Question from a friend that stumped me

[Ataxia]

In an anarchist society, how does one prevent the workers in oil-rich regions from withholding all the oil and holding the world to ransom? I'm presuming there's a fairly obvious answer that I'm missing.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

In an anarchist society, how does one prevent the workers in oil-rich regions from withholding all the oil and holding the world to ransom? I'm presuming there's a fairly obvious answer that I'm missing.
Why would they do that in the first place?

[ContrarianLemming]

its not obvious, but it is simple

in anarchism, all region/communes/nations are united in confederation - sort of like the modern UN, we're all binded in confederation, each region/commune having delegates for confederal congress's and such, and a sort of charter or constitution, like the charter of the IWW seems likely, and if a confederal region decides to be pricks and withhold oil then the surrounding regions would, for the good of all, end all trade with this region, forcing them to not withold such a necessary thing, because withholding oil is an aggressive act against neighbors.

Essentially, if a region decides to break the common laws of the confederation, as voted on my all those who join this confederation (and there could be multiple confederations, or regions that are independant of it, like Switzerland and the EU), and commit an act of agression, they are not allies.

So pretty similar to how the UN deals with stuff, except in a decentralized manner, each surrounding region could vote on how to deal with the oil crisis.


Why would they do that in the first place?

I think we shouldbe able to have an argument for anything that's possible, even if unlikely, and the answer to this is simple.

there are other solutions, and the above is only after negoation, like sending in the troops or leaving them alone.

[DaComm]

In an anarchist society, how does one prevent the workers in oil-rich regions from withholding all the oil and holding the world to ransom? I'm presuming there's a fairly obvious answer that I'm missing.

The possibility is unrealistic, it's only something than a libertarian (in the capitalist sense) moron could come up with, that is, an entire industry devoted to the enrichment of itself. Besides, oil will not be used in a Socialist society due to it's harmful effects on the enviornment, to be replaced with solar, nuclear, and wind energy.

[Ele'ill]

Because they would inevitably need things that aren't natively present in their surroundings be it water, food, clothes etc.

You first have to explain why someone or a group of people would do something- let's not come up with crazy situations for the sake of being difficult.

They would have little use for hording oil- unless- again- they're some super villain from a comic book.

They would likely have different collectively run sectors dealing within each oil operation- they would all have to agree in order to even do something as simple as hoard.

They would likely be networked with other collectives that do other things and there would be solidarity between them and not neccessarily between oil operations with oceans separrating them.

[Amphictyonis]

In an anarchist society, how does one prevent the workers in oil-rich regions from withholding all the oil and holding the world to ransom? I'm presuming there's a fairly obvious answer that I'm missing.

I would assume oil rich areas would have growing populations in need of resources other than oil. I'm also pretty sure no anarchist advocates nationalism either. Greed and competition are bi products of capitalism. One of the points of socialism is to create a better sort of 'human nature'. Our entire world view has been shaped by capitalism. Questions like that are asked from within the 'capitalist box'. Tell your friend to think outside the box, meaning, specifically (as Marx said):


"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_of_production) appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society), the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure), and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_consciousness). The mode of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production) of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_forces) of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development, of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution). The changes in the economic foundation lead, sooner or later, to the transformation of the whole, immense, superstructure."

Basically, revolution will not only change humanities material conditions but our consciousness as well. Why be greedy when material abundance is being provided? Scarcity is what causes the greed mind frame that capitalism creates because capitalism creates false scarcity. The revolution will bring a shift in consciousness. Or so it is theorized. Take that movie "water world" into account. Everything is scarce. Water to drink is scarce. Everyone is at everyone else's throats. It's a base struggle for survival. If, in the film, material abundance was provided why would they all be killing each other over water? (another thing to think about- we can create technology that will make fossile fuels irrelevant. Under the current $ystem too many old capitalists have too much to loose if that happens).

[ContrarianLemming]

The possibility is unrealistic, it's only something than a libertarian (in the capitalist sense) moron could come up with, that is, an entire industry devoted to the enrichment of itself. Besides, oil will not be used in a Socialist society due to it's harmful effects on the enviornment, to be replaced with solar, nuclear, and wind energy. But assume this does happen.

If an anarchist revolution were to happen somewhere in the next hundred years then I can see oil being used, seems likely.

not all anarchists are envirmentalists, and most people are not envirmentalists, and most people n the future society wont be anarchists, not straight away anyway. No anarchist revolution has ever been made up of mostly anarchists, we are always the minority, teacing the majority who are apolitical but still wanting freedom.

[Ataxia]

Yeah, it didn't shake my views, because it doesn't seem like a realistic scenario in an anarchist world, but it would still be good to have a succinct rebuttal.

[ContrarianLemming]

Yeah, it didn't shake my views, because it doesn't seem like a realistic scenario in an anarchist world, but it would still be good to have a succinct rebuttal.

I think we are to taken in by witty one liners that seem smart, but they can be picked apart in no time, a calculated intelligent reponse is deserved if this fellow is serious about challenging your views.

[Ocean Seal]

In an anarchist society, how does one prevent the workers in oil-rich regions from withholding all the oil and holding the world to ransom? I'm presuming there's a fairly obvious answer that I'm missing.
I'm guessing that the oil rich regions of the world lack other important resources. Which is why every region of the world would trade as that is where profit stems from. The workers are running things now not the power-hungry bourgeoisie.

[Reznov]

I think we are to taken in by witty one liners that seem smart, but they can be picked apart in no time, a calculated intelligent reponse is deserved if this fellow is serious about challenging your views.

Also, in real life its a little harder to pick-apart and criticize like we do on a internet forum.

Which is why we need quick catchy one-liners to respond to questions like this!

Anyone have a idea?

[DaComm]

If an anarchist revolution were to happen somewhere in the next hundred years then I can see oil being used, seems likely.

not all anarchists are envirmentalists, and most people are not envirmentalists, and most people n the future society wont be anarchists, not straight away anyway. No anarchist revolution has ever been made up of mostly anarchists, we are always the minority, teacing the majority who are apolitical but still wanting freedom.

mmmmm not really, given the limitations of this non-renewable resource and the rates of demand, it is predicted that petroleum will be unavailable for common use by 2070 (see this site for further research http://www.babeled.com/2008/02/15/when-will-the-oil-run-out/ ). In 2110 petrol will be long since inaccessible, and an alternative will likely be commonplace prior to the disapperance of oil (so I hope). And yeah, not all Anarchists are enviornmentalists like me, but then again, look at your options. Even without constant activism and motivation, alternative energies will have to be adopted for the sake of continuing technologically advanced life.

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm seeing anarchism before 2070.

[WeAreReborn]

I'm seeing anarchism before 2070.
We can only hope.... Well that and revolt but you get my point. :p

[DaComm]

I'm seeing anarchism before 2070.

So do I, but 2070 is when oil will be without dispute, an extremely scarce resource, not in use to the public. 2030-2050 is however, the most widely accpeted time-span to expect oil to officially run-out. Besides, the costs of oil on nature exceeds it's benefits, and if we want an efficient, less risky, and eco-friendly anarchist society, alternative energy is where it's at :thumbup1:

[Aloysius]

Besides, oil will not be used in a Socialist society due to it's harmful effects on the enviornment...
What does protecting the environment have to do with socialism?

[DaComm]

What does protecting the environment have to do with socialism?

I was under the impression that one of the tasks of Socialism was to increase ease of living for the current and future generations.

[ContrarianLemming]

I think he's making the point that environmentalism is not an inherent part of socialism.

[MooseCracker]

In some sense environmentalism is part of socialism because it means political equality not only for the current generation but for future ones as well. Also unowned production resources means that they go untouched if not needed.

The idea that the oil would be taken in order to gain wealth is also unlikely as it would amount to nothing in a truly socialist community.

In a situation where people form Syndicates for things other than business (i.e. keeping the community clean, press, etc.) there would very likely be syndicates for environmental concerns that raise awareness in the participants other syndicates and/ or communities.

In an Anarcho-far-leftist situation what are the chances that there would be anything even resembling consensus in that type of maneuver? - if there is than they must have some reason to do so and it may be valid in the name of freedom and equality to investigate meeting their demands, no? In order to really address the question we definitely need more info about the scenario though.

In the meantime, the question could be addressed as a reversal - what is done about it now and is that honestly any better than what fully democratic Anarchists could come up with? Remind them that not having government from above does not equate to not having rules, especially for the safety of people...

Hopefully that made sense, sorry I was distracted.

[Summerspeaker]

From my perspective, questions such this one shouldn't have a set answer. Anarchist society would be a network of negotiated relationships. The solution would depend on why these workers feel the need to blackmail the rest of the world. With a decent economy, limited power to any individual, and an egalitarian culture, I see little reason for it. In the worst case scenario where the oil workers make a bid to be bosses then direct action becomes appropriate. The nearby groups might simply go in and take the oil or even operate the exaction facilities. Alternatively, under the implausible circumstances of oil workers across the globe conspiring, everyone else could just shrug and get by without the resource.

[Magón]

I think (and it's obvious it would have to be), that by the time we reach an Anarchist Society, people will be in a totally different mindset, and so not only will with holding something that harms other Communes be a thought not acted upon, but society will be in a more eco-friendly state of mind.

I think all Anarchists (actual Anarchists), can agree that the continuation of exploiting fossil fuels like we are is bad for everyone, and is something of the old world.

[Armchair War Criminal]

The replies that "why would anyone do this?" and "they need to trade with the rest of the world," unfortunately, cancel each other out. Under a situation in which some people have physical control over some resources and others have physical control over another set of resources, whether due to (most typically) a Leviathan recognizing those rights or to some other reason, a market (not necessarily capitalist) relation is going to obtain. If you're an ancap or certain kinds of mutualist, this is fine, in and of itself (if you can find some way for those rights to be secured without the traditional, governmental Leviathan,) but if you want some sort of non-market, non-centrally planned coordination of economic activity you really need to go into greater detail about how it works.

[kitsune]

I hope that when social and economic organization is based on human need rather than profit, people are intelligent enough to realize that clean air, water, food, etc., are pretty freaking basic human needs.

[NecroCommie]

To the OP: Nothing, but no other society is any different. I am ofcourse referring to the 70's when the OPEC countries stopped all oil deliveries for few days simply ro raise the price of oil.

[Ataxia]

Oil was just supposed to be an example of a resource that everyone needs but is located in relatively few geographical areas.