should tell you something?

There is still a very big army, with all sorts of politically motivated officers behind those special operations forces.

If it comes down to a military struggle communism is sure to loose. (even if the red army wins)


Take up arms. Do everything possible to make their use unnecessary. Against the army, the only victory is political.

[Hivemind]

The way the anarchists organized their militias in Spain and Ukraine showed a good alternative to conventional warfare, plus what Psycho said. :thumbup1:

[The Douche]

The way the anarchists organized their militias in Spain and Ukraine showed a good alternative to conventional warfare, plus what Psycho said. :thumbup1:

Please, go on. I am interested to see you elaborate on the organizational forms of anarchist combat organizations. I am also curious about how these institutions represent an alternative to conventional warfare, and also, why that alternative is preferable.

[Decolonize The Left]

I hate to be the one who does it, but, we need to be clear on what we mean by revolution. To me, a revolution is an overthrow of an existing economic and socio-political system. The dominant economic, socio-political system is uprooted and replaced with another.

With this in mind, no revolution can exist in isolation precisely because the current dominant economic socio-political system (neo-liberal capitalism) is a global system. So any revolution which aims to succeed must be global. And on this note, any revolution which is global won't need to "aim to succeed" because it will simply happen.

[Hivemind]

I didn't specify that it is a set-in-stone set of specific anarchist combat organizations, as they're pretty fluid. And I was wrong in saying that it is different from conventional warfare; what I meant to say was it is an alternative to organizing within the ranks of a specific "army", but I guess it is still conventional warfare cause nothing other than that actually changes, it is still army versus army in the way it's been since god knows when.

However I'd say that it is a preferable alternative to organizing because it decentralizes power between "regiments" (so to speak), and it also gets rid (more or less) of the top-down hierarchy that regular armies have, which leads to a more fruitful discussion of tactics and actions, as it would be the people on the ground deciding how to approach the combat issue instead of some top general deciding what to do with which regiment from far away, with limited knowledge of what conditions are like right there on the battlefield.

But you're right that if it comes down to military struggle, communism will lose. I'm talking mainly about self-defence instead of military offence.

[The Feral Underclass]

Is this just another example of the thorough going lack of materialist understanding that crops up for anarchists? I have a hard time getting past the obvious issue that although Marxists and anarchists want pretty much the same end, Anarchists are hopelessly romantic in the way that the proletariat will get there.

You are not an expert in anarchism so please stop discussing it as if you were. Humility is in order, "comrade". I mean, for a start you seem to think the lack of discussion of a "global" revolution by anarchists in this thread is somehow evidence of anarchism's lack of materialist analysis. You and your logic again...For the record, this thread isn't the basis of anarchist ideology.

By the way, I have seen Marxists discuss revolution countless times without qualifying it as "global", so now what?

[The Feral Underclass]

Please, go on. I am interested to see you elaborate on the organizational forms of anarchist combat organizations.

What is it you want them to elaborate on specifically? The Durruti Column and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine are examples of anarchist combat organisations.

"The structure of the RIAU was not that of a traditional army. Instead, the RIAU was a democratic militia based on soldier committees and general assemblies. Officers in the ordinary sense were abolished; instead, all commanders were elected and recallable...Regular mass assemblies were held to discuss policy. The army was based on self-discipline, and all of the army’s disciplinary rules were approved by soldier assemblies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine#Orga nisation


I am also curious about how these institutions represent an alternative to conventional warfare

Well, for a start anarchist combat organisations tend to use guerilla tactics. Also conventional style warfare does't even consider, let alone interrogate, the concept of hierarchy or empowering soldiers to organise themselves. That is fundamentally at odds with conventional warfare.


and also, why that alternative is preferable.

You can only really understand the answer to that question if you accept the premise that hierarchy is a counter-productive and counter-intuitive social relationship in the pursuit of creating a communist society.

If you don't accept that premise then you're not even going to consider the question as valid.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

yeah, because conventional warfare against invading imperialist states has been so successful the last decades, esp in contrast with insurgent tactics... maybe the fact that even major conventional armies like the US increasingly put the brunt of combat on special forces who fight essentially like a decentralized "cell structure" guerrilla force should tell you something?

Special forces are usually backed by large conventional military forces (and in my completely unprofessional assessment their impact tends to be overstated). In any case, insurgent groups can attack conventional forces with some success, but they seem to have trouble holding territory. And unless you expect the opposing forces to collapse - which is unlikely at least in the early stages of the way, holding territory is necessary.

Decentralised military formations existed in Russia, under a variety of names. Highly motivated detachments of proletarians and sailors managed to operate in this way, but the main part of the peasant army simply fell apart. Ukrainian insurgents are described as operating a virtual military dictatorship, with Makhno executing soldiers and "voluntary" conscription (see, it was voluntary because the top committee voted on it) in force.

[Sasha]

Next that hierarchical armys are easier to take apart than fluid, decentralized on, a non hierarchical "army" also doesn't suffer from the peter principle... That will hopefully make some difference. But yeah, "the revolution" will never be won military, but (partly) succesfull defense of an uprising could be an important inspirational factor.

[The Douche]

"The structure of the RIAU was not that of a traditional army. Instead, the RIAU was a democratic militia based on soldier committees and general assemblies. Officers in the ordinary sense were abolished; instead, all commanders were elected and recallable...Regular mass assemblies were held to discuss policy. The army was based on self-discipline, and all of the army’s disciplinary rules were approved by soldier assemblies."


So this is a conventional fighting force, but they elect their officers. This is, of course, not without precedent. Many militias have often elected their own officers, in some places at certain times, this tradition has even be codified into law.

Soldiers can democratically (oh joy) decide on army life, but that's got nothing to do with much of anything, since we're not talking about when chow time is, we're talking about just how possible it is to realize the communist project through the armed struggle.


Well, for a start anarchist combat organisations tend to use guerilla tactics.

Except that we're not talking about pistoleros or illegalists, or GRAPO, we're talking about the RIAU and anarchist militias. And those are conventional military organizations engaged in conventional war. And beyond that, the guerilla (or the pistolero, or in some instances the illegalist) is still engaged in the armed struggle as the means to realize the communist project. So whether we're talking about GRAPO or the RIAU I still take issue with the underlying position. Its not the form that matters so much (guerilla/conventional or army/militia or elected/appointed officers etc) its the content.


Also conventional style warfare does't even consider, let alone interrogate, the concept of hierarchy or empowering soldiers to organise themselves. That is fundamentally at odds with conventional warfare.


This is simply not true. In the actual US Army decision making tools and processes are pushed down to the lowliest private, and a culture is perpetually encouraged of knowing not just your job, but the job two positions above you. (i.e. the freshest private should be learning the job of his team leader and his squad leader, so that he can carry out the mission in the event that they become incapable)

Modern armies aren't some conscript mob.

Your understanding of the enemy's military capabilities completely ignores the lessons they have learned from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it would really do you some good to brush up on just what counter-insurgency is, and how the modern state conducts it.


You can only really understand the answer to that question if you accept the premise that hierarchy is a counter-productive and counter-intuitive social relationship in the pursuit of creating a communist society.

If you don't accept that premise then you're not even going to consider the question as valid.

No, this is an attempt to skirt the issue. You're arguing that the communist project can be realized through the armed struggle, I remain unconvinced, whether the struggle is conducted in a guerilla or conventional fashion is irrelevant to me.

So I am saying, why, in the context of realizing the communist project, is one form of armed struggle preferable to another. If conventional war doesn't work, why would guerilla methods?

Some thoughts presented by others:


From a strategic point of view, indirect, asymmetrical action seems the most effective kind, the one most suited to our time: you don't attack an occupying army frontally. That said, the prospect of Iraq-style urban guerilla warfare, dragging on with no possibility of taking the offensive is more to be feared than to be desired. The militarization of civil war is the defeat of insurrection. The reds had their victory in 1921, but the Russian Revolution was already lost.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Could someone please explain how this could be avoided.
Well don't be a nazbol for one thing ya banned troll ya.

Anyway, for the more interesting part of the discussion, I think it's a mistake to think of one form of armed struggle being correct politically: what's correct politically is class self emancipation. There are implications from this: militias, whatever their form, should have any authority they have derived from whatever forum is used to debate and make decisions by the workers; militias of a liberators nature will have formed around the common cause as the motivating factor and so top down general-style dictation would not only be unneeded, but would be less effective.

But as far a form, it's tactical. Capitalist armies are the same. They don't favor strict disciplined hierarchy because they are capitalists, but because they are sending people to kill and die for interests that are totally alien to them. But if the uk was invaded by china, no doubt we'd see pro-capitalist cells and insurgency to some extent.

So arming the population might defend a city, but it can't defeat Franco. Uncoordinated militias can probably not defeat a Franco style attack though they might keep a stalemate. If we are battering fascists in the streets, then it would become insurgency vs insurgency. The Paris commune fought bravely, but they were uncoordinated and so the counterrevolution could just take each neighborhood, cut it off from others and slowly strangle the city's defense.

These are tactical issues, the political ones are who is the authority in making these decisions (it should be the democratic workers power coordinated with the fighting soldiers themselves, any "command" position being chosen and revoke able by the people in the militia... Or something equivalent or better).

[Glitchcraft]

I think the biggest issue with talking to anarchists is there is no uniform theory or program to examine.
From one anarchist to another you can have huge disparity in what they call for.
It's hard to see where a society of individuals can operate a just economy when the majority are against a planned economy. Some are anti private property, some are not. Some are syndicalist and some are not.

I know a lot of anarchists and they are good people who are well intentioned. Some are even lawyers that defend people from the state (weird to be a anarchist lawyer but ok) . Some run soup kitchens and feed the needy. But these are mostly individuals with entirely unique perspectives. Most of Earth First is Anarchist many are religious. A lot of petty bourgeois environmental groups have a very anarchist slant to them.
The anarchists in the Free Detroit movement want to buy Detroit and set up a utopia,wtf is up with that? A lot of the more reactionary feminist groups are anarchist. Most animal rights groups are anarchists. From Detroit to Black Bloc is a gigantic leap on one side but yet some general support from one another on the other.

The point is that it is very difficult, especially on a forum, to debate anarchists because the various standpoints are not uniform enough to address.
As much as Trots bicker about the fine tuning of the theory at least they tend to all agree on the main points. You can discuss DOTP or vanguard party with any trot and get pretty similar answers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it's true that you can't paint anarchism with a broad brush because it would be like saying, all socialists believe...X, Y, or Z. Anarchist could be anything from a radical liberal to a class revolutionary just as a socialist could be a reformist to a class revolutionary. But I think we can safely say that the anarchists we are talking about are not in the same pool as the Detroit anarchocappies and don't see any connection with those ideas.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think the biggest issue with talking to anarchists is there is no uniform theory or program to examine.
From one anarchist to another you can have huge disparity in what they call for.
It's hard to see where a society of individuals can operate a just economy when the majority are against a planned economy. Some are anti private property, some are not. Some are syndicalist and some are not.

I know a lot of anarchists and they are good people who are well intentioned. Some are even lawyers that defend people from the state (weird to be a anarchist lawyer but ok) . Some run soup kitchens and feed the needy. But these are mostly individuals with entirely unique perspectives. Most of Earth First is Anarchist many are religious. A lot of petty bourgeois environmental groups have a very anarchist slant to them.

The anarchists in the Free Detroit movement want to buy Detroit and set up a utopia,wtf is up with that? A lot of the more reactionary feminist groups are anarchist. Most animal rights groups are anarchists. From Detroit to Black Bloc is a gigantic leap on one side but yet some general support from one another on the other.

You could replace "anarchism" with "Marxism" in much of the above and come out with an equally true statement. w/ the exception of the last, more specific paragraph, but that's problematic as well, ie the inclusion of "Free Detroit" as a legitimate expression of the historical anarchist tradition, or the assumption that radical feminist groups are anarchist (they are not, as evident by the flame war that erupted online over the last anarchist bookfair in San Francisco between anarchists and radical feminists. Anarcha-feminism is quite different from radical feminism.)


The point is that it is very difficult, especially on a forum, to debate anarchists because the various standpoints are not uniform enough to address.
As much as Trots bicker about the fine tuning of the theory at least they tend to all agree on the main points. You can discuss DOTP or vanguard party with any trot and get pretty similar answers.

Disingenuous comparison because Trotskyism is a current within Marxism. If you ask a bunch of anarcho-syndicalists what they think a variety of issues, you'll probably get a lot of the same answers as well.

[Glitchcraft]

Disingenuous comparison because Trotskyism is a current within Marxism. If you ask a bunch of anarcho-syndicalists what they think a variety of issues, you'll probably get a lot of the same answers as well.

Fair point

[The Feral Underclass]

So this is a conventional fighting force, but they elect their officers.

I would say that wasn't particularly conventional.


This is, of course, not without precedent. Many militias have often elected their own officers, in some places at certain times, this tradition has even be codified into law.

Does that make it conventional?


Soldiers can democratically (oh joy) decide on army life, but that's got nothing to do with much of anything, since we're not talking about when chow time is, we're talking about just how possible it is to realize the communist project through the armed struggle.

Obviously I think it does have something to do with it. Unless I am wildly misunderstanding the word "conventional" (this is a real possibility), then I would argue that the way these combat organisations organised was not conventional.

So when you ask for examples of why it is not conventional, I think it's quite relevant to point out what is not conventional about it...


Except that we're not talking about pistoleros or illegalists, or GRAPO, we're talking about the RIAU and anarchist militias. And those are conventional military organizations engaged in conventional war. And beyond that, the guerilla (or the pistolero, or in some instances the illegalist) is still engaged in the armed struggle as the means to realize the communist project.

I'm confused. You said: "I am also curious about how these institutions represent an alternative to conventional warfare"

I therefore pointed out that they used guerilla tactics, which as far as I understand is not conventional warfare. So are you saying that guerilla tactics are conventional or that the RIAU didn't use guerilla tactics?

Perhaps I am taking what you're saying literally...


So whether we're talking about GRAPO or the RIAU I still take issue with the underlying position. Its not the form that matters so much (guerilla/conventional or army/militia or elected/appointed officers etc) its the content.

...Since I am not sure what the underlying position is.

I also think this idea that one has to choose form or content is a false dichotomy. There's no need to choose. Both are just as important as each other.


This is simply not true. In the actual US Army decision making tools and processes are pushed down to the lowliest private, and a culture is perpetually encouraged of knowing not just your job, but the job two positions above you. (i.e. the freshest private should be learning the job of his team leader and his squad leader, so that he can carry out the mission in the event that they become incapable)

I'm not sure how this example demonstrates that the US armed forces considers or interrogates the concept of hierarchy...

I don't assume to know the intricate details of military history, especially not US military history, but I would be surprised if there was ever an example of the rigid chain of command and righteous faith in hierarchy being brought into question as a wrong and unnecessary form of organisation.


Modern armies aren't some conscript mob.

I'm not really sure hat that's supposed to mean.


Your understanding of the enemy's military capabilities completely ignores the lessons they have learned from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it would really do you some good to brush up on just what counter-insurgency is, and how the modern state conducts it.

Thanks for the advice. Although if the military organisations of western powers have tended towards smaller combat units that operate with guerilla tactics within a model similar to anarchist practice, that would certainly be unconventional.


No, this is an attempt to skirt the issue.

It's actually generally what's known as a position, which is something people take in the course of a debate.


You're arguing that the communist project can be realized through the armed struggle, I remain unconvinced, whether the struggle is conducted in a guerilla or conventional fashion is irrelevant to me.

What I was arguing is that in order for you to understand the answer to your statement: "I am also curious about... why that alternative is preferable," you would first have to accept that hierarchy was unproductive and counter-intuitive.

I was following my train of thought through your post, which was to question the legitimacy of the organisational forms of anarchist combat organisations. I was not addressing any other issue.


So I am saying, why, in the context of realizing the communist project, is one form of armed struggle preferable to another. If conventional war doesn't work, why would guerilla methods?

That's a good question. I'm not sure how to answer it. For a start, I would need clarification of what a conventional war is, since I'm not sure anarchists or communists have ever really fought one?...Maybe the civil war in Russia was conventional warfare?

[Sasha]

Don't know about the military but the dutch riot police plainclothed snatch squads where explicitly modeled on autonomous affinity group tactics.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's certainly interesting that the state adopts unconventional, communist tactics in order to organise certain functions.

[The Douche]

I therefore pointed out that they used guerilla tactics, which as far as I understand is not conventional warfare. So are you saying that guerilla tactics are conventional or that the RIAU didn't use guerilla tactics?

I am not saying the RIAU and anarchist militias did not utilize guerilla methods. I am saying that those methods were only supplementary, both the RIAU and the anarchist military columns in the SCW formed static defenses around major metropolitan areas and tactically important geographic features.

And regardless of which of these methods are employed its missing the point that I am driving towards, which is the relation of communism to the armed struggle.

Whether the armed struggle occurs in the context or rural guerillas, bank robbing gangs, armored divisions or whatever makes no difference if the question is about the nature of armed struggle itself. That is to say, the content is what I want to discuss, irrespective of the forms.


I also think this idea that one has to choose form or content is a false dichotomy. There's no need to choose. Both are just as important as each other.

Maybe. But I still think you are fetishizing the democratic form and ignoring the anti-insurrectionary (and so, anti-communist) content of armed struggle. You're talking about the progressive nature of soldiers who can vote, I am not even agreeing that soldiers should exist.


I'm not sure how this example demonstrates that the US armed forces considers or interrogates the concept of hierarchy...

I don't assume to know the intricate details of military history, especially not US military history, but I would be surprised if there was ever an example of the rigid chain of command and righteous faith in hierarchy being brought into question as a wrong and unnecessary form of organization.

I've seen privates brief generals. That's not necessarily every day type stuff, but it is a central element to the way the modern US army conducts itself, and it absolutely extends to the highest levels of the army. The recognition of responsibility, independent thought (in the tactical environment), and clear headedness is pushed down to the lowest levels. A soldier who can only follow orders and can't think for himself isn't a good soldier. (well, not a combat soldier, anyways)

I'm not saying the US Army is a democratic institution (who cares if it were), it is far from it, but to pretend that it has not democratized at all is foolish. And I think you only hesitate to acknowledge it, because you view democratization as just inherently good (again, form over content), which seems to be pretty typical of anarchism.


Thanks for the advice. Although if the military organisations of western powers have tended towards smaller combat units that operate with guerilla tactics within a model similar to anarchist practice, that would certainly be unconventional.


Everybody involved with military theory since Vietnam (and before that, there existed a vanguard who were developing these ideas) has attested to the fact that units must become smaller and more self-sufficient in order to win today's fights.


What I was arguing is that in order for you to understand the answer to your statement: "I am also curious about... why that alternative is preferable," you would first have to accept that hierarchy was unproductive and counter-intuitive.

I think I would also have to accept that there can be a positive relationship between communism and the armed struggle. I do not. (of course, this isn't to be confused with the simple use of arms, which is of course necessary from time to time)


That's a good question. I'm not sure how to answer it. For a start, I would need clarification of what a conventional war is, since I'm not sure anarchists or communists have ever really fought one?...Maybe the civil war in Russia was conventional warfare?

Beyond conventional war, again, I am calling into question, communism's relationship with armed struggle in general, conventional or not. But I dunno how you claim to be unsure if anarchists or communists have fought conventional wars, how were the Russian and Spanish civil wars anything but that?

[The Douche]

It's certainly interesting that the state adopts unconventional, communist tactics in order to organise certain functions.

You make a big assumption by equating "unconventional, communist tactics" with something as simple as decentralization and the empowerment of junior leaders/soldiers or cops on the ground.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's certainly interesting that the state adopts unconventional, communist tactics in order to organise certain functions.
Aren't tactics by nature, um, tactical? There can be communists goals which some tactics are better suited for or not, but tactics are based on the situation, not a particular ideology.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm surprised there has been no discussion of hardware.

Much of modern military hardware that makes conventional militaries successful (e.g., drones, in some contexts submarines, laser technology, etc...) require years of specialized familiarity and training that career employment a permanent staff base provides. Presumably there would be some defections from the capitalist military who might be able to handle the operations, but the development and manufacturing in the very short time frame needed to cordon off capitalist invaders? How would you duplicate and coordinate that in a nascent anarchist territory? How do anarchists propose to coordinate a war effort and manage large scale logistics of men equipment supplies etc... through decentralized structures, not to mention strategic decision making and so on? Could an anarchist territory, if it wanted to, be able to pull off a manhattan project?


yeah, because conventional warfare against invading imperialist states has been so successful the last decades, esp in contrast with insurgent tactics...

These examplses, though, neglect that most imperialist states abandoned their wars primarily through internal pressure. A big reason that modern imperialist militaries have failed is arguably because they have internally decided pursuing the war is not worth it, not because they have been militarily defeated. Either through popular disgust at dead soldiers, financial constraints, or through enormous, covert intervention by a wealthy backer (e.g, the US against the USSR in Afghanistan) in a proxy war that the imperialist power ultimately couldn't win without considerable cost to blood and treasure.

What is not clear is whether the bourgeoisie will adopt a similar strategy when capitalism itself is at stake. I think their response will resemble more the Assad regime who is determined to a "survival at all costs" mentality, and counting on the lack of determination of imperialist states is a dangerous tactic.

Taken together, these considerations lead me to summarize that defeating a determined, modern, competent capitalist military invading an anarchist territory on the battlefield so to speak is not a serious proposition. No matter how good the organization and military tactics, the raw numbers right now speak against the odds of success of such aventure. It was probably doable in the early 20th century, and might have been doable as late as the 1930s and certainly continues to hold promise in some contexts (for instance, if the anarchists gain control of territory seen as largely of little strategic or economic value).

Perhaps now more than ever, the anarchists should be looking to alternatives to outright military victory.

[Skyhilist]

These examplses, though, neglect that most imperialist states abandoned their wars primarily through internal pressure. A big reason that modern imperialist militaries have failed is arguably because they have internally decided pursuing the war is not worth it, not because they have been militarily defeated.

Actually in Vietnam the American soldiers sort of had their asses handed to them long before they showed any signs of pulling out of the war, given the clever and tactical fighting methods of the guerillas the US was fighting. They knew the jungle better than the US did and knew how to utilize it better than the US knew how to utilize money and more expensive weapons.

Decentralized warfare would be possible using the methods of the Vietnamese who fought against the Americans. Personally, I support syndicalist type actions, where assemblies of soldiers work out strategy, and send delegates to represent them on a larger scale (e.g. syndicates for an entire section of the army). These people essentially act as relays of information between soldier's assemblies, and can facilitate unity between them. Should any extremely quick time decisions need to be made where there is no time for a democratic vote, then obviously the delegates/leaders would have to take immediate action. However, should that immediate action deliberately or obvious misrepresent the goals of the movement as a whole, those delegates should be immediately removed and replaced. I don't see why this strategy is seen as any less effective.

Suppose I'm a soldier who has a ton of experience and thinks that we need more ground attacks. I outline a detailed plan for ground attacks. I propose it at a soldier's assembly. Someone seconds it. We vote on moving it up to the next level. It's a rational idea so it passes. The delegate for my assembly relays the idea to other delegates. They relay the idea to their respective soldier's assemblies and vote on it. It's a rational measure so it's voted in. Those with more experience with ground attacks volunteer to lead the effort, and other soldiers logically choose to defer to their authority on ground attacks given this, and the fact that they want to win. Coordinated ground attacks are carried out.

Suppose we need to carry out more ground attacks but it's an urgent situation and we don't have time to talk about it. Delegates/leaders would have plans already laid out and initiate them immediately. Deferring to the authority of these delegates by choice (because they're likely more experienced too and know what they're doing), soldiers follow suit. Should these delegates order something abhorrent like the killing of civilians they are immediately removed via democratic vote.

The main criticism usually at this point is that "well a lot of time, plans require a great deal of secrecy, which is impossible with this form of organizing." This is irrelevant when you consider the implications of an anarchist revolution to begin with. If there is an anarchist revolution, it implies that the majority of the working class is class conscious. This means that we have a very large percentage of soldiers, and can rely more on sheer numbers instead of needing secret plans that only the people in certain positions know about (like the Bolsheviks needed when they made up less than 1% of the Russian population). Of course, purging soldiers who were actually reactionary entryists would still be a good idea, though it'd also be done democratically.

When done correctly, a lack of hierarchy doesn't have to mean a lack of coordinated power.

[Bea Arthur]

This is an open and shut case. Recall all the examples of decentralized and democratic armies that have achieved victory throughout history. These have far outnumbered the dictatorial centralized armies run like Trot parties. People who participate out of hope are always better than those who participate out of fear or because they are ordered to!

[Skyhilist]

Honestly, I just want full communism, I don't give a shit how we get there as long as there is an actual chance that we'll get there (which I'm skeptical of the obviously fake shit like Pol Potism and Juchism which clearly isn't built to "create communism" to begin with). Can't we all just help each other should we ever achieve a chance at revolution even if that revolution doesn't have the exact same characteristics that we would've wanted? I'd prefer an anarchist revolution, but would certainly support any type of revolution that was libertarian socialist in nature, or maybe even Trotskyist depending on the characteristics of the revolution. We've all got to be a little reasonable when it comes to these things. Imagine how much better the CNT-FAI would've fared if they had international support beyond just the international brigades that included all revolutionaries who wanted full communism globally. They certainly made their own mistakes such as not reaching out to libertarian socialists in Morocco.

Ultimately, regardless of the strategy, strength comes in numbers. In order to be successful, revolutionaries across the entire global will need to provide support for each other across a multitude of tendencies. We wont be able to waste time withholding support because "well there are a few characteristics of this revolution that I don't like".

[The Feral Underclass]

I am not saying the RIAU and anarchist militias did not utilize guerilla methods. I am saying that those methods were only supplementary, both the RIAU and the anarchist military columns in the SCW formed static defenses around major metropolitan areas and tactically important geographic features.

I'm not sure how true that is. The RIAU fought mostly in the countryside and the Durruti Column used guerilla tactics pretty much exclusively, since it had no other options.


Whether the armed struggle occurs in the context or rural guerillas, bank robbing gangs, armored divisions or whatever makes no difference if the question is about the nature of armed struggle itself. That is to say, the content is what I want to discuss, irrespective of the forms.

The questions you asked Hivemind seemed very much to be about form.


Maybe. But I still think you are fetishizing the democratic form and ignoring the anti-insurrectionary (and so, anti-communist) content of armed struggle. You're talking about the progressive nature of soldiers who can vote, I am not even agreeing that soldiers should exist.

I am fetishising "democratic form" only in so far as I am responding to your questions and statements that specifically asked how anarchist combat organisations were different to conventional warfare. That was the nature of the post I was responding to.

Is my clarification of anarchist combat organisations really "ignoring the anti-insurrectionary (and so, anti-communist) content of armed struggle"? I think that's quite a stretch considering the very limited things I've said in this thread.


I've seen privates brief generals. That's not necessarily every day type stuff, but it is a central element to the way the modern US army conducts itself, and it absolutely extends to the highest levels of the army. The recognition of responsibility, independent thought (in the tactical environment), and clear headedness is pushed down to the lowest levels. A soldier who can only follow orders and can't think for himself isn't a good soldier. (well, not a combat soldier, anyways

I would argue this doesn't demonstrate that the US military considers or interrogates the concept of hierarchy. Whether a private briefs a general or whether soldiers are encouraged to have "independent thought", it doesn't give them any authority.


I'm not saying the US Army is a democratic institution (who cares if it were), it is far from it, but to pretend that it has not democratized at all is foolish. And I think you only hesitate to acknowledge it, because you view democratization as just inherently good (again, form over content), which seems to be pretty typical of anarchism.

I've not really made any statement about democracy (I think the issue of democracy and the issue of hierarchy are not necessarily the same thing). I'm therefore also not really making any statement about whether or not the US armed forces have any degree of "democracy."

What I said was: "Also conventional style warfare does't even consider, let alone interrogate, the concept of hierarchy or empowering soldiers to organise themselves. That is fundamentally at odds with conventional warfare." I said that to clarify the differences between anarchist combat organisations and conventional warfare.

If you're saying that soldiers being given responsibilities; being encouraged to move up the chain of command or being provided with opportunities for "independent thought" are examples of non-hierarchy and the empowerment of soldiers organising themselves, then I think I would take issue with that. Is this what you're saying?

I also take issue with the characterisation of my position being that I find democracy "inherently good". That is absolutely not what I think! I think that is a wild misapprehension of what I have said or anarchism more generally.


Everybody involved with military theory since Vietnam (and before that, there existed a vanguard who were developing these ideas) has attested to the fact that units must become smaller and more self-sufficient in order to win today's fights.

What it seems to me that you're saying is that over the last sixty years the military have moved away from conventional warfare...


I think I would also have to accept that there can be a positive relationship between communism and the armed struggle. I do not. (of course, this isn't to be confused with the simple use of arms, which is of course necessary from time to time)

Okay, so then we are in agreement.


Beyond conventional war, again, I am calling into question, communism's relationship with armed struggle in general, conventional or not.

I suppose I should ask, since you've said so often. Specifically what is it about these things that you are calling into question?


But I dunno how you claim to be unsure if anarchists or communists have fought conventional wars, how were the Russian and Spanish civil wars anything but that?

I have no idea. Your comments that I originally responded to were about anarchist combat organisations, which is what my points are in relation to.


You make a big assumption by equating "unconventional, communist tactics" with something as simple as decentralization and the empowerment of junior leaders/soldiers or cops on the ground.

An assumption about what?

[The Douche]

Edit: I'm grumpy, I'll edit in a better response later.

[Fred]

You are not an expert in anarchism so please stop discussing it as if you were. Humility is in order, "comrade". I mean, for a start you seem to think the lack of discussion of a "global" revolution by anarchists in this thread is somehow evidence of anarchism's lack of materialist analysis. You and your logic again...For the record, this thread isn't the basis of anarchist ideology.

By the way, I have seen Marxists discuss revolution countless times without qualifying it as "global", so now what?
Okay, I will get your permission before I post anything about anarchism ever again:).

The discussion of how to organize the military fight against bourgeois/imperialist forces is really a tactical one. Even on the question of "hierarchy" as such, there could be various forms. But war on a large scale must be organized and coordinated somehow. Consensus isn't going to cut it. So whether the officers/commanders/leaders/unit captains are elected or appointed by a revolutionary body, someone needs to issue definitive commands in the field. The historical conditions of the next proletarian revolutions are not known, and therefore we might expect to see some things we have not seen before.

The Anarchist organization of the militias in Spain was mentioned. I would say that there were problems, but that they could have worked with a leadership that did not sell out to the popular front government. If anything Spain speaks volumes to the need of a more centralized and programatically clear revolutionary leadership. I have no doubt that the masses of Spanish workers were trying to create the d of the p (arguably succeeding for a short time in Barcelona).

To the comrade that used Vietnam as an example of good military organization and tactics -- I would agree they did very well -- but of course the forces were organized in a highly hierarchical fashion.

[synthesis]

My conviction is that if the revolution is anarchist in character, but the working class needs to adopt aspects of statism in order for the revolution to survive, then it will.

I guess these kinds of discussions - the tactics of global revolution - don't really make sense to me unless it's in a very particular context that we don't really have any meaningful understanding of, because we won't have ever actually seen anything like it when it happens. It seems more productive to just be secure in your own principles and be ready to argue your case for the particulars when the time is right. Maybe that's what these discussions are for, is practice; I don't know.