Debates on anti-militarism continue to shake the anarchist movement in the western part of the world. Often in these debates we can see some organisations from Ukraine or Russia show support for the ‘no war but class war’ position. Three and a half years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the anarchist movement is extremely divided. Previous strategies of ‘listening to local voices’ have mostly failed for those who were not interested in the first place. With more scandals certain to come in the future, it’s important to understand how we came to this point.
You must log in or # to comment.
I see them in lemmy too damn much!
Why does lemmy have so many anti-self-defense creeps‽
Lemmy was founded by anti-self defense creeps, because they got kicked out of the usual platforms. The sentiment changed, when Reddit did its API bs and a lot of Redditors came to lemmy, but the old group is still around. They have a pretty narrow world view of West evil everybody else good and that means any sort of defense of the West especially by force has to be opposed.
Maybe I misread Lemmy’s history. Because if that’s the case, I choose the wrong network, again.
I’m really going to host my own jabber instance, huh. SIP would take me soooo long.
Lemmy is a single server software in a threadiverse. Piefed, mbin/kbin, NodeBB…
Which one’s most anarchist?
I’m prob. gonna jabberfy. Threadiverse supports groupθnk, which is stupidely dangerous.
The point of Lemmy is that anyone can make their own instance.
If a game launched with private servers would you boycott the entire thing because a Nazi runs one?
The only problem with the Lemmy anarchist instances, of which there are plenty, is they keep believing Hexbear when they promise to behave so you have to block the instance manually.
Hexbear is defederated on slrpnk.net precisely because their (the Hexbear admins’) promises are not credible. If they ever manage to change the toxic culture of their userbase we are happy to revisit that, but so far I don’t see any indication of that.
Honestly, they are less hassle than the libs nowadays.
The issue I’m realizing now is that the game right now breeds Nazis.
And I need to make a protocol/network that encourages anarchist praxis.
It’ll have to be p2p for sure.Evidence kinda suggest the opposite, see Nostr, SimpleX and the like.
Although I agree that many design decisions in Lemmy reflect either the developers’ hierachical preferences or are strait up copies of the hierachical design of Reddit. The Fediverse can certainly do better than that.
With federated media like Lemmy, Piefed, etc, you will have a large cross section of ideologies, with some being more catered toward Anarchists than others depending on the specific instance.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/ and https://slrpnk.net/ likely have the highest percentage of Anarchists.
Slrpnk represent!
🙇♀️
Why do you think there was a strong anti-military popular movement in the second half ofthe twentieth century?
Lemmy isn’t that old. But IG I’m being corrected on my poor comprehension of threadiverse history.
Self defense yes, state military no.
How do you conquer a people that does not recognize unconditional surrender? How do you occupy a city if there is a gun behind every window? How do you break the morale of people who have tasted true anarchic prosperity? How do you maintain a logistics advantage over a society that isn’t hobbled by poverty or capitalist ‘tragedies of the commons’ or the marketization of industries? Who could Russia threaten with nukes if stateless anarchist fighters from across the world storm the Kremlin?
If your country has a problem with desertion when fighting to prevent occupation by friggin Russia, maybe spend less time telling deserters they’re shit and more time making a country worth fighting for.
The west has a massive economic lead on Russia. The one way the west can lose to Russia is by screwing up its population so badly that the west goes into an economic and/or geopolitical collapse, and western states are actually fucking doing it.
We have to defend ourselves against the likes of Russia, as well as against homegrown fascists and ultranationalists and state communists and any state that denies us human rights such as the right to housing, food, and queer liberation.
State militaries are crap at this. They’ll be neutral or divide themselves according to state lines or join on the worse side or just desert because the state is crap. It’s just that more effective military structures risk also recognizing the rich as an enemy.
We are endangering our capacity to defend ourselves, including from Russia, by handing the responsibility to defend us over to such an inefficient and hamstrung organisation.
As much as I would like to agree, states have historically been far better at fighting wars than most kinds of anarchist organization. Yes, there have been bumbling fools here and there, states can be miserable at innovation - but their organizational model usually prevails if given some time. :(
The methods of state warfare and non-state insurgency differ a lot. A war is financed by the tax office, an insurgency is mostly financed by donation, theft and loot. A tax office will get a great deal further in raising money than even the most talented partisan, because they are pretty uncontestable and systematically squeeze everyone.
State-like methods will have industries leveraging scaling laws and division of labour to produce faster and cheaper (a trivial example: I can be much more productive and make less mistakes if I produce ailerons for 20 drones in a row, or parachutes for 20 drones in a row). A partisan organization will have difficulty doing that and evading detection.
In war, territory matters - you want to control territory that is safe for your side, and locate production where it cannot be obstructed, so you can make stuff by the ton.
This could somewhat change in the near future, but not massively. The destabilizing factor which might change things is likely low-cost drones in all environments. Attacking a big sitting duck might become, at least for a while, somewhat easier than defending a big sitting duck. Maybe it already has (referring to some incidents of a drone swarm flying out of a truck).
However, I am not convinced if this changes the playing field enough.
This somewhat saddens me. To prevail in military conflict, even an anarchist organization would have to adopt methods considerably resembling a state, and revert to its old shape later - if it can. I guess the old saying “war is healthy for a state” (and almost nobody else) isn’t so wrong. :(
Personal perspective: when Ukraine got invaded by Russia, I tried to influence the situation via anarchist organizations first, because that’s where I had contacts. At first, they achieved meaningful things. Ukrainian folks equipped their comrades for war, Russian folks torched and derailed various stuff… but as things continue, what counts more and more is ability to mass produce cheap technology. Anarchist methods have a vital place in research and innovation, but if something even remotely seems to get results, state financing and methods from big industry are better employed to quickly replicate a successful tool. So I foresee that if I come up with a successful tool and want it replicated, I would have to cooperate with an organization capable of mass production - and my anarchist comrades currently don’t have these. In a different world, maybe they would - as a result of experiences and opinions that point out the value of organizing things on big scale. It’s not impossible, anarchists have sometimes organized big stuff.
As much as I would like to agree, states have historically been far better at fighting wars than most kinds of anarchist organization.
What historical examples are you thinking of? I’m unaware of any historical instance of an anarchic front having a comparable population or budget to the states it fought against and losing. The Zapatistas are still independent, though. Also, while not strictly nonhierarchical, the Taliban quite notably defeated NATO in Afghanistan with a fraction of the resources and population, while lacking all these elements you claim to be essential for military success.
The Taliban did not have a tax office, and yet they won. The Taliban did not have a military-industrial complex, and yet they won. The Taliban did not hold territory, and yet they won. The Taliban did not mass-produce standardized technological gadgets, and yet they won. They have a deeply regressive and oppressive philosophy, but they do prove the power of insurgency. As do many other succesful insurgencies and revolutions.
It seems like when you think of anarchists, you can’t help but think of a group that is hopelessly outnumbered and lacking any control over the means of production. But if we’re talking about the inherent capacity of a philosophy to organize 450 million Europeans to defend against a state subjugating 150 million Russians, that’s not a fair comparison.
This is a valid counterpoint, but one should be aware that the Afghan government was extremely corrupt and inept, quite ready to be bribed and pushed over.
Pacifism is great if you want the other side to win
“Pacifism” is usually a bit of a strawman. Even Gandhi only considered it a useful tactic under certain circumstances AFAIK.
Anyways, some very good food for thought can be found here: https://north-shore.info/2024/10/04/hostages-of-the-gun-on-militancy-and-militarism/
