Modern Anarchy

[Cryotank Screams]

This is a question I have been thinking about and trying to postulate an answer for, but have not been able to come up with a sufficient answer, and that question is, that if a Anarchist revolution were to happen in a given country, and also considering after a revolution nations are usually weak, and that capitalist countries like america, usually try to prevent, all Socialist revolutions, and nations from functioning, how would an Anarchist country be able to survive, when it would be surrounded by forces wanting it's destruction? I mean, how would it be able to combat opposing forces, and survive, and not only that but thrive?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 25, 2007 07:36 pm
This is a question I have been thinking about and trying to postulate an answer for, but have not been able to come up with a sufficient answer, and that question is, that if a Anarchist revolution were to happen in a given country, and also considering after a revolution nations are usually weak, and that capitalist countries like america, usually try to prevent, all Socialist revolutions, and nations from functioning, how would an Anarchist country be able to survive, when it would be surrounded by forces wanting it's destruction? I mean, how would it be able to combat opposing forces, and survive, and not only that but thrive?
Through the creation of a worker defense militias. However these are unecessary for wars between large regions that you are suggesting because of nuclear weapons.

LSD proposed on here that the working class should create or seize such weapons after a revolution in order to defend itself from other countries with imperialist interests. This sounds like an effective solution to prevent invasion and counter revolution.

I would also imagine that in a post revolutionary society the local defense coordinating commitees would install air to ground defenses to prevent attack. If these are put into place in all strategic areas, an invasion is highley unlikely. Large militaries have a very hard time controlling invaded territories when they have no air power.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I think if our revolution was bloodless enough a country like America would be in a jam. They'd fear attacking us for fear of their true authoritarian nature being revealed, and they'd fear not attacking us for fear that more people would like our ideas.

Anyways, it has to be a big enough thing so that the people of neighbouring places join the cause.

[Cryotank Screams]

I see, so theoretically, if could seize and gain control, of modern military powers and weaponry, and start militias, defense would be possible correct?

I can see this happening, however this only covers one topic, how would it be able to survive and thrive, economically speaking, because a lot of capitalist nations would probably place an embargoes, boycotts, and such, on the Anarchist communes, and considering no modern area has enough resources, and such to sustain itself, the communes would be cut off, from needed resources, so how would the communes counter-act this and survive?

[violencia.Proletariat]

I think if our revolution was bloodless enough a country like America would be in a jam. They'd fear attacking us for fear of their true authoritarian nature being revealed, and they'd fear not attacking us for fear that more people would like our ideas.

This is liberal idealism. Revolutions are not peaceful and we have to be ready to fight or else we'll be swept away into a history textbook (The Massacre of -insert year here-).

I see, so theoretically, if could seize and gain control, of modern military powers and weaponry, and start militias, defense would be possible correct?

It should be. However the militias would probably only be necessary to stop counter revolution in the areas they are created in. Given our technological capabilities I think an invasion from another country is very unlikely but the militias would be utilized none the less. If you want a historical context for this type of military organization, check out the anarchist militias during the Spanish Civil War. Many of these were created/coordinated by the anarchist syndicalist union CNT. I propose that similar organiations will be major factors in future revolutions.



how would it be able to survive and thrive, economically speaking, because a lot of capitalist nations would probably place an embargoes, boycotts, and such, on the Anarchist communes, and considering no modern area has enough resources, and such to sustain itself, the communes would be cut off, from needed resources, so how would the communes counter-act this and survive?

If we are to take a nation as large as America for an example, there should be sufficient resources for a period of time. Anti capitalist revolution is an internationalist theory however. It's most likely that entire regions will undergo revolution simultaneously or very soon after eachother. So a region like Western Europe would be able to pool resources more so than say if France was the lone revolutionary area.

For absolutely necessary resources we could work out a system of barter with the current capitalist countries. Afterall, revolutionary areas will contain resources that the capitalist countries will need too.

[RGacky3]

the best defense I think is public pressure from the working class of other countries. If they put pressure on their own governments to leave us alone, it will be a lot harder for that country to attack an Anarchist Community. The Vietnam war (even though the Viet-Cong was far from Anarchist) was won by Vietnam much with the help of the US public putting pressure on its government.

[LSD]

if a Anarchist revolution were to happen in a given country, and also considering after a revolution nations are usually weak, and that capitalist countries like america, usually try to prevent, all Socialist revolutions, and nations from functioning, how would an Anarchist country be able to survive, when it would be surrounded by forces wanting it's destruction?

The same way any other country would.

Obviously a Nepal does not have the military or technological strength to defend itself from a United States, but then Nepal isn't going to have a proletarian revolution any time soon.


I mean, how would it be able to combat opposing forces, and survive, and not only that but thrive?

Why do you assume that anarchist means "regressive"? Anarchist societies would be just as "modern" as capitalist ones, if not more, even in matters of military self-defense.

Undoubtably, an anarcho-communist society threatened by hostile countries would take adequate measures to defend itself. Anarchist does not mean chaotic, it just means free. An Anarchist community would be highly organized, esqpecially in essential industries.

Insofar as preventing foreign invasion, it actually isn't that difficult in contemporary terms. Since any successful anarcho-communist region would have to emerge from a perviously advanced capitalist nation, it is a foregone assumption that such a society has reasonable access to the resources of that previous state, including weapons and military equipment.

If an anarchist community wishes to discourage hostile capitalist adversaries, it can quite easily take a page out of the Cold War playbook and stockpile a couple of thermonuclear ICBMs.

It probably wouldn't even come to that anyways. Remember, capitalist nations are always weary to engage in protracted war. The citizenry of modern imperialist states may not generally recognize the nature of class oppression, but they do tend to resent relentless expeditionary ventures that clearly don't help their interests. It happened with Vietnam, and it's happening with Iraq.

If an Anarchist society demonstrated a willingness and a capacity to effectively resist invasion (and, again, a couple of nukes would go a long way here), the capitalist nations would almost certainly stick to propaganda, espionage, and blockade.

There is a reason, after all, that the US has still not invaded Cuba.


how would it be able to survive and thrive, economically speaking, because a lot of capitalist nations would probably place an embargoes, boycotts, and such, on the Anarchist communes, and considering no modern area has enough resources, and such to sustain itself, the communes would be cut off, from needed resources, so how would the communes counter-act this and survive?

That's a risk for every revolution, Anarchist or otherwise. But the nice thing about capitalists is that if there's profit to be made, most of them will sell to anyone.

Even at the height of the Cold War, Americans were still doing business with the Soviet Union; and although the US has this perverse obsession with "beating Castro", the rest of the capitalist world is more than happy to do business with Cuba.

Would there be some trade difficulties following a workers' revolution? Certainly. But would they be enough to starve out the population or devastate its infastructure? Equally certainly no.

Also remember that politics are a lot more complex than economics. Even in a capitalist world there are always countries out there eager to work with the "enemy of mine enemy" and the US sure has a lot of enemies.

Countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, etc.. might not be anything approaching communist, but I highly doubt that they'd follow a US instigated boycott campaign.

Don't underestimate the power of nationalism in motivating bourgeois politics.

***

Also, of course, the question of resources really comes down to the specifics of the revolutionary area involved. Northern America, for instance, is more than capable of sustaining itself if it came down to it.

The only real risk would come if a revolution occured in a genuinly isolated place like, say, Japan or some small segment of Europe like Iberia.

But, realistically, a revolution would have to be broader than that to survive anyway.

It wouldn't have to be global -- this notion of a one-off "world revolution" is as idealist as it gets -- but I don't think anyone is so naive as to imagine that the "people's republic of lichtenstein" could survive long on its own.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:42 pm
It should be. However the militias would probably only be necessary to stop counter revolution in the areas they are created in. Given our technological capabilities I think an invasion from another country is very unlikely but the militias would be utilized none the less. If you want a historical context for this type of military organization, check out the anarchist militias during the Spanish Civil War. Many of these were created/coordinated by the anarchist syndicalist union CNT. I propose that similar organiations will be major factors in future revolutions.
That's what I think as well, and completely agree, and I think a militia should be formed, and that the people should be trained, and that it could be assembled quickly just in case of a surprise coup, or some such predicament.

I have been working on writing essays on warfare strategy and stuff, and have been looking primarily at Mahkno and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, and Mahkno's the Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists, and Blanqui's Manual for an Armed Insurrection, and Mao's work on guerilla warfare as a starting point, but didn't think of looking the spanish Anarchists, so thank you, for the tip.


If we are to take a nation as large as America for an example, there should be sufficient resources for a period of time. Anti capitalist revolution is an internationalist theory however. It's most likely that entire regions will undergo revolution simultaneously or very soon after eachother. So a region like Western Europe would be able to pool resources more so than say if France was the lone revolutionary area.

For absolutely necessary resources we could work out a system of barter with the current capitalist countries. Afterall, revolutionary areas will contain resources that the capitalist countries will need too.

I was thinking that of course if a international revolution was happening, and post-revolutionary international Anarchist society would be easily run, but I also thought this may seem, at least in modern times, a bit unattainable, so, then I started to think, “well what if it was just one country,” and of course, america, or at least continental america, would have numerous indigenous resources to rely upon for survival, and to thrive off of, if however utilized properly, but what if a revolution occurred in a small countries, like romania, poland, or something, and couldn’t receive help from surrounding countries, and said countries were not going under a revolution currently, if say bartering will not occur, with any nation? Also, what about island nations like Haiti, or japan, what about those situations?

I do apologize for all the questions, and ‘what ifs’ I just want to gain a firm basis, and understanding, thanks for responding btw.

[Cryotank Screams]

LSD;

Thank you too comrade, and I agree, and will take this into my research, however I would like to point out, that I wasn't assuming that Anarchism means regression, or that it would be necessarly chaotic, my main point was that all revolutions, leave the post revolutionary society, somewhat zapped if you like, for awhile of resources both military and otherwise, and that strict organization while trying to settle and organize domestic matters, may be hard to attain and perform, along with zapped military and weaponry forces, might pose a problem to the commune, that was all I was saying, and trying to figure out, and account for.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 25, 2007 10:07 pm
LSD;

Thank you too comrade, and I agree, and will take this into my research, however I would like to point out, that I wasn't assuming that Anarchism means regression, or that it would be necessarly chaotic, my main point was that all revolutions, leave the post revolutionary society, somewhat zapped if you like, for awhile of resources both military and otherwise, and that strict organization while trying to settle and organize domestic matters, may be hard to attain and perform, along with zapped military and weaponry forces, might pose a problem to the commune, that was all I was saying, and trying to figure out, and account for.

And these are probably revolutions where the people are not in control. If you look at Barcelona right up to the coup and the start of the revolution, the workers were prepared. Once the coup started the workers immediately siezed all the arms they could and raided everything from stockpiles to sporting goods stores. Also, since the workers immediately seized production and ran it through democratic means, the city could immediately start to organize their forces and supply defense.

[robbo203]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:42 am


This is liberal idealism. Revolutions are not peaceful and we have to be ready to fight or else we'll be swept away into a history textbook (The Massacre of -insert year here-).


[QUOTE]

I dont think it is neccessarily the case that revolutions are violent. Certainly Marx and Engels anticipated revolutionary change to be peaceful in some parts of the world where a relatively mature bourgeois democracy had long been in place (holland , the USA, Britain). The communist revolution has to be a self-concious mass movement for radical change by its very nature; it cannot be effected by some vanguard elite on behalf of the workers. The growth of a communist communist will have ramifications that will modify the general social outlook in a way that will render authoritarian oppressive reactions by the state increasingly without support and as we know from the collpase of state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe in the late 80s, without the tacit support of the population no state can effectively function.

I surmise that by the time the communist movement is a significant majoirty the only significant opposition it will face will probably be from the camp of bourgeois democrats and assorted well=meaning reformists. The pro-violence recalcitrant supporters of capitalism will by then have virtually lost any influence they might have once enjoyed as a result of the sea change in social attituides accompanying the rise of the communist movement whose influence will permeate everywhere including even the armed forces

Robin
www.worldincommon.org

[50cal_words]

Also, it is to be considered that capitalists will only invade a country if there is profit to be made. If the losses sustained overweigh the potential profits(such as military resistance), they will stop pursuit.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Certainly Marx and Engels anticipated revolutionary change to be peaceful in some parts of the world where a relatively mature bourgeois democracy had long been in place (holland , the USA, Britain).

Where does Marx propose this?


The communist revolution has to be a self-concious mass movement for radical change by its very nature; it cannot be effected by some vanguard elite on behalf of the workers.

No shit but this has absolutely nothing to do with the bourgeois reaction which will be violent no matter what shape the revolution takes.

We have to seize the means of production. They will be defending it with force, so force must be used in return.


without the tacit support of the population no state can effectively function.

This doesn't mean that the reactionary elements of society can not cause harm to the revolution. There are going to be reactionaries and they are probably going to retain power and influence amongst their own populations. That is something we will have to deal with.

The pro-violence recalcitrant supporters of capitalism will by then have virtually lost any influence they might have once enjoyed as a result of the sea change in social attituides accompanying the rise of the communist movement whose influence will permeate everywhere including even the armed forces


This is all speculation. Lets look at history for examples of revolutions. The Russia revolution was overwhelmingly supported by the majority, however this did not stop a long and brutal civil war waged by the reactionaries.

The question is, if violence were necessary, are you willing to use it?

[crippled sloth]

LSD - "any successful anarcho-communist region would have to emerge from a perviously advanced capitalist nation"

Why is this? Surely revolution is most likely where opression/exploitation is greatest (the third world).

[robbo203]

Robbo: Certainly Marx and Engels anticipated revolutionary change to be peaceful in some parts of the world where a relatively mature bourgeois democracy had long been in place (holland , the USA, Britain).
violencia.Proletariat: Where does Marx propose this?

In a speech to the Frst internatrional in the Hague in 1872. This is what he said:

"We are aware of the importance that must be accorded to the institutions, customs and traditions of differnet countries and we do not deny that there are countries like America, England (and if I knew your institutions better, Holland) where workers can achieve their aims by peaceful means"


Robbo: The communist revolution has to be a self-concious mass movement for radical change by its very nature; it cannot be effected by some vanguard elite on behalf of the workers.
Violencia.Proletariat: No shit but this has absolutely nothing to do with the bourgeois reaction which will be violent no matter what shape the revolution takes. We have to seize the means of production. They will be defending it with force, so force must be used in return.



The bourgeoisie or capitalist class consititute a tiny fraction of the population. Are you seriously suggesting these pampered parasites are going to be in any kind of position to do anything about it. I doubt it. As Jimmy Reid once said "if we all spat we could drown them". How come if the capitalist class are inevitably going to defend their monopoly on the means of production with violence did they not do so in eastern Europe with the collape of state capitalism there? No , the wealthy parasites that populated the upper reaches of the pseudo communist parties of Eastern Europe surrendered their control with little more than a whimper



Robbo: without the tacit support of the population no state can effectively function.
Violencia.proletariat: This doesn't mean that the reactionary elements of society can not cause harm to the revolution. There are going to be reactionaries and they are probably going to retain power and influence amongst their own populations. That is something we will have to deal with.


I do not rule out completely that the reactionary elements of society might resort to violence. It is possible but unlikely. And the larger the communist movement becomes, the deeper the influence it will have exerted on the wider social context, the less likely is violence to be contemplated - or indeed needed.

As a last resort if it is needed then reluctantly i would have to use it. But we should not glamorise or romanticise the use of violence. It is actually a sign of weakness not strength that one feels the need to use it. And unless communism enjoys mass support you are not going to be able to have communism anyway. It cannot be imposed from above by some vanguard elite


Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:23 am

if a Anarchist revolution were to happen in a given country, and also considering after a revolution nations are usually weak, and that capitalist countries like america, usually try to prevent, all Socialist revolutions, and nations from functioning, how would an Anarchist country be able to survive, when it would be surrounded by forces wanting it's destruction?

The same way any other country would.


But given that anarchists will instantly move towards dismantling the State and dissolving the nation into a network of autonomous communities, it won't be able to function like "any other country".

And who will wield and control these technological weapons of defense - the first autonomous community that gets their hands on it?

[violencia.Proletariat]

"We are aware of the importance that must be accorded to the institutions, customs and traditions of differnet countries and we do not deny that there are countries like America, England (and if I knew your institutions better, Holland) where workers can achieve their aims by peaceful means"

And Marx was clearly wrong here. We have no chance of destroying capitalism without violence. Reformism does not work.


Are you seriously suggesting these pampered parasites are going to be in any kind of position to do anything about it.

Absolutely. Afterall there are still going to be lots of people unsure about the revolution and there are going to be lots of people against it whether they are proles or not. The bourgeoisie are a small group but the have power. They will still have influence over some of the population because there are bound to be many who are too afraid the revolution will fail. They have the power of the state which includes the armed forces (which we can hopefully get on our side) but they also have armed forces who will never be on our side, cops.

Just because we have everyone on our side doesn't mean we won't have to use violence, it just means we will win faster.


As Jimmy Reid once said "if we all spat we could drown them". How come if the capitalist class are inevitably going to defend their monopoly on the means of production with violence did they not do so in eastern Europe with the collape of state capitalism there?

Because the bureaucrats of Eastern Europe were not capitalists. They did not own the state enterprises to do whatever they felt like with. However to claim that they did not resist with violence is just wrong. Do you not remember Hungary 1956? That was a workers uprising shut down by the state. The state also used suppression during its existance, this is violence in many cases.


the wealthy parasites that populated the upper reaches of the pseudo communist parties of Eastern Europe surrendered their control with little more than a whimper

Yeah those tanks they send in are no big deal at all :rolleyes:


But we should not glamorise or romanticise the use of violence.

Where have I done this? I have been realistic about the subject, thats all.


It is actually a sign of weakness not strength that one feels the need to use it.

I don't need liberal morality. I'm not ashamed of violence against the oppressing class. The fact that you find it appauling and not obvious is whats suprising.

A sign of weakness is when your not willing to use whatever's necessary to obtain your freedom.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I don't need liberal morality. I'm not ashamed of violence against the oppressing class. The fact that you find it appauling and not obvious is whats suprising.

A sign of weakness is when your not willing to use whatever's necessary to obtain your freedom.


Al contrario, I think that when you have only one solution to a complicated problem, you aren't excercising your fill potential as a social revolutionary.

[robbo203]

violencia.Proletariat And Marx was clearly wrong here. We have no chance of destroying capitalism without violence. Reformism does not work.

On what tablets of stone was it written that we have no chance of destroying capitalism without violence? I think you are being a little narrow minded here. Unlike you I dont have a crystal ball and am prepared to concede that there may be some violence - how much is something else to consider. But unlike you I dont dogmatically insist that violence is inevitable. Nor did Marx

And what, incidentally, has this got to do with reformism? Reformism is the attempt to ameliorate the economic consequences of capitalism via the state machine


QUOTE
Are you seriously suggesting these pampered parasites are going to be in any kind of position to do anything about it.
violencia.Proletariat Absolutely. Afterall there are still going to be lots of people unsure about the revolution and there are going to be lots of people against it whether they are proles or not. The bourgeoisie are a small group but the have power. They will still have influence over some of the population because there are bound to be many who are too afraid the revolution will fail. They have the power of the state which includes the armed forces (which we can hopefully get on our side) but they also have armed forces who will never be on our side, cops.
Just because we have everyone on our side doesn't mean we won't have to use violence, it just means we will win faster.


Communism can only happen when the great majority want and understand it. If there are lots of people still against communism then by definition we would not be in any position yet to bring it about and it would be folly even to try. The bigger the communist the movement the less likely is it that it will confront violent oppostion. It is not only a question of numbers but of the change in the social climate generally which will also change the nature of opposition to communism. When the communist movement is huge some people may still oppose it but they are less likely to oppose it violently because the spread of communist ideas presupposes the spread of democratic values. The capitalists have power but power is based on the consent of those over whom such power is exercised; withdraw that consent and this power structure implodes. This is what happened with the collapse of state capitalism in Eastern Europe



QUOTE
As Jimmy Reid once said "if we all spat we could drown them". How come if the capitalist class are inevitably going to defend their monopoly on the means of production with violence did they not do so in eastern Europe with the collape of state capitalism there?
violencia.Proletariat Because the bureaucrats of Eastern Europe were not capitalists. They did not own the state enterprises to do whatever they felt like with. However to claim that they did not resist with violence is just wrong. Do you not remember Hungary 1956? That was a workers uprising shut down by the state. The state also used suppression during its existance, this is violence in many cases.


Depends what you mean by bureacrats. I argue that the Party apparatchiks and state managers collectively constituted a de facto capitalist class because collectively they monopolised the means iof production via their minority control of the state machine. Minor bureacrats may not have counted but you can hardly deny the reality of a small class of individuals who wielded enormous power over the means of production in state capitalism which is in fact an expression of de facto ownership. They could do what they wanted with state enterprises contrary to what you claim becuase they were the boss class who gave the orders and set the quotas and had the final say on all matters of any significance


QUOTE
the wealthy parasites that populated the upper reaches of the pseudo communist parties of Eastern Europe surrendered their control with little more than a whimper
violencia.Proletariat Yeah those tanks they send in are no big deal at all


Those tanks were to no avail against the largely peaceful expression of people's power. Look at the velvet revolution


QUOTE
But we should not glamorise or romanticise the use of violence.
violencia.Proletariat Where have I done this? I have been realistic about the subject, thats all.

You might not have done but there are those who romanticise the use of violence and indeed equate the word "revolution" with violence when it is nothing of the sort. Revolution simply means a fundamental change in the economic basis of society. How you achieve that change is quite a different matter


QUOTE
It is actually a sign of weakness not strength that one feels the need to use it.
violencia.Proletariat I don't need liberal morality. I'm not ashamed of violence against the oppressing class. The fact that you find it appauling and not obvious is whats suprising. A sign of weakness is when your not willing to use whatever's necessary to obtain your freedom.


But hold on a minute. I have already said that IF it is necessary to use violence I would use it. So your comment is a little unfair. What I am not prepered to do is to state in advance that violence is unavoidable. As I said I dont have a crystal ball. If we have to use violence it would be vital to keep it to an absolute minimum. Violence breeds violence and as a strategy is very often counter productive. Worse still, violence generates authoritarian tendencies becuase the need to organise violence along militaristric lines (you cannot wage an effective war democratically). That is why as a communist I would far sooner try to avoid the use of violence altogether. This is not a question of "liberal morality." It is a question of being realistic about what you can achieve with violence. And history is littered with examples of regimes being overthrown by violent means only to have another equally, if not even more, oppressive regime being installed in the place of the old one


Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/

[LSD]

LSD - "any successful anarcho-communist region would have to emerge from a perviously advanced capitalist nation"

Why is this? Surely revolution is most likely where opression/exploitation is greatest (the third world).

That may be where revolution is likely, but it's not where communist revolution is likely.

Communism can only be implemented in a society which has technologicallu, economically, and politically developed to the point where it can be sustained. Otherwise, "communism" quickly becomes nothing more than a euphemism for "benevlolent" dictatorship.

That's what happend in Russia and it's what happened in China. That's probably not the picture that ardent Leninists and Maoists will draw. Rather they'll probably tell you that those revolutions failed because of the personalities and "cliques" involved ...if they'll even admit that they failed at all.

But that obsession of Leninist parties with "re-crafting" Marxism to appeal to undeveloped countries is nothing short of a perversion of revolutionary communism.

Leninism may have found its "niche" in the third world; it has, after all, proven itself moderately successful at industrializing backwards countries relatvively quickly, but that has nothing to do with the question of proletarian revolution.

Areas without industrialized infastructures are simply not capable of supporting classless socities. Unless there are workably instruments of mass control, "socialism" cannot help but turn into despotism.

The Leninist "third world" paradigm is centered around "iron discipline" and "party rule" precisely because real socialism would be untenable. At this point, however, the notion of "substituting" top-down "management" for actual workers' control has been revealed to be the utter sham that it is.

The thid world today needs a strong progressive anti-imperialist movement, no doubt, but that movement needs to be realist. It needs to recognize that "communism" is simply not on the cards for Somalia or Angola or Yemen.

Classlessness simply requires a greater degree of interconnective technological infastructure than any of these countries can presently support.

That's not a "knock" against any of these countries, it's just the unfortunate state of the world.


But given that anarchists will instantly move towards dismantling the State and dissolving the nation into a network of autonomous communities, it won't be able to function like "any other country".

Obviously anarchism won't be identical to capitalism, otherwise there wouldn't be a point to agitating for it. But in terms of defending itself from attack, the strategy implemented would be basically the same.

Countries stop other countries from attacking by making not attacking the preferable choice, either by incentivizing peace or disincentivizing war; it doesn't matter whether the country at threat is anarchist, socialist, or fascist, if it can't do one of those two things (and no one else can do it for it), it will be attacked.

An anarchist society plays by that same rulebook. And since incentivizing peace will be incredibly difficult given the economic incentive to crush any emergent resistance to capitalism, pretty much the only available option will be to implement a potent second-strike mechanism.

Now, you're right, the structure of an anarchist self-defence system will probably be quite different from one set-up by a capitalist or precapitalist state. But in a modern context, those differences won't have a significant impact on the efficacy of the system itself.

Long-range weapons don't need hierarchy or "iron discipline" to fly and jackboots on the ground no longer win wars. Not when those jackboots can be vaporized from five thousand miles away.

And in nuclear war, "leadership" contributes very little.


And who will wield and control these technological weapons of defense

The entire community, democratically and transparently.

If you're asking for specific details, I haven't got 'em. But personel would obviously be selected democratically and on a heavily rotating basis with plenty of automatic computerized backup systems.

And the less hierarchized and secretive the system implemented, the less the risk of misfire. It's the same reason that a dictatorship with a nuclear weapon is scarrier than a bourgeois republic with one

Neither of them is anything approaching a "good" state, but at least the latter is somewhat more transparent than the former.

Obviously an anarchist society would be vastly preferable to either one.

[violencia.Proletariat]

On what tablets of stone was it written that we have no chance of destroying capitalism without violence?

The state of class relations in the present time. Revolutionary movements have historically been suppressed with force and still are to this day in every country.


And what, incidentally, has this got to do with reformism?

Because reformism is the only option for someone using only peaceful means. How do you expect to defend the means of production from the bourgeoisie when they try and retake it with force?


If there are lots of people still against communism then by definition we would not be in any position yet to bring it about and it would be folly even to try.

Most of Barcelona supported the revolution in 1936 and yet they still lost. Why? Because of that harmless bourgeoisie you speak of :rolleyes:

Not everyone is going to be a communist or ready to sacrifice for communism. That does not mean however that these people will not assimilate post revolution.


The bigger the communist the movement the less likely is it that it will confront violent oppostion.

Thats not true at all. That is the point when the bourgeois would be most likely to use violence, because they have to other option of maintaining their social/economic system.


The capitalists have power but power is based on the consent of those over whom such power is exercised; withdraw that consent and this power structure implodes.

Yes the working class withdraws its consent and then has to deal with the armed guards of the state. The capitalist class has a monopoly on weaponry and force which will also be immediately at their disposal. We in the meantime have to organize our own self defense.


They could do what they wanted with state enterprises contrary to what you claim becuase they were the boss class who gave the orders and set the quotas and had the final say on all matters of any significance

They could not turn the enterprise into a private business of their own. They had no personal control over the means of production. They ran it but they did not own it.


Those tanks were to no avail against the largely peaceful expression of people's power. Look at the velvet revolution

The Hungarian Uprising was supressed with force, many of the defenders killed.


Revolution simply means a fundamental change in the economic basis of society. How you achieve that change is quite a different matter

I agree violence is not in the deffinition of revolution. But in reality to create such a radical change, one that has historically been opposed with force, in a society where violence is used by all sides , you have to be willing to use it.


If we have to use violence it would be vital to keep it to an absolute minimum. Violence breeds violence and as a strategy is very often counter productive.

Violence is not an entity which spreads and infects people. It's an action used to achieve something. It can be applied by rational members of society without triggering some unstoppable natural instinct to kill. ;)


Worse still, violence generates authoritarian tendencies becuase the need to organise violence along militaristric lines (you cannot wage an effective war democratically).

That is not true. Violence does not need hierarchy to be used by a group of people in an effective manner. Have you studied the Spanish Revolution? The first groups out in the street fighting the coup were the democratic workers militias. Recallable officers and a defense committee are not instruments of hierarchy, yet they can be an effective fighting force.

[robbo203]

QUOTE
On what tablets of stone was it written that we have no chance of destroying capitalism without violence?
B]violencia proletariat[/B] The state of class relations in the present time. Revolutionary movements have historically been suppressed with force and still are to this day in every country.

But you cannot infer from the past what will happen under the completely different circumstances of mass communist comnsciousness which we have never yet seen
even remotely.

QUOTE
And what, incidentally, has this got to do with reformism?
violencia proletariat Because reformism is the only option for someone using only peaceful means. How do you expect to defend the means of production from the bourgeoisie when they try and retake it with force?

On what basis do you assume the ex-bourgeoisie after the communist revolution will a) actively seek to take back the means of production and b) use violence to achieve this goal. Again this is just crytal ball gazing


QUOTE
If there are lots of people still against communism then by definition we would not be in any position yet to bring it about and it would be folly even to try.
@violecia [email protected] Most of Barcelona supported the revolution in 1936 and yet they still lost. Why? Because of that harmless bourgeoisie you speak of


I question that but in any event the communist movement can only be a global movement and can only succeed once we have a great majority of workers consciously wanting and understanding communism

QUOTE
The bigger the communist the movement the less likely is it that it will confront violent oppostion.
violencia proletariat Thats not true at all. That is the point when the bourgeois would be most likely to use violence, because they have to other option of maintaining their social/economic system.


Actually the very opposite is true. If the capitalists want to suppress the communist revolution it is when the movement is numerically weakest that they they stand the best chance of doing this. By the time we are numbered in the millions it would be far too late. Even personnel in the armed forces will be affected by a communist consciousness


QUOTE
The capitalists have power but power is based on the consent of those over whom such power is exercised; withdraw that consent and this power structure implodes.
violecia proletariat: Yes the working class withdraws its consent and then has to deal with the armed guards of the state. The capitalist class has a monopoly on weaponry and force whichviolecia proletariat will also be immediately at their disposal. We in the meantime have to organize our own self defense.

The armed forces consist overwhelmingly of members of the working class who are not immune to communist ideas. Besides which I keep on coming back to this - by the time the communist movement is that large that spread of democratic values upon which this growth is predicated will have ensured that even the capitalist class - or rather their political represenatives - will be reluctant to do anything that goes against the wishes of the majority


QUOTE
They could do what they wanted with state enterprises contrary to what you claim becuase they were the boss class who gave the orders and set the quotas and had the final say on all matters of any significance
violecia proletariat They could not turn the enterprise into a private business of their own. They had personal control over the means of production. They ran it but they did not own it.

No they couldnt do that but I was not talking about them as individual capitalists; I was talking about them as a class ansd in that respect the aopparatachiks had absolute control over the means of production


QUOTE
Those tanks were to no avail against the largely peaceful expression of people's power. Look at the velvet revolution
violecia proletariat The Hungarian Uprising was supressed with force, many of the defenders killed.

Yes sometime violence happens; sometimes it does not. You are saying it ALWAYS happens and plainly you are weong in thinking this


QUOTE
Revolution simply means a fundamental change in the economic basis of society. How you achieve that change is quite a different matter
violecia proletariat I agree violence is not in the deffinition of revolution. But in reality to create such a radical change, one that has historically been opposed with force, in a society where violence is used by all sides , you have to be willing to use it.

As I said I would be willing to use it as a very last resort but I am not prepared to say we must go ahead to organsise to violently take over the means of production. This would be suicidal counterproductive and pointless


QUOTE
If we have to use violence it would be vital to keep it to an absolute minimum. Violence breeds violence and as a strategy is very often counter productive.
violecia proletariat Violence is not an entity which spreads and infects people. It's an action used to achieve something. It can be applied by rational members of society without triggering some unstoppable natural instinct to kill.

Saying violence breeds violence does not mean thinking of it as an entity. It is an observable fact and it is not fueled by anything so daft as an "unstoppable natural instinct to kill" which I question even exists anyway (do you feel inclined to kill people at random?) In response to violence people do tend to react violently. Look at Iraq


QUOTE
Worse still, violence generates authoritarian tendencies becuase the need to organise violence along militaristric lines (you cannot wage an effective war democratically).
violecia proletariat That is not true. Violence does not need hierarchy to be used by a group of people in an effective manner. Have you studied the Spanish Revolution? The first groups out in the street fighting the coup were the democratic workers militias. Recallable officers

I stand by the statement that if you are going to wage an EFFECTIVE military campaign an authoritarian structure of command is virtually unavoidable. You are grasping at straws here. Even if the "first groups out in the street fighting the coup were the democratic workers militias" what happened subsequently? Over time the exigencies of combat require a simplified authoritarian chain of command. And when one regime is overthown violently what usually happens is that the authoriarian structure that has become intrinsic to the the successful incoming regime expresses itself once again in the form of political coercion and the suppression of opponents. This has happened so many times the point hardly needs mentioning


Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/

[Hit The North]

LSD,

Thank you, Comrade, for your reply. Just a few points:


Long-range weapons don't need hierarchy or "iron discipline" to fly and jackboots on the ground no longer win wars. Not when those jackboots can be vaporized from five thousand miles away.


Would an anarchist society be prepared to use long-range ballistic and nuclear weapons? Because it seems to me that the only target of these weapons is other civilian populations.


The entire community, democratically and transparently.

If you're asking for specific details, I haven't got 'em. But personel would obviously be selected democratically and on a heavily rotating basis with plenty of automatic computerized backup systems.

That doesn't sound like a convincing mechanism for making the quick life-and-death decisions which would be required.


It's the same reason that a dictatorship with a nuclear weapon is scarrier than a bourgeois republic with one

That sounds like a bourgeois prejudice. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise, given that only the USA has used these weapons against actual people.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is worth remembering that the use of conventional weapons against a revolutionary insurrection would require the consent and cooperation of the armed forces of the country carrying out the attack. Given that the armed forces, at the lowest level, tend to be based on proletarians who have no other way in which to survive except through risking their lives in the service of the state, it is assertive simply to assume that they would be willing to attack proletarians who had seized power in a genuine socialist Revolution, particuarly if it was clear that the proletariat was benefitting from their seizure of power.

Although, in Capitalist societies, the ruling class mantains an ideological hegemony in order to prevent the proletariat from developing a class consciousness, historically soliders have on multiple ocassions refused to fire upon the proletariat. The February Revolution of 1917 is an example of note; the failure of the army to stay loyal to the Czar was a key factor in the collapse of the autocratic regime.

[LSD]

Would an anarchist society be prepared to use long-range ballistic and nuclear weapons?

It if came down to it, yes. But the whole point of deterrence is that it shouldn't come down to it.


That doesn't sound like a convincing mechanism for making the quick life-and-death decisions which would be required.

Why not?

I'm not saying that in a crisis everyone needs to get together and vote on whether or not to launch the missiles, but that the procedures and guidelines be democratically and transparently implemented.

Remember, it's never the "leaders" who actually push the button, not even in the most totalitarian states. They relay their "orders" down the chain-of-command to the person who actually has his finger on the button.

Usually that's a submariner or a flight officer. And it's up to them to actually launch the bomb.

An anarchist society would be no different, except instead of reacting to "orders", they would react to clearly outlined procedures regarding foreign attack. Again, the whole "leader" paradigm is mostly superfulous when it comes to modern warfare.


That sounds like a bourgeois prejudice. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise, given that only the USA has used these weapons against actual people.

That's because it was the only country that had them and had nothing to lose. Obviously that's no longer the case.

You see, for all its faults, and there are many, the US rulling class has a decent sense of self-preservation. They are doing well, and want to keep doing well. Furthermore, they are guided by a sense of "rational self-interest", meaning that they, for the most part, tend to pursue their class aims with a fair bit of rational thought.

Unfortunately, this does not describe all of the world. There is a certain segment, mostly consisting of religious fanatics, who would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons tomorrow, even if it meant their death. They, simply, don't see death as a "problem".

And in the absence of republican sageguards, those fanatics have the capacity to act on their apocalyptic dogma.

George Bush is a religious fool, but even though he has the capacity, he's not about to go nuking "infidels". The same cannot be said for countries like Iran or Taliban-era Afghanistan.

And think about it, on the verge of his defeat, knowing that he's probably only months away from execution, do you really believe that had he had the ability, Hussein woudln't have lit off a few nukes?