On December 26, we published a text here in solidarity with the education strikes against compulsory military service. Here is another text on the subject of compulsory military service and armed defense. Opinions on this complex issue differ within our syndicate. Nevertheless, we would like to publish this text because we believe that as a libertarian movement, we should be able to tolerate differences of opinion and engage in discourse with the help of solidarity-based criticism. This article reflects the opinion of a part of the syndicate.
If you follow the headlines in Germany, it seems that the world is becoming more dangerous by the day. And for many people in Germany and the so-called “West,” that is probably the case. Because it is not only the climate catastrophe, the erosion of hard-won labor and civil rights, and the increasingly authoritarian behavior of elected governments, including open attacks on representative democracy, that threaten people here. The possibility of open warfare and the hybrid war that is already taking place are also giving rise to discussions that many had hoped they would never have to have again.[1] This also applies to the discussion about the reintroduction of compulsory military service in Germany.
There is probably no need to explain why (physical and psychological) violence is always unacceptable, and whenever violence can be avoided, it is a success for everyone involved. However, there are situations in which violence is used that cannot be prevented or stopped by peaceful means, and in these situations certain forms of violence are necessary — for self-defense and to create a situation in which nonviolent means can be used again.
Given the current geopolitical situation, if military aggression by the Russian Federation (or more precisely by Putin and his inner circle) against another country, as is currently the case in Ukraine [2] , is taking place or at least is not unlikely, the following questions arise: Can and should people defend themselves with force? What exactly do we want to defend? And how do we want to defend it?
Is it acceptable to fight?
The first question can be answered by considering what would happen if one decided not to fight, i.e., to surrender unconditionally. The consequences would not be an end to violence, but a continuation of unilateral violence. The population in the occupied territories in Ukraine is suffering under the enormous repression of the Russian regime. Freedom of expression and assembly are being systematically suppressed. The education sector is being completely brought into line in order to spread state propaganda. Countless people are being deported, and almost 20,000 children have now been sent to re-education camps.[3]And even the killing of unarmed or even bound civilians in rows is not shied away from.[4].
Angesichts der immensen Gewalt die gegen Menschen angewendet wird, welche nicht In view of the immense violence used against people who are not fighting, it is clear that one's own non-violence is no protection against the horrors of war. The only way to escape violence is to flee, but firstly, this is not always possible; secondly, it only works as long as you have somewhere to flee to; and thirdly, it brings its own suffering, starting with the loss of your home and the difficulty of building a new life in a new place.
If you decide to defend yourself and others with weapons, you are once again producing violence. It is not without reason that there is an old left-wing slogan that says, “Workers don't shoot workers!” Because the people you wound or kill are not faceless masses like in movies and games, but human beings who, like everyone else, deserve a long and happy life. And the composition of the Russian army is not homogeneous either. There are those who fully support Putin's warlike, imperialist policies, but there are also those who do not, but who ended up in military service due to economic or other constraints. However, this does not negate the right to self-defense.
If you are attacked by an aggressive person on the street in the evening and you can neither run away nor de-escalate the situation, then you are of course allowed to defend yourself with the necessary means. And this applies regardless of the reasons why the person is attacking you. Whether the person is under the influence of drugs, becomes violent due to mental illness, or is simply a chauvinistic asshole, at the moment of the attack, you cannot change the cause; you can only defend yourself, and this requires a certain amount of physical force. The solutions to the causes of the problems are entirely peaceful: Preventing drug abuse, providing low-threshold and free psychological help, and overcoming patriarchal structures and toxic masculinity all require no violence. But just as these important and correct methods do not protect you at the moment of attack, all efforts to create a generally peaceful and nonviolent world help the population of Ukraine and other attacked countries as long as bombs are falling and troops are invading.
Should we fight?
If violent defense is morally justifiable, the question arises as to whether this also gives rise to a moral obligation. However, the decision to use violence (not to mention whether one is physically capable of doing so) is one that cannot be made for others from above, but one that should be made by each individual themselves. If the decision is then made to defend oneself against an attacker, this is not to be condemned, provided that there is no better alternative.
What to fight for?
However, the outcome of this decision also depends greatly on what is (supposedly) being fought for. If one is to believe the propaganda of the German Armed Forces and the German government, it is about “democracy,” “freedom,” and many other things that sound appealing. But when asked by a young person why he should go to war for a country that does nothing for him, Chancellor Friedrich Merz can only say that things are no better in other countries and that young people in Germany have many opportunities when it comes to choosing a career.[5] In other words: here you have a free choice as to what kind of wage labor you are exploited by, and elsewhere it is even worse. This statement clearly shows why the debate about conscription is being held in the first place. Conscription only becomes necessary when the majority of young people see little or no point in risking their own lives for “freedom” and “democracy.” This generation sees that they are not only threatened by a potential war, but also that the climate catastrophe is destroying their livelihoods, working conditions are deteriorating[6] , and many of the small advances made in recent decades in the area of FLINTA and queer equality are under attack. So what is worth giving your life for? What is worth killing for?
Freedom and democracy are indeed important things that are worth fighting for. But when we look at the state of freedom and democracy in Germany, the situation is far from as rosy as people like Mr. Merz like to claim. After all, how free is a country where 15% of the population is affected by poverty?[7] And how free is a country in which people and organizations that show solidarity are harassed by the so-called Office for the Protection of the Constitution[8] and bullied by banks?[9]Democracy is limited to election day every four years and ends at the entrance to the workplace, where the boss reigns supreme without any input from employees.
So when people call for defense, they are defending the status quo. And thus they are also defending the interests of the rich and powerful. And no one should die or kill for that. But the status quo also includes hard-won rights and freedoms. Despite massive backlash, there has been some progress in areas such as equality and environmental protection. Freedom of assembly and expression in Germany are far from ideal, but the situation is much worse under many despots who expand their empires with military force. And even if we are exploited in a capitalist society and the rights of us workers are often trampled on, the conditions for fighting exploitation are much easier with these rights than without them. So it is also a defense of the lesser evil. This may not be as romantic as the struggle for utopia, but unfortunately it is essential.
We have already recognized this in other areas. We also fight for wage increases and small improvements in our working conditions, even though we are actually working toward the abolition of wage labor—one cannot be achieved without the other. And so it is not a contradiction to fight a war of aggression with force if it improves the conditions for a social revolution.
How to “fight”?
However, there are many different forms that such a struggle can take. Pacifists often cite social defense, i.e., a kind of general strike against the occupying power. This can be an effective means as long as the occupiers adhere to certain rules and human rights. In many cases, however, they do not. In such cases, refusal to cooperate with the military occupation forces will, at best, result in imprisonment, but more likely in execution. Especially if the occupiers have genocidal intentions, a massacre of the civilian population is much more likely than the occupiers giving up. Sabotage, sloppy work, and refusal to work are therefore important tools against occupation, but they are often not enough.
Diplomacy, which is often invoked, is also an important part of resolving military conflicts (in the best case scenario, it finds solutions before violence breaks out). However, diplomacy also depends on all parties to the conflict being willing to engage in it. If (at least) one side consistently refuses to negotiate or only accepts the fulfillment of its maximum demands as an acceptable outcome, all attempts at negotiation are doomed to failure.
Supporting structures that undermine the aggressor's effectiveness is another method of countering a military attack. Deserters should always be supported[10] , as should civil society opposition to the warring regime. At the outbreak of war, however, these structures are usually not strong enough to stop the war on their own, and the faster the regime can score victories on the battlefield, the more difficult it becomes for these organizations.
If the three measures mentioned above are not sufficient, then defense by force becomes inevitable. However, there are various forms that this can take.
Like most armies, the German Armed Forces are extremely hierarchical and authoritarian. Many may believe this is inherent to the nature of war, but history has shown that this does not have to be the case. One example is the Makhnovshchina, an anarchist peasant and partisan movement that was active in Ukraine between 1917 and 1922 during the Russian Civil War. With the goal of self-determination for peasants and workers, it attempted to establish anarchist social structures in large parts of the country. A distinctive feature of the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine, as the military arm of the Makhnovshchina was called, was that it consisted only of volunteers and that the fighters elected their officers from among their own ranks.
So when people campaign for freedom and democracy, the question should be asked: why should the Bundeswehr, which is not democratically organized, be doing this? And why should compulsory military service—the opposite of voluntarism and freedom—be necessary in order to find enough personnel?
Conclusion
So instead of insisting on an idealistic and unrealistic pacifism because it is too difficult to deal with the complex and not always clear reality of war, this cannot be the solution. Nor should we participate in the warmongering arms race. Instead, we should acknowledge the difficulty of the current situation and realize that there are no clean solutions in a shitty world. We should try to promote alternative forms of defense. We should acquire knowledge about forms of social defense, but also about democratically and freely organized combat units. Otherwise, we risk remaining a pawn of the warmongering powers.
[1] In many regions outside Europe, these threats have never gone away. And even in Europe, it was less than 20 years ago that various wars ravaged the Western Balkans following the collapse of the former Yugoslavia. It is a sign of how privileged Western Europe is to have gone so long without experiencing war itself.
[2] The developments that led to the war in Ukraine are, of course, complex, and other countries in Europe, the US, and NATO are certainly not entirely innocent of causing tensions in the region, but the current war is clearly a war of aggression by Russia, and the blame for this lies squarely with the Russian regime.
[3] https://www.srf.ch/news/dialog/kriegsverbrechen-gegen-kinder-was-ukrainische-kinder-in-russischen-umerziehungslagern-erleiden
[4] https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/240415-99-680570/
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwlSDBbNUA
[6] https://www.fau.org/kaempfe-und-kampagnen/wir-muessen-weniger-arbeiten
[7] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2025/01/PD25_036_63.html
[8] https://gegen-berufsverbote.hamburg/
[9] https://debankingstoppen.de/
[10] This applies, of course, to deserters from all sides, as the decision not to fight should be available to everyone.
