Of course, most of them won’t give up their own big carbon footprints, won’t stop using fossil fuels, won’t go vegan, or live in tiny homes, and so forth
Can sabotage stop climate change?
Despite the climate movement’s growth, epitomised by Extinction Rebellion and Student Strike for Climate, fossil fuel extraction continues to grow, and a safe climate can seem dismayingly distant. Given a choice between forgoing capital accumulation and tipping the whole world into a furnace, our rulers prefer the furnace.
In How to Blow up a Pipeline, Andreas Malm asks how the climate movement can emerge from the COVID-19 hiatus as a stronger force. In particular, he questions whether the movement’s until now near-universal commitment to non-violent protest is holding it back. “Will absolute non-violence be the only way, forever the sole admissible tactic in the struggle to abolish fossil fuels? Can we be sure that it will suffice against this enemy? Must we tie ourselves to its mast to reach a safer place?â€
To make his point, Malm cites examples of popular historic movements, some of which are invoked by today’s climate campaigners as examples of non-violent change.
The overthrow of Atlantic slavery involved violent slave uprisings and rebellions. The suffragettes of early 20th century Britain regularly engaged in property destruction. The United States civil rights movement was punctuated by urban riots. As part of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela co-founded the armed wing of the African National Congress. The Indian National Congress is known for its non-violent tactics, but violence also played a role in the resistance to British rule from the Great Rebellion of 1857 until independence.
Malm absolutely rules out violence that harms people, but he wants the climate movement to include sabotage and property destruction in its plans.
Oh, sure, that harms people now, but, that won’t last, seeing how the “peace loving liberals” love assaulting people, believing it is OK because they are on the right side of history. But, property damage and destruction does hurt people. What of when they cause power to go out and someone dies because their ventilator gets shut off? What if they destroy someone’s business? What if they kill the power for people during a winter storm or during a heat wave?
Malm’s arguments have been met with alarm in some quarters. In a review posted on the Global Ecosocialist Network website Alan Thornett says adopting the book’s proposals would “not only be wrong but disastrous†and anyone who did so would soon have “armed police kicking down their doorâ€. He calls Malm’s argument an impatient “bid for a shortcut†resulting from “frustration compounded by the lack of a socially just exit strategy from fossil energyâ€.
Some others say this is a Bad Idea, but, now that it is out there, you can bet climate cultists are considering it. And will do it. You just had the hack of a pipeline. You had Extinction Rebellion splashing fake blood on buildings and people. And so much more
Malm opposes reckless actions — “controlled political violence†should be regarded a “fine art to be mastered†and “time and timing are of the essenceâ€. Because violent actions could backfire and “make a movement look so distasteful as to deny it all influenceâ€, climate saboteurs must be “especially circumspect and mindful†of the wider cause, as the “negative effects could be unusually ruinousâ€.
He is very critical of the sabotage tactics of groups such as EarthFirst! and the Earth Liberation Front in North America in the 1980s and 1990s. Their acts of “ecotage†produced “no lasting gains†because “they were not performed in a mass movement, but largely in a voidâ€.
And you know that many Warmists are taking this to heart. It’s the inner Antifa in all of them, willing to get violent.
Malm is genuinely committed to advancing the climate movement, making it more radical and hence more effective at dealing with a crisis caused by capitalism, but his call for sabotage and property destruction by a minority is misplaced, despite the many qualifications he includes.
No matter how sincere it is, How to Blow up a Pipeline undermines the more radical strategy of bringing wider layers of people into struggle and helping them to see themselves as key protagonists in this fight for the future.
Surprise! He’s against capitalism. And, sure, the article takes issue with his ideas as bad for this “bringing wider layers of people into the struggle”, but, it really doesn’t say “hey, this is criminal”, does it?
Read: Climate Cultists Now Advocating Violence And Criminal Activity To Stop Climate Crisis (scam) »