Defence and army in a communist society.

[GeistDerRevolution]

This has always puzzled me. I believe that in a truly classless communist society (as opposed to an authoritarian socialist society), defence would be a great problem. With the concepts of nation and race abolished and no longer viable as a reason to join the army, and no financial benefits or any additional privileges associated with becoming a soldier and no authority to force them to do so, how do you get people to risk their lives on an abstract notion of preserving (what, after all)? This is why I believe authoritarian socialism is a much more viable idea than real communism. It's just like private property - if you can't defend and protect it, you don't own it. And today, the only entities that can defend and protect anything on a global scale are governments.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Defence would be provided by workers militias

In theory:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci514

In practice:
http://www.ditext.com/arshinov/makhno.html

[GeistDerRevolution]

Your theory depends on people caring about, agreeing with and believing in what you're fighting for. That's a far stretch compared to today's armies that fight for money and their nations.

Your practical example is a lone example of an isolated group of people whom I've described above. It worked for a revolution, but you could not apply it to an attack by an external force. An army, unlike a civil society, depends on a rigid social hierarchy and a centralised command chain. In case of an external attack, I can imagine people would much rather greet their conquerors than paradoxally defend an abstract notion.

[Q]

I agree with TheDevil'sApprentice in that the answer lies with Workers' Militias. And I disagree that this wouldn't be viable. Militias are basically a simple extension to soviets. Throughout history there have been many examples of workers militias.

In the Socialist state Militias take on the role of state oppression against the bourgeoisie and other counter revolutionary elements, but this oppression is much less compared to todays police force because of the simple difference in numbers.

Also, the need for a policing force would also dramatically drop in socialism, as the social causes for crime (poverty, etc) are solved. So the question becomes: what exactly is there to defend? The threat of foreign invasion is legitimate, but this too can be organised via Militias.

Militias aren't a special force with their own privileges, but integral part of the community.

[GeistDerRevolution]

Leaving aside the viability of such a militia, how do you compel a man to go risk his life for something that officially doesn't exist instead of working in a factory/whatever and getting the same services/goods in return - free everything?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Leaving aside the viability of such a militia, how do you compel a man to go risk his life for something that officially doesn't exist instead of working in a factory/whatever and getting the same services/goods in return - free everything?

Because he dosent want to go back to capitalism
Because he wants to defend what he has fought for in the revolution

[GeistDerRevolution]

Because he dosent want to go back to capitalism
Because he wants to defend what he has fought for in the revolution

The amount of people that care about or fight in an internal revolution could be entirely insufficient for a meaningful defence against an external threat. Also, you're assuming communism was achieved with a violent revolution where people had to fight as they would in an international war.

[Kropotesta]

The amount of people that care about or fight in an internal revolution could be entirely insufficient for a meaningful defence against an external threat. Also, you're assuming communism was achieved with a violent revolution where people had to fight as they would in an international war.
To acquire communism it has to have popular support to work. So why would people risk going back to capitalism without a fight? Social revolution or violent revolution, the point still stands.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Leaving aside the viability of such a militia, how do you compel a man to go risk his life for something that officially doesn't exist instead of working in a factory/whatever and getting the same services/goods in return - free everything?

Your logic doesn't flow.

If there isn't a need to defend society, where is this threat coming from?

Are you telling me people will suddenly forgo any relationship they have with their respected communities in the absence of nonsensical fears like xenophobia and racism? Most municipal police officers and firefighters enroll partially because they see defense as an honorable profession.

[GeistDerRevolution]

Your logic doesn't flow.

If there isn't a need to defend society, where is this threat coming from?

Are you telling me people will suddenly forgo any relationship they have with their respected communities in the absence of nonsensical fears like xenophobia and racism? Most municipal police officers and firefighters enroll partially because they see defense as an honorable profession.


In a communist anarchical society, wouldn't those police officers you describe be able to wield their powers to basically take over, abolish anarchy and establish a dictatorship without a government to coordinate and manage national defence?

Threats can come from just about anywhere - external political enemies, historical "bad neighbours" who see anarchy as an opportunity to settle some old territorial disputes, capitalists who've pretty much lost everything after the revolution (this is a large segment of the population)...one would do well to be paranoid.

[Kropotesta]

In a communist anarchical society, wouldn't those police officers you describe be able to wield their powers to basically take over, abolish anarchy and establish a dictatorship without a government to coordinate and manage national defence?
erm....what?

[GeistDerRevolution]

erm....what?

Simple. You have a group of well-armed and trained people - the policemen of the capitalist regime - who just lost their position of power, and nobody to control them.

[Kropotesta]

Simple. You have a group of well-armed and trained people who just lost their position of power, and nobody to control them.
there would be no army but militias made up of normal people. They would wield no power and would not attack act as a police force. Also everypne would beable to bare arms.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Simple. You have a group of well-armed and trained people - the policemen of the capitalist regime - who just lost their position of power, and nobody to control them.

1.) Gun ownership would exist outside of militia members
2.) These persons are recallable; their standards are enforced by the people
3.) Localizing defense makes this very unlikely, seeing as how people know their neighbors more than they do their countrymen
4.) Any near successful attempt to yield power over a community can be met with resistance by the people and neighboring communes, as well as any commerce federations the commune is engaged in.


capitalists who've pretty much lost everything after the revolution (this is a large segment of the population)

Marxists subscribe to the idea such people would already be integrated and/or persecuted with the workers' state. Anarchists really don't see how >1% of the population can make so much damage.


Threats can come from just about anywhere - external political enemies, historical "bad neighbours" who see anarchy as an opportunity to settle some old territorial disputes, capitalists who've pretty much lost everything after the revolution (this is a large segment of the population)...one would do well to be paranoid.

And if people are paranoid for the safety of themselves and others they'll form militias.

[GeistDerRevolution]

Wait, militias of anarchists that are now free to "take care" of anyone they don't agree with and don't have anyone to respond to...yeah, this sounds like a great idea...for a mass murder maybe. And everyone being able to carry weapons just gives them more of an excuse to shoot first and ask questions later (he was looking at me weird, maybe he was planning to shoot me).

[Kropotesta]

Wait, militias of anarchists that are now free to "take care" of anyone they don't agree with and don't have anyone to respond to...yeah, this sounds like a great idea...for a mass murder maybe.
that's cos that isn't the idea.

[GeistDerRevolution]

that's cos that isn't the idea.

And just how do you plan on assuring a group of armed men will not go on a murdering rampage, without a command chain and laws?

[Kropotesta]

And just how do you plan on assuring a group of armed men will not go on a murdering rampage, without a command chain and laws?
who said no rules?
why would anyone go on a murdering rampage for no reason at all? Are trained people more likely to do this?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I see that the general answer to GDR's concerns revolves around workers' militias. That is all nice and good - we can expect people to join workers' militias and defend society against external aggression... but can we expect them to actually win against the army of a foreign state?

Could any workers' militia possibly win in a conflict against the currently existing US Army? Hell no.

Communism is impossible until all of the powerful capitalist states have been defeated. Until then, socialism is the best we can do. Also, even after the final defeat of capitalism, it will be necessary to establish a coordinating network between the world's militias in order to respond quickly to any proto-state that might be developing somewhere in the world and defeat it before it grows too powerful.

[Forward Union]

the only entities that can defend and protect anything on a global scale are governments.


Organs of state (police army etc) can be managed directly by the workers. And in a bizzare twist of fate I like to call revolution, the people carrying out the mandates, will also be the workers participating in the decision making. The police can't army cant take over society because it is it.

In reality, Governments don't defend anything, they manage defense, enevitably in their own interest, and not in that of the general working class. Anarchists fully support armies mandated by workers councils.

"We are convinced that any revolutionary anarchist finding himself, during an authentic revolution of the workers, in the same circumstances as those we encountered in the civil war in Ukraine will be forced to use the same military-revolutionary methods as we did when we lived through the history of the civil struggle in Ukraine. But if, in the course of a future social revolution, there are anarchists who reject the above-mentioned organizational principles in spite of the existence of armed fronts of counter-revolution, then these anarchists will be part of the movement in word only, whereas in reality they will be outside it, or they will harm it beyond repair" - Nestor Makhno.

Here is how The Anarchist Army in Ukraine worked

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/724/makhnovistarmystructurenb5.gif

This is how realistically, anarchists propose the Millitary to be organised. The only significant difference, is that it is managed by the working class, and not a group of people set aside with the mandate of managing things in the workers interests.


And just how do you plan on assuring a group of armed men will not go on a murdering rampage, without a command chain and laws?

Well exactly. In all instances of Anarchist revolution the Anarchists have imposed penalties up to and including death for things like looting and rape. Infact, Makhno remarked

"Every attempted pogrom or looting from our side was nipped in the bud. All found guilty of such acts were invariably shot out of hand for their misdeeds. This was the case for instance in May 1919, when some peasant insurgents from Novo-Uspenovka, on leaving the front line for some rest in the rear, came upon two decomposed corpses near a Jewish settlement: assuming these to be the corpses of insurgents murdered by members of the Jewish colony, they vented their spleen on the colony and slaughtered around thirty of its inhabitants. That same day, my Staff dispatched a commission of inquiry to the colony. It discovered the tracks of the perpetrators of the butchery. I immediately sent a special detachment to their village to place them under arrest. Those responsible for the attack on the Jewish colony, namely six individuals, one of them the Bolshevik district commissar, were all shot on 13 May 1919. "

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

I see that the general answer to GDR's concerns revolves around workers' militias. That is all nice and good - we can expect people to join workers' militias and defend society against external aggression... but can we expect them to actually win against the army of a foreign state?

Could any workers' militia possibly win in a conflict against the currently existing US Army? Hell no.

Communism is impossible until all of the powerful capitalist states have been defeated. Until then, socialism is the best we can do. Also, even after the final defeat of capitalism, it will be necessary to establish a coordinating network between the world's militias in order to respond quickly to any proto-state that might be developing somewhere in the world and defeat it before it grows too powerful.Why would a state army be more effective than a non-state federation of workers militias like the black army in the russian civil war (discussed by Wat)? The makhnovists kicked the shit out of not one, but 2 imperialist armies - the austro-germans and the whites. They gave a pretty good account of themselves against the red army too.

The only serious advantage the state armies had was equipment. and in a communist society, this can easily produced on a massive scale for the federation of militias

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Your theory depends on people caring about, agreeing with and believing in what you're fighting for. That's a far stretch compared to today's armies that fight for money and their nations.

Your practical example is a lone example of an isolated group of people whom I've described above. It worked for a revolution, but you could not apply it to an attack by an external force. An army, unlike a civil society, depends on a rigid social hierarchy and a centralised command chain. In case of an external attack, I can imagine people would much rather greet their conquerors than paradoxally defend an abstract notion.Yes I would apply it to an attack by an external force. As I said to christian, the makhnovists defeated not one, but two foreign forces - and gave a third hell. The thing hoilding them back was the lack of weapons (pretty much all their weapons were captured from the enemy) - in a communist society these could be produced en masse for the militias.

Why on earth do you think it could work for a revolution, but not to defend a communist society? People in a capitalist society full of false consciousness will surely be much less likely to fight thanthose in a communist one? No? Clearly those who fought would recieve material compensation, and isn't a nation an abstract notion? People would fight because they dont want to live under capitalism - this isnt abstract at all, and something many people would surely agree with and care about.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why would a state army be more effective than a non-state federation of workers militias like the black army in the russian civil war (discussed by Wat)?
Because a state can, if necessary, direct its entire economy towards military goals and establish a crushing burden on the population - bring its people to the brink of starvation - in order to extract enough surplus to finance a war. A state can exploit people for military purposes. A non-state federation cannot.

A state can force people to fight, or to pay for the war. A non-state entity has to rely on volunteers, and on voluntary donations of people's time and effort to produce weapons and equipment. Very few people in the communist society will volunteer to make the same sacrifices that the people in the state society are forced to make. After all, one may easily decide that it's better to live under capitalism than to run a serious risk of dying. Especially if one has never actually experienced capitalism before.

The makhnovists defeated a few relatively small foreign expeditionary forces, but could they have defended themselves against the full onslaught of the Wermacht in World War 2? Unlikely.

[Kropotesta]

Because a state can, if necessary, direct its entire economy towards military goals and establish a crushing burden on the population - bring its people to the brink of starvation - in order to extract enough surplus to finance a war. A state can exploit people for military purposes. A non-state federation cannot.
Isn't that an advantage to federal militias?


A state can force people to fight, or to pay for the war. A non-state entity has to rely on volunteers, and on voluntary donations of people's time and effort to produce weapons and equipment. Very few people in the communist society will volunteer to make the same sacrifices that the people in the state society are forced to make. After all, one may easily decide that it's better to live under capitalism than to run a serious risk of dying. Especially if one has never actually experienced capitalism before.
Isn't is a good thing that people won't be forced to participate in actions that they do not want to?

I understand that you were arguing that a state can mobilise more effective armies but wouldn't a commune/confederation of communes, if under/inpotenial attack, freely start producing more weapons? If so, workers would work alot more effectively without the potenial of starving due to money being misspent on, almost, soley upon the production of weaponary. Also I'm sure that any other commune, not under immediate threat themselves, would voluntarily donate and produce weaponary for other communes, even dispatching their own militias to help in the action.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Because a state can, if necessary, direct its entire economy towards military goals and establish a crushing burden on the population - bring its people to the brink of starvation - in order to extract enough surplus to finance a war. A state can exploit people for military purposes. A non-state federation cannot.

A state can force people to fight, or to pay for the war. A non-state entity has to rely on volunteers, and on voluntary donations of people's time and effort to produce weapons and equipment. Very few people in the communist society will volunteer to make the same sacrifices that the people in the state society are forced to make. After all, one may easily decide that it's better to live under capitalism than to run a serious risk of dying. Especially if one has never actually experienced capitalism before.
Ok, in exceptionally difficult circumstances, the state can force the population to totale krieg. Most states havent done this when they've succesfully fought wars. My point was that non-state federations could do everything *most* historical states have done when they fought their wars.

Clearly voluntary donations of time wouldn't be necessary. The means of production are held in common, and if the workers councils vote for a war effort, people would be payed (or given material compensation for their labour in whatever form society has decoded on) to work for it. As would soldiers. How the makhnovists worked was that they democratically worked out codes of discipline, to wich people agreed when they joined. So you could have executions for cowardice or whatever if you really think they are necessary. For the first 2 years of WWI, britain didnt have conscription - people wanted to fight. When it is a genuine free society being fought for, there will be people willing to do so.

Thing is, I think there are many advantages to federated militias, which states lack. A state is an instrument of class rule, and its main enemy is always its own population. Its military organisation will reflect this. An anarchist society surrounded by capitalist states would likely arm the entire population as quickly as possible and provide everyone who wanted it with military training centered around them being able to form autonomous militias which could federate. A state will want to keep the population unarmed and untrained, with a centralised armed body kept strictly under its control to cement its power.

Training, tactics etc will be focused arround keeping them loyal and obedient, which has the side effect of making them stupid, less inovative, less likely to take the initiative etc. This is the reason I think extreeme authoriatrianism hasnt dominated the world - as one would predict, were authoritarianism always stronger. Training people to obey makes them stupid and so weak.

Plus, people in a libertarian society would have something much more worth fighting for than people under a state - and we shouldn't underestimate the value of morale.


The makhnovists defeated a few relatively small foreign expeditionary forces, but could they have defended themselves against the full onslaught of the Wermacht in World War 2? Unlikely.
With a decent section the russian economy at their command, I think they would have done so, and much better than the USSR did.

[Forward Union]

The makhnovists defeated a few relatively small foreign expeditionary forces, but could they have defended themselves against the full onslaught of the Wermacht in World War 2? Unlikely.

Who knows. As a communist I do tend to feel that the Workers can defeat the imperialists, so yes.

The point is that a revolution can only be as sucessful as the masses want it to be. I feel that if the Russian Anarchists had been better organised, more organised than the bolsheviks, we would have seen a much better series of events culmulating in so many "if's" that I dont want to discuss it. But that is my view.

[Dros]

What would be the need for and basis of an army in a classless, stateless, global society of freely associating individuals?

Until this question is answered, this conversation doesn't make much sense.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What would be the need for and basis of an army in a classless, stateless, global society of freely associating individuals?

Until this question is answered, this conversation doesn't make much sense.
Obviously we're talking about a situation in which the classless, stateless society of freely associating individuals is not yet global. And even if it were global, there is always the possibility that some community somewhere might vote to re-create class society and a state. You cannot assume that everyone will always agree with communism for all eternity after it is established. It's not that difficult to find a few thousand ideological capitalists or statists out of a human population of 6 billion.


Isn't that an advantage to federal militias?

Isn't is a good thing that people won't be forced to participate in actions that they do not want to?
Yes, it is a good thing, but only as long as it doesn't lead to defeat against capitalist armies.


I understand that you were arguing that a state can mobilise more effective armies but wouldn't a commune/confederation of communes, if under/inpotenial attack, freely start producing more weapons? If so, workers would work alot more effectively without the potenial of starving due to money being misspent on, almost, soley upon the production of weaponary. Also I'm sure that any other commune, not under immediate threat themselves, would voluntarily donate and produce weaponary for other communes, even dispatching their own militias to help in the action.
Yes, that is possible. But I'm worried about the fact that it's far from certain. Workers may choose to produce more weapons, other communes may choose to give aid... or they may not. And, of course, it's not just a matter of producing weapons, but also a matter of investing resources into military research and development. A communist society existing side by side with a capitalist society will almost inevitably be forced to deal with an arms race.


Ok, in exceptionally difficult circumstances, the state can force the population to totale krieg. Most states havent done this when they've succesfully fought wars. My point was that non-state federations could do everything *most* historical states have done when they fought their wars.

Clearly voluntary donations of time wouldn't be necessary. The means of production are held in common, and if the workers councils vote for a war effort, people would be payed (or given material compensation for their labour in whatever form society has decoded on) to work for it. As would soldiers. How the makhnovists worked was that they democratically worked out codes of discipline, to wich people agreed when they joined. So you could have executions for cowardice or whatever if you really think they are necessary. For the first 2 years of WWI, britain didnt have conscription - people wanted to fight. When it is a genuine free society being fought for, there will be people willing to do so.
Ok, that sounds workable and effective. If the communist society is under direct threat, we can indeed expect most people to vote in favour of the war effort, and as long as the majority can enforce this decision on the minority, a war can be successfully fought and won.


Training, tactics etc will be focused arround keeping them loyal and obedient, which has the side effect of making them stupid, less inovative, less likely to take the initiative etc. This is the reason I think extreeme authoriatrianism hasnt dominated the world - as one would predict, were authoritarianism always stronger. Training people to obey makes them stupid and so weak.
I think authoritarianism always tends to be more effective in war. There are two reasons why it hasn't dominated the world: (1) because war is not the only way to gain or lose power, and (2) because of sheer historical accident - fascism, for example, would certainly dominate the world if it managed to take over the US government; it is only by a lucky combination of historical factors that this hasn't happened (were material conditions slightly different, it's not difficult to imagine a fascist United States in the 1930s; and then the entire world would have fallen to fascism by 1960 at the latest).


Who knows. As a communist I do tend to feel that the Workers can defeat the imperialists, so yes.
It is idealistic, not to mention contrary to historical evidence, to assume that the workers always will necessarily defeat the imperialists.

The only thing we can be sure of is that even if the imperialists win, the class struggle will continue, and the workers will have other chances to gain their freedom.

Like I said above, it is entirely possible to imagine a fascist victory in World War 2 and even a worldwide victory of fascism by 1960. But then fascism would have begun to decay and collapse in the following decades, probably paving the way for a neoliberal world not too different from our own (except with many more people dead along the way, including all Jews, most Russians, and hundreds of millions of Chinese).


The point is that a revolution can only be as sucessful as the masses want it to be.
Right. But a system that is in danger of collapse as soon as people lose their enthusiasm for it is a doomed system. A socialist or communist society must be built in such a way that it will not come crashing down as soon as people no longer have revolutionary fervor. I'm not talking about surviving in the face of popular opposition - obviously no truly democratic system can or should do that. I'm talking about surviving in the face of popular indifference. Socialism and communism must be built in such a way as to survive even if most people don't give a crap.

[Dros]

Obviously we're talking about a situation in which the classless, stateless society of freely associating individuals is not yet global.

Of course it will be. There is no basis to abolish the state until socialist society is global. Then and only then will the state begin to whither. Thus, we are really talking about a stated society which changes the questions considerably.


And even if it were global, there is always the possibility that some community somewhere might vote to re-create class society and a state.

Of course. But there would not be a material basis for that communist society to change back. It would be the heart of idealism to assert that this idea is just going to pop up and the society will recreate a state and capitalism. You don't see very many people now-a-days asking to go back to feudalism. Without classes, there is no basis for a state. Without capitalism, there is no material basis for a reversion.

===

By the way Edric, I just got the reference in your name. I always thought Edric was your real first name and that it was just an odd coincidence. :)

[Forward Union]

Right. But a system that is in danger of collapse as soon as people lose their enthusiasm for it is a doomed system. A socialist or communist society must be built in such a way that it will not come crashing down as soon as people no longer have revolutionary fervor.


You're right, we must impose freedom on people whether they want it or not!

[Svante]

Your logic doesn't flow.

If there isn't a need to defend society, where is this threat coming from?

Are you telling me people will suddenly forgo any relationship they have with their respected communities in the absence of nonsensical fears like xenophobia and racism? Most municipal police officers and firefighters enroll partially because they see defense as an honorable profession.


i see this different.there must have some sort of organiisation. this would be organisation of labour.then you the must decide will this be organization of the bleus collar workers o r white collar worker.

[redSHARP]

worker militias are great in theory, but can they stand up to say the german army in 1941? hell the red army was crushed by the poles in the 1920's!

best plan is to have a system that george washington had. a simple and small well trained army with militia groups working with it. ultimately wars will not be massive as WW2 (hopefully) but small scale wars are more prevelant; so this should work. would there be manditory militia training?

[Dust Bunnies]

I think in a Communist society we might not even need an Army maybe a militia at most if we follow these steps.

We go Socialist have the other nations join us. When the nations of the world unite wait 1 or 2 generations to root out any greed, then change to Communism.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

I think authoritarianism always tends to be more effective in war. There are two reasons why it hasn't dominated the world: (1) because war is not the only way to gain or lose power, and (2) because of sheer historical accident - fascism, for example, would certainly dominate the world if it managed to take over the US government; it is only by a lucky combination of historical factors that this hasn't happened (were material conditions slightly different, it's not difficult to imagine a fascist United States in the 1930s; and then the entire world would have fallen to fascism by 1960 at the latest).
I disagree for the reasons I've given. Authoritarian states can start wars whenever they please. They dont because they know they would lose. History has been very long - and we've seen many authoritarian states - they have certainly had the chance. I think we can draw a very strong positive correlation between the success of empires and the degree of freedom the gave their rulling class. Think Rome, Think America. This is because freedom makes people intelegent and good at making decisions (strategy, tactics, logistics etc). Authority makes people stupid and bad at those things. And authority will always spread to the rulling class.

I think a fascist american empire would have been much less effective than the one we currently face. America has the best propaganda system in history - precisely because of the degree of freedom it gives its press. If you look at american foreign policy, it is a work of evil genius. Facist foreign policy was idiotic - the strategy behind operation barbossa was infantile. Compare the american and nazi nuclear programmes - the former was ridiculously hampered by authoritarian ideology. The fascists could ruthlesly expand and direct what trehy inherited, but they were useless at inovating.

Plus, Authoritarian systems always turn on themselves. Think the USSR. The corageous and effective red army generals from the civil war were purged because of their independent thought, and the cowards kept because they would toe the line. As I ahve mentioned, the population was not armed and trained - as they probably would ahve been in an anarchsit USSR. The USSR was inward looking and embraced nationalism, rather than wholeheartedly supporting third world revolution. It basically handed the west the cold war. Authority eats itself, and in the long run never pays.

[Kropotesta]

Does anyone remember that we have nuclear weapons in the world now? So therefore, if not disarmed, the world would be destoryed, opposed to having any communist areas having to engage in war against armies of similar might to "the german army in 1941".

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Workers militia's...

What about Air support, Logistics, Armoured warfare, Expiditionary warfare, Special operations and Intelligence?

It's the 21st century people!
A bunch of amateurs with AK47s are going to do a whole lot of nothing against any decent sized Imperialist intervention.

[Voice_of_Reason]

This has always puzzled me. I believe that in a truly classless communist society (as opposed to an authoritarian socialist society), defence would be a great problem. With the concepts of nation and race abolished and no longer viable as a reason to join the army, and no financial benefits or any additional privileges associated with becoming a soldier and no authority to force them to do so, how do you get people to risk their lives on an abstract notion of preserving (what, after all)? This is why I believe authoritarian socialism is a much more viable idea than real communism. It's just like private property - if you can't defend and protect it, you don't own it. And today, the only entities that can defend and protect anything on a global scale are governments.


I personally think that the solution to this problem and many others would be most countries need to be communist, If every country was communist I can see no need for war really, there would be nothing to gain and a bunch to lose, and when it comes down to it most people will fight for their land if they know its in potential threat.

[Forward Union]

Workers militia's...

What about Air support, Logistics, Armoured warfare, Expiditionary warfare, Special operations and Intelligence?

It's the 21st century people!
A bunch of amateurs with AK47s are going to do a whole lot of nothing against any decent sized Imperialist intervention.


Furthermore, although Workers millitias in spain liberated a lot of places, the places often had no strategic value, and so were pointless. This is why a central millitary command is needed to plan and oversee warfair. It's the only practical way of doing it.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Workers militia's...

What about Air support, Logistics, Armoured warfare, Expiditionary warfare, Special operations and Intelligence?Perhaps 'workers militias' conjures up the wrong image for you. Our model is generally the Revolutiary Insurgent Army of Ukraine:
http://www.ditext.com/arshinov/makhno.html

They had logistics, intellegence, artillery and stuff very much like special operations. It was damn effective.

We won't be needing 'expeditionary warfare'. Armour and aricraft could easily be produced and held by workers organisations. People in organisations similar to the current british TA trained to use it (and payed to do so). Same for aircraft. We would likely see massive reasearch into, and production of anti-aircraft/anti-armour weapons to be used by the militias. This has the added advantage that it could be supplied to revolutionaries elsewhere. If the people felt they needed fighter aces, hard as nails special forces etc, then they could vote to have resources made available to pay people to train at this as their job - all handled in a libertarian socialist manner. The bulk of the army must be a peoples army, formed as a federation of local militias, however - not a mercenary one removed from the population.

I was imagining a society emerging from a third world revolution - where guerilla warfare would be the optimal strategy. As kropotesta pointed out, if we could get aircraft/armour worth using against imperial powers, we could get biological/nuclear deterrents and wouldnt need to.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Furthermore, although Workers millitias in spain liberated a lot of places, the places often had no strategic value, and so were pointless. This is why a central millitary command is needed to plan and oversee warfair. It's the only practical way of doing it.For the purposes of which, militias could surely federate.

I take your point though. If the CNT had put some serious time and effort into figuring out how to fight a war in a manner consistent with anarchist principles before 1936, they would probably have done a lot better.

[piet11111]

its almost impossible to keep an army out and often not even a good idea strategy wise (think of the german attack on the USSR if the red army would have stood their ground they would have been entirely wiped out).

i am very impressed by the iraqi resistance and their ability to have the americans fearing to go out on patrol.
now imagine a well equipped and trained population that has been prepared to fight in such a guerrilla war and has the will to fight them at every opportunity.

i think it would be a good idea to have several civil defense centers in city's and small towns that maintain a weapons cache for all the people that live there and also have several hidden weapons caches unknown to everyone not directly involved in maintaining these hidden weapons caches in the surrounding land.