I back activists, but I won't blow up a pipeline myself. Here's why: George Monbiot

There's a fundamental principle that should apply to every conflict. Don't urge others to do what you are not prepared to do yourself

How many wars would be fought if the presidents or prime ministers who declared them were obliged to lead their troops into battle? 

I can see why How to Blow Up a Pipeline, Andreas Malm's book which has inspired a film of the same title, has captured imaginations. It offers a lively and persuasive retelling of the history of popular protest, showing how violence and sabotage have been essential components of most large, successful transformations.

Malm shows how violence was a crucial component of the campaigns against slavery, imperial rule in India, apartheid and Britain's poll tax, of the demand for women's suffrage and even of the "peaceful" revolutions in Iran and Egypt. He argues that by ruling out violence and sabotage, those of us who seek to defend the habitable planet are fighting with our hands tied behind our backs. He urges us to develop a "radical flank", prepared to demolish, burn, blow up or use "any other means necessary" against "CO2-emitting property".

It's vital we know these histories. Malm forces us to confront questions of strategy and to justify or reject those we have chosen. No one can deny current campaigns have failed: capital's assaults on the living planet have accelerated. Nor can we deny that, as he says, we have been too "placid and composed". Should we, as he urges, begin a campaign of violent attacks on the industrial economy? While his case is compelling, I feel something is missing.