This
is the hidden spearhead of the activist's effort already buried deep
between the ribs of the corporate carcass (alive like a rotting
animal is festering with life, insects and scavengers).
You
attack the company, burn some buses for example, and the company gets
the buses back from the insurance firm, but if the insurance firm has
to pay for the buses, and the buses get torched again and again, the
price of the insurance will go up. This does not hurt just one
company, but the whole corporate system.
So, consistent anti-capitalist activity does have an effect, because it drives up the expenses, especially when there are environmental issues at stake, because if governments are forced to limit the profit seeking companies and require them to make sure there is no environmental damage due the citizen opinion and activism, the costs to make the profit go even higher.
And if the destruction companies have to pay for extra high insurances for their machines, or better yet, can't get an insurance, then the risk involved will be higher and it will be more difficult to get investments.
Fracking, nuclear power, mining, destruction of forests will all become less and less profitable the more the activists cause material damage to the companies with blockades, vandalism, boycotts and just raising awareness. Direct action has indirect results, and consistent action will topple the entire system, because actually the system functions on outsourced expenditure; profit is always derived from unequal trade, be that with nature or with work. The CEO's hour is worth thousands just as the money crop is harvested from impoverished fields. When the mine is abandoned, the nature gets a gaping wound in return.
If the corporations would actually have to take the values of nature and humanity into consideration, and their profit making would be limited within the confines of sustainable culture, then the corporations could actually be permitted to do their thing. But as long as their thing is maximal profit, what they do is also maximal exploitation, and maximal exploitation should be met with absolute resistance.
So, consistent anti-capitalist activity does have an effect, because it drives up the expenses, especially when there are environmental issues at stake, because if governments are forced to limit the profit seeking companies and require them to make sure there is no environmental damage due the citizen opinion and activism, the costs to make the profit go even higher.
And if the destruction companies have to pay for extra high insurances for their machines, or better yet, can't get an insurance, then the risk involved will be higher and it will be more difficult to get investments.
Fracking, nuclear power, mining, destruction of forests will all become less and less profitable the more the activists cause material damage to the companies with blockades, vandalism, boycotts and just raising awareness. Direct action has indirect results, and consistent action will topple the entire system, because actually the system functions on outsourced expenditure; profit is always derived from unequal trade, be that with nature or with work. The CEO's hour is worth thousands just as the money crop is harvested from impoverished fields. When the mine is abandoned, the nature gets a gaping wound in return.
If the corporations would actually have to take the values of nature and humanity into consideration, and their profit making would be limited within the confines of sustainable culture, then the corporations could actually be permitted to do their thing. But as long as their thing is maximal profit, what they do is also maximal exploitation, and maximal exploitation should be met with absolute resistance.
And
here is a link with some moderate discussion on the topic:
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/02/insurance-companies-underwriting-fossil-fuels-climate-market-forces?utm_content=bufferdb627&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
No comments:
Post a Comment