GREEN GUERRILLAS

A central theme of global guerrilla warfare is that the centralized systems we rely upon in modern nation-states are unable to withstand even a rudimentary low tech assault.  The environmental movement picked up on this vulnerability for their own purposes.  Their message:  clean energy is more secure energy.  This is accurate.  Clean energy requires decentralized production and is by its nature more secure.  An example of this trend is the Cascadia Scorecard (an area around Washington State) produced by the Northwest Environment Watch.  Their report pointed out the following (maps of the systems in the area):

• The region's power and pipeline infrastructure is vulnerable to the disruption of a few long-haul connections.
• There is rampant co-location vulnerability where multiple systems traverse the same route.
• Growing energy usage strains the existing underfunded systems architecture.

A Green Guerrilla Scenario

Eco-terrorism isn't new.  It is, however, typically ineffective.  This report points to another potential scenario.  If eco-activists adopt global guerrilla tactics, they could coerce a rapid move to clean energy alternatives.  Small but extremely effective (high ROI) attacks on the energy corridors leading to target regions, would quickly increase the costs of conventional energy such that clean power alternatives would become extremely attractive.  This would be dictated by a direct economic comparison (costs) as well as indirect factors such as reliability of delivery.  This systems sabotage tax would induce a tipping point in energy market equilibria towards green alternatives if it is extended over a long period (longer than one season) and is of a sufficient level.  See the brief Urban Takedowns for more on how a terrorism tax can impact market equilibria.  Other factors:

• Green guerrilla activity would likely be lost in the noise of fears of Islamic terrorism, particularly if the attacks aren't claimed and the groups are extremely small.
• There would be few casualties (if any).  This would make these tactics more palatable to a larger audience of potential participants.  This points to the potential of widespread activity from multiple ad hoc groups.
• Systems sabotage during peak usage periods would have an extremely large impact footprint.  It would also radically increase the general awareness of energy usage.  Cascades of failure induced by simple actions could sweep from Washington State to southern California and last for days.  Everyone, from consumers to businesses, would feel the impact.

Comments

[Grant Henninger]

The problem with this is that, in the US at least, eco-terrorists like these would quickly loose the moral vector. I do not believe that most people in the US believe that the environment is as important as their quality of life. If eco-terrorists (for lack of a better term) started cutting power (oil, gas, and electricity) to large groups of people in order to protect the environment, I would expect to see people turn away from the environment to spite the terrorists.

While I agree that eco-terrorists could get a huge ROI, I don't believe that they could succeed in their cause. They need to win on the moral level too, not just economically.

[b]

To saw off powerline pylons has been tried in Germany. That method was ineffective, as the trans-european network is quite redundant and has enough overcapacity.

Steel cables thrown over the catenary of railtracks had system effects as the next passing train then usually rips the overhead line. On main lines the effect ripples through the schedule countrywide.

This has been used as protest against nuclear waste transports and was effective to highlight them in the media.

The problem is IMHO thereby neither new, nor is the solution. You need redundant links and overcapacity. This has additional cost for the particular owner and it will note be implemented by private companies in competitive markets without serious government pressure.

Maybe California will finally learn that lesson this summer. Thinking of California, would a GG attack on water pipelines have greater effects than on electricity lines?

[John Robb]

Grant, I think one key here is anonymity. Another key is that this needn't a moral battle in the 4GW sense. The moral battle is over support for a specific market activity. It is accomplished without the normal discussion or debate. If people and companies adopt alternatives, it is a defacto victory. Within the context of what we are talking about, water disruption can't be the primary vector (although a secondary one through a cross infrastructure cascade).

b, the German infrastructure systems are vulnerable (I've analyzed them), all that was lacking in the disruption is the correct analysis.

[Anonymouse]

Infrastructure analysis: John what kinds of tools / techniques do you use when analyzing complex large scale infrastructure systems?

Something tells me it's a bit short of Intergraph/Matlab but more than simple eyeballing. What are the odds that open source infrastructure analysis could be labeled material support for domestic / eco terrorism?

[dialectic]

Two comments:

First, this application of the Global Guerilla paradigm just screams Red Herring. Or is 'straw man' a better description? What's next, a revival of the Yellow Peril?

America has become obsessed with finding terrorist guerillas everywhere. While the major media loves to inflate the threat of groups such as Earth First! or ELF, their activities have had consequences far, far below micro-pinprick level. If this stuff keeps up, pretty soon we'll find an analysis of the Global Guerrilla potential represented by pimple-faced teenage boys spray painting "Osama Was Here" on freeway overpasses.

Second, but more substantively:

An implication of John Robb's post - though almost certainly unintended - is that the dominant American economic system is unable to change, EXCEPT IF INDUCED TO DO SO AS A RESULT OF SYSTEM ATTACKS.

Specifically, John Robb wrote:

"If eco-activists adopt global guerrilla tactics, they could coerce a rapid move to clean energy alternatives."

Meaning, I suggest, that short of such coercion, any efforts to move to a stabile, decentralized (and thus more secure) energy system won’t happen UNLESS such Global Guerilla attacks take place.

And sadly, that is probably correct.

Again, I am not implying that John Robb intended to say this. However, it is the truth of the matter regardless. US capitalism has become so extremely sclerotic that it cannot initiate needed, long-term changes to its delivery model (profit maximization) from within its own rationality structure – its ‘logic’ of business.

John Robb also wrote:

“Small but extremely effective (high ROI) attacks on the energy corridors leading to target regions, would quickly increase the costs of conventional energy such that clean power alternatives would become extremely attractive.”

Sad but true. US capitalism will not institute ANY changes toward clean, renewable energy sources short of “(high ROI)” attacks. This is because the system is, at the level of its core social rationality, inseparably dependent upon highly centralized systems of social control. It is in such systems that the big money is to be made. A ‘down-building’ of such systems would represent a titanically huge destruction of capital values (power plants; delivery networks; etc.). Any move toward decentralization is not possible within the logic of the system, for that would entail a de facto annihilation of capitalist control.

So the idea of “Green Guerillas” riding to the rescue of the capitalist system is a fiction of a fevered imagination. They are not going to magically appear in order to ‘move’ the system toward clean, de-centralized energy. And even if they did, they would be wiped out in almost no time at all. In the America of 2005, if some “eco-terrorists” popped up and started pouring sugar into tractor gas tanks, that Marine Corps General who thinks killing is a “hoot” would be unleashed on them, and faster than you can brew your morning coffee they would be gone, gone, gone.

So it simply won’t happen. You would do as well to try and predict the time and place of the next spaceship landing. There will be no changes of the waste and inefficiency originating from within, and any and all opposition will be either vaporized or, more commonly the case, integrated into the apparatus of control as new components of its own stabilization.

dialectic

[Jeff vail]

I don't think that this is a red herring at all, just a development that is only beginning to emerge. True, the standard ELF/ALF/SHAC types are little more than angry activists, but there is a core group that holds more radical green-anarchist sentiments, and they are spreading their message. Read Ted Kaczynski's article (AKA the Unabomber) in the Spring 2002 issue of Green Anarchy (http://www.greenanarchy.org/zine/pdf/GA08_1.pdf). He lays out the a very clear plan to target key nodes in the electrical power grid. Not to force a change towards green-power, but to bring down industrial civilization as a whole (such "primitivists" see steps like recyling and solar power as ineffectual half-measures).

That may seem like a radical, even insane concept, but it has the backing of some very sane, and very intelligent people (like primitivist philosopher John Zerzan. For a primer on his version of primitivism, read: http://www.primitivism.com/future-primitive.htm)

This is one of my areas of interest: succeed or fail, the very public efforts of the Iraqi insurgents to target infrastructure provide a schoolhouse for previously ineffectual groups worldwide. John Robb has suggested that it's only a matter of time before this example is picked up in Saudi Arabia... and I think he's correct again when he says that it's a model ripe for adaptation by domestic groups as well.

~Jeff Vail
http://www.jeffvail.net/

[William Knight]

Ecoterrorism would be a disaster for the environment. There is no doubt that backlash against significant ecoterrorism in the US would be HUGE. A large segment of political conservatives are just itching to overreact and exploit any opportunity to attack environmentalists. As proof, one need look no further than the former Governor of Montana, Judy Martz, who applied the ecoterrorist label to environmentalists who were legally disputing timber harvests in response to the forest fires of 2000.

I urge anyone who is considering ecoterrorism - DON'T DO IT!! You would be creating the single most powerful propaganda weapon for political conservatives to assault the environment. Good will towards the environment by the mainstream public is the only hope for protecting our environment.

[joe]

A series of computer viruses have been released that affect 'Bluetooth" based communications signaling and monitoring devices such as cell phones PDAs etc. Recently, rail and other infrastructure elements have adopted bluetooth based control and maintenance systems to improve system performance. I see the emergence of the new viruses is a threat to these infrastructures.

CERT will not necessarily make this virus-to-infrastructure threat connection. The potential for discrete and persistent damage is IMHO significant. Joe Langevin

[Jon]

I agree with most of dialectic's analysis, right up until the last two paragraphs.

The marines? Come on. We're not talking about monkey tricks here, but the overall vulnuribility of our infrastructure.

It doesn't take much to pop open a natural gas pipeline and render it useless for X days. I believe that is one of the main points JR makes on this blog. Any one of us could do it if we wanted to. And get away with it. That is the issue.

[Marcello]

while systemic sabotage is a valid model I do not believe that it can be applied succesfully to every single instance where there are disgruntled groups and a vulnerable infrastructure.In particular there are probably others conditions that must be met.
In Iraq it works because the USA does not have the resources (legitimacy, boots on the ground etc..) to police the country effectively.In Pakistan (and Saudi Arabia) it might work because I imagine that Musharraf cannot simply tell the army "wipe out that tribe".But in the United States, to a even greater degree than in Russia,the context is (at the present time) rather different.Note, I am not saying that the model cannot be applied to developed countries in general, I am referring to the specific examples presented.

"Green guerrilla activity would likely be lost in the noise of fears of Islamic terrorism, particularly if the attacks aren't claimed and the groups are extremely small."

If I have understood correctly in order to work the model relies on the execution of multiple attacks for a prolonged period of time.Communication between the groups, even if horizontal, is also necessary for coordination.Given these conditions how long can secrecy be mantained?
Rather sooner than later the fact that these attacks are being carried out by ecoterrorist will be revealed.
Someone will be caught, some communications will be intercepted or something else.I doubt that these people can keep their mouts shut to start with.
Then...

"There would be few casualties (if any). This would make these tactics more palatable to a larger audience of potential participants. This points to the potential of widespread activity from multiple ad hoc groups."

This is a typical reaction to standard ecoterrorism in normal cicrcumstances.But what is being described is not standard ecoterrorism,which is symbolic or narrow focused,and we do not live in normal times.
The purpose of this offensive would be that to raise significantlyenergy prices.And that would be far,far,far worse that just killing a few hundreds of people nobody cares about.That because it would hit the average american where (I suspect) it matters most:in his wallet and in the gas tank of his car.
Paying the gas a much greater price because some pinco commie green in league with the islamofascists is blowing up the pipelines? Can you imagine the reaction?
You will see people in the streets asking for greens to be hung to the nearest lamp posts, or doing that by themselves.You will see republicans playing vigilantes wannabees.You will see the oil companies that will have finally managed to cast themselves as the poor innocent victims.You will see membership or affiliation with environmental groups becoming the ground for immediate arrest and indefinite detention (if you escape the lynching, that is) while the Homeland Security, supported by an enthusiast population eager to turn in the traitors to the authorities, will be given carte blanche.In short it would achieve the exact opposite of its objectives.

[dialectic]

A few responses. I’ll make separate posts for each persons comments.

Jeff Vail wrote:

“ . . . but there is a core group that holds more radical green-anarchist sentiments, and they are spreading their message. Read Ted Kaczynski's article (AKA the Unabomber) in the Spring 2002 issue of Green Anarchy”

Yep, I agree. Kaczynski represents the pinnacle of eco-terrorist capability, as well as the ultimate expression of its ideology. And that also, at the same time, is exactly why the eco-terrorist threat is and will remain utterly ineffectual. Kaczynski and his ilk are a joke, although in his case a murderous joke, to be sure. No group of psycho’s is going to achieve more than micro-pinpricks, and that’s all Kaczynski did (although his bombings had, of course, devastating effects on the families of those he killed).

My larger point in response to what I perceived as the intent of John Robb’s original post is that it is factually incorrect to impute Global Guerilla capability or motives to screw-ball fanatic eco-cults. Doing so constitutes an instance of ‘overdetermination’ of their potential impacts, as well as running the risk of instituting altogether inappropriate reactions.

That is, it is important – in the larger perspective of constitutional law – to apply existing legal concepts such as vandalism, malicious destruction of property, etc. to acts against infrastructure. If those acts are excessively ‘ideologized,’ they might be given a legitimacy them do not deserve, as well as provoking incorrect ‘emergency’ decrees which serve to undermine the basis of civil society.

Jeff Vail also wrote:

“That may seem like a radical, even insane concept, but it has the backing of some very sane, and very intelligent people (like primitivist philosopher John Zerzan.”

I am vaguely familiar with the ‘ideas’ of John Zerzan. I cannot agree that he is very sane, although he does seem to have a sort-of intelligence, perhaps of the type Rasputin had, or the type one encounters in religious, ‘end times’ revival meetings. Sort of a ranting, wild-eyed kind of intelligence which, as is the case of Kaczynski, demonstrates not effectiveness but, rather, the degree to which he and his ideology are completely marginalized and self-emasculatory. Outside the micro-tiny circles of his hermetically sealed cult, Zerzan has no influence, I aver. Those various ‘deep-ecology’ cults are NOT proto-Bolshevist (that is, capable of seizing or even affecting power), because their own ideology precludes them from effectively organizing on levels beyond fevered fantasy.

John Vail further wrote:

“This is one of my areas of interest: succeed or fail, the very public efforts of the Iraqi insurgents to target infrastructure provide a schoolhouse for previously ineffectual groups worldwide.”

Here is deeply disagree. The Iraqi Resistance – along with the entire radical Islamist movement – is a component of, and an expression of, the aspirations of an enormous population, possessing a history stretching back 1,400 years, with an advanced cultural heritage. It is, in short, deeply connected to one of the major components of the entire world-historical system; namely, the Islamic religion and its traditions and capacities for both peace and war. As such, what Islamist splinter groups such as the Iraqi Resistance are capable of doing bears no relation to what vandal-ist groups such as ‘Eco-terrorists’ can do. As much as the latter might try to emulate the tactics of the former, they cannot have system effects precisely because the perpetrating group itself is not a viable component of the system it seeks to oppose.

For example, one reason the Bolsheviks were able to seize and hold power in Russia from 1917 on is because, for a brief historical moment, Marxist Bolshevism expressed in theory an actual, contending set of aspirations within the society totality of Czarist Russia. That is, it wasn’t ‘outside’ or marginal, but one (though only one) of the integrated, organic elements of that society. That the epigones of Lenin (i.e.; Stalin) later destroyed that integrated connection doesn’t invalidate the original conditions, the ‘facts on the ground,’ of Petrograd in October of that year.

Even the Taliban, as murderous and screw-ball as they were, were integrated and organic enough in Afghani society to gain and hold power for X number of years.

Eco-terrorist capability bears no comparable position in any of the industrial countries. Since there is no prior-existing tradition for them to tap into, they therefore cannot ‘integrate’ into the society they seek to alter. For that reason, the most they ever manage to do is things like torching a few SUV’s on automobile sales lots, thereafter to fritter away into irrelevance and, finally, effective invisibility.

In the end, the only thing that keeps those groups in the public spotlight is the opposition they engender. In order to protect its bloated budget at each years Congressional appropriations hearings, the FBI briefly revives the ‘eco-terrorist threat,’ after which the bogeyman fades until it gets revived a year later during the next Congressional budget hearings. The FBI still dredges up the Uni-Bomber as a reason Congress should continue to pour money into its coffers.

dialectic

[dialectic]

William Knight wrote:

“I urge anyone who is considering ecoterrorism - DON'T DO IT!! You would be creating the single most powerful propaganda weapon for political conservatives to assault the environment. Good will towards the environment by the mainstream public is the only hope for protecting our environment.”

I couldn’t agree more. Thank you, Mr. Knight.

The defense of the earth and all its living creatures is totally dependent upon coming to the task of their defense in a condition of truth, respect, care, and yes, even love. For only such attitudes are expressive and contiguous with the great truth of creation: “All life is sacred.”

dialectic

[dialectic]

Jon wrote:

“The marines? Come on. We're not talking about monkey tricks here, but the overall vulnerability of our infrastructure.”

Ok, agreed. I got a bit too agitated there. I agree that the issue is the overall vulnerability of the system. My point is simply that the overall vulnerability of the system does NOT arise from eco-terrorist attacks from outside, but from the very nature of the system itself. In the larger picture, it hardly matters whether eco-terrorists hit this or that vulnerable point (which they won’t; see my post above).

Instead, the core vulnerability to which the system is exposed arises because of the fundamental logic on which the system is based; i.e., profit maximization INSTEAD OF stability, centralized control INSTEAD OF devolution of control of resources to those who use them. As long as the high growth, high exploitation economic model is maintained, things like energy systems will continue to appear to be shot through and through with weak points, systempunkts in John Robb’s terminology. And the very existence of such vulnerabilities – perceptible to all – will in turn fuel the incessant hunt for ‘terrorists,’ even when they don’t exist, who will be imputed to constitute a threat to that very same system.

dialectic

[dialectic]

Marcello's post came in while I was typing my other responses. I don't have time now to reply, except to stand in complete agreement with the points he makes.
"Green" eco-terrorist activity won't last longer than a very brief time, if it comes at all. And the reaction will be exactly as Marcello described.

Hmmmmm: I wonder if the private security agencies of the petro-chemical industry are planning "Eco-terrorist" attacks even as we post these messages. The social reaction indicated by Marcello certainly would serve their interests, now wouldn't it?

Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve has just been formally re-introduced in Congress. How about an "Eco-terrorist attack" right now in order to neutralize the last remnants of opposition to that move?

dialectic

[Greg]

it certainly does seem that within America itself ecoterrorism is a pretty much inneffective movement, incapable of systems disruption. Sure, this may change some day. For now however, domestic US terrorists are not capable of doing much more than disturbing people in a way that is more helpful to those looking for higher military budgets than to anyone else (not that I'm saying lives lost to these sorts of events are insignificant... just that they don't really represent a global guerrilla threat).

for systems disruption on a global scale, watch the Internet. That's where you'll see a few lone lunatics doing extensive systems damage without requiring the kind of support structure upon which Islamic terrorism, for example, depends.

[gmoke]

One of the things that sparked the anti-nuclear power movement of the 1970s was the "eco-terrorist" toppling of a power tower in northern Massachusetts.

So far, monkeywrenching and "eco-terrrorism" has been primarily symbolic, up to and including such acts as burning down construction sites and blowing up new cars. Green actions will likely stay on this symbolic level rather than change to wholesale property destruction.

Public demonstration of ecologically-minded political power need not be destructive. A symbolic demonstration at one of those energy choke points in favor of effective civil and civilian defense could be an example; selling "virtual perpetual motion machines"- a bicycle combined with a square foot or two of solar electric panels and a set of rechargeable batteries - on Wall Street might be another.

If the Greens want to step out front, they could do worse than to have a lemonade stand at the local farmers market each week from Memorial Day to Thanksgiving and keep on talking about local economies, food security, and ecological production/consumption in the context of a post-9/11 world and the GWOT.

[Val]

'Green' power is a fantasy. Unless the first world population suddenly becomes willing to make massive sacrifices in the standard of living that they enjoy, and the third world decides to give up its ambition and remain in poverty.

The energy levels required are not deliverable by any green method or combination of methods. Aside from all of them having ungreen side effects that rise exponentially with their level of production, they just couldn't deliver the amount of energy or the quality of energy necessary, and they would deliver that at a far greater cost. Costs, mind you, that would otherwise be available for other more cost effective environmental programs.

In addidition, recent history is very, very clear, that in spite of the thinking evidenced by comments in a previous post, industry can and does get more and more efficient. An example is the near doubling of output for a given amount of oil in the last 30 years. This is driven by increasing costs of energy, which is happening now due to both natural market factors, and risk premiums. It is also this price increase that will drive new technologies that may break us free of the fossil fuel chains.

[Greg]

'green power' is no fantasy. take a look at Denmark's programs along those lines for a viable example. I personally don't think it's a terribly important issue, but then I live in Mexico, and I'm used to some pretty ungreen conditions. People get by, and I'm not terribly convinced by most of the doomsday scenarios out there. However just because worrying excessively about the environment may not really be as critical as some individuals would have us believe doesn't mean green technology could not concievably function, and indeed where it is employed outside of the United States, it DOES seem to function. It is always hard to argue with success.

BUT as for ecoterrorism being an effective method to usher in green technology.... I just don't see it. the only way ecoterrorists could pull it off would be systems disruption that made non green systems too expensive, but couldn't be traced back to ecoterrorist organizations. Is that possible? Of course not. When Islamic terrorist attacks take place, the perpetrators are often identified, but in their case they have support from an extensive population that believes they are doing the right thing. do greens? I doubt they do... at least if/when they resort to violence. I suppose I could be wrong on this, but I've certainly never seen any indication within the population either of Mexico or the US that there would be much support for green terrorists engaging in systems disruption.

[Val]

Greenpower is a fantasy, in so far as it cannot replace fossil fuels to any reasonable extent on a global or even large economic level. Denmark still gets the greater majority of its power from more capable sources. Green methods are necessarily much more expensive, and typically offer power at levels that vary with environmental conditions. These things are not suitable for maintaining a viable economy, much less growth.

Nor am I convinced by the doomsday scenarios, but I do realize that many problems are present, many are growing, and many are yet to come, due to reliance on fossil fuels. Greater efficincies, more use of alternatice power sources, and new technologies are sorely needed. These things will be driven to an increasing extent by energy prices, which will increase inexorably due to humanities ambition to grow and move up the ladder. The question is, will the improvement curve implied by the aforementioned factors stay enough ahead of this human drive to avoid the frictions that spark conflict? And we aren't even talking about access to fresh water, yet.

[Marcello]

The political situation of the USA is such that if anyone on the left or in the american muslim community tries something like that the american inmates population might see an increase in the order of the 100%.
Of course in the future things might change, maybe a widespread social resentment could provide the basis for such type of actions.
Then again it is my suspicion that in the next couple of decades we are going to assist to the maturing or the creation of technologies that might empower the state against the individual.Some embryonic developments can be observed in Iraq, from the deployment of armed robots and the proposals to use retina scans on the population of Fallujah. If we want to draw parallels to the development of tanks this would be the equivalent of welding armor plates on agri tractors before WW1.The technology necessary to build tanks capable of executing blitzkrieg (durable tracks, decent suspensions etc) would have become available only in the 20's.In the same fashion we are still a few years away from the necessary improvements in computer processing power and a few others developments. Neverthless we might be on that that track.

[Stephen Bronstein]

"...any efforts to move to a stabile, decentralized (and thus more secure) energy system won’t happen UNLESS such Global Guerilla attacks take place...US capitalism has become so extremely sclerotic that it cannot initiate needed, long-term changes to its delivery model (profit maximization) from within its own rationality structure – its ‘logic’ of business."

The irony of John's argument and this statement is that it's not capitalism but rather the centralization that came out of the socialist movements of the 30's that makes the system more vulnerable. Edison's electricity was local and decentralized. But the elite of the early 20th century decided that bigger, centralized systems were better, and best if run by or heavily regulated by the government. Thus the centralized electricity system we have now, which is much more vulnerable to terrorism than a more distributed system, and, like all centralized, heavily regulated industries, is extremely resistent to change.

I disagree with John on one point though - we could have a distributed system that is *not* 'clean energy'. Micro generation technologies are showing lots of promise, and can use a variety of fuels, with a range of environmental impact. I certainly hope that we move to a more distributed and resilient energy infrastructure in the next decade or two (which will be able to transition to clean energy as soon as it's cost-effective, unlike the slow-moving regulated utilities we have today), although the botched so-called 'deregulation' effort in CA has set the cause back rather substantially.

[Marcello]

"The irony of John's argument and this statement is that it's not capitalism but rather the centralization that came out of the socialist movements of the 30's that makes the system more vulnerable. Edison's electricity was local and decentralized. But the elite of the early 20th century decided that bigger, centralized systems were better, and best if run by or heavily regulated by the government. Thus the centralized electricity system we have now, which is much more vulnerable to terrorism than a more distributed system, and, like all centralized, heavily regulated industries, is extremely resistent to change."

I guess you have never heard about a concept called "econony of scale".

[Marcello]

Maybe some of the technologies that we have now do lend themselves to efficient small scale generation.But what was available in the 30's did not.What do you think is more efficient: bringing the coal to a single plant and then distribute the electricity or ferrying the coal to tens of smaller power plants? To say nothing of personnel multiplication and machinery efficiency.

[John Robb]

Thanks for the input. Green guerrilla groups that use system disruption in a meaningful way is not a viable future scenario. The most important reason is that the green movement lacks the organizational structure necessary for signficant long-term action under intense counter pressure. I posted this brief as a means of provoking thought on the topic.

[dialectic]

Stephen Bronstein wrote :

“The irony of John's argument and this statement is that it's not capitalism but rather the centralization that came out of the socialist movements of the 30's that makes the system more vulnerable."

The flaw in this point is that, at least in the United States, there has never been anything remotely similar to ‘socialism’ controlling the provision of electricity, et al. A far better term is ‘state-regulated capitalism.’

Beginning already in the late 1800’s, in the decades after the American Civil War, US ‘robber baron’ type businessmen were turning to government to enhance their monopoly positions via law and regulation. In America, the concept of government regulation of business didn’t originate from state-ist bureaucrats imbued with ‘socialist’ ideology. Instead, it was held to be ‘smart’ business practice for companies to get the state to do the bidding of private industry. Free-enterprise captains of industry were themselves the original source of the participation of the coercive power of the state in money-making affairs. In modern America this system continues under the fig-leaf of “Government-Business Partnership.”

The ‘big boys’ got a leg up on their erstwhile business competitors by having their public servants in Congress (i.e., bought-and-paid-for Representatives) provide special infrastructural and tax advantages designed so they, exclusively, could take advantage of them. That system continues today, demonstrable in literally thousands of examples. To their credit, authentic, ‘old-fashioned’ political and economic conservatives continue to rail against the utilization of governmental regulatory power NOT because of its putative ‘socialist’ ideology, but because it is employed by big capitalists against smaller capitalists as an unfair weapon in the struggle for markets and profit. Authentic conservatives see the capitalist usage of state authority as a distortion of what they imagine are benign, ‘neutral,’ market forces. The fact that that has never been true in the capitalist system does not detract from the authentic sincerity of their beliefs.

A PARALLEL dynamic in the integration of state regulatory authority with big business has been historical instances where excessive competition has threatened to ruin all the players. The history of the US railroad industry provides the textbook case of this dynamic. It was precisely the US railroad industry, guided by their Wall Street investment bankers (e.g., J. Pierpont Morgan) who went to Washington DC already in the 1880’s to induce the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), whose primary purpose was to SET RAIL HAUL RATES AT LEVELS FAVORABLE TO THE MAINTAINANCE OF PROFITABLE RAILROAD OPERATION. Meaning, that each competitor could no longer beggar its rivals.

See, Mr. Bronstein, that’s not ‘socialism’ but is, instead, the actuality of capitalism. All the pretty fantasies and fairy tales concocted by brilliant morons such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayak notwithstanding, the real world of capitalism has always been shot-through-and-through with government advantages bestowed upon favored plutocrats. The smart-a$$ trick played by the sycophants of capitalism, of course, has always been to loudly denounce the ‘insidious influence of creeping socialism’ while, AT THE SAME TIME, unabashedly taking advantage of the regulatory systems they themselves crafted and had their agents in Washington put in place.

Stephen Bronstein also wrote :

“Edison's electricity was local and decentralized.”

Unfortunately, that is not factually, or I should say, operatively, correct. Instead, Edison’s electricity system was, in its infancy, merely embryonic. It appeared to be “local and decentralized” merely because it was newly formed, and hadn’t yet grown and expanded. It makes no more sense to suggest that Edison’s electricity system was INTRINSICALLY local and decentralized than it would make sense to say that, at the age of five years old, Babe Ruth was not – and would not become – a home-run hitter. Well of course he wasn’t; AT THE AGE OF FIVE HE WAS JUST A CHILD, and could barely swing a bat at all. So also with Edison’s nascent electricity system; in its putative “local and decentralized” phase, it was just starting to grow and expand.

Stephen Bronstein further wrote :

“But the elite of the early 20th century decided that bigger, centralized systems were better, and best if run by or heavily regulated by the government.”

I think Marcello addressed that point. The reason the “elite” (businessmen) of the early 20th Century decided big, highly centralized systems were better had nothing to do with any ideas they may have had concerning the advisability of having their energy systems run or regulated by the government. Instead, they went for big, centralized systems for the sole and simple reason that they were able to generate higher profits through such systems.

dialectic