I went to an anarchist conference in Kansas a couple of weeks ago. Aside from the tick nest incident, it was an OK weekend, complete with interesting and peculiar events.
Arriving early for another workshop, I stumbled onto the end of one on Copwatch. From what I understand, Copwatch's purpose is, well, to watch cops in case they harm anyone or violate anyone's rights.
At the end of this presumably not pro-police workshop, the facilitator made a point of mentioning that there are some good things the police do. A pretty odd thing for an anarchist to say, as the facilitator herself noted. She only modified the statement by saying that anarchists should take on some of those good things to make the police as an institution unnecessary.
At another workshop, I heard an almost equally unusual statement. Someone said that even in an anarchist society, war might still be necessary under certain circumstances. She gave this as an example: If one community tries to commit genocide, others might have to fight to stop them.
That's one of the neat things about anarchism. There's no delusion that restructuring society will magically solve all of humanity's problems.
The idea is more to provide greater flexibility in finding solutions, and to enable all people to participate in the decisions that affect them.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
There are probably at least a few anarchists who would object to the idea that war could be necessary in an anarchist society. On the other hand, I've read several essays on the subject of how anarchist communities would handle war, so the woman at that conference is certainly not alone.
The point is, even under the best of circumstances, defense is necessary. At least, I think so.
I certainly won't deny that our current system of defense is flawed, to say the least. We live in a society in which police brutality often goes unchecked; the government often uses our military for actions that are at best questionable and the extent of injustices would take an entire column just to list.
But acknowledging these flaws is not a reason to throw out the whole idea of defense. It's a reason to figure out ways to organize defense better.
I outlined some of my ideas on this subject in my April 29 column. To put it briefly: I think that everyone should learn some of the skills necessary for defense, instead of relegating the responsibility to a police and military elite.
That covers the theoretical side. But, as is often the case with me, the political is personal.
I've been working on a science fiction story in which the military plays a fairly prominent role. A friend of mine who was in the army for several years is helping me out by sharing his insights on the mindset of people in the military.
I've found that not only do I not object to what he's taught me, I admire it. In fact, his own motivation in joining the army and staying in it as long as he did is identical to my motivation in engaging in activism: we both want to do something good for the world.
I have another confession that's probably even more shocking. About once a year or so since I was 18, I've seriously considered joining the military.
It's not that I want to defend the country. A country is really far too abstract a concept for me to feel that strongly about. But I have friends and family that I love, and I want to be ready and able to protect them.
I compromise my ideals by going to a state university because it seems to me the best existing means to learn some things I want to learn. Likewise, the military is the best existing means I know of to learn and participate in larger scale and - to some extent - smaller scale defense.
Trouble is, I just can't trust the government not to try to use me for offense.
Fortunately, I don't consider myself to have a monopoly on good ideas. I'm hoping others have some good ideas of their own to share.
by Sari Krosinsky
Daily Lobo columnist
E-mail Sari Krosinsky at michal_kro@hotmail.com.
