How does an anarchist society prevent conquest?

[Noleaders]

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 subjective disutility of labour 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.

[Crustanarchy]

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

[Noleaders]

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

[leadhead]

(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?

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.

[Crustanarchy]

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 .

[BillyWitchDr.]

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.

[Tiecuando]

Thermonuclear weapons.