You must log in or register to comment.

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

Pro environment action is when you light a factory on fire committing some of the worst actions of pollution possible so a different company builds a factory elsewhere. Making no provable positive effect, outside long winded theoretical diatribes about economic theory that is extremely arguable. Why actually make environmentally positive actions when you could commit acts of environmental acceleration? Because environmental sabotage provably causes ridiculous amounts of pollution and most cases cannot prove any positive effect. So it would be inaccurate to call it anything other than acceleration ism.

Its almost like trying to control supply artificially almost never ever works. But why have historical precedent of ineffectiveness or no poof that your methods work stop you from becoming one of the worst individual polluters on the face of planet earth masked as living sustainably.

Damn, thats kinda harsh. To clarify you're cool sparky, not trying to attack you or anything. Just making a incendiary comment to spark discussion.


stckyfngr OP wrote

I see what you are getting at. One could argue that destroying a factory or plant that is causing pollution, even if the act of destruction itself causes pollution, is better than allowing the original pollution to increase exponentially


lettuceLeafer wrote

I get the logic behind it tho I do find it weird for anarchists to be the ones who think trying to force people to do what u want works. Don't get me wrong, I don't think sabotores are bad people or am morally against the idea. Tho take the drug war for instance. The US government has basically unlimited resources and is far far more powerful than me. And their sabotage efforts have had literally no effect on my drug use. And I have far far less resources than the US government. I mean there is an argument to be made that the drug war increased people's drug use by making the now criminals more anxious and cope with drugs and making drugs cool since they are anti authoritarian.

So I find it weird that an incredibly powerful organization can't even really curb drug use by far weaker opponents. Especially sabotage it's an action where people put their lives on the line so I would think u would want to be sure that it overall helped. But it's hard af to predict.

Let's say for example a coal plant that burns coal to make energy to mine Bitcoin and run a factory to make bomber planes. Something the world would be far better off without. One prediction could be the coal plant gets destroyed but even if they rebuild the days it was gone they weren't polluting for X amount of days so overall it was a gain.

But I think it could almost be a better prediction that pollution would be far worse. The US Millitary views it's production lines as incredibly essential and will pay lots of money. They view that if they need it they should overproduce and hoard ad a shortage causes soldiers to die and worst of all they won't be able to do imperialism as good.

So after the sabotage they realize oh our production is more unstable so we will have to increase production for the same level of output. So they build 3 coal power plants and triple the output of the old factory. So that if even 2 plants were destroyed they have enough and in case of all 3 being destroyed they built up a surplus.

Idk, I just think sabotage doesn't make much sense bc I like u am an anarchist when told what to do by the government and threatened with punishment we still do what we want but just spend effort to just do what we want and not let the government prevent our behavior.

I day we bc I didn't want to write I am a anarchists and kind insinuate like u just do what the gov says or whatever.

So I think it's nearly impossible to predict the outcome so sabotage doesn't make sense from a individual perspective. In like a ML gurrilla campaign I think there could be an argument bc it weakens the enemy temporarily and will allow a eco friendly ML state to then stop pollution.

But I think from a anarchists perspective where individual actions don't have nearly that large of scope I can't see a way where u could exact enough control to have a probable positive effect.

Seems especially silly when direct action can be done that u could prove works such as tree plantjng ect. Or a larger company to smash supply by curbing demand by making people living with less electricity more desirable for people than using electricity.

Which is sure far harder but if predictions are wrong the effect is nothing rather than negative. Idk, I guess my argument is mostly that if I pretend to be an oil billionaire or whatever making fuck tons of money polluting an some sabotours start destroying my stuff I think polluting less and making less money would be one of my reactions tho not the only reaction I would have or reaction I would most likely to do.


stckyfngr OP wrote

Ya know, I looked at that meme harder and realized it was ecofascist. Flew right over my head before


gone_to_croatan wrote

I saw the meme before you deleted and it wasn't so explicitly ecofash.. I have posted edgy stuff before, I usually avoid potential problematic stuff and I guess many people are afraid or in doubt to call out.

My point is, many meme act like propaganda for us and we don't took it literally many times (eat the rich was never about cannibalism of affluent folks, it is about a class war resistance like the no war, but class war that right now was disrobed by the confusion of "anarchists" trying to pose a neutral thirdposition in the Ukraine invasion.)


lettuceLeafer wrote

Wait, I actually wasn't going that angle. I was just talking sabotage general. I didn't notice anything from a oppressive point of view. Tho it very well could have been I wasn't paying that great of attention.

Tho another example of u being a chill person that u take stuff down if u think it might be bad. Tho I was just clarifying that I wasn't saying u were spreading oppressive memes or whatever.