This interview between the NYT and the author of ‘how to blow up a pipeline’ includes discussion of the social acceptability of political violence. Unsurprisingly, the NYT person flips out at the idea of property destruction and seems to bounce between ‘political violence is never acceptable’ and calling David Malm a hypocrite for not blowing up a pipeline during the interview. Evidently this is the kind of political violence the NYT doesn’t support, in contrast to the kind of political violence they love (i.e. political violence used by the american state against property and humanity both foreign and domestic).
This is my favourite part of the interview in the spoilers.
spoiler
NYT: We live in representative democracies where certain liberties are respected. We vote for the policies and the people we want to represent us. And if we don’t get the things we want, it doesn’t give us license to then say, “We’re now engaging in destructive behavior.” Right? Either we’re against political violence or not. We can’t say we’re for it when it’s something we care about and against it when it’s something we think is wrong.
Malm: Of course we can. Why not?
NYT: That is moral hypocrisy.
Malm: I disagree.
NYT: Why?
Malm: The idea that if you object to your enemy’s use of a method, you therefore also have to reject your own use of this method would lead to absurd conclusions. The far right is very good at running electoral campaigns. Should we thereby conclude that we shouldn’t run electoral campaigns? This goes for political violence too, unless you’re a pacifist and you reject every form of political violence — that’s a reasonably coherent philosophical position. Slavery was a system of violence. The Haitian revolution was the violent overthrow of that system. It is never the case that you defeat an enemy by renouncing every kind of method that enemy is using.
NYT: But I’m specifically thinking about our liberal democracy, however debased it may be. How do you rationalize advocacy for violence within what are supposed to be the ideals of our system?
Malm: Imagine you have a Trump victory in the next election — doesn’t seem unimaginable — and you get a climate denialist back in charge of the White House and he rolls back whatever good things President Biden has done. What should the climate movement do then? Should it accept this as the outcome of a democratic election and protest in the mildest of forms? Or should it radicalize and consider something like property destruction? I admit that this is a difficult question, but I imagine that a measured response to it would need to take into account how democracy works in a country like the United States and whether allowing fossil-fuel companies to wreck the planet because they profit from it can count as a form of democracy and should therefore be respected.
NYT: Could you give me a reason to live?
Malm: What do you mean?
NYT: Your work is crushing. But I have optimism about the human project.
Malm: I’m not an optimist about the human project.
Oh my GOD this is the same argument I have with my well-meaning lib parents every month about this shit. They even have done that “so I guess there’s no hope huh” thing and as always it’s really just a way to escape. NO, THERE IS HOPE AND IT INVOLVES MAKING OIL COMPANIES AND THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT DEFEND THEM UNHAPPY.
Always remember kids: all political ideologies justify violence. No exceptions. In fact that’s in many ways their entire function. Political ideology is the way by which you determine who has the exclusive moral authority to use violence and who it can be used against. The degree to which you believe your ideology/system is nonviolent is only the degree to which you have been conditioned to see the violence inherent in your system is just the natural default state of the world. Even if you adopt a philosophy of hardcore uncompromising pacifism you will wind up having to justify your nonintervention in other violence happening around you at some point.
Always remember kids: all political ideologies justify violence. No exceptions.
I think some thoughts of Anarchist opt for a “let the community deal with it” approach to whatever that doesn’t necessarily justify violence in the sense of any other ideology and I don’t mean this as an attack
Both the book and the movie are pretty good.
and he rolls back whatever good things President Biden has done
That’s 3 days work max.
Meanwhile at Fox News …
Si Señors, Señoritas
