Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 12:29:56 -0500
From: roger <pelecat-AT-bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: The Anarchist Attitude To War




Dave Coull wrote:

> Brian sent a message saying "arm the Kosovars" .
> I accidentally deleted it, but I can remember the gist.
>
>

<snip>

> And would this arming be instead of using bombs and Cruise
> missiles ? No, apparently not. Brian still wants B52s and Cruise
> missiles. He would just like them to be better aimed. Well ,
> I'm sure there is nobody in the top brass of NATO who would
> disagree with that. By asking for the use of such weapons,
> Brian is supporting the existence of NATO, and the existence
> of the governments which make up NATO.
>

interesting leap in logic.  you state your position more clearly in the
final paragraph, Dave, but i think that you've asserted a conclusion
that is not supported by any of your stated premises.

> Brian is not the first person to get sucked into supporting
> the state war machine for what appeared (at the time)
> to be good, humanitarian motives. Even anarchists can
> make that mistake. But , of course , in doing so, they
> abandon anarchism. The most famous example
> is Kropotkin, who supported the First World War
> on humanitarian grounds. It was a mistake for
> Kropotkin to abandon anarchist principles then,
> and it's a mistake now.
>

well, as i said before i basically agree with you that what nato is
doing in attacking serbia is counterproductive to the task of achieving
any relief for the kosovars (which i think we both would agree would be
a good thing) and is in fact a cynical and brutal farce.  but, when have
i ever let the fact that i agree with someone keep me from getting into
an argument?!

if i understand your position, it is that to call for or support the use
of state military forces is to automatically abandon anarchism (because
by definition anarchists don't support the use of state force) and to
give tacit approval and support to the underlying state structure that
coordinates and controls theses military forces.  you state it more
clearly at the end of your post:

<snip>

>  But anarchists do not ask
> state war machines to do things. The  _only_
> anarchist thing to say to a state war machine
> is "STOP" .
>
> Dave


states are bad, Dave, we all know that.  armies are bad, too.  armies
kill people and that's real bad.  but not all states and armies are as
bad as others.  perhaps from the purity of your perch atop mount anarchy
you can see no difference between one evil and another, but the world is
full of nasty little compromises that militate against such convenient
and no doubt useful generalizations.  if the allied army could have
acted earlier in wwII to stop the Holocaust then that would have been a
very very very good thing.  fuck anarchist theory.

if nato would act to stop what is happening to the 1.8 MILLION (sorry
for shouting) kosovars and help save them from their fate, then i for
one would support (whatever the fuck that means) it.  but like you, i'm
not planning a vacation to get personally involved so *support* is a
tricky thing to pin down.

it is fascinating to watch everyone scurry for theoretical cover on this
one.  not you, Dave.  your position has been consistent (if in my
opinion simplistic), but i've heard the most bullshit coming from
supposed anarchists . . . one line goes that nato should stay out
because it is a *civil* war.  since when have anarchists been concerned
about international borders?  i thought that our position was that there
was no serbia or kosovo or scotland; only serbs, kosovars, and scots?
and even such fuzzy social constructs as being a *scot*, for example, is
only relevant if the individual *chooses* without coercion to
participate in the society of *scots*.  in that sense anarchy is the
ultimate reductionist theory, but i digress.

the most sinister argument against nato intervention is one you alluded
to, Dave, when you brought up the kurds and their sad plight.  others
have pointed out that nato did fuck all in cambodia or rwanda, but
whether you stress current inactivity or past failure to stop these
disasters, i fail to see the point.  because we failed to act somewhere
else is, surely, a powerful argument TO act in this case.  what am i
missing?  the precedent that might be set?  would it have been a bad
thing, Dave, if the killing fields in cambodia and rwanda had been
prevented by the intervention of military force?  that is exactly what
you are saying if i understand your position.

on a more pragmatic level, if a state or it's army acts in some way
beneficial to me or mine, then i'll not get my panties stuck in my butt
crack about it.  if the hated, evil armed forces of the evil state of
guatamala was helpful in assisting disaster relief during the recent
hurricane there, then so be it.  was it bad, Dave, that the roman
legions built all those roads and aquaducts.  after all, Dave, what has
the bloody roman empire ever done for us, heh . . .

roger