Having done a few other posts involving the manner in which I think a thermodynamic approach to extreme cases of justice involving the killing of other species, humans, and the progression from these ideas into the realm of militarism … I thought I’d finish off the sequence with one last post dealing with the purpose of militarism in such a future, and how it is resourced given the lack of a hierarchical executive controller (civilian or military).
PLEASE NOTE: Before I start, I want to categorically state that I’m about the furthest thing you can get from a warmonger, and while (as you’ll see from my other recent articles) I’m not completely averse to the idea of using violence, I think there’s a critical threshold of potential consequences that needs to be crossed before it is even considered as an option … ie: rather than having “all options on the table”, it should be left off the table until you have reason to introduce it, and even then you still have to have a great deal of other circumstances exist before you’d ever pursue it. In which respect I consider myself a pacifist, but I’m not so naive as to think the total elimination of the military is necessarily a good idea.
For example (as detailed in a previous article): there’s everything from peacekeeping, rescue, humanitarian relief, protecting the innocent, and even (if it turns out we’re not the only high tech species, and we get a visit from a nasty one), the desire to defend ourselves and our planet. NONE OF WHICH am I saying is probable, merely potentially possible … and thus its best not to “get caught with our pants down” (so to speak).
So I’ll talk briefly about the following things:
- Does an anarchic military have a commander or commander in chief?
- Is an anarchic military a closed community?
- What is the purpose of an anarchic military?
- … and how does it acquire its resources?
If there’s no nations to fight against per se, no hierarchical rule by elite slavemasters, and everyone is basically happy in life … then there’s not a huge amount for any military to do, except to develop military technology, run training exercises, and (as mentioned) make use of such capacities for rescue, recovery & protection of innocents … but who gives the order?
Well, once again, we’re looking at a scenario where no one gives the order, but a set of principles are applied to the identification of problems, opportunities, and the means to pursue them while causing the least harm & achieving the greatest benefits.
Now, given that every member of a military group is partially responsible for their collective actions, they’re going to want to know they’ve got the best available analysis and interpretation of data, alongside selection of strategies … and over time there’ll be people whom have come not only to specialise in these complex thought processes, but also gaining a reputation for their wisdom in applying their knowledge with caution and insight.
Given the immense capacity for the military to do harm, such wisdom will be of paramount importance to identify and codify … without which, no one would want to be in the military. When they get it right, there’s an immense benefit to the statistics of each team member and to their organisational unit … when they get it wrong, the potential is there to get it so disastrously wrong as to wipe out all past achievements and then some. So, I’ll put my money on extreme caution.
Ultimately without the corrupt influence of corporate interests and the profit motive, at least their agenda can be cleaned up somewhat … and while it might be nice to think if a world that didn’t need a military at all (one day), I doubt we’re going to convince the people whom have been embedded in it for generations that such is the case, therefore it’s a better option anyway, to simply change the motivational basis for military activities and engagement.
Various people will specialise (as they do now) in the things they’re best at, and again the consequences of failure will promote caution … but instead of seeking authority to act, they’ll seek information and advice, before acting as a collective … perhaps using a system combining direct and representative democracy, when the data and advice cannot provide enough certainty to make decisions a no brainer.
So within this community, you’ve got people specialising in the operation of all sorts of complex and dangerous military hardware, so some people will specialise in generating protocols of behaviour and procedure, others will be involved in the training and assessment of people to ensure safety of operation, and others will do the actual operation according to their talent and skill.
However, since a force requiring such huge amounts of resources to move around and to act, is motivated like anyone else to be efficient, as the wasting of resources does not play in their favour … I’m pretty sure they’d quickly come to the conclusion that: seeing as most people are not a threat, as they no longer (in most cases) need to cheat or fight for resources, it makes sense to train them to defend themselves and each other … so rather than being such a closed community as it is today, where much of the enlisted ranks are either brainwashed by religion, nationalism, or some other bullshit, to see themselves and the civilian population as distinctly different … they’d be more open, bringing people on board to train with them in groups.
While we’re on the subject of religion: without tax free status, property & the profit motive to prop it up … I’m reasonably sure the 3 Abrahamic faiths would eventually just slip away into the pages of history … but certainly I think it would be easy enough to prove, that religion within the ranks of an anarchic military, is probably not such a good thing.
Any community could also effectively form its own local militia for neighbourhood defence if it felt such action necessary … but hopefully what we’d see is a reduction in militarism to match the reduction in resource scarcity and suffering.
In these respects, I think the military would finally live up to its propaganda claims that we see in the movies.
Purpose & Activities:
So as mentioned previous, we’re talking about the reassignment of existing military capacity under an anarchic sociopolitical and non-property based economic paradigm … So there’s no territory or annexing of territory, there’s simply peacekeeping, protection, rescue etc.
Also as briefly touched on, I suspect such groups would do a lot of training and teaching of fighting styles etc.
Resource Acquisition & Allocation:
Here’s where it gets interesting … how does a military group gain resources? But the answer is more simple than you might think, as it’s pretty much the same as in all the other pages and posts where I’ve discussed such ideas … the fact they’re military is largely irrelevant.
If the manner in which you acquire / harvest, store, process, utilise and recycle resources is ecologically friendly and sustainable, thus does not lead to harm or scarcity, then it doesn’t really matter who wants it or what it’s for, because there’s no shortage and you’re not going to cause one (or any other negative consequences);
If however the resources you require are scarce, and you don’t produce them yourself, then; the efficiency, sustainability, friendliness, and positive outcomes you achieve by how you use all resources (scare or not), will determine your access to such resources … in addition (of course), to the potential benefits of the intended purpose of the new set of scarce resources for which you’re applying for access in order to use them;
If you don’t win the bid for everything you think you need (because someone or something else can show greater merit), then there isn’t a problem, because:
- The resources are going where they should, so be happy about that;
- You’re not suffering in any way, nor is anyone else on your team;
- If your intended purpose related to real immediate dire consequences that you could prove, you’d probably have won the bid for access, so the odds of any serious consequences are minimal;
- One of the key criteria for resource allocation is the potential for reduction of scarcity, therefore the odds are that if someone beat you to it this time, one of the outcomes of their utilisation will be that next time (or at some other stage down the track), there won’t be a bid required;
- You’ve identified an issue in your supply chain, and the entire system is built to solve such things, so if you’ve got a valid usage and can prove it, even if it’s not critical, so long as it’s significantly beneficial, someone will be motivated to help you solve it.
So where warfare and militarism has typically been propagandistically promoted as heroic, brave, honourable etc., yet failed to live up to such standards (as a result of the corrupting influence of religion, politics and economics) … there’s a reasonable chance that, with a totally different set of motivational foundations for civilisation, it could potentially live up to this rhetoric for a change, and do so consistently rather than rarely.