Anarchism and Post-Modern Warfare

[FleasTheLemur]

One of the concepts I can't seem to wrap my head around is the idea of defense in a anarchistic society. It make sound strange, but hear out.

Imagine for a moment that a sizable region has become anarchistic. Considering the vast wealth and resources that this region has, the capitalist nations of the world have voted in the UN forum to send in a 'police force to save everyone from the chaos'.

This leads to the question--how does an anarchist region fight a post-modern war? It was easy for the Spanish because in the 1930s, the biggest threat was tanks and propeller aircraft. Now the nations of the world have missiles, carpet bombs, land mines, satellites, nuclear powered sub-marines, jets that break the sound barrier and the industrial-military-congressional complex. They have the technology to wage war and the cyclical system to continue the war (ie, the more people die, the more they profit).

Anarchists, on the other hand, don't have that luxury. War is COSTLY to an anarchist society and takes away needed people from the farms, factories and stores. While this may or may not be a misconception, I also fear that It'd be hard to train people to fight with the advanced technology of the former nation--much less develop new technology to topple the advancing war machine.

So, the question to anarchist: how do you defend yourself? Unless the entire world goes "this sucks, anarchy time!", there will be a need for defense.

[p.m.a.]

The greatest challenge to the establishment is post-modern warfare: that is, warfare that rejects modern hierarchical conceptions of militarization, instead opting for decentralized netwar, as seen with the EZLN, the Intifada, and the current insurgency across the Middle East. These struggles have no centralized parties, or centers of power even: instead, their power is arranged along network-distribution models -- that is, with many autonomous nodes of power networked in struggle.

This is the most anarchistic model of warfare yet seen: all notions of a modern army, and the hierarchy presupposed by such, are dismissed for decentralized autonomous warfare. And as the abovementioned struggles have displayed, this is a highly effective method of struggle against capital and imperialism. I'd go so far as to argue only post-modern warfare, whose prefigurative form parallels that of anarchism and autonomism, is capable of subverting capital in the armed struggle.

[The Feral Underclass]

What is "post-modern warfare"?

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:01 am
instead opting for decentralized netwar, as seen with the EZLN, the Intifada, and the current insurgency across the Middle East. These struggles have no centralized parties, or centers of power even: instead, their power is arranged along network-distribution models -- that is, with many autonomous nodes of power networked in struggle.
The Middle East is in chaos. The battle of the insurgents is not yet a succes. The intifada didn't accomplish anything good. Palestine is totally destroyed with 1000s of refugees , homeless, etc.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 04:09 am
What is "post-modern warfare"?

Postmodernity is a derivative referring to non-art aspects of history that were influenced by the new movement, namely the evolutions in society, economy and culture since the 1960s




This leads to the question--how does an anarchist region fight a post-modern war? It was easy for the Spanish because in the 1930s, the biggest threat was tanks and propeller aircraft. Now the nations of the world have missiles, carpet bombs, land mines, satellites, nuclear powered sub-marines, jets that break the sound barrier and the industrial-military-congressional complex. They have the technology to wage war and the cyclical system to continue the war (ie, the more people die, the more they profit).

Essentially he means technology and innovations made since the second World War. He asks this because Spanish guerrillas didn't have to go against enemy with night vision or heat seeking goggles so wanted to know how would an anarchist society deal with this.

But i think he errors by presupposing that the anarchist society will be stuck in the 1930s. Vietnam, Somali and Iraq are some examples of black eyes to the military juggernaut of America.

But more importantly, a working Anarchist or Communist society, will more than likely have went through an industrialization period and will either have the artillery or have the capacities to produce them if need be.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why is this question directed towards anarchists?

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:58 am

But i think he errors by presupposing that the anarchist society will be stuck in the 1930s.

I think that's why it's directed towards Anarchists.

I could be wrong..

[Revolutionary Souljah]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:01 am

This is the most anarchistic model of warfare yet seen: all notions of a modern army, and the hierarchy presupposed by such, are dismissed for decentralized autonomous warfare. And as the abovementioned struggles have displayed, this is a highly effective method of struggle against capital and imperialism. I'd go so far as to argue only post-modern warfare, whose prefigurative form parallels that of anarchism and autonomism, is capable of subverting capital in the armed struggle.

"decentralized autonomous warfare"

what is that?

please explain, how do you see it feasible fighting a war with "decentralized autonomous warfare"?

All I know is, anything can become democratic, even armies...but the idea of "decentralized autonmous warfare" sounds like decentralized non-existant commies and anarchists if you ask me...

You can't fight a war like the Iraqis are doing. An intifada is not a strategy of "warfare".

[Dimentio]

Most often, several rather uncoordinated groups.

I tend to believe that the future wars will be nano-wars. The first one utilising nano technology will become the superpower of the 21th century.

You make it sound like such a region must be low-tech.

[piet11111]

everyone should be armed ofcourse after the revolution.

america fails to pacify iraq and afghanistan because the entire population there either owns weapons or can get them easily.

i think every home should have a small stash of weapons after the revolution.
in switzerland i heared its mandatory to own an assault rifle with munition and they have almost no gun violence at all so why not follow that example ?

[p.m.a.]

To define "decentralized autonomous warfare":

Traditional modernist warfare organizes its armies in traditional hierarchical ways. The US military, for example, is a vertically-organized structure: similar to a pyramid, there are fewer people of power at the top, with larger amounts in the middle, and more at the bottom. This pyramid structure is consistently subverted by postmodern warfare: that is, warfare by armed combatants who are not organized into a pyramid structure, but instead along a distributed-network model. This decentralized model proves much more difficult for modern armies to defeat, as its polycentric distribution of power entails self-organization, and resists attempts to knock out the enemy's infrastructure of leaders. Decentralized netwar necessitates autonomy: that is, by nature of a netwar model, the ability of individuals or small groups to designate their own actions within the context of the larger war becomes necessary.

Thus, "decentralized autonomous warfare".


The Middle East is in chaos. The battle of the insurgents is not yet a succes.

By this logic, the Vietnam war was a failure for Vietcong soldiers. I'm not discussing autonomy in social organization, as could be used in post-revolutionary times; I'm discussing autonomy as a method of armed resistance, and seeing as things are only looking increasingly grim for US soldiers, I'd say its proving itself to be a massive success.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 04:18 pm
Why is this question directed towards anarchists?
Probably because the OP presupposes that the answer is easy for Marxists: you set up a State with inverted priorities, with an army with inverted priorities, and voilá: you fight imperialist aggression in conventional battles.

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

The German army was actually quite different. In the German army, there was a vertical command structure yes, but the system was solution-orientated rather than order-orientated, which means that local officers could formulate their own policies on for example fighting insurgencies.

I wonder why the American army haven't installed the same system in for example Iraq.

Also hanging ten civilians for each soldier dying is a quite efficient strategy.

[Revolutionary Souljah]

PMA

So basically youre talking about Guerrilla Cell-Warfare. But what about a major offensive? You need the autonomous cells to come under singular command for something like that...

consider this (my style of guerrilla war):

You have a People's Militia.

The militia is divided into localized (to their specific communities) platoons.

The platoons are divided into squads.

Squads elect squad-leaders.

Platoons elect officers.

Militia elects a general executive council.

The general executive council issues orders to the platoons, the platoons take work and execute work as squads.

hence-- Guerrilla Cell-Warfare.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:14 pm
america fails to pacify iraq and afghanistan because the entire population there either owns weapons or can get them easily.
"America" fails to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan because it fails to establish a State in these regions, and it fails to establish a State there because the modern form of State is Nation-State, so it is impossible to establish a State as an act of will from a foreign power.

If guns had anything to do with that, "America" would be failing to pacify "America" itself firstplace.... which obviously isn't the case.


in switzerland i heared its mandatory to own an assault rifle with munition

It is mandatory to keep a weapon with you for purposes of national defence. Not for private purposes.


and they have almost no gun violence at all so why not follow that example?

Because the specific history of Switzerland - a country born out from a peasant revolution - makes it possible there, not necessarily elsewhere.

Luís Henrique

[p.m.a.]

You don't need them under centralized command: you need them to be networked so they can coordinate themselves with each other.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 18, 2007 06:51 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ October 18, 2007 06:51 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 06:14 pm
america fails to pacify iraq and afghanistan because the entire population there either owns weapons or can get them easily.
"America" fails to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan because it fails to establish a State in these regions, and it fails to establish a State there because the modern form of State is Nation-State, so it is impossible to establish a State as an act of will from a foreign power.

If guns had anything to do with that, "America" would be failing to pacify "America" itself firstplace.... which obviously isn't the case.


in switzerland i heared its mandatory to own an assault rifle with munition

It is mandatory to keep a weapon with you for purposes of national defence. Not for private purposes.


and they have almost no gun violence at all so why not follow that example?

Because the specific history of Switzerland - a country born out from a peasant revolution - makes it possible there, not necessarily elsewhere.

Luís Henrique [/b]
i fail to understand just what you are actually trying to say with your post.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 18, 2007 07:42 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ October 18, 2007 07:42 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 04:18 pm
Why is this question directed towards anarchists?
Probably because the OP presupposes that the answer is easy for Marxists: you set up a State with inverted priorities, with an army with inverted priorities, and voilá: you fight imperialist aggression in conventional battles.

Luís Henrique [/b]
So the premise of his argument supposes that you cannot achieve those things without a state? If that is the case, why does he think that?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 08:23 pm
So the premise of his argument supposes that you cannot achieve those things without a state? If that is the case, why does he think that?
Good question.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:27 pm
i fail to understand just what you are actually trying to say with your post.
And I fail to understand exactly what is so unclear in my post...

Luís Henrique

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:23 pm

The Middle East is in chaos. The battle of the insurgents is not yet a succes.

By this logic, the Vietnam war was a failure for Vietcong soldiers. I'm not discussing autonomy in social organization, as could be used in post-revolutionary times; I'm discussing autonomy as a method of armed resistance, and seeing as things are only looking increasingly grim for US soldiers, I'd say its proving itself to be a massive success.
I don't know why you talk about the vietcong, but to answer on your remark: the resistance of the Vietcong was a military succes, yet the country also lay in ruines. For the people of Vietnam, the war was a desaster. Many sources of water are still poisoned, many children are still born with handicaps and etc.

By the time autonomous groups like you mentioned (although I don't think the Vietcong was decentralized) have won a military victory over the imperialists their own people are almost on the edge of a complete downfall. Look at Vietnam, Iraq and central-Africa.

It doesn't mean that centralized forces like real professional armies would make a big difference. Modern warfare kills a revolution.

[apathy maybe]

I read an interesting book the other day (The Algebraist by Iain M. Banks). Science Fiction.

Anyway, one of the various alien species was the Dwellers. There society was organised on anarchisticish lines (not that it was ever mentioned of course...). It definitely wasn't an anarchist society, but it did get me thinking.

The society is very non-hierarchical. Defence is organised by 'clubs', interested society members who go together and did things.

Most of the time they didn't do much, except fight the occasional "formal war". But if the society as a whole was threatened, they bring out the big guns.


It would be possible in an anarchist society to have modern equipment, with well trained individuals to run it. Each area would have a militia, each region would probably have an airstrip with a bunch of aeroplanes, you would have a "control centre" (quoted deliberately) where threats could be highlighted and passed to the soldiers or others.

It might necessitate some sort of division of labour for a time (until you rotate perhaps) (after all, each fighter plane doesn't have a huge radar set, but there is one on the ground). But it would be possible to fight a modern, major war, from reasonable size anarchist region.


And of course, a non-hierarchical cell structure for the military on the ground as well. You just have to make sure that each area or city is willing to defend the entire region, and not just the local area.

[YSR]

This leads to the question--how does an anarchist region fight a post-modern war?

Obviously, everything defends on the context. In isolated areas, it's easier to say "pick up guns". In cities, that's more difficult.

I'd like to challenge the idea that an anarchist uprising inspires constant warfare with adjacent states. Looking at a "dual power" scenario, it seems more likely to me that violence will likely occur within a single state where the commune is (I think of Oaxaca or the Cascadia Free State here).

As you think bigger and bigger, you must ratchet up the possibilities of solidarity work. If a country the size of, say, Mexico, becomes collective and libertarian, that revolution would be something unlike anything seen in the modern world. I don't think you can even begin to imagine how this would affect world affairs.

On a totally unrelated note, I think it's really important to discourage armed violence in a revolutionary situation. The simple reason is that there's simply no way that our forces could ever stand up to the Empire and win (I say this living in the U.S. People in the Global South can and have done so, more power to them.) Our displays of threatening power must be defensive, not offensive. The only way to defeat the United States is to inspire its soldiers to give up, not kill all its soldiers. That's ridiculous.


(I'm sorry, this is super rambling. I haven't gotten enough sleep.)

[lvleph]

Originally posted by blackstone+October 18, 2007 12:58 pm--> (blackstone @ October 18, 2007 12:58 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 04:09 am
What is "post-modern warfare"?

Postmodernity is a derivative referring to non-art aspects of history that were influenced by the new movement, namely the evolutions in society, economy and culture since the 1960s




This leads to the question--how does an anarchist region fight a post-modern war? It was easy for the Spanish because in the 1930s, the biggest threat was tanks and propeller aircraft. Now the nations of the world have missiles, carpet bombs, land mines, satellites, nuclear powered sub-marines, jets that break the sound barrier and the industrial-military-congressional complex. They have the technology to wage war and the cyclical system to continue the war (ie, the more people die, the more they profit).

Essentially he means technology and innovations made since the second World War. He asks this because Spanish guerrillas didn't have to go against enemy with night vision or heat seeking goggles so wanted to know how would an anarchist society deal with this.

But i think he errors by presupposing that the anarchist society will be stuck in the 1930s. Vietnam, Somali and Iraq are some examples of black eyes to the military juggernaut of America.

But more importantly, a working Anarchist or Communist society, will more than likely have went through an industrialization period and will either have the artillery or have the capacities to produce them if need be. [/b]
I think he was also referring to the UN collective war-machine.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by YSR
On a totally unrelated note, I think it's really important to discourage armed violence in a revolutionary situation. The simple reason is that there's simply no way that our forces could ever stand up to the Empire and win (I say this living in the U.S. People in the Global South can and have done so, more power to them.) Our displays of threatening power must be defensive, not offensive. The only way to defeat the United States is to inspire its soldiers to give up, not kill all its soldiers. That's ridiculous.


Well said. We need to oppose those who believe guerilla is the right direction.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:23 pm

The Middle East is in chaos. The battle of the insurgents is not yet a succes.

By this logic, the Vietnam war was a failure for Vietcong soldiers. I'm not discussing autonomy in social organization, as could be used in post-revolutionary times; I'm discussing autonomy as a method of armed resistance, and seeing as things are only looking increasingly grim for US soldiers, I'd say its proving itself to be a massive success.
"Success" is to attain your aims. As we don't know what the aims of "the insurgency" are, we cannot know if they are being successful (which does not mean, in the other hand, that the occupation isn't a clear failure).

There is no such thing as a "decentralised insurgency". There are dozens (hundreds?) of different "insurgencies", with different aims, and the most complicated relationships between them, varying from cooperation to open warfare (plus general volatility, so that two groups that are cooperating today may be fighting each other to death next week).

Or, to put it simply, their "decentralisation" is not the result of a deliberate strategy, but of the lack of a common strategy at all.

Luís Henrique

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Rakunin+October 19, 2007 03:01 pm--> (Rakunin @ October 19, 2007 03:01 pm)
YSR
On a totally unrelated note, I think it's really important to discourage armed violence in a revolutionary situation. The simple reason is that there's simply no way that our forces could ever stand up to the Empire and win (I say this living in the U.S. People in the Global South can and have done so, more power to them.) Our displays of threatening power must be defensive, not offensive. The only way to defeat the United States is to inspire its soldiers to give up, not kill all its soldiers. That's ridiculous.


Well said. We need to oppose those who believe guerilla is the right direction. [/b]
i dont think he is talking about isolated groups of guerilla's but about the proletariat as a whole during the revolution

wich incidently is the position of the social democrats in italy and germany during their revolutionary times.
and we all know that this directly led to the rise of the fash.


pacifism has been attempted by the left and its direct result was the rise of facism.
please dont repeat past mistakes.

[kuken]

We'll just get guns and defend ourself as anny other nation/region would do if they were attacked.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:44 pm
hanging ten civilians for each soldier dying is a quite efficient strategy.


I don't know about that, collective punishment tends to alienate the civilian population. steinbeck wrote a good book about this called "the moon is down"

i think that a guerilla warfare is still a valid strategy, see the recent defeat of israel by hezbollah. the fact that hezbollah is not an autonomous organization is irrelevant, they still use guerilla tatics which could be adopted by a non-hierarchical organization

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by abbielives!+October 22, 2007 10:40 pm--> (abbielives! @ October 22, 2007 10:40 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 06:44 pm
hanging ten civilians for each soldier dying is a quite efficient strategy.


I don't know about that, collective punishment tends to alienate the civilian population. steinbeck wrote a good book about this called "the moon is down"

i think that a guerilla warfare is still a valid strategy, see the recent defeat of israel by hezbollah. the fact that hezbollah is not an autonomous organization is irrelevant, they still use guerilla tatics which could be adopted by a non-hierarchical organization [/b]
You must know that libanon has payed the price for Israel's most recent war on terrorism. Centralized, modern armies destroy everything before they have to fall back as a result of persisting local resistance groups. Israel had a moral defeat, but the countrie has destroyed most of South Libanon instead.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:35 pm

You must know that libanon has payed the price for Israel's most recent war on terrorism. Centralized, modern armies destroy everything before they have to fall back as a result of persisting local resistance groups. Israel had a moral defeat, but the countrie has destroyed most of South Libanon instead.

to quote Durruti :

"It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute."

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by abbielives!@October 22, 2007 08:40 pm
i think that a guerilla warfare is still a valid strategy, see the recent defeat of israel by hezbollah. the fact that hezbollah is not an autonomous organization is irrelevant, they still use guerilla tatics which could be adopted by a non-hierarchical organization
But not only Hizballah isn't "autonomous", it isn't even slightly progressive. Evidently, if your aim is to establish a Islamic State, a hierarchical organisation such as an army is probably a good option. If your aim is to establish a non-hierarchical society, then it probably isn't. And as to fighting a war with a non-hierarchical organisation, this is most likely impossible.

Luís Henrique

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 01:07 am

And as to fighting a war with a non-hierarchical organisation, this is most likely impossible.



WHY?


as I said before it it totally irellevent that what hezbollah's politics are, the guerilla tactics they use can easily be adopted by a non-hierarchical organization

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by abbielives!+October 24, 2007 08:12 am--> (abbielives! @ October 24, 2007 08:12 am)
Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 01:07 am

And as to fighting a war with a non-hierarchical organisation, this is most likely impossible.



WHY?


as I said before it it totally irellevent that what hezbollah's politics are, the guerilla tactics they use can easily be adopted by a non-hierarchical organization [/b]
Hezbollah is hierarchical, yet not powerfull enough to fight like the Israeli army and just like the Germans in Berlin, or the Russians in Stalingrad the conditions made it look like a guerilla, but it wasn't; it was just pure chaos combined with hard, patriotic restistance against the invaders.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by abbielives!+October 24, 2007 06:12 am--> (abbielives! @ October 24, 2007 06:12 am)
Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 01:07 am

And as to fighting a war with a non-hierarchical organisation, this is most likely impossible.



WHY?[/b]
Because war by it's very nature is authoritarian and hierarchical. a non-hierarchical military organization would be very ineffective during war.

as I said before it it totally irellevent that what hezbollah's politics are, the guerilla tactics they use can easily be adopted by a non-hierarchical organization
Hizballah is a hierarchical organization and as such it's tactics could not be adopted by a non-hierarchical organization and hope to have anywhere near the same effectiveness.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:36 am
Hezbollah is hierarchical, yet not powerfull enough to fight like the Israeli army and just like the Germans in Berlin, or the Russians in Stalingrad the conditions made it look like a guerilla, but it wasn't; it was just pure chaos combined with hard, patriotic restistance against the invaders.
I wouldn't underestimate Hizballah like that; they are more a conventional army than anything else. But guerrillas have necessarily to be hierarchical as well; it is just that their hierarchy is looser and relies more on the initiative of tactical units; also, guerrillas take for granted that wielding territory isn't necessarily an act of treason or cowardice, so they seem to enforce discipline in a less brutal way. But that is a dellusion; whenever a guerrilla has to engage in actual, conventional, battle (and to ultimately win they have to), they will shoot undisciplined soldiers just like a conventional army.

You can't kill people on the other side without killing something inside yourself.

Which puts revolutionaries under the difficult choice between trying to fight war without "what it takes", and loose, or to adapt to the conditions of war, and allow authoritarianism and hierarchy to be reborn inside our own movement. Ideally, fight would be so fulminating and short that the dilemma would be avoided; unhappily, reality is usually cruel with good intentions.

Luís Henrique

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by ComradeR+October 24, 2007 08:46 am--> (ComradeR @ October 24, 2007 08:46 am)
Originally posted by abbielives!@October 24, 2007 06:12 am

Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 01:07 am

And as to fighting a war with a non-hierarchical organisation, this is most likely impossible.



WHY?
Because war by it's very nature is authoritarian and hierarchical. a non-hierarchical military organization would be very ineffective during war.
[/b]


the relationship between the opposing sides is authoritarian, but not nessisarily, I think, between people on the same side