Counterargument: it makes sense to support whatever system would create the best life for everyone, rather than just creating good experiences for you while others are forced to struggle and suffer, because you aren’t a selfish arsehole.
Another version: it makes sense to support whatever system creates the most good for everyone AND is most stable, because the countless future generations matter far more than you.
The scale at which we exert political control has been increasing consistently for, approximately, the last 10k years. The rate has been accelerating too. There’s no reason to believe that the current hodge podge of 300 or so regional factions (nations) is the natural or final solution, and every reason to expect that political/economic power will escalate to the global level, and soon.
We should be focused on ensuring that transition is peaceful and collaborative, that the solution we converge on is fair and sustainable. We should especially be concerned with preventing that transition from being a dominance play by the players currently holding the greatest defacto power (i.e., economic, transnational corporations, and military, the USA).
One major impediment to this is the idea that all we—the ordinary people all over the world—can do is fight amongst each other at a national level about relatively trivial social issues (i.e., by voting for the marginally less bad alternative in our national elections). We can, and should, organise and strive for a democratic, fair, well-designed global political system that keeps economic power in check.
Other major impediments are the lies that a) the only alternative to the current system is totalitarian communism, or other 19th century political models, and b) that we—you and I—need to have a perfect solution in hand already. We can demand, via our respective nations, that the world’s best minds come together and design the best system possible, and that was transition to that system peacefully and rationally.
The trouble is, the world isn’t neatly divided into oppressors and victims. Each human has many, many identities and factional affiliations—mother, Christian, Mongolian, nerd, working class, jogger, AI avoider, manager, voter for whichever party, drug non-user, scientist, tribe member, entrepreneur, posh, conspiracy-recogniser, ethical shopper, activist, Perth resident, woman, etc, etc, etc.
What determines which of those identities is salient at any given time? Which of the lines that cross cut our societies defines who will fight whom when violence becomes the norm? Those are hard questions.
The kind of violence you’re advocating for—populist violence, mob violence—isn’t a targeted, controlled force that you can unleash on a specific target. It’s a breakdown of the social contract, of the sense of safety and trust that keeps people following the co-operative rules of civil society. Before unleashing it, you want to be confident that the lines people will divide along when their lives, their families, their future are at risk are actually rich-vs-poor.
That does not seem likely today. Reasons:
historically, the lines along which our species have divided for violent factionalism have been ethnicity and geography. These are the natural attractors. Convincing the masses to see themselves differently (i.e., the people who look/speak/think differently to me are my friends, the people similar to me but richer are my enemies) when the shit hits the fan takes serious effort and preparation.
the information networks that shape how people identify themselves are controlled by the rich, they are actively working to prevent this.
people today, in my experience, seem to most strongly identify with left-vs-right political affiliation (possibly due to that network manipulation). If anything, this is the fight they’re itching to have: to defeat the other poor people for their different opinions about transsexuality, etc.
The seven richest people in the world all own media networks. They know that violent societal breakdown is a possibility and are much better prepared to channel that chaos to their advantage than you are.
This doesn’t mean that you should give up. But advocating for violence at this point is inviting disaster. That violence will hurt you, not them.
Yes, this we agree on. It’s likely impossible and we’re running out of time. But that doesn’t mean that violence is an effective solution. It will just accelerate the decline into factionalism, a state in which the wealthy will be even more advantaged.
Right, and how are you ensuring, in this age of intensifying populism, captured information networks and unbridled individualistic greed, that once you release the genie, violence will only be used for that purpose?
Very curious about the deleted comment that inspired this response.
Because violence won’t solve the problem. We need global coordination. Violence just turns us into squabbling regional and ethnic factions.
We need a global solution. The scale of economic power is larger than the scale of our democratically controlled political power. Nationalism won’t save us.
Lol.
I actually agree with most of your statement, except for “DIRECT”. That’s not part of my claim, and it shouldn’t be a goal of yours.
The terrain has been rigged so that all the direct, the locally advantageous, locally practical solutions lead back to the same toxic equilibrium. We are stuck in a historical basin of attraction and need to escape it.
The only long-term stable/viable solution, the only solution that honours our responsibility to future generations, is to avoid the immediate direct solutions, the ones that the manipulated incentive structures are set up to anticipate, and to do what you described. I’m not claiming it’s easy, or likely to happen, merely that it’s our only chance to save our species from itself.