How does an anarchist society prevent conquest?

[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?

[Noleaders]

Well first of all an anarchist community would have no capabilities to attack so there would be little incentive to attack it. War is incredibly expensive and even small guerilla groups can put up a good defense if committed. Think about how much it cost America to invade iraq and how long it took, unless they had some really valuable comodity like oil i cant see why anyone would want to attack.
If they were attacked then whatever the town used as police would also take the role of an army in this case.
Attacking an anarchist community is something no one has ever done so they would have an advantage in tactics an anarchist community would have no centralised state to take over so the invaders would instead be forced to fight against an army they had no training on how to defeat and no objective to take over.
Since ww2 the world is very anti-imperialist so the anarchists could easily get sympathy from other countries who would also see the invading state as a threat to themselves.

I found a good article on this a while ago actually. http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=330

[ENorton]

I was assuming here that group A was conducting a colonial or imperialist invasion, not a defensive one. In other words, A plans to plunder B's property and natural resources, and tax her members. Of course, A would put out that her invasion was defensive, or whatever story was likely to assist her aims.

Apart from your point about anti-imperialist sentiments, I take it you are asserting that which I called point (ii)? The points about the lack of a centralized state to conquer (which Preston disputes, FWIW), the effectiveness of guerrillas, or the conquering army's lack of knowledge of how to fight an anarchist opponent are reasons why anarchist "states", as compared with other sorts of states, are especially difficult to take over.

As far as anti-imperialist sentiment: While it certainly is no boon to the invader, I see no reason why A cannot manufacture consent to the proposition that she is not a despicable imperialist, but something noble and honorable. Indeed, I would think that most anarchists would agree that this has been done and/or is being done.

As far as the difficulty of defeating guerrillas or conquering anarchists: My understanding is that both of these things are quite easy to do, but I'd like to leave this point out for the moment. My main interest right now is to see where the weight of the justification lies, not if it will hold.

[Noleaders]

Yeah i know. I simply pointed out that there would be less incentive to attack without provocation. As for plunder i also pointed out that it is very,very expensive to start a war. Would the other community have much to gain?

Preston disputed the lack of centralised state argument because some use it as there only answer to the question. I just pointed out that it would be a different style of warfare that the allready existing armies are used to. As for guerilla forces being easy to conquer there plenty of instances of states loosing to guerillas. Cuba for example began with about 20 people but took down a regime. Come to think about it every revolution is an example of guerilla warfare working. However in a revolution you have to win whereas in this case you just have to cause the attack to become unprofitable. Take vietnam for instance, not a victory for either side really but still a tiny country caused enough trouble for the world superpower to back off. Think about the middle east now again the world superpower struggling against some poorly equipped lunatics.

Im a market anarchist. The version of law and order i support is lots of privatised defense agencies constantly innovating to keep up with the market. As the market is much more efficient than the state i believe the market anarchists would have lots of small but highly trained, well equipped elite forces. In the event of an attack i imagine they would all have clients under attack so would co-operate since its blatantly the obvious logical choice and the people running the defense would have had to be proffessionals to stay in the market. I reckon that kind of army would definately give the statist one a run for its money. Plus it might not be easy but if they also had a nuclear deterance thats usually a good incentive to stay away.

[ENorton]

Group A stands to gain group B. That is to say, A stands to gain a share of everything that B produces in the form of a tax, all of B's present property, the use of members of B as soldiers (once they are properly subjugated), and so on. If conquering nations was not profitable, why would ruling them be? And yet the state seems to make a pretty firm effort to maintain its power, suggesting that ruling a nation is quite profitable indeed.

You write:

In the event of an attack i imagine they would all have clients under attack so would co-operate.

Are you suggesting that the division between B0 and B1 is irrelevant because both would be under attack? Or what?

I agree that nuclear weapons will keep the conquerors out of your backyard. Unfortunately, they are quite difficult to get. Anyhow, whether you can stop a conquest with an H-bomb not relevant. Perhaps B0 and B1 must both agree to deploy B's nuclear arsenal, and B1 is unwilling. What then? May B0 compel B1's participation? Or will B0 be able to remain unconquered in spite of B1's defection?

[|Y|]

You create a false delimma where one group is, from the start, the dominate group.

Therefore, "B1 will almost certainly be persuaded to join B0 to resist A" is the only rational answer.

[ENorton]

|Y|: I'm afraid I don't understand your reply. Why is it a false dilemma to assume what about which groups?

[Noleaders]

Im not saying if they won it wouldn't be profitable. However when you try to make profits in anyway there are always risks and these are highest when using a warlike option. If it looks like your not going to win your more likely to stop trying. Otherwise you could be subject to economic crisis from spending so much on your war, being open to attack from other countries since your armies are weakened, rebellion from your own citizens who are sick of their family members being sent off to die and the general decline of their society for your gain, the anarchist armies getting more aggressive in response and maybe taking some of your stuff as revenge.
As for nuclear weapons you dont need to actually use them they could be there as a deterrant.
Im assuming they would co-operate its what smart people do when they have a common goal, they wouldn't have to merge together delegated and decentralised organisations are often more efficient.
The problem with your question your assuming is A is more powerful in this scenario which renders the question somewhat meaningless. If B was a state its still likely to loose if its less powerful just like if A was anarchist it would be more likely to win since its more powerful.

There are no guarantees in war so maybe B would be conquered but states are conquered by other states all the time.

[ENorton]

Noleaders: Of course military failure is a possibility. But the fact that you keep emphasizing it suggests to me that you believe that generally the defending state is able to make the risk of failure or pyrrhic victory quite great. In fact, great enough that to attempt an invasion would be irrational. Your citing Cuba, Vietnam, and Iraq in my view confirms this, and I think it's fair to say you are a supporter of point (ii). Do you think this is typical of anarchists?

One has nuclear weapons as a deterrent, but they are not a deterrent if they cannot be fired. Thus in the example where B0 and B1 must cooperate to fire the nuclear weapons, if B1 has defected, the nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. B0 effectively has no nuclear weapons.

To assert that the defense apparatus of B0 and B1 would merge or cooperate if attacked by A is simply to deny my premise. I have said that B1 does not have the will to fight. You say that it does. It's my example, dammit! You may say that it is a good idea for both sets of defenders to cooperate, but if the defenders are independent operators, it is a very good idea for B1's defenders to leave when it is clear that B1 will not attempt a defense. Why should the defenders risk their lives when they will not be paid, will not be supplied or supported by their former employers, and are probably not welcome?

I have not said, remember, that A could conquer B (in which case you would be right that it does not matter whether B is anarchist). What I have said was that B can defend itself from A, but neither B0 nor B1 alone can defend itself from A. If B were an ordinary state, it could compel B1 to join the fight.

[Noleaders]

I sited those 3 examples because they illustrated my point that if weak nations can cause that much difficulty for the greatest imperialist superpower the world has ever seen then a well equipped one could have a chance of actually winning. Besides Cuba was a victory for the guerillas.

Now as for B0 and B1 you've completely misunderstood how market anarchy works. Your treating it as a collective whereas its much more individualist. Rather than B0 and B1 you effectively have B0 - B75000000. In this society some of them have made it their business to defend other people. There motivation for doing so is to make some money and the motivation is to do it effectively is to keep up in the market.

The reason i rejected your example is it isnt applicable to this society. Lets say there's 20 defense organisations across the country. They will all have clients that are under attack so will all think "if i dont go to my clients aid my other clients will switch to a competitor" so will all be there. Since they have no need to fight among each other at the very worst the would not help each other just stay out of each others way.

It actually doesn't matter if "B1" doesnt want to fight since they wont be the ones fighting. It works very similar to how states work now just with more than one state.

As for the nukes do you know that they dont work? Do you want to risk it?

[ENorton]

I would imagine that these mercenaries or groups of mercenaries would work more or less like our army today, in that they get some sort of salary (for mercenaries, effectively a retainer), and if they're in combat they also get hazard pay. If B1 (or B200,000-B400,000, if you prefer) defects, the mercenaries representing them do not get hazard pay, yet for some reason they go into combat anyway. If you're willing to posit soldiers who will risk their lives for your freedom without compensation (or coercion), you can prove that all kinds of societies are stable. However, if you have to assume such soldiers to demonstrate that anarchist societies are stable, I'd say this amounts to saying they aren't. Or rather, that you must accept something like point (ii) to say that they are stable, which you seem to be willing to do anyway.

[Noleaders]

B200,000 - B400,000 wouldn't all have the same defence service. Some of them may decide to defect but there's a good chance all, or at least the majority, of the defence companies would have non-defecting clients that are under attack which is why i believe they would be there earning there hazard pay.

I have a question for you. Imagine one state lets call it C attacks another, we'll call that one D. In D for whatever reason half of them, D1, want the new state. Maybe they have better living standards or more freedom is allowed i dunno. At any rate D0, since its in charge, sends its armies out to fight. The people in D1 decide to take matters into their own hands and go on strike, start protesting etc. The state needs them to work and stop making picket lines and chaining themselves to stuff because it knows how costly the war will be. It will have to use coercion and once you start shooting protesters things usually escalate out of hand. See Greece now for examples. D0 now has to fight a loosing war against the invaders while suppressing its own people and with productivity running dry.

Would you consider this a stable society?

As i said before while i agree things don't look great for B0 i dont think thats a result of anarchy any more than the problems facing D0 are the result of statism.

[ENorton]

Regarding the behavior of defense services under defection: I think we're having issues here because we are not precisely defining the structure of the defense company, so we can't properly analyze how it will respond to the incentives. I don't particularly care to examine in detail 20 hypothetical defense company business models and their associated incentives in relation to this situation. I will say that if you believe in the free market, you believe that you can't get free mercenaries. Exactly how the market decides this is none of my concern.

Regarding the question, you say:

once you start shooting protesters things usually escalate out of hand.

This would seem to imply that if shooting protesters does not usually escalate things out of hand but instead makes them stop protesting and fall in line, then statism is more stable than anarchism. Would you agree to this hypothetical statement, regardless of your position on how effective shooting protesters is?

[Noleaders]

"Regarding the behavior of defense services under defection: I think we're having issues here because we are not precisely defining the structure of the defense company, so we can't properly analyze how it will respond to the incentives.I don't particularly care to examine in detail 20 hypothetical defense company business models and their associated incentives in relation to this situation."

I agree 100%. The whole point of the free market is you cant centrally plan how an economy will work. It seems a bit risky in this situation to say "if there is demand the market will work" but thats been said about every idea thats been put on the market and they've all turned out to work better so an educated guess would be this will be no exception.

"I will say that if you believe in the free market, you believe that you can't get free mercenaries."

yep. Unfortunately there's no such thing as a free lunch.

"Exactly how the market decides this is none of my concern. "

Thats the spirit! The invisible hand will prevail.


"This would seem to imply that if shooting protesters does not usually escalate things out of hand but instead makes them stop protesting and fall in line, then statism is more stable than anarchism. Would you agree to this hypothetical statement, regardless of your position on how effective shooting protesters is?"

Not really. Killing people is a very insufficient way of running things because your culling the people your dependant on. Its suicidal. Will they be working if they've been shot? Will it gain the support of the people? The answer to both is clearly no so if they do fall back in line it will only be temporarily, like until the invaders appear to have more strength.
Also if their a highly centralised state their economy probably wont be working. Take communist countries for example they always resort to allowing a small amount of capitalism in before collapsing completely.
History doesnt favour tyranny. It favours freedom.

[ENorton]

You say:

Will they be working if they've been shot? Will it gain the support of the people? The answer to both is clearly no

I grant the first point, not the second. Why is the idea that people will support (or at least resign themselves to) a government which shoots protesters so clearly false? Please do not tell me at this point "Look at country X." I'm looking for causal explanations, not historical ones.

so if they do fall back in line it will only be temporarily, like until the invaders appear to have more strength.

Here you are assuming in the first place that the terrorized people are not actually terrorized, but simply quietly, rationally biding their time, waiting for an opportunity to strike. In other words, you are assuming that you cannot actually terrorize people into submission. Is this accurate?

In the second place, you are assuming that the government cannot manufacture opinion about the strength and chances of the enemy long enough to ensure that the invaders never appear strong enough to make the oppressed masses think the government can't suppress a rebellion.

In the third place, you're assuming that either a rebellion would enable the oppressed masses to actually become free, rather than just falling into the clutches of the invaders, or that they would prefer to be the subjects of the invaders rather than the present government. Moreover, you're assuming that the government cannot put out persuasive propaganda to the effect that no matter what you think of the them, the invaders are a thousand times worse.

Moving on, I have never assumed that any of the statist countries involved were highly centralized. They could well have large free-market economies, merely subject to a state. You have to make the argument for the efficacy of resistance on the basis of the worst possible assumptions about the enemy. After all, if the invader launches a nuclear missile into his own country, the anarchists can successfully repel him, but I assume you'd like to be secure against more than General Schultz.