This comment is very interesting in it's implications, and possibly worthy of it's own struggle session/discussion.

Fuckin Thank You for saying the shit i've not wanted to say on the open web/to a group of judgemental marxists

The people who break free from liberal sensibilities enough to be willing to use violence are unlikely to fall prey to those same sensibilities when picking targets for their violence. Particularly if the messaging of ‘use violence’ is paired with ‘at an oil pipeline, not a bus depot, stupid’, as it is in this book.

Fair point.

The current climate movement is bigger than ever, and yet the number of radicals willing to use violence is smaller than ever. A return of the Weather Underground would be preferable right now. Faith in liberal democracy is at an all-time low, and the issue of the carbon crisis is bigger than ever. A few bombings would force polarisation, and there’s a decent chance that enough people would fall down on the ‘pro bombing’ side that it snowballs. ‘Adventurism doesn’t work’ is a product of its time. In retrospect, nothing else worked either, and where it did (Russia), adventurism helped it along.

My problem with this book isn’t that I’m against this kind of violence, it’s the way in which it is presented as the medicine to cue all the ills of the climate movement. Add violence to the movement at present and sure, it may well lead to an increase in the size of the movement and if something like oil infrastructure is targeted then it would obviously strike a blow against emissions producers. We’ve certainly seen the ways in which displays of property destruction like what Malm talks about can galvanise a movement in the past couple of years – The burning down of the police precinct was spectacular and inspiring and almost certainly lead to the BLM movement exploding in the way that it did. There was a similar effect in the UK with the tearing down of the statue of Edward Colston, but obviously to a much lesser extent.

My problem, however, is that while spectacular displays of violence could be useful for getting people behind the movement, it will mean almost nothing if there are no mass organisations there to channel and direct that momentum. To use the Floyd protests again, the violence rose millions to their feet and out into the streets but, once they were there, it didn’t really go any further. It was the biggest protest movement and mass civil unrest in the west probably in most of our lifetimes, but yet, it more or less petered out after a couple of months with very little (non-symbolic) progress made.

Propaganda of the deed doesn’t work precisely because it does not contribute to a collective social struggle against the system, its quite individualist and, beyond the damage inflicted by the deed itself, it doesn’t really offer a serious threat to the system. You’re absolutely right that organised collective action has failed a whole bunch of times, however, there have been numerous instances of it succeeding. Even in all the places where it has not succeeded in overthrowing the established order (which I’m not actually advocating for anyway) it has everywhere lead to concessions and smaller victories that POTD simply hasn’t. I’d rather follow the strategies that have succeeded at least a little bit than the one that hasn’t.

I agree that we should not shy away from violence in these battles, and that it has been a crucial part of past victories, but this was always and should always be entrenched within broader popular movements. We saw this in Hammer and Hoe with the black communists organising and violently resisting in Alabama in the 20s/30s/40s. Likewise in This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed with the civil rights movement. We can even look at some of the examples Malm gives such as the movements in Nigeria against companies like Shell – Malm tells us about the violence, the destruction of oil infrastructure, etc. but he doesn’t discuss at all groups like MOSOP that managed to organise more than half the Ogoni people in that struggle. It’s a similar story for the ANC in South Africa.

So my gripe is not that Malm is advocating violence, its that he is doing so while not saying a mumbling word about the wider strategies and organisation. For me, he is presenting violent action as the silver bullet that will finally succeed, which just isn’t the case, there’s so much more to it. Unless the climate movement moves away from the half-arsed slacktivism and informal organisation structures like XR and tries to build some real power, then any group attempting to engage in violence will likely just end up like the Weather Underground, the George Jackson Brigade, the Black Liberation Army, the RAF, etc. – all mostly either dead or in prison.

Also, as a side note, you’re right that the climate movement is bigger than ever and its definitely a more salient issue but honestly I'm willing to bet that like 70% of the x millions that have taken to the streets are literal school children. I think we can both agree that would have to change before they’d be ready to support a bombing campaign lol.

It’s also hard to ignore how successful ISIS was in propagating with propaganda of the deed in the west, despite having a target audience in the single digits of population, being disaffected Arab/Muslim youth. It took near full mobilisation of the security state and a couple of forever-wars to crack down. Compared to that, a more radical climate movement has a lot going for it.

I disagree with the framing of this, you’re putting the cart before the horse. The forever wars and things like the patriot act weren’t done in order to stop terrorism. Rather, the terrorism provided the necessary justification that enabled those to happen. When you frame it like that, you’re buying into the narrative used to justify the wars and the state repression rather than seeing them for the acts of western imperialism driven by greed, oil, the military industrial complex, and the desire to entrench even further the US influence over the middle east.

Also, I disagree that the increased number of attacks with the rise of ISIS had much to do with them being better at POTD and so getting more people to act. I think its much more connected to a change in strategy in which instead of having cells of people doing a low volume of high-skilled acts of terror (as in prior to the 2010s), you now just have roughly the same number of individuals go out and do an increased volume of lower skilled acts of terror.

There’s a reason vegan anti-factory-farming activists were treated with the same security apparatus as ISIS back in the early 2000s, and why every second villain was some extremist environmentalist. The state recognises it as a viable and threatening ideology.

I mean, you can say this about near enough any threatening ideology to the present order. Also, I don’t know for sure, I’d guess there’s probably no movement that’s received more attention from state security agencies historically than the labour movement.

I am very very sorry that I wrote so much.