A question for Anarchists, by someone who wants to be an anarchist

Hey, I still want to be an Anarchist, but this really stumped me. How do you solve the fact that an Anarchist community would be quickly taken over by a nearby capitalist country? It almost seems as if a state is needed to be able to defend against a force that would take advantage of a disorganized community.

Other urls found in this thread:


autonomous terminators and nuclear weapons

Just curious, why you want to be an anarchist when you see that flaw in it?

By building claiming land for U.S. military bases

I like the ideas of decentralization, and I find it easier to appeal to Americans' senses of freedom and liberty that are more easily gotten across with Anarchism as a concept. Also I generally dislike authoritarian figures.

Historically anarchist armies have done quite well actually, all things considered.

Makhno was instrumental in help the Red army defend and eventually push out the white's from Crimea, as well as keeping the Germans from fully occupying Ukraine.

Anarchism isn't against an organized military to protect itself, or organization in general.

Your premise is unsupported, so it isn't a very interesting starting place for a conversation.

Shit user, that must be a pretty large CP collection you have


Yes, a state is needed.



I think you don't quite understand. An anarchist community would necessarily be extremely highly organized. That's how an anarchist society can function without a state directing efforts.

OP, don't try to follow Anarchist Ideology and you will be a better Anarchist. Just try to act on what you feel is the moral high ground in any given situation, and you will naturally gravitate towards the orientation most suited to you.
Also read about insurrection tactics being used today, they're not disorganized, there just isn't anyone who falsely places themselves at the top. Syndicalism is building dual power through radical unions of diverse workers. Is that easy? It needs a ton of organizing.

I guess maybe I phrased it wrongly.
So the idea of Anarchism is to go from capitalism, straight to a communist society, skipping over the state socialism aspect of it.
So let's say there's a revolution, the new society doesn't have the amount of protection that it would have if it still had a state, in a way, it needs a state in order to defend against capitalists, counterrevolutionaries, and so on and so on.
If Cuba was anarchist, for example, it wouldn't have been able to resist invasion for so long.
So, what does Anarchism have in place to help prevent invasion, and counterrevolution? From the historical record of anarchist movements, it seems as if they all fall due to this issue, they just get invaded.

None of that probably made any sense.

Where is this infantile idea that a revolution stops somewhere coming from? I'm not an anarchist but its my understanding that anarchists aren't exactly going for anarchism-in-one-country. Working out how a post-revolutionary anarchist society would govern itself and function shouldn't really assume that any states, capitalist or otherwise, will exist anywhere short of the next planetary system.


An army might still exist, but consisting fully out of volunteers, much like professional armies today. However some internal changes might be required, such as the introduction democratic principles. Units might have elected officers, even tough some advocate that the candidates should have some degree of education and competency in order to be elected to such a position.
The army as a whole would also be quite divided, consisting of several highly independent and mostly autonomous divisions, regiments, or even just battalions-sized units in order to avoid the creation of an hierarchical and centralized power within the larger community. These regiments or divisions might co-operate on a larger scale, not trough a centralized command, but via a representative strategic council.

A divided and democratic organization of the armed forces might risk lowering the overall reaction-speed, efficiency, and coordinated operation of the forces on the large scale, but would most likely increase trust and morale on the troop-level while fostering a force-wide spirit of low-level tactical flexibility, personal initiative, and quick reaction — something much appreciated in modern mobile warfare. Such an army would also be nearly incapable of executing a coup, as the organizing a coup in secret while communicating across several parallel command-structures would significantly increase the risk of being exposed plotting. It would also an challenging opponent to knock out by potential enemies, as the collection of autonomous and co-operating units share no common head to cut off with one strike.
Naturally the latter requires extensive communication between these units in order to guarantee that they act coherently in conjunction with one another and not as a thinly spread veil of random localized resistance. Without guaranteeing that every commander has a good enough picture of the tactical and strategic situation, we cannot claim that they operate effectively beyond the reach of their personally available recon and abilities.

The Finnish Defence Forces actually recently developed a distributed fighting doctrine based on ambushing, delay, and dispersion in order to maximize hostile losses while sustaining the operational and strategic integrity and initiative of their own. While the FDF as an organization is by no means comparable to the organizational model I've described, they still have provided a viable strategic doctrine which relies more on unit-level autonomy and flexibility with minimal upper-echelon intervention rather than a strict and centralized grand battle-plan.

Army Doctrine 2015 – Basics (closed captions available)

the image in the OP should be followed up by another one with the soldier bayoneting the anarcho cat

Where did this fucking meme come from?


AnCaps. There's a reason they're universally despised.

Despised seems a little strong. Most people just treat them as a bad joke.

Anarchists always seem to get the short end of the stick when it comes to manufacturing capacity. When the ☭TANKIE☭s inevitably withdraw support the anarchists are left with their asses in the wind against the combined military dick of not just the counterrevolutionaries, but every capitalist country supporting them.

There's a reason Rothbard made the ideology completely out of his ass while admiring Hitler

it's almost as if people need a state to defend them from other political actors

there should really be a hoxhaball there just to really rub it in.

Yeah dude, having the magic of a state makes you magically invincible to being outnumbered hundreds to one and getting fucked over by supposed allies

it's not magic
ability to defend yourself from invasion scales with the size and quality of your military

but what about nukes

seriously nukes and autonomous weapons seem like good ways for smaller communities to bolster their strength

anarchy is redundant we are condemned to freedom and can always do whatever we want wether we acknowledge it or not. you guys are retards.

What does that even mean user..?

adequately defended second strike nuclear capability has historically been an absolute guarantor of sovereignty
this could change though if non-state militaries become significant

bad idea
the entire idea of nuclear non proliferation is that the more actors have nukes, the higher the threat of nuclear war is, and the easier it will be for other actors to obtain nukes.

it seems inevitable though

maybe it's inevitable, but it certainly isn't desireable
if we slow down the proliferation of nuclear secrets, we'll be able to enjoy a few more generations of humanity on earth before global thermonuclear war wipes everyone out

You're a theoryless idealist who likes vauge ideas of decentralization and shops the ideological super market all day.

Anarchism is a system of organization, not just freedom.

And you don't follow your ideology, whatever that may be, because you like ideas that are part of it? It's better to be dogmatically convinced of one ideology than ask questions and consider aspects of different schools of thought? Idiot.

Anarchism can never work because of the more guys with guns scenario.
There are always more guys with more guns than you.

Why? You read stuff, arrive at a conclusion on your own and then pick the label that describes it, not the other way around. Smells like lifestyleism.


sartre please leave


Okay, organisation this, organisation that.

So, who will decide who is a captain allowed to execute conscripts who don't want to fight? Would you rather have a professional army? Paid for with mandatory taxes? How is that anarchism?


what could possibly go wrong

anarchism is a meme that keeps getting its shit pushed in by every single other ideology

Shut the fuck up.

ebin comeback

rare to see a ☭TANKIE☭ defending anarkiddies