Ask an Anarchist

[Borachio]

Putting myself in the position of a potential WW1 participant, though, I think I'd find myself in a bit of a dilemma.

Do I share the fate of my peers, including their active participation in killing fellow members of the human species?

Do I refuse to kill anyone, but still participate by picking up the pieces of my peers, and in some way still contributing to the war effort?

Do I conscientiously object, refuse to aid the war effort in any way, and enjoy the castigation of my peers?

Do I go with it up to a point, then desert (or mutiny) and get shot for desertion?

Do I emigrate to a neutral country?

Or just lie low and hope no one notices?

 

[Flying Pig]

Who says it was dressed up in principle? "This is insane" is reason enough to shirk. If they're set on getting themselves killed and him along with it, what duty does he have to cooperate in the whole process? Borachio referenced Catch-22, which is a good example: one of the most aggressively anti-war novels ever written, but makes no claim to high moral principles. The novel ends with the protagonist deserting, but it's given no sheen of principle, just a refusal continuing to participate in a great self-destructive game.

If there's an argument, here, it's that people shouldn't half-arse their shirking: they should shirk good and proper, if not simply mutiny or desert, render themselves entirely non-functional and force the military machine to write them out of the script. If there's a duty to minimise the likelihood of other people blundering into suicide, it only requires that we rid them of the illusion that they can or should rely on us in the first place, not that we have to fulfil their unasked-for expectations.

I think Catch-22 and the like have a pretty warped perspective on what warfare is actually like. Yes, if it was all but certain that you were all going to die then there'd be nothing wrong with deserting, but actually even at the worst moments of the Great War that wasn't true. Combat is something in which individual efforts make a great difference - if a section of ten is making an attack and one of the five giving covering fire decides to give up and hide, he's made everything much more precarious for the five relying on him for protection. If he's on the far end of the line, they've lost a certain degree of awareness which means they can't react to the enemy as quickly. Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of soldiers survived even the Great War, and that the overwhelming majority of any soldier's career was not spent in the combat zone, let alone in actual combat. Most of the time, if you shirked off work it would have been something inconsequential like fatigues, and the only fallout would have been that your mates either had to work harder or would have been punished for your laziness.

I'm not saying that I can't understand why somebody would decide 'this is insane and I didn't choose to be here' and refuse to soldier; I just resent the idea of positively paying them respect rather than just acknowledging that they're an unfortunate by-product of the situation. I've seen a fair few of them in peacetime as well, and they're not particularly noble specimens. Like any job, in the army you find people who are just not particularly good in either sense of the word.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think Catch-22 and the like have a pretty warped perspective on what warfare is actually like. Yes, if it was all but certain that you were all going to die then there'd be nothing wrong with deserting, but actually even at the worst moments of the Great War that wasn't true. Combat is something in which individual efforts make a great difference - if a section of ten is making an attack and one of the five giving covering fire decides to give up and hide, he's made everything much more precarious for the five relying on him for protection. If he's on the far end of the line, they've lost a certain degree of awareness which means they can't react to the enemy as quickly. Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of soldiers survived even the Great War, and that the overwhelming majority of any soldier's career was not spent in the combat zone, let alone in actual combat. Most of the time, if you shirked off work it would have been something inconsequential like fatigues, and the only fallout would have been that your mates either had to work harder or would have been punished for your laziness.

So like I said, it's an issue of committing to your dereliction of duty. Letting people believe that they can rely on you and then deciding otherwise at the last moment, yeah, that's a bit of a dick move, so make it clear from the start that you wouldn't piss on them if they caught fire, and they'll labour under no such illusions.

I'm not saying that I can't understand why somebody would decide 'this is insane and I didn't choose to be here' and refuse to soldier; I just resent the idea of positively paying them respect rather than just acknowledging that they're an unfortunate by-product of the situation.

Because it brings the situation itself into question. This very framing, "an unfortunate by-product of the situation", is itself a slight-of-hand by which the situation appears as necessary and inevitable. By drawing attention to those who chose not to go along with the inevitable, and by presenting them not as simply lacking in courage or a sense of duty, but as making an intelligent, even admirable choice, we bring that inevitability into question.

 

[Flying Pig]

So like I said, it's an issue of committing to your dereliction of duty. Letting people believe that they can rely on you and then deciding otherwise at the last moment, yeah, that's a bit of a dick move, so make it clear from the start that you wouldn't piss on them if they caught fire, and they'll labour under no such illusions.

OK, I'll give you that. It was always my policy when dealing with the interminably troublesome to point out that the army was a job, and if they didn't like it they were welcome to find another. The thing is, though, that even if they took that attitude to the combat zone they'd still be leaving their sections one man down before they even crossed the line. So the only form of acceptable disobedience is to disobey immediately so badly that you get thrown out. Clearly most of the people we've been talking about didn't do that.

Because it brings the situation itself into question. This very framing, "an unfortunate by-product of the situation", is itself a slight-of-hand by which the situation appears as necessary and inevitable. By drawing attention to those who chose not to go along with the inevitable, and by presenting them not as simply lacking in courage or a sense of duty, but as making an intelligent, even admirable choice, we bring that inevitability into question.

The situation was still just as inevitable for everyone else, though, that's what I'm saying. 'Civil disobedience' by individuals didn't change anything except for those immediately around them whom it encumbered and endangered. Intelligent perhaps, but not admirable.

 

[Traitorfish]

OK, I'll give you that. It was always my policy when dealing with the interminably troublesome to point out that the army was a job, and if they didn't like it they were welcome to find another. The thing is, though, that even if they took that attitude to the combat zone they'd still be leaving their sections one man down before they even crossed the line. So the only form of acceptable disobedience is to disobey immediately so badly that you get thrown out. Clearly most of the people we've been talking about didn't do that.

Given the historical context, they may not have had a choice. Britain was running the only volunteer army in Europe in both 1914, which only lasted until 1914, and in 1939 they introduced conscription before the war even started.

The situation was still just as inevitable for everyone else, though, that's what I'm saying. 'Civil disobedience' by individuals didn't change anything except for those immediately around them whom it encumbered and endangered. Intelligent perhaps, but not admirable.

That's where the mutineers, deserters and voluntary POWs come into it. Nothing particularly admirable about shirkers, sure, but I can see something to admire in those who gathered the courage to abandon or, better yet, break the whole made game.

 

[Flying Pig]

Mutineers perhaps, and voluntary POWs in some circumstances, but deserters? Walking away means you're still lost to your comrades, so they have to put in that extra 11% right off the bat.

 

[Traitorfish]

That is unfortunate for them, but I don't believe that other people have the right to compel you towards murder or suicide. If you desert, it can't be claimed that you've given the false impression of reliability.

 

[Takhisis]

No, they don't. Or, at least, they don't have the right to put you in such a situation.

 

[Flying Pig]

That is unfortunate for them, but I don't believe that other people have the right to compel you towards murder or suicide. If you desert, it can't be claimed that you've given the false impression of reliability.

I suppose that's the point of disagreement. I'd say that they don't, but once you're in that position (which isn't murder or suicide, incidentally - you can be entirely useful on a battlefield or behind the lines without killing anyone) then you owe it to the people around you to do as best as you can for them. You'd say, I think, that your right to not be there trumps that obligation?

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think such an obligation exists, or at least not unless you chose to be there. (Even that would also depends on having the free choice to leave.) The proposition that people can force you to join their military adventure, and then claim that this somehow places you in their debt... Well, we're back to "sane responses" on that one.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's not really how I see it - I see it that, however unwillingly, you and nine (and twenty-nine and ninety-nine) other people have been forced to depend on each other. If you desert, you place them in danger. I think your obligation to not put them in danger (which is to them, not to the people who put you there) outweighs your right to desert - at least if you want to be honoured for what you do.

 

[Takhisis]

That's not the same as being forced into the army and out to the front.

 

[Borachio]

That's not really how I see it - I see it that, however unwillingly, you and nine (and twenty-nine and ninety-nine) other people have been forced to depend on each other. If you desert, you place them in danger. I think your obligation to not put them in danger (which is to them, not to the people who put you there) outweighs your right to desert - at least if you want to be honoured for what you do.

It's precisely this mechanism that armies rely on and cannot function without, imo.

Soldiers don't risk their lives for causes which they're only dimly aware of. They risk their lives for each other.

But for me, the irony, and insanity, of any war is that both sides are busy dying, and killing, for the sake of their own comrades. An ostensibly honourable cause, with a dishonourable result.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's not really how I see it - I see it that, however unwillingly, you and nine (and twenty-nine and ninety-nine) other people have been forced to depend on each other. If you desert, you place them in danger. I think your obligation to not put them in danger (which is to them, not to the people who put you there) outweighs your right to desert - at least if you want to be honoured for what you do.

I'm afraid that I can't see how a person is able to coerce you into a such a situation by which you're morally obliged to obey them. It seems perverse on the face of it. It's certainly going to be a tough sell in an "ask an anarchist" thread!

 

[Borachio]

Coincidentally I've just watched this video, and it seems they can do so only too easily.


Link to video.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, I suppose it is perverse. Yet another reason to think 'never again' about mass warfare.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, I suppose it is perverse. Yet another reason to think 'never again' about warfare.

FTFY, Mr. FP.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, this argument certainly doesn't apply when you've signed up to be there! I think even TF would agree that if you sign an agreement to accept food, pay and all sorts of other privileges on the condition that you go and fight, then when you get there you're morally obliged to do as you're told.

 

[Borachio]

An old soldier told me not long ago that if he'd known what he was getting into he'd never have signed up.

I think this is true of all professions, not just the military: it's not till you do the thing that you know what it involves.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, this argument certainly doesn't apply when you've signed up to be there! I think even TF would agree that if you sign an agreement to accept food, pay and all sorts of other privileges on the condition that you go and fight, then when you get there you're morally obliged to do as you're told.

I'm not sure that I do. Volunteering might produce some sort of short-term obligation to your immediate comrades, as you've outlined in this thread, but not to the military or the state. I don't believe that there can be legitimate obligations to illegitimate organisations.