this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
213 points (91.1% liked)
Anarchism
2637 readers
170 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ASAP. In the here and now. Don't mistake anarchism for moderation or flippancy. I am honestly not sure if worldwide anarchism can be realized faster than the climate crisis, but in my view it has the best shot out of all the existing plans.
IMO in the here and now, part of anarchist praxis needs to be organizing defensive militas, frankly in a way that aesthetically might resemble a military, but is in practice informed by anarchist principles and goals. Anarchists need to wage actual war against the bourgeoisie and world governments. Frankly, we need our ideas to be more widespread and accepted by the masses, i.e. numbers — a reality that, in my view, equally affects all communist struggles, and no ideology can overcome. IMO, militias should be formed for specific purposes, disbanded as soon as their mission is complete, and only exist subject to the people they claim to defend.
The need to disassemble and then reform your military inbetween each action doesn't strike you as an extreme limitation? Just how fast do you think you can pull a militia together if you want to do it from scratch in response to each case of capitalist aggression? I agree that both our movements would need much greater numbers in order to challenge the west militarily but I don't see how an anarchist force could maintain those numbers if they had them when you only ever want to field completely green, newly formed units. Seems like your just feeding shelter cats to coyotes.
It is, but I think it's a necessary one. But also, I do want to be a bit more concrete about what constitutes an "action". I'm really thinking that "liberation of region X" is an example of an action, so it is possible to have militias standing for many years. Honestly...no, I really don't want to see militias lasting any longer or getting any bigger. And that is a feature, not a bug.
I mean I've never gone to war before, but can't we train people to be "generically" good at fighting so that we can form and reform units in finite time? I.e., how to use firearms, basic urban and wilderness survival, basic tactics, and how to be part of a unit? Because yeah, it would be a bad move to just throw complete rookies into battle with no training.
Sure individual veterans of many different militias would accrue individual military knowledge but no amount of individual knowledge is sufficient on its own, there is also a need for institutional knowledge. Leadership must have an intimate understanding of the force which it leads. Effective logistical practices must be developed. Long term relationships with other allied forces must be cultivated. All of this is achieved through the repeated iteration and refinement of military institutions over many subsequent conflicts. These necessities cannot be liquidated and reformed at will.