How does an anarchist society prevent conquest?

[AndyMalroes]

He's countering your statement that individualist companies are more efficient than capitalist companies by showing examples of how capitalists gain their efficiency. Your debating his points by saying his examples are not viable or not applicable in anarchist society, effectively agreeing on the same point from different angles.

[Noleaders]

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.

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?

[AndyMalroes]

Im not saying that its the most efficient or in any way better than anarchism just that your reasoning is illogical.

In his statement he produced examples of how capitalism gains its efficiency. You countered the point by saying that it would not be possible to use these methods under anarchism as there would be no state to support these methods.

This then (in around about manner) makes you agree with him by stating that anarchism wouldn't gain its "efficiency" from these methods.

I'm just playing devil's advocate and agree that these methods are horrible and is exactly what we are aiming to get rid of, but it does mean we lose some "efficiency" we do however as you stated gain some "efficiency" by having workers with higher morale and better understanding of their industry. (i say this last line as most industries are run by fat-cats with only a degree in business management and no experience in whatever their company does other than the financial side)

[Noleaders]

If you rely on the state to be "efficient" then your not in my opinion. Id also count efficiency as satisfying the most people which the profit motive is supposed to do, and to some extent it does a bit, however in an market were big corporations are cushioned by the state this is basically lost.

I get what you mean though.

[AndyMalroes]

You make a good point, it's determined by what you deem efficiency.

I'm glad we see each others views clearly now.

[Yarrow]

can you feel the love?

seriously guys, bravo. you explained yourselves and listened to each others points, without resorting to fallacious logic or name calling. frankly, a breath of fresh air and exemplary to us all. keep up the good life, peeps @)

[Crustanarchy]

I completely agree with everything you said Noleaders, but in today's capitalism lots of profit = efficiency, at least that's what I infer whenever CEOs bitch that the quarterly earnings dropped x percent.

I was led to believe that Wal-mart reached billions and those billions are convinced that Wal-mart has some killer prices. Ever seen a Chinese Wal-mart? It's fucking ridiculous.

Temporary jobs themselves are not bad, but when companies start using temp agencies for the majority of it's employees then you have a very insecure situation. You don't get benefits or job security, nor do you receive the privileges of being "permanent" even though these temps usually do equal work. "Full-time" does not always mean "specialist."

It's more of cost-cutting ploy then trying to create "a life without jobs".

The one thing I would disagree with is that cutting production costs IS efficiency especially if the goal is profit. Not having to pay a production team is saving costs. Why do you need an expensive team of experts when you can simply (and contrary to what you said, legally) contract your production base out to other countries for a fraction of the cost? It's brutally efficient.

Also, you are indeed correct about mistreated workers, but the companies don't directly manage or hire these people. They are hired by the contractors (or sub-contractors) and managed by them. Shifts last from twelve to sixteen hours depending on the country. (In terms of production that is super-efficient, but CEOs seem to forget you're dealing with human beings not robots.) Some contractors force abortions to pregnant workers (the overwhelming majority of EPZ workers are female ranging from the ages of 14 to upper 20s). There was a women named Carmelita who was actually worked till death. Overtime can be mandatory and usually is.

I think it's more unsustainable then inefficient.

[Insecuritykiller]

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.

They would have to wipe us out to get our land. 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.

[patrickhenry]

[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.

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?]

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.

[Crustanarchy]

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).

[Garnier]

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...

[Noleaders]

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.

[Crustanarchy]

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, maquiladoras (from maquillar, "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).

[Noleaders]

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.

[Crustanarchy]

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