Input: NYT Interview "How This Climate Activist Justifies Political Violence"

Aktion & Praxis
Forumsregeln
Denkt dran: Keine Aufrufe & Anstiftungen zu illegalen Handlungen!
Antworten
Benutzeravatar
Akayi
Akinator
Beiträge: 30363
Registriert: 09.02.2008

Input: NYT Interview "How This Climate Activist Justifies Political Violence"

Beitrag von Akayi » 15. Jan 2024 14:03

With the 2021 publication of his unsettling book, “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” Andreas Malm established himself as a leading thinker of climate radicalism. The provocatively titled manifesto, which, to be clear, does not actually provide instructions for destroying anything, functioned both as a question — why has climate activism remained so steadfastly peaceful in the face of minimal results? — and as a call for the escalation of protest tactics like sabotage. (...) But, says Malm, who is 46, “the hope is that humanity is not going to let everything go down the drain without putting up a fight.”
It’s hard for me to think of a realm outside of climate where mainstream publications would be engaging with someone, like you, who advocates political violence.
Why are people open to this conversation? If you know something about the climate crisis, this means that you are aware of the desperation that people feel. It is quite likely that you feel it yourself. With this desperation comes an openness to the idea that what we’ve done so far isn’t enough. But the logic of the situation fundamentally drives this conversation: All attempts to rein in this problem have failed miserably. Which means that, virtually by definition, we have to try something more than we’ve tried.

How confident are you that when you open the door to political violence, it stays at the level of property and not people? You’ve written about the need to be careful, but the emotions that come with violence are not careful emotions.
Political history is replete with movements that have conducted sabotage without taking the next step. But the risk is there. One driver of that risk is that the climate crisis itself is exacerbating all the time. It’s hard-wired to get worse. So people might well get more desperate. Now, in the current situation, in every instance that I know of, climate movements that experiment with sabotage steer clear of deliberately targeting people. We might smash things, which people are doing here and there,but no one is seriously considering that you should get a gun and shoot people. Everyone knows that would be completely disastrous. The point that’s important to make is that the reason that people contemplate escalation is that there are no risk-free options left.
Mehr hier:
https://archive.ph/jrUKx
recherchiert, was rechtlich so möglich ist

Antworten