"...I argue we are better served by undermining the powers-that-should-not-be than we are by trying to overthrow them."
We are not actually in disagreement, believe it or not. Even a cursory examination of my back catalog will reveal that I constantly beat the drum of adoption of nascent technological advances that decentralize the means of production, and predict that eventually we can just ignore wannabe overlords.
However, despite that confidence and the economic fact that centralization cannot compete with decentralization, and that decentralization is a clinal boundary of extraordinary significance, and not just advance of technology that will continue to benefit parasitic overlords, I cannot vouchsafe that this ongoing transcendence should - or can - simply be purely economic. The potential of overlords to undertake violent genocide cannot be discounted. The necessity to counter that violence cannot either.
I do not believe differently from you that violent revolution could not result in our finally gaining benevolent overlords. However, I suspect, and am preceded by many that have predicted that this transition will occur with intolerable violence, and will needs must be met with the will to defend and protect good people. That is not something I reckon will result in a new set of overlords, but will protect the transcendence of centralization and maturation of decentralized means of production, distribution of those means, and the diaspora of humanity across the universe to where illimitable resources are available to develop.
In that interest, then, of blunting the savagery of psychopathic predators that are obviously willing, perhaps demonstrably bent, on genocidal eradication of the folks able to adopt and develop decentralized means of creating the blessings of civilization and rendering overlords obsolete, I am fully willing to fight and die, on that hill.