Skip to content
ENorton wrote:(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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests