đž Archived View for library.inu.red âş file âş chris-beaumont-defending-an-anarchist-society.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:22:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄď¸ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Defending an Anarchist Society Author: Chris Beaumont Date: 2017 Language: en Topics: after the revolution, theory and practice, Revolutionary Anarchism, revolutionary strategy, anarcho-communism, war, warfare, governance, authoritarian socialism, theory Source: Masteral dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol.
Anarchism, when applied consistently, provides structures allowing for
highly advantageous strategies when defending society, making anarchist
social structures capable of defence against external invasion when
fully established.
I used Grayâs 17 core dimensions of military strategy as a framework for
what determines strategic success, what I called authoritarian-communism
as a benchmark for successful strategy when defending a revolutionary
society, and Kropotkinâs anarcho-communism as a framework for an
established anarchism. Comparing authoritarian-communist strategies to
the strategies implementable under a fully established anarchist society
in a context where the survival of the society is at stake, anarchist
structures are more strategically advantageous in 16 of the dimensions
whilst still proving capable regarding the 17^(th) dimension. Because of
the defensive successes of authoritarian-communism, anarchist structures
being more advantageous than authoritarian-communism in this context
gives theoretical grounding for maintaining that an anarchist society
could sufficiently defend itself against military aggression.
Demonstrating that anarchist societies are theoretically defensible,
provides a strong counter to the intuition that anarchist societies
would be doomed to fall under external aggression if implemented,
therefore the research maintains anarchismâs viability as a
revolutionary theory within this context. Moreover, because the research
focuses on anarchism and its survivability against neighbouring states,
this research provides a strong contribution to anarchist international
relations theory which, because of anarchismâs neglect in larger
international relations discussions, means this research also strongly
contributes to international relations theory as a whole.
In order to survive, a society must defend itself against aggression; it
should be expected that a society unable to defend itself would
eventually be conquered. If an anarchist society is viable, it must be
capable of defending itself against military aggression. However, given
anarchism is an often revolutionary philosophy (Marshall; 1993; px-xi
(introduction)), which rejects authority (Marshall; 1993; p42), and
militaries traditionally follow a command hierarchy (HS; 2017) and are
therefore authoritarian, it seems doubtful that an anarchist society has
the capacity to defend itself against a state military and would
therefore be indefensible and therefore unviable as a model for a
revolutionary society. Hart defines strategy as â...applying military
means to the end of policyâ (Baylis & Wirtz; 2002; p4). For anarchist
defence, this means knowing what is required for defence and having the
means to execute it. Fully answering whether anarchist social structures
are capable of effective defence therefore means answering the following
questions:
However, current literature addressing anarchist defence fails to answer
these questions, partially because little is written on the topic, but
also because the few existing works answer very little. Taylor (1982)
notes that historically, non-state societies, although internally
stable, are usually destroyed by state conquest (p168). Kropotkin (1902)
echoes this reasoning, observing that self organising mutual-aid
societies, such as village communities, lasted centuries (p115-120), but
were destroyed by state aggression (p223-227). Woods (2011) also
highlights how the anarchist revolution in the Spanish civil war in the
1930âs would have defeated fascism, but was destroyed after being
betrayed by the Stalinists.
This seemingly confirms the intuition that anarchist societies cannot
defend themselves. However, these accounts simply highlight that these
societies were destroyed, not whether they were incapable of defence;
these societies could have made the wrong choices. It also doesnât
confirm that no anarchist society could ever be defensible; others may
succeed in the future. Anarchismâs record of failure, although
potentially problematic, doesnât provide sufficient answers.
Supporting evidence for anarchist defence is also uninformative.
Regarding the Spanish anarchists during the civil war, Alexander (1999)
highlights how Orwell held that the Anarchist militias could have
improved their efficiency whilst retaining trade union control (p254),
meaning centralisation wasnât needed for efficiency. Marshall (1993)
also noted how Orwell held that the âAnarchist were the best fighters
amongst the purely Spanish forcesâ(462). Dolgof (1974), highlights how
Trotsky conceded that the Spanish anarchist fighters were superior to
the Russian proletariat (p7).
Gelderloos (2010) observes other anarchist successes, for example the
Ukrainian anarchists achieved highly organised and mobile combat when
fighting the USSR, making defeating the Ukrainians difficult for the
Bolsheviks (p244-245). The Mapuche defended their society for centuries
against the Spanish, being conquered in 1865, with the Mapucheâs
decentralised structures proving advantageous compared to the more
authoritarian Aztecs, who were defeated much sooner because they would
surrender after the loss of a leader or capital (p247).
These accounts of successful strategies employed by anarchists are
encouraging for anarchism. However, despite their successes, these
societies all eventually lost. Therefore, there are no accounts of
whether anarchism in the face of state aggression, is able to
sufficiently defend itself.
Moreover, these works are largely historically based, and although
potentially informative, alone, they donât meaningfully answer the
question about how well an anarchist society could defend itself. I am
analysing anarchismâs defensive capabilities in the abstract. This is
therefore a theoretical rather than historical research. Therefore,
although potentially useful, the writing directly addressing this topic
cannot provide sufficient findings.
The paucity of work directly addressing this topic and the broad
theoretical nature of the research means this research will be more
similar to an extended theoretical essay rather than a traditional
research. This will provide a more open structure, allowing me to fully
address this issue, despite the broad theoretical scope and lack of
direct source material. Therefore, the research will be structured as
follows:
I will first define anarchism as the dismantling of illegitimate
hierarchy in pursuit of equality and freedom, and assert Kropotkinâs
mutual-aid principle as a practicable means of achieving freedom and
equality. This will lead me to argue that anarcho-communism acts as an
example of a society which successfully dismantles hierarchy based on
freedom and equality, therefore justifying anarcho-communism as the
basis for an established anarchism.
I will then pose the issue that historically, anarchism has failed to
defend itself against aggression, contrasting this with the successes of
what I will call authoritarian-communism, therefore arguing that for
anarchism to be considered a viable revolutionary practice, anarchism
must prove at least as defensible as authoritarian-communism.
To establish how an anarchist society would coordinate against
aggression, I will then outline the institutional framework of an
established anarchism as bottom-up decentralised direct-democratic
institutions based on free association. I will show how this is
implemented in industry through industrial committees and apply this
framework to defence, therefore establishing the Mutual-aid Militia
(MAMâs), defence forces based locally on democratically appointed
commanders, and large-scale operations being coordinated by strategic
committee. This will establish the organisational forms available to
anarchism and indicate what must be achieved to defend the society,
namely: repelling the enemy and the preservation of these anarchist
social relations.
I will then argue that because anarchism must prove at least as
defensively viable as authoritarian-communism to be considered
sufficiently defensible, anarchist structures must be analysed in
isolation against authoritarian-communism to determine what strategic
impacts both these structures have on a society. Anarchism will be
compared with authoritarian-communism based on Grayâs 17 core strategic
dimensions. Therefore anarchism, in the context of military defence,
must prove just as, or more advantageous than authoritarian-communism in
regards to all these dimensions to be considered defensively viable. I
will then outline how advantage or disadvantage will be established,
arguing that because of the paucity of direct evidence, the analysis
will be open to a variety of evidence, while allowing for a degree of
interpretation to ensure sufficient analysis.
Part 1 will therefore answer the first question. Anarchism needs to
repel invaders and preserve its institutions. To be sufficiently capable
of this, anarchism must prove that within Grayâs 17 core dimensions, it
is either just as, or more advantageous than authoritarian-communism
when defending a society against aggression.
Part 2 will outline each strategic dimension and I will from this,
interpret what defensive success regarding each dimension entails. Based
on the social structures of anarchism and authoritarian-communism, I
will describe which strategies can best be used by each social
structure, whichever social structure is most capable of successful
strategy is granted the advantage in that dimension. Following analysis
of the dimensions, I will summarise the findings in the discussion
chapter, therefore allowing me to determine whether anarchism indeed
succeeds in comparison to authoritarian-communism, therefore determining
whether anarchism is capable of sufficient defence and therefore
answering the second question.
If anarchism proves successful, I will address why the historical record
doesnât reflect this, therefore allowing for a fuller account of
anarchismâs defensive capabilities and therefore viability in this
respect. I will then reflect on the significance of the research and how
further study could build on the findings.
Anarchism is a political philosophy advocating a stateless society
(Taylor; 1982; p1). States are political institutions which successfully
claims a monopoly on legitimate violence within a given territory,
meaning the state must be the only institution able to enact or sanction
violence which is seen as legitimate (Munro; 2013). Other actors may
commit violence within the stateâs territory, but this violence must be
seen as illegitimate.
Although Taylor (1982) maintains that a total monopoly has never been
realised (p5), statehood can be assessed based on the extent to which
such a monopoly is established. If a state cannot enforce its own laws
or territorial integrity, it is considered it a failed state, whereas
states that uphold their laws and integrity have established their
sovereignty (Barma; 2017). The stateâs essence is therefore the
realisation of a violent monopoly. An anarchist society would therefore
be a society whose means of violence are not monopolised, but
redistributed among as much of the population as possible and doesnât
use violence to enforce decisions (Taylor; 1982; p7).
Defining anarchism as simply the rejection of the state only provides a
skeletal and negative definition of Anarchism. However, beyond this
negative definition, what qualifies as authentically anarchist is
contested. I will address two definitions.
Marshall (1993), notes how it is usual for anarchists to see freedom as
the absolute ideal (p36), whilst also holding equality as an important
goal (p48) whilst also being concerned with individuality (p50). From
this framework one could identify anarchism as the complete freedom and
equality of individuals. Chomsky (1995) sees Anarchism as the process of
dismantling illegitimate hierarchy.
The first definition is far too impracticable to be useful.
Although the idea of complete equality and freedom is useful because it
introduces an ethical element to anarchism, such a definition isnât
practicable. Humans are social beings and must interact, which means
being subjected to the actions of others. Kropotkin held that complete
individual freedom is impossible, but individuals can become more
meaningfully free when they engage in a collective spirit towards the
whole society (Miller; 1976; p197). Therefore, alone, humans would live
impoverished lives, making the impositions of others necessary. However,
this makes absolute freedom impossible because we are subjected to the
other. Moreover, the focus on individuals ignores collectivist theories;
humanityâs social need raises doubts of our freedom being found under
pure individualism, making this definition both impractical and unsuited
to human wellbeing.
Chomskyâs definition is much more useful because it is more practicable.
Whilst holding freedom and equality (both important anarchist
principles), as an ethical guide, anarchists can then determine which
hierarchies should and shouldnât be dismantled. I therefore have a
practical and ethical framework for an established anarchist society.
Anarchism will be defined as the process of dismantling illegitimate
hierarchy with freedom and equality as guiding principles. This
definition will then shape the essential aspects of an established
anarchist society.
If anarchism is practicable, I must ground its structure in what humans
have created when free of centralised authority; these real world
structures will then indicate what is possible for an established
anarchism.
According to Kropotkin (1902), humans have historically utilised
mutual-aid when organising without centralised authority (p.xiv-xv
(introduction)). Mutual-aid is an evolutionary principle which holds
that the most successful species are cooperative; when individuals in
the same species put collective needs over themselves, the collective
prospers, because there is less competition over resources. Therefore,
cooperation is more efficient for survival (Goodwin; 2010; p111-114).
Successful species therefore usually form cooperative societies, these
societies are distinct social ontologies, not reducible to the sum of
the interests of the individuals (Goodwin; 2010; p115-116).
This irreducibility is because societies follow complexity theory,
forming what I will call âcomplex systemsâ. Complex systems are holistic
phenomena, meaning they are observable as functioning wholes and
therefore may not be explainable through reductive/mechanical scientific
methods (Goodwin; 2010; p108-109). This is because the individualâs
cooperative behaviour isnât based on enlightened self interest; their
interests are directed towards the collective itself (Goodwin; 2010;
114), meaning mutual-aid societies have an independent collective
identity.
These societies find their highest level of size and complexity amongst
humans. Mutual-aid societies range from the hunter-gatherer level, to
the medieval guild cities (Korpotkin; 1902; p.xv (introduction)),
demonstrating that mutual-aid can be practiced even on a large complex
scale.
These societies were largely or entirely self governing (Korpotkin;
1902; p132), with decisions made based on differing forms of collective
consensus. These could be direct-democratic institutions such as the
folkmote (Kropotkin; 1902; p126), where the society would gather and
deliberate on issues collectively. Societies would also appoint judges
and arbiters who made deliberations but had no enforcing power other
than the moral authority of the commune (Kropotkin; 1902; p130-132),
therefore requiring a collective understanding of morality. Because
decisions were made collectively or necessitated collective consent,
these communities were fully engaged in their own organisation, making
these societies remarkably free.
Although less technologically developed mutual-aid societies were only
collectively free, having very strict rules on individual conduct, these
rules were based on general understandings of what is beneficial for all
and mostly followed voluntarily (Kropotkin; 1902; p112), making these
rules often necessary and legitimate.
Moreover, as mutual-aid societies grew, the complexity and affluence
they achieved afforded much more individual freedom, with the guild
cities giving âfull liberty of expression to the creative genius of each
separate group of individualsâ (Kropotkin; 1902; p186). Therefore,
although some un-freedom can be observed for individuals, this was due
to perceived necessity. When individual freedom was viable for the
society, it was embraced; both individual and collective freedom are
achievable in mutual-aid societies.
Moreover, these communities usually owned property collectively.
According to Kropotkin (1902), humans throughout history organised
largely based on communist principles (p313). Individuals were expected
to contribute what they could to the whole society. In some tribes, if
someone obtains food, they are expected to shout three times to offer to
share before they could eat (p112). Moreover, if members had certain
needs, they were met without the expectation of direct reciprocity. In
certain villages, pregnant women and the sick had privileged access to
things like meat (p144) because of their needs. Serving the needs of all
first therefore means these societies were very equal.
Moreover, as discussed, mutual-aid societies were also stable, typically
lasting hundreds of years before being destroyed by states. Therefore,
mutual-aid achieved high levels of equality, freedom and stability,
making mutual-aid a successful means of organising society without a
state.
Therefore, according to Kropotkin, free and equal, humans are capable of
creating large, complicated and cooperative social structures based on
free and equal association independent from state coercion. Moreover,
modern evolutionary biologistsâ and anthropologistsâ work have validated
Kropotkinâs assessment (Anarcho; 2008). For example, Dawkins (2006)
asserts that altruism at the individual level can be a means of a gene
maximising its interests (p.viii(introduction), exactly Kropotkinâs
argument. Graeber (2004) has also demonstrated that there exist many
varieties of human societies, ranging from fully authoritarian, to
aggressively libertarian (p53-54).
This gives contemporary validation to Kropotkinâs theory that human
society has heavily relied on cooperation rather than competition.
Although Graeber also records authoritarian human societies, this
doesnât invalidate mutual-aid; Kropotkin (1902) maintains that
cooperation is innate in humans, but self-assertion of individuals is
still present (p294-295). Cooperation is therefore very possible and
much more successful for survival than hierarchy. The presence of
libertarian human societies attests to mutual-aidâs possibility, while
modern evolutionary biologistsâ assertions regarding altruismâs
evolutionary importance, supports mutual-aidâs success. Therefore,
mutual-aid can be used as a model for a successful practicable anarchy.
I defined anarchism as the dismantling of illegitimate hierarchies in
pursuit of equality and freedom, and found that when free from the
state, humans, when organising equally and freely, utilise mutual-aid
principles. Because, as mentioned, mutual-aid has meant humans have
largely governed under communist principles, an established anarchist
society would therefore be anarcho-communist.
Anarcho-communism advocates a stateless society where all is owned
collectively (Kropotkin; 1913; p34) and individuals organise based on
free agreement. Collective ownership mean individuals necessarily work
in the interests of the collective because the fruits of individual
labour become the property of the collective. Free agreement means that
individuals associate voluntarily, absent from central authority when
organising (p172), rather than through centralised coercion.
Because association isnât centralised, individuals associate directly
through de-centralised, local organisation (Miller; 1976; p193). This
local organisation, being based on common ownership, could then be
federalised (Mashall; 1993; p8) if associates strive for larger scale
organisation.
Because everything is owned collectively, this free agreement doesnât
mean total individual freedom. Because everything belongs to everyone,
there are limits on how one can behave towards the societyâs
possessions. For example, one canât demolish a factory if the collective
doesnât consent because the collective has an equal claim to said
factory.
Therefore, anarcho-communism emphasises collective freedom and wellbeing
over individual freedom. However, through collective association,
individual freedom and development is still important because this
creates more responsible and sociable members of society, what Kropotkin
calls âcommunist sociabilityâ. This develops sociable individuality,
which is richer and more meaningful than the more isolated egoistic
individuality of capitalist society. (Miller; 1976; p197).
This collectivist anarchism aligns with mutual-aid principles. Free from
centralised authority, humans tend to associate collectively based on
communist principles as discussed. Therefore, collective ownership suits
humanâs cooperative and altruistic tendencies. An established anarchist
society needs practicable structures, because anarcho-communism is
compatible with the highly practicable mutual-aid principle,
anarcho-communism becomes a suitable form of anarchism due to this
practicability.
Moreover, mutual-aid as the practical foundation for an established
anarchism mean anarcho-communism provides freedom and equality by
dismantling hierarchies. Anarcho-communism dismantles the hierarchy of
centralised states, but also the hierarchies created by capitalism and
private ownership, which in practice have created massive inequality
(Hodgson; 2016) and what Chomsky (2000) describes as private tyrannies,
in the form of private capitalist firms. Therefore, anarcho-communism
succeeds in dismantling important illegitimate hierarchies.
However, the collectivist principles of mutual-aid place the collective
above the individual, this is a hierarchy. However, the collective, as
weâve discussed, is also an important social ontology; the individual
being more important than the collective would also be a hierarchy.
Therefore, which hierarchy is more legitimate?
Marshall (1993) states that a core anarchist principle is to reject all
forms of external government (p.xiii (introduction)). Therefore, if when
organising free from centralised power, humans collectivise, based on
anarchist principles this hierarchy must be justified. Achieving
individualistic structures would require external coercion because
without it humans collectivise; if anarchists believe in humansâ ability
to self organise, they must believe in collectivism.
Therefore, anarcho-communism is a practicable and justifiable form of
anarchism, therefore justifying anarcho-communism as the model for an
established anarchist society.
Although anarchist societies have historically achieved internal
stability, because anarchist societies are usually destroyed by state
conquest, anarchism seems vulnerable to state aggression. Moreover,
because anarchist theorists havenât addressed this issue sufficiently,
anarchismâs vulnerability to conquest remains a large obstacle to
anarchismâs viability. If anarchists canât defend themselves, because
anarchist societies have often faced military aggression, the
survivability of anarchism would be highly doubtful.
Anarchism is often considered a revolutionary philosophy, especially
given the radical demands intrinsic to establishing anarchist society
which would mean the powers of state and capital wouldnât allow it
(Berkman; 1942; p44-45). However, Marxismâs central critique of
anarchism as a form of revolution, is that because anarchism rejects the
state it canât survive because the state is necessary to guard against
counter-revolution (Engels; 1974/[1873]; p105). Heeding his warning, in
1917, Lenin seized the state and established central control through the
state (Zurbrugg; 2014; p31-32) to ensure central control of the
revolution. The USSR survived until 1991 (Aron; 2011), much longer than
the Ukrainian anarchists within the USSR (Marshall; 1992; p475); the
anarchists endured for a time, but they were soon crushed by state
power.
Moreover, the communist nations which have survived, Cuba, China,
Vietnam, Laos and North Korea (Porzuki; 2010), are all authoritarian
states under one-party rule (Cote; 2013, Guardian; 2016). Lenin
(1999/[1920]) himself attributed the success of his revolution to the
âiron disciplineâ his party imposed (p30). Given the relative success of
authoritarianism compared to anarchism regarding survival, if a
communist revolution is desirable, it seems this âiron disciplineâ is
necessary to guard revolution against violent aggression. I will call
the tactic of imposing a centralised authoritarian state to protect
revolution, authoritarian-communism.
However, although authoritarian-communist states have managed to survive
aggression, less can be said beyond this point. Although,
authoritarian-communist societies were able to make huge strides in
industrialisation as in the USSR (Milne; 2006), and Cuba met the basic
needs of their population (Philips; 2012) despite the US embargo (Perez;
1997; p250-251), socialism requires that âthe means of productionâ (MOP)
be handed to the workers (Chomsky; 1986).
These states kept MOP under state ownership as happened with Cuba and
the USSR (Chomsky; 1986, Rosen; 1969) or have become capitalist as
happened with Laos and China (Fuller; 2009, Holmes; 2015). It is
therefore difficult to describe any of these societies as even
socialist, let alone communist. Lenin himself repealed all worker
control when he disempowered the soviets (Chomsky; 1986), bringing them
under centralised control (Zurbrugg; 2014; p31-32). Lenin even admitted
that his industrial policy was a form of state capitalism (Zurbrugg;
2014; p17). Therefore despite achieving survival, these societies have
fallen far short of being viable methods of achieving communism.
On the other hand, in anarchist Spain, the workers themselves seized the
means of production, although usually the more privileged workers such
as technicians, office workers and union activists often maintained more
power (Casanova; 2004; 141), achieving voluntary collectivisation of
industry and agriculture (Marshal; 1993; 463), often abolishing money
entirely (Bolloten; 1991; p66), demonstrating that a modern communist
society can be achieved through anarchism.
Revolutionaries are therefore left in a quandary, do they advocate for a
society which achieves ideals of equality and freedom, but is likely
doomed to be destroyed when invaded? Or compromise when needed, and
embrace social structures which will likely ensure survival, but have
consistently failed at achieving of the revolutionâs ideological aims?
This problem can be mitigated if anarchist societies can effectively
defend themselves. Given that we have shown that anarchism can create
communist social relations, demonstrating that anarchist society can
survive counter-revolutionary aggression, would then provide a social
theory which is both defensible and can achieve its ideals.
However, if anarchism cannot withstand this criticism, anarchism in
modern times would be highly discredited, as it would be unachievable.
Therefore, justifying an anarchist societyâs defensive capability is
essential for the continuation of anarchism as a meaningful form of
revolutionary social theory. However, if anarchism can be shown to be
defensible it will provide a vital rebuttal against one of the most
neglected and possibly most powerful criticisms of anarchism, making
addressing this problem, a vital component in defending anarchism as a
viable revolutionary theory.
Because authoritarian-communism is a strategy which has proven
relatively successful at defending itself against aggression, anarchism
would therefore be defensively viable if it can prove more, or just as
defensible as authoritarian-communism. Therefore to demonstrate
anarchismâs defensibility, I will analyse whether anarchist structures
can be at least as defensible as authoritarian-communist structures.
To determine what strategies are available to anarchism, its
institutional forms must be elucidated, this will determine how
anarchism organises, and therefore what is possible under anarchist
structures. I will begin by outlining the economic organisation of
anarchism and apply this model to defence forces.
An established anarcho-communist societyâs economic structure would be
based in common ownership of MOP, namely land, natural resources,
factories etc, and organised politically, based on voluntary association
governed by mutual-aid principles. Collective ownership means industry
would be organised collectively and principles of free agreement means
these industries would be run direct-democratically. To facilitate
direct-democracy these collectives are decentralised with production
being locally based.
Although association is localised, larger scale anarcho-communist
organisation would be possible through federalisation, this can be
achieved through worker committees. Different communities appoint their
own delegates to create advisory committees in order to coordinate
larger-scale organisation (Berkman; 1942; p72-73).
These committees have no power beyond those granted by the local
communities; committees advise on coordination and collaboration, but
have no enforcing power. Committees could then collaborate with other
committees of the same nature by creating their own larger committees
(Murphy; 2006/[1917]). These committees could then be formed at as large
a scale as desirable meaning no upper limits to cooperation. However,
these committees, no matter how large, still have no independent
authority; they still only operate based on consent from below.
Therefore, large-scale organisation can be achieved without the need for
centralised authority, therefore making these structures compatible with
anarcho-communism.
Conversely, military structures have historically been hierarchical
command structures where power is concentrated at the top with strict
discipline and obedience demanded from those below. These structures are
diametrically opposed to anarchismâs decentralised and democratic
nature, embracing elements of command structures has therefore been
problematic for anarchists.
For example, although there was some democratisation of the anarchist
forces in CataluĂąa (Marshall; 1993; p461), and Ukraine (p474), in
Ukraine, because the army wasnât directly accountable to the population,
it often behaved dictatorially, like a band of warrior chiefs (p474).
This would have antagonised the society it was supposed to protect as
they had established aspects of communal self rule (p473-474). In
CataluĂąa, after the anarchist leaders allowed anarchist militias to be
brought under the central control of the government, the anarchists were
greatly demoralised (p465), this would have harmed the war effort given
the importance of morale. It also marked the end of the revolution,
causing the revolution to survive for less than a year (465â466).
The centralised nature of militaries clearly harms combat effectiveness
and general ability to defend a society when adopted by anarchists and
should therefore be avoided. Moreover, anarchist forces must be
answerable to their communities, thus preventing militias from becoming
antagonistic towards the society as a whole, while keeping power in the
communityâs hands. Structures more compatible with anarchist principles
must therefore be established.
The method of decentralised large-scale organisation in industry
previously discussed, can be applied to defence forces. I will call
these decentralised forces, Mutual Aid Militia (MAM). Engelâs
(1974/[1873]) asserted that anarchism was impossible because complex
organisation requires coordination, which in turn requires authority
(p102-104). This logic applies to fighting forces because to fight as a
whole, fighters need to strictly coordinate action, which implies the
need for a command structure. However, Engelsâ assertions are based on
misrepresenting anarchism. Anarchism rejects political authority, but
not authority of expertise. Bakunin (1999/[1871]) differentiates
political authority which is imposed by an external agent, and the
authority of âspecialistsâ, whose expertise is followed by choice and
reason. Commanders can coordinate forces, but this role isnât
un-anarchist unless they are imposed coercively.
If commanders are given decision making capabilities through appointment
by the collective, the fighters themselves recognise the need for the
expertise and coordination commanders provide. Therefore, the role is
justifiable under Anarchism. Therefore, much like in CataluĂąa,
militia-fighters would appoint their own commanders (Marshall; 1993;
p461).
Directly appointing commanders will be implemented whenever feasible,
with smaller units combining to appoint higher ranking officers.
However, the fact that large-scale decentralised organisation under
anarchism seemingly requires appointing committees at a certain level,
highlights that direct-democracy isnât practicable once coordination
becomes large enough. Therefore militia structures need to create their
own committee structures for larger scale coordination.
Therefore, once these direct-democratic units require larger scale
coordination, each unit can elect a delegate(s) to represent them,
delegates would then form a strategic committee, this committee will
then advise on larger scale strategy. Delegates could also appoint their
own commander amongst themselves within committees when quick decisions
need to be made. When even larger coordination is needed, committees can
coordinate with other committees to form higher order committees. Much
like workers committees, higher order committees can expand to as large
a scale as needed, allowing for coordination on as large a scale as
needed.
Committees, even their commanders, being appointed to advise on
coordination, donât have the same powers as the unit commanders as they
arenât as directly accountable given the limits of direct-democracy.
Therefore, unit commanders retain autonomy on whether to heed the advice
of the committee, therefore maximising the power of the troops on the
ground by delegating autonomy to the most accountable agents.
It follows however, from their role as larger scale coordinators, that
committees occupy a position where they can comprehend events on a
larger scale. Therefore, they are in a better position to determine
whether to scale up coordination. Therefore, the committees have the
freedom to form larger committees, given that they are in the best
position to make a sound judgement regarding this. However, this ability
doesnât translate to a centralisation of power; committees donât have
ultimate power of command, as discussed, the directly appointed unit
commanders retain this role and maintain the power to ignore these
committee, therefore allowing for effective large-scale coordination
without creating centralisations of power.
Because I have outlined structures where large-scale coordination is
enabled whilst retaining bottom-up power, I have outlined combat
structures which both adhere to anarchist principles whilst enabling the
scale of coordination needed for effective defence while avoiding the
problem of forcing fighters under central control as was found in
CataluĂąa.
However, these militia must also be accountable to the community to
prevent them from repeating the chieftain behaviour as in Ukraine.
Luckily, because under anarcho-communism all is owned collectively, the
means militia have of fighting is in the hands of the population at
large. Fighters need guns and bullets and vehicles etc to fight. It
follows that the society who owns these things must permit use of these
resources in order for forces to fight. Therefore, it follows that to
fight, these militias must gain the consent of their local communities.
If the militia then misbehave, their power to fight can be revoked,
mitigating the issues found in Ukraine.
Now the anarchist societies defence structures are outlined, I will
determine what successfully defending the society entails. This research
examines an anarchist societyâs ability to survive external aggression,
this assumes scenarios where the society is being invaded by outside
forces which threaten to destroy the society. Because historically,
anarchist societies have been destroyed by states imposing sovereignty,
I will assume the aggressor is a state imposing state rule over the
anarchist society.
Anarchism has been defined as a stateless social structure which
dismantles illegitimate hierarchy in pursuit of freedom and equality.
Therefore to survive aggression, an anarchist society must retain its
independence from external state control (conquest). It must also resist
developing authoritarian structures internally; even if anarchists
repels the aggressor state, if anarchists must develop authoritarian
social relations to achieve this, thus dissolving the libertarian
institutions discussed, the society has ceased to be anarchist, meaning
the anarchist society still hasnât survived.
Therefore, an anarchist society only survives aggression when it has:
Now that anarchismâs survival criteria are established, I must determine
how to assess anarchismâs ability to meet these criteria. I previously
established that anarchist societies would prove defensible if they were
capable of being equally as defensible as authoritarian-communism. I am
also discussing anarchism in a generalised theoretical sense. Therefore
examining both anarchismâs and authoritarian-communismâs impact on
defence strategy, means examining both these structures in isolation,
abstracting them from other determining factors which could impact
strategic performance.
This is necessary because as Howard highlights, military success is
determined by many factors including logistics, operational,
technological etc, which are separate from social factors (Baylis &
Wirtz; 2002; p5); any of these factors could have caused the defeat of
previous anarchist societies. To determine whether it was anarchism
itself which doomed these societies, the impact of social structure on
defence must be examined separately from these other potential factors.
Examining how each of these social structures in-and-of-themselves
contribute to defensive strategy will therefore allow me to determine
which social structures facilitate better strategy, and therefore which
holds the most defensive advantage.
Comparing anarchism and authoritarian-communism in every possible
context is impossible, to have a comprehensive account of how these
social structures compare, I must establish in a broad theoretical
manner, the fundamental factors which determine strategic success in any
and every conflict. Examining how both anarchism and
authoritarian-communism contribute to these fundamental factors will
allow me to determine in a broad generalised sense, which social
structure best guarantees defensive success.
Gray (1999) outlines 17 core dimensions for strategic success in any and
every military conflict (p17). He then splits these into three
categories, people and politics, war preparation, and war proper (p24).
Considering the sweeping claim that these dimensions cover every
conflict, Grayâs theory that there are core strategic dimensions to
every conflict could be questioned, however, due to restrictions, I will
not be able to support his theory directly.
However, using a theoretical model which asserts core dimensions of
strategy allows for the broad and generalised criteria required to
sufficiently address the research questions. I will therefore assume the
veracity of Grayâs theory of core strategic dimensions. Other notable
theorist on strategy have included, Sun Tzu and Clausewitz (Stevens &
Baker; 2006; p27-29), meaning there are multiple frameworks to chose
from. However, I chose Grayâs theory because he comes from a
contemporary context, allowing his theories to be better applied to a
modern context. Moreover, his 17 dimensions are very comprehensive
whilst also being manageable within the researchâs constraints.
These 17 dimensions are as follows (Gray; 1999; p24):
Administration, Information and Intelligence, Strategic Theory and
Doctrine, Technology.
and Uncertainty, Adversary, Time.
To determine which social structure is superior regarding each
dimension, I will first briefly describe the nature of the dimension and
then interpret from this description, the general requirements needed
from these structures to best guarantee strategic success in a defensive
context. I will then examine how each structure responds to this need.
Whichever structure best contributes to effectiveness in a given
dimension, enjoys a strategic defensive advantage in regard to that
dimension.
As discussed, anarchism has two survival criteria, 1) independence from
external states, 2) maintaining anarchist structures internally. Because
authoritarian-communism requires the establishment of a sovereign
centralised state, it shares the first criterion but not the second, to
preserve its structure, it must instead retain state rule over the
society. Both social structures therefore have different imperatives
when ensuring their own survival.
Therefore, I will address each societyâs ability to ensure its internal
structure (criterion 2) and how this impacts defensibility, when
examining politics, as this dimension is well suited to this issue.
Otherwise, each social structureâs ability to retain its internal
structure will be assumed because if an anarchist society is indeed
capable of for example, effective organisation aimed at repelling
invasion, it will be because the organisation is done through anarchist
structures, which assumes the structures survival and likewise for
authoritarian-communism.
Moreover, if when defending a society, anarchist structures are more
effective at repelling invasion, there is no reason to assume
authoritarian structures will emerge in response to aggression because
it will only harm the war effort if the society opts for less
advantageous social structures. Therefore, success in criterion 1)
implies success in criterion 2). Therefore, the other dimensions will
only focus on effectiveness in criterion 1).
Therefore, the other dimensions will only focus on each structuresâ
ability to effectively repel an aggressor. Therefore, what is needed to
effectively perform in these dimensions remains very simple, because all
that is needed is the ability to ensure a strong defensive response
through the already existing social structures.
For example, regarding people, each structure must guarantee a healthy
population (Gray; 1999; p26-27) to ensure a strong defence, whichever
structure is best suited to meet this need, has the advantage.
Which factors determine success is contextual, in one conflict geography
might be the determining factor, in another, it may be organisation; for
anarchism to be a strategically advantageous social structure in a
general sense, it must at least match authoritarian-communism in all
dimensions. If anarchism has advantages regarding some dimensions but
disadvantages elsewhere when compared to authoritarian-communism, it is
only a viable social structure in certain contexts, making generalised
conclusions impossible. Therefore, for anarchism to be considered
generally as viable or even superior to authoritarian-communism
regarding defence, anarchism needs to be either advantageous or at least
match authoritarian-communism in all 17 dimensions.
Therefore, if anarchist structures beget either advantages or matches in
all categories, because these dimensions cover all conflict, I can
conclude that anarchist structures are in general more defensively
advantageous than authoritarian-communist structures, whilst
consistently matching authoritarian-communism would mean anarchism was
simply as defensible. Because authoritarian-communismâs level of
defensibility acts as a benchmark for adequate defence, if anarchism
achieves the results discussed, it will prove generally defensible.
As discussed, anarchismâs defensibility is a largely neglected topic;
confirming evidence will therefore be sparse. I must therefore utilise
whatever analytic tools are available. This could include historical
evidence, theoretical reasoning, relevant social studies; ultimately
using any tool available to reach conclusive findings.
For example, if structures exist which are compatible with one of the
social structures and provide important information relevant to one of
the dimensions, this will inform the research. For example, worker owned
industry is compatible with anarchist organisation because they share
the features of collective ownership of MOP (Herbst; 2012), these
structures could be used if they inform strategic advantage for
anarchism in any relevant dimension.
This accommodating approach means objectively quantifiable results will
be largely unavailable, it follows that a degree of interpretation must
be utilised. However, this method will then give the most comprehensive
account possible given the paucity of existing evidence, allowing me to
conclude the research much more fully, therefore making up for the
unavailability of quantifiable certainty.
A healthy population is required to ensure they sustain the war effort,
this doesnât just mean having enough people, but also ensuring the
people are healthy (Gray; 1999; p26-27). Therefore, for effective
defence, the social structures must be able to ensure the wellbeing of
the population.
Anarchism would be organised around mutual-aid principles. As discussed,
mutual-aid has been the strategy used by the most numerous and
successful species in ensuring their survival. Kropotkin observed how
cooperation through mutual-aid ensured the survival of many species
through serious hardship. The most advanced human mutual-aid societies,
such as guild cities, shortage was dealt with effectively meaning
starvation was unheard of (Kropotkin; 1902; p182). Therefore, mutual-aid
by design, ensures the sustenance of as healthy a population as
possible. Because anarchism would use mutual-aid as its societal
foundation, anarchism would be adept at maintaining a healthy
population.
Conversely, although authoritarian-communism has often historically
achieved high human development, for example, despite Cubaâs isolation,
it enjoys a very high human development index (Farber; 2015),
populations have often been neglected for development which benefits the
interests of centralised authority. In the USSR in 1932â33, as a result
of Stalinâs forced collectivisation and industrialisation, millions of
peasants starved (Goodman; 1986). This demonstrates that while both
structures are designed to ensure collective wellbeing,
authoritarian-communism has a tendency to neglect this issue when the
interests of the state conflict with the wellbeing of the population,
while anarchism exhibits no such deficiency, giving the advantage to
anarchism.
War is carried out through social institutions (Gray; 1999; p27-28),
these social institutions comprise the society and must support
defending the society in order to repel an invasion. Anarchism as
discussed has numerous autonomous and interconnected institutions,
assessing how each one and the free individuals within them would react
to aggression is impossible given the researchâs constraints.
However, as discussed, although anarchism functions through free
association, its reliance on mutual-aid makes anarchism a complex
system; the connections within the society form a coherent whole which
can be observed as a totality. We can therefore observe how anarchist
societies as a whole would respond to aggression without needing to
explain the sum of its parts.
Mutual-aid/non-state societies respond to aggression with resistance in
many different contexts. Tribes in Europe formed confederacies for
mutual defence (Kropotkin; 1902; p112), guild cities hired militia for
self-defence (p180-181). We can therefore assume that an anarchist
society as a whole would resist aggression.
Moreover, resistance from decentralised non-state societies has often
been very difficult to crush. The Aztecs, being a centralised
authoritarian society were crushed very quickly by the Spanish; their
ability to fight was destroyed following the capture of their leader.
Because their institutions relied on a very small set of leaders, the
society was vulnerable when leaders were eliminated, therefore making
resistance through centralised leadership a liability.
Conversely, the Mapuche organised in a decentralised, self-governing
manner and void of such liable leaders, were able to keep fighting for
300 years. Their decentralisation was a huge benefit because the society
as a whole could support the resistance; the whole society (complex
system), had to be crushed as opposed to a select few leaders. Because
anarchist structures rely on these decentralised complex systems, their
institutionsâ ability to sustain resistance are much greater.
By comparison, authoritarian-communism is defined through centralisation
of power, this would therefore make authoritarian-communism vulnerable
to the elimination of their leaders. Moreover, centralising power under
state control has historically meant eliminating community owned
self-governing institutions, such as when Lenin disempowered the
worker-controlled soviets. This then eliminates the same self-governing
decentralised relations the Mapuche utilised to sustain such a prolonged
resistance. This means that authoritarianism requires the construction
of highly vulnerable social institutions and the elimination of
institutions capable of strengthening the society.
Therefore, anarchism, being based on decentralisation, creates
institutions capable of less vulnerable, sustained resistance, whilst
authoritarian-communism means the elimination of these advantages in
pursuit of power. Therefore, anarchist social structures have a strong
advantage when creating institutions which support defence.
All strategic behaviour is entrenched in a cultural context, culture
being the values and attitudes which inform strategy (Gray; 1999;
p28-29). Culture therefore influences strategic behaviour; this
influence creates a strategic culture (p129). Strategic culture
therefore frames how a society interprets strategy . Therefore, for an
effective defence, a societyâs strategic culture must be capable of
influencing good strategic decisions.
Authoritarian-communism has been largely shaped by Marxism-Leninism, and
has therefore had a huge impact on the Soviet Unionâs culture and
strategic behaviour (Gray; 1999; p143). Marxism-Leninismâs rigid
understanding of history lead the Comintern to initially view fascism as
simply a stage of capitalism. The Comintern used this as a means of
attacking social-democrats whilst assuming that fascism would collapse
by itself through its own contradictions. This meant the USSR failed to
articulate a mass line against capitalism by alienating potential allies
(Kitchen; 1976; p1-11). This contributed to the USSRâs failure to
adequately prepare for fascist aggression, supporting Grayâs (1992)
claim that Russiaâs strategic culture nearly caused the USSRâs collapse
in 1941â42 (p147). This demonstrates how the ideological rigidity
produced by authoritarian-communist culture can lead to serious
strategic disadvantage.
In contrast, some anarchist cultures exhibit remarkable strategic
flexibility entrenched in cultural practice. Certain upland south-east
Asian cultures utilised practices which were designed to resist state
power (Scott; 2009), from shifting cultivation (swiddening) in
agriculture, which helps people evade state control because sedentary
agriculture helped bring populations under state control (p77-78), to
mythologies cautioning the dangers of centralised power (p176-177), to
maintaining a societyâs linguistic differences from a nearby state or
event adopting linguitic differences to maintain distance from states
(p173-174). These practices demonstrate how none-state societies can
invent ingenious strategies of state avoidance directly through an
anti-state culture, demonstrating notable strategic adaptation through
culture itself as opposed to the dangerous rigidity governing
authoritarian-communist culture. Therefore, anarchism can create a more
advantageous strategic culture than under authoritarian-communism.
War is a political tool, meaning it is used to achieve policy (Gray;
1999; p29-30, p55); a war is harder to win when fought in pursuit of
difficult policy. Therefore to be strategically effective, the policy
goals of defending a society must be as realisable as possible.
Both social structures share the first policy goal of repelling
invasion. However, authoritarian-communism must also impose its own
sovereignty. Authoritarian-communism is a revolutionary and therefore
liberator movement; it must achieve certain liberations such as
achieving some economic and gender equality (Zurbrugg; 2014; p21, p26),
whilst also suppressing the population under authoritarian rule.
This is difficult to balance because revolutions as Chomsky
(2012/[1989]) states, are generally spontaneous and libertarian, making
mobilising through âiron disciplineâ difficult because the population is
likely imbued with a libratory spirit. Lenin faced two rebellions
seeking further freedoms, the Ukrainian anarchists as discussed
previously, but also the Kronstadt rebellion, sailors integral to the
revolution who mutinied in demand for democracy (Marshall; 1993;
p476-477). This demonstrates how revolutionary authoritarian movements
create contradictions, simultaneously fostering libratory feeling which
are then suppressed. This as seen provokes rebellion, therefore
fostering internal disunity. This disunity forces the state to lose
cohesion and spend energy crushing rebellions, which then makes
defending the society from potential external threats harder, because
the state has less energy and resources committed to external defence,
thus harming the stateâs defensive capability.
Anarchist societies such as CataluĂąa also saw internal political moves
harm the society, as discussed the CNT leaders collaboration with the
state virtually destroyed the revolution. However, this was due to the
CNT leaders collaborating with state power and therefore failing to be
consistently anarchist. The provocation and then suppression of
rebellions by the Soviet state was entirely consistent with
authoritarian-communismâs contradictory roles of liberator and
suppressor, making internal strife much more intrinsic to
authoritarian-communism than to anarchism.
Anarchist societies conversely, must resist internal state formation,
which many anarchist societies deal with effectively. Anthropological
studies show that in non-state societies, power-seeking behaviours where
members attempt to establish power over the society do exist, but that
the societies are capable of responding to this quickly and effectively.
One account documents how a Pygmy tribal member attempting to gain
privileged access to resources and chief status is halted and the
society democratically decides to punish him. Not only is this behaviour
dealt with quickly and effectively, this behaviour is rare for this
society (Johnson; 2015).
The fact that these society rarely face these internal threats, yet can
deal with them so effectively when they arise, shows why mutual-aid
societies lasted for centuries and required external state conquest to
destroy them.
Anarchist societies therefore enjoy much more internal stability than
authoritarian-communism, making anarchismâs secondary goal of retaining
internal social structure more achievable than under
authoritarian-communism, which suffers inherent internal contradictions
not shared by anarchism. Therefore in respect to when policy goals
differ, anarchismâs imperatives are less demanding and therefore more
achievable, giving anarchism the advantage regarding politics.
For a war to be won, it helps if the population are ethically motivated
to support it (Gray; 1999; p30-31). Therefore, to defend a society, the
population must be ethically motivated in defending the social
structures under attack.
Mutual-aid principles have historically been the main way humans have
ensured the survival of the collective, being essential during crises
such as droughts or famines. Kropotkin also observed how mutual-aid
societies are often governed by strict moral codes aimed at supporting
the society. For example the Aleoutes always feed their children first
during protracted scarcity and are not inclined towards theft
(Kropotkin; 1902; p99-100). The evolutionary success of mutual-aid
through strong moral conviction towards ensuring societyâs survival
during crisis, (for example how the guild cities managed to prevent
famine during shortages), indicates that a society governed by these
principles would be highly motivated when resisting such an extreme
existential threat such as invasion. Mutual-aid would therefore be an
ideal moral force in motivating the population to fight for its
survival. These advantages, because anarchism would be based on
mutual-aid, would also benefit anarchists.
High motivation and ethical conviction has also been observed in
anarchists by Hobsbawm (2007), believing they shown âdeeply moving
idealism and heroismâ (p112). This also suggests that when defending a
society against a state, anarchists would show remarkable moral
conviction.
Authoritarian revolutions often saw very high popular support. The
Vietnam war could have only been won if the fighters had the support of
the population (Hobsbawm; 2007; p226-227). If support was lost, the
peasants could have informed the USA of the Vietnamese locations (p226),
and they would have been destroyed. However, authoritarian social
relations implicitly indicate a lack of needed morale.
When fighting to secure Bolshevik power in the Russian civil war,
Trotsky (1920) described humans as naturally lazy, requiring coercion to
force the population to work. Conversely, mutual-aid societies lacked
the need for centralised control to motivate individuals. Folkmotes, for
example only enforced decisions based on their moral authority
(Kropotkin; 1902; p131), not needing coercion to motivate its members to
obey their decisions. Therefore, Trotsky requiring coercion to motivate
the population demonstrates a lack of popular support; if the population
fully supported the war effort, they would be motivated enough not to
appear so lazy that they needed coercion. Ultimately, this contrast
highlights authoritarian-communismsâ ethical shortcomings.
If self-governing humans donât need centralised force to motivate them
to support a cause, the need for coercion highlights the lack of support
that a cause enjoys. Therefore, if it is necessary to achieve âiron
disciplineâ before a cause is achieved, that cause mustnât enjoy as much
ethical support as causes where force isnât needed to achieve them.
Therefore, calls for authoritarianism to achieve revolution implicitly
admit that said revolution lacks a certain amount of ethical support
which anarchist societies can readily rely on.
Anarchist societies can therefore expect more ethical support than
authoritarian-communist societies, because authoritarian-communism
feeling the need to resort to coercion to achieve its goals, implies an
ethical deficit. Anarchism as discussed, has exhibited high levels of
ethical conviction, motivating the society to pursue its goals without
coercion. Therefore anarchism enjoys an ethical advantage.
To support a war, the economy must be productive enough to materially
support the effort (Gray; 1999; p31-32), these materials must then reach
their needed destination. Therefore, social structures must support a
productive economy with logistical efficiency.
Regarding economics, some studies show worker owned industries are often
more productive than under traditional structures (Chen; 2016, Dolack;
2016, Harvey; 2016, Logue & Yates; 2006). Because anarchism has achieved
worker ownership of the means of production, this would explain why the
voluntary collectives in anarchist Spain, who achieved worker ownership,
increased production both in industry and agriculture (Dolgof; 1974;
p6), demonstrating that anarchist structures are beneficial to economic
productivity.
As discussed, authoritarian-communism has historically failed to achieve
worker ownership of industry. Moreover, worker-ownership was prevented
when Lenin brought the workers councils under centralised state control.
The fact that these structures of worker-ownership were disempowered in
pursuit of centralisation, indicates that not only has
authoritarian-communism historically failed to achieve worker control,
its need for centralisation of power make authoritarian-communism
intrinsically hostile to worker-ownership. Therefore,
authoritarian-communism cannot enjoy the advantages gained through
worker-owned structures.
Moreover, after 10 years under centralised Soviet rule the workers were
observed to be âdocile, backwards and incapable of actionâ (Zurbrugg;
2014; p27), demonstrating the comparative failures regarding industrial
effectiveness under authoritarian-communism. Moreover, the forced
agricultural collectivisation under Stalin failed to produce the grain
needed to feed the whole population as discussed whereas comparatively,
guild cities faced shortages but famineâs were avoided. This
demonstrates how economic output is greatly aided by anarchist
structures and can be greatly harmed by authoritarian-communism.
Logistics also benefits greatly from decentralised networked relations;
modern logistics firms have usually embraced network organisation.
Rather than compete with other firms within a supply chain, firms have
decided to collaborate, sharing information which increases innovation.
This then increased competitive advantage and performance through
learning from best practice (Chapman et al.; 2002; p366-368). Learning
from otherâs practice necessitates decentralisation; when organisation
is centrally controlled, practice is homogenised. Therefore new, better
practices are less likely to emerge under centralisation. Therefore,
these benefits couldnât be achieved under the hierarchical centralised
structures of authoritarian-communism.
However, Spanish anarchists exhibited similar collaboration between
experts and workers. Both consulted one another when proposing project
ideas, sharing information the others lacked (Zurbrugg; 2014; p24), to
determine the best approach. This demonstrates how anarchists can also
achieve this form of network collaboration and therefore demonstrates
the advantages of anarchism regarding logistics.
For effective armed forces, effective day-to-day management of resources
and people is required (Gray; 1999; p34-35). Therefore, for effective
defence, social structures must create effective administrative
structures.
Within industry, administrative systems based on collective decision
making have attracted interest because of their potential to mitigate
efficiency problems related to traditional capitalist hierarchies
(Cheney et al.; 2014; p595). For example, collaborative leadership,
where workers are active in management, has shown promise for
organisations facing scarcity (p596). This is very important for
militia, as they need to manage resources efficiently to support a war
effort.
Social leadership, where managers are appointed by workers, allows for
the selection of managers who work towards the collectiveâs interests.
This ensures more ethical leadership, which then promotes a sense of
satisfaction and meaningfulness; and increases âpsychological
ownershipâ, where workers feelings of âefficacy, accountability and
belongingnessâ increases their effectiveness through motivation (Cheney
et al.; 2014; p595-596). The MAMâs, who like the Spanish anarchist
militia, collectively appoint leadership, have a suitable structure for
adopting this practice. MAMâs could therefore appoint other leaders such
as trainers and other administrators in a similar fashion to create
better motivated and more effective and efficient forces.
Therefore, anarchist structures could easily utilise these advantageous
administrative models. Authoritarian-communism however, because of its
centralised nature, must rely on the less effective authoritarian
management models. Lenin implement Taylorist labour relations,
empowering the managers and disempowering workers (Zurbrugg; 2014; p27),
which then contributed to the ineffectiveness of the Soviet workforce
previously discussed. Therefore, because anarchism can utilise more
effective administration, anarchism gains the advantage in this
dimension.
Relying on the genius of individuals means strategy could be compromised
by individual incompetence (Gray; 1999; p33-43). Therefore, strong
institutional structures are needed to act as a check on this individual
incompetence. Therefore, effective defence requires structures which
ensure ineffective members are checked.
This institutional fool-proofing is aided by MAMâs collective power;
when leaders are incompetent, MAMâs can remove them. However,
authoritarian structures by definition centralise power into fewer
hands, ensuring the strategy is much more reliant on the abilities of
individuals. For example, when Stalin, against the advice of his
generals, failed to properly prepare for a German attack; when Germany
attacked in 1941, Russia suffered massive military losses. Stalin then
retired to his room for three days (Admin; 2011). The USSR was forced
into disaster and then left leaderless.
This demonstrates authoritarianismâs extreme vulnerability regarding
individual incompetence, therefore anarchist structures hold
organisational advantage because anarchism does not share the extreme
disadvantages of authoritarianism-communism.
Intelligence is important to a war effort (Gray; 1999; p35). If a
military can attack without warning, the enemy will be ill prepared to
respond, making success more likely. Conversely, if one gatherâs
intelligence on the enemy, they can effectively prepare for attack or
attack them at their weakest. Therefore when defending against invasion,
one should conceal their activities and uncover the intentions and
abilities of the enemy.
The democratic nature of anarchism implies higher transparency which
makes secretiveness difficult because more people are privy to more
information. However, within mutual-aid societies can social rules which
can strictly govern behaviour when the need arises, as seen in
Kropotkinâs observations of Aleoutes. These strict social rules are
found amongst hunter-gatherers, smaller intimate groups. Therefore
secretiveness could be achieved within smaller MAM units.
Although larger scale operations may be more difficult to conceal for
anarchists, these disadvantages are balanced by the ability of
decentralised organisations to be very difficult to predict. Al Qaida
has planned attacks through a âcomplex constellation of different
groupsâ and cells are often forged through kin relationships and
friendship (Ranstorp; 2005; p41), namely horizontal free agreement, this
can make them very hard to monitor (p41) due to their complex
decentralised structure.
MAMâs can imitate these structures, relying on horizontal unit-to-unit
planning because smaller units retain autonomy, therefore, as under Al
Qaida, MAMâs would be difficult to predict. Because authoritarianism
relies on centralised control, this type of evasive networking is not as
much of an option. Therefore, although authoritarian-communism could
possibly secure traditional top-down secrecy through discipline,
anarchism can achieve alternative forms of effective secrecy unavailable
to authoritarian-communism.
Therefore, both structures have their advantages and disadvantages, yet
none are clearly superior. On balance, anarchism at least doesnât
exhibit any clear disadvantages compared with authoritarianism regarding
secrecy.
Regarding accessing enemy secrets, decentralised grassroots âHacktivistâ
groups such as anonymous, mainly teenagers or unemployed individuals,
have executed numerous raids on large US corporations and the US
government (Caldwell; 2015; p12-13), including leaking around 4,000
documents from the US census bureau (Huffadine; 2016). This means that
non-hierarchical groups of relatively ordinary individuals were able to
gain hidden information from the most powerful state in the world. This
highlights how anarchist structures would be more than capable of
retrieving information about the enemy, showing no clear disadvantage
for anarchism.
Therefore, regarding both secrecy and espionage, anarchism has shown
capability at executing both effectively. Therefore appearing to show no
sign that anarchism is clearly disadvantaged compared to
authoritarianism.
Technology is an important dimension of strategy (Gray; 1999; p37-38);
access to equipment which increases military effectiveness through
intelligent design generally aidâs strategic effectiveness. Therefore,
when defending a society, the society should be able to invent
technology which best aids defensive capability. To this end, societyâs
social structure would benefit from facilitating technological
innovation.
Mason (2015), states that information-based businesses function best
under network structures. For Mason, âcooperative, self-managed,
non-hierarchical teams are the most technologically advanced form of
workâ (p287), whereas hierarchy stifles innovation. Hierarchical
management means managing people, ideas and resources for a planned
outcome (p287). This limits exploration within the confines of the
planned outcome.
The absence of strict planning allows networks to creatively explore new
possibilities, which allows for new and unplanned innovations, therefore
making networks highly innovative. The structures which encourage the
most technological innovation are indeed decentralised, non-hierarchical
cooperative structures, matching anarchist structures perfectly.
Moreover, networks are problematic for authoritarian-communism because
they âdisrupt everything aboveâ (Mason; 2015; p288), meaning they would
undermine authoritarian-communismâs hierarchy. This explains why Lenin
embraced Taylorism despite the innovation issues with hierarchies;
networks would have been a threat to centralised power. Therefore,
despite their advantages, networks are dangerous for
authoritarian-communism. Therefore, anarchist structures are better
suited to embracing structures which facilitate innovation and can
therefore better guarantee a technological edge, again giving a strong
advantage to anarchism.
Strategic theory is the ideas which guide and inform strategic behaviour
(Gray; 1999; p35-36). To defend against aggression, the society must
have structures conducive to the creation of effective theory. This
would require the facilitation of innovation so that the best theories
are enacted. As discussed, network structures facilitate greater
innovation in the economic sphere, and networks are best utilised by
anarchism. Therefore, anarchism would facilitate the most innovative
theories, making anarchism more of an asset for effective strategic
theory.
There is also a need for effective doctrine. Doctrines are the beliefs
that frame strategy by establishing what to think and do (Gray; 1999;
p36). For effective defence, doctrine must frame a strategic outlook
which encourages effective theory and practice. I have already discussed
how Marxist-Leninist dogma restricted the strategic outlook of the USSR
to the extent that they failed to appreciate the threat of NAZI Germany.
This not only permeates through culture, but applies more so to
doctrine; Marxism-Leninism was a belief structure which as discussed
ultimately shaped USSR strategy. Therefore, for the same reason
Marxism-Leninism restricted strategic culture, it restricted Soviet
doctrine. This once again demonstrates how the ideological rigidness of
authoritarian-communism is a strategic liability.
In the same vein, the advantageous cultural practices of some anarchist
societies which demonstrate an effective strategic culture, can be
easily applied to strategic doctrine, because these cultural practices
can also be seen as beliefs and values which guide action, making
anarchism once again advantageous and authoritarian-communism a
liability.
For any successful execution of war, fighters must fight well (Gray;
1999; p38-39). The performance of the Spanish anarchists noted by
Marshall and Dolgof provides evidence that anarchist structures can
create better fighters than if they were under authoritarian structures.
Moreover, contemporary military sociologists highlight the need for
flexible forces to respond quickly to rapid changes in combat
situations. Proposals to achieve this have included reducing hierarchy
(Dedenker; 2003; p415, Bjørnstad & Lichacz; 2011). This means creating
network structures which reducing long chains of command (flat
structure), and giving lower ranks more autonomy (decentralisation). Not
needing to seek permission from a long chain of superiors permits more
efficient information sharing, meaning fighters can achieve faster
responses. Lower-rank autonomy means those more immediately involved in
combat with access to on-the-ground intelligence, can make higher
quality responses. Units would achieve faster, better suited responses,
making the forces more flexible and therefore more effective (Bjørnstad
& Lichacz; 2011; p316-318).
This proposal was tested in training exercises, researchers gave various
units questionnaires asking scaled questions on how the test subjects
perceived a given exercise. Namely, how flat, decentralised, flexible
and effective were each exercise (Bjørnstad & Lichacz; 2011; p319-323).
The results were measured and compared and both flat structure and
decentralisation related positively to flexibility and effectiveness
(p323-326). The links between decentralisation and flatness, and
effectiveness were almost entirely mediated through flexibility
(p326-327), indicating that flatness and decentralisation ensures
effectiveness through flexibility.
Another similar study measuring the relationship between
decentralisation and flatness, and flexibility further supported these
findings, reporting a relationship between flatness and flexibility, and
a stronger positive relationship to decentralisation and flexibility
(Bjørnstad & Lichacz; 2013). This provides evidence that reducing
hierarchy and decentralisation make forces more effective through
flexibility.
However, traditional military structures as discussed, are centralised
and hierarchical, indicating difficulties in adopting these new
structure. Recently, instead of embracing these new processes militaries
have maintained centralisation (Bjørnstad & Lichacz; 2013; p778).
Therefore, authoritarian structures are unlikely to utilise these
advantages.
Moreover, studies of military (Vego, 2003) and civilian (Kvande, 2007)
organisations indicate that retaining some authoritarian features while
loosening others can create misalignment problems. âIf the structure is
changed from hierarchical to flat at the same time as the
decision-making authority is centralized...â (Bjørnstad & Lichacz; 2011;
p318), the decision-making load on top management is liable to become
too heavy and render the organization inefficientâ. Maintaining
authoritarian-communist structures means maintaining centralisation,
indicating that the suggested network organisations would be unsuitable
for authoritarian-communism. Therefore, authoritarian-communism likely
wouldnât benefit from network organisational models.
Conversely, MAMâs are highly well-suited to utilising these advantageous
structures. MAMâs are by design, decentralised structures where autonomy
rests at the smaller unit level. MAMâs are already flat, decentralised
structures, allowing for the faster, high quality responses discussed,
without the potential misalignment issues plaguing
authoritarian-communism. Therefore, anarchist structures are able to
fully utilise a more advantageous organisational model for combat
effectiveness unavailable to authoritarian-communism. Therefore in terms
of combat ability, anarchism enjoys the advantage.
Gray (1999) notes how the quality of command is an important dimension;
effective leaders execute effective strategy. Social structures must
therefore facilitate effective leadership able to exploit advantages and
avoid harm when executing defensive strategy (p39-40).
Firstly, if command is to be effective, command must be followed by
those they command. This may seem problematic for anarchist structures
to achieve, given anarchismâs anti-authoritarian nature. However, as
discussed, Orwell observed that the Spanish anarchistâs could have
improved efficiency without sacrificing their democratic command
structure, indicating the MAMâs similar strategy of collective
appointment of commanders would retain unit cohesion, therefore,
commanders would still be obeyed. Moreover, as discussed, in industry,
leadership being collectively chosen increases senses of belonging and
accountability, which motivates those being lead to support the
organisation and therefore creates more effective leadership. We can
therefore expect the same effects for MAM units.
Moreover, authoritarian-communism as Lenin proposes, requires iron
discipline, strict obedience is required from the rank and file. This
would clearly be required in a military context. Imposing this
discipline means commanders must rely on coercion rather than the
collective sense of ownership and accountability supporting less
hierarchical organisations. This seems less efficient as fighters arenât
as motivated by a sense of ownership and accountability. Therefore,
anarchist leadership would be both effective and more efficient than
authoritarian-communism.
Leadership must also effectively exploit advantage and avoid harm.
MAMâs, as discussed, would through network organisations, allow lower
ranking commanders to make quicker and more informed decisions.
Therefore, anarchist command would be more effective by allowing those
in the best position to seize an advantage or quickly avoid disaster, to
do so.
Conversely, when authority is too strictly imposed, higher level
commanders who are more distant from the facts on the ground, are freer
to ignore their better informed subordinates. We have already discussed
how Stalin ignored his generals about Hitlerâs war preparations meaning
authoritarian-communism has exhibited these deficiencies. This can be
very dangerous, as Gray (1999) notes, it is often vital that low ranking
fighters educate their superiors on events for effective strategy to be
realised (p44-45). Therefore, authoritarian-communism creates structures
that obstruct a commanderâs ability to seize advantage and avoid harm.
Therefore, not only can Anarchism establish cohesive leadership more
efficiently than authoritarianism, it also facilitates command which
effectively takes advantage of opportunities and avoiding harm better
than authoritarian structures. Therefore, anarchism holds the advantage
regarding command.
Geographic consideration greatly affect military considerations (Gray;
1999; p40-41). To defend against aggression, forces must be able to
utilise the geography to their advantage. Geography varies drastically
from mountains, to flat plains, fields, deserts marshes rivers and even
oceans all play a significant strategic roles based on both their
presence and positioning, but also their absence. There are also manmade
factors to consider, such as cities, oil pipelines etc. An exhaustive
account of how anarchist and authoritarian-communist structures respond
to these variants within this research is impossible. I will therefore
focus on two broad and significant geopolitical considerations anarchist
and authoritarian-communist structures are able to effect, how
infrastructure can be protected, and how well forces can execute
guerrilla warfare.
Authoritarian-communist states have historically shown promise of rapid
industrial development as discussed. However, because these states
retain centralised authority, this means centralised industrial
development where large cities become important industrial centres. This
concentrated industry is easier to manage for centralised authority.
However, this centralisation of industry would make these states
vulnerable to targeted attacks because they present a concentrated
target. This makes industrially developed authoritarian-communist states
vulnerable to bombings, especially a nuclear attack. When used
offensively, nuclear weapons are used for targeting concentrated
industry to cripple a states military industrial capabilities (Hobsbawm;
2007; p235).
In contrast, anarchist societies are decentralised, therefore having
decentralised industry. This would disperse industry, making targeted
attacks which cripple industry much more difficult and resource
intensive. This parallels why nuclear weapons were never used in
Vietnam, as the peasant society was agrarian, which meant the countryâs
resources were dispersed (p235). Therefore anarchismâs decentralised
structure allows for the development of industry which is much less
vulnerable to attacks than under authoritarian-communism.
Guerrilla warfare is when irregular smaller units, using local support
and the terrain (Guevera; 2006 ;p32), to their advantage, in order to
engage in indirect conflict to exhaust a stronger enemy (Hobsbawm; 2007;
p224-226). This makes using this technique effectively a great assent
when defending a society. Many factors are important for guerrilla
warfare but two are most worthy of mentioning, flexibility and local
support.
Flexibility is important because small units must be able to quickly
coordinate and execute attacks based on their own initiative (Guevera;
2006 ;p28). This allows guerrillas to repeatedly strike without warning
and retreat before the enemy can respond, slowly exhausting the enemies
political will to fight (Gray; 1999; p43). MAMâs are uniquely structured
to achieve flexibility. As discussed, their effectiveness comes from how
their bottom-up decentralised nature grants effectiveness through
flexibility. Therefore anarchist structures are ideally suited to
guerrilla combat, whereas as discussed, authoritarian-communismâs
centralisation inherently clash with the need for flexibility.
Guevara states that popular support is vital; guerrillas rely on the
population for supplies (Guevera; 2006 ;p95) and to help conceal their
location as discussed. If guerrillas lose support, they risk losing the
supplies needed to continue fighting and having their location known to
the enemy. Guerrillas win through outlasting the enemy through avoiding
direct combat, both of which are impossible to achieve when one loses
their main source of resources and the enemy knows oneâs location.
MAMâs only fight when the populace supports them. Therefore, MAMâs are
more intimately accountable to the population, meaning MAMâs are less
likely to antagonise those they rely on. Conversely,
authoritarian-communism, being based in centralised authority, is much
less accountable to the population, meaning decisions which lack popular
support, are more likely to me made. Guevara (2006) emphasises the need
to punish this who harm the peasants (p95), he may be corrent in this
assessment, however this indicates that forces under authoritarian
command are liable to commit these acts. Otherwise this would be less
important to emphasise. Therefore, authoritarian-communism would be less
capable of guaranteeing popular support, whereas through MAMâs,
anarchist structures seem much more capable of guaranteeing this vital
factor.
Therefore, based on the examples discussed, anarchist structures,
because they are more capable of executing core requirements of
guerrilla warfare (flexibility and ensuring popular support), indicates
that anarchists would better utilise geography in combat. Moreover,
because of their dispersed industry, anarchist infrastructure would also
be much better protected. Therefore, anarchism gains the advantages when
exploiting geography.
In war, things often do not go as planned; a surprise attack or
uncertain weather conditions, can seriously impede defence. Even if one
plans as much as they can, information is never perfect and uncertainty
is certain (Gray; 1999; 41). When fighting a war, social structures must
facilitate adaptation to inevitable surprises.
MAMâs flexible structure accounts for this. When smaller units have more
autonomy in the field, they are able to quickly change their plans and
adapt when things go wrong. I have discussed how smaller units can make
plans quicker and with richer information. Being more informed allows
them to reduce uncertainty and be quick to respond to the unplanned.
MAMâs can therefore adapt to their environment effectively and overcome
friction. As discussed authoritarian-communismâs centrality prevents
this same flexibility, and therefore authoritarian-communist structures
will be slower and less effective when responding to the unplanned.
Therefore, anarchism once again enjoys a strong advantage.
All war is fought against an enemy, whether a strategy is effective
depends on how suitable it is against said enemy. Most importantly, the
enemy is an intelligent wilful force, which responds to ones actions;
âstrategy can work today but fail tomorrow because it worked todayâ
(Gray; 1999; p42). To effectively defend against invasion, forces must
therefore be able to respond intelligently to the invader.
The flexibility achieved by reducing hierarchy and centralisation, and
the suitability of MAMâs in utilising these techniques, makes anarchists
structures uniquely suited to responding to a responsive enemy. MAMâs
flexibility means anarchists can adapt and change strategy very quickly,
making anarchist forces difficult to quickly respond to. Because I
assume an invasion by a state, the adversary will be hampered by the
obstacles to achieving flexibility through reducing hierarchy previously
discussed. The adversaryâs comparative shortcomings regarding
flexibility, and therefore adaptability, mean they will be at a
disadvantage when fighting anarchist forces.
Anarchist structures would therefore often be one step ahead of the
enemy. Moreover, because authoritarian-communism is inherently statist,
it has the same inflexibility problems plaguing traditional militaries,
making it not as suitable at dealing with a responsive enemy as
anarchism. This therefore highlights another significant advantage for
anarchism.
All strategy is governed by time, attacks can be too early or late.
Geographical distance or rough terrain effects strategy because of the
temporal delays this creates. Ultimately, time is a significant
strategic factor (Gray; 1999; p42-43). Time is also ultimately far too
expensive a topic to cover satisfactorily within the given limits.
Therefore, I will simply examine which social structures best utilise
time during a protracted defence because this is an important factor
during defence; the defenders must therefore outlast an enemyâs attack
to survive.
Gray highlights that time is on the side of irregular (guerrilla) forces
in war, because they can avoid battle and outlast the enemy by sapping
their political will (Gray; 1999; p43). We have already shown that MAMâs
are a better means of engaging in guerrilla warfare because of their
superior flexibility and popular support. It follows that they would
then have a temporal advantage because their flexibility allows them to
better avoid conflict and the increased support better sustains the
forces. Therefore once again anarchism demonstrates its strategic
superiority to authoritarian-communism.
The People and Politics chapter demonstrates how within all dimensions
pertaining to the abilities of the population as a whole, anarchism
proved more defensively advantageous in all five categories. This is
because without the interference of the state, the population can
directly pursue success in each of the categories, whereas to ensure
state supremacy, authoritarian-communism often obstructs these efforts.
In people, because society without authority follows mutual-aid,
ensuring collective wellbeing holds primacy, allowing the needs of the
population to be pursued directly. Authoritarian-communism being
statist, must put state interests first. This does not mean the state
never cares for the population, but that this imperative is filtered
through state interest. If state interests require that other issues are
prioritised, the population itself could suffer, as demonstrated during
the Soviet famine.
This statist prioritisation becomes more relevant for society because of
the centralisation of power. This may ostensibly be so that the
population can be mobilised to serve the common good. However,
mutual-aid demonstrates how human society is already capable of action.
This political centralisation actually limits the societies ability to
sustain defence through the pursuit of securing centralised power.
Authoritarian-communism renders the populace further incapable of action
by limiting its intellectual potential. Culture highlighted how the
stateâs need for control meant rigidly imposing a cultural framework
which bound thought to an extent where the USSR failed to anticipate the
threat of fascism, therefore endangering the society. Conversely,
anarchist cultural expression in itself employed strategically ingenious
methods of guarding against threat.
This popular suppression would explain the contrast between how
motivated mutual-aid societies are compared with authoritarian-communist
society. In ethics, Trotskyâs call for labour armies was based on a
perception of a humanity drastically different from self organised
society. This evidence highlighted how the need for authoritarianism
implicitly concedes that the population is less motivated to action than
they could be. This implicitly indicated that authoritarian-communism
always suffers from a deficit in ethical motivation.
These findings highlight how the population under
authoritarian-communism, because it requires imposing centralised
authority, weakens the society by limiting its capacity to flourish and
act, therefore making the population more vulnerable when under attack.
By pursuing its own interests, authoritarian-communism inherently makes
itself vulnerable in a way anarchist societie do not.
Authoritarian-communism further compounds these troubles by demanding
political goals which are harder to achieve. Authoritarian-communismâs
acts of suppression also antagonises the population it relies on, as
demonstrated by the numerous rebellions the Soviets faced.
Authoritarian-communism must repel an invader, but also maintain its
control over this antagonised society, whereas anarchismâs historical
stability means it is free to focus solely on repelling attackers.
Therefore, authoritarian-communism inherently weakens the population
whilst simultaneously requiring more from said population in order to
survive. Therefore, the finding demonstrate how authoritarian-communism
is a defensive liability in these respects.
The war preparations chapter demonstrates how the structure of anarchism
permits superior organisational capacity within the MAMâs and in
industry, while the restrictions discussed previously, prevent
authoritarian-communism from utilising these advantages. Five dimensions
proved advantageous to anarchism with a sixth merely matching
authoritarian-communism.
Examining economics and logistics showed how anarchism allows for
popular control which as discussed, enables anarchism to be more
economically productive by mimicking worker-owned industry. Anarchismâs
decentralised nature also allows anarchism to embrace network structures
which facilitate better logistics. Conversely, authoritarian-communismâs
centralisation and aversion to popular control, means these benefits are
not available.
Moreover, in administration, anarchism, once again through popular
control proved capable of more effective and efficient leadership models
which better ensure good day-to-day management of the militia. This is
once again unavailable to authoritarian communism, as
authoritarian-communism requires hierarchical structures which preclude
such models. Moreover in organisation, anarchism through these same
leadership models proved capable of accounting for individual
incompetence therefore better fool-proofing its organisations. This
again is unavailable to authoritarian-communism as its centralised
nature relies too heavily on the ability of a few, mirroring the issues
found in society.
Anarchismâs ability to create non-hierarchical, cooperative organisation
also allowed for superior innovation. Anarchism would facilitate more
advanced technology and strategic theory, this once again being
unavailable to authoritarian-communism due to its hierarchical nature.
Moreover, the advantages discussed pertaining to strategic culture
translated over to strategic doctrine; the same beliefs and values which
permeate culture simultaneously impact doctrine, meaning anarchism
enjoys similar advantages over authoritarian-communism.
The dimension disrupting this trend was information and intelligence. I
suggested that anarchismâs anti-authoritarianism prevented it from
traditional secrecy, and contradicting evidence was only forthcoming for
smaller units, rendering anarchism unlikely to be as secretive on a
large scale. However, this was mitigated by anarchismâs ability to
better pursue non-traditional secrecy by imitating the networks Al Qaida
utilises, meaning that effective strategies for concealing activities
were still available. Moreover, the ability of amateurs in decentralised
groups to infiltrate some of the worldâs most powerful organisations,
proved that anarchism would be more than capable of retrieving enemy
information.
Because evidence which provides a comparison between
authoritarian-communism and anarchism was not found, I was unable to
compare the two structures as in other dimensions. However, because
anarchismâs suggested problems can be mitigated by a highly effective,
non-traditional solution, and that the successes of methods available to
anarchism has managed to cause serious problems for Al Qaidaâs enemies,
provides strong reasons to infer from the evidence that anarchism would
at least prove formidable in this regard. It is therefore safe to
maintain that anarchism would not be disadvantaged overall in this
regard, meaning the best conclusion to make in this dimension is that
anarchism and authoritarian-communism would at least match one another.
When examining the social structuresâ organisational capabilities, it
can be concluded that anarchist models beget a plethora of advantages
unavailable to authoritarian-communism.
The war proper chapter continued the trend of consistent advantages for
anarchist structures, showing that during combat itself,
authoritarian-communisms structural necessities once again disqualify it
from reaping the benefits available for decentralised structures.
This was first demonstrated through military operations. The Spanish
anarchists proved better fighters than many hierarchical factions. Also,
recent findings in military sociology support the superior effects of
decentralisation and reduced hierarchy, on flexibility, and therefore
effectiveness. Anarchism once again proved capable of embracing these
structures due to MAMâs democratic bottom-up structure while
authoritarian-communism would be inherently less capable of utilising
these strengths given the inherent misalignment issues.
This increased flexibility would then make anarchism more capable of
responding to the enemy as found in adversary, and also better equipped
to deal with unplanned contingencies as was shown in Friction, Chance,
Uncertainty.
The practice of selecting leaders, which gave the anarchist society
better leadership in administration, also ensured the same benefits of
motivation would give anarchist structures superior command compared to
authoritarian-communism. Moreover, the bottom-up structure of MAMâs
ensured that the best informed commanders were free to execute the most
appropriate actions, which once again wasnât available to
authoritarian-communism.
I had to narrow my focus when tackling geography and time due to the
various ways to address the question and the restrictions on this
research. However, what I was free to focus on highlighted significant
and noteworthy advantages for anarchism. Decentralisation of industry,
not only protected anarchist society by ensuring its productive would be
base difficult to disrupt, therefore better protecting industry, it also
proved a very effective tool against the most destructive man-made
weapons, nuclear weapons. This is significant because previously only
under-developed agrarian nations enjoyed this advantage, indicating a
trade-off between industrialisation and vulnerability. Anarchism
provides both protection and development, making this a significant
advantage over authoritarian-communism, whose centralisation guarantees
such a trade-off.
Moreover, guerrilla warfare was very important because it provided an
effective tactic against a stronger enemy. Anarchismâs ability to excel
at two of the most significant aspects of this tactic (popular support
and flexibility), not only provides anarchism with the means to defend
itself against much larger foes, but advantages in geography, and also
time because of the temporal advantages given to irregular troops.
Therefore overall, when comparing anarchism to authoritarian-communism,
anarchism enjoys significant strategic advantages in 16/17 dimensions
whilst being effective enough in the 17^(th) dimension that disadvantage
shouldnât be assumed. Anarchism as a means of defensive strategy is just
short of being completely superior to authoritarian-communism.
Therefore, because authoritarian-communism acted as the benchmark for a
defensible social structure, the findings show that anarchism far
exceeds my established requirements for being suffinciently capable of
defence against aggression.
and suggestions for further research
However, how can these findings be valid given the consistent failure of
anarchism regarding defence?
Firstly, this study assesses comparative advantage, I inquired into
whether when establishing an revolutionary society, should authoritarian
or anarchist social relations govern the society when considering
defence? Because I isolate the effects of social structure, I assess
whether a single given society would be better off against invasion if
they chose anarchism or authoritarianism. Therefore the research
investigates whether for example, Anarchist Spain, would have had a
better chance of survival if it were authoritarian. Therefore, the fact
that it failed while other authoritarian societies succeeded is
irrelevant.
Moreover, the finding provide indications of why these anarchists
revolutions failed outside of an inability to fight due to limitations
inherent to anarchism. Firstly, much like conflicting social relations
can cause misalignment problems for networks, the fact that the
Ukrainianâs and CataluĂąa embraced some authoritarian relations caused
issues for their war effort. Maknoâs antagonism of his population and
the CNTâs collaboration with the state caused issues that wouldnât have
been possible in a consistently anarchist society. This is why imagining
alternative combat structures were important, because they mitigate
these issues.
Another issue is popular faith and support in anarchism. This study
assumes a society where anarchism is fully established. This assumes the
population already perceives anarchist tactics as viable. However,
anarchism suffers a reputation as unworkable and ineffective. Those such
as Hobsbawm perpetuate this assumption when they describes anarchists as
hopeless and ineffective (p113); more damaging is how anarchists often
contribute to this reputation. The paucity of anarchist work directly
addressing defence is one way this happens. More significant is how
anarchist revolutionaries like the CNT leadership, feel they must resort
to authoritarian tactics, like allowing the anarchists to be brought
under government control, to achieve their goals. If anarchist tactics
are not trusted, they will not be implemented, and therefore will never
be given a chance to succeed.
Conversely, authoritarian tactics enjoy a tacit support because they are
assumed to work. Although Lenin emphasised discipline which implies
coercing the populace regardless of their desires, however popular
support as discussed can also be important. The stateâs rule therefore
requires some level of popular consent; the success of authoritarian
tactics therefore indicates at least a tacit support. Combined with the
previous findings, this indicates that the challenge anarchists face is
in establishing a strong base of support, only then would anarchism have
a chance to become a successful social movement. For anarchism to
succeed it must therefore gain this much needed popular support and
faith in its effectiveness, only then will the potential successes found
in this research be realised.
Because anarchism has proved more defensible than
authoritarian-communism in this research, whilst accounting for why this
defensibility is not reflected in the historical record, it can be
concluded that anarchism has proved to be highly defensible when
established, and has therefore defended itself in this regard as a
viable form of revolutionary praxis.
Because this research addresses a very neglected aspect of anarchism,
the finding demonstrating anarchismâ defensibility clearly make a very
large contribution to an important and neglected topic in anarchism.
Following this, because the research focuses on anarchism and its
interaction with neighbouring states, this research on anarchism
directly contributes to international relations theory. This is very
important, firstly, because it makes a contribution to an almost
entirely neglected area of study within international relations theory
(Prichard; 2011). Moreover, this contribution aims at a topic in
international relations which is often the purview of realists (Baylis &
Wirtz; 2002 ;p6), military strategy.
Therefore the research has made headway in establishing anarchist
international relations theory as a body of though which can tackle
issues often only addressed by mainstream international relations.
Therefore, the research helps anarchism make a strong impact on the
larger body of international relations thought. This impact is that
because anarchism can prove defensively viable, that a fully anarchist
society or even several could find a strong footing in international
order. This would be a huge change in global order and provide a very
strong challenge to more state centric international relations theories.
Moreover, because I addressed the issue of defence for anarchists in
juxtaposition authoritarian-communist statesâ failure to achieve
socialism while anarchist Spain demonstrated remarkable successes in
this regard, establishing anarchismâs defensive viability therefore
allows this other advantage to pose a more serious challenge to
authoritarian-communism.
Previously, it could be assumed that authoritarian-communismâs failures
in creating true socialism was a necessary trade-off because otherwise
the society couldnât survive and therefore no gains could be made. Now
that anarchism can demonstrate itself as more defensible that
authoritarian-communism, this paradigm is disrupted, making
authoritarian-communism appear as a much less viable option. Anarchism
can be both defensible and communist, while authoritarian-communism
canât even claim greater defensibility. Therefore, this research
provides a strong challenge to the viability of authoritarian-communist
revolutionary theories.
However, because this research assumes already established anarchist
societies, the issue of establishing anarchism has been neglected.
Building upon this research means analysing how to best secure the
establishment of such societies in order for these defensively
advantageous qualities of anarchism to be realised. This could be done
by re-raising the issue touched on by Rossdale (2010) surrounding
whether anarchists should emphasise resisting existing structures or
building new ones (p486-492). The right balance regarding this issue
could help anarchist societies gain a much needed foothold within
international order.
I began by defining anarchism as the dismantling of illegitimate
hierarchy in pursuit of freedom and equality, combining this with the
mutual-aid principle to argue that an established anarchist society
would be anarcho-communist. I then raised the issue that despite
anarchismâs other successes, it has historically proved indefensible
which is problematic when comparing it the more successful revolutionary
strategy of authoritarian-communism. I therefore argued that for
anarchism to be deemed a viable revolutionary theory, anarchism must
prove at least as defensible as authoritarian communism.
I then elaborated on how anarcho-communist principles, when implemented
institutionally create bottom-up decentralised direct-democratic
institutions of free association and applied this model to defence
forces, thus creating MAMâs. Once fully outlined I described how
defending anarchism meant repelling invasion but also preserving its
institutions.
Based on what was previously established, for anarchism to be defensible
it must prove in isolation to hold as much or more strategic advantage
as authoritarian-communism when comparing each structuresâ strategic
success in a defensive context when analysed through the paradigm of
Grayâs 17 dimensions. I argued that anarchism would be defensible if it
proved at least a match to authoritarian-communism in all 17 dimensions,
outlining that advantage would be proven based on any available evidence
supported by a degree of interpretation to secure a sufficient analysis.
The finding showed that in 16 of the dimensions anarchism proved more
strategically advantageous which proving effective enough in
intelligence and information to be considered at least a match to
authoritarian-communism. This demonstrated that based on the analysis
that anarchism when established is much more defensible than
authoritarianism. Because authoritarian-communism acted as the benchmark
for defensibility, the fact that anarchism exceeds this in all but one
dimension means the findings provide considerable weight to the claim
that an anarchist society could defend itself against external military
aggression which therefore means in this respect anarchism has proved a
viable form of revolutionary praxis.
A limitation of this research is firstly that because of constraints I
was forced to limit my scope with notable examples being time, where I
was only able to focus on a small aspect of the dimension because of its
scope. The fact that I had to narrow my focus because of the size of the
topic emphasises the need to focus on this dimension. This was further
compounded with geography where once again because of constraints I had
to narrow my focus to two subjects, guerrilla war and infrastructure,
then narrow it again with guerrilla warfare to simply flexibility and
time when there are many other issues worth addressing in that subject
alone. This neglect could cause problems for the research as it may
neglect important points which would alter the findings of this
research. However, this doesnât prevent the finding discussed from being
significant.
Another limitation is the reliance on Grayâs theories of strategic
dimensions as any issues with this theory would pose problems for the
research finding. The research would have benefited from gaining the
space to fully critically assess Grayâs theory to fully determine
whether the theory was completely sound. However, given the finding
achieved through this paradigm mitigates the heavy reliance on this
theory.
Admin [author not named]. (2011). Stalinâs Breakdown. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Alexander, R (1999). The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, Volume 1.
London: Janus Publishing Company . p254.
Anarcho [alias]. (2008). Mutual Aid: An Introduction and
Evaluation.Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Aron, L. (2011). FEATURE Everything You Think You Know About the
Collapse of the Soviet Union Is Wrong. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Bakunin, M. (1999/[1871]). What is Authority?. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Barma, N. (2017 [last viewed, date not given]). Failed State. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Berkman, A (1942). A.B.C of Anarchism. 2^(nd) ed. London: Freedom Press.
p3-101.
Bjørnstad, A ; Lichacz, F. (2011). Exploring Network Organization in
Military Contexts: Effects of Flatter Structure and More Decentralized
Processes. Military Psychology. 23 (3), p315-31.
Bjørnstad, A, L. Lichacz, F, M, J. (2013) âOrganizational flexibility
from a network organizational perspective: A study of central predictors
and moderating factors in military contextsâ, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 34 Issue: 8, pp.763â783,
Bolloten, B, (1991). The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and
Counterrevolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. p66.
Caldwell, T. (2015). Hacktivism Goes Hardcore. Network Security. 2015
(5), p12-17.
Casonova, J (2004). Anarchism, the Republic and Civil War in Spain:
1931â39. 2^(nd) ed. London: Routledge. p99-158.
Chapman, Ross L., Soosay, Claudine and Kandampally, Jay 2002, Innovation
in logistic services and the new business model : a conceptual
framework, Managing service quality, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 358â371.
Chen, M. (2016). Worker Cooperatives Are More Productive Than Normal
Companies. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Cheney, G. Santa Cruz, I. Peredo, A, M. Nazareno, E. (2014). Worker
cooperatives as an organizational alternative: Challenges, achievements
and promise in business governance and ownership. Organisation. 21 (5),
p591-602.
Chomsky, N. (1986). The Soviet Union Versus Socialism. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Chomsky, N. (1995). Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism & Hope for the
Future. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Globalization and its Discontents Noam Chomsky
debates with Washington Post readers. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Chomsky, N. (2012/[1989]). What Was Leninism?, March 15^(th), 1989
(.Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Cote, R. (2013). The Five Remaining Communist Countries. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Dandeker, C. (2003). Building Flexible Forces for the 21^(st) Century:
Key challenges for the contemporary armed services. In: Caforio, G
Handbook of the Sociology of the Military. New York: Plenum Publishers.
p415.
Dawkins, R (2006). The Selfish Gene. 30^(th) anniversary ed. New York:
Oxford University Press. p.viii.
Dolack, P. (2016). Working Collectively Beats Working for a
Boss.Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Dolgof, S (1974). The Anarchist Collectives. Quebec: Black Rose Books.
p6-7.
Engels, F. (1974/[1873]). On Authority. In: Bean, B. Daglish, R. and
Ryanzanskaya, S, W. Marx, Engels, Lenin: Anarchism and
Anarcho-Syndicalism. 2^(nd) ed. Moscow: Progress Publishers. p102-105.
Farber, S. (2015). Cubaâs Challenge. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Fuller, T. (2009). Communism and Capitalism Are Mixing in
Laos.Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Gelderloos (2010). Anarchy Works. San Fanscisco: Ardent Press. p245-247.
Goodman, W. (1986). PUTTING PIECES TOGETHER FOR SOVIET FAMINE BOOK.
Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Goodwin, A. (2010) Evolution and Anarchism in International Relations:
The Challenge of Kropotkinâs Biological Ontology, Global Discourse, 1:2,
p107-126.
Gray, C (1999). Modern Strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.
p1-152.
Graeber, D (2004). Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Chicago:
Prickly Paradigm Press. p53-54.
Guardian [author not named]. (2016). One-party rule best for Vietnam,
says leader.Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Guevara; E, C (2006). Guerrilla Warfare. New York: Ocean Press. p1-128.
Harvey, R. (2016). Changing our view of worker co-operatives.Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Herbst, M. (2012). Americaâs âactually existingâ worker-owned
capitalism. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Hodgson, G. (2016). How Capitalism Actually Generates More Inequality.
Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
HS (hierarchy structure) [author not named]. (2017). Military Command
Structure. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Huffadine, L. (2016). Could our Census be hacked? How âAnonymousâ leaked
thousands of usernames, passwords and emails from the US Census Bureau
last year. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Johnson, E. (2015). Ayn Rand vs. Anthropology. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Kitchen, M (1976). Fascism. Hampshire: Macmillan. p1-11.
Kropotkin, P (1902). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. New York:
McClure, Philips & Co.. p1-328.
Kropotkin, P (1913). The Conquest of Bread. London: Chapman and Hall
Ltd. p1-297.
Kvande, E. (2007). Doing gender in flexible organizations. Bergen,
Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
Lenin, V (1999[1920]). âLeft-Wingâ Communism: an Infantile Disorder.
Australia: Resistance Books. p1-136.
Logue & Yates. (2006). Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises,
Productivity and the International Labor Organization. Sage Journals. 12
(4), p686-690.
Marshall, P (1993). Demanding the Impossible: A history of Anarchism.
London: FontanaPress. p.iv-700.
Mason, P. (2015). Postcapitalism. London: Allen Lane, pp. 280â289
Miller, M (1976). Kropotkin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
p181-199.
Milne, S. (2006). Communism may be dead, but clearly not dead enough.
Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Munro, A. (2013). State monopoly on violence. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Murphy, J. T (2006/[1917]). The Workersâ Committee An Outline of its
Principles and Structure.
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Perez, L, A. (1997). Revolution an Response. In: Perez, L, A Cuba and
The United States: Ties of Singular Intimacy. 2^(nd) ed. USA: University
of Georgia Press. 238â273.
Prichard, A. (2011). What can the absence of anarchism tell us about the
history and purpose of International Relations?. British International
Studies Association. 37 (1), 1647â1669.
Phillips, P. (2012). Cuba Sets a Global Example for the Achievements of
Socialism. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Porzuki, N. (2010). Can you name the five remaining communist countries
in the world?. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Ranstorp. M (2005) Al-Qaâida â An expanded global network of terror, The
RUSI Journal, 150:3, 40â43.
Rosen, J. (1969). Is Cuba Socialist? â Elite Runs the Show. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017. (Transcription: Paul Saba. credited
to: Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line)
Rossdale, C. (2010). Anarchy is What Anarchists Make of it: Reclaiming
the Concept of Agency in IR and Security Studies. Millennium: Journal of
International Studies. 39 (1), 483â501.
Scott, J (2009). The art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of
Upland Southeast Asia. London: Yale University Press. p64-178.
Stevens, A. Baker, N. (2006). Making Sense of War. Melbourne: Cambridge
University Press. p27-29.
Taylor, M (1982). Community, Anarchy and Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. p1-168.
Trotsky, L. (1920). About the organisation of Labour. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Vego, M. (2003). Net-centric is not decisive. U.S. Naval Institute
Proceedings, 129(1), 52â57
Woods, A. (2011). The Spanish Revolution Betrayed. Available:
. Last accessed 1^(st) Sept 2017.
Zurbrugg, A. (2014). Socialism and Strategy: A Libertarian Critique of
Leninism. Anarchist Studies. 22 (1), p17-51.