Anarchist Defense

[Never Give In]

Dosen't Anarchism leave a country vulnerable to any country just waltzing in and taking over? There isn't a military force from what I know of. That basically means for all countries to be peaceful, the whole world would have to turn Anarchist.

Is this wrong?

[Not entirely illiterate]

A very good question, one that I've been given much thought. One thing is for sure, an anarchist country (oxymoron, but you know what I mean) will only need means of defence; having offensive capacity is anti-anarchistic in its very core. Maintaining some kind of armed forces is, IMHO, out of the window; an separate entity packing heavy weapons within an anarchist state will inevitably be tempted to seize power.

Therefore, what we should do is to rely upon our people. Instruct everyone (and I mean everyone, men, women and children) how to effectively transform from free citizens into an effective self-defence militia when need arises. An oppressor, whether it be a foreign invader or a military junta running coup d'état, consolidates its power by the means of fear and force. A population where all free citizens are willing to rise up with arms and defend their freedom to the death, and are even skilled in doing so and equipped for the task... you won't shove them around so easily.

We will still, however, most likely be the weaker force, so our main methods of defence will be guerilla warfare. Just think about it; the occupying force will have no respite anywhere as long as they're invading on our soil. There have been plenty of warfare in the past century that proves that guerilla warfare is an extremely effective way of defensive fighting, even if it will probably mean extreme damage to the infrastructure. But it's just matter, the important thing is that our populace survives and maintains its will to fight.

[Janus]

Dosen't Anarchism leave a country vulnerable to any country just waltzing in and taking over?
No, there would still be an intact militia force for domestic and foreign threats.

Anarchy-how would it defend itself? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61617&hl=+anarchism++military)
Anarchist revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61587&hl=+anarchism++defen*++military)

[Tower of Bebel]

How could an anarchist country excist? It must at least be big and self sufficient.

EDIT.

For people who still want to answer to this question intirely off topic: make it short for I don't want to highjack this thread.

[ComradeR]

Dosen't Anarchism leave a country vulnerable to any country just waltzing in and taking over?

No, there would still be an intact militia force for domestic and foreign threats.

This concept that only militia forces are to be used is outdated, the time when a lightly armed and poorly trained militia was an effective conventional force is gone. They're only use now is as guerillas, they are completely incapable of standing against a technologically advanced mechanized army on a conventional battlefield which is where the problem lies, because a revolution that cannot defend itself on a conventional battlefield is not likely to survive (like Hungary or Spain, and this is back when militias were a capable conventional force).


There have been plenty of warfare in the past century that proves that guerilla warfare is an extremely effective way of defensive fighting
It is an effective way of eventually seizing a country to allow a revolution to take place, it is not effective in defending a revolution after it has been established as history has shown (if the original revolution is put down then is is nearly if not impossible to achieve a second revolution anytime soon after).

[Janus]

This concept that only militia forces are to be used is outdated, the time when a lightly armed and poorly trained militia was an effective conventional force is gone.
I was using the term "militia" to denote an armed force that is representative of an entire community rather than merely being a professional body. However, I don't see why it must be "lightly armed" or "poorly trained" when it has all of the resources of the commune at its disposal. Furthermore, the age of conventional warfare involving massive and strongly disciplined armed forces is becoming more and more obsolete in an age of nuclear deterrence and increasingly more sophisticated technological weapons.

[ComradeR]

I don't see why it must be "lightly armed" or "poorly trained" when it has all of the resources of the commune at its disposal
It has nothing to do with the availability of material, it has to do with the fact that like we both have said we are now in an age where the battlefield is dominated by technologically advanced weapons, the use of which requires a high level of training which is something a local militia (able bodied people called to arms from the local populace to defend against an invading army) does not posses, which means it's lightly armed (due to the fact that more advanced weapons require high levels of training, like an air force for example which is a necessity in modern war).

Furthermore, the age of conventional warfare involving massive and strongly disciplined armed forces is becoming more and more obsolete in an age of nuclear deterrence and increasingly more sophisticated technological weapons.
I agree on the idea that the age of massive army's is gone but the case of disciplined troops i disagree. War requires discipline and training especially now in the age of technological warfare (and no matter how advanced the weapons are you will always need troops on the ground), a small disciplined and highly trained force can usually defeat a larger but poorly trained force that lacks discipline, this is a basic rule of warfare and has been proven time and again throughout history. The only instance where this doesn't apply is in guerilla warfare and as i said before if falls to this for defence then the revolution is pretty much doomed.

nuclear deterrence
This idea as being the main defence against an invasion is not really practical, for one very few nations actually posses nuclear weapons and the ability to create them is extremely difficult and long, and the imperialist aggressors would not wait for you to complete them, and second this again requires a high level of training to use, nor would you be willing to use them on your own soil if they go ahead with an invasion.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

The best defence we have is agitating within the ranks of the invading working-class army. After all, it's they who die for the gains of the few, and if that doesn't raise class consciousness then nothing will. Imagine airplanes dropping thousands upon thousands of leaflets saying:

FELLOW WORKERS: OUR INTERESTS ARE THE SAME

Obviously this will not always work on more indoctrinated, mercenary type millitaries, so some kind of irregular warfare might be potent enough to lower morale or at the very least cause a hue and cry back home.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Its insane to rely on militia's to defend a revolutionary society.

You will need to use the military forces left over from the capitalist society. That means using planes, tanks, battleships and subs.

Because, war is about bombing the shit out of a country, then flooding it with troops.

If the invaders actually do invade and occupy then your revolutionary society is on the brink of death any way.

Look at Russia 1917. Spanish civil war, Korea, Vietnam.

You will need to have a military in order to prevent the land invasion and air defense from bombing.

bands of workers with rifles wont cut it in this world anymore :(

[ComradeR]

The best defence we have is agitating within the ranks of the invading working-class army. After all, it's they who die for the gains of the few, and if that doesn't raise class consciousness then nothing will. Imagine airplanes dropping thousands upon thousands of leaflets saying:

FELLOW WORKERS: OUR INTERESTS ARE THE SAME
This unfortunately won't work, just as it didn't work in Russia, Hungry, Spain, Korea, Vietnam and every other revolution that has been attacked. This is because the amount of propaganda that is pounded into the heads of imperialist troops turns them into complete believers in the imperialist cause.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

According to Orwell it did sometimes work because half the fascists were conscripted anyways. Also in Vietnam there was an immense breakdown in morale and cohesion; drugs use all over and plenty of fragging incidents.

[abbielives!]

i think a guerilla war is the way to go, tanks can be destroyed with quite cheap means, planes can only injure a guerilla force if they know were they are.
A lot of fascist soldiers joined the republican side, the russian revolution had entire divisions deserting. It's not true that a popular force cannot resist a modern army look at Iraq and Afganistan

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by abbielives!@July 12, 2007 10:53 pm
i think a guerilla war is the way to go, tanks can be destroyed with quite cheap means, planes can only injure a guerilla force if they know were they are.
A lot of fascist soldiers joined the republican side, the russian revolution had entire divisions deserting. It's not true that a popular force cannot resist a modern army look at Iraq and Afganistan
That can sustain a war can win battles but cannot win wars. NLF and PAVN's final victory did not come by guerilla tactics alone. Mao's people's war in China drove out Chiang only after massive aid of Soviet Union finally came which made it to out gun nationalists.



the russian revolution had entire divisions deserting

but the Red Army did not confine itself to Guerilla tactics.


It's not true that a popular force cannot resist a modern army

The point is not ability to resist but to win wars.


look at Iraq

Very Bad example - the resistance is more at each other throats than against US army.


and Afganistan

Taliban resistance may be effective but it does not have popular support.

*******************************

By the way even an effective Guerilla Army needs an effective chain of command - if at all it want to win wars , which makes be wonder how the anti authoritarian radicals could digest that :unsure:

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by abbielives!@July 12, 2007 06:23 pm
i think a guerilla war is the way to go, tanks can be destroyed with quite cheap means, planes can only injure a guerilla force if they know were they are.
A lot of fascist soldiers joined the republican side, the russian revolution had entire divisions deserting. It's not true that a popular force cannot resist a modern army look at Iraq and Afganistan
At what costs? Of course you can take out a tank with cheap RPG's f.e. but think of it that many guerrilla's - even today - get pownded very hard before they're able to take out one tank.

[Jazzratt]

Fighting should be the responsibility of all workers and some of them at least should be able to operate up to date military technology. Imagine how much more effective groups of fighters using proper equipment would be compared to ones using battered AKs.

[Janus]

It has nothing to do with the availability of material, it has to do with the fact that like we both have said we are now in an age where the battlefield is dominated by technologically advanced weapons, the use of which requires a high level of training which is something a local militia (able bodied people called to arms from the local populace to defend against an invading army) does not posses, which means it's lightly armed (due to the fact that more advanced weapons require high levels of training, like an air force for example which is a necessity in modern war).
Again, I used the term militia loosely in order to convey the composition of the military force in order to discern it from some type of professional army similar to what most countries have now. Experience and training is definitely needed which is why militia forces need to drill and practice quite frequently in order to defend their territory. Just because someone is a citizen does not mean that he or she can't learn to become a soldier. Of course, the experience garnered from the previous revolution itself would be pretty helpful as well.


I agree on the idea that the age of massive army's is gone but the case of disciplined troops i disagree. War requires discipline and training especially now in the age of technological warfare (and no matter how advanced the weapons are you will always need troops on the ground), a small disciplined and highly trained force can usually defeat a larger but poorly trained force that lacks discipline, this is a basic rule of warfare and has been proven time and again throughout history. The only instance where this doesn't apply is in guerilla warfare and as i said before if falls to this for defence then the revolution is pretty much doomed.
There will most likely always be a need for ground forces but their effectiveness continues to be outweighed more and more by technology. With large amounts of resources at their disposal, communes can help to produce and coordinate the war effort efficiently and productively in order to maximize defense capabilities. The idea of a militia as merely lightly armed soldiers is more or less a thing of the past particularly when militias will have acquired experience, capacities and weapons that were previously unavailable to them.


This idea as being the main defence against an invasion is not really practical, for one very few nations actually posses nuclear weapons and the ability to create them is extremely difficult and long, and the imperialist aggressors would not wait for you to complete them, and second this again requires a high level of training to use, nor would you be willing to use them on your own soil if they go ahead with an invasion.
Well, first of all, I was assuming that this anarchist commune would be created in a developed nation that did have access to nuclear weapons which can be used for deterence purposes. Furthermore, capturing nuclear weapons or getting them from a friendly region is another option that said federation or community can taken into consideration as part of their overall strategy.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by g.ram+July 12, 2007 05:33 pm--> (g.ram @ July 12, 2007 05:33 pm)
abbielives!@July 12, 2007 10:53 pm
i think a guerilla war is the way to go, tanks can be destroyed with quite cheap means, planes can only injure a guerilla force if they know were they are.
A lot of fascist soldiers joined the republican side, the russian revolution had entire divisions deserting. It's not true that a popular force cannot resist a modern army look at Iraq and Afganistan
That can sustain a war can win battles but cannot win wars. NLF and PAVN's final victory did not come by guerilla tactics alone. Mao's people's war in China drove out Chiang only after massive aid of Soviet Union finally came which made it to out gun nationalists.



the russian revolution had entire divisions deserting

but the Red Army did not confine itself to Guerilla tactics.


It's not true that a popular force cannot resist a modern army

The point is not ability to resist but to win wars.


look at Iraq

Very Bad example - the resistance is more at each other throats than against US army.


and Afganistan

Taliban resistance may be effective but it does not have popular support.

*******************************

By the way even an effective Guerilla Army needs an effective chain of command - if at all it want to win wars , which makes be wonder how the anti authoritarian radicals could digest that :unsure: [/b]

I don't really have a problem per se with most of your points.

A regular army might develop eventually, as Che suggested.
I do know that guerilla tactics are good for resisting heavy weapons such as tanks and bombers.
i would say you need a means of coordination rather than a chain of command.

[Never Give In]

So, basically, in Anarchist Society, there is some sort of Military Force for domestic and foreign threats. It isn't large and conquestive like the stronger Militaries of the past. But it can defend a country/society (oxymoron, say what you like) moderately well.

Thanks for the all the info you guys.

[RGacky3]

I think in todays world with Liberal governments where some justification (no matter how stupid it is) must be found for war, it would be very hard for a government to wage an open war against an anarchist society, I think the best example is the Zapatistas, by making themselves known worldwide and being very careful not to infringe on anyones rights they have become very popular and thus very difficult to attack openly, of coarse I think the population in an anarchist society should be armed but that (as others have pointed out) would at best just slow down and demoralize an advanced army.

The most likely attack that a Capitalist country would do is interfering DURING a revolution, or while it is underway using the justification of maintaining "Law and Order" or the "Rule of Law", which is pretty much what happended in Atenco, Oaxaca, the Paris Commune, and in countless workers strikes. After a revolution finding justification (especially against a popular anarchist movement/society) would be a lot harder. During a revolution again I think the best stratagy is pointing out the brutality of the state, its motives and relying on public opinion and public solidarity, in fact I also thing civil disobedience also works very well.

Remember this is against an attack from a Liberal Republic, if its comming from a totalitarian society thats a completely different issue.