I was recently trying to think of all the arguments that have been offered against the ATS philosophy and strategy. I would define the ATS position as follows:
1. The international plutocratic empire is the enemy of all mankind except a small number of people who are its overlords.
2. The most viable means of resistance would be a de facto pan-anarchist movement based on the principle of self-determination of all peoples everywhere. Not only nations, religions, and ethnic groups, but also communities, regions, tribes, subcultures, minority groups, political factions, and socioeconomic categories.
3. The most viable means of achieving this objective would be through the organization of alliances of regional and local secessionist movements with each of these developing their own alternative infrastructure, and maintaining their respective cultural orientation.
From what I can surmise, the arguments against this position amount to:
1. “I don’t care about overthrowing the empire.” Fair enough.
2. “I don’t think the ATS position would work. Too much room or infiltration, division, or co-optation.” Fair enough.
3. “We want special recognition for our issues.” Special pleading.
4. “We demand the right to exclude people we don’t like from the revolutionary alliance.” Special pleading.
5. “I don’t like the ATS position because Keith Preston is an asshole.” Irrelevant ad hominem.
I’m open to hearing other arguments if anyone wants to offer some.
