It wont and you can’t. When fighting something so entrenched and powerful as the rich, its neccassary to them pull by the roots. Thats often destructive. Nonviolence/apathy are the easy way, and the future is going to get very difficult within the next 10 years.
But who who wield that violence? The oppressors, or the victims?
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.
It wont and you can’t. When fighting something so entrenched and powerful as the rich, its neccassary to them pull by the roots. Thats often destructive. Nonviolence/apathy are the easy way, and the future is going to get very difficult within the next 10 years.
But who who wield that violence? The oppressors, or the victims?
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.