Three Questions

[Internationale]

If anarchism has no rulers, then how do we get building projects done, wouldn't we need a leader to guide us and go through the situation? Also, let's say that we have a militia to defend ourselves, how would we have a leaderless militia of sorts and how could the militia not be blood thirsty for power and take over the community.

[Blake's Baby]

Why couldn't we just discuss it?

The militia would, in my view, be under the cotrol of the workers' councils.

The militia to a large extent is the community. What's to 'take over'?

[Popularis]

How can this supposed militia be, "to a large extent", the community? Logistically this is impossible. Consider the most militarized society on earth at the moment: North Korea. 1,100,000 active military personnel. 4.5 percent of the total population. If you add the estimated reservists, 8,200,000 people, and 189,000 paramilitary personel, it adds up to 9,495,000 people, or 38% of the total population. The country equivalent of an army baracks, Israel, has merely 2.2% of it's population enlisted in the military, or 7.9% if you include the reservists.

Not only is having the bulk of the population participate in some sort of militia system a ridiculous idea, it's logistically and infrastracturally unthinkable, unneccesary, and moreover, if there is some sort of persistent threat that a society "defend itself" from like the OP mentioned, think about the implications of that in materialist terms - to respond to such a threat, an anarchist society would eventually develop a professional army, regardless of what the inhabitants of said society thing. Sentiments don't determine material necessities.

[hashem]

this is a good article by Engels on anarchists attitude towards authority:

On authority (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm)

[helot]

this is a good article by Engels on anarchists attitude towards authority:

On authority (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm)

No it's really not, i can crap out better critiques than that.








If anarchism has no rulers, then how do we get building projects done, wouldn't we need a leader to guide us and go through the situation? No, you need builders, plumbers, electricians, materials (and the associated workers for creating/gathering these materials as well as transportation) and land surveying.

Could not the community itself manage this with the help of their members who are skilled in their respective fields or must the workers be forever consigned to an existence of childlike subordination?

[Blake's Baby]

How can this supposed militia be, "to a large extent", the community? Logistically this is impossible. Consider the most militarized society on earth at the moment: North Korea. 1,100,000 active military personnel. 4.5 percent of the total population. If you add the estimated reservists, 8,200,000 people, and 189,000 paramilitary personel, it adds up to 9,495,000 people, or 38% of the total population. The country equivalent of an army baracks, Israel, has merely 2.2% of it's population enlisted in the military, or 7.9% if you include the reservists...

7.9% of the population at any one time. 3,000,000 people are classified as fit for military service, with a potential new consciption rate of 100,000 per year. Israel has a population of 8 million, of which 20% is Arabic and traditionally not called up (though they legally could). So, of the 6.4 million non-Arabs in Israel, 3 million (46% of the non-Arab population, or 37.5% of that total population) could be called up. These figures do not include anyone over the age of 49. I'm pretty sure that if the revolution were in danger, over-49s would also be fighting.

Israel is not facing an enemy that is in danger of overwhelming it. If it were, massively more Israeli citizens would be drafted. In the case of counter-revolution, I think the majority of the population would mobilise.



...
Not only is having the bulk of the population participate in some sort of militia system a ridiculous idea, it's logistically and infrastracturally unthinkable, unneccesary, and moreover, if there is some sort of persistent threat that a society "defend itself" from like the OP mentioned, think about the implications of that in materialist terms - to respond to such a threat, an anarchist society would eventually develop a professional army, regardless of what the inhabitants of said society thing. Sentiments don't determine material necessities.

I'm not sure there's the necessity to develop a 'professional' army. There might be. There might not. I really don't think we can predict whether it's going to be necessary to re-invent the 'Red Army'.