Anarchism

[redtrigger]

1. Anarchism is about true independence. No state, no laws, no responsibility to anyone or anything but yourself. But if you joined an anarchist revolution, would you not be breaking your own creed by allowing someone to lead you on your path to the anarchist state or whatever it would be called?

2. If the revolution did succeed and its leaders did lay down their sword to allow the "state" to exist in true form, how would this system be maintained? Who would be responsible for defence should the state come under attack or become subject to another revolution, lets say by capitalists?

I have never done any study of anarchism, but from what I have read on this site in posts by anarchists, it seems to be flawed. Can someone explain?

[redtrigger]

1. Anarchism is about true independence. No state, no laws, no responsibility to anyone or anything but yourself. But if you joined an anarchist revolution, would you not be breaking your own creed by allowing someone to lead you on your path to the anarchist state or whatever it would be called?

2. If the revolution did succeed and its leaders did lay down their sword to allow the "state" to exist in true form, how would this system be maintained? Who would be responsible for defence should the state come under attack or become subject to another revolution, lets say by capitalists?

I have never done any study of anarchism, but from what I have read on this site in posts by anarchists, it seems to be flawed. Can someone explain?

[redtrigger]

1. Anarchism is about true independence. No state, no laws, no responsibility to anyone or anything but yourself. But if you joined an anarchist revolution, would you not be breaking your own creed by allowing someone to lead you on your path to the anarchist state or whatever it would be called?

2. If the revolution did succeed and its leaders did lay down their sword to allow the "state" to exist in true form, how would this system be maintained? Who would be responsible for defence should the state come under attack or become subject to another revolution, lets say by capitalists?

I have never done any study of anarchism, but from what I have read on this site in posts by anarchists, it seems to be flawed. Can someone explain?

[Major. Rudiger]

you can never get full anarchy any where.matter of what theres going to be someone who is going to start a comuon or his own countery of the anarhy state. Really the only way that anrachy can come to be is in a war torn countery, something like afaghstein where true anarchy didnt came to place. Also
the only way to get full anarchy if people start doing nothing and just breack apart the cities slowly. IF no one makes monney then htere is no money to rule the goverment so the govermnt falls andyou get youresl some anarchy untell a person stands up and starts his own countery.

[Major. Rudiger]

you can never get full anarchy any where.matter of what theres going to be someone who is going to start a comuon or his own countery of the anarhy state. Really the only way that anrachy can come to be is in a war torn countery, something like afaghstein where true anarchy didnt came to place. Also
the only way to get full anarchy if people start doing nothing and just breack apart the cities slowly. IF no one makes monney then htere is no money to rule the goverment so the govermnt falls andyou get youresl some anarchy untell a person stands up and starts his own countery.

[Major. Rudiger]

you can never get full anarchy any where.matter of what theres going to be someone who is going to start a comuon or his own countery of the anarhy state. Really the only way that anrachy can come to be is in a war torn countery, something like afaghstein where true anarchy didnt came to place. Also
the only way to get full anarchy if people start doing nothing and just breack apart the cities slowly. IF no one makes monney then htere is no money to rule the goverment so the govermnt falls andyou get youresl some anarchy untell a person stands up and starts his own countery.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 02:10 PM
1. Anarchism is about true independence. No state, no laws, no responsibility to anyone or anything but yourself.
No it's not. This is the common misconception that Anarchism is a nihilist non-political philosophy. Anarchism is a political movement with specific goals. Anarchist society has rules and right and wrong. It is not an ideology of "every man for himself", it is a socialist ideology run along the idea "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs".


But if you joined an anarchist revolution, would you not be breaking your own creed by allowing someone to lead you on your path to the anarchist state or whatever it would be called?
Again, you've got the stereotype that alot of kids with Anarchy shirts seem to have too. Anarchy is not about not following an ideology, it is not about not working with other people. Anarchy is an ideology. With specific goals. No one "leads" you, the mass movement does.

What is a contradiction, though, is to be an Anarchist and have the views you seem to attribute to Anarchism.


2. If the revolution did succeed and its leaders did lay down their sword to allow the "state" to exist in true form, how would this system be maintained?
What leaders? Anarchism is a revolution of the people, there are no "leaders" in the sense you're thinking of. As for the "state", it would be abolished, there is no state. If you want to find out how it is maintained, I suggest you read the other thread on Anarchism I just replied to, "Anarcho-Capitalism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29240) and the "Anarchism for dummies" (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421) thread at the top in the "new to it all" section.


Who would be responsible for defence should the state come under attack or become subject to another revolution, lets say by capitalists?
Everyone. And there would be no Capitalist "revolution", revolutions move forwards. A counter-revolution made up of such a small part of the population as former capitalists would be crushed, it's a numbers game and they can't hire anyone to fight for them considering money has been abolished. And remember that the amount of former Capitalists willing to die for that will be even smaller.

As for war, Anarchism is a global movement, so it brings the workers' advantages fully to bare against any such foreign threat. Anarchist movements do not happen in a vacuum. If there is an Anarchist revolution, it would happen because the Anarchist movement has strongly organized across many nations. In otherwords, the working class has reached critical boiling point across the world, and is actively resisting. A nation attempting to attack a recently liberated region would be faced with its own problems as well as a people ready to defend their newly won revolution. Within the country, the civil unrest would intensify to crippling levels.

The governments would be too busy fighting their own revolutions to effectively fight a war.


I have never done any study of anarchism, but from what I have read on this site in posts by anarchists, it seems to be flawed. Can someone explain?
I think you should read these posts more carefully :P Seriously though, check out "Anarchism for dummies" (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421) if you wanna find out more.


you can never get full anarchy any where.matter of what theres going to be someone who is going to start a comuon or his own countery of the anarhy state. Really the only way that anrachy can come to be is in a war torn countery, something like afaghstein where true anarchy didnt came to place. Also
the only way to get full anarchy if people start doing nothing and just breack apart the cities slowly. IF no one makes monney then htere is no money to rule the goverment so the govermnt falls andyou get youresl some anarchy untell a person stands up and starts his own countery.
:huh: How the hell would someone start their own country if money has been abolished and everyone has what they need? If there is no money, he can't assemble an army unless they really believe in this. Which would be a pretty small fraction of the population. So small they would be crushed by the majority who passionately fought for the revoltuion and are not about to see it destroyed by some prick with an ego.

People won&#39;t just roll over and let someone rule them just like that <_<

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 02:10 PM
1. Anarchism is about true independence. No state, no laws, no responsibility to anyone or anything but yourself.
No it&#39;s not. This is the common misconception that Anarchism is a nihilist non-political philosophy. Anarchism is a political movement with specific goals. Anarchist society has rules and right and wrong. It is not an ideology of "every man for himself", it is a socialist ideology run along the idea "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs".


But if you joined an anarchist revolution, would you not be breaking your own creed by allowing someone to lead you on your path to the anarchist state or whatever it would be called?
Again, you&#39;ve got the stereotype that alot of kids with Anarchy shirts seem to have too. Anarchy is not about not following an ideology, it is not about not working with other people. Anarchy is an ideology. With specific goals. No one "leads" you, the mass movement does.

What is a contradiction, though, is to be an Anarchist and have the views you seem to attribute to Anarchism.


2. If the revolution did succeed and its leaders did lay down their sword to allow the "state" to exist in true form, how would this system be maintained?
What leaders? Anarchism is a revolution of the people, there are no "leaders" in the sense you&#39;re thinking of. As for the "state", it would be abolished, there is no state. If you want to find out how it is maintained, I suggest you read the other thread on Anarchism I just replied to, "Anarcho-Capitalism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29240) and the "Anarchism for dummies" (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421) thread at the top in the "new to it all" section.


Who would be responsible for defence should the state come under attack or become subject to another revolution, lets say by capitalists?
Everyone. And there would be no Capitalist "revolution", revolutions move forwards. A counter-revolution made up of such a small part of the population as former capitalists would be crushed, it&#39;s a numbers game and they can&#39;t hire anyone to fight for them considering money has been abolished. And remember that the amount of former Capitalists willing to die for that will be even smaller.

As for war, Anarchism is a global movement, so it brings the workers&#39; advantages fully to bare against any such foreign threat. Anarchist movements do not happen in a vacuum. If there is an Anarchist revolution, it would happen because the Anarchist movement has strongly organized across many nations. In otherwords, the working class has reached critical boiling point across the world, and is actively resisting. A nation attempting to attack a recently liberated region would be faced with its own problems as well as a people ready to defend their newly won revolution. Within the country, the civil unrest would intensify to crippling levels.

The governments would be too busy fighting their own revolutions to effectively fight a war.


I have never done any study of anarchism, but from what I have read on this site in posts by anarchists, it seems to be flawed. Can someone explain?
I think you should read these posts more carefully :P Seriously though, check out "Anarchism for dummies" (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421) if you wanna find out more.


you can never get full anarchy any where.matter of what theres going to be someone who is going to start a comuon or his own countery of the anarhy state. Really the only way that anrachy can come to be is in a war torn countery, something like afaghstein where true anarchy didnt came to place. Also
the only way to get full anarchy if people start doing nothing and just breack apart the cities slowly. IF no one makes monney then htere is no money to rule the goverment so the govermnt falls andyou get youresl some anarchy untell a person stands up and starts his own countery.
:huh: How the hell would someone start their own country if money has been abolished and everyone has what they need? If there is no money, he can&#39;t assemble an army unless they really believe in this. Which would be a pretty small fraction of the population. So small they would be crushed by the majority who passionately fought for the revoltuion and are not about to see it destroyed by some prick with an ego.

People won&#39;t just roll over and let someone rule them just like that <_<

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 02:10 PM
1. Anarchism is about true independence. No state, no laws, no responsibility to anyone or anything but yourself.
No it&#39;s not. This is the common misconception that Anarchism is a nihilist non-political philosophy. Anarchism is a political movement with specific goals. Anarchist society has rules and right and wrong. It is not an ideology of "every man for himself", it is a socialist ideology run along the idea "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs".


But if you joined an anarchist revolution, would you not be breaking your own creed by allowing someone to lead you on your path to the anarchist state or whatever it would be called?
Again, you&#39;ve got the stereotype that alot of kids with Anarchy shirts seem to have too. Anarchy is not about not following an ideology, it is not about not working with other people. Anarchy is an ideology. With specific goals. No one "leads" you, the mass movement does.

What is a contradiction, though, is to be an Anarchist and have the views you seem to attribute to Anarchism.


2. If the revolution did succeed and its leaders did lay down their sword to allow the "state" to exist in true form, how would this system be maintained?
What leaders? Anarchism is a revolution of the people, there are no "leaders" in the sense you&#39;re thinking of. As for the "state", it would be abolished, there is no state. If you want to find out how it is maintained, I suggest you read the other thread on Anarchism I just replied to, "Anarcho-Capitalism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29240) and the "Anarchism for dummies" (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421) thread at the top in the "new to it all" section.


Who would be responsible for defence should the state come under attack or become subject to another revolution, lets say by capitalists?
Everyone. And there would be no Capitalist "revolution", revolutions move forwards. A counter-revolution made up of such a small part of the population as former capitalists would be crushed, it&#39;s a numbers game and they can&#39;t hire anyone to fight for them considering money has been abolished. And remember that the amount of former Capitalists willing to die for that will be even smaller.

As for war, Anarchism is a global movement, so it brings the workers&#39; advantages fully to bare against any such foreign threat. Anarchist movements do not happen in a vacuum. If there is an Anarchist revolution, it would happen because the Anarchist movement has strongly organized across many nations. In otherwords, the working class has reached critical boiling point across the world, and is actively resisting. A nation attempting to attack a recently liberated region would be faced with its own problems as well as a people ready to defend their newly won revolution. Within the country, the civil unrest would intensify to crippling levels.

The governments would be too busy fighting their own revolutions to effectively fight a war.


I have never done any study of anarchism, but from what I have read on this site in posts by anarchists, it seems to be flawed. Can someone explain?
I think you should read these posts more carefully :P Seriously though, check out "Anarchism for dummies" (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421) if you wanna find out more.


you can never get full anarchy any where.matter of what theres going to be someone who is going to start a comuon or his own countery of the anarhy state. Really the only way that anrachy can come to be is in a war torn countery, something like afaghstein where true anarchy didnt came to place. Also
the only way to get full anarchy if people start doing nothing and just breack apart the cities slowly. IF no one makes monney then htere is no money to rule the goverment so the govermnt falls andyou get youresl some anarchy untell a person stands up and starts his own countery.
:huh: How the hell would someone start their own country if money has been abolished and everyone has what they need? If there is no money, he can&#39;t assemble an army unless they really believe in this. Which would be a pretty small fraction of the population. So small they would be crushed by the majority who passionately fought for the revoltuion and are not about to see it destroyed by some prick with an ego.

People won&#39;t just roll over and let someone rule them just like that <_<

[Hate Is Art]

The main problem I see with Anarchism is that a strong revolutionary party is need to organise and lead the masses.


Everyone. And there would be no Capitalist "revolution", revolutions move forwards. A counter-revolution made up of such a small part of the population as former capitalists would be crushed, it&#39;s a numbers game and they can&#39;t hire anyone to fight for them considering money has been abolished. And remember that the amount of former Capitalists willing to die for that will be even smaller.

And when a highly organised and trained counter-revolutionary force comes along what then? Do we distribute arms and hope people some how defend themselves or do we organise a proper army?

Certain things need heirarchy.


The governments would be too busy fighting their own revolutions to effectively fight a war.

A nice idea, bit idealistic though. I doubt all the revolutions will succed and if a few fail then you have problems.

[STI]

The main problem I see with Anarchism is that a strong revolutionary party is need to organise and lead the masses

You mean like in the Paris Commune?

The masses are fully capable of organizing, mobilizing, and leading themselves, thank you very much.


And when a highly organised and trained counter-revolutionary force comes along what then? Do we distribute arms and hope people some how defend themselves or do we organise a proper army?


It&#39;s called a Workers&#39; Malitia. Band t-shirts qualify as uniforms.

[Hate Is Art]

You mean like in the Paris Commune?

The masses are fully capable of organizing, mobilizing, and leading themselves, thank you very much.

Remind me again what happened to the Paris Commune?

It&#39;s called a Workers&#39; Malitia. Band t-shirts qualify as uniforms.

I&#39;d rather have a People&#39;s Army.

[apathy maybe]

Anarchism is a movement which aims to abolish hierarchy and power relationships. From this basic principle other principles can be extrapolated.
These include: Voluntarism, the right of all people to join freely any group (including society); Due Process, the right of all people to a fair and just system of "legalality" (e.g. if accused of murder, you aren&#39;t just locked up or murdered yourself); and Equal Decision Making power, that is, you have an equal right to decide what happens as someone else, and they can&#39;t force you to obey them. There are others but these will do for now.

There are different types of anarchist from those that propose a system similar to communism, to those that want a completely individualistic society. (Please note, "anarcho-capitalists" aren&#39;t anarchists, they support hierarchy.) Unlike what CyM says, money isn&#39;t necessarily going to disappear, it has a use in some cases (it is a simplified system of barter). There are other differences between different types of anarchism, but because they all support the basic principles, they are generally compatible. (Because there are as many types of anarchism as there are anarchists, this statement may not be true for all.)

Why do we need to defend ourselves if there is no one to defend against?
Where are rulers needed?

And finally, anarchists, promote listening to experts, but remember, they don&#39;t rule we all do.

[Guest1]

I recognize some Anarchists don&#39;t believe money should be abolished, I was speaking from a Communist point of view.

Besides, it makes the most sense, and money tends to lead bacl to classism. I&#39;m sorry, but how are you gonna keep people from hoarding cash?

[Hate Is Art]

Why do we need to defend ourselves if there is no one to defend against?

Will the revolution be over and done with in one day? I really doubt it, until then we need to defend ourselves.

Can you please tell me about how an Anarchist revolution would work? I think I fail to grasp the concepts.

[MiniOswald]

You see this is where its all a bit confuzzeling, you all make really good points, anarchism is a great theory, and there are alot of misconceptions about it, but there could also be alot of problems, the same can be said for the leninist &#39;vanguard&#39; systems.

Im becoming increasingly undecided on where i stand, at first i was thinking leninist but I dunno anymore, I think perhaps maybe the best thing might be to blow up the foundations of society and start the whole damn thing again, cos we messed up first time round.

[STI]

Remind me again what happened to the Paris Commune?

Nothing that wouldn&#39;t have happened with a Leninist vanguard (well, besides all that "direct control by the workers" and whatnot...but hey, who needs that?).

A group of "proffessional vanguard wondermen" wouldn&#39;t have made a lick of difference when it came down to the armed struggle.



I&#39;d rather have a People&#39;s Army

Because taking orders is so fun, right?

What great things can a "People&#39;s Army" (highly misleading name, btw) do that the people can&#39;t?


Will the revolution be over and done with in one day? I really doubt it, until then we need to defend ourselves

Usually, when an old ruling class is dispersed, they&#39;re afraid, frustrated, and blaming each other. Unless they have substantial foreign backing, they can forget about presenting a respectable counter-revolution.

When the next wave of proletarian revolutions comes around, capitalism around the globe will be having a tough time, and ruling classes will be having enough trouble keeping their own people in line, forget about dealing with the fuckups of some other ruling class.


I think perhaps maybe the best thing might be to blow up the foundations of society and start the whole damn thing again, cos we messed up first time round.

Leninists don&#39;t think the workers can do that "without them". They don&#39;t think the working class is truly fit to rule. That&#39;s where they&#39;re wrong.


Can you please tell me about how an Anarchist revolution would work? I think I fail to grasp the concepts.

I don&#39;t think I&#39;m qualified to go on at great length about "anarchism", but I&#39;ll do what I can in terms of Libertarian Marxism...

-Crisis in Capitalism (Series of failed imperialist wars, depression, who knows?)
-Mass demonstrations against capitalism itself (think Seattle only bigger and more radical)
-General Strike
-Violent conflict with the ruling class and its lapdogs (military, police, reserves, etc)
-Workers seize Means of production, members of the ruling class are either killed, commit suicide, or run away
-Workers set up Workers&#39; councils, Workers&#39; Malitias, anything else that needs attention.
-All religious buildings, billboards, etc. are destroyed
-Counter-revolutions are surpressed by the Workers&#39; Malitias (which is, more or less, everybody)
-Things carry on.

That was mostly speculation, but I hope the main ideas were conveyed effectively. It&#39;s likely that at least some of the things I mentioned will be used, and even more likely that more effective ways of doing things will be brought forward and used when the time comes.

The problem with this sort of thing is that we really don&#39;t know exactly what will happen.

[apathy maybe]

Who says there needs to be a revolution? I think that it is possible to gradually reform the present system.

One use of money in a post-capitalist society is to distribute luxury items. Once everyone&#39;s basic needs are meet, money could be used to "buy" luxuries. To prevent hording a expiry date could be set. Once past this date, the money is worthless. This is probably the simplest system.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 3 2004, 06:42 AM
Who says there needs to be a revolution? I think that it is possible to gradually reform the present system.


True. If you look back over human history we have always advanced to the left. From an age when a corrupt tyrannical ruler would control land with an iron fist, we have loosened up, and allowed equal rights, shorter working hours and unions, many left wing advancements have been made (predominantly in the 20th century) that will act as a domino effect, and should roll on into the 21st. Perhaps revolution will not be necessary, but only time will tell

[Guest1]

Time has shown that reform doesn&#39;t work. All the reforms you speak of were won by radical worker action, with blood spilt and arrests across the entire movement. We fought hard for them and now we aren&#39;t fighting for new ones, we&#39;re fighting to keep the old&#33; Those reforms are under daily attack and we are regressing, not progressing, across the world. Canada, Sweden, Britain, France, Germany, every nation that had a strong tradition of welfare and workers&#39; rights is taking everything back&#33; Revolution is when we say fuck this, we won&#39;t fight just to keep the status-quo, we want everything.

Refrom doesn&#39;t work, and Anarchism is not an ideology of appeasement. Anarchism is an entirely revolutionary movement.

There is room for reforms along the way, but no room for reformism in our movement&#33; If you think the real change will be brought by reform, you are wrong. There&#39;s nothing wrong with fighting for workers&#39; rights under Capitalism, but don&#39;t think the Capitalists will give them everything peacefully. They won&#39;t, because if workers had everything they deserved, it would mean the annihalation of the ruling class.

So don&#39;t delude yourselves.

[Hate Is Art]

whats your opinion of Chavez and Allende then CyM?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 1 2004, 09:29 PM
Remind me again what happened to the Paris Commune?
A city was attacked by 25,000 soldiers. Not even a vangaurd party could have stopped that.


I&#39;d rather have a People&#39;s Army.

People&#39;s army, workers militia. What&#39;s the difference?

[Hate Is Art]

People&#39;s Army - Elect your own Officers who then lead you.

Workers Militia - Some weird Anarchist conception where an army can fight without leadership?

[STI]

whats your opinion of Chavez and Allende then CyM?

Not being CYM, i don&#39;t feel qualified to respond to this. I will anyway.

Allende tried to reform his way to socialism. The bourgeoisie would and will NEVER allow their wealth to be deprived without a life-or-death struggle. They overthrew his ass (with some help from imperialism).

Parliament is the tool of the ruling class and cannot be used to change the class relationships which benefit said ruling class.


Some weird Anarchist conception where an army can fight without leadership?

I really don&#39;t see what&#39;s so weird about that. You&#39;re pissed off at imperialist cocks and you fight them alongside other pissed-off people.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 3 2004, 11:49 AM
People&#39;s Army - Elect your own Officers who then lead you.

Workers Militia - Some weird Anarchist conception where an army can fight without leadership?
<_< Officers aren&#39;t elected, they are appointed by other officers. The minimal amount of leadership there was in the Spanish militias was entirely context-oriented and constantly in flux. Furthermore, it was elected. I would consider them more "specialists" than anything else.

You do sometimes need to have "specialists", in rare situations, but things should always be done from the grassroots upwards. Those "specialists" within the militias would be appointed by the cell for a specific duration of time to do a specific task. They would have no real power. That does not mean that the cell is disorganized, it means the cell is prepared to work indepently if needs be, because it doesn&#39;t rely on any single person or authority for command. It works in coordination with other cells, but is always prepared for the possibility of working alone. Cell-based guerrilla warfare is always a good idea. Ever heard of a hydra?



whats your opinion of Chavez and Allende then CyM?
Socialist tiger addressed the point of Allende pretty well, Allende was proof positive of what happens when reformists attempt to go beyond just minimum wage laws and try to transform property relations, they end up with a battle between the working class and the ruling class anyways. Only in this case, the working class is not prepared for such a battle, because they were told things could happen peacefully, "democracy" was going to take care of it. They didn&#39;t build the necessary organizations during their battles, because the organizations that were built were oriented around a battleground that meant nothing when faced with bourgeois insurgency. Namely, the electoral battleground.

They were caught unaware. Had they fought, the revolutionary organizations and unions would have formed the basis both for defending the new society and for producing under it. The working class would have built the new under the auspices of the old, all those connections from the grassroots upwards would have made them that much stronger, and made the future sxociety that much more ready.

As for Chavez, he&#39;s a wild card. The people aren&#39;t taking cues from him, they&#39;re radicalizing the bolivarian circles and expelling his bureaucrats from them day by day. A battle is brewing between the bureaucracy and the grassroots. The circles are moving ahead of Chavez and a general consensus is building amongst them around the need to deal the final death blow to Capital in Venezuela and take the "revolution" to the next stage. The question is, will Chavez step out of the way either with some words of encouragement or anger at this development, or will he stay on and try to stop it?

I&#39;m not sure. Regardless, the only reason I have hope in Venezuela is that those organizations have been built and are voicing more and more opposition to reformism. Thus far I wouldn&#39;t call this a revolution, but considering how radical those circles are becoming, it should be interesting to see.

I&#39;m just hoping that if they start chanting "all power to the circles", it doesn&#39;t get fucked up by yet another batch of Leninists :P

[PRC-UTE]

People&#39;s Army - an army comprised of a classless vanguard who fight for their hierarchy of leaders, an openly reformist anti-communist body who re-establish capitalism in the end; as practiced in China, the Stalinist International Brigades and Vietnam

Worker&#39;s Milita - the clenched fist of the workers, a democratic and openly class based army; as practiced by revolutionary anarchists and marxists in the Spanish Civil War and by the Irish Citizen Army; an openly revolutionary and theoretically anti-reformist body

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 3 2004, 05:49 PM
People&#39;s Army - Elect your own Officers who then lead you.
Define leadership?


Workers Militia - Some weird Anarchist conception where an army can fight without leadership?

Again it all depends on how you define leadership? Anarchists reject leadership because classically it is synonymous with authority over. You are creating power structures which serve to dominate someone. Having a leader means that you are now subjected to the authority of another human being. It isn&#39;t necessary.

The concept that you claim is weird is actually about destroying those power structures and using logic to achieve our objectives [communism], not just in war but in everything.

Creating a succesful revolution will require us to behave with respect, integrity and by using logic and reason. If your community needs to dig a pit, then you do it. If your community requires someone to work in a farm, you do it, because that is what is necessary to achieve your objective. If you want to achieve communism, then it is illogical not to do the things necessary to achieve it.

If you break your leg and two people are stood over you and one you know to be a doctor and the other to be a butcher, who would you ask, logically, for help? You&#39;d ask the doctor. We do not need people to have authority over us, we need people to have authority on the subject at hand.

In a military situation you may be stood in a group of men and women of whom there are an ex-soldier a nurse, a factory worker, a postman and someone who was on the dole. You have an objective to get from one side of a bridge to another. Who do you look to for help?

The solider. They know what to do, but that does not mean they have the authority to control us. Logic is required to fight a revolution succesfully. It is logical to listen to the soldier because he knows what he is doing. It is illogical to not listen to him because that will not achieve your objective.

[Hate Is Art]

Again it all depends on how you define leadership? Anarchists reject leadership because classically it is synonymous with authority over. You are creating power structures which serve to dominate someone. Having a leader means that you are now subjected to the authority of another human being. It isn&#39;t necessary.

I would agree in most cases. But power is just authority made legitimate, these aren&#39;t interchangeable. You can&#39;t lead an army without power. An army without power would just be pointless. Power in the army allows us train properly, form proper tactics and better strategies.

This will not be needed when the revolution will suceed but we will not all rise up simultaneously, it will take a lifetime. We need to defend ourselves and help our Comrades.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 5 2004, 06:35 PM
You can&#39;t lead an army without power. An army without power would just be pointless.
But the question of power is not so simple. We we&#39;re initially, or at least I was, talking about leadership and the power that this creates. It is unnecessary.

What you&#39;re talking about is power in terms of a collective, which is something completely different from what I was talking about. For a start, a revolution requires a majority of people to make it legitimate and the power that this majority has is not over people, it&#39;s the power to defend themselves from a system of exploitation, persecution and oppression.

An army that fights, in this respect, is doing so to create liberation. It&#39;s an army of self-defence and those who oppose us have to accept that we as humans have the justification to determine our own lives. They don&#39;t have to fight us, we don&#39;t want to create armies, but we will have to, because they wish to continue our exploitation and oppression, and that isn&#39;t justified.

Having control or authority over someone stands against freedom in all respects. Freedom is the ability to control yourself and you cannot do that if someone else controls you. The ability to act for yourself is the basis for all freedom.

If however, you are talking about the power to act against exploitation and oppression then that power is justified. Every exploited or oppressed person has the justification to use their power to stop it&#33;


Power in the army allows us train properly, form proper tactics and better strategies.

Now you&#39;re discussing something different. When you say power do you mean "the ability or capacity to perform and act effectively"? If you are, I agree. But if you are talking about power in the army as "the ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority," then I do not agree. Logic is required to train properly and become good fighters, not subservience.

As I said, as communists, it requires us to behave, think and act in a fundamentally different way to how humans interact with each other within a capitalist society. One of the necessary components of creating a communist society is for individuals to work within a collective using reason, integrity, commitment and determination.


This will not be needed when the revolution will succeed but we will not all rise up simultaneously, it will take a lifetime. We need to defend ourselves and help our Comrades.

There is no evidence to prove that in order to rise up, become organised, defend ourselves or help our comrades we must be controlled.