cheem420

cheem420 wrote

It needs to be taken into account that at some point, it won't be a question of IF sabotage should take place, but it will a question of HOW sabotage should take place. How to get rid of the buildings, machinery, AND people responsible for the current and coming damage.

There is no guarantee that anything done to mitigate climate disaster, including direct action, will be successful. This type of action would probably be considered a last resort, something people may think about when everything around them is already on fire.

Whos to say that if enough people (the right people) find themselves in this situation together, they couldnt think of sabotage methods that also mitigate side effects? Even further, would anyone even care about possible side effects of sabotage if climate destruction was impending and inevitable, literally happening in front of their eyes?

I dont see how anarchists are trying to force anyone to do anything. It's simple, when people are backed into a corner, some choose to fight.

You can go green and toss all the seed bombs you want, its not going to stop capitalism, especially when the whole world around you is in fire.

I look forward to any response you may have.

6

cheem420 OP wrote

Reply to comment by lettuceLeafer in by cheem420

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

3