Geopolitics tends to be a field of analysis for experts and journalists interested in the competing fortunes of nation-states, their alliances and institutions. They bring to it a level of strategizing similar to sports commentators at Sunday football: they understand the repertoire of plays, they can suss out strengths and weaknesses, but they will never deconstruct the history of the game
We must not read the same source of geopolitics. The common question is “how does this change the game?” “Have the rules changed?”. Of particular anarchist interest is the fact that armies tend to veer towards more local autonomy rather than top down hierarchies (still a far cry from anarchism, but one can see there a vindication of our ideas). The role of UN is constantly discussed and illustrates the limits of (kinda) consensus-based non-coercive approaches. EU-Hungary politics or NATO-Turkey give a lesson on the cost of decisions by unanimity and ways to circumvent vetos. I think that is disingenuous to not interest one-self in geopolitics on the premise that country-states are undesirable. Don’t get too emotionally involved, sure, but it remains interesting.
I did not go to the end of the article, disagreeing at half the sentences. Just wanted to state a strong disagreement on that statement:
Fascists are not close to taking over
In the US? They have been extremely close to take over. There is one single person that stood between them and the officials they wanted to kill: Lt. Michael Byrd. And the luck that was with us about the one well-armed insurrectionist group that got lost in the building. Nothing has been effectively done to prevent a rematch, it was extremely close.
It’s hyperbole to think had the January 6th riots succeeded in doing what ever it was they attempted to do, the US would be ruled by outright fascists right now. Sure, the situation would be likely worse than it is now, but very likely not substantially different.
I think the article is correct at least in so far as to make a distinction between right wing populists like Trump and outright fascists.
It is not hyperbole. They were out there to kill some high ranking officials they did not like. It would have been a real, non-hyperbole, coup. It would have been a situation of actual, non-hyperbole, civil war, with military taking sides. It would have been a suspension of US democracy. They were there to install a new regime. Had Pelosi, Pence and AOC (named targets of the assailants) been killed on that day, do you really think it would be business as usual?
I want to believe that 99% of the army would know who to support and that this would have ended in 24h but even in that case, the world would be substantially different.
We must not read the same source of geopolitics. The common question is “how does this change the game?” “Have the rules changed?”. Of particular anarchist interest is the fact that armies tend to veer towards more local autonomy rather than top down hierarchies (still a far cry from anarchism, but one can see there a vindication of our ideas). The role of UN is constantly discussed and illustrates the limits of (kinda) consensus-based non-coercive approaches. EU-Hungary politics or NATO-Turkey give a lesson on the cost of decisions by unanimity and ways to circumvent vetos. I think that is disingenuous to not interest one-self in geopolitics on the premise that country-states are undesirable. Don’t get too emotionally involved, sure, but it remains interesting.
I did not go to the end of the article, disagreeing at half the sentences. Just wanted to state a strong disagreement on that statement:
In the US? They have been extremely close to take over. There is one single person that stood between them and the officials they wanted to kill: Lt. Michael Byrd. And the luck that was with us about the one well-armed insurrectionist group that got lost in the building. Nothing has been effectively done to prevent a rematch, it was extremely close.
It’s hyperbole to think had the January 6th riots succeeded in doing what ever it was they attempted to do, the US would be ruled by outright fascists right now. Sure, the situation would be likely worse than it is now, but very likely not substantially different.
I think the article is correct at least in so far as to make a distinction between right wing populists like Trump and outright fascists.
It is not hyperbole. They were out there to kill some high ranking officials they did not like. It would have been a real, non-hyperbole, coup. It would have been a situation of actual, non-hyperbole, civil war, with military taking sides. It would have been a suspension of US democracy. They were there to install a new regime. Had Pelosi, Pence and AOC (named targets of the assailants) been killed on that day, do you really think it would be business as usual?
I want to believe that 99% of the army would know who to support and that this would have ended in 24h but even in that case, the world would be substantially different.