IJ@

International Journal of Anarchism

ifa-Solidaritet - folkebladet - ISSN 0800-0220 no 2 (38) editor H. Fagerhus

Bulletin of the Anarchist International


Antimilitarism - an anarchist approach

Three historical documents

Resolution unanimously decided upon by the The International Anarchist Congress - The 10th Anarchist Biennial 29-30.11.2008
Updates adopted with general consent by The International Anarchist Congress - The 11th Anarchist Biennial 27-28.11.2010

IFA is l'Internationale des Fédérations Anarchistes, i.e. the International of Anarchist Federations, IAF, and AI is the Anarchist International.


I. Antimilitarism - an anarchist approach
Resolution from the 5th congress of [AFIN] ANORG
ISBN 82-90468-11-3 - IJA ISSN 0800-0220 3-8(15) 1985

Abstract

Generally, all societies need organized security and defense for mutual protection and safety of the people, both intrasocietal as well as intersocietal security and defense matters, i.e. within a country and between different societies. In a worldwide, ideal anarchist society this could be, and should be, done at a very low cost and probably without significant arms and fatal weapons. The principle of antimilitarism is however not restricted to the case of global anarchism.

The organized security and defense is completely antimilitarist, i.e. it has zero degree of militarism, mainly if and only if a) it gives a reasonable safety, i.e. balance and stability of strength, at a minimum of economical and political expencs, if necesssary based on alliances of different kinds, and b) it is organized as far as possible in a libertarian way, i.e. as cooperative anarchist militias, federalist and autonomist, without [significant] superiors and subordinates - and with equal, solidaric particiapation from all members of the society, and an equal and just sharing of the costs and burdens as well as the safety benefits, i.e. mutual protection.

Mainly the condition a) gives a reasonable safety against militarism in an intersocietal perspective, i.e. one society's power over others. The latter, b), mainly secures against militarism in an intrasocietal perspective, i.e. power of one class of people over others within the society. Thus, antimilitarist defense and security organization - although if necessary heavily armed and with great striking efficiency - is totally without power [i.e. in the meaning of dominance]. In other words, antimilitarism implies external as well as internal balance and stability of strength, and no dominance.

The degree of antimilitarism, i.e. 100% - the degree of militarism, is mainly a question of balance and stability of strength, both in inter and intrasocietal perspective. Unbalance means domination and power of some people or societies over others. But antimilitarism is also a question of reducing the immense arms budgets all over the world. Thus, antimilitarism means to work and fight for balance and stability of strength and mutual disarmament in an inter as well as intrasocietal perspective.

And thus, the optimal antimilitarist policy and tactics must vary depending on the strategical environment, the concrete situation. The anarchists' fight for antimilitarism must also be coordinated to the general fight for anarchism. Antimilitarist actions must take into account the full consequences and reality in general. To get better results and achieve our libertarian, and antimilitarist aims as far as possible, we must know exactly where we stand today, find the best road ahead and plan the dynamics of the action.

It should be noticed that pacifism - in the meaning of onesided, unbalanced disarmament - is contradictory to antimilitarism. This is so mainly because it does not take sufficiently into account the strategic environment and the intersocietal perspective of antimilitarism. On the other hand, armed resistance, except in self defense against militarist assault, is also completly inconsistent with antimilitarism. Anarchism is antimilitarism, and neither pacifism nor terrorism.

In the Nordic countries, i.e. Scandinavian countries broadly defined, Russian and German militarism has been a severe problem, mainly due to pacifism and lack of efficient defense alliances. Estland and parts of Finland have for several years been, and still are, occupied by SSSR. The close to Nordic countries, Latvia, Litauen and Poland are respectively occupied and heavily influence by Russsia. Today the SSSR, due to unbalance mainly because of the shilly-shally policy of USA and NATO, is trying to get the land on the sea-bottom in the north of Norway. A " grey zone", almost entirely on the Norwegian side, is under negotiations [The negotiations were still in 2008 going on. PS. 27.04.2010 a deal was reached, and confirmed 16.09.2010, see the History of Norway and the Anarchy, chapter IV.E. Norwegian NATO-membership and NATO in general, are however still important regarding the defense of the border and area from the Anarchy of Norway's perspective]. And the Russians use military pressure, demonstrating their power by sending submarines with atomic bombs and other weapons over the borders of the free Nordic countries. [Estland, Latvia and Litauen and Poland are no longer occupied by Russia, but Karelen of Finland is still occupied.]

The intrasocietal aspect of antimilitarism is no great problem in the free parts of the Nordic area, compared to a situation under Russian influence or occupation. If this should happen, the result would certainly be the extermination of the Nordic anarchist society.

The Nordic anarchists do not want Scandinavia to become the next Afghanistan. We therefore recognize the dangers of sabotage actions against defense installations as well as draft resistance and demands for onesided western disarmamant. Both terrorsim and pacifism make way for the reactionary development a communist take over would be. In the present situation the only viable antimilitarist alternative is a balanced mutual disarmament and the SSSR surplus of arms should be noticed in this connection. [SSSR no longer exist, but Russia is being more an more aggresive and militarist.]

Because of this, the Nordic anarchists take part in the defense, mainly the local militia [Home defense - Heimevernet], and demand a balanced mutual disarmament through the Peace Action, i.e. with greater reduction on the Russian side. Some anarchists are draft resisters, a stand which is tolerated, but total resisters have no political support. [ANORG has however supported total rejectors for humanitarian reasons via the Anarchist Black Cross, see International Journal of Anarchism 2(35) p. 401 and ABC .]

Abstract from "Antimilitarism - An Anarchist Approach". Resolution unanimously decided upon by the 5th Congress of AFIN/ANORG, the Anarchist Federation in Norway, october 1984. [Also adopted as a resolution from the IV Northern IFA/IAF-congress 17.-19 September 1986, i.e. of ANORG = The Northern Anarchist Confederation (NAC) - Anarkistenes Organisasjon i Norden, with national IFA-sections/IFA-federations for the northern countries broadly defined, see NAC .]


II. From the IV Nordic IFA congress1) to the IV IFA Congress in Paris
* Decisions * Proposals * Resolutions * Delegates
IJA ISSN 0800-0220
15(16) 1986

The Oslo congress of the Nordic section of IFA, gathered in Oslo 17.-19. September 1986, send the best solidaric anarchist greetings to the 4th IFA congress in Paris 31. Oct. - 3. Nov. 1986. The Nordic congress has unanimously decided to delegate four members of the Nordic IFA secretariate to the Paris congress. [i.e. including the International Anarchist Tribunal, and the four delegates participated by phone.]

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Anarchy means without government: the condition of people who live [significantly] without hierarchical organization, economic as well as political. Thus, anarchy is horizontal organization, i.e. federation on equal footing, without anybody taking advantage at others' expence, and without superiors and subordinates [i.e. significant].

Any [significantly] hierarchic organization, public or private alike, represents the changing forms of government. However hierarchies may be more or less flat, and thus closer or farther from pure anarchy, i.e. the degree of anarchy varies.

If the concept of State is defined identical to [significant] hierarchical organization, i.e. economic as well as political [i.e. political/adminstrative broadly defined] hierarchy included, then anarchy is equal to society without state.

However, limiting the concept of State to the more usual meaning of political hierarchy, and leaving economic hierarchy to the concept of Capitalism, it is true that anarchy is the opposite of both.

Thus, hostility towards the State in the meaning of political hierarchy, and approval of Capitalism, makes no anarchist, but a consistent liberalist.

And thus, left and right pendulum movements on the political economic scene, replacing state with capitalism or vice versa, will not change what is important, i.e. the degree of anarchy. Increasing this degree - here, there and everywhere, until complete horizontal organization is achieved for everybody who wants it, that is what anarchists are fighting for.

Generally, capitalism as well as statism may have intersocietal as well as intrasocietal roots. Thus the degree of anarchy in a society may be increased by means of national liberation as well as liberation within the nation.

THE NORDIC SITUATION

Ad. 5. Studying the international situation and the libertarian movement: The Nordic society in the mid 80-ties is slightly more statist and capitalist compared to the mid 70-ties. This is due to increasing public and private bureaucracy and greater income differences. [This means an average tendency. This tendency was mainly in Sweden, Denmark and Finland. For Norway, see the History of Norway and the Anarchy, and Iceland, see the History of Iceland and the Anarchy. Here "Nordic society" means these five countries, sometimes however a wider concept is used, i.e. Nordic means countries in the North in general, see the Northern Anarchist Confederation.]

The Russian domination in the Nordic oceans has increased. Thus, the degree of anarchy has slightly decreased both in an intrasocietal and intersocietal way. The Nordic anarchist society is still small, although slowly growing in members. Activities has however been decreasing a bit due to economic problems. The scarce resources are however carefully economized and managed for the purpose of increasing the degree of anarchy, taking into account both the intersocietal and intrasocietal aspect. The main intrasocietal issue is the fight against private and public bureaucratization and for more self-management and local autonomy. The main intersocietal issue is to outbalance the increasing Russian domination in the Nordic oceans.

THE GREAT ISSUES OF TODAY

Ad. 6. The IFA position dealing with the great issues of today: wars of national liberation, colonization, militarization, imperialism and blocks policy. The Nordic point of view:

Generally both the degree of capitalism and statism in a society may have intrasocietal as well as intersocietal roots. National liberation, i.e. reducing intersocietal aspects of capitalism and statism, followed by increasing intrasocietal repression and exploitation, is not progressive. Especially marxist national liberation usually works that way and should not be supported by anarchists. Anarchists should of course concentrate support that give a significant rise in the degree of anarchy over time.

Generally, all societies need organized security and defense for mutual protection and safety of the people, both intrasocietal as well as intersocietal security and defense matters, i.e. within a country and between different societies.

The degree of antimilitarism, i.e. 100% - the degree of militarism, is mainly a question of balance and stability of strength, both in inter and intrasocietal perspective. Unbalance means domination and power of some people or societies over others. But antimilitarism is also a question of reducing the immense arms budgets all over the world. Thus, antimilitarism means to work and fight for balance and stability of strength and mutual disarmament in an inter as well as intrasocietal perspective.

And thus, the optimal antimilitarist polict and tactics must vary depending on the strategical environment, the concrete situation. It should be noticed that pacifism - in the meaning of onesided, unbalanced disarmament - is contradictory to antimilitarism. On the other hand, armed resistance, except in self defense against militarist assault, is also completly inconsistent with antimilitarism. Terrorism is the ultimate form of militarism. Anarchism is antimilitarism, and neither pacifism nor terrorism.

LABOUR STRUGGLES

7. Labour struggles, unionism, AIT: Labour struggles reducing hierarchy, economic and/or political, i.e. increasing the degree of anarchy, are progressive. Anarchist strategy is to fight and abolish hierarchical commisions and organizations in the labor movement and industry. Marxist tendencies is preserving or increasing hierarchy in one way or the other. Participation or support to marxist-like, hierarchical organs will usually not increase the degree of anarchy. Today IFA and AIT have common interests in fighting such tendencies and creating anarchist alternatives. [This was a clear message from the Northern sections of IFA that they were prepared to fight against the increasing authoritarian marxist leftist/collectivist/communist tendency of the CRIFA, the southern IFA-federations - especially the French and Italian, and the UAB, the Bulgarian anarchist union, in general.]

CRIFA AND THE BULLETIN

8. CRIFA bulletin and means of expression of the IFA: To solve the problem of the CRIFA bulletin we suggest the following: In the future, from 1987 and on, the task of publishing the bulletin should circulate among the member federations in alphabetical order, each producing one issue a year. ANORG [the four Nordic IFA-federations, Danish, Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish] is prepared to take one issue [each, i.e. four issues] in 1987. Articles may be in any language, but should be supplied with an English or French summary. The responsible federation covers the expences for their number, based on local subscription and sales. [This did not work out, the CRIFA-bulletin declined, and the Northern IFA-sections instead replaced the CRIFA-bulletin with IFA-Solidaritet/International Journal of Anarchism, see mandate of IJA .]

9. Resignation and appointment for a new secretary: The CRIFA- and the secretary job circulates parallelly with the editing job passing from federation to federation in alphabetic order. anorg/ifa

1) 4. nordiske anarkistkongress og seminar, [The 4th IFA-congress in Oslo] anorg's 6 kongress - Oslo 19-21 sept. 86

***

Several copies for distribution among the Northern IFA-IAF-federations, of the Bulletin CRIFA no 50 1986, with invitation to the congress in Paris, was sent to the Nordic IFA-secretariat in Oslo from Paris. The invitation was the following, p 4:

TO ALL IFA MEMBERS, TO THE FEDERATIONS, TO ANARCHIST GROUPS ALL OVER THE WORLD, TO NEWSPAPERS OF THE MOVEMENT, TO LIBERTARIAN RADIOSTATIONS.

Dear comrades,

At the beginning of november 1986, the 4th congress of the "Internationale des fédérations anarchistes" will be held in France. This congress set by the European sections of the IFA will be an "opened one" for all anarchists in the world who recognize the need of organization. The success of this attempt depends of ourselves and it's no longer worth to explain the necessity of strengthening international links and contacts between anarchists.

Since the foundation congress (Carrara 1968) and after the following (Paris 1971 and again Carrara 1978), the IFA remained steady in growing but the development of libertarian activities all over the world was important: international gatherings, hundred activities in publishing, archives, newspapers and radiostations, involv (even weak) in social struggles, alternative cultures.

Some of this purpose - selting off our heritage, avoiding scattering - will have to be achieved by our next congress.

The French comrades are in charge of planning and organising this conference. All our federations and groups are kindly invited by the CRIFA to discuss the program in order that the delegates may really be representatives.

The temporary session is:

1) Checking mandates;
2) Memberships;
3) Planning committees to discuss the issues;
4) Links with the press;
5) Studying the international situation and the libertarian movement (on the CRIFA report);
6) The IFA position dealing with the great issues of today: wars of national liberation, colonization and blocks policy;
7) Labour struggles, unionism, A.I.T.;
8) CRIFA Bulletin and means of expression of the IFA
9) Resignation and appointment for a new secretary.

See you later.

GIORGIA SACCHETTI (IFA-secretary)

P.S. Please send all letters to: Giorgio Sacchetti, via Andrea Doria no 12, 52100 - Arezzo (Italy)

For any contribution to the bulletin, please write to: Rédaction Bulletin CRIFA, chez Librairie Publico, 145 rue Amelot, 75011 Paris (France)

***

The proposals from the IV Nordic IFA-congress in Oslo were sent to both addresses.


III. Antimilitarism - an anarchist approach revisited

Resolution from the AI-secretariate (WSC-IFA) 10.06.2008
Proposal to the the International Anarchist Congress - the 10th Anarchist Biennial 29-30.11.2008.
Resolution unanimously decided upon by the The International Anarchist Congress - The 10th Anarchist Biennial 29-30.11.2008. Updated.

IJA ISSN 0800-0220 2(38) 2008

An overoptimistic, unrealistic view of human beings as always good, cannot be the basis for a working anarchy. The Anarchist International is not pessimistic about human nature, but realistic. If you don't have an anarchist antimilitarist corps (se below) that is so strong that it is not a good option to challenge it violently, disputes will probably often end up in violent conflicts and "right" to the strongest. "Right" to the strongest is no anarchist solution. This is elementary politilogy. The antimilitarist force is so strong that in general (unless special cases, i.e. non-significant) no-one will want to challenge it violently. Thus there will in the general case be no use of force. The antimilitarist corps will in general outbalance any attempt to use violence/force, so force/violence will not be used.

The antimilitarist corps is not above the people - it is a part of the people, horizontally organized. The antimilitarist corps of course is under real, participatory democratic management of the people, as opposed to authority/authoritarian rule. Of course if some of the antimilitarist corps beat up people or otherways act criminally/authoritarian, they will be put for an anarchist court and be punished. There is no state/authority/government involved.

* Anarchist ideal and principles: The aim is more anarchist systems, i.e. a movement towards more human rights and the best of the ideals of the French revolution, fairness and efficiency, less rank and income differences. The word anarchy origins from greek. The prefix an means negation of, as in anaerobe vs aerobe; and arch means superior, i.e. in contrast to subordinates, as in archbishop. Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, etc. are alternatives to, and the opposite of, different forms of superior and subordinate positions, non economic and economically: Political/administrative rank and economic/income hierarchies broadly defined and in real terms, i.e. respectively (1) statism and (2) capitalism (economical plutarchy).

* Thus: Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist a.s.o. mean coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion, ideally or practically.

* The basic (IFA) principles of anarchism are: The negation of authority and all of its power, hierarchies and juridical laws. Freedom, equality, solidarity, social justice, free contract, free initiative, atheism, antimilitarism, internationalism, decentralism, autonomy and federalism, self management and 'comunismo libertario', i.e. not communism, but libertarian communalism - from each according to ability - to each according to needs. These concepts and principles should be considered all in all, not partially. [ NB! In general these principles should be interpreted consistent with the axiomatic principles (1) - (10) defining anarchy and anarchism and other -isms, see link below.]

* Thus: Freedom, i.e. free people, freedom without damaging the freedom of other people. Federalism without autonomy is not anarchist. Social justice means a) anarchist law and court systems, compatible with the negation of hierarchy, etc., i.e. alternatives to authoritarian juridical laws; and b) antimilitarist corps broadly defined, sufficiently strong to keep order and keep up the balances of strength, as well as stop militarism, intra- and internationally. Generally speaking, antimilitarism is not pacifism...

From What anarchists are for....

See What anarchists are for... for the basic axioms (1)-(10) etc.

Furthermore the anarchist law and court systems are horizontally organized, and thus it is not a copy of the State. It is real anarchism, realistic anarchism, i.e. anarchism. Without a significant antimilitarist force that people in general not dare to challenge, there will be endless violent conflicts, the "right" to the strongest, and not anarchism.

Interesting in this connection is Proudhon, see Proudhon's basic ideas especially about mixed economic-political flexible systems, including law/courts and order, that he advocates.

No use of force is needed with a strong antimilitarist corps.

What would its modus operandi be?

Social justice means as mentioned a) anarchist law and court systems, compatible with the negation of hierarchy [authority, state, government}, etc., i.e. alternatives to authoritarian juridical laws; and b) antimilitarist corps broadly defined, sufficiently strong to keep order and keep up the balances of strength, as well as stop militarism, intra- and internationally. Generally speaking, antimilitarism is not pacifism... The antimilitarist corps will have a civil part, anarchist police, that usually is not armed (but can be armed when necessary), and a militia/armed defense for defense of the country. It will not beat up anybody, or threat to do so.

1. Authoritarians notoriously mix up anarchy, anarchist and anarchism with authoritarian tendencies: Chaos, disorder, mob rule*, lawlessness, the law of the jungle, criminality, riots, theft, corruption, drugs, mafia, terrorism, autocratic rule, the right to the strongest, antisocial tyrannic behavior, etc. i.e. different types of superiors and subordinates.

2. The word anarchy origins from greek. The prefix "an" means "negation of" as in anaerobe versus aerobe and "arch" means "superior, i.e. in contrast to subordinates", as in archbishop, archangel, archduke, arch villain, etc. Thus anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, a.s.o., mean coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion, significant. This is the opposite of the above mentioned authoritarian tendencies, i.e. different types of superiors and subordinates.

*) The Greek rooted word for mob rule is ochlarchy. Ochlarchy broadly defined may also be used as a common word for all the authoritarian evils mentioned in part 1. above, i.e. in general lack of security and law and order in a society as a public sector service. This is ochlarchy, the opposite of anarchy, i.e. based on libertarian law and order and security as public sector services, according to the anarchist (IFA) principle of social justice. The ones doing ochlarchy broadly defined are called ochlarchists, i.e. the opposite of anarchists. Sufficient public service of policing is important. Man is not like ants who cooperate socially, naturally and voluntarely without coercion/repression automatically by themselves. Thus, doing away with the existing rule or tendencies of authority may easily result in ochlarchy, mob rule, and not anarchy, if not a firm horizontal social organization, ideally or practically is established with a sufficient police corps to create security and libertarian law and order and to do away with tendencies towards ochlarchy. See Systems theory and search for the keywords "law" and "corps".

Furthermore it must be mentioned that variation in the degree of "flatness" of organizations/federations of different purposes and aims may be optimal, say, a police or defense corps organization/federation may have a somewhat less degree of flatness than a study circle. And the police corps shall of course be well educated in libertarian human rights and policing and be democratically regulated and controlled, and bully types, corrupt and other "brown", ochlarchical elements should be expelled mainly during the education prosess and thus stopped from participating in the police corps. Regarding law and order a combination of private security firms and a horizontally organized public sector with anarchist courts on local, regional and confederal level, it is the best solution. Some law and order services are collective or semicollective and they will most efficiently be handled by a horizontally organized public sector. Competing court services sold for means of payment will be significantly corrupt and not making equality before the law. It will be "law and order" for the relatively rich, they will have it their way, and no real law and order for the relatively poor.

Anarchist laws, according to the IFA principles of social justice and the negation of juridical laws, should be decided by the people, direct democratic or by delegates, and compatible with anarchist principles in general, human rights included, rooted back to natural law . Juridical laws mainly mean decided by authorities, lawyers, the mob, etc., i.e. authoritarian laws. As an example, most of the laws in Norway are non-authoritarian, there are however also some authoritarian laws, because the degree of anarchy is only ca 54%, i.e. significant anarchist, but not ideal. Thus, the law and court system of anarchy is quite similar to other democratic law and court systems, only less authoritarian, and more reflecting human rights (interpreted in an anarchist, non-authoritarian way). The International Anarchist Tribunals of I.F.A./A.I. are a special branch of anarchist law and court systems, see Tribunal.

The general idea is that anarchist laws should be decided from the bottom, the people, and upwards, not from the top downwards. That is law without State in the anarchist meaning. The people decide their own laws when the laws are decided. Thus it is selfmanagement. Of course the minorities rights must be respected in case of anarchist direct democracy, according to anarchist principles. Preferably decisions shold be made by general consent. In case where this is not possible the majority will decide, but they must compensate the minority in different ways to secure their rights. Economic compensation may sometimes be used. In anyway the majority will only be able to offer the minority a free contract, not a slave contract. If you are exposed to a slave contract, you may sue via an anarchist arbitration court. Thus majority dictatorship will be avoided, as well as minority dictatorship, in an anarchist direct, consensus based democracy. For law and order and punishment, see Anarchist Black Cross .

How are libertarian ethics etc developed among people? Via movement of the economic-political system from anarchies of low degree, towards higher, development in education, law and order systems, etc. Libertarian ethics etc do not appear in a vacuum. It must be developed, or else removal of the state, in the meaning of hierarchical public sector, will end up in something like Somalia, i.e. very authoritarian polyarchical ochlarchy, and thus not anarchy.

Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy , economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector.

Briefly defined State in a broad societal meaning is systems with significantly large rank and/or income differences and inefficient, i.e. significantly vertically organized. Anarchies are systems with significantly small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, i.e. significantly horizontally organized.

And thus, anarchy means coordination without government, in the meaning of different forms of vertically organized , i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people, (and thus not without public sector). Coercion is defined in the following way: Coerce, from Latin coercere , to surround, from co = together and arcere = to confine. 1. to confine, restrain by force, to keep from acting by force, to repress. 2. to constrain, to compel, to effect by force, to enforce. Anarchist systems have ideally no coercion, practically, as little as possible coercion, taking into account the anarchist principles in general, human rights interpreted in a libertarian way included. We need to distinguish aggressive coercion from defensive coercion. Say, the least possible coercion to stop an attacking murderer, is defensive coercion, and in general compatible with anarchism.

Militarism means aggresive force, say, to conquer another land, not a defensive corps, an antimiliatarist corps, to stop militarist attacks. Who says there will be a commander and vertical commandlines? - We are talking about a significantly horizontally organized antimilitarist corps - managed by the people really concerned, at least in an anarchy of medium towards high degree of anarchy. To stop a militarist attack, internally from a mafia or externally, from an authoritarian militarist country, an antimilitarist corps is necessary. We don't believe in several competing antimilitarist corps in a society, this means groups against groups, and polyarchical ochlarchy. And we don't think this could be done efficiently by the "free" market. We think a horizontally organized public sector is the way to do it.

Anarchism means as mentioned coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and cooperation without coercion, practically or ideally. To put it simple: Negation de l'autorite et de tout povoir. Thus, the concepts of worker's and people's power are not anarchist concepts. Power, as a social, i.e. economic and/or political/administrative concept, in its true meaning, means domination, power over somebody, the people. The people is here defined as a class, in contrast to the superiors economical and/or political/administrative, i.e. in income/remuneration and/or in rank.

Economic-political power means authoritarian systems, they who have power are superiors in contrast to subordinates; i.e. bureaucracy, oligarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule), polyarchy, economical or political plutarchy, or similar, and not the people. Thus, power to the people is contradictory, and practically speaking impossible. Thus, any group calling for power to the people is a fraud, and represents authoritarian policy . The antimilitarist corps is significantly horizontally organized, not an authoritarian system, and thus are in this sense significantly without power economical and political/administrative. It is not power over the people because it is horizontally organized. This has three dimensions, one is democratic control with the antimilitarist corps, by the people, two a reasonable, significant flat organization within the antimilitarist corps, and three, as much as possible horizontal organization vis-a-vis the public regarding the tasks of the corps. In general along all these three dimensions - administration and coordination practically [toward ideally] without superiors and subordinates, and not ruling and rulers, i.e. significant.

In an anarchy of high degree, but not so close to the anarchist ideal, everybody that is not criminal mafia or declared pacifists, will probably take part in the antimilitarist corps, and it will be horizontally organized without superiors an subordinates, practically, and thus be anarchist. Thus almost all, not a few individuals, are given the right to fight against mafia/criminals, i.e. ochlarchists (ochlarchy = mob rule broadly defined). This antimilitarist corps implement laws that are usually decided by general consent.

And what about those who do not want to be part of your antimilitarist corps? They can do what they want. The minority will in general not have to conform to the rules of the majority. This antimilitarist corps, horizontally organized, will have 1. a civil part, i.e. doing policing - "anarchist police", and 2. a part for defense of the country, militia. It is not an ordinery police force that we know from today's state-police, it is organized by the people directly concerned, anarchist. The antimilitarist corps is not an elected body, above the people, it is organized by the people directly concerned, anarchist.

Would not your antimilitarist corps  include prisons and courtrooms, and thus be the same dynamic as government? No, not in an anarchy of high degree - no prisons - there will however be anarchist courts, with juries, as Benjamin Tucker, the individualist anarchist suggested, see Tucker's basic ideas. No courts means lawlessness, and rivaling polyarchy, the right to the strongest, and ochlarchy. Thus, opposition to anarchist courts is not anarchist, but utopian dreams, not anarchist, with respect to law and order. The antimilitarist corps is the best and most anarchist way to get protection from ochlarchists, and foreign militarists. It is not minarchism, and not state/government/authority, it is created by the people themselves, for themselves, in a horizontal anarchist way.

A little about anarchies of low degree and antimilitarist corps: In anarchies of low degree, as Norway with ca 54% degree of anarchy, Switzerland with ca 53% and Iceland with ca 52% anarchy degree in 2008, there are somewhat different antimilitarist corps. Iceland and Norway are members of NATO, Iceland has a coast guard, but  very little regular armed corps, and no conscription. Norway and Switzerland have conscription, Norway has a regular armed corps, and a militia like home defense, Heimevernet 1), and a special corps, FSK, with direct action on the program and a relatively horizontally organized structure, see Dugnad and search for FSK for more information. Switzerland has a strong militia, with no upper general in peace time 2).

In general, anarchies of low degree, from 50%-60% anarchy degree, have an authoritarian degree of 40% to 50%, but still they are anarchies because systems with = or > 50% anarchy degree are significantly anarchist, i.e. anarchism. In Norway about 90% mean an armed defense is necessary, and about 70% mean NATO-membership is necessary for the defense. Only about 10% mean the NATO-membership makes Norway more insecure, see People and defense. For more information about direct action and defense, see Direct action defined. More information of the Norwegian antimilitarist defense corps, see Anarkidebatt, search for forsvaret av anarkiet.

Thus an antimilitarist policy based on mutual disarmament and balance of strength, via alliances (NATO), has very wide support, and is thus not imposed from an authority/government/state/arch, but is a form of selfregulation by the people really concerned, as opposed to the superiors political/administrative and/or economically. This policy is decided by the people themselves, significantly voluntarely accepted. The small minority that is opposed to this policy is the marxist-leninist Rødt (Red), and the Socialist Left marxist party (SV) and groups with similar opinions, including a few pacifists. The AFIN has since the founding in 1977 been positive to NATO-membership for Norway, together with a vast majority of the Norwegian people. AFIN has however been very critical to some of NATO's actions, say, cooperation with ultra-authoritarian fascist states.

For anarchy of low degree, with authoritarian neighbor countries, AFIN's position is similar to 1. Kropotkin and several other prominent anarchists in the famous "Manifesto of the 16", that supported the allies in the First World War, and 2. Spanish anarchists from the CNT-FAI militia that fought against the nazis in the north of Norway in the Second World War (see IJA 2(35) p 402. However AFIN and AI in general mean, for an anarchy of medium to high degree and without very authoritarian neighbor-states, NATO is not necessary, and the membership should be dropped. We are however not there today.

Usually conscription and an almost police monopoly on violence are among the authoritarian tendencies making up the 40% to 50% authoritarian degree of the anarchies of low degree. However violence in self defense from the people is allowed in Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, so the police has not 100% monopoly on violence. 36% of the Norwegian people in private sector have guns (2006) for hunting, sport and legal self defense. Most members of AFIN are among these 36%. There is a significant popular organization called Natteravnene in Norway, that keeps peace in the cities by non-violent means. By the way, conscription in Norway, with civil service for the pacifists, is supported by almost 100% of the population , so it is a form of selfregulation by the people , not something imposed from above/authority, and significantly voluntarely accepted. The anarchists, AFIN and AI in general do not support conscription for an anarchy of medium to high degree. But say in Norway, a big country with few inhabitants, and an anarchy of low degree ca 54%, conscription is necessary in the present strategic situation, although it is a part of the ca 46% authoritarian tendency. In the present situation the NAC and the Anarchist International, AI/IFA, are against in practice a totalitarian pacifism. See the article by Fedération anarchiste scandinavie [The Northern Anarchist Confederation, NAC]: Non au pacifisme totalitaire! in Le Monde Libertaire, no 557 p 9.

The AI and the AIE  have always, and still are, supporters of NATO-membership of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, etc., but at the same time have been against NATO and USA's support to fascist regimes as historically in Turkey, Greece, and Spain (Franco). The NATO and USA's support to Saakashvili's totalitarian right fascist regime in Georgia, with about 71,2% authoritarian degree, is a disgrace and must stop immediately. We declare no membership in NATO for Saakashvili's fascist regime in Georgia. The totalitarian left fascist regime in Ukraine, with about 68,3 % authoritarian degree, is also too authoritarian for NATO membership. NATO should have no totalitarian regimes as members, i.e. with more than 66,7 % authoritarian degree. The only violence accepted by anarchists is violence, proportionate, in self defense. Anarchism is neither pacifism, nor terrorism. The Anarchist International and the International Anarchist Congress adopt the International Conference on Terrorism, ICOT's resolutions as a part of the antimilitarist program, see Antiterrorism. The Anarchist International, AI/IFA, also has a security organization, The Anarchist International Security Council (AISC), [see footnote *****) at the AI & AISC webpage].

The above reasoning is for a a society with low to medium degree of anarchy, with people as we see it today, and authoritarian states in the neighborhood. In a world of anarchies of a very high degree, where everybody have changed and devoloped to peaceful anarchists, the antimilitarist corps can be reduced to a minimum, ideally zero, i.e. the anarchist ideal with 100% degree of anarchy. That is our aim. This also means to do away with alliances as NATO, etc. This is also the principal standpoint of AFIN & NAC-ANORG a.o.t. decided on the the first IFA-congress in Oslo 1982 and later confirmed on all later congresses of NAC and AI-IFA-IAF. Thus the southern IFA-IAF's postulate that The Anarchist Federation of Norway (AFIN) is supporting NATO [for an anarchy of medium to high degree] is false. AFIN's (and NAC's and AI's) position, that we do not support NATO for an anarchy of medium to high degree, was clearly explained to the southern IFA-federations by a delegate from the IFA-secretariate in Oslo at a meeting with CRIFA/FAF/UAB, related to the FAF-congress in Paris 1985. FAF is the French Anarchist Federation. This misinterpretation of AFIN's and AI-IFA-IAF's position should be stopped.

As indicated above, The Anarchist International (AI) and the International Anarchist Tribunal (IAT) have declared:

1. Authoritarians notoriously mix up anarchy, anarchist and anarchism with authoritarian tendencies: Chaos, disorder, mob rule*, lawlessness, the law of the jungle, criminality, riots, theft, corruption, drugs, mafia, terrorism, autocratic rule, the right to the strongest, antisocial tyrannic behavior, etc. i.e. different types of superiors and subordinates.

*) The Greek rooted word for mob rule is ochlarchy. Ochlarchy broadly defined may also be used as a common word for all the authoritarian evils mentioned in part 1., i.e. in general lack of security and law and order in a society as a public sector service. This is ochlarchy, the opposite of anarchy, i.e. based on libertarian law and order and security as public sector services, according to the anarchist (IFA) principle of social justice. The ones doing ochlarchy broadly defined are called ochlarchists, i.e. the opposite of anarchists. Etc. in 1. means arson, vandalism, criminal occupations, and similar, it is not open ended, but covers real ochlarchical acts, mob rule broadly defined, clearly, objectively and significantly different types of superiors and subordinates. Where there are no precisations on www.anarchy.no we usually use Webster's dictionary.

Most of these ochlarchical, authoritarian, tendencies are crimes. They are also tendencies of subordinates and superiors, authoritarian tendencies, and they should be stopped, not suppressed. Suppression means to subordinate the ochlarchists, that is not our way, but they should be stopped so the society is horizontally organized. Most of these ochlarchical tendencies will be met with direct action and laws and courts in an anarchist society. Direct action without law and courts will easily end up in mob rule broadly defined, ochlarchy, and not court security and real law and order. For more information on ochlarchy vs anarchy etc. see "Anarchists against ochlarchy (mob rule) and ochlarchist infiltration", click on IJA 1(33) and "Anarchy vs ochlarchy (mob rule) and anarchists vs ochlarchists" click on IJA 1(36) . For more information about the ochlarchical tendencies and anarchy vs chaos, see the Oslo Convention and search for anarchy vs chaos at Anarkidebatt. Examples of anarchist law and order, in anarchies of low degree, are found in the anarchies of Norway and Switzerland (2008), but they are not ideal from anarchist point of view.

2. In an anarchy of high degree, when people are educated in a libertarian way, probably relatively few laws are necessary. AI has signed up to a libertarian interpretation of the UN human rights, see libertarian rights and some internal rules of AI, see IAT-APT mandate . None of these are authoritarian. For an anarchy of high degree probably few more laws are necessary. For anarchy of low degree the anarchies of Norway and Switzerland are examples regarding law and order.

3. We don't think a basically lawless society, say as in Somalia, is anarchist. Anarchy is not lawlessness. But we are for as few as possible laws, see 2.

To stop theft has nothing to do with creating a State. AI will try to stop theft within the framework of horizontal organization, not a State, see 2. It is in general better ways to achieve, say, a relatively low gini-index - significantly flat income distribution - than coercion. However some redistribution of profit from theft/robbery, back to the robbed, is within the framework of horizontal organization. We guess a little coercion is needed to take the stolen money (or labor notes) from the robbers/ochlarchs/economical plutarchs back to the lawful, real, possessors. This may be done via industrial action, via non-criminal occupations as cooperatives in Argentina, that became legal after an expropriation bill was passed, see IJA 6(31), or via social subscription decided by the lawful real possessors (directly democratic or via delegates), via law and courts, etc. We suppose this will be done in an orderly way within some framework of laws, so it is libertarian legal, see 2, and thus does not end up in ochlarchy.
---
1) The Norwegian militia Heimevernet gives professional teaching in IED, Improvised Explosive Device(s), such as Molotov coctails and ANFO, i.e. ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, a.k.a "fertiliser bomb". ANFO is a very insensitive high explosive. To detonate ANFO a blasting cap (made of a primary) and a booster of an easier to detonate secondary are necessary. The Norwegian armed defense, Forsvaret, also gives professional teaching in C-IED, Countering Improvised Explosive Devices. Many members of AFIN are or have been members of Heimevernet and have thus professional knowledge of IED and C-IED. As, say, neonazis in Norway have used IED,  and muslim extremists have threatened with IED -- for terrorist purpose -- this knowledge is valuable, not only related to the armed defense.

It must be mentioned that ANFO is by far the most widely used explosive in coal mining, quarrying, metal mining, and civil construction, say, it accounts for an estimated 80% of the about 6,000,000,000 pounds of explosives used annually in North America, and has as such and in itself no close connection to armed defense, not to say terrorism and ochlarchy in general. Well known books on IED etc. are a) "The Anarchist Cookbook" a.k.a. "AC", by William Powell, b) "Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook", by the American anticapitalist ochlarchy group CrimethInc (i.e. marxists - not anarchists, but sometimes sailing under false anarchist flag when acting criminal to discredit the anarchist movement), and c) "Anarchist Arsenal: Improvised Incendiary And Explosives Techniques" and "Advanced Anarchist Arsenal: Recipes For Improvised Incendiaries And Explosives", both books by  David Harber.

In this connection the Anarchist International Security Council (AISC) however has declared that: "These books have - despite the titles, i) no connection to the anarchist movement, the term 'anarchist' is probably just used to sell more books, ii) the authors are not anarchists, iii) the books are not derived from anarchist practice, and iv) most of the recipes in them are notoriously unreliable, and if used there is a big risk of blowing up the user - and not the enemy, v) thus, although they may give som general knowledge of IED etc, these books are in general not recommended. Anyway, these, and similar -- and better books -- on IED and guerilla warfare etc., are only for use in pure self defense, not for terrorism or other ochlarchy (mob rule broadly defined). The only violence anarchists accept is defensive violence, proportionate, in self defense, see, say, direct action. We recommend professional learning of IED, say, as members of Heimevernet and similar armed corps in other countries, for anarchists interested in armed defense, IED and C-IED, not such books, and; NB! Warning: IED is not kid stuff, and not innocent fireworks!"

2) In the special case an anarchy at war, the system will still be based on relatively small rank and income differences and efficiency, but not so flat an organization as in peace time. There will be one upper general in an anarchy at war, etc., to do efficient war. The antimilitarist corps and defense-organization in general for an anarchy at war may be somewhat like George Orwell's description of the anarchist militia related to Spain 1936-39, in the book Homage to Catalonia, but with a sufficient air force, naval forces, rockets, drones, etc, and with allies. A key-concept in this connection is 'coordination without repression', within the antimilitarist corps. The antimilitarist corps and defense-organization in general, and the decision to wage war in self defense, will be based on general consent or a vast majority of the people, etc., and thus be within the framework of real democracy, anarchistic and anarchy - anarki.


Back to homepage