As I define it, anarcho-militarism could be the opposite of anarcho-pacifism and a more pushed version of insurrectionnary anarchism.
Basically, anarcho-militarism would defend an idea of revolution to abolish states and hierarchies, but maintain a self-managed army capable of defending anarchy against eventual states that would still exist.
What do you think of that?
Haven't all existing anarchist societies been forced to do this anyways.
holy shit will the anarcho-shit memes ever end?
eco-anarchism, ancom and ansyn are the only ones you should take seriously
Every form of anarchy that ever worked is and does this.
This is literally just Anarchism.
What is with you fucking faggot anarcho-autists making now fringe ideologies.
t. anarcho-transhumanists
OP, stop.
There's also mutualism. That's about it. I'm not sure that Stirner's egoism is necessarily anarchist, although it's not far off.
What do you think of Anarcho-$MemeIdeology
It's pure autism. Plenty of Anarchists already believe in armed insurrection without taking on the reactionary baggage of military Ideology.
This.
I suppose anyone can be an Egoist since it's just a school of ethics, but it's definitely mostly a Post-Left or Individualist Anarchist kind of thing, which has very little to do with Socialism. So while there's a lot of overlap I'd say it's a lot like Communalism, where it's related to Anarchism, but kind of it's own thing at the same time.
i do support this
most of the """anarchist""" i met IRL where pacifist
OP, I'm only going to tell you this much. You have to work out the rest on your own.
In order to pull off any type of society, you need a military doctrine. You can't just buy or build any old weapons or vehicles and expect to succeed. You need an overall battle strategy focused around a certain type of warfare which will vary by the terrain you inhabit, which will mean focusing on certain types of military assets. Essentially, what you're talking about is just regular anarchism with more of a focus on not getting steamrolled by statists. You can take some cues from Rojava in this regard. They elect their officers, which is something you could consider in order to maintain public accountability and parallels the election of business leaders in a democratically managed economy.
It's not a thing.
But the army would become the new state.
sounds like an anarchist militia society
This is literally just a militaristic state. Such a strong military force will be bound to rule over the people.
Nihilism both existed before your shit, and directly inspired some of it, you little faggots.
Nihilism doesn't keep a society together
Yup.
Course this is redundant, but if it equivalently works against the interest in humanity what use are they?
What, are you under the belief that society is helpless and can't reach a good morale state?
And it's had influence on a lot of other ideas, too. In fact, you could say that nihilism has influenced postmodernism more and is therefore closer to the ideology of modern late capitalism than it is to classical anarchism. Does that necessarily discredit it? No, but it's stretching it to call it anarchist or related. Hakim Bey's works are a dumpster fire.
While Nechayev shared some predilections with Bakunin, his barracks communism was far more authoritarian than even what Marx envisioned.
Anarchy or socialism will always lose militarily unless they have vastly superior numbers or technology. The willingness of hierarchies and class societies to sacrifice lives will always be greater than that of an anarchist force. The anarcho-militarist army would have to dwarf the armies of its opponents in manpower and in power of arms. It would have to be so large or advanced that in order for it to be helpful, that military conquest would be a non-issue, so a focus on military power would be a waste of resources. A land built on socialism and especially anarchism needs to simply be too large for an invasion to be logistically possible from the enemies, with the citizens themselves and their land being too numerous and vast. See: the USSR or maybe some day North America.
Stirnerism is more underlying philosophy of anarchism than the workings of a system the way the others are.
This society is pretty shit it should be removed.
". By a revolution, the Society does not mean an orderly revolt according to the classic western model – a revolt which always stops short of attacking the rights of property and the traditional social systems of so-called civilization and morality. Until now, such a revolution has always limited itself to the overthrow of one political form in order to replace it by another, thereby attempting to bring about a so-called revolutionary state. The only form of revolution beneficial to the people is one which destroys the entire State to the roots and exterminated all the state traditions, institutions, and classes in Russia. "
Just sounds like a tankie with the anarcho-meme cover around it
Is making up new flag options a new anarchist meme now?
Also it's a stretch to call it something like barracks communism. The use of power against authority I don't believe can be authoritarian, and there's no need to follow Nechayev's words or any of the exact actions of the Russians. They failed to do what they set out to do often.
I'm on board with this.
Direct democracy for the citizen-soldier! Militia-nation for life!
Not true. Read a book.
Stop. It's "egoism".
To your Nechayev, I raise you a Land
What's that word which you hear from Silicon Valley consistently? Disrupt. It is Marx voided through Schumpeter and further neoliberal distortion of everything besides positivistic analysis because there is no critique to be made from outside, according to them.