But unless we kill everyone who has access to those big guns, they’ll still have access to them after the system changes. I agree that a change needs to happen, but I can’t really wrap my head around how we’re going to stop people with city-destroying bombs, who wouldn’t hesitate to use them on American soil if their lives were at risk. We either let them live, and keep their weapons, or we try to kill them and get taken out in a firestorm of mutually assured destruction. Taking about what we’re going to do after we’ve won that battle just feels like planning a wedding before asking someone out on a date.
The ideal route to anarchist as I understand it wouldn’t be taking away the weapons, it would be taking away the concepts of power. Musk’s power is predicated on the idea that he owns more things ranked by percieved value than I do. That value is an agreed upon concept, enforced by the government that we participate in. If the stock market and dollar bill are replaced overnight with a barter system, his power would plumit to the value of assets he can physically provide himself.
Right now, oil executives have the power to dictate nations. If collectivly the majority of people just refuse to use cars, their power is now subject to a different scale. If enough of a given society makes this change fast enough, or change to something so rigorously coordinated that it cannot be exploited, then the power of the system fizzles and the ability to use force goes with it. How are you going to bomb a nation of hippy comunes if 90% of your soldiers are now in the comunes?
It’s an interesting stance, but I don’t personally buy it. It requires a level of group effort that we’re not capable of. Personally, I feel a rigid and open source technocracy would be the easier option. Computers aren’t subject to opinion or emotions and have been a billion times more capable than our best politicians for nearly a century.
Thatbis definitely an idealistic strategy on its own…it is close to an actual anarchist strategy called syndicalism, also prefiguration. However most anarchists also believe in using other strategies on top of that. And as you said, power is control over others. The people in power are not the ones who have the nukes or the buttons to launch them. The people who push the buttons have a lot more to lose in a revolution by pressing the button than the people in power (because the people in power will lose everything either way). Now do I think calling their bluff is a good bet? Yes. Do I think its enough on its own? No. I think an important thing that is being left out is that those in power are not going to order the buttons be pushed at the slightest hint of revolution. They will wait until all hope is lost. Which means before that point, seizing nuclear launch sites and anti-nuclear defenses is a priority. The dilemma is not between status quo and nuclear annihilation. Its between status quo (with possible nuclear annihilation anyways), or revolution (with possible nuclear annihilation if we fail in a very particular way). To me thats a much easier dilemma to choose from.
But unless we kill everyone who has access to those big guns, they’ll still have access to them after the system changes. I agree that a change needs to happen, but I can’t really wrap my head around how we’re going to stop people with city-destroying bombs, who wouldn’t hesitate to use them on American soil if their lives were at risk. We either let them live, and keep their weapons, or we try to kill them and get taken out in a firestorm of mutually assured destruction. Taking about what we’re going to do after we’ve won that battle just feels like planning a wedding before asking someone out on a date.
The ideal route to anarchist as I understand it wouldn’t be taking away the weapons, it would be taking away the concepts of power. Musk’s power is predicated on the idea that he owns more things ranked by percieved value than I do. That value is an agreed upon concept, enforced by the government that we participate in. If the stock market and dollar bill are replaced overnight with a barter system, his power would plumit to the value of assets he can physically provide himself.
Right now, oil executives have the power to dictate nations. If collectivly the majority of people just refuse to use cars, their power is now subject to a different scale. If enough of a given society makes this change fast enough, or change to something so rigorously coordinated that it cannot be exploited, then the power of the system fizzles and the ability to use force goes with it. How are you going to bomb a nation of hippy comunes if 90% of your soldiers are now in the comunes?
It’s an interesting stance, but I don’t personally buy it. It requires a level of group effort that we’re not capable of. Personally, I feel a rigid and open source technocracy would be the easier option. Computers aren’t subject to opinion or emotions and have been a billion times more capable than our best politicians for nearly a century.
Thatbis definitely an idealistic strategy on its own…it is close to an actual anarchist strategy called syndicalism, also prefiguration. However most anarchists also believe in using other strategies on top of that. And as you said, power is control over others. The people in power are not the ones who have the nukes or the buttons to launch them. The people who push the buttons have a lot more to lose in a revolution by pressing the button than the people in power (because the people in power will lose everything either way). Now do I think calling their bluff is a good bet? Yes. Do I think its enough on its own? No. I think an important thing that is being left out is that those in power are not going to order the buttons be pushed at the slightest hint of revolution. They will wait until all hope is lost. Which means before that point, seizing nuclear launch sites and anti-nuclear defenses is a priority. The dilemma is not between status quo and nuclear annihilation. Its between status quo (with possible nuclear annihilation anyways), or revolution (with possible nuclear annihilation if we fail in a very particular way). To me thats a much easier dilemma to choose from.