• Mohamed@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    15 days ago

    That’s not what it argued. It explicitly states that revolution and conflict may need to happen as a function of disaster response.

    • Loco_Mex@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      “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.

      • Mohamed@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        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.

      • Mohamed@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        Yeah it is misleading. Maybe it’s more something like “The Case Against Relying on Insurrection”?