• explodicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    Hypothetically perfectly organized invaders, or invaders from the rival majority-rule system? More “action” isn’t necessarily better - it includes massive subsidies and bailouts for the 0.1%, a huge source of inefficiency.

    If it’s the latter, then each soldier will be in various 49% groups. Our army today is half wage conscripts.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      No, not perfectly organized invaders, literally any heierarchal group. Because the locals cannot do anything together without consensus. Defence would bw difficult, counter attacking would be impossible or ineffective because the local group would splinter.

    • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Anarchists always seem to ignore the fact that out of the plethora of governmental forms that have been tested by various human civilisations throughout the millennia, anarchism is not one that has ever survived prolonged contact with other civilisations with a different form of government.

        • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          They did? They said that about a governmental form that was documented as 2000 years old at the time, and which has been used in some shape or form by some human civilisation for as long as we have had civilisation?