Quite a few comments making false claims about anarchism unfortunately.
Anarchism DOES NOT MEAN NON VIOLENCE. Anarchism means that no institution should have a monopoly over violence.
What happens when a king decides to invade anarchist communes?
Anarchist communes form militias and fight back. Violently.
Anarchism does not mean no organisation. It just means no individual elements giving away their means to violence to an entity that claims to represent the group.
I am not an anarchist myself, but for different reasons. However critiques of anarchism presented in the comments of this post make no sense whatsoever.
How do you call civil militias in a time of need and how do you make sure it’s not a bunch of randos with pipes and baseball bats against armor and guns?
If I understood your question correctly, you are asking how one can be sure that anarchist militias would be well equipped and trained against a professional army.
There’s somehow an underlying assumption that anarchist militias themselves wouldn’t be professional armies.
Let’s say 3000 anarchist communes exist in a given piece of land. There’s a dictatorship nearby which could invade. 2800 of these communes recognise the threat and a need for their own defense force. They come together and form a defense pact. Requirements of the pact are that every commune supplies x individuals for the militia and x resources. Training is done at xyz training camps, yadayadayada.
Communes are free to leave this pact, but doing so makes them lose protection.
Effectively what you get out of this is a professional army just like any other. WITHOUT the existence of a state.
Organisation can be done by these communes without giving the high command of this defence pact monopoly over violence.
Quite a few comments making false claims about anarchism unfortunately.
Anarchism DOES NOT MEAN NON VIOLENCE. Anarchism means that no institution should have a monopoly over violence.
Anarchist communes form militias and fight back. Violently.
Anarchism does not mean no organisation. It just means no individual elements giving away their means to violence to an entity that claims to represent the group.
I am not an anarchist myself, but for different reasons. However critiques of anarchism presented in the comments of this post make no sense whatsoever.
How do you call civil militias in a time of need and how do you make sure it’s not a bunch of randos with pipes and baseball bats against armor and guns?
If I understood your question correctly, you are asking how one can be sure that anarchist militias would be well equipped and trained against a professional army.
There’s somehow an underlying assumption that anarchist militias themselves wouldn’t be professional armies.
Let’s say 3000 anarchist communes exist in a given piece of land. There’s a dictatorship nearby which could invade. 2800 of these communes recognise the threat and a need for their own defense force. They come together and form a defense pact. Requirements of the pact are that every commune supplies x individuals for the militia and x resources. Training is done at xyz training camps, yadayadayada.
Communes are free to leave this pact, but doing so makes them lose protection.
Effectively what you get out of this is a professional army just like any other. WITHOUT the existence of a state.
Organisation can be done by these communes without giving the high command of this defence pact monopoly over violence.