On anarcho-tyranny

On anarcho-tyranny

I believe it is time to give weight to a "new" political category, because it represents better than any other the status quo that economic lobbies seem to aim for.

The term was coined by a controversial American journalist, Samuel T. Francis to describe a situation in which the state focuses so much on protecting the interests of dominant economic groups that it completely loses the task of protecting citizens, so much so that they swoop down. in anarchy.

The result is a society in which the ruling classes live in order and legality, with the state guaranteeing them all its prerogatives. The citizen, on the other hand, does not obtain any of the functions of the state, and lives in a substantial anarchy, given that the police do not bring order, the courts do not bring justice, the school does not bring education, the health system does not offer care, etc.

The police, however, do not give up on intervening among ordinary citizens when the prerogatives of the ruling classes are threatened. So the police will never come during a rape, but they will come promptly if you try to set fire to a DSLAM cabinet. This is because the state has abdicated the protection of citizens, but the destruction of a DSLAM cabinet

it blocks banks, shops, cash registers, and if it becomes systematic it can paralyze large parts of the economy. And since the state is only interested in protecting the interests of the ruling class, then it will put an alarm on DSLAM cabinets but will do nothing to protect women from rape.

This seems to be the direction we are going. I don't know if and to what extent the hypothesis is planned in this way. But let's also assume that it is. If it is true that we live in an anarcho-tyranny, how do we end it?

All previous revolutionary strategies would be useless. Any organization proposing to attack the police would be repressed with a greater force. But it would be useless even if he succeeded: such a state does not care about the dead. You can kill 100,000 cops, and they would still hire 100,000 more. It would not be a defeat of the state, because anarcho-tyranny does not aim to protect policemen or human lives, but only the interests of the ruling classes .

The classical revolutions, in fact, were aimed at the people who made up the ruling class. But today people are irrelevant: an anarcho-tyranny does not protect people, it protects interests . An SPA remains even if the CEO dies. As a result, an anarcho-tyranny will try to protect the CEO, but if you just kill the CEO it will elect another CEO while retaining the interests.

We see every day what TVs talk about: GDP, economy, finance, economy, GDP, economy, finance, GDP …

So, if there is an anarcho-tyranny, the revolution is not made by attacking the palaces of power or the powerful. Also because these are few objectives that are easy to protect. If we want to overthrow an anarcho-tyranny we need a new model of revolution.

So, if anarcho-tyranny exists, the only way to hit it is to hit the interests of the ruling classes. The old obsolete will talk about strikes and riots, but it is not necessary. There are simpler means to implement.

GDP, as well as the economy, as well as finance, depend on a layer of underlying infrastructure. These infrastructures are like that.


They are DSLAMs, transformer rooms, 4 / 5G antennas. But in the countryside there are also electricity poles, and so on. These are widespread, omnipresent infrastructures, practically impossible to protect.

By hitting these infrastructures at random, GDP will begin to decline. Nobody is killed, the palaces of power are not attacked and there are no demonstrations or riots that the police are very good at repressing. It affects only and exclusively the interest of the ruling classes.

When entire cities are in the dark, the GDP stops. If you eliminate DSLAMs, and fiber cabinets, or even Central Offices, you are not only blocking large parts of the local GDP, but blocking data flows to Google, Facebook & co. But you didn't kill anyone.

Revolt against anarcho-tyranny would be a low-risk revolt (you can pick your target by walking the streets, blow it up at night, and there are too many to be actively protected), and as a revolution it would be bloodless. The level of destruction is also low, because shops and banks are not set on fire, they are disconnected from energy and communications. But they remain intact.

Once the GDP is blocked, obviously the anarcho-tyrannical system will have to bring widespread security everywhere. because to survive it needs this gigantic infrastructure: energy and communications are its weak point. Block those, and you've blocked GDP.

This is the reason why I find the idea of ​​anarcho-tyranny interesting but I don't find it very stable: it may be a balance but it is an unstable balance. The system can move in that direction, and perhaps it is, but as soon as it gets very close to its final goal it becomes too vulnerable .

The level of infrastructure required, and its presence in every corner of the planet, fills everything with possible targets. Too many to be watched over, but too crucial to be a strong point. A hypothetical revolutionary group could target the infrastructure with extreme ease, simply by walking around the city and taking selfies near the targets. And the rural areas would be even more vulnerable, because they are full of electricity poles, telephone poles and electricity pylons.

The revolt, then, would be difficult to stigmatize: there are no deaths, there are no shops burned, there is no conspicuous damage. You only see systems that have burned down here and there.

I therefore believe that the tendency of the political system towards anarcho-tyranny, even if apparently visible, is a transitional phase . It is not possible for it to become a stable system, because it is too fragile. The lower classes could put the regime in check simply by destroying its infrastructures, which are practically everywhere, therefore practically impossible to protect day and night. Paul Atreides' saying would suddenly go, "whoever can destroy something controls it".

It is therefore an interesting idea in theory, but in practice it would be too vulnerable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.