Anarchist Proposals For Revolutionary Defense

[AnaRchic]

Perhaps the most ubiquitous criticism of Anarchism as a revolutionary socialist movement concerns the real need to defend a social revolution against reactionary forces. Many Marxists, and more so Marxist-Leninists, claim that a state is absolutely necessary to defend the gains of a social revolution against reaction. Here I hope to demonstrate an Anarchist alternative to this model.

Revolutionary class-struggle Anarchists do not deny the need to defend the social revolution against the forces of reaction. We have no illusions about classes disappearing overnight, and we fully recognize that the ruling class will fight to the last drop of blood to secure its hegemony. Where we differ with Marxists is on our insistence that any mode of revolutionary defense must itself embody the values and relationships we seek to realize in the new society. If, while aiming for a non-hierarchical society, we impose hierarchical organization for revolutionary defense, we will pave the way for the reestablishment of power and privilege and therein betray the revolution.

Assuming widespread insurrection in a given area, the destruction of the existent state and the expropriation of privately held capital, we will be faced with a power vacuum. This is self-evident. In the course of struggle the working class has demonstrated time and time again its instinctive propensity to form and network its own associations. These associations (workers councils, etc) hold within them the potential to secure class power over the now disposed ruling class. The way to overcome the problem of a power vacuum is for these associations to come together and claim power within liberated territories. This is not a state, so long as these associations are not networked hierarchically. The state is characterized by hierarchy, a non-hierarchical state is a contradiction in terms.

The free confederation of workers councils and popular assemblies is the fullest manifestation of proletarian revolutionary struggle, forming the nuclei of a new society within the shell of the old. Given that civil war between the classes is inevitable in any social revolution, the need for military force becomes self-evident. Here again we have no disagreement with Marxists.

As Anarchists we propose the arming of the whole of the working class, and the self-organization of workers into fighting units, networked together according to objective conditions and necessities, in line with non-hierarchical values as much as possible, under the control of the free confederation of labor. Here we would have an organized, armed, and well-coordinated working class able to carry through the tasks of social revolution to its end.

The key to the Anarchist idea is that this military force does not become an apparatus separate from the class as a whole, but exists merely as its armed expression. It is in fact a militia composed of all armed workers in a given territory, coordinated democratically by the network of labor associations that constitute the new order. As revolution spreads and reaction is suppressed by the people themselves, the need for permanent armed organization fades away, and defensive force moves from the dynamic of formal/permanent organization to informal organization in response to circumstance. The free confederation of labor will no longer be concerned with suppressing reaction, and will no longer hold coordinative power over fighting units.

How is this different from a state? The free confederation of labor is in the first place non-hierarchical, characterized by free association and directly democratic decision making. It is decentralized, with ultimate decision making power resting at the base, coordinated on higher levels through elected, mandated, and re-callable delegates answerable to their sending assemblies. Second, there is no army, and thereby no centralized apparatus of violence. Instead there is militia, well-coordinated as it may be, and the confederation of labor acts simply to call forth and coordinate the militant forces. The confederation of labor is composed of workers themselves, the militia is composed of workers themselves, and decision making power rests with the rank-and-file workers themselves. This is not a form of state, it is simply the self-organized working class taking action collectively.

This is a broad outline of the basic class-struggle anarchist principles of military defense. Any thoughts/criticisms?

[Remus Bleys]

Perhaps the most ubiquitous criticism of Anarchism as a revolutionary socialist movement concerns the real need to defend a social revolution against reactionary forces. Many Marxists, and more so Marxist-Leninists, claim that a state is absolutely necessary to defend the gains of a social revolution against reaction. Here I hope to demonstrate an Anarchist alternative to this model.
What do you mean "and more so Marxist-Leninists"?




Where we differ with Marxists is on our insistence that any mode of revolutionary defense must itself embody the values and relationships we seek to realize in the new society.
Yeah Marxists argue that too we just realize that its utopian to try and pretend we live in a communist setting when we don't. The dotp is communism in embryo, but cannot be communism yet as the world has not fallen to proletarian dictatorship.

If, while aiming for a non-hierarchical society, we impose hierarchical organization for revolutionary defense, we will pave the way for the reestablishment of power and privilege and therein betray the revolution.

This isn't really true. No revolution failed because of "hierarchy" or "too much power." It failed because of the fact the class could not fully assert itself.


Assuming widespread insurrection in a given area, the destruction of the existent state and the expropriation of privately held capital, we will be faced with a power vacuum. This is self-evident.
This is wrong. In that "power vaccuum" the class that rules is the proletariat, obviously which has not fully asserted itself, but its not like anyone can just assume political power.

This is not a state, so long as these associations are not networked hierarchically. The state is characterized by hierarchy, a non-hierarchical state is a contradiction in terms. This is not what a state is. A state is a tool that exists for the purpose of ending class struggle. The bourgeoisie dominate via their state by trying to do away with the distinction between proletarian and bourgeois, they try and make class struggle go away so it does not threaten them. The proletarian state ends class struggle by winning the class war and crushing/assimilating the class enemy until only they, a classless people, remain.


The free confederation of workers councils and popular assemblies is the fullest manifestation of proletarian revolutionary struggle, Why?


Here we would have an organized, armed, and well-coordinated working class able to carry through the tasks of social revolution to its end.

Why are you obsessed with hierarchy? What even is hierarchy? How does hierarchy contradict an organized and well-cordinated working class? Also for anti-hierarchy, you certainly would have the working class do many things! Principles over reality, amirite?


The key to the Anarchist idea is that this military force does not become an apparatus separate from the class as a whole, but exists merely as its armed expression.
This isn't limited solely to anarchists. This entire paragraph isn't some "anarchist thing."


How is this different from a state? The free confederation of labor is in the first place non-hierarchical, characterized by free association and directly democratic decision making. \
democracy implies politics, politics implies a state. The state does not exist in communism because class struggle doesn't exist. As long as their is class struggle, there is a state.

It is decentralized, with ultimate decision making power resting at the base, coordinated on higher levels through elected, mandated, and re-callable delegates answerable to their sending assemblies. there is a good bordiga quote. "The socialist economy kills bureaucracy not because it is applied from the base or from the centre, but because it is the first economy which goes beyond the muck of monetary accounting and of the commercial budget system."


Second, there is no army, and thereby no centralized apparatus of violence. Instead there is militia, well-coordinated as it may be, and the confederation of labor acts simply to call forth and coordinate the militant forces.
heh. This part kinda reads like state and revolution.

This is not a form of state, it is simply the self-organized working class taking action collectively.
If what you are describing is during the revolution, it is a state. If it is after the revolution then it isnt.

This is a broad outline of the basic class-struggle anarchist principles of military defense. Any thoughts/criticisms?
lose the moralist definition of a state

[AnaRchic]

What do you mean "and more so Marxist-Leninists"?
More libertarian strains of Marxist thought tend to agree with Anarchist ideas in this respect, they just have a different definition of "state" than we do. For example the ideas of council communism do not significantly differ from Anarchist-Communism.


Yeah Marxists argue that too we just realize that its utopian to try and pretend we live in a communist setting when we don't.
I agree, I haven't asserted anything contrary. My point here is that it does not make sense to fight for a non-hierarchical society utilizing hierarchical power structures. Why? Because hierarchy by its nature dis-empowers many and empowers the few. The result of this will be the emergence of a political caste that directs society in its own interest rather than the interest of the working class as a whole.


No revolution failed because of "hierarchy" or "too much power."
I would dispute this. Yes, the Russian revolution's failure had a lot to do with material conditions and circumstances. However, it must not be overlooked that the Bolshevik party became a professional political caste over and above the working class. This was a direct result of hierarchical organization, which separated the working class from direct exercise of political power, relegating this power to a few who claimed to 'represent' proletarian interests.


This is not what a state is. A state is a tool that exists for the purpose of ending class struggle.
That may well be its historical function, but that says nothing of its structure. A correct definition of the state must explain both its function and its structure. A state's structure is characterized by the concentration of power into few hands; hierarchy. It emerges in human society where there is strife between the dominant and the subordinate class, to secure the power of this dominant minority class. A class of the overwhelming majority has no need of a state, and any attempt to have one for whatever purpose will result in the emergence of a new set of political rulers. The history of the Communist movement in the 20th century seems to validate this.


Why?
Because it is an expression of the self-organization of the working class and is an embryo of the new society in the process of birth.


Why are you obsessed with hierarchy?
Because hierarchy is coercive authority made systematic. By its nature it dis-empowers many and empowers few, and it allows for the imposition of will upon others. It facilitates and sustains the domination of man over man. Anarchists reject this domination on principled grounds, hence, we oppose hierarchy.


democracy implies politics, politics implies a state.
No, democracy implies decision making. Politics implies decision-making within the confines of a state apparatus.


If what you are describing is during the revolution, it is a state.
It is during a revolution, but it should not be regarded as a state, for the reasons I outlined above. When it comes down to it it seems we simply have different definitions of the state but fundamentally want the same basic thing.

That said, the lack of a principled objection to coercive authority and hierarchy on the part of Marxists is disturbing. I see that leading to very bad outcomes, the result of an ends-justify-the-means approach that would end up inadvertently betraying the revolution through the creation of a political caste of directors emergent from allegedly "necessary" hierarchical power structures.


lose the moralist definition of a state
It is not a moralist definition, it is a definition that takes into account both the function and the structure of the state. Something can have state functions without being a state. Function and structure is what makes something a state.

You could argue that the Anarchists' principled objection to domination is moralist but I would disagree. In my eyes the desire for freedom and the hatred of oppression stems directly from human nature; we are self-aware beings with volitional agency. Whatever impedes our ability to think, act, and relate in accordance with our impulses thoughts and desires is standing against our self-interest as human beings. The only 'moral' basis of my anarchism would be the desire for a fully human life; coercive authority stands in the way of that.

[BIXX]

Perhaps the most ubiquitous criticism of Anarchism as a revolutionary socialist movement concerns the real need to defend a social revolution against reactionary forces. Many Marxists, and more so Marxist-Leninists, claim that a state is absolutely necessary to defend the gains of a social revolution against reaction. Here I hope to demonstrate an Anarchist alternative to this model.

Revolutionary class-struggle Anarchists do not deny the need to defend the social revolution against the forces of reaction. We have no illusions about classes disappearing overnight, and we fully recognize that the ruling class will fight to the last drop of blood to secure its hegemony. Where we differ with Marxists is on our insistence that any mode of revolutionary defense must itself embody the values and relationships we seek to realize in the new society. If, while aiming for a non-hierarchical society, we impose hierarchical organization for revolutionary defense, we will pave the way for the reestablishment of power and privilege and therein betray the revolution.

Assuming widespread insurrection in a given area, the destruction of the existent state and the expropriation of privately held capital, we will be faced with a power vacuum. This is self-evident. In the course of struggle the working class has demonstrated time and time again its instinctive propensity to form and network its own associations. These associations (workers councils, etc) hold within them the potential to secure class power over the now disposed ruling class. The way to overcome the problem of a power vacuum is for these associations to come together and claim power within liberated territories. This is not a state, so long as these associations are not networked hierarchically. The state is characterized by hierarchy, a non-hierarchical state is a contradiction in terms.

The free confederation of workers councils and popular assemblies is the fullest manifestation of proletarian revolutionary struggle, forming the nuclei of a new society within the shell of the old. Given that civil war between the classes is inevitable in any social revolution, the need for military force becomes self-evident. Here again we have no disagreement with Marxists.

As Anarchists we propose the arming of the whole of the working class, and the self-organization of workers into fighting units, networked together according to objective conditions and necessities, in line with non-hierarchical values as much as possible, under the control of the free confederation of labor. Here we would have an organized, armed, and well-coordinated working class able to carry through the tasks of social revolution to its end.

The key to the Anarchist idea is that this military force does not become an apparatus separate from the class as a whole, but exists merely as its armed expression. It is in fact a militia composed of all armed workers in a given territory, coordinated democratically by the network of labor associations that constitute the new order. As revolution spreads and reaction is suppressed by the people themselves, the need for permanent armed organization fades away, and defensive force moves from the dynamic of formal/permanent organization to informal organization in response to circumstance. The free confederation of labor will no longer be concerned with suppressing reaction, and will no longer hold coordinative power over fighting units.

How is this different from a state? The free confederation of labor is in the first place non-hierarchical, characterized by free association and directly democratic decision making. It is decentralized, with ultimate decision making power resting at the base, coordinated on higher levels through elected, mandated, and re-callable delegates answerable to their sending assemblies. Second, there is no army, and thereby no centralized apparatus of violence. Instead there is militia, well-coordinated as it may be, and the confederation of labor acts simply to call forth and coordinate the militant forces. The confederation of labor is composed of workers themselves, the militia is composed of workers themselves, and decision making power rests with the rank-and-file workers themselves. This is not a form of state, it is simply the self-organized working class taking action collectively.

This is a broad outline of the basic class-struggle anarchist principles of military defense. Any thoughts/criticisms?


First off, most of what you are saying is nothing new, which isn't necessarily bad, but it does mean you could have researched to figure out what the critiques were.

Second, democracy is a form of politics, as politics are just systems of decision making (a person's personal politics are the decisions they lean in favor of). However, in these systems the decision made is often imposed on others. So do away with systematic decision making.

Third, you are very obsessed with the usage of power. I personally thing power itself should be what we attack, as power is the ability to oppress.

Fourth, mass organization is coercive blah blah blah I would recommend that you read Armed Joy by Alfredo M Bonanno.

I would be much better at critiquing these ideas in conversation, honestly, but those are a few things I noticed. In willing to answer any questions you might have.

[AnaRchic]

So do away with systematic decision making.
This would not be possible in the context. Certainly, in a mature anarchist society I would expect to see informal organization and free associations become the new norm. But when we are dealing with waging a massive civil war, the need for systematic decision making cannot really be disputed. How else can we possibly coordinate the military force necessary to defeat highly organized and desperate reactionary forces? Directly-democratic participatory structures are the best non-hierarchical way to facilitate the necessary systematic decision making.


I personally thing power itself should be what we attack, as power is the ability to oppress.
I agree, but if the working class does not assert its own power over the forces of reaction, then the power we are fighting will reestablish itself. The exercise of power by the oppressed masses in no way contradicts anarchist principles, in the same way that shooting someone who is trying to shoot you does not. Shooting someone is authoritarian, but not if one is taking this action to defend oneself against the attempt of another to impose their rule on you.

Waging war against reactionaries is authoritarian in once sense, but not when we recognize that such military force is fundamentally defensive in nature. It is not authoritarian for slaves to kill their masters, as these masters are the ones who enslaved them. Our violent response is a matter of self-defense.


mass organization is coercive
Are you a primitivist? How can we possibly organize an economy if mass organization itself is some kind of problem? Mass hierarchical organization is the issue, a voluntary and cooperative form of mass organization is perfectly in line with anarchist principles.

I love the spirit of revolt that underlies the ideas of Insurrectionary Anarchism, but I don't think the tendency offers any practical ideas about how to really get from post-industrial capitalism to libertarian communism. To do that requires class warfare and the expropriation of the ruling class by the oppressed masses, along with the reorganization of the economy and the social sphere. To assert that we can do this without mass organization and working class power is strange, to say the least.

[Thirsty Crow]

Directly-democratic participatory structures are the best non-hierarchical way to facilitate the necessary systematic decision making.

I'll make a simple argument. The issue with direct participation of huge numbers of proletarians in the political process cannot be separated from two other factors: 1) the necessity of debate, and an informed debate at that which leads us to 2) the issue of time, with a simple fact being that in circumstances of armed conflict the pressure to co-ordinate action leaves us precious little time, so a conclusion would be to accept forms of delegation (in opposition to a strictly, rigidly conceived and practiced direct participation) as necessary.

This, of course, needs to be well elaborated, and not that it has nothing to do with a historical inquiry into the conditions which for instance led the Bolsheviks to adopt the position of separation from the class.

[BIXX]

This would not be possible in the context. Certainly, in a mature anarchist society I would expect to see informal organization and free associations become the new norm. But when we are dealing with waging a massive civil war, the need for systematic decision making cannot really be disputed. How else can we possibly coordinate the military force necessary to defeat highly organized and desperate reactionary forces? Directly-democratic participatory structures are the best non-hierarchical way to facilitate the necessary systematic decision making.

No.

Non-systematic decision making had worked often for affinity groups- so what is the issue with fighting for yourself on an affinity group basis?

I can't say the rest of what I want to say on this medium, but basically, I prefer affinity groups over mass organization.


I agree, but if the working class does not assert its own power over the forces of reaction, then the power we are fighting will reestablish itself. The exercise of power by the oppressed masses in no way contradicts anarchist principles, in the same way that shooting someone who is trying to shoot you does not. Shooting someone is authoritarian, but not if one is taking this action to defend oneself against the attempt of another to impose their rule on you.

You entirely misunderstood what I said. So badly that in not sure how to respond to you, but I can try I guess.

Attacking power does not require the assertion of your own power, but attacking domination wherever you see it.

Also class politics are boring as fuck, and I am in no way a class-struggle anarchist.


Waging war against reactionaries is authoritarian in once sense, but not when we recognize that such military force is fundamentally defensive in nature. It is not authoritarian for slaves to kill their masters, as these masters are the ones who enslaved them. Our violent response is a matter of self-defense.

I don't know where this came from- attacking power will be violent, and attacking oppressors will be violent. I don't see how what you said here contradicts what I said.

Waging war isn't authoritarian unless it is an act of social domination.


Are you a primitivist?

No, I'm anti-civilization though.


How can we possibly organize an economy if mass organization itself is some kind of problem? Mass hierarchical organization is the issue, a voluntary and cooperative form of mass organization is perfectly in line with anarchist principles.

We don't need an economy, as an economy is the distribution of wealth- I am against wealth, as it grants power, which leads to social domination.


I love the spirit of revolt that underlies the ideas of Insurrectionary Anarchism, but I don't think the tendency offers any practical ideas about how to really get from post-industrial capitalism to libertarian communism. To do that requires class warfare and the expropriation of the ruling class by the oppressed masses, along with the reorganization of the economy and the social sphere. To assert that we can do this without mass organization and working class power is strange, to say the least.


This isn't an argument- provide a real critique, please.

[Thirsty Crow]

We don't need an economy, as an economy is the distribution of wealth- I am against wealth, as it grants power, which leads to social domination.

So would it be fair to state that you're against the production of surplus as such? I can't make out the meaning of "wealth" in this case without understanding the notion in terms of surplus v. subsistence.

[BIXX]

So would it be fair to state that you're against the production of surplus as such? I can't make out the meaning of "wealth" in this case without understanding the notion in terms of surplus v. subsistence.


Well, I am also against surplus, but wealth is a more social thing.

Wealth is perceived value that can be wielded coercively (money is a good example, it's perceived value allows it to be used to coerce people).

I can clarify if it is needed (I am really bad at explaining my thoughts on the internetz).

Aren't most radicals against the production of surplus?

[AnaRchic]

the issue of time, with a simple fact being that in circumstances of armed conflict the pressure to co-ordinate action leaves us precious little time
This is true. In such circumstances military decision-making power may need to be temporarily delegated to an elected body of military tacticians. I don't have much of a problem with this as long as this body is still subordinated to the general will of the class through its confederated associations.


so what is the issue with fighting for yourself on an affinity group basis?
Do you really believe that individuals and autonomous affinity groups can successfully repel multiple invading armies and organized fascist/capitalist insurrections? Such a view seems incredibly naive. Are you proposing a kind of leaderless resistance model, such as used by ALF/ELF, or something else?


Also class politics are boring as fuck, and I am in no way a class-struggle anarchist.
This is odd to me. Yeah, politics can be boring, which is why I strive to have quite a bit of excitement in my own life. But do you somehow deny the class structure of society? Do you deny the existence of a ruling class that exploits us? Do you deny the need of the dispossessed to overthrow and expropriate this ruling class?


No, I'm anti-civilization though.
What's the difference? And what exactly do you propose instead of "civilization"?


We don't need an economy
So you oppose the production and allocation of goods? Do you favor autonomous little farming villages or something, with no links to others? I'm having a hard time understanding what it is you actually want to see in place of capitalism.

[BIXX]

Do you really believe that individuals and autonomous affinity groups can successfully repel multiple invading armies and organized fascist/capitalist insurrections? Such a view seems incredibly naive. Are you proposing a kind of leaderless resistance model, such as used by ALF/ELF, or something else?

I don't know exactly how the ELF and ALF are structured.

Think about it this way: affinity groups who will primarily be doing their own shit, connected in a similar manner to other affinity groups. I think that's the way it'd play out.

I mean, it's more complex than that but whatever I think you get the basic idea.


This is odd to me. Yeah, politics can be boring, which is why I strive to have quite a bit of excitement in my own life.

I'm saying class politics are boring (though I am apolitical (do not mistake this for being apathetic)), but yes, politics are mind numbingly boring.


But do you somehow deny the class structure of society?

No. There are clearly classes, but there are other structures as well.


Do you deny the existence of a ruling class that exploits us?

No, but I acknowledge that there are things other than class (structures and people) that oppress us and attack my individuality.


Do you deny the need of the dispossessed to overthrow and expropriate this ruling class?

Yes. Rather, we should be destroying capital. We should destroy power, not take it.


What's the difference? And what exactly do you propose instead of "civilization"?

I say destroy the shit parts of civilization and take the good parts, destroy the shit parts of primitivism and take the good, synthesize. It's a dialectic, in fact.


So you oppose the production and allocation of goods? Do you favor autonomous little farming villages or something, with no links to others? I'm having a hard time understanding what it is you actually want to see in place of capitalism.


See above what I mean by being against the economy.

I just want no oppression, but most of all, I want my fucking freedom. So I will do anything to fight for my own freedom, which must come with the freedom of others.

[Creative Destruction]

Aren't most radicals against the production of surplus?

i could be gravely wrong, but i don't think so. radicals are against the extraction of surplus from labor, because it represents stolen value from the worker. that doesn't mean that surplus can't exist and, in fact, it is desirable if there is to be a world without scarcity.

[Tim Cornelis]

This anarchist federation, which operates, internally, without hierarchy, still exerts authority and coercion on external forces, and therefore is nothing more than a highly decentralised state, a semi-state, or workers' state.

Incidentally, I don't think that internally this anarchist federation will be free of hierarchy. It will in all likeliness use coercion to fund its activities or due to unfamiliarity and immature social institutions, delegates will operate autonomously and outside a mandate, to an extent.

Also, your militia will have hierarchy.



democracy implies politics, politics implies a state.

So then is a workers' cooperative run democratically a state?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I've said this on this forum before, but on the subject of defense of a revolutionary state, in the chaos of wartime, I believe that pirate ship rules may be a good base to start from.

Pirate ships (or more specifically, the 'Golden Age' pirate ships) operated on egalitarian and democratic lines. Every decision, from electing a captain to dividing up treasure to setting a course, was decided by a vote. A captain was elected by ballot and could be deposed at any time. A crewman could call for a vote to depose the captain whenever they wanted, and if successful the captain would be forced to give up his authority, by force of arms if necessary.

The only exception was battle. In the heat of battle, the captain's word was law. Defy it, and you suffered the consequences.

Reason? Because when you're in the heat of battle, and human lives are at stake, a single idiot's selfishness can get everyone killed.

[Remus Bleys]

So then is a workers' cooperative run democratically a state? a workers cooperative would of course require a state, due to capitalism's internal contradictions requiring such a force.

[Tim Cornelis]

a workers cooperative would of course require a state, due to capitalism's internal contradictions requiring such a force.

That's not what I'm asking. You say democracy is politics and a state, it follows that a workers' cooperative run democratically through an assembly is therefore political and a state in its own right.

[Remus Bleys]

That's not what I'm asking. You say democracy is politics and a state, it follows that a workers' cooperative run democratically through an assembly is therefore political and a state in its own right.
no. This worker cooperative itself may or may not have internal conflicts that come from its inner class conflict and are attempted to be soothed in a democratic form, so its analogous to a state, but I wouldn't really classify it as a state. However, the democracy from within is a result of politics, but of the politics of the businessplace, and these politics result from internal class conflict. I think you would classify it as a state as much as you would classify any other business.
The "politics" of the business place and the "politics" of the state are obviously distinct, but clearly we oppose them both, right?

[fear of a red planet]

Third, you are very obsessed with the usage of power. I personally thing power itself should be what we attack, as power is the ability to oppress.



Power is the ability to make change happen. Without power we have nothing.

[BIXX]

Power is the ability to make change happen. Without power we have nothing.

There is a difference between ability and power. We can make change without power- not without ability. Now, power can grant ability, but I don't think that will lead to communism.

[AnaRchic]

Incidentally, I don't think that internally this anarchist federation will be free of hierarchy. It will in all likeliness use coercion to fund its activities or due to unfamiliarity and immature social institutions, delegates will operate autonomously and outside a mandate, to an extent.
Unfortunately, no ideal will perfectly express itself in reality. We will only get an approximation of the ideal. There will be flaws, sometimes serious, and that is something we have to struggle against. I don't doubt that coercion and hierarchy may emerge in certain times and places, but that just means that we will have to be vigilant to recognize and dismantle any hierarchies as they emerge.

Honestly I think the confederal idea may be slightly outdated. I've been thinking a lot about a distributed decentralized network, much like p2p, becoming the organizational basis for an anarchist society. Information technology has made many things possible now that couldn't even have been dreamed of when the classical anarchists were writing. IT and social networking may eliminate the need for delegates, for example. Ultimately how the new society looks will be determined by the masses who construct it, we can only speculate.

[Skyhilist]

Ok I think there are a few basic things we can learn from history on matters like this.

1. The need for international support. The capitalists are very capable of mobilizing large armies. If we only have anarchists in a small geographic area fighting for something, we're therefore likely going to lose. This makes is a necessity to make pacts with radical leftists from all over the world, even (reasonable) ones that aren't anarchists. What I mean by this is that they'd agree to send militias/troops over to help us out if we had a shot at overthrowing power after successfully agitating, and we'd offer the same help to them. We need to mobilize as many people as possible because strategy can only take us so far - all to often even the best strategists lose wars when it comes down to a simple matter of one side having way more militants than the other.

2. Bottom-up structuring is important. This is for communities, workplaces, and even militias. The militias should be seen as a tool of the working class. That means things like what strategies are acceptable, what tactics are morally ok, etc. would be left up to a class conscious populace to decide upon, preferably after thorough discussion and the inclusion of input by people with military training and experience who might be able to offer insights that might help based on such experience.

3. Militia delegates with the right amount of autonomy. The militia should ideally be structured from the bottom up with delegates that confer and express the needs of the people that they represent. These delegates don't act based on their own accord but based on the accord of the people who they're supposed to represent. These meetings should be public and if a delegate misrepresents the people they're supposed to be representing, they can be removed immediately and replaced. However, when we're talking about military decision making, their comes a time when there's a need for swift decision making and not enough time for everyone to confer and hold a vote (for example, lets say an enemy has just attacked and the militia needs to go into battle immediately). In these cases, such delegates need to use their best judgement of the feelings of those they represent to make a swift decision on what must be done. This is the only case where they wouldn't be given directives from below that they had to follow absolutely. However, if their actions were deemed in these cases to woefully misrepresent the interests of the working class and the militia, they could still be removed and replaced immediately (for example, lets say they authorized torture).

These steps enable a people's militia to take swift action while still leaving the class conscious populace as a whole in control of things.

[fear of a red planet]

There is a difference between ability and power. We can make change without power- not without ability. Now, power can grant ability, but I don't think that will lead to communism.

How can we make revolutionary change (which is what I presume you want) without excercising power?

Not a trick question, I'm genuinely interested.

[robbo203]

Perhaps the most ubiquitous criticism of Anarchism as a revolutionary socialist movement concerns the real need to defend a social revolution against reactionary forces. Many Marxists, and more so Marxist-Leninists, claim that a state is absolutely necessary to defend the gains of a social revolution against reaction. Here I hope to demonstrate an Anarchist alternative to this model.



The problem with this approach, and the same is true of those it criticises - those who advocate the retention of the state in the form of so called "proletarian state" (as if a slave society, along with its state, can ever be run in the interests of the slaves - or, in this case, the wage slaves!) to defend the social revolution - is that neglects to take into account what is absolutely indispensable to the success of such a revolution - namely, majority communist consciousness. Any attempt to effect a revolution without such a majority, or in advance of most workers wanting and understanding what a communist society entails, is absolutely doomed to failure. It will inevitably mean substitutionism and the emergence of a new ruling class in the shape of the erstwhile revolutionary vanguard.

In your case, you seek to circumvent the corrupting influence that will inevitably befall the advocates of a "proletartan state" by circumventing, as you see it, the need to capture the state by establishing instead a "free confederation of workers councils and popular assemblies". OK but setting up such a confedeartion is not going to do anything about getting rid of the state, will it now? The state will presumably continue to remain in the hands of the capitalist class. What you would have in effect is a situation of dual power in which your working class militias will find themselves up against a modern well equpped army with the most sophisticated technology at its disposal to comprehensively and completely crush you. If what you say about the the ruling class is true - that it will "fight to the last drop of blood to secure its hegemony" then what you are looking at here is the grim prospect of mass slaughter. It is simply insane, not to say suicidal, to think you can take on the state head on in a military conflict and win.

Worse still , and it is really surprsing that as an anarchist you cannot see this, that to stand any theoretical chance of succeeding, such an armed uprising would inevitably have to be organised along hierarchical lines (its absurdly naive to claim you can have a "well coordinated militia" without this involving "centralised control"). Successful military action is inherently hierarchical. You recognise, unlike many Leninists with their ridiculous and utterly discredited vanguardist fantasies, that the ends and the means must harmonise but you dont apply this principle to your own revolutionary strategy! Armed conflict inevitably means the emergence of hierarchical control, the brutalisation of the population at large and and the universal adoption of instrumentalist ways of thinking. Which means of course that even if the revolution were to succeed in military terms, it would be betrayed. One helluva good reason why, from an anarchist point of view, one should not be advocating the arming the working class and other such militaristic claptrap as the way to go. Apart from anything else it gives the state a good reason to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Point is that all this talk of armed militias is romanticised self-indulgent nonsense. If you look at this issue from the point of view of what is needed to effect a succesful bottom-up communist revolution - mass communist consciousness - then the irrelvance of what you are arguing for is all too obvious. The more communiust ideas spread and take root in the population , including incidentally the armed forces , the weaker will become those countervailing ideas that work to keep the ruling class in power. Not only that, the whole character of the opposition to the communist movement will itself change as the broad social environment incrementally and progressively undergoes change and democratic values become more and more firmly entrenched. In the twilight of capitalism we will have a ruling class which, far from wanting to military crush the communist movement, will be desparately seeking to buy it off with reforms. If the ruling class really wanted to crush the communist movement NOW would be the time to do it when the the movement is pathetically weak. When the writing is on the wall, it will be far too late for the ruling class to do anything about stopping a globally organised and increasingly influential communist movement in its tracks. The very last thing the capitalist want to do is to risk their own lives for the sake of a principle. It is workers who currently do the all the fighting for the capitalists and fewer and fewer workers will be willing to that

I simply dont accept you claim, when you say " We have no illusions about classes disappearing overnight, and we fully recognize that the ruling class will fight to the last drop of blood to secure its hegemony.". This is blatantly untrue. Did the ruling classes of the various East European state capitalist regimes fight "to the last drop of blood" to retain their stranglehold on power in the 80s/90s? No they did not. Apart from Rumania where I think about 3-4000 people were killed, the collapse of East European state capitalism was a relatively bloodless affair. The old state capitalist ruling class simply gave up on the struggle to secure its hegemony


So there is an alternative to BOTH the untenable positions held by the anarchists of avoiding the need to democratically capture and neutralise the state (and so leaving the state in tact and in the hands of the capitalists) AND the Leninists who want to perpetuate the state and capitalist relations of production in the guise of a pseudo "dictatorship of the proletariat" (in which the slaves are absurdly supposed to manage a slave society in their own interests). That is to get rid of capitalism completely and on a conscious basis by democratically capturing the state in order to get rid of it at one and the same time.

After all the state is a tool of class oppression. The elimination of classes must therefore entail ipso facto the elimination of the state as well if a successful communist revolution is ever to be achieved

[AnaRchic]

Any attempt to effect a revolution without such a majority, or in advance of most workers wanting and understanding what a communist society entails, is absolutely doomed to failure.
We must be very careful here. Certainly it is true that communist consciousness needs to spread far and wide within the working class and needs to be deeply rooted. However, it should be noted that this development will be uneven and will fluctuate. Its not like one day 98% of the workers will want communism. Revolutionary conclusions are drawn in the course of revolutionary struggle, so it makes no sense to wait for the majority to consciously want communism. And given the ecological devastation we are witnessing, we may not have time to wait.

For example, if one day we witness a widespread insurrection in the United States, as a reaction against austerity, should we not concern ourselves, because the majority of workers don't have 'communist consciousness'? Of course not! We must actively involve ourselves in any and all uprisings and insurrections, and seek to radicalize them and move them in the direction of free communism. We do this by forming new structures (dual power), relentless education and agitation, and uniting participants under a common set of values and a clear vision.


OK but setting up such a confedeartion is not going to do anything about getting rid of the state, will it now?
It will empower the working people to run society themselves, through self-government. It will render the existing state obsolete in the minds of the people, and as soon as the state moves against it, the question of power becomes real.


What you would have in effect is a situation of dual power in which your working class militias will find themselves up against a modern well equpped army with the most sophisticated technology at its disposal to comprehensively and completely crush you.
This is where the importance of revolutionizing the armed forces comes in. We must not see rank-and-file soldiers as our enemies. If the masses of people are rising up, and we fraternize with soldiers, I expect to see widespread desertion, and many soldiers coming to our defense. This is precisely what happened in the Egyptian Revolution, and that, combined with mass strike action, brought down the regime.

Nevertheless, at least in the US, I don't think it will go down that smoothly. The military will probably fracture, like in Syria, between pro and anti revolutionary sides, and we will have to endure a rather bloody civil war. Asymmetrical and guerrilla warfare may be necessary to bring down the US government. But I am convinced, with a revolutionary majority of working people, this government will fall.


One helluva good reason why, from an anarchist point of view, one should not be advocating the arming the working class and other such militaristic claptrap as the way to go
Yeah, many Anarchists and Communists once believed in the possibility of peaceful revolution. Many figured that we could build dual power, remove ourselves from state positions, stop supporting them morally and financially, and the state would just give way to our new power. Historically this has been proven to be false. The ruling class, through its state, has show the willingness to massacre masses of people to secure its power when it feels threatened. As revolutionaries we must learn this lesson of history and be prepared for the inevitable warfare that will accompany any social revolution. Though as I've indicated, the more hated the regime and the ruling class, the more bloodless a revolution will be.


the untenable positions held by the anarchists of avoiding the need to democratically capture and neutralise the state
Are you implying that by running for office and/or voting we can somehow dismantle the state? This is absurd. We all know the state, especially here in America, is run and funded by corporate and finance elites. It is nothing but the enforcement arm of the ruling class, it is structured that way, and there is no way to change it. The state must be overthrown; whether this process is violent or not depends almost entirely on the willingness of military forces to murder their own people. We ought to be prepared for the worst-case scenario.

[robbo203]

We must be very careful here. Certainly it is true that communist consciousness needs to spread far and wide within the working class and needs to be deeply rooted. However, it should be noted that this development will be uneven and will fluctuate. Its not like one day 98% of the workers will want communism. Revolutionary conclusions are drawn in the course of revolutionary struggle, so it makes no sense to wait for the majority to consciously want communism. And given the ecological devastation we are witnessing, we may not have time to wait.


No doubt there will be a degree of unevenness in the spread of communist consciousness but there are mitigating factors at work too such as

- the fact that capitalism itself tends towards a degree of convergence in the conditions and experiences of workers globally

- the fact the communications technology has developed to a point where ideas can spread very rapidly indeed via social networks and the like

- the fact that global communist movement will itself have a vested interest in pro-actively utlising its resources in a way that ensures the growth of the movement occurs in the most spatially even fashion obtainable


I dont agree with your claim that revolutionary conclusions are drawn from revolutiuonary struggle. You are putting the cart before the horse here. Revolutionary struggle is driven by the class "for itself" that is already imbued with a revolutionary outlook. Revolutionary conclusions may be drawn from class struggle but class struggle is not in itself necessarily revolutionary. A case in point is trade union activity.

No one is arguing for simply "waiting" for a majority to consciously want communism. Obviously as communists we strive to encourage fellow workers to become communists themselves. The point is there can be no revolution unless and until a majority are communist minded



For example, if one day we witness a widespread insurrection in the United States, as a reaction against austerity, should we not concern ourselves, because the majority of workers don't have 'communist consciousness'? Of course not! We must actively involve ourselves in any and all uprisings and insurrections, and seek to radicalize them and move them in the direction of free communism. We do this by forming new structures (dual power), relentless education and agitation, and uniting participants under a common set of values and a clear vision.


I dont totally disagree with what you are saying here but you have to be very careful and judicious about how you go about this. What is the point of actively involving yourself in "any and all uprisings and insurrections" wothout taking into account what lies behind such events? Would you support an uprising that was driven by nationalist or racist sentiments? Of course not. Sometimes it is necessary to stand back and firmly disassociate oneself from the event in question.





It will empower the working people to run society themselves, through self-government. It will render the existing state obsolete in the minds of the people, and as soon as the state moves against it, the question of power becomes real.


I dont see how the structure you advocate will render the existing state obsolete and in any case you rather contradict yourself by suggesting that this supposedly obsolescent state would then move against it




This is where the importance of revolutionizing the armed forces comes in. We must not see rank-and-file soldiers as our enemies. If the masses of people are rising up, and we fraternize with soldiers, I expect to see widespread desertion, and many soldiers coming to our defense. This is precisely what happened in the Egyptian Revolution, and that, combined with mass strike action, brought down the regime.


Well the way things have turned out with the Egyptian "revolution" (it was a regime change not a revolution actually) it is hardly a recommendation for the line of argument you are presenting. But yes certainly you are quite right not to see rank-and-file soldiers as our enemies. As the communist movement grows, communist ideas will spread even within the armed forces itself. This development in fact makes the possibility of a relatively peaceful and bloodless revolution even more likely - not less. That is surely what we all want - to reduce violence to an absolute mimimum. No one in their right mind would deliberately want to embark on a course of armed struggle against a well armed capitalist state. It would be insane folly and, as I argued, even if it succeeded, the revolution would be betrayed since the means and the ends can never be separated, It would necessite a vanguard that would then transmogrify into a new ruling class. That is always the way with armed struggles...




Nevertheless, at least in the US, I don't think it will go down that smoothly. The military will probably fracture, like in Syria, between pro and anti revolutionary sides, and we will have to endure a rather bloody civil war. Asymmetrical and guerrilla warfare may be necessary to bring down the US government. But I am convinced, with a revolutionary majority of working people, this government will fall.


But why do you think it will take a bloody civil war to bring down the government. The collapse of state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe happened with very little loss of life or blood being shed. Certainly with a revolutionary majority against it, the government will fall but it will fall becuase it will have deprived of its mandate and moral authority to govern and not becuase it had been militarily brought to its knees. No government can effectively function for long without at least the acqiesecence of the majority over which it governs




Yeah, many Anarchists and Communists once believed in the possibility of peaceful revolution. Many figured that we could build dual power, remove ourselves from state positions, stop supporting them morally and financially, and the state would just give way to our new power. Historically this has been proven to be false. The ruling class, through its state, has show the willingness to massacre masses of people to secure its power when it feels threatened. As revolutionaries we must learn this lesson of history and be prepared for the inevitable warfare that will accompany any social revolution. Though as I've indicated, the more hated the regime and the ruling class, the more bloodless a revolution will be.

But hold on - just a moment ago you said this parrallel structure you advocate - a "free confederation of workers councils and popular assemblies" - would render the state obsolete. Now you are suggesting that history demonstrates that the state would step in and massacre the people. I just dont accept your argument at all. Quite apart from anything else there has never been a communist revolution anywhere and the conditions under which such a revolution would occur would be radically different from anything we have yet experienced. That means you cannot simply just appeal to the"lessons of history" since history to date - at least in the modern era - has afforded us only the example of bourgeois revolutions (including the Bolshevik revolution BTW) You cannot use the template of a bourgeois revolution in the case of a communist revolution. So it is not so much the facts of history that we must turn to but rather our historical imagination. In any case there is nothing "inevitable" about warfare at all - even within the context of essentially capitalist transformations - I mention again the case of the collapse of state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe.



Are you implying that by running for office and/or voting we can somehow dismantle the state? This is absurd. We all know the state, especially here in America, is run and funded by corporate and finance elites. It is nothing but the enforcement arm of the ruling class, it is structured that way, and there is no way to change it. The state must be overthrown; whether this process is violent or not depends almost entirely on the willingness of military forces to murder their own people. We ought to be prepared for the worst-case scenario.

Why is the electoral strategy "absurd"? I just dont get this dogmatic kneejerk anti-electoralism that so many anarchists and not a few others on the Left engage in. Not all anarchists, mind you, and it is refreshing to see that the Class war organisation in the UK has decided to stand in elections. Yes we know that the capitalist parties that get into power are funded by big money. But you completely miss the point here. Why is that you think more and more throughout the world bourgeois representative democracy is becoming the norm? It is becuase as I said before the capitalist state needs the consent of the majority to effectively govern. It needs for us to believe that the state is our servant and that we elect the government we want. This is actually the Achilles Heel of capitalism, as it happens. And in fact under the representative form of bourgeois democracy you dont find the political party that has just been voted out of office resorting to massacre and military force to retain its grip on power. Almost always they will vacate power peacefully

There is the option available to the communist movement which involves making use of parliament but not for the purposes of reforming capitalism . Have a look at this pamphlet which argues for the "revolutionary use of parliament" - http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament. There are at least 3 huge advantages to such a strategy which any other alternative lacks. These are

1) If you agree that the communist revolution requires that a significant majority of workers to be communist minded then how else do you guage the strength of this support accept by electoral means?

2) If capitalist political parties in a representive form of democracy require an electoral mandate to govern effectively then by defeating them on the electoral field you explicitly and unambiguously deprive them of the mandate to govern and maintain capitalism. This is by far the most effective way to demonstrate or to send a clear message that they lack the legitimacy to remain in power since they themselves have become completely accustomed to appealing to the electoral surrpoort they attract as the basis oupon which thyey govern

3) Since there can be nothing in between a class-based spociety and a classless communist society the shift from one to the othwer has to take the form of an "event", a symbolic one-off enactment that serves as a signal to coordinate the changeover on a large scale basis. This is precisely what the electoral strategy enables one to do


Its not that I oppose the idea of workers councils asnd popular assemblies. By all means let us establish such parallel structures but that does not preclude engaging in an electoral strategy and it would be sheer dogmatism to maintain that it did. As you say, the state has to be overthrown and the only really effective way you can do that is to get hold of the state by democratic and conscious means and ensure that it is immediately dismantled or smashed and not retained in any shape or form. Because if a state in any shape or form continues to exist then class society continues to exist as well and what you would have had was not a communist revolution but just another regime change