Disrupting capital’s logistics, not protesting, is what forces concessions

Evidence

Capital has to be seriously inconvenienced and to fear before it yields any territory or resources. It can just wait out most protests, but it will take notice when its logistical operations are threatened. We must be prepared for them cutting up very rough once we start doing this — using anti-terrorist legislation to justify practically any form of repression. They won’t play fair, but it’s not a game of cricket — they know it’s class war, and we should never forget it either. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 1901

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the law merchant reading: institutions and enforcement, not sentiment, is what makes powerful actors budge; also resonates with Base Nation’s finding that protest rarely closes bases but logistical/economic cost does. — connects to: Mass protest wins tactical concessions while structural demands remain unmet — Vincent Bevins, If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and…, 278; Concessions require an obvious stopping point to avoid signaling collapse — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 179; Local base opposition can win concessions but not full withdrawal (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Local base opposition can win concessions but not full withdrawal #exemplifies (0.76)
• Concessions require an obvious stopping point to avoid signaling collapse #qualifies (0.72) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 179
• Sacralized values resist material incentives and cause offer-driven concessions to backfire #complicates (0.71) — Hammad Sheikh and Jeremy Ginges and Alin Coman and Scott Atran, Religion, group threat and sacred values, 5