@hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net is the author of that. We discussed it before on our !infrapolitics@slrpnk.net community.
Anyways, very good insights into the potential of well organized disaster response mutual aid.
I especially like this sentence:
A sufficiently advanced disaster preparedness and response program is indistinguishable from a revolutionary counter-power.
To be clear, there’s a bit of nuance here. It’s an argument against organizing focused primarily on insurrection, and against insurrectionist tendencies. But this does propose something that could be described as a latent insurgency, which would explicitly have the capability to evolve into an Insurrection (if necessary).
I don’t remember if I made that totally clear in that specific essay.
I think the possibility of a collapse in our lifetime is very real.
Very interesting. One other argument for Disaster Anarchism is that disaster preparedness can be done all of the time: regardless of how good or bad things are going right now*, we can keep building these disaster response systems.
- By going good, I dont mean perfect. I think that insurrection tends to only happen when things are going really bad.
Should call it neutered anarchism for liberals.
“Don’t hurt the state, be nice and fix the state’s shortcomings so that people don’t revolt”
That’s not what it argued. It explicitly states that revolution and conflict may need to happen as a function of disaster response.
“An argument against insurrection”
“May”
Revolution has to happen to avoid disaster. It is not simply enough to passively respond in the event of disaster.
The title is a bit ambiguous. Also, the “May” is weasely on my part. But I think you raise a fair point. It is unclear how insurrection really fits into this Disaster Anarchism.
I understood the attached article to mean that we have to focus on continuously building up our disaster response, and that will help us to continue functioning if we are cut off, partially or fully, from the dominant system. Insurrection would likely cut us off significantly from the dominant system.
What is not clear to me is that Disaster Anarchism tells us to try to avoid focusing on insurrection as a means of change, but it does not tell us what is a good time for an insurrection. And I think that is where your point comes in.
Personally, I think it makes more sense to think of Disaster Anarchism as occurring in parallel to, not instead of, insurrection.
The title is a bit misleading tbf
Yeah it is misleading. Maybe it’s more something like “The Case Against Relying on Insurrection”?
