Defence against Capitalists in Anarchy

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Everyone knows that when communism/anarchism comes, it'll not come simultanously as the world is too big for that to happen. And since no communists/anarchists favor a military, how'll we defend against a hypothetical attack by capitalists?

[which doctor]

People's militia.

People will take up arms to protect a cause they agree with.

[FinnMacCool]

Exactly. I think every citizen should have a gun. Its very idealistic to think that once the revolution has been accomplished, we will be able to throw away our guns for ever. THe reason why Japan never invaded America is because of the second ammendment. I think that guns should be distributed amongst the populace.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Right well guerilla are never very effective against a trained army that has an airforce and high tech gadgets. Also how would the army be run since Anarchy there is no single 'leader' or 'general' just councils and councils can be weak in war.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:00 PM
Right well guerilla are never very effective against a trained army that has an airforce and high tech gadgets. Also how would the army be run since Anarchy there is no single 'leader' or 'general' just councils and councils can be weak in war.
The object of the citizens wouldn't be to win but to decrease the other armys will to fight. If we've learend anything from Vietnam its that no matter what kind of technology you have, its no good against persistant and constant harrassment.

Militias in the Spanish Revolution provide a good basis for anarchist militias. Leaders would be selected democratically and the officers wouldn't use their coercive authority to bend the soldiers to the will but instead will appeal to revolutionary spirit etc. I suggest reading 'Homage to Catalonia' where Orwell discusses in detail the way their milita forces were run.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:38 PM
Everyone knows that when communism/anarchism comes, it'll not come simultanously as the world is too big for that to happen. And since no communists/anarchists favor a military, how'll we defend against a hypothetical attack by capitalists?
Workers militias as others have mentioned. Part of the "revolution" would be to repossess all the weapons from military bases useful to the workers and distribute them out.

[Wells]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 10:19 PM
Exactly. I think every citizen should have a gun. Its very idealistic to think that once the revolution has been accomplished, we will be able to throw away our guns for ever. THe reason why Japan never invaded America is because of the second ammendment. I think that guns should be distributed amongst the populace.
What?!? No way! In a socialist state there will be no reason to have guns. A peoples army will be enrolled, but for every citizen to have a gun!! In a capitalist society even, guns are frowned upon, in Europe and Australia especially. Surely gun possesion is a right wing idea. This again is the problem with isolated reviolution, it could cause leftist countries to be cut off from the rest of the world. Guns are a fascist pinciple and regressive.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by Wells+May 21 2006, 06:17 PM--> (Wells @ May 21 2006, 06:17 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 10:19 PM
Exactly. I think every citizen should have a gun. Its very idealistic to think that once the revolution has been accomplished, we will be able to throw away our guns for ever. THe reason why Japan never invaded America is because of the second ammendment. I think that guns should be distributed amongst the populace.
What?!? No way! In a socialist state there will be no reason to have guns. A peoples army will be enrolled, but for every citizen to have a gun!! In a capitalist society even, guns are frowned upon, in Europe and Australia especially. Surely gun possesion is a right wing idea. This again is the problem with isolated reviolution, it could cause leftist countries to be cut off from the rest of the world. Guns are a fascist pinciple and regressive. [/b]
Gun possession is neither a right wing idea nor a left wing idea. The idea of guns is protection so that people can immediatly be able to be called together to defend when need be. Having a "Peoples Army" do it for them assures that there will be abuse of it.

[Wells]

Giving a gun to the average joe is an absured idea. Fine, if the people wish to raise arms to fight for socialism then thats their decision, they volunteer. Guns should be restricted to the atmost, a professionally trained army of thr proletariat should be created for defense, and if militias wish to join then thats fine too. No to guns!

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:09 PM
Giving a gun to the average joe is an absured idea. Fine, if the people wish to raise arms to fight for socialism then thats their decision, they volunteer. Guns should be restricted to the atmost, a professionally trained army of thr proletariat should be created for defense, and if militias wish to join then thats fine too. No to guns!
I think its better for the People to take their fate into their own hands instead of relying on an army to do it for them.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:09 PM
Giving a gun to the average joe is an absured idea. Fine, if the people wish to raise arms to fight for socialism then thats their decision, they volunteer. Guns should be restricted to the atmost, a professionally trained army of thr proletariat should be created for defense, and if militias wish to join then thats fine too. No to guns!
Are you saying normal people can't be trusted with guns. There is a country in Europe (Switzerland I think) where almost every house has a gun. Crime and violence stays pretty low in that country.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:00 PM
Right well guerilla are never very effective against a trained army that has an airforce and high tech gadgets. Also how would the army be run since Anarchy there is no single 'leader' or 'general' just councils and councils can be weak in war.
That's actually a fatal mistake made by civilians who've never been in the military. In general, having fancy equipment does not necessarily mean mean victory. In warfare, there are more factors than who has the bigger gun. Sensors and computers break down, guns jam, and tanks lose their tracks, but good soldier are constant. The Iraqi Resistance have had innumerable successes in completing their objectives in Iraq, and have done so against the greatest army in the world; that of the US. The Iraqi resistance has primative Soviet-era equipment, yet it is competly destroying the American Military. This is because they are not fighting for a nation, but for their home, family and religion, aginst people they see as oppresors and infedels. "You can do anything if you are willing to die for it."

Really, a millitary can't be effective if it has no hierarchy. It's really the only way a fighting force can survive: cohesion. Without discipline and training, it's not an army; it's a bunch of people with guns and time to spare. A bit of discipline isn't going to hurt anybody. It's when the discipline is overt that it's a problem.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:00 PM
Right well guerilla are never very effective against a trained army that has an airforce and high tech gadgets. Also how would the army be run since Anarchy there is no single 'leader' or 'general' just councils and councils can be weak in war.
That's actually a fatal mistake made by civilians who've never been in the military. In general, having fancy equipment does not necessarily mean mean victory. In warfare, there are more factors than who has the bigger gun. Sensors and computers break down, guns jam, and tanks lose their tracks, but good soldier are constant. The Iraqi Resistance have had innumerable successes in completing their objectives in Iraq, and have done so against the greatest army in the world; that of the US. The Iraqi resistance has primative Soviet-era equipment, yet it is competly destroying the American Military. This is because they are not fighting for a nation, but for their home, family and religion, aginst people they see as oppresors and infedels. "You can do anything if you are willing to die for it."

Really, a millitary can't be effective if it has no hierarchy. It's really the only way a fighting force can survive: cohesion. Without discipline and training, it's not an army; it's a bunch of people with guns and time to spare. A bit of discipline isn't going to hurt anybody. It's when the discipline is overt that it's a problem.

Well actually this isn't really true. The Insurgency has way, way more casualities than the US does despite the fact that they have the element of suprise. Also most of the casualties and injuries are IEDs or improvised explosive devices, not bullets.

Plus your idea of 'good soldiers are constant' applies to the US who have been trained very well.

I think what'd need to be done is that anyone who wants a gun may have one as long as they're military trained and background checked.

Then they have to swear or sign an oath that if the nation is attacked they will defend it.

Also there'd need to be a worker's militia and a stash of weapons or something somewhere in case of an attack.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:00 PM
Right well guerilla are never very effective against a trained army that has an airforce and high tech gadgets. Also how would the army be run since Anarchy there is no single 'leader' or 'general' just councils and councils can be weak in war.
What was that thing in the 60's called again? O yea the VIetnam war.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:00 PM
Right well guerilla are never very effective against a trained army that has an airforce and high tech gadgets. Also how would the army be run since Anarchy there is no single 'leader' or 'general' just councils and councils can be weak in war.
Actually, guerrilla warfare has proven exceedingly effective against both larger and better equipped forces.

For the second part, I wouldn't worry too much about it. In a battle situation, we'll certainly find a way to fight back.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:00 PM
Right well guerilla are never very effective against a trained army that has an airforce and high tech gadgets. Also how would the army be run since Anarchy there is no single 'leader' or 'general' just councils and councils can be weak in war.
What was that thing in the 60's called again? O yea the VIetnam war.

Ok fine but look at the causulties sustained by the US; 50,000. Now look at the causulties sustained by the Vietcong; 1,200,000

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html#press

Quite alot of people slaughtered.

[KC]

Workers militias with elected officers.

[pandora]

The movie "The Spook Who Sat Near the Door" explains it all.

[JKP]

http://infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci514

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:38 PM
Everyone knows that when communism/anarchism comes, it'll not come simultanously as the world is too big for that to happen. And since no communists/anarchists favor a military, how'll we defend against a hypothetical attack by capitalists?
"Hi, we have nuclear weapons; don't fuck with us."

If that doesn't work for some reason, I would assume the vast majority of people would be willing to fight to protect the society they just created. After all, people won't just make the biggest revolution in all of history, and then lie down and take it from the savages.

[Cult of Reason]

Indeed, there are plenty of nukes in the First World. A revolution in Europe, for example, would be quite well stocked. They would not dare to attack in the first place.

Especially as they would view a society with out coercive control to be volatile...

[Ander]

This is a question that I don't know the answer to.

Guerilla warfare can only do so much...Vietnam is only 1 example of a country that defended itself from the US with guerillas. Where there is that 1 example, there are dozens of others where the US has NOT been beaten back.

If a country has invaded and/or occupied your country, a guerilla army isn't going to improve the overall situation. Destruction of economy, infrastructure, etc are all huge problems that need to be fixed all over again.

[Wells]

As with jello, this is a hard question to answer. It may take a profesiional people's army and workers mailtia to defend the state. But to give every household a gun! Madness! :wacko:

Okay Switzerland is an example of a low crime country, but lets not forget that Switzerland's culture has been based around neutrality for hundreds of years. I have three letters to say; USA.

Going toward guns is REGRESSIVE. The less guns the more tolerant a society.

[Ander]

Wells, it appears that we share quite similar views.

I forgot to mention my opinion on guns. Guns do kill people, and putting them into the hands of everybody is an insane idea which results only in death and injury.

[Wells]

Yes we do, hmmm. I'm starting to find people I agree with on this forum and those I don't.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:01 AM
Ok fine but look at the causulties sustained by the US; 50,000. Now look at the causulties sustained by the Vietcong; 1,200,000

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html#press

Quite alot of people slaughtered.
Yeah, but they still won and against a much more powerful enemy with more resources & better technology. Had they fought a convential war Vietnam wouldn't have stood a chance. I mean, this was an underdeveloped mostly agrarian society that managed to defeat a society that was not only fully industrialized but also had the most powerful military & economy on the planet.

[KalmKidd]

Originally posted by LovelyShadeOfGrey+May 22 2006, 01:27 AM--> (LovelyShadeOfGrey @ May 22 2006, 01:27 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 06:00 PM
Right well guerilla are never very effective against a trained army that has an airforce and high tech gadgets. Also how would the army be run since Anarchy there is no single 'leader' or 'general' just councils and councils can be weak in war.
That's actually a fatal mistake made by civilians who've never been in the military. In general, having fancy equipment does not necessarily mean mean victory. In warfare, there are more factors than who has the bigger gun. Sensors and computers break down, guns jam, and tanks lose their tracks, but good soldier are constant. The Iraqi Resistance have had innumerable successes in completing their objectives in Iraq, and have done so against the greatest army in the world; that of the US. The Iraqi resistance has primative Soviet-era equipment, yet it is competly destroying the American Military. This is because they are not fighting for a nation, but for their home, family and religion, aginst people they see as oppresors and infedels. "You can do anything if you are willing to die for it."

Really, a millitary can't be effective if it has no hierarchy. It's really the only way a fighting force can survive: cohesion. Without discipline and training, it's not an army; it's a bunch of people with guns and time to spare. A bit of discipline isn't going to hurt anybody. It's when the discipline is overt that it's a problem. [/b]
i have to agree with u 100 percent..

[cenv]

Right well guerilla are never very effective against a trained army that has an airforce and high tech gadgets.
Who says workers' militias can't be trained? Also, I think you're forgetting that the proletarian revolution will be supported by the vast majority of the people involved, which is a considerable factor.


Guns do kill people, and putting them into the hands of everybody is an insane idea which results only in death and injury.
If someone wants to kill or injure someone else, I have no doubt that they can find a way to acquire a gun or kill/injure them without a gun. That everyone will have guns does not mean people will go around shooting anyone that pisses them off. People that do that are crazy, and whether or not guns are distributed to the masses will have no bearing on whether they decided to go out and kill someone.

People's militias are the way to go.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

That's actually a fatal mistake made by civilians who've never been in the military.

Have you been in the Army? Just curious.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+May 21 2006, 06:22 PM--> (Fist of Blood @ May 21 2006, 06:22 PM)There is a country in Europe (Switzerland I think) where almost every house has a gun. Crime and violence stays pretty low in that country.[/b]
It's Sweden. Not only do they have the highest rate of gun ownership per capita in the world, but also the lowest homicide rate.

Coincidence? I think not.


[email protected] 21 2006, 07:09 PM
Guns should be restricted to the atmost, a professionally trained army of thr proletariat should be created for defense, and if militias wish to join then thats fine too.
Fuck that. If the State and its agents get to have a gun, then I want a gun. I think that I'm a pretty rational, dependable human being, and, you know what? So are you, and so are most of the people you (and I) know.

But these people aren't allowed to carry arms! Only the police and the army are allowed (apparently, by 'society', but really, by the State) to! And what if I don't agree with the goals of those organizations? What if they use their arms to invade countries, and to exert power over innocent people, like civillians (as armies do), the working class (for example, riot cops, and the over-policing of low-income areas), and visible minorities (as racist cops do)? Should these innocent people not have the ability to defend themselves in the face of brutality and even death!?

Here's a case study, my own personal experience: I live in a big city, and though I'm pretty street smart, people follow me all the time. I've almost been jumped enough times, but in these situations (as in the ones where I find I'm being followed), I pull out my mace*, and I know I can take these guys down. Period. The police aren't going to save my life on a dark street at 2 in the morning; I am. (*Would I feel even safer with a gun? Yes.)

But do I go around randomly spraying people with mace in the face? No, of course not. That would be irrational. And all that I am is a perfectly rational person, trying to defend myself. Simply put, I think all rational individuals should have that ability.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Everyone should be allowed a gun as long as they have no criminal record and recieve saftety and training courses. There should however be some sort of worker's militia that's medium size. This would ensure that a random group of militias who hate communism couldn't just seize power, at the same time if they're out numbered by citizens with guns then you know the government is oppressing the people.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I think Iraq at the moment is showing us the power of ordinary people defending themselves against a country that is so far ahead in technology, tactics etc.

If the militias were not effective in stopping an outright invasion, then the imperialists would soon learn that a populace which opposes them is very costly to try and subdue.

War never goes to plan. The best thing is, its mosty the invaders that have the most to lose.

If you look at the Iraqi resistance, it is also internally divided. And its is working from a position in which there was no direct opposition to the U$ invasion. If they had been combined then the U$ casualties would be far higher and maybe they might have pulled out.

I think workers in developed countries would fare much better than the Iraqi resistance. We have modern communication, which is as good as military communication systems. Vehicles in abundance. A monopoly of the factories and workplaces. Meaning we could poison water that the invaders would need to drink.

There is literally no way for an invading army to subdue a determined populace.

I will post a really good article on this type of warfare, i just need to remember who the author is.


His argument is constructed on the premise that there are four competing explanations for weak victory in asymmetric wars, each of which has weaknesses in predicting outcomes or explaining the trend of increasing weak actor victories. The first of these hypotheses focuses on the nature of the actors. In this theory, authoritarian strong actors are said to have a greater probability of success in asymmetric conflict because they tend to lack the political vulnerability of a democracy. The second theory states that the diffusion of arms, particularly since the Second World War, has closed the aggregate power gap between weak and strong. In other words, even a weak power has a chance of success when equipped with modern weaponry. The third theory is that of interest asymmetry, which asserts that asymmetric wars tend to be fought with limited means for limited ends by the strong actor, but with unlimited means for unlimited ends by the weak. Theoretically, this interest asymmetry is more important to the outcome than relative power.

The final competing explanation is Arreguin-Toft’s own theory of strategic interaction. He postulates that the interaction of the strategies employed by the actors in an asymmetric conflict is the most likely predictor of outcome. His method of proof begins by dividing military strategy into two general categories. These categories are direct, such as conventional attack or defense, and indirect, such as counter-insurgency or guerilla warfare. His thesis is that when asymmetric actors employ similar strategies, as in the cases of direct versus direct or indirect versus indirect, the conflict favors the strong. On the contrary, when the strategies are of dissimilar types, the conflict favors the weak. In the process of his research, he tested this hypothesis against 196 historical cases of asymmetric conflict. He offers a summary of that research to support strategic interaction theory as a viable analysis tool. The results show strong support for his thesis.

http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1356/

[Renegade420]

Brothers, any military action needs some sort of leader. You cannot effectivly fight an organised enemy with out organization, even the most primal organisims have organized fighting tactics.

[Janus]

Yes, I would agree that we need some sort of "leader" in an armed force. Yet we need to keep a watch on this "leader" and make sure that he/she does not gain too much power or influence. Furthermore, any military leader is not to be beyond criticism and questioning. I think that a lot of what this leader does is simply advise and provide military expertise as many units make final military decisions collectively.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Maybe. if leaders are needed, then it should be like how pirates had it.

Elected leaders, who had authority only during an actual battle.

If the leader was elected, there would be a far less authoritarian character to the militia/military but it would still have relative flexability needer for modern warfare.

[Vendetta]

I think everyone should have the rights to own a gun. If they want to or not is a different matter entirely. By reasoning of that way there'd be a fair chance of defeating any sort of counter-revolution, coup, or otherwise. Personally, I view guns as a necessary evil.

Government Monopoly On Firearms (http://www.a-human-right.com/s_monopoly.jpg)
(Sorry to choke up the thread with propaganda).