this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

Anarchism

2591 readers
22 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.


Other anarchist comms


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have been reading a book about the history of Israel. One section was about people refusing to serve the army when Israel fought war in Libanon and Gaza because they didn't agree with cruelties the Israel army conducted/ accepted. It made me think about the other way around: What if your country is attacked and people are being called to service by the army, would an anarchist refuse out of principle?

Quite some anarchist reject the idea of a centralized army so an anarchist might refuse out of principle. On the other hand, your country is being attacked. You can argue that accepting service is accepted because it is different from invading another country because you now have to defend your own country.

What are your thoughts on this?

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I guess that would highly depend on how the specific national army is managed. In some cases they allow largely independent brigades to be formed. But in most cases, anarchists would probably opt for a more partisan like defense of the places where they live instead of being send to some far away front as cannon fodder.

[–] Brickardo@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago

If anything, Spanish civil war showed that there's so much partisanship can do against professionalized armies...

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

You probably should be reading about the Spanish civil war instead...

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

For me anarchism not about opposing a particular state (eg. your own state, some enemy state, etc) but about opposing every state and "the state" in general.

From this perspective there's always nuance when one "state attacks another". What are the states? What is their relationship? Why is there conflict? How does this affect me and the planet more generally?

And so someone's behavior could vary greatly depending on the situation. If you're living in nazi germany and your "country" is attacked, don't collaborate with the nazis. On the other hand if you're invaded by nazis, it's probably worthwhile to fight back - perhaps in the military or perhaps not. In many cases both states are terrible and it's a struggle to just survive their violence. I'm using nazis at the typical extreme example but most states are built on similar principles: fascism, xenophobia, patriarchy, colonialism/imperialism, etc. So many conflicts fit into this general framework.

TL;DR: It depends on the situation.

[–] Vincentvd@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I think this is the general conclusion in the topic that it depends on the situation. Maybe at the moment, emotion will also alter your decision at the moment. I suppose I would indeed never accept service to attack another country, only to defend my own country/land.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well, I'm not a committed anarchist but I'm sympathetic and within range of being convinced, as a caveat. But I'll chime in for the sake of conversation.

I think it has mostly to do with what I think would happen if the invader won. Invasions are not usually contemplated by well intentioned states, so on the whole I'd recommend joining the defense. If you're a pacifist you can still help a lot with mutual aid, or by doing war journalism to bring awareness to potential allies.

If I think the current state and the invader are both equally bad, perhaps best to seek a way to exit the situation and prepare for a planned return in greater numbers if and when the smoke clears.