Anarchist Discussion Forums

Thermonuclear weapons.

This is often the nightmare scenario slated against anarchists by the right-wing. If you have an anarchy land then group X (Chinese, Islam, North Korea, Russkies etc.) will invade and you will be worse off, so appreciate the tyranny you live under.

The problem is anarchy land is unconquerable, there is no local government to hijack and use to subjugate the people. There would have to be a military presence everywhere that is ultimately open to attack by guerrilla militias and what do they have to gain, little to nothing.

Basic distribution of resources. As in, the most important progress to make is enough basic needs are fulfilled for the population. Because of the vast number of people on the planet, rather than a group of rulers (elected or not) over the ruled, we have communities of people taking it upon themselves to raise their living standard and make their lives more comfortable. I believe this can only be done by a refocusing of technological progression. We need to work more on agriculture, make it more efficient and local. For example, the building of large buildings that serve as farms run by hydroponic growing systems. I believe Tokyo produces a good bit of it's food inside the city limits. The advancement of wind and solar technologies are most important (forgot tidal and ... depending on the area, geothermal) because the sun won't stop shining for billions of years, wind is self explanatory. We need to make the means of collecting this energy more efficient.

What is there to compete for after that? Any tyrants that rise up would be marginalized in local communities where they can be dealt with swiftly and not rise the hierarchy of Nation unknowingly like has happened throughout history.

But, yeah, I believe for war to stop communities of people who wish to associate together must work towards fulfilling the basic needs of the community's population. Then we can worry about more trivial things such as having several children :wink: .

[quote="ENorton"](I'm not sure if this should go under questions, theory, or criticism. However, it is critical, so I'm putting it here.)

Suppose there are two groups, A and B, of which at least B is an anarchist collective of some sort. A is poised to attempt to conquer and subjugate B. B is powerful enough by itself to resist this attempt. However, B is divided into two factions, B0 and B1, both of which can be separately conquered by A. B0 has the will to resist A, but B1 does not. B0 is itself at least physically able to forcibly subjugate B1 and compel it to resist A.

I cannot tell by looking at the FAQ whether for B0 to compel B1's assistance in this way is impermissible under anarchism, but it seems like it would be. In the opinion of forum members, is it?

Assuming such coercion is impermissible, I submit that anarchism is not secure, barring (in my view) heroic assumptions about either human nature or the ability of committed anarchist guerrillas to resist superior military might. That is, either:

i. B1 will almost certainly be persuaded to join B0 to resist A.
ii. B1 will be conquered by A, but in spite of A's now even greater power, B0 will still be able to resist conquest.

What are member's thoughts on this?[/quote]

Look, just because it is an anarchy, doesnt mean that all of a sudden douche bag psychophants hell bent on a global fascist oligharchy suddenly vanish into thin air. What it does mean is that you should be on somewhat more of an equal playing field.

Id like to know how to prevent conquest period.

So everyone must live on the breadline cos anything more is uneccessary?

Profit - the money leftover after all necessary expenses are paid from the income you gained.

Well the profits they make are due to state granted privilege in the countries they sell in, otherwise there products would be much lower in price. The drop in profits would mean that such cost cutting excecises that in the long term are inefficient (such as workers not being treated as assets and needing to hire more people to cover the problems that stem from this) would play a significant role in building up production costs which the exchange value of the product would be much closer to.


What is your definition of profit?
I believe in cost-price economics which does allow for what some would call profit since [i]subjective disutility of labour[/i] allows some time preference so isnt a product of exploitation, what we have today involves state backed oligarchies which involve coercion so are exploitative though the market system isnt in itself.

I'm arguing against the pursuit of profit, which is the basic capitalist goal.

Just because they dont recognise it doesnt mean it isnt there. The fact they have to then pay armed gaurds to monitor the workers who will then do the absolute minimum they can get away with suggests it would be more efficient to have more worker empowerment. Its short term cost saving but long term it isnt because workers are an asset which is why they need a states to help them.

What your attacking is the product of mercantilisism and i agree with this.

Worker dissatisfaction isn't even acknowledged in the EPZs dude. The gate guards carry revolvers. And the contractors have shown completely no empathy towards the worker's situation. Why do you think these jobs were all out-sourced (more jobs continue to be) out the States anyway?

EDIT: I also want to throw some numbers your way involving the number of people "employed" in the EPZs. Employment in these zones have skyrocketed. In 1986, the Philippines had only 23,000 workers in these zones, then in increased to 229,000 in 1994, and a few years ago, when Ms. Klein was writing this book, almost half a million people (459,000) were employed in 52 EPZs.

Even that isn't shit compared to China. "The largest zone economy is China, where by conservative estimates there are 18,000,000 people [working] in 124 EPZs." (No Logo p.205)

"In total, the International Labor Organization says that there are at least 850 EPZs in the world, but that number is likely much closer to 1,000, spread through 70 countries and employing roughly 27,000,000 workers. The WTO estimates that between $200 and $250 billion worth of trade flows through the zones." (No Logo p.205)

Another example of the outrageous growth of these zones, "... the free trade factories along the U.S. - Mexico border - in Spanish, [i]maquiladoras[/i] (from [i]maquillar[/i], "to make up, or assemble") - are probably the only structures that proliferate as quickly as Wal-mart outlets: there were 789 maquiladoras in 1985. In 1995, there were 2,747. By 1997, there were 3,508 employing about 900,000 workers." (No Logos p.205)

My point is that worker dissatisfaction with their job in these EPZ's, like I said, isn't a thing. You either work or you starve, quite literally. I don't think I need to give examples of the workers dormitories which are horrible. It obviously doesn't keep them from not working there. (end EDIT)

Not only that, corporations are moving towards a "temp worker" trend. Which means that although these workers might have grievances, it doesn't matter, they're temps and can be changed like light bulbs. They don't have the rights or benefits that "perms" do.

Labor-Force Profiles in the U.S., Canada and the U.K., 1997

51.9% of total working age adults (U.S.) are unemployed, self-employed, temp or part-time workers.

64.8% in Canada

61.3% in the U.K.

(No Logo p.273 Table 11.6)

I will agree though that these corporations wouldn't be nearly as powerful without the puppet State. But the fact is, these companies are very powerful and brutally efficient (in cost-savings).

I do understand what your saying crust but ive studied business and one of the first things i learned is worker dissatisfaction is a big cost to a firm in the long run, i mean every management fad is about giving more power to workers over their workplace cos the capitalists struggle to get any work out of them, this is why i believe a free (and i mean free) market would burn of this type of hierarchical firm.

I learned this before becoming an anarchist, it was one of the things that influenced that move. Combine that sort of organisation structure with free market economics and anti-statism and you get whatever version of left libertarianism that i just call "market anarchist".



Your also right its unsustainable which is another reason its innefficient in my opinion.

1. AK-47 is cheap,reliable,easy to manufacture,maintain & use.
2. RPG will be used, also they are low-tech and can be manufactured.
3. Self-made hand granades,nail & pipe bombs.
4. Molotov-cocktails & other incendiary.
5. Anti-aircraft defence could be a bit tricky though...

Wal-mart has greater economic power than the nation of Denmark.

I believe efficiency is situational. In this society, if a company makes large profits then it is efficient (at least for it's large share-holders).

[Im not sure what your saying.
I wasn't saying they are efficient but wont be in an anarchist society im saying the state insulates them from their own inefficiency. For example the not owning the production just the brand would spell disaster for them when intellectual property rights are removed. I guess its a similar point but i dont think having to rely on the state is a sign of efficiency.

[color=#800000]Also if people on here believe capitalism to be the most efficient system how do we defeat it without resorting to mass violence and coercion?][/color]

Easy, from examples that already exist. imagine if everyone who instead of using banks took their money and joined a credit union..or instead of shopping at a chain grocery store supported their own local food co-op etc..etc.. sometimes change needs to be subtle.

What makes an anarchist is his willingness to fight.

An anarchist soceity could field itself all at once. No one would say "no i don't want to fight."

Not if they had something to defend anyway. Otherwise they aren't very good revolutionarys.

Every man and woman has a ak47. And maybe we can setup some kind of air defence. Maybe just have a nuclear threat to prevent conquest.

[u]They would have to wipe us out to get our land.[/u] Maybe they could do that. Then again why would someone want to just constantly bomb a peaceful nation? Or even why would they want to commit such a massacre. I guess the state says massacres are ok maybe. But that's a bit extreme for the nice people of today.