this post was submitted on 09 May 2026
18 points (95.0% liked)
Anarchism
3038 readers
135 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
The title is a bit misleading tbf
“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.