Not sure that I count violence against property as valid. If destruction of material values are classified as violence and eco-terrorism, are then not oil companies and other capitalists destroying the environment eco-terrorists too?

[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

are then not oil companies and other capitalists destroying the environment eco-terrorists too?

Objectively, no they are not by the definition you quoted. The definition stated the violence is for the environment; those people execute violence for capital against the environment. I'm sure there's another definition that would cover those people and the whole they cause, but this one ain't it.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree that they are missing a crucial motive for their actions, namely the cause of doing it for the environment. I still think my critique of the definition's statement of "violence against property" is valid. It seems to be included in the definition because they want to brand certain acts as terrorism, even though destruction of property is a label they could themselves hold as much as their opponents.

I think that is also why some so called eco-terrorists feel themselves justified in acting out "violence against property", since they may see it as an act of self defence against the originial portrayers of said "violence". Ultimately however, I think a distinction should be made between physical violence and destruction of material values. Whether the material value is an entity's legal property or not should also not matter in this case, in my opinion.