RateMyTerrorist: the ELF pole

[Taxamo Welf]

Point of view is a red herring. I am of the opinion that 4x4s and ski resorts are not what you want to be blowing up, not least because it is counter productive.

go on...

I understand that you think that, you've said it twice, but why?

(i am not of the opposite opinion, just asking)

 

[In Bloom]

what, riot for 11 days?

The link worked before, it was about a cafe ran by an ELF major player sacking workers for unionising. For some reason it redirects to the libcom main news page now

 

[In Bloom]

go on...

I understand that you think that, you've said it twice, but why?

(i am not of the opposite opinion, just asking)

Well besides the fact that it makes them look like a a bunch of twats and it achieves absolutely fuck all in the long term (new 4x4s and ski resorts can be made), blowing up some random person's car because you think they pollute too much, despite knowing bugger all about that person (their personal situation, why they might own that car, what they use it for) is anti-social, dangerous and indicative of a group with no class analysis whatsoever.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

well yes, i agree with the first part; but they don't blow up random peoples cars or houses, just ones in showrooms or under construction.

I think its safe to say owniung a 4x4 says enough about the owner without a huge personal profile; what do you think?

 

[In Bloom]

well yes, i agree with the first part; but they don't blow up random peoples cars or houses, just ones in showrooms or under construction.

Not that that's dangerous or stupid or anything like that.

I think its safe to say owniung a 4x4 says enough about the owner without a huge personal profile; what do you think?

So people who live out in the countryside and own 4x4s are exactly the same as people who live in the middle of london and own one? People who need space for a lot of people in their car to do their job are exactly the same as someone who feels to need to transport two kids and a few shopping bags in an armoured truck? People who can't afford to replace their car and need it to earn a living deserve to be put out of a job for their poor choice of car?

 

[sihhi]

Moronic nonsense but small fry compared to capitalists and bankers.

 

[In Bloom]

Moronic nonsense but small fry compared to capitalists and bankers.

 

[aurora green]

So people who live out in the countryside and own 4x4s are exactly the same as people who live in the middle of london and own one? People who need space for a lot of people in their car to do their job are exactly the same as someone who feels to need to transport two kids and a few shopping bags in an armoured truck? People who can't afford to replace their car and need it to earn a living deserve to be put out of a job for their poor choice of car?

well this has been gone over quite a few times on here recently (at great length) but my views are still the same, that yes, anyyone who chooses to drive the most polluting car on the planet can can be pretty much lumped together. It's not as if there is no other option. 4x4 drivers couldn't give a fuck about the environment, therefore the feeling is recipricated, by me anyway.

 

[Random]

Well besides the fact that it makes them look like a a bunch of twats and it achieves absolutely fuck all in the long term

No, you mean it makes them look like twats to you.

I suppose eco-activists should all get jobs in SUV factories and organise strikes instead?

 

[In Bloom]

No, you mean it makes them look like twats to you.

Whereas most people hear about a bunch of hippies going round setting fire to cars and think "ooh, lovely, what a good idea"

I suppose eco-activists should all get jobs in SUV factories and organise strikes instead?

If they like

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Not that that's dangerous or stupid or anything like that.


So people who live out in the countryside and own 4x4s are exactly the same as people who live in the middle of london and own one? People who need space for a lot of people in their car to do their job are exactly the same as someone who feels to need to transport two kids and a few shopping bags in an armoured truck? People who can't afford to replace their car and need it to earn a living deserve to be put out of a job for their poor choice of car?

No to all

It depends on the context - anyway, they don't do that so its not really relevant.

 

[sihhi]

I agree with what you posted:

Well besides the fact that it makes them look like a a bunch of twats and it achieves absolutely fuck all in the long term (new 4x4s and ski resorts can be made), blowing up some random person's car because you think they pollute too much, despite knowing bugger all about that person (their personal situation, why they might own that car, what they use it for) is anti-social, dangerous and indicative of a group with no class analysis whatsoever

Put it this way: they're idiotic but attempting to use police to imprison them is pointless- far better to actually sort out environmental problems etc etc

 

[In Bloom]

I agree with what you posted:





Put it this way: they're idiotic but attempting to use police to imprison them is pointless- far better to actually sort out environmental problems etc etc

Sorry, one of those jokes that didn't come off all that well

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Whereas most people hear about a bunch of hippies going round setting fire to cars and think "ooh, lovely, what a good idea''

i dunno actually - remember 'what would jesus drive?' - its a big enough issue to a lot of people. I don';t think everyon would think, 'oh they burnt a car, how utterly random'. I think they might connect it with the issues over 4x4's.

How do you know they are hippies BTW? Strong language there!

 

[In Bloom]

i dunno actually - remember 'what would jesus drive?' - its a big enough issue to a lot of people. I don';t think everyon would think, 'oh they burnt a car, how utterly random'. I think they might connect it with the issues over 4x4's.

I never said they would, but most people are not going to support setting cars on fire because they pollute too much.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

So people who live out in the countryside and own 4x4s are exactly the same as people who live in the middle of london and own one? People who need space for a lot of people in their car to do their job are exactly the same as someone who feels to need to transport two kids and a few shopping bags in an armoured truck? People who can't afford to replace their car and need it to earn a living deserve to be put out of a job for their poor choice of car?

I'm not a car owner so help me with this one: aren't 4x4 incredibly expensive to buy and run? If you have kids and need a work vehicle as well, and some storage space, but were skint... Actoually, if your on low wages there the whole scenario is a joke, you raen't buying fuck all.

Start again. if you need a work vehicle with storage space - you'd buy a van. If you are middle class and have big family (and unlike some marxists out there, i use the term as in between w/c and u/c) the there are a big range of small vehicles for big families. You could even convert a builders van, as my dad did. We looked fucking weird in that yes.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

I never said they would, but most people are not going to support setting cars on fire because they pollute too much.

most people aren't going to support overthrowing the government or higher wages for key sector workers either.

 

[sihhi]

i dunno actually - remember 'what would jesus drive?' - its a big enough issue to a lot of people. I don';t think everyon would think, 'oh they burnt a car, how utterly random'. I think they might connect it with the issues over 4x4's.

I know this will sound harsh but fuck it I'm not in the best of moods-

at the end of the day if the strategy is merely to have a small conspiratorial group destroy SUV-selling car dealerships or SUVs- at the very best that merely allows capital and business interests to reform themselves and carry out a greener (more rational in the long-term for capital) form of capitalism.

It doesn't fundamentally alter relations within society- at most gives it capital a slight nudge up the arse to stick to non-SUV cars.

 

[Random]

I never said they would, but most people are not going to support setting cars on fire because they pollute too much.

So people should only do political actions that 'most people' would support?

Your argument that the actions aren't effective is more telling. However, under the current conditions I can't see any way of stopping SUVs at the point of production.

Neighbourhood campaigns against these vehicles, due to their danger to children, etc. would also be a good idea, but that's still not stopping the root cause. Any suggestions? Or should this issue not be tackled by anarchists at all?

 

[In Bloom]

most people aren't going to support overthrowing the government or higher wages for key sector workers either.

The point is that it is counter productive in that it doesn't stop people from buying 4x4s or change anybody's mind.

 

[sihhi]

most people aren't going to support... higher wages for key sector workers either.

You don't think people are in favour of higher wages for nurses or bus drivers?

 

[Random]

It doesn't fundamentally alter relations within society- at most gives it capital a slight nudge up the arse to stick to non-SUV cars.

Yes, this is my fundamental problem with ELF tactics. Without social organising, there's no real way to proceed forwards, even if SUVs were got rid of...

 

[Pilgrim]

well this has been gone over quite a few times on here recently (at great length) but my views are still the same, that yes, anyyone who chooses to drive the most polluting car on the planet can can be pretty much lumped together. It's not as if there is no other option. 4x4 drivers couldn't give a fuck about the environment, therefore the feeling is recipricated, by me anyway.

Sounds like a lot of sweeping generalisations to me, aurora green.

There are a lot of reasons why people drive 4X4's.

For instance, my dad is a tree surgeon. He carries a large amount of equipment with him to a job, and so needs a reasonably sized vehicle in which to carry all his kit. He also needs something with enough grunt to tow a large trailer for removing debris and moving heavy equipment from job to job.

Furthermore, he is based on the edge of Dartmoor, meaning that he needs a 4X4 simply to get to some places in order to do his job.

Hardly the same as someone who, for some reason unknown to me, decides they need a 4X4 simply to run the kids to school or because they are too lazy to walk the quarter of a mile to their local shop for pint of milk and a newspaper, now is it? Even my Dad, a diehard 4X4 user, takes the piss out of those who drive a pristine 'Chelsea tractor' that has never been further off-road than being parked in its owner's drive.

Some people need 4X4's simply to do their jobs, because a normal road car isn't enough to get the job done.

I'm not saying that a lot of people own 4X$'s that have no reason, other than posing, to need one. I just don't like your lumping ALL 4X4 owners in as one and the same. They aren't.

You need to refine your criticism to those who deserve it.

 

[In Bloom]

So people should only do political actions that 'most people' would support?

Your argument that the actions aren't effective is more telling. However, under the current conditions I can't see any way of stopping SUVs at the point of production.

Part of my argument is that this sort of action is inneffective because it alienates people. The issue of pollution is something we can only tackle by convincing people to less environmentally damaging methods.

Neighbourhood campaigns against these vehicles, due to their danger to children, etc. would also be a good idea, but that's still not stopping the root cause. Any suggestions? Or should this issue not be tackled by anarchists at all?

IMO, its a problem that can only be solved through discussion and dialogue. Doing a lot of campaign work and trying to convince people that 4x4s are not a good idea might not be as exciting as breaking into car dealerships and blowing them up, but unless anybody has a decent alternative...

 

[In Bloom]

I'm not a car owner so help me with this one: aren't 4x4 incredibly expensive to buy and run? If you have kids and need a work vehicle as well, and some storage space, but were skint... Actoually, if your on low wages there the whole scenario is a joke, you raen't buying fuck all.

Start again. if you need a work vehicle with storage space - you'd buy a van. If you are middle class and have big family (and unlike some marxists out there, i use the term as in between w/c and u/c) the there are a big range of small vehicles for big families. You could even convert a builders van, as my dad did. We looked fucking weird in that yes.

How is a converted van any better (in terms of pollution and danger to pedestrians) than a 4x4? And what if you need an off road work vehicle? Also, just because somebody can afford a car, doesn't mean they can afford to replace it.

 

[Random]

Doing a lot of campaign work and trying to convince people that 4x4s are not a good idea

Yes -- and then what? How do people, once convinced, translate their beliefs into change? You're not simply arguing for a consumer boycott of SUVs are you?

 

[In Bloom]

Yes -- and then what? How do people, once convinced, translate their beliefs into change? You're not simply arguing for a consumer boycott of SUVs are you?

What else are we supposed to do about them? To be honest, its not exactly an issue at the top of my mind, there are more important things to be getting on with than whether or not people drive 4x4s.

 

[Random]

So your answer is basically that this isn't an issue that anarchists should act on? And if they do act on it, they should simply argue for a consumer boycott?

With regards to the importance of the issue, you're ignoring the way SUVs, at least in the US, are potent symbols of a particular anti-environmental attitude and resource-guzzling concept of America.

 

[In Bloom]

So your answer is basically that this isn't an issue that anarchists should act on? And if they do act on it, they should simply argue for a consumer boycott?

What alternatives do you suggest?

With regards to the importance of the issue, you're ignoring the way SUVs, at least in the US, are potent symbols of a particular anti-environmental attitude and resource-guzzling concept of America.

Which is, IMO, about as important as MacDonalds being a symbol of consumerism.

 

[sihhi]

So your answer is basically that this isn't an issue that anarchists should act on? And if they do act on it, they should simply argue for a consumer boycott?
...

If socialists or anarchists were to act on "this issue" ideally it'd be a case of aiming for free public transport-- see earlier threads between me and Isambard and the congestion charge.