Debates on anti-militarism continue to shake the anarchist movement in the western part of the world. Often in these debates we can see some organisations from Ukraine or Russia show support for the ‘no war but class war’ position. Three and a half years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the anarchist movement is extremely divided. Previous strategies of ‘listening to local voices’ have mostly failed for those who were not interested in the first place. With more scandals certain to come in the future, it’s important to understand how we came to this point.
What historical examples are you thinking of? I’m unaware of any historical instance of an anarchic front having a comparable population or budget to the states it fought against and losing. The Zapatistas are still independent, though. Also, while not strictly nonhierarchical, the Taliban quite notably defeated NATO in Afghanistan with a fraction of the resources and population, while lacking all these elements you claim to be essential for military success.
The Taliban did not have a tax office, and yet they won. The Taliban did not have a military-industrial complex, and yet they won. The Taliban did not hold territory, and yet they won. The Taliban did not mass-produce standardized technological gadgets, and yet they won. They have a deeply regressive and oppressive philosophy, but they do prove the power of insurgency. As do many other succesful insurgencies and revolutions.
It seems like when you think of anarchists, you can’t help but think of a group that is hopelessly outnumbered and lacking any control over the means of production. But if we’re talking about the inherent capacity of a philosophy to organize 450 million Europeans to defend against a state subjugating 150 million Russians, that’s not a fair comparison.
This is a valid counterpoint, but one should be aware that the Afghan government was extremely corrupt and inept, quite ready to be bribed and pushed over.