A Critique of Liberty and Populism: The Strategic Vision of Attack the System
How Well Does the Original Strategic Vision of Attack the System Hold Up Twenty Years Later?
The framework outlined in Liberty and Populism by Attack the System (ATS) presents a radical vision for dismantling centralized political power in the United States through the development of a "left/right libertarian-populism." This strategy seeks to unite disparate groups under the common goals of decentralization, opposition to corporatism, and grassroots empowerment. ATS critiques the centralized state and corporate oligarchies as oppressive institutions that erode personal freedoms and marginalize the majority of the population. The proposed solutions—coalitions across ideological divides, decentralization of governance, and grassroots activism—are ambitious in scope. However, the feasibility of these strategies and the ethical implications of ATS’s framework raise significant concerns. This critique will evaluate the analytical foundations, strategic viability, and moral considerations of ATS’s proposed approach, offering an in-depth analysis of its strengths and limitations.
Analytical Foundations of ATS
Strengths of the Analysis
The framework provided by ATS excels in diagnosing systemic issues within the United States. It identifies the inherent contradictions of centralized power and the growing alienation many individuals feel toward both major political parties and transnational corporate entities. ATS’s critique of the U.S. state as a "geriatric empire" poised for collapse resonates with broader concerns about political dysfunction, economic inequality, and cultural polarization. By drawing analogies to historical collapses, such as the fall of the Soviet Union, ATS emphasizes the fragility of seemingly monolithic systems.
Additionally, ATS’s rejection of rigid ideological divides is a key strength. The framework acknowledges that many political struggles transcend traditional left/right categorizations. For instance, grassroots movements advocating for economic justice, civil liberties, and opposition to militarism often share common enemies in centralized state and corporate power. By focusing on shared goals rather than ideological purity, ATS encourages a pragmatic approach to resistance.
Weaknesses in Analysis
Despite its strengths, ATS’s analysis is undermined by significant theoretical oversights. The characterization of the U.S. ruling class as primarily driven by "cultural Marxism" oversimplifies the complexities of elite power structures. While cultural shifts have influenced policy and social norms, economic elites continue to prioritize neoliberal orthodoxy, often subordinating cultural concerns to market imperatives. This reductionist framing risks alienating potential allies on the left who might otherwise support decentralization and economic justice.
Furthermore, ATS relies heavily on historical analogies that may not fully apply to contemporary conditions. The comparison between the United States and the Soviet Union, for instance, overlooks the adaptability of liberal-democratic capitalism. Unlike the rigid Soviet bureaucracy, the U.S. system has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for co-opting dissent through reformist measures, cultural soft power, and the maintenance of consumerist satisfaction. By underestimating these resiliencies, ATS’s analysis risks presenting an overly optimistic view of systemic vulnerability.
Strategic Feasibility
Coalition-Building: A Double-Edged Sword
The core of ATS’s strategy lies in its proposed "coalition of coalitions," uniting groups from across the political spectrum against the centralized state. This approach reflects an understanding of the diverse grievances that motivate resistance to centralized power, from economic inequality to cultural marginalization. However, the practicality of such coalitions is fraught with challenges.
ATS envisions alliances between groups with starkly different ideological commitments, such as leftist movements advocating economic justice and right-leaning factions prioritizing cultural preservation. While decentralization might theoretically allow these groups to coexist within a broader coalition, their deeply entrenched differences could undermine unity. For example, leftist advocates for robust social safety nets and affirmative action may find it impossible to reconcile their goals with libertarian conservatives who oppose government intervention in the economy.
Moreover, many groups identified by ATS as potential allies—such as black nationalists, religious conservatives, and white nationalists—harbor mutual antagonisms. These tensions raise questions about the coalition’s sustainability. Building a unified front would require significant compromises, yet ATS provides little guidance on how such compromises could be achieved without alienating key constituencies.
Overreliance on Historical Precedents
ATS draws heavily on historical examples, such as the Spanish anarchist movement and the Liberty Party, to justify its strategic vision. While these precedents offer valuable lessons, their applicability to 21st-century North America is limited. The Spanish anarchists operated within a predominantly agrarian society with strong labor unions, conditions that are vastly different from the post-industrial, service-oriented U.S. economy. Similarly, the Liberty Party’s success in aligning with abolitionists hinged on a unifying moral issue—slavery—that lacks a contemporary equivalent.
The proposed replication of these historical models fails to account for the unique challenges of modern political organizing, including the fragmentation of media landscapes, the rise of digital surveillance, and the polarization of public discourse. Without addressing these factors, ATS’s strategy risks becoming anachronistic.
Challenges in Electoral Strategy
The focus on local and regional electoral politics reflects ATS’s pragmatic understanding of grassroots power. By prioritizing positions that can realistically be won, such as city council seats or county boards, ATS avoids the futility of symbolic presidential campaigns. However, systemic barriers such as gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the dominance of major-party political machinery significantly constrain the effectiveness of this approach.
Furthermore, ATS’s emphasis on abstaining from federal elections may cede too much ground to centralized powers. While local victories can build momentum, they are unlikely to dismantle the broader structures of federal authority without complementary strategies at the national level. ATS’s reluctance to engage with federal politics limits its ability to address systemic issues comprehensively.
Ethical and Moral Considerations
Ambiguity in Alliances
One of the most contentious aspects of ATS’s framework is its willingness to collaborate with ideologically extreme groups, including elements of the far-right. While ATS frames these alliances as pragmatic and issue-specific, the ethical implications of legitimizing groups with oppressive or supremacist ideologies cannot be ignored. Aligning with white nationalists, for instance, risks alienating marginalized communities and undermines the movement’s credibility.
ATS argues that decentralization can mitigate these risks by allowing communities to govern themselves according to their values. However, this approach raises ethical concerns about the potential for decentralized systems to entrench local inequalities and injustices. In a decentralized municipality dominated by exclusionary ideologies, systemic discrimination could become institutionalized. ATS provides little guidance on how such outcomes might be prevented or addressed.
Romanticization of Armed Struggle
ATS includes armed struggle as part of its "all-fronts" strategy, drawing inspiration from insurgent movements such as the Vietcong and Hezbollah. While this inclusion acknowledges the potential necessity of self-defense against state repression, it also risks escalating conflicts and alienating broader public support. The romanticization of armed resistance ignores the collateral damage and long-term societal trauma often associated with such tactics.
In a highly militarized society like the U.S., promoting armed struggle could inadvertently justify state crackdowns and delegitimize the broader movement. ATS’s failure to critically engage with these risks reflects a lack of ethical nuance in its strategic vision.
Broader Implications
Economic Vision
ATS advocates for a decentralized, cooperative economy that functions independently of state and corporate control. This vision aligns with anarchist principles and provides a compelling critique of neoliberal capitalism. However, ATS offers limited detail on how such an economy would function in practice. The reliance on mutual aid networks and worker cooperatives, while admirable, lacks a roadmap for scaling these systems to meet the needs of a complex, interconnected society.
The transition from a capitalist economy to a decentralized, cooperative model would likely face significant resistance from entrenched interests, including multinational corporations and financial institutions. ATS does not sufficiently address the practical challenges of dismantling these structures or the potential economic disruptions that such a transition might entail.
Cultural Pluralism and Sovereignty
ATS’s emphasis on cultural pluralism and local sovereignty is both a strength and a weakness. Decentralization offers marginalized communities the opportunity to govern themselves and pursue their own visions of justice. However, it also risks creating fragmented societies with competing legal and social norms. The Swiss model, cited by ATS as an inspiration, functions within a framework of strong federal oversight and shared cultural values—conditions unlikely to be replicated in the U.S.
Moreover, ATS’s tolerance for exclusionary practices within decentralized communities undermines its commitment to justice and equality. Allowing localities to impose restrictive cultural norms or deny rights to certain groups risks perpetuating systemic inequalities, raising questions about the ethical viability of such a strategy.
Relevance in 2024 and Beyond
While ATS’s framework addresses enduring critiques of centralized power, its applicability in 2024 remains limited. The U.S. political landscape continues to be shaped by entrenched partisanship and institutional barriers that stymie grassroots coalitions. Populist movements on both the left and right have gained traction, but these efforts remain fragmented and often co-opted by mainstream political actors.
The 2024 presidential election underscores many of the challenges identified by ATS, including dissatisfaction with centralized power and the persistence of cultural divides. However, the failure of any significant libertarian-populist coalition to emerge suggests that ATS’s vision remains more aspirational than practical. The emphasis on decentralization and cross-ideological collaboration, while theoretically sound, requires more robust strategies to address the systemic obstacles and cultural divides that inhibit its realization.
Recommendations for Improvement
To strengthen its framework, ATS must address several key weaknesses:
Develop Detailed Economic Models: ATS should provide a more comprehensive vision of how decentralized economies would function in practice, addressing issues such as scalability, resource allocation, and resistance from entrenched interests.
Refine Coalition-Building Strategies: ATS needs to offer practical mechanisms for bridging ideological divides and resolving conflicts within its proposed coalition. This includes establishing clear principles for collaboration and addressing ethical concerns about alliances with exclusionary groups.
Critically Engage with Armed Struggle: ATS should reconsider its endorsement of armed resistance, emphasizing nonviolent strategies that are more likely to gain public support and avoid state repression.
Address Ethical Implications of Decentralization: ATS must provide safeguards against the potential for decentralized systems to entrench local injustices, ensuring that its vision aligns with principles of equity and justice.
Engage with Federal Politics: While maintaining its focus on grassroots organizing, ATS should consider strategies for influencing federal policy to address systemic issues comprehensively.
Liberty and Populism by Attack the System offers a bold and ambitious vision for resisting centralized power and reimagining political organization. Its critiques of the U.S. state, corporate dominance, and ideological rigidity remain relevant and insightful. However, significant weaknesses in its analysis, strategic vision, and ethical considerations limit its practical impact.
To realize its vision, ATS must evolve to address these challenges while remaining true to its core principles of liberty, decentralization, and justice. By developing more detailed economic models, refining its coalition-building strategies, and engaging more critically with the ethical implications of its proposals, ATS can provide a more robust framework for resistance in the 21st century. Until then, its vision remains an intriguing but ultimately aspirational contribution to anarchist thought.