Decentralization and Resistance: A Critical Evaluation of the Geopolitical Strategy Proposed by Attack the System
Critique of the Geopolitical Strategy in Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire by Attack the System (ATS)
The document Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire by Attack the System (ATS) outlines a strategy for opposing the global unipolar order that emerged in the post-Cold War era. It critiques the centralization of power under U.S. hegemony and proposes a decentralized and multipolar alternative rooted in philosophical anarchism. The work advocates for resistance to the unipolar “New World Order” and argues for the necessity of forming broad coalitions of ideologically diverse groups, ranging from leftist movements to nationalist factions, to challenge the state-centric global system.
In light of geopolitical developments since the early 2000s—including the rise of multipolarity, populist-nationalist movements, and the advent of advanced surveillance technologies—this critique will assess the validity, applicability, and effectiveness of the ATS framework. While ATS’s insights into systemic critiques of unipolarity are noteworthy, its strategic prescriptions face significant theoretical, practical, and ethical challenges. This critique will examine these dimensions, contextualizing the framework within contemporary developments.
Analytical Strengths of the ATS Framework
Prescient Critiques of Unipolarity
One of the most striking aspects of ATS’s framework is its accurate prediction of the inherent instability of a unipolar world order dominated by the United States. ATS correctly identified the contradictions and tensions in a system where one hegemon exerts disproportionate influence over global politics, economics, and culture. These tensions have become increasingly evident, as seen in the decline of U.S. soft power, growing economic competition from China, and the resurgence of regional powers such as Russia, India, and Brazil.
ATS anticipated that resistance to unipolarity would manifest in a variety of forms, from state-led challenges to grassroots insurgencies. Its analysis also captured the increasing alienation many countries and movements felt under the U.S.-led liberal order. The rise of multipolarity, characterized by competing centers of power and influence, validates ATS’s critique of the long-term sustainability of a unipolar system.
Advocacy for Decentralization
ATS’s call for decentralization resonates with contemporary debates about governance, autonomy, and community sovereignty. The framework critiques the centralization of power not only at the state level but also within transnational organizations, corporations, and global institutions. By advocating for decentralized systems of governance, ATS aligns itself with broader movements that seek to empower local communities and promote self-determination.
Decentralization as a principle also aligns with technological and economic trends that have facilitated the growth of localized economies, peer-to-peer networks, and community-based initiatives. These developments underscore the relevance of ATS’s vision, particularly in an era where dissatisfaction with centralized bureaucracies is widespread.
Rejection of Universalism
The framework’s rejection of universalist ideologies—whether liberal, Marxist, or conservative—remains a valuable contribution to political thought. ATS critiques universalist frameworks for their tendency to impose homogenizing values on diverse cultures and societies. Instead, it advocates for a pluralistic world order where different communities can pursue their own paths without interference.
This critique of universalism is particularly relevant in the context of contemporary multipolarity, where the decline of a single ideological framework has given rise to diverse governance models and value systems. ATS’s emphasis on philosophical anarchism as a meta-framework that accommodates this diversity is a compelling alternative to rigid ideological paradigms.
Theoretical Weaknesses in ATS’s Analysis
Overgeneralization of Historical Analogies
ATS frequently employs historical analogies to support its arguments, such as comparisons between the U.S. unipolar order and historical empires like Rome or the Soviet Union. While these analogies are evocative, they often oversimplify the complexities of modern global systems. For instance, the global interconnectedness of today’s political and economic systems differs significantly from the relatively insular dynamics of past empires.
The document’s assertion that the collapse of unipolarity would mirror the fall of earlier empires overlooks the unique resilience of contemporary state-capitalist systems. Unlike the rigid Soviet bureaucracy, the U.S.-led liberal order has demonstrated remarkable adaptability, often incorporating dissenting voices and reforming its institutions to maintain legitimacy. This adaptability complicates predictions of an imminent collapse.
Insufficient Engagement with Global Capitalism
While ATS critiques state capitalism as a central pillar of the unipolar order, its analysis lacks depth in addressing the mechanisms through which global capitalism perpetuates centralization. The framework critiques transnational corporations and financial institutions but does not provide a detailed analysis of how these entities could be dismantled or replaced in a decentralized world.
This omission weakens ATS’s argument, as it fails to address the economic structures that underpin political centralization. A more robust engagement with anti-capitalist theory and practice would strengthen its critique and provide clearer pathways for achieving its goals.
Practical Feasibility of the ATS Strategy
Coalition-Building: A Complex Undertaking
The cornerstone of ATS’s strategy is its call for a coalition of ideologically diverse groups to oppose the unipolar order. While this approach has the advantage of mobilizing a wide range of forces, it is fraught with practical challenges. The proposed coalition includes groups with fundamentally incompatible ideologies, such as anarchists, Marxists, nationalists, and even elements of the far-right.
These ideological divisions present significant obstacles to sustained collaboration. For example, anarchist movements that prioritize individual autonomy and egalitarianism may find it difficult to align with nationalist factions that emphasize cultural homogeneity and hierarchical governance. Similarly, Marxists advocating for centralized economic planning may clash with libertarians who oppose all forms of state intervention.
While ATS argues that decentralization would allow these groups to coexist, it does not address how such a coalition would navigate conflicts over strategy, priorities, and long-term goals. Historical examples of broad coalitions, such as the Popular Fronts of the 20th century, demonstrate the fragility of alliances that lack a unifying ideology or shared vision.
The Rise of Multipolarity and Its Implications
Since the early 2000s, the global geopolitical landscape has shifted significantly, with the rise of multipolarity challenging U.S. dominance. While this development aligns with ATS’s critique of unipolarity, it also introduces new complexities. Emerging powers such as China, Russia, and India are not inherently aligned with the principles of decentralization or philosophical anarchism. In many cases, these states have adopted centralized and authoritarian models of governance.
The competition between these powers complicates ATS’s vision of a decentralized world order. Rather than dismantling centralization, multipolarity may simply redistribute power among competing centers. ATS’s framework does not adequately address how to counteract the centralizing tendencies of these new powers or how to navigate the geopolitical rivalries that characterize multipolarity.
Technological Barriers to Decentralization
The rapid advancement of technology poses both opportunities and challenges for ATS’s vision. On one hand, digital tools and decentralized networks can facilitate grassroots organizing and resistance to centralized authority. On the other hand, state and corporate actors increasingly use technology for surveillance, control, and manipulation.
ATS does not sufficiently engage with the implications of these technological developments. Its reliance on traditional forms of resistance overlooks the need for strategies that address the digital dimensions of modern power. For example, decentralized movements must contend with the risks of infiltration, disinformation, and cyberattacks in an era of pervasive digital surveillance.
Ethical and Philosophical Considerations
Ambiguity in Alliance Formation
ATS’s willingness to collaborate with ideologically extreme groups raises ethical questions about the limits of pragmatism. While the framework emphasizes issue-based alliances rather than ideological alignment, this approach risks legitimizing oppressive or exclusionary ideologies. For example, alliances with far-right factions could alienate marginalized communities and undermine the credibility of the broader movement.
The lack of clear ethical guidelines for alliance-building is a significant weakness in ATS’s framework. Without these guidelines, the proposed coalitions risk devolving into opportunistic alliances that prioritize short-term gains over long-term principles.
Romanticization of Collapse
The document frequently portrays societal collapse as a necessary step toward decentralization and liberation. While this perspective reflects a critique of existing systems, it underestimates the human cost of collapse, including economic dislocation, violence, and social fragmentation. By failing to account for these consequences, ATS risks alienating individuals and communities that prioritize stability and security.
A more nuanced approach would emphasize transitional strategies that minimize harm while gradually shifting power from centralized institutions to decentralized alternatives. This would make the framework more appealing to a broader audience.
Relevance in Contemporary Context
Populist-Nationalist Movements
The rise of populist-nationalist movements provides an interesting lens through which to evaluate ATS’s framework. These movements share ATS’s critique of global elites and centralized power but often adopt authoritarian and exclusionary approaches that conflict with the principles of decentralization and pluralism. Leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil have used anti-globalist rhetoric to consolidate power rather than dismantle it.
This divergence highlights the limitations of ATS’s coalition strategy. While populist-nationalist movements may share certain goals with anarchist and decentralist movements, their underlying values and methods are often incompatible.
Fragmentation of Global Ideologies
The fragmentation of global ideologies in recent years aligns with ATS’s critique of universalism. The decline of a single dominant narrative has created space for diverse governance models and cultural frameworks. However, this fragmentation also poses challenges, as competing factions often resort to zero-sum politics rather than cooperative coexistence.
ATS’s emphasis on ideological pluralism is a valuable contribution to this discourse, but its framework must address the practical challenges of managing diversity within decentralized systems. Without mechanisms for conflict resolution and coordination, fragmentation risks devolving into chaos.
Recommendations for Revising the ATS Framework
Develop Ethical Guidelines for Alliances: ATS should establish clear principles for determining which groups to collaborate with and under what conditions. This would enhance the framework’s credibility and address concerns about legitimizing oppressive ideologies.
Incorporate Technological Strategies: The framework must address the role of technology in both enabling and suppressing decentralized movements. This includes strategies for countering surveillance, disinformation, and other digital threats.
Emphasize Transitional Models: Rather than romanticizing collapse, ATS should prioritize strategies that facilitate a gradual and humane transition to decentralized governance. This approach would minimize harm and build broader support.
Address Economic Structures: ATS should provide a more detailed analysis of how decentralized economies would function and how they would address the challenges posed by global capitalism.
Refine Coalition-Building Mechanisms: The framework should include practical strategies for resolving conflicts within its proposed coalition, such as decision-making protocols and conflict mediation frameworks.
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions
Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire by Attack the System offers a bold and provocative vision for resisting centralized power and fostering a decentralized, pluralistic world order. Its critiques of unipolarity, universalism, and state capitalism remain relevant, and its emphasis on decentralization resonates with contemporary movements for autonomy and self-determination.
However, the framework is hindered by significant theoretical, practical, and ethical challenges. Its reliance on historical analogies, failure to engage with technological and economic realities, and lack of clear ethical guidelines limit its applicability. To remain relevant in an evolving geopolitical landscape, ATS must refine its strategy to address these shortcomings while building on its strengths.
By incorporating more nuanced approaches to coalition-building, technological adaptation, and transitional governance, ATS can transform its vision into a viable roadmap for resistance and liberation. Until then, its framework remains an ambitious but incomplete contribution to the discourse on geopolitical strategy and anarchist theory.
At its core, the document highlights the enduring need for a reimagined approach to governance that transcends centralized systems, offering valuable insights for those committed to building a freer and more equitable world.