How can anarchism survive without a military / how can communism justify its existenc

How can an anarchist society possibly function without a military? And if it has a military, how can its military be strong enough to prevent invasion without taxation?


Why is the existence of a Communist state justified? What are the ethical foundations that undergird the existence of a communist state. Why should someone living in a Communist state feel that they have any responsibility to obey the law? And how can the Communists claim that they have a right to rule over others?

who would there be to invade an anarchist society? the idea is global revolution

the second one is a bit trickier because there's no such thing. I know you're talking about the SU and friends but I personally wouldn't characterise capitalist states as communist. what are the 'ethical foundations' that underpin the existence of a capitalist state anyway? why should anyone have to obey the law? in any case, communists don't claim that they have the right to rule over others.

roy you really believe that it is possible to have an anarchist revolution in every single country around the world. In your heart of hearts, when you think about that, don't you realize it is stupid?

roy the capitalist state has a conditional right to exist, so long as it is doing the will of God. Capitalism does not confer moral authority on people. At the same time, a society in which you can get a job and earn $15 dollars an hour does provide for peoples needs. People have to obey the law because the authority of the state is an authority that God accepts, and God has moral authority.

If communists don't claim they have a right to rule over others, than how can they rule over others? Isn't their rule illegitimate?

History has shown that when anarchists had power, as in Spain, it was quickly lost. Isn't anarchism just a deceptive way of getting people into the left?

it's not as though countries all exist independently of one another. not so long ago in the grand scheme of things capitalism didn't exist, now it's the global economic system.

I would ask you how you know the capitalist state is doing the will of god, but you can't prove that to be the truth and of course I can't disprove it so let's move along from that tired of debate. however, capitalism doesn't provide for a lot of people's needs. people die in droves every single day because most of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of the relatively few.

communists don't want to rule over others. that isn't the idea. communists call for the end of class society, wherein the ruling class dominates all subordinates. communists don't want anyone to rule.

anarchists lost power? oh no everything is doomed and nothing will ever change. anyway, no anarchism isn't a 'deceptive way of getting people into the left'. in fact, it's a tradition that spans centuries, as i'm sure you know. just because it's somewhat trendy among some very marginal groups doesn't mean that it's this carefully cultivated conspiracy of winning people over the communism.

This dilemma is exactly one reason I'm a vanguardist.

anarchism CAN exist without a military (at least an OFFICIAL military) rather than having a rank-down traditional armed force, in a truly stateless society, where means of production and distribution of goods are owned communally, a person would have access to a means of protecting themselves and fighting insurgents included in their allocated provisions. when a threat occurs, the populace itself will be called upon for defense. if every man and woman has a gun, every town has a pool of tanks, and a network of scouts pervades the countryside, a traditional military will be unnecessary, and a cooperative defense initiative has all the power when it comes to protection of the common welfare and freedom of a communities citizens.

You are a libertarian.

How does this make him a libertarian? I'm pretty sure this is the commonly accepted stance on military by all anarchists. In fact, it's the an-caps who advocate private defense forces and I don't see any of that mentioned here.

s/he knows,since libertarian was used to describe anarchist communists before it was perverted by the libertarian party.

If you recognize the world's class divide as being an empirical reality then one might very well wonder what the furthest extent is in history that workers have gotten to, in their own best interests as a class.

The answer, of course, is the (October) Russian Revolution, though its legacy was a downsliding one from that point onward, into Stalinism.

The USSR justified its political existence as the remnants (my wording) of that halted proletarian revolution, and it held onto as much of the collectivist model as it possibly could, given material (geopolitical) developments. Also it defeated the Nazis in World War II.



Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States

http://www.revleft.com/vb/oliver-sto...728/index.html



We could simply invoke basic material utilitarianism here, at the greatest scales of magnitude, to ask what kind of socio-political organization would be the most productive and beneficial for the greatest numbers of people in the world -- it would necessarily have to transcend the class divide.



(I'll pass on this question of historical legal ethical conjecture.)



Arguably the bureaucratic collectivism of the USSR -- especially early-on -- was the most productive and beneficial type of sustained social organization that the world has ever seen.

thank you.

I thought he meant libertarian in the right-wing sense? That's the context I was thinking of anyway when I responded. That does really prove the word has been hijacked.

You arm the whole of the people and encourage (not force) everyone to train and be ready to fight. You can also organize the armed masses into voluntary militias at the local level, and federate these local militias non-hierarchically into a massive and coordinated revolutionary force. Look into the Mahkno movement and the Free territories in Ukraine for a great, though imperfect, example of this.

And you didn't ask, but many wonder about Anarchist alternatives to the police. I feel crime could be dealt with by the community at large on a case by case basis. Besides that we could have rotating volunteers function as a community response team, who's only purpose would be to intervene in cases of violence so as to save lives. These volunteers would in no way patrol the streets or look for crime, they would only respond to violent interactions when called on.

As far as law goes, there will be none; just one binding agreement as a condition of joining a community. You may do whatever you wish, but you must not initiate coercive force against another individual. Anyone who violates this agreement may be kicked out of the community or, if necessary to save lives, shot on the spot. No police, no prisons, no military. Just the armed revolutionary people themselves.

We would have no need of professional courts either. If someone in the community initiates force against another, they can be brought before the neighborhood assembly corresponding to their district, and the assembly of all the people in that neighborhood will determine what to do with them.