On following you can find translation of the article "Anarchist defence
alternative" from the Existence - anarchist revue of the Czechoslovak
Anarchist Federation. While criticizing militarism we remain realists, and
hence, although one of the foundation blocks of the anarchist ideas is
removing violence from relations within society, we are forced by external
circumstances to consider the defence of anarchist society and consequently
the way of organizing the possible armed units. This is a result of
historical experience gained throughout centuries of social struggle. The
wealthy and privileged classes are willing to allow only those challenges
that do not, by their essence, radically limit the classes´ own influence.
Whenever this should happen, they are capable to join forces even with
former enemies in order to thwart any emancipation effort threating their
position. In the event of having to face threat they are ready to abandon
all humanist ideals in order to retain their profits they are leading their
liberal-parliamentary democratic positions to allow harsh dictatorial
regimes, such as Fascism in Germany of 1930s or Pinochet´s regime in Chile
take over 1973. As anarchists we strive to achieve far-reaching changes,
depriving of power and economic advantages practically all who now live at
others´ expense; hence it is more than obvious that the reaction to our
striving for free and classless society is going to be unusually strong. If
we are to survive this struggle and contest successfully, it is necessary
to face the reactionary armies with our own defensive initiative, capable
of protecting the society we are setting up. The idea of a traditional army
is unacceptable to us. Whether conscriptional or professional, its
structure is always rather authoritarian. The way and principle of any
organisation is a manifold reflection of trends within the particular
society the army belongs to. The more authoritarian society, the more
totalitarian and inhumane the army. If we apply this principle in the
search of defence organisation, we shall conclude that the defence units
must be structured strictly according to fundamental anarchist principles
of organisation. By these principles we mean, first and foremost, public
control, inspection, free agreement and federalism. If these principles are
applied to the issue in question, they render several fundamental blocks on
which the anarchist defence initiative rests. These are: militia system,
defensive territorial character of the armed forces and a strong stress on
the moral aspect of the revolutionary upheaval as well as society itself.
What is meant by militia system and how does this concept differ from a
classical authoritarian army set up? The alpha and omega of militias is
democracy and equalitarianism. Commanders at all levels are elected
directly and are subject to rules of assignment and may be removed from
office. The right of removal office, however, may be limited within the
framework of combat action. Nevertheless, although in the case of militia
system we speak of electing leaders, higher decisive levels etc., all key
and strategic decisions are made collectively in such a way, that all those
who are eventually to be affected by them have a say in the final
resolution. Classifies decisions are made by an elected council, controlled
by a peoples´ body. Commanders as such are viewed within concept of
militias, rather as delegates to higher coordinating bodies and as
militiamen responsible for operational control and coordination. They take
over whenever it becomes impossible to make collective decisions, e. g. in
above mentioned combat operations or coordination of defence in case of an
enemy attack. The elected commander also propose military solutions, where
the final resulting pla of an actual operation, situation allowing, in
subject to approval by a general assembly of militia units are to take part
the operation. The democratic character of militias is closely related to
another important aspect, and that is equality. All militiamen are equal,
there are no privileges or ranks for those entrusted with position of
leader. No officers´ clubs, better rations or even using rank tittles are
acceptable from the point of view of maintaining a libertarian character of
militias. Another typical characteristic of the militia system is voluntary
participation. But who would voluntarily suffer war hardships or risk his
own life - might by the most frequently raised objection. In our opinion it
will be more people, whose resistance will be much stronger, than could by
found in classical authoritarian army. People fighting out of their own
conviction, for their ideals, or defending their homes before tyrannical
aggression are capable of enormous sacrifices. They do not need to be
forced to fight through mobilisation or under the treat of harsh punishment
for disobedience. Only the ruling class has to force people to fight for
its interests and gains by threats of repression and imprisonment.
Authoritarian objection is that the militia model is not effective or
capable of fight. Nothing could be further from the truth. Militiamen, who
participate in appointing their own commanders as the best in their ranks,
have as consequence full trust in them and readily accept their decisions.
There is no need to force people into submission, because they themselves
have taken parting the decision making, and hence view it as their own and
are prepared to sacrifice far more than if thy were merely to obey orders
of some anonymous staff somewhere in the rear. Such phenomenon may by
observed after all even in classical armies. The troops that went through
turmoil of wars were led by experienced veterans, possibly no military
rank, who were nevertheless held in high esteem for their abilities and
bravery and followed by others. It can be reasonably concluded that militia
democracy is, as a result, far more effective than classical authoritarian
hierarchical structure of armed forces. Our concept stresses mainly its
defensive nature. It is not our aim to form an aggressive army in order to
annex further and further regions. We are concerned, first and foremost,
about defending our homes and freedom and, as we have mentioned, that is
the only reason why we are willing to consider military organisation at
all. The armed units would be attacked to a village/town or a region,
within which they would function as a kind of civil defence. All the
military technical equipment would be, according to need, kept by
specialized units, most likely around large factories. It would by
maintained by specially trained people and controlled by a local council.
However, defence - as well as many other activities - cannot be split and
atomised into individual municipalities or regions. It is not the anarchist
goal, either - quite on the contrary it is cooperation and togetherness.
Hence regional units would be bound into territorial federations. In this
way the coordination of defence overall national territory will be
provided, whilst keeping full autonomy of regional militia. Such national
federations would naturally form futher federations and thus international
defence libertarian structure. Futhermore, some sophisticated equipment or
apparatus would have to be maintained in such a way; it would be a step
back and also rather expensive if each regional militia should be equipped
with it. By such e. g. we mean e. g. radiolocators, anti-aircraft defence
or electronic combat units. As has been already said, the armed troops
would be under direct control of local councils. Within these councils
should by incorporated also a military council dealing with coordination,
control and logistic support of militia units. This control and its
delegates would - like the other controlling bodies - follow fundamental
libertarian principles of organisation: it would be effective, responsible
for assigned tasks, and may be removed from office. There would be
representants of all professions (metal industry, food industry, etc.)
consumers´ bodies, public administration, not forgetting military experts.
Thus the highest possible public control of militias and their cooperation
with manufacturing and consumer sectors would be secured. These local
councils then federalize into national and international councils. Every
important issue related to armed troops would be subject to national
referendum. Its result would decide all fundamental social issues, such as
the degree of country´s "militarisation", its long-term strategy concept
etc. The safeguard of armed forces not becoming decisive and ruling power
of the society is the peoples´ democracy character contained in the militia
concept. The very fact the "army service" will be absolutely voluntary and
available to all, and the people who decide to fight for the ideal of
libertarian society will do so of their own free will and indetifying with
this ideal, and also the fact, that all key decisions will be taken
collectively, should ensure that these units will not be misused by
potential power interests of minority. Refusal of a membership in the
militias would be considered as a punishment for those, who wrong the
society, although this is rather disputable and would have to be subject to
a decision of a particular collective regional or federal body. In any case
militia members should have the option to keep their weapons at home, and
this right would be denied to anyone else. Weapon ownership would be no
longer the privilege of the powerful and wealthy classes and their
repressive organs, but could be claimed by every eligible individual.
People are not viewed as incapable individual, ready to shoot at anything
that moves as soon as they lay their hands on a weapon. To be prevented
from weapon ownership would be viewed again as a punishment and would be
extended to those hindering the smooth running of anarchist society or
those not eligible to it (mentally or physically). Although it is a sad
fact of life, and may appear on superficial inspection contradictory, it
has to be admitted that military career is a kind of craft and requires
certain specific knowledge. Merely use and maintenance of even the simplest
fireguns or mastering the basics of tactics require at least a short
course. Moreover, military art moves forward with the help of scientific
and technological inventions faster than any other resort, and the use of
much of army equipment requires special training, be it anti-aircraft
defence system, pyrotechnical equipment, vehicles etc. Solution to this
problem is seen in a mechanism of "voluntary conscription". In practise
this would mean that every man or woman, after reaching certain age limit,
e. g. 18 years, would be approached and given opportunity to undergo
voluntarily elementary military training. This would consist of basic
martial and combat arts and the use of hand weapons. After completion they
would be made part of militia reserves and then could decide whether they
wish to further specialize within the reserve service. Gaining further
military expertise would be done through short-term courses and the
reserves would also have the opportunity to participate in monthly combat
training. Certain position in the armed troops would have to be filled by
long-serving experts. Such positions would be subject to strict public
control in order to prevent, to the highest degree possible, potential
misuse of the expert status. These positions would be again elective
subject to all rules applicable to elective delegates. The very status of
an expert would be accompanied by clear boundaries of rights and
responsibilities of this post. At the same tine and accordingly to the
democratic spirit and in order to prevent possible authoritarian trends
emerging, it is suggested to incorporate these positions into rota system,
together with time limit and repeated applications for these posts. Another
important aspect of our concept is also the moral dimension of the
anarchist defence initiative. We aim to free human absolutely from all
oppression and the means through which we intend to reach it must be
necessarily subject to the goal. The transition to a new society and its
ensuing defence must be, to the greatest possible extent, filled with
anarchist spirit of ideas. Freedom, free initiative, refusal of the
principle of collective guilt, limitation of violence to absolute
necessity, humanity and preference of education to the use of firearms are
moral credos, that must be, in our opinion, observed at all costs,
otherwise the attempt to establish a more just society might turn into a
much harsher regime than the previous one had been. Therefore we reject the
Marxist-Leninist theory of dictatorship of proletariat as well as its
practical consequence of red terror during the Russian Revolution and Civil
War in 1917-1921. "The unbeatable power of social revolution rests in its
justice and humanity." (Alexander Berkman), and in the same way the
survival of anarchistic society is subject to keeping anarchist moral
principles. Weapons of mass destruction, i. e. nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons, represent a serious problem, that has to be taken into
consideration while contemplating the anarchist alternative defence. These
weapons are the result of, and a warning against, the perversity of the
ruling elite of authoritarian societies, that are capable of producing
weapons of such destructive, devastating and by definition antisocial
nature, merely to protect their power and economic interests. This
inhumanity in extreme is in direct conflict with our perception of the
world, and weapons of mass destruction would be once and for all disposed
of in an anarchist society. Unfortunately, the disposal of many such
weapons will present problems and even the residual material will represent
potential high risk. It will have to be stored in special safe places,
maintained directly by a military council of the region in question. Rather
a significant risk is the keeping of the weapons of mass destruction by the
ruling class. As has been already pointed out, it is not possible to rely
on the ruling elite´s executive organs having any conscience, a and hence
it is necessary to be ready even for dreadful possibility to use of weapons
of mass destruction against revolutionary transition, but also move
probably, against established libertarian society. Alongside or within the
militia units, if would be desirable to keep organs, that are in charge of
civil defence. That is building of bunkers, equipping individuals with
protective materials and means, educating and training civilians etc. This
is our proposal of a scheme providing the protection of society in
accordance with principles of libertarian organisation contained in
anarchist ideas. That means in such a way that the defence and all armed
troops be free and humane in the highest possible degree. Although we tried
o cover all important aspects of this problem, it is clear that many other
issues will surface whilst actually putting these ideas to practise, and
also some solutions may prove to be wrong. We, the anarchists, are fully
aware that life, society and, after all, even revolutionary rebirth toward
more just and freer society cannot be planned at drawing board, and that
much of what people striving for realisation of this ideal will have to
solve will occur only during the process itself. However, considerable
percentage of these complications can be anticipated now and it is our
responsibility to seek answers to the questions these potential problems
present us with. source: A-kontra
http://www.ainfos.ca/ainfos14689.html