Andreas Malm asks in his book How to Blow Up a Pipeline, when do we start fighting against climate change with violence? He is quick to emphasize violence means property violence—destroying pipelines, private jets, private super yachts, letting air out of the tires of SUVs. He suggests peaceful protest has gotten us nowhere, that past movements emphasizing nonviolence only actually succeeded when a violent element arose.
He spends time taking us through some of those movements–the suffragettes, the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, the Indian movement for independence. Today being the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, let me give you a brief example of what Malm means.
He says that King’s adherence to nonviolence was getting the movement nowhere, that nothing would have changed if it hadn’t been for the violence threatened by groups like the Black Panthers. He even says King himself threatened violence. Malm quotes King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history.Martin Luther King, Jr. in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”
Instead of reading it as a fact, a warning of the reality of oppression and its consequences, Malm reads it as King threatening violence and suggests this threat helped push the movement forward. This is a complete misreading in my opinion, which then threw me into doubt about all of his other historical movement analyses. Malm is a well-known Swedish philosopher, and I’m sure not all of what he says about violence is wrong, but from my understanding, saying King himself threatened violence is wrong.
His argument does not rest there, however, he brings in experts who have studied movements:
In the words of Verity Burgmann, ‘the history of social movement activity suggests that reforms are more likely to be achieved when activists behave in extremist, even confrontational ways. Social movements rarely achieve everything they want, but they secure important partial victories’: when one wing, flanking the rising tide in the mainstream, prepares to blow the status quo sky-high.How to Blow Up a Pipeline, page 50
He also quotes another study of democratic transitions that happened between 1980 and 2010. The researchers found while civilians began demanding change peacefully, in the end, dictators were not overthrown until people got violent and the civic order became so disrupted that the cost of ruling became too great (page 60).
Malm says nonviolent action should always be where movements start, but when it isn’t working, other tactics need to be pursued. He really lays into Extinction Rebellion for their insistence on nonviolence. And I wonder what he thinks about XR’s recent announcement of the group shifting away from nonviolent disruption altogether in order to draw out more people to protests and events where the goal is to be a huge crowd instead of a bunch of people planning on being arrested?
Is Malm right about violence? I don’t know. Nonviolence didn’t stop Enbridge Line 3 oil pipeline. Nonviolence has not stopped Germany from leveling a couple villages so a gigantic coal mine can become even bigger. Nonviolence has not stopped wealthy people flying in their private planes. Even Kim Stanley Robinson in his book Ministry for the Future includes a black ops organization that blows stuff up; things don’t start changing in a significant way until the private jets start falling from the sky.
Violence is a tricky thing; once unleashed it is hard to stop. And how do you determine violence with good intentions from violence with bad intentions? For instance, in the United States, there have been a series of attacks on power relay stations. These attacks are not from environmentalists making a point about our fossil fueled power sources and trying to force a faster transition to renewable energy. These attacks are from far-right white supremacists who want to bring down the power grid, hoping the chaos will bring on civil war and the collapse of the government. Can we judge an activist who destroys fossil fuel infrastructure as morally just and a civil war fomenting white suprematist who destroys that same infrastructure as morally wrong? Do we argue self-defense for one and insurrection for the other? I suppose one can make a case, like how murder can be justified in certain circumstances. But it seems rather murky.
To be clear, Malm asserts there are exceptions on what property can be legitimately destroyed:
There is, however, one exception, one type of property destruction that approaches killing and maiming, namely that which hits material conditions for subsistence: poisoning someone’s groundwater, burning down a family’s last remaining grove of olive trees or, for that matter, firebombing a paddy field in an Indian peasant village because it emits methane would come close to a stab in the heart. At the other end of the spectrum is the blasting of a super yacht into smithereens.How to Blow Up a Pipeline, page 103
So what do we do with the latest study published in Science detailing how Exxon knew all about climate change in the 1970s? What do we do about this year’s COP28 being held in Dubai and the UAE appointing the chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company president of the proceedings?
As Malm says,
After the past three decades, there can be no doubt that the ruling classes are constitutionally incapable of responding to the catastrophe in any other way than by expediting it; of their own accord, under their inner compulsion, they can do nothing but burn their way to the end.How to Blow Up a Pipeline, page 8
The World Economic Forum meeting started today in Davos. These are the wealthy people, businesses, countries, meeting to talk about how to continue to expand their wealth. Oh yes, climate change is on the agenda, but it’s a safe bet they are trying to figure out how to make money off it. The theme of their meeting is “Cooperation in a Fragmented World,” which makes me laugh since the wealthy are quite united, and they are the ones who have caused much of the so-called fragmentation. In Kim Stanley Robinson’s Ministry for the Future, the black ops group held the bigwigs at the Davos conference hostage for a week until they agreed to meet certain demands. Is this the sort of thing the rest of us need to resort to in order to stop humanity from hurtling off the edge of a cliff?
Malm says yes. But I’m wondering what would happen if we came up with the global equivalent of the Montgomery bus boycott? It would not be the same everywhere because, for example, while everyone in the U.S. refusing to buy factory farmed meat would have a huge impact, it would not have any impact in a place like Bangladesh, the least meat consuming country in the world. Their boycott would look different. Hard to organize something like that for sure, but not impossible. What would happen if we refuse, as much as we possibly can, to play the capitalist game? We really don’t have much to lose since we are losing anyway.
And that’s part of Malm’s reasoning for violence too. He is provocative, and while I don’t particularly agree with his argument, I do appreciate him making it because it has urged me to think more deeply. If I refuse to resort to violence, am I being a climate fatalist because it’s “easier, at least for some, to imagine learning to die than learning to fight, to reconcile oneself to the end of everything one holds dear than to consider some militant resistance” (page 143)? “The end of everything” is rather vague. Is everything civilization as we know it in 2023? If so, yeah, I am reconciled to the end of everything. Is everything the end of humanity? No, I’m not reconciled to that. Even qualifying everything with “one holds dear” leaves it wide open. But the point of Malm, I believe, is to think about the question, “At what point do we escalate?” (page 8).