The issue of national defense...

[ihcarij]

...doesn't appear to be addressed much when discussing leftest/anarchist theories. It is the only topic that stumps me when picturing a successful anarchist or communist society. It almost seems that all nations must undergo simultaneous revolution in order for any to work.

One solution that comes to mind--perhaps those responsible for the revolution, if strong enough to overthrow their government, would be strong enough to defend themselves if invaded.... but that would require great cooperation and preparation, i.e. military, which would be contrary to the ideology... yeah. >.<

This being a somewhat obvious issue, someone, somewhere must have addressed it--could someone point me to a good source of information regarding this topic?

[supernaltempest]

Arm everyone capable with a gun. Those who know how to operate tanks and planes and stuff will do those things. Problem solved.

[Joby]

Arm everyone capable with a gun. Those who know how to operate tanks and planes and stuff will do those things. Problem solved.

Uhh, have you seen the toys the US military is now playing with?

Defense is important, but if you're Grenada, well.......

[Coggeh]

...doesn't appear to be addressed much when discussing leftest/anarchist theories. It is the only topic that stumps me when picturing a successful anarchist or communist society. It almost seems that all nations must undergo simultaneous revolution in order for any to work.

One solution that comes to mind--perhaps those responsible for the revolution, if strong enough to overthrow their government, would be strong enough to defend themselves if invaded.... but that would require great cooperation and preparation, i.e. military, which would be contrary to the ideology... yeah. >.<
The precise reason the revolution must be organized by a vanguard , and the state must be transitional after the revolution , a dis-organized workers state cannot survive against the definite capitalist reactionary forces .

Workers militias etc are a way of organizing the army , but if you look in Russia they fought off 23 different armies by being organized into a popular army of a workers state .

No one should have some magical dream in their head that every thing is going to fancy after the revolution , their will be hard times of war which call for hard (but not oppressive) measures. No one here would support the idea of a State after the revolution unless we all knew it was fully necessary which it is .

[kromando33]

Direct outside US aggression will never happen, it's simply untenable and the international community would not allow it. The only situation it could happen is if say a reactionary militant group or the like emerges, or a military coup, and the US can give it technical support etc, which is a pretty likely scenario, even when you consider the last coup in Venezuela etc. The solution therefore is for the socialist states to look inwards, to focus open their own local bourgeois and reactionary elements, and to crush them so that US imperialism against them cannot be shrouded in such terms as 'helping the resistance movement' or whatever, we must expose bourgeois imperialism.

[spartan]

The commune militia system simply wont work in these times of computers, jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, radar, satellites, tanks etc.

An untrained mob of militiamen armed with AK-47's, and with no knowledge of tactics, would be slaughtered by one regiment of a professionally trained army.

I have always looked at the situation as "The most armed are the most free".

So if people really want there freedom, they will have no problem in being part of a conscription army to defend it then will they?

[Coggeh]

Would conscription be ok if it was a workers state against bourgeois reactionary's or would people still have to choose to fight ?

As far as I know were not pacifists here , all bourgeois wars are wrong because its always a worker on either end of the gun but if it was a workers state against a bourgeois one , would that make it ok ?

[spartan]

Would conscription be ok if it was a workers state against bourgeois reactionary's or would people still have to choose to fight ?

As far as I know were not pacifists here , all bourgeois wars are wrong because its always a worker on either end of the gun but if it was a workers state against a bourgeois one , would that make it ok ?

If it is a workers state then yes, conscription would be okay because the workers would be fighting for themselves and their power, not to be the tools that uphold the Bourgeoisie and their power against another rival Bourgeoisie.

[Kitskits]

Armies, cops etc (hence, the state) will be needed throught the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Period.

When we will pass to communism these shit will cease to be needed.

[supernaltempest]

Uhh, have you seen the toys the US military is now playing with?

Defense is important, but if you're Grenada, well.......

Well, this is assuming America is one of the first few communist countries. Shouldn't be a problem seeing how the advanced capitalist countries will be the first ones to become communist.

[Dr Mindbender]

Well, this is assuming America is one of the first few communist countries. Shouldn't be a problem seeing how the advanced capitalist countries will be the first ones to become communist.
in theory, yes but the way things are going it looks more like Latin America or Nepal is going to be the focal point...

[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.

Modern anarchism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=55806)

[piet11111]

as always LSD made a post that sums things up so nicely that the thread could be closed.

so can we do a twist on the topic and debate if a communist/anarchist nation should intervene in foreign affairs as i will list below
1) genocide like currently in the sudan
2) overthrowing dictatorships similar to the pinochet regime
3) civil war involving revolutionary leftists
4) civil war involving no revolutionary liftists
5) nation with leftist government requesting economic aid
6) nation with no leftist government requestig econimic aid
7) nation with leftist government requesting military aid for defensive purpose
8) nation with leftist government requesting military aid for offensive purpose
9) nation with no leftist government requesting military aid for defesive purpose
10) nation with no leftist government requesting military aid for offensive purpose

[BIG BROTHER]

Well, I think a communist/anarchist nation should intervine, but only if it was that others nations facction approval, because I think a communist/anarchist nation shouldn't just bargue in and interfiere with other countries just like the US does....I mean, because otherwise then it would be going against the anarchist principle which is freedom.

[piet11111]

Well, I think a communist/anarchist nation should intervine, but only if it was that others nations facction approval, because I think a communist/anarchist nation shouldn't just bargue in and interfiere with other countries just like the US does....I mean, because otherwise then it would be going against the anarchist principle which is freedom.

i disagree if a situation like in the sudan where the government is refusing to stop the genocide then immediate forcefull intervention is required.

for myself i would support intervention in the cases of
1, 2, 3, 4 if one side requests protection, 5, 7, 8 if its a just cause like stopping genocide, 9 if the population would be massacred in case of war.

[kromando33]

Well the Cold War is over guys, so in a post-revolutionary socialist state these days it's highly unlikely for a direct invasion to occur, it's simply an untenable thing to do politically these days. The only situation I see it happening if is the revolutionary regime decides to randomly invade neighboring countries etc, under the banner of 'internationalism'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The only situation I see it happening if is the revolutionary regime decides to randomly invade neighboring countries etc, under the banner of 'internationalism'.

What's wrong with that approach (given that Stalin did something more insidious with the Baltic and buffer states)? Workers have no country!

[kromando33]

What's wrong with that approach (given that Stalin did something more insidious with the Baltic and buffer states)? Workers have no country!
Because it's a trap setup by the bourgeois to bury the revolutions in their own graves.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well the Cold War is over guys, so in a post-revolutionary socialist state these days it's highly unlikely for a direct invasion to occur, it's simply an untenable thing to do politically these days. The only situation I see it happening if is the revolutionary regime decides to randomly invade neighboring countries etc, under the banner of 'internationalism'.

It's true, but remember that Imperialist countries, love to do police actions, so invations do still occur, exept now is too defend economical interests

[kromando33]

It's true, but remember that Imperialist countries, love to do police actions, so invations do still occur, exept now is too defend economical interests
Yeah I agree, I actually started to write an essay on this, concerning the fall of 'direct' imperialism, ie monopoly colonialism etc, and the new globalized market capitalism.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

...doesn't appear to be addressed much when discussing leftest/anarchist theories. It is the only topic that stumps me when picturing a successful anarchist or communist society. It almost seems that all nations must undergo simultaneous revolution in order for any to work.

One solution that comes to mind--perhaps those responsible for the revolution, if strong enough to overthrow their government, would be strong enough to defend themselves if invaded.... but that would require great cooperation and preparation, i.e. military, which would be contrary to the ideology... yeah. >.<

This being a somewhat obvious issue, someone, somewhere must have addressed it--could someone point me to a good source of information regarding this topic?

You don't see the anarchists addressing it because they don't have any coherent answers. Usually the answer I get from them is GUERRILLA WARFARE!!!1, without them showing any kind of actual knowledge on the subject. This is why anarchists always get crushed very quickly in any revolutionary scenario.

Ideally, in a socialist country there should be something like a conscript militia and a conscript army with a volunteer contingent as well(this is where you would have a force that has NCOs). The good thing about a conscript army is that it can be put to work in peacetime on a lot of public projects, and would have close connection with the people. It is also a good idea to station soldiers more or less based on where they are from. Give them a chance to spend some time throughout the country for cultural reasons, but more or less arrange it so they are defending their home area.

Things like drill and ceremony, and traditional saluting should be done away with. Everything should be practical and tactical. A People's Army should be for one purpose, defending the revolution, not looking pretty or marching around in squares(drill and ceremony is a leftover from the days of drilled musketry and such).

[TheDifferenceEngine]

A Leftist's nation's Military should be in three parts:

The Worker's Militia: Compulsory basic military education and guerilla warfare courses for all 17-20 year olds, service 1 year minimum, 3 years optional. For National Defense and Peacekeeping only.

Regulars: Volunteer force, Operates the army, navy and airforce.

Revolutionary Guards. Special forces, Political agents and Deniable ops, for enciting revolution in other nations and aiding Leftist guerilla movements.

[spartan]

You don't see the anarchists addressing it because they don't have any coherent answers. Usually the answer I get from them is GUERRILLA WARFARE!!!1, without them showing any kind of actual knowledge on the subject. This is why anarchists always get crushed very quickly in any revolutionary scenario.

I disagree and think that this is a bit of an unfair generalization, on your part, of Anarchists.

Anarchist militias, during the Spanish civil war, were the main armed force that held the front lines against Franco (And with outdated weaponry i might add) until the Popular Army had finished receiving their brand spanking new equipment from the USSR and finished their professional military training (Which took nearly a year and both of which the Anarchists never had).

Nestor Makhno, in Ukraine during the Russian civil war, was very successful at beating back both red and white army offensives into his area with his small forces, until overwhelming numbers eventually had their effect.

Anarchy simply isnt "chaos" or "disorder" or any of the typical crap that mainstream culture associates with it.

Indeed, if you go by my two examples above, Anarchy is much more organized than is usually thought by most people.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

A Leftist's nation's Military should be in three parts:

The Worker's Militia: Compulsory basic military education and guerilla warfare courses for all 17-20 year olds, service 1 year minimum, 3 years optional. For National Defense and Peacekeeping only.

Regulars: Volunteer force, Operates the army, navy and airforce.

Revolutionary Guards. Special forces, Political agents and Deniable ops, for enciting revolution in other nations and aiding Leftist guerilla movements.

I support this structure but I would point out that the Regular forces should be conscript as well, while the Revolutionary Guards should be voluntary(preferably recruited from the ranks of those who have served a mandatory 2 years in the regular army)

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

I disagree and think that this is a bit of an unfair generalization, on your part, of Anarchists.

When I see an anarchist who espouses something different, I'll let you know.



Anarchist militias, during the Spanish civil war, were the main armed force that held the front lines against Franco (And with outdated weaponry i might add)

What, like during the Siege of Madrid?



until the Popular Army had finished receiving their brand spanking new equipment from the USSR and finished their professional military training (Which took nearly a year and both of which the Anarchists never had).

Training and military equipment are pretty important you know.



Nestor Makhno, in Ukraine during the Russian civil war, was very successful at beating back both red and white army offensives into his area with his small forces, until overwhelming numbers eventually had their effect.

I wouldn't say he was that "successful" at all, if you were aware how his bands treated the local populace. Ironically Makhno's army did many of the things they condemn Bolsheviks for doing, such as conscription.



Anarchy simply isnt "chaos" or "disorder" or any of the typical crap that mainstream culture associates with it.

Thank you, I already know that.



Indeed, if you go by my two examples above, Anarchy is much more organized than is usually thought by most people.

Tell me, how long did both those movements last? Exactly. I like the way you keep making labels of what socialism is, attacking that socialism which created a progressive society in numerous countries and lasted almost a century, despite its recognized flaws, while you support an ideology that can barely last more than a year in any situation, even when the country is collapsing around it.

Look at it this way: Say two people are trying to build a rocket to go to the moon(imagine that is "Communism" for the sake of argument). One guy builds one that gets into space, but on the way, due to flaws he later recognizes, and also owing to the materials he had available at the time, loses its guidance and flies out into orbit. Meanwhile the other guy can't get his rocket to fly 100' in the air with out breaking apart. Would it make sense for dinky rocket guy to claim that his idea is still best, no matter how many times he fails and has to rebuild it- all because the other guy's rocket didn't make it to the end?

[TheDifferenceEngine]

I support this structure but I would point out that the Regular forces should be conscript as well, while the Revolutionary Guards should be voluntary(preferably recruited from the ranks of those who have served a mandatory 2 years in the regular army)

Thanks for the support, I thought my idea would be ripped to shreds.

And on the Conscripted regulars, I disagree.

For one, Volunteer soldiers have always proved more effective.

And I Also find it morally Wrong to force people to fight in any offensive wars the Revolutionary state may have to participate in.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Thanks for the support, I thought my idea would be ripped to shreds.

And on the Conscripted regulars, I disagree.

For one, Volunteer soldiers have always proved more effective.

And I Also find it morally Wrong to force people to fight in any offensive wars the Revolutionary state may have to participate in.

Well let me elaborate on my structure, which is similar to yours in the sense that there is a regular armed forces section and militias.

First off, conscript armies are not necessarily less effective. Look at the Wehrmacht, the Japanese Imperial forces, the IDF, and the US army in WWII force example. The Red Army is another good example but people often ignore the fact that many people actually volunteered for service after the invasion began in 41, often times lying about their age just like in America and other countries.

That being said, here are some stipulations that I neglected earlier.

The regular conscript army, the People's Army if you will, would NEVER be used for offensive actions save for a just war close to the borders or to pursue a retreating invader and crush them like in the GPW. Men and women should have to serve in this, just like in Israel, but serving in those forces means you would never be sent outside the country save for in the most unlikely situations.

The People's Revolutionary Volunteer Guards would be a considerably smaller force. If in the event a expeditionary force is needed, a small, army-sized contingent could be raised from volunteers. Keep in mind I am not saying they would automatically go, I mean people would have to volunteer to go into the ad hoc People's Revolutionary Expeditionary Force, similar to the same way the Soviet Union raised a volunteer force to go to Spain from the ranks of their own military. The idea here is to make it difficult to raise expedionary forces that could be used for intervention- which is a check on the power of the government, lest temptation lead a base of socialism into becoming a superpower bent on exploitation like the post-Stalin USSR. Ideally such a force would only be formed when absolutely necessary, such as defending a popular revolution in a neighboring country or defending it from aggression. There should be no foreign bases.

If getting volunteers from the Revolutionary Volunteer Guards were a problem(not likely given the kind of political training this unit would have), incentives could be offered to soldiers in the regular People's Army(for example, an NCO promotion into the People's Revolutionary Volunteer Guard).

BTW- I'm not married to these names, I am just using them as examples.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Well let me elaborate on my structure, which is similar to yours in the sense that there is a regular armed forces section and militias.

First off, conscript armies are not necessarily less effective. Look at the Wehrmacht, the Japanese Imperial forces, the IDF, and the US army in WWII for example.

Ah, but all of the conscript armies in WW2 were up aginst other conscript armies, and the IDF only goes up against poorly trained militias/conscript armies.

The Red Army is another good example but people often ignore the fact that many people actually volunteered for service after the invasion began in 41, often times lying about their age just like in America and other countries.

That being said, here are some stipulations that I neglected earlier.

The regular conscript army, the People's Army if you will, would NEVER be used for offensive actions save for a just war close to the borders or to pursue a retreating invader and crush them like in the GPW. Men and women should have to serve in this, just like in Israel, but serving in those forces means you would never be sent outside the country save for in the most unlikely situations.

But what about the air force and navy? Both need Highly educated and highly trained personnel.

I think a conscript Logistics Corps& Coast guard and a few regiments of Conscript Infantry, armour and AAA batteries, alongside the worker's militia would be Adequate protection for the revolutionary state.

However the Air force, Navy and Offensive ground forces should be volunteers.

The People's Revolutionary Volunteer Guards would be a considerably smaller force. If in the event a expeditionary force is needed, a small, army-sized contingent could be raised from volunteers. Keep in mind I am not saying they would automatically go, I mean people would have to volunteer to go into the ad hoc People's Revolutionary Expeditionary Force, similar to the same way the Soviet Union raised a volunteer force to go to Spain from the ranks of their own military. The idea here is to make it difficult to raise expedionary forces that could be used for intervention- which is a check on the power of the government, lest temptation lead a base of socialism into becoming a superpower bent on exploitation like the post-Stalin USSR. Ideally such a force would only be formed when absolutely necessary, such as defending a popular revolution in a neighboring country or defending it from aggression. There should be no foreign bases.

I thought of the revolutionary guards as more of a special forces outfit, about 1000 people: not enough to fight a full-blown war.



If getting volunteers from the Revolutionary Volunteer Guards were a problem(not likely given the kind of political training this unit would have), incentives could be offered to soldiers in the regular People's Army(for example, an NCO promotion into the People's Revolutionary Volunteer Guard).

BTW- I'm not married to these names, I am just using them as examples.

The text in bold is mine, In case you didn't realize.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

The fact that the other armies were not conscripts has little to do with it. The Waffen SS were volunteers and they were beaten, as were many other volunteer units.

It is entirely possible to train officers and NCOs in the concript army. Also if they work closely with the local militias in training, in any given area the conscript army would be able to focus more on heavy weapons like tanks, while the infantry would be supplemented by local defense.