How does an anarchist society prevent conquest?

[Stealth]

Authoritarians do not have a monopoly on violence. Peasants uprisings can and do overthrow authoritarians. Sometimes the poor and oppressed turn the tables on their so called masters. There is no reason to believe that authoritarian control is the natural order of things just because we have examples of authoritarian control. It might be something that occurs in our world, but the decline of that control is also natural. Like the changing seasons authoritarian powers will rise and fall, and we are part of that process. I reject any claims that authoritarian control is the natural order of things by default.

And Anarcho-Capitalism is a really bad joke. Ive been seeing a joke about Anarcho-Monarchism: for kings against kingdoms, and I think its hilarious. We dont need to dwell on that though.

[|Y|]

ENorton, it's simple, they must fight or they lose. There is no guarantee that they will win under your scenario. Maybe they chose not to fight at first but then when they realize their comerades are being pummled, they get into the foray. Who knows. The same could be said of any group.

The premise is that we have to "force" our comerades to defend us / ourselves.

It's absurd because they will if they see it as necessary.

You say we must "coerce them" into "seeing it as necessary."

I don't think that's remotely the case.

Some idiot had the thought experiment: "What if firefighters were putting out fires and part of a town couldn't be saved, what would the firefighters do and wouldn't it be wrong of them to let part of the town burn so they could save the other part of the town without everyone agreeing?"

This is along similar lines.

If you knew shit about fighting fires you'd know that firefighters already pick fires that they can handle.

Likewise anarchists who are threatened by conquest would pick fights that they can handle.

ie, B0 and B1 would rationally join ranks and defeat the enemy.

[Noleaders]

Yes, I mean before the enlightenment. And after it. It is not as if authoritarianism disappeared after Rousseau. I'm not entirely sure whether the Enlightenment was a bunch of brand new ideas, or whether it was the first time they had power on their side.
And I'm even less sure whether the ideas of the Enlightenment weren't just PR for a seizure of power by a new school of tyrants. If you kill the old king and claim his throne, you are the enemy of authoritarians, although only in the most trivial sense.

I agree with a lot that. However i maintain that democratic states are freer than authoritarian states. It was basically a push for a freer state that removed the illusion that only leviathan states could maintain order.
Regarding PR tricks, im not denying they exist but i will question there effectiveness. I mean the state can't centrally plan the economy so how would it be able to effectively plan everything including people's private thoughts? Correct me if im wrong but im fairly sure George Orwell was a state-socialist. Which means he believed the state could centrally plan things very effectively. I disagree that the state has the ability to maintain a visade of freedom while secretly controlling everything since it seems so inept at organising public services. Hence why a lot of states have now privatised most of their economy.
Unless thats all an elaborate scheme between every world leader with all our victories and there blunders perfectly planned out but thats plunging into the depths paranoia and conspiracy now so i dont wanna go into that too much.

The extensive and brutal training of the military is just the most obvious example. We can all look at it, see what it is, and see that it works. Seeing the same process operating by more subtle means with less complete success in everyday life is far more difficult. Hence the value of extreme examples.

Well if it takes such extreme measures to then i'd still say it doesn't work, think of costs. The thing is the same process in more subtle means doesn't have a smaller effectiveness if crime goes up, its actually having a negative effect. Yes the state may be able to counter this a certain, often brutal, extent but since its created it in the first place it seems a little pointless.
Not creating the disorder in the first place seems more efficient in the long term. Again i'll use the public services example, if states cant keep on top of healthcare and have to start marketising stuff then won't they struggle to cope with the cost involved in maintaining a military regime for extended periods of time.

You might also ask yourself how much of the change in public morals is a shift from control to freedom, and how much is a change in that arm of government responsible for inculcating and enforcing public morality. A good example (if you're strong enough to overcome your inculcated reaction) is past vs. present attitudes to racism. I do not mean to defend racism, but to look at it with cynical objectivity: is the change in our attitudes an example of increased freedom of conscience? Or is it an example of the keepers of public morality having a change of policy?

If the state is responsible for the decline in racism its not done a very good job. There's always an emergence of racism in times of crisis.
Conservatives usually want to enforce "family values", whatever they may be. When there in power they try to when there out of power they complain about whose in power not trying to. Either way we still dont have "family values". Success?
Again i will attack the inneffectiveness of central planning.

Regarding the competition: You are quite right that there are few examples of classical authoritarianism in the world today. This was because the big ones were destroyed in war.

Have you answered your own question there?

Also, keep in mind that not every regime is the USSR. For example, prior to WWI, was Wilhelmine Germany particularly notorious for executing scores of its subjects? I actually have no idea.

That maybe so but we're on about states alleged stability because they can terrorize the populace into submission if their society is divided. If they've decided not to kill dissenters then they have the same problem when a divide appears in society.
Besides that doesnt make it a stable or efficient form of government.

But I am aware that I have been taught to think of the USSR or Nazi Germany when I think of authoritarianism, and I have been taught this by the agents of a state which is, at least formally, not authoritarian. I have also been taught to quietly ignore other states throughout history. This could be an accurate look at how different governments work, but it could also be one half of an apology for the status quo.

Look closer to home then. If the state is disguising the facts about authoritarianism in other states why hasn't it bothered to cover up its own authoritarian failures. Surely that would make more sense.

Finally: An anarchist state might be not worth attacking, but would it not be worth expropriating? Inquiring statists want to know.

What? How is that not invading?
Besides that would be disrupting the successful economy so it still seems like you might get more by being an ally. China's army is ridiculously large so why doesnt it start taking over the world? Answer, its dependant on their economies for its own success.

[AndyMalroes]

noleaders, you have made a fundamental mistake.

Anarchists (at least me) don't want "efficiency". This is a common point I come across in many arguments. Anarchy is way less "efficient" than capitalism. We want FREEDOM we want to live our lives ourselves. The problem with ancaps is they see it from an economical viewpointinstead of an emotional and mental viewpoint.

Getting back to the original point.
If A did conquer b0 and b0 had fought a succesful revolution and had the will to resist they would all I suspect resist until they had all died.

The difference between a state being conquered and a commune being conquered is that a states a state to a citizen but a revilutionary has helped create his/her commune.

Even if there was a succesful conquest they have a bare patch of land and no subjugated people. Hooray for profit and victory!

[Zazaban]

I rather think that anarchism will be both free and efficient. In Spain in 36', I believe production was up 75%, and that was in the middle of a civil war. Imagine what it would be like in peace, and with modern technology!

[Lucas]

Correct me if im wrong but im fairly sure George Orwell was a state-socialist. Which means he believed the state could centrally plan things very effectively. I disagree that the state has the ability to maintain a visade of freedom while secretly controlling everything since it seems so inept at organising public services. Hence why a lot of states have now privatised most of their economy.

Nah, Orwell was just more practical (I think) with how he thought socialism could be implemented. Anarchism appealed to him greatly when he was fighting in Spain during the civil war (it also made him give up his previous Trotskyist state-socialist ideas). He's more the democratic socialist type, but he thought the anarcho-syndicalist model was the most efficient of that sort. He thought anarchism worked, he thought Luxembourgism worked, he thought Democratic Socialism worked, etc. I'd argue that he was simply a libertarian socialist in its most vague sense. Homage to Catalonia illustrates his views incredibly well.

I rather think that anarchism will be both free and efficient.

Yeah, I definitely agree. Modern day wage labor begets more productive workers than feudalism does; the workers aren't as utterly oppressed. Anarchism will certainly be more efficient than the two former.

[Noleaders]

noleaders, you have made a fundamental mistake.

Anarchists (at least me) don't want "efficiency". This is a common point I come across in many arguments. Anarchy is way less "efficient" than capitalism. We want FREEDOM we want to live our lives ourselves. The problem with ancaps is they see it from an economical viewpointinstead of an emotional and mental viewpoint.

Ok fine it will be inefficient and everyone will live on the breadline. Happy?

I rather think that anarchism will be both free and efficient. In Spain in 36', I believe production was up 75%, and that was in the middle of a civil war. Imagine what it would be like in peace, and with modern technology!

Thank you.

Yeah, I definitely agree. Modern day wage labor begets more productive workers than feudalism does; the workers aren't as utterly oppressed. Anarchism will certainly be more efficient than the two former.

So why have i been criticised for mentioning efficiency?

[Zazaban]

Yeah, I definitely agree. Modern day wage labor begets more productive workers than feudalism does; the workers aren't as utterly oppressed. Anarchism will certainly be more efficient than the two former.

So why have i been criticised for mentioning efficiency?

It's not efficiency itself, it's the nefarious reasons you are assumed to have behind your desire for it.

[Lucas]

So why have i been criticised for mentioning efficiency?

Well, I'm not sure... that's AndyMalroes' beef, not mine. I think efficiency is important, as do you. I certainly don't want the general standard of living to be on par with any sort of modern-day poverty.

[Noleaders]

So why have i been criticised for mentioning efficiency?

Well, I'm not sure... that's AndyMalroes' beef, not mine. I think efficiency is important, as do you. I certainly don't want the general standard of living to be on par with any sort of modern-day poverty.

Sorry if that came across aggressive, it didnt sound it in my head when i was writing it but i can see how it would be percieved.
I was just wondering why this criticisism came up if its not part of any school of anarchism, it was a question to everyone.

No offence meant.

[Lucas]

So why have i been criticised for mentioning efficiency?

Well, I'm not sure... that's AndyMalroes' beef, not mine. I think efficiency is important, as do you. I certainly don't want the general standard of living to be on par with any sort of modern-day poverty.

Sorry if that came across aggressive, it didnt sound it in my head when i was writing it but i can see how it would be percieved.
I was just wondering why this criticisism came up if its not part of any school of anarchism, it was a question to everyone.

No offence meant.

No problem! No harm done.

My interpretation of the criticism is that it came up because the people who wrote it are criticizing your incentives. To them, the reason why you care about efficiency is because you're a market anarchist, and that you want to see numbers and progress, not people being satisfied. That's why AndyMalroes mentioned the "emotional viewpoint" when he criticized efficiency in his comment.
It's the paranoid implications that people are making about your ideas and motivations, not the idea of efficiency. Personally, I think it's silly and misguided, but people feel that way.

[Caz]

FYI Trotsky wanted to do this, with the ideal of a "revolutionary army" of normal proletariat workers with guns to repel invaders instead of a formal army. Soviet paranoia put the idea to rest. Trotsky then became the head of the Red Army, ironically.

Any decent mobilized army could occupy a country with no organized military, and if there's natural resources to be had with no official diplomatic channels to go through to divert the invasion, someone would. People are greedy.

I hope no one here thinks that offensive and defensive actions are some aberration created by human society instead of being naturally occurring. Every creature has a means of defense. Cells have cell walls. Group defense for social animals is common as well, in case no one watches the Discovery Channel.

[AndyMalroes]

yes a decent army can occupy an anarcist commune or federation, but they would have to massacre them, as most would have the will to be free they would keep fighting

I'm not against efficiency I just don't want an anarchist society to trade freedom for efficiency.
I'm kind of scared that you would support nuclear weapons bring built in a libertarian society as well

[Crustanarchy]

"Thats actually not what i support at all. A business can only grow so large before it becomes inefficient because the more it makes the more it has to distibute and advertise which means its a steep upward curve of costs. Also as businesses get larger they get more bureacratic. Large amounts of capital dont actually mean more efficiency, generally the more high tech machinery you use the higher your running costs will be which pushes up the number you need to sell, also you need to have more employees if your making more stuff which increases the amount spent on wages meaning more stuff has to be sold. If you have one really powerful machine and other not so powerful machines it messes up your production line meaning often smaller machines are far more efficient unless you have loads of money. Even if you do you then have to sell even more stuff. Can you see how the problems of mass production build up." - Noleaders

Actually super-large companies such as Microsoft, Walmart, Nike, Addidas, Kmart, Starbucks, etc. are very efficiently run. I'm reading No Logo by Naomi Klein and actually, since the late 1990s, production is no longer the base of these mega-corporations (Walmart racked in like $118 billion a year in the late 90s). What these companies do to cut cost is to completely amputate their production force. Instead these companies go to Third World countries like Guatemala, Honduras, the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, China, etc. and hire contractors (who may or may not hire sub-contractors) who then employ these laborers for ultra-low wages. Usually these contractors are situated in EPZs (Export Production Zones). One such zone in Rosario employs 50,000 workers. Rosario's population is 60,000 in late 1997. In this walled and guarded complex are over 200 factories. These factories can produce anything from IBM monitor screens to Nike shoes to Walmart discount clothing.

These EPZs are capitalist paradises where the large companies (I think it's pretty much multi-nationals that contract in there) are granted five to ten year "tax holidays". They pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever. This is a huge attraction as it cuts costs even more dramatically. Not only are they granted a tax holiday that can be "extended", they don't even employ the people who produce their goods. The multi-nationals simply employ a contractor who then hires a very low maintenance, very low wage work-force who they don't even legally employ in the first place (This means they don't have to follow labor laws, but usually the local government turns a blind eye to any labor violation probably because of bribes or economic favors). They don't have to give these people benefits or a living wage. For example, in China, a living wage in the late 90s would be 87 cents an hour (this would allow for a small savings also.

N. Klein writes, "Yet even with these massive savings in labor costs, those who manufacture for the most prominent and richest brands in the world are still refusing to pay workers in China the 87 cents that would cover their cost of living, stave off illness and even allow them to send a little money home to their families. A 1998 study of brand-name manufacturing in the Chinese special economic zones found that Wal-Mart, Ralph Lauren, Ann Taylor, Espirit, Liz Claibourne, Kmart, Nike, Adidas, J.C. Penny and the Limited were only paying a fraction of that miserable 87 cents - some were paying as little as 13 cents an hour. (No Logo p.212)
Not only are these companies cutting production costs, companies like Walmart have adopted a "part-time" mentality that have allowed them to almost halve their home labor costs in their service leg.

"Large chains such as Wal-Mart, Starbucks and the Gap, as they have proliferated since the mid-eighties, have been lowering workplace standards in the service sector, fueling their marketing budgets, imperialistic expansion and high-concept "retail experiences" by lowballing their clerks on wages and hours. Most of the big-name brands in the service sector pay the legal minimum wage or slightly more, even though the average wage for retail workers is several dollars higher. Wal-Mart clerks in the U.S., for instance, earn an average of $7.50 an hour and since Wal-Mart classifies "full-time" as twenty eight hours a week, the average annual income is $10,920 - significantly less than the industry average." (No Logo p.236-237)

So these huge companies have basically solved the problem of mass production. Don't own it. Own the brand.

Now for big companies (like Microsoft) with more technical jobs like programming and the like, they simply hire temps. "Part-timers, temps and contractors are rampant in Silicon Valley - a recent labor study of the region estimates that between 27 and 40 percent of the Valley's employees are "contingency workers," and the use of temps there is increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the country. The percentage of Silicon Valley workers employed by temp agencies is nearly three times the national average." (No Logo p.249)

These companies make enormous profits, some upwards of 400 percent.

[Noleaders]

Actually super-large companies such as Microsoft, Walmart, Nike, Addidas, Kmart, Starbucks, etc. are very efficiently run. I'm reading No Logo by Naomi Klein and actually, since the late 1990s, production is no longer the base of these mega-corporations (Walmart racked in like $118 billion a year in the late 90s). What these companies do to cut cost is to completely amputate their production force. Instead these companies go to Third World countries like Guatemala, Honduras, the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, China, etc. and hire contractors (who may or may not hire sub-contractors) who then employ these laborers for ultra-low wages. Usually these contractors are situated in EPZs (Export Production Zones). One such zone in Rosario employs 50,000 workers. Rosario's population is 60,000 in late 1997. In this walled and guarded complex are over 200 factories. These factories can produce anything from IBM monitor screens to Nike shoes to Walmart discount clothing.

Efficient doesn't just mean cheaper it also means better. Also both state's foreign policy has an effect on why this happens as do protectionist policies like tarriffs and patents. Microsoft for example had a legal monopoly for ages. They have patents meaning they dont have to compete as much as they would otherwise, they make use of state subsidised (tax payer subsidised) R & D, the state subsidises the corporations going over there in the first place, they wouldnt be able to reach the size necessary to be a multi-national corporation without the state, they have limited liability granted by the state so they insulated from risks.

These EPZs are capitalist paradises where the large companies (I think it's pretty much multi-nationals that contract in there) are granted five to ten year "tax holidays". They pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever. This is a huge attraction as it cuts costs even more dramatically. Not only are they granted a tax holiday that can be "extended", they don't even employ the people who produce their goods. The multi-nationals simply employ a contractor who then hires a very low maintenance, very low wage work-force who they don't even legally employ in the first place (This means they don't have to follow labor laws, but usually the local government turns a blind eye to any labor violation probably because of bribes or economic favors). They don't have to give these people benefits or a living wage. For example, in China, a living wage in the late 90s would be 87 cents an hour (this would allow for a small savings also.

Everyone would have tax holidays all the time. Currently thats just a blatant form of protectionism, hiring workers in other countries illegally due to bribes is protectionism on behalf of the foreign state and often the state where the corporation origionated from.
Also yet again these companies grow this large not through competition but lack of competition.

N. Klein writes, "Yet even with these massive savings in labor costs, those who manufacture for the most prominent and richest brands in the world are still refusing to pay workers in China the 87 cents that would cover their cost of living, stave off illness and even allow them to send a little money home to their families. A 1998 study of brand-name manufacturing in the Chinese special economic zones found that Wal-Mart, Ralph Lauren, Ann Taylor, Espirit, Liz Claibourne, Kmart, Nike, Adidas, J.C. Penny and the Limited were only paying a fraction of that miserable 87 cents - some were paying as little as 13 cents an hour. (No Logo p.212)
Not only are these companies cutting production costs, companies like Walmart have adopted a "part-time" mentality that have allowed them to almost halve their home labor costs in their service leg.

How did they grow large enough to do that? Also cutting production costs isnt efficiency since a decent production team will have knowledge that helps them run it better. I also know for a fact mistreated workers bring down your efficiency, in a truly competitive market things little things like this all add up in the end.

"Large chains such as Wal-Mart, Starbucks and the Gap, as they have proliferated since the mid-eighties, have been lowering workplace standards in the service sector, fueling their marketing budgets, imperialistic expansion and high-concept "retail experiences" by lowballing their clerks on wages and hours. Most of the big-name brands in the service sector pay the legal minimum wage or slightly more, even though the average wage for retail workers is several dollars higher. Wal-Mart clerks in the U.S., for instance, earn an average of $7.50 an hour and since Wal-Mart classifies "full-time" as twenty eight hours a week, the average annual income is $10,920 - significantly less than the industry average." (No Logo p.236-237)

Again your attacking a mercantilist market, which i fully agree with!

So these huge companies have basically solved the problem of mass production. Don't own it. Own the brand.

Intellectual property rights and legal privilege.

Now for big companies (like Microsoft) with more technical jobs like programming and the like, they simply hire temps. "Part-timers, temps and contractors are rampant in Silicon Valley - a recent labor study of the region estimates that between 27 and 40 percent of the Valley's employees are "contingency workers," and the use of temps there is increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the country. The percentage of Silicon Valley workers employed by temp agencies is nearly three times the national average." (No Logo p.249)

Well then they haven't got the specialist knowledge of a full time employee, unless that isnt needed in which case i dont know what your saying here. Whats wrong with temping? people need temp jobs some times.

These companies make enormous profits, some upwards of 400 percent.

In an interventionist market. If they did this in a true market then they would have to be providing a brilliant service to customers in which case great.