You must log in or register to comment.

stagn wrote

Ther is many point of view on sabotage, usualy isnt the only praxis but is part of wide praxis.

For many the goal isnt only the quantitave damage, but can be: for sensibilize, for done visibility to an idea o a problematic, for incite the revolt...

An other interresant poin of view is anarcho-nihilism, from this perspective sabotage or other act of revolt, is not a means to a more important end, is the end. Ther is no hope for a better future and agaist a dystopic nightmare the only approch can be pure negation and "explosive" jouissance.

I think sabotage have big limits, can be harmuful and often ther is better options. I prefer run into the wild and rewild, but for many people some time sabotage can be usefull.


halfway_prince wrote

uhhhh can u elaborate? lol


lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Highly demanded good with high profit motive make for markets that are extremely resilient to artificial restriction of supply.

Thinking that sabotaging fossil fuel companies will have any noticable effect on pollution is just refusing to learn from the mistakes of law makers who implemented the war on drugs.

It's especially nieve considering the war in drugs was enacted on some fairly difficult to produce goods wit a niche consumer base and the US government had basically unlimited resources to sabotage. While anarchists are attacking one of the most in demand goods with the largest consumer bases and anarchist have extremely limited resources.

It's an almost 1:1 comparison to the war on drugs thinking and planning but somehow even less thought out.