[ninurta]

Okay, here is a problem, how would an anarchist society defend itself from a foreign invasion. Say your anarchist society was taiwan or some other area in east asia, and china was invading, how would you prevent this?

[Dr House]

Presumably trained citizen militias (in a left-anarchist society) or private military forces (in a right-anarchist society) would do that job.

The biggest hurdle for the left-anarchist camp however, is that military discipline and cohesion requires adhesion to a strict hierarchy, which runs counter to anarchist principles. I would argue that hierarchy simply cannot be done away with anywhere in society, but I'll humor them for a moment since in this matter it is quite obvious that a hierarchy is necessary.

[Wolfman]

^ and thus, an Anarchist Society couldn't defend itself. The only way for an Anarchist Society to exist, that isn't in a state of civil war, is if the whole of the planet is Anarchist.

[ninurta]

^ and thus, an Anarchist Society couldn't defend itself. The only way for an Anarchist Society to exist, that isn't in a state of civil war, is if the whole of the planet is Anarchist.

Very wise, you are getting where i am getting at but you still fail to realise another issue, the reason it won't last long even if the world is anarchist, but I'll leave that to another thread.

Presumably trained citizen militias (in a left-anarchist society) or private military forces (in a right-anarchist society) would do that job.

The biggest hurdle for the left-anarchist camp however, is that military discipline and cohesion requires adhesion to a strict hierarchy, which runs counter to anarchist principles. I would argue that hierarchy simply cannot be done away with anywhere in society, but I'll humor them for a moment since in this matter it is quite obvious that a hierarchy is necessary.

Exactly, otherwise how do you know where to go? What to do? Or how to defend? Ireland once was in a situation similar to anarchy where everyone was ruled by clan warlords but it failed when the british invaded. The same with Norway until it was unified.

So was New York State, until the 6 nations were united into one, and then the britts invaded,

The lack of a hierarchical highly organized structure lead to weakness.

[Wolfman]

I can geuss where you're going to go. But I wont ruin it for you.

[Catalan]

A slightly related topic, what stops government from forming after there is a violation of private property rights by somebody? Read the link for a clearer picture of what my point is.

[Ormi]

military discipline and cohesion requires adhesion to a strict hierarchy

I don't think this is true, for one. I believe the mistake of interpreting the logistical need for centralized information and cooperative planning as the need for authority is being made here as it is in many other critiques of anarchist organization.

A voluntary militia with bottom-up organization would run fine. It's especially not a big deal when the factories that produce your weapons and tools as well as the fields that grow your food are in the hands and minds of the people. What do you believe they would do?

[Dr House]

I don't think this is true, for one. I believe the mistake of interpreting the logistical need for centralized information and cooperative planning as the need for authority is being made here as it is in many other critiques of anarchist organization.

Common people are not very capable of advanced military strategy (even some uncommon people are incapable of it, such as myself ), which is why militaries have never been democratic.

It's especially not a big deal when the factories that produce your weapons and tools as well as the fields that grow your food are in the hands and minds of the people.

Normal people are not capable of planning large-scale heavy industrial production either. Representative worker democracy is somewhat workable, but horizontal worker democracy is not, In a normal setting workers are too busy working to manage.

[ninurta]

Its in human nature, and Ape nature and monkey nature to have hierarchies. Unless you can undo them millions of years of what made primate societies work and find another way that is doable and can trick human nature, a hierarchyless society, much less military, can't survive without one.

My whole point of defending anarchy and keeping it anarchy will become apparent after someone tries explaining how a nonhierarchical military would exist and operate.

Thanks for not ruining it wolfman, you'd chase the anarchists away.

[Wolfman]

Its in human nature,

Humans have no nature. I've said this a dozen times people, figure it out.

A voluntary militia with bottom-up organization would run fine.

OK, I'm in the military, and a bottom up organisation is unworkable in the military. I'm an Autogestionist (I believe in worker owned and operated buissnes) but I'm telling you, there some industrys you simply cannot have a bottom up organisation. You could have major unit leaders (ie, battalion leaders and up) democraticly decide on moves to make, but this would take a long time, and would only work so well for so long. To try to have a bottom-up organisation in the military/militia would be simply disastrous.

[Dr House]

Humans have no nature. I've said this a dozen times people

Why is it that hierarchical and tribal organization are common to every single human grouping throughout history, then?

[ninurta]

"Humans have no nature. I've said this a dozen times people"
Why is it that hierarchical and tribal organization are common to every single human grouping throughout history, then?

It's human nature to want power, we are selfish beings you know.

[Wolfman]

The form and function of that structure changes rather constantly throughout time and place. Nature (in the sense of innate knowledge) would mean that the form and function would never change, or change through an evolutionary process taking thousands of years. A casual look at the governments of the world over the last 200 years show that is not the case. While forming a ruling structure as a loose concept may be 'natural' it is not a part of human nature -- evidence in various cultures which have no single ruler.

Ninurta -- no we aren't. Look at any culture which hasn't been exposed to 'modern humans' and you'll see the opposite is true to them. There is little understanding of poperty, or power. And the word 'selfish' is non-existant in many of there languages.

[ninurta]

Ninurta -- no we aren't. Look at any culture which hasn't been exposed to 'modern humans' and you'll see the opposite is true to them. There is little understanding of poperty, or power. And the word 'selfish' is non-existant in many of there languages.

All I am going to say is learn more about them nonmodern tribes. I am majoring in anthropology. Actually I learned from my professor that a chief was killed because his cousin wanted to be chief. As for property, there are cases where everyone shares a home or houses, but there are many, in particular many in Papua New Guinea that live in seperate houses that they own. As for selfishness, yeah they have that too.

[Wolfman]

Actually I learned from my professor that a chief was killed because his cousin wanted to be chief

There are thousands of cultures. No shit, there are going to be cultures that include western-esque values, but there plenty of other cultures that don't.

[Dr House]

we are selfish beings you know.

That's a neoliberal myth. We are hierarchical beings, yes, but not inherently selfish.

The form and function of that structure changes rather constantly throughout time and place.

It has always existed though.

Nature (in the sense of innate knowledge) would mean that the form and function would never change, or change through an evolutionary process taking thousands of years.

Why would it? Changes in the natural and cultural context of human existence are much more rapid than that, and humans adapt through the use of intellect and innovation more than through biological changes, though the latter is also common (which is why different peoples originating from different areas are physically distinct from one another). Nevertheless, humans have always organized themselves into packs of some form or another, and a ruling minority (or a single leader in the case of small groups) has always led the pack.

EDIT: Another human constant that could be said to be base instinct is the belief in God. Even today, 95% of the Western world (and over 99% of the world in general) believes in some sort of deity, and out of those that do not most engage in some form of hero worship (Randians, Paulites, Marxists), or animism (environmentalists and PETA activists).

[Ormi]

Common people are not very capable of advanced military strategy (even some uncommon people are incapable of it, such as myself ), which is why militaries have never been democratic.

Nobody said that talented individuals wouldn't have a bigger and broader voice, they would just be enabled to that privilege by the collective. The reason militaries have never been democratic is that it would utterly disassemble their ability to uphold their historical purpose as engines of rape, massacre, and plunder for the State.

Normal people are not capable of planning large-scale heavy industrial production either. Representative worker democracy is somewhat workable, but horizontal worker democracy is not, In a normal setting workers are too busy working to manage.

I don't see why intellectual labor can't be shared across every worker in the setting. The workforce being "too busy" to do anything important is a capitalist fabrication.

[Dr House]

The reason militaries have never been democratic is that it would utterly disassemble their ability to uphold their historical purpose as engines of rape, massacre, and plunder for the State.

While armies have indeed been instruments of needless atrocities, their main historical objective has been securing resources and expansion of power on behalf of the nation, as well as securing the nation against domestic threats.

I don't see why intellectual labor can't be shared across every worker in the setting.

Because most blue-collar workers are not intellectual, which is essentially why they're blue-collar workers. Division of labor is more efficient than making every worker into a manager.

The workforce being "too busy" to do anything important is a capitalist fabrication.

Strawman. I have never said what workers do isn't important--production is most certainly central to the economic health of the nation. Nevertheless, if a worker is busy working at the assembly line he can't make management decisions.

[Wolfman]

Why would it?

An object outside it's natural state must return to its natural sate. As such, if the form and function of a hieracrhial system was innate knowledge (ie, in our nature) then any form of governance which is not in our nature would quickly fail. So, the process of governmental change would be evolutionary, and not something that happens in bursts through out time and space.

Changes in the natural and cultural context of human existence are much more rapid than that, and humans adapt through the use of intellect and innovation more than through biological changes

I suppose 'thousands' was a bit much, but the principle of governmental change being an evolutionary process does remain. Also, there is no human culture, so it's change throughout time is pretty much a gaurantee.

Nevertheless, humans have always organized themselves into packs of some form or another, and a ruling minority (or a single leader in the case of small groups) has always led the pack.

I do admit that there will always be leadership, but this is like with sex -- it's a constant among social creatures. Again, this (as a lose concept) is a universal, but the form and function changes, implying to me that it's not nessicarily a form of nature to have governance (which is a different then small tribe led out of fear).

base instinct is the belief in God

This is a similar technicality. While a religious beleif (which is different then the belief in God) does seem to very common, but not a universal. There are countless differenet religions, sects, cults, and personnal views, not all of which include a form of God (Buddhism being the first example that comes to mind). So, we again get into technicalities over religious beliefs as a whole vs. specifics.

[ninurta]

No, the reason belief in god can't even be debated as an instinct, there have been atheists since ancient India and Ancient Greece. That's like saying saying its our instinct to love pizza, most people love it but some hate it.

An instinct, unlike a common feature like religion and beliefs which are entirely a product of our culture, is neither mutable, nor is it something that can be turned on or off voluntarily, nor does it go away ever!!! Unless you become a different species and your DNA says you no longer need it (by getting rid of it from you).

Fight or flight is a common example of why we are just animals and why we still have instincts. If in danger we fight or run.