https://web.archive.org/web/ XXXXXXXXXX/https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state This is one book https://web.archive.org/web/...

CHARTING A PATH IN-BETWEEN:
AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO ACHIEVE ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY
Name
Course details
Date
The central tenet of environmental activism is not limited to reviving and restoring the ecology; it is also a call for a systematic change within today's world's sociocultural, political, and economic fabric. Different schools of environmental activism uphold different ethical and methodological approaches that can be put under the scanner to test their efficacy or feasibility. Amongst such are the principles of “sacrificial disruption” proposed by Roger Hallam and “decisive warfare” of Deep Green Resistance, proposed by McBay, Keith, and Jensen. While both approaches offer unique and revolutionary solutions to address the climate crisis issue, they can be questioned on many grounds on the practicality of their methods or the ethical underpinnings of their approach.
Roger Hallam, the Welsh environmental activist, co-founder of the Extinction Rebellion movement, is a vocal advocate of what can be called a twenty-first-century version of non-violent, non-cooperation movements that can be spread around the world to dismantle governments if they fail to meet the demands of the masses for legislative changes regarding environmental preservation. The "common sense" movement implies that it aims to de-elitize the government through a complete overhaul of the system, if need be, thus containing any further damage to the ecology and the human society. Based on the fundamental principles of Utilitarianism, this movement aims at stirring the masses through minor uprisings that eventually take a greater form, thereby putting the government into a crisis and forcing it to revise its policies on this imminent issue. As he writes in the Action Plan of the propaganda, "[w]e won't agree to any compromise that allows the incompetent and corrupted political class to remain in power. They are forced to choose between either agreeing to our demands or repressing the actions and protests with the risk that this inspired more people to join the Rebellion and take to the streets".[footnoteRef:0] Non-violent mass mobilizations, according to Hallam, will disrupt the normal operations of a government, and this will be a culmination of widespread small-scale acts of civil disobedience. The tone is urgent, although the proposal fails to convince its readers of the following planning stages should a government topple. Even if one keeps aside Hallam's political intent (him being a Welsh, promoting actions against the British government), the ultimate fate of such a mass movement is doubtful. There seems to be a belief in the possibility of opening up communication channels even in the wake of a failure of such programs. The use of non-violence as a weapon of change, drawing on the Gandhian principles of non-cooperation and non-violence, is justifiable only on the grounds of the successes of such movements in the past. However, to what extent they may prove fruitful in addressing the ecological cataclysm is difficult to assess. [0: Roger Hallam, Common sense for the 21st century: only nonviolent rebellion can now stop climate breakdown and social collapse, (UK: Chelsea Green Pub Co., 2019), 26.]
The action plan of Deep Green Resistance (DGR), as proposed by McBay, Keith, and Jensen, stands in contrast with Hallam's notions, although their motivation for the actions remains the same. The authors vehemently attack the rapid industrialization and corporatization of governments across the globe that has led all the living forms to the precipice of extinction. They are all for creating and spreading more sustainable forms of products and completely obliterate big, corporatized industries. Achieving these goals promotes a kind of militant radicalism that requires us to "put our bodies and our lives between the industrial system and life on this planet. . . . Those who come after, who inherit whatever's left of the world once this culture has been stopped—whether through peak oil, economic collapse, ecological collapse, or the efforts of brave women and men resisting in alliance with the natural world—are going to judge us by the health of the landbase, by what we leave behind".[footnoteRef:1] The authors are trying to incite a green revolution that is achieved succinctly through meticulously executed plans through a combination of above and underground strategies aimed at the selected targets. The trio, like Hallam, believe that the elites are to blame, the industrial elites who have monopolized the world economy. However, the fallout of these actions, particularly on the already oppressed, has not been taken into account. Their proposal for guerilla warfare might be enticing for a specific section of the society, but it is difficult to differentiate between their brand of radicalism and that followed by fundamentalists. Nonetheless, their call for...