đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș alan-macsimoin-direct-action.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:16:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Direct Action Author: Alan MacSimĂłin Date: 1996 Language: en Topics: direct action, Workers Solidarity Source: Retrieved on 7th December 2021 from http://struggle.ws/ws/direct48.html Notes: Published in Workers Solidarity No. 48 â Summer 1996.
IN A WORLD where we are taught to leave most of the important decisions
to bosses and leaders, it can seem quite novel to suggest that we make
up our own minds and carry out our own decisions. When people first
began to talk of âself-activityâ and âdirect actionâ, near the end of
the last century, it meant discarding trust in âbetterâ politicians who
promised to change things from above.
In the workplace today it means using work-to-rules, strikes and
occupations to win claims rather placing our trust in Labour Relations
Commission, Labour Court or any other supposedly impartial body. In the
community it means tenants & residents associations organising the
non-payment of water charges instead of trusting the local politicians
to keep their promise to get rid of them.
What those with authority donât like is that by involving everyone who
will be effected it rejects the idea that most people are stupid and
powerless, and so must leave the important decisions to someone else.
Most major improvements were not just benevolently handed to us by
bosses and governments. Most had to be fought for, even things as basic
as having the weekend off work or being able to buy a condom.
For anarchists, capitalism is not only about rich and poor, it is also
about order-givers and order-takers. There is a pyramid of power and the
lower down you are the less control you have over your own life.
Anarchists hold that control over oneâs life ought to be a basic right
of every person and group of people.
Living in a society where you can be bossed around, where the decisions
that effect you at home and at work can be made by someone else, is not
a good way to live. Fundamental to anarchism is that everyone can be
involved in making the decisions that will effect them.
Our goal is a free society where production will be to satisfy human
wants and everyone can have their say in how their job and community is
run. Means and ends are connected, the means used must be ones that
increase confidence, that encourage participatory democracy. When people
challenge the order-givers at work or in their area, anarchists argue
for those effected to take control of their own struggles, to decide how
their struggle is to be conducted.
This is the antidote for apathy, for what apathy often signals is not a
lack of interest but a lack of belief that anything can be achieved.
Encouraging real involvement in day-to-day struggles builds up peopleâs
confidence and belief in their own ability to change things for the
better. By showing people their potential power we help to politicise
them, and make them see that they can have the main role to play in
changing society.
This emphasis on self-activity stands in marked contrast to most other
socialists. Rather than encouraging people to use their ability to
change things, they seek instead to encourage dependency. Trust the
politician, the party, the leader ...trust a minority to make the rules
for everyone else.
If one wants to do away with the division into workers and bosses, why
not also the division into rulers and ruled? Perhaps a great many
socialists do not believe that ordinary working class people can run
their lives, can run a modern industrial country? One of the most
ludicrous results of this was Lenin and the Bolshevik Party deciding
during the Russian Revolution that the working class was not capable of
running industry.
The problem for Lenin was that in factories, on railways, in mines and
lots of other industries workers had taken over, elected their own
factory committees and were showing they were more than capable of
managing their own workplaces. Not going to let reality get in the way
of a good theory, the Bolshevik government outlawed the committees.
Absurd in their arrogance, they still hand down a useful lesson for us
today. The Bolsheviks did not start out as self-seeking despots. They
had ideals, though not enough of them. We learnt there is no
pre-condition more important for a successful revolution than working
class self-confidence. If there is not enough of this the running of
society will be taken over by whoever can sell the image that they are
the most âexpertâ and âprofessionalâ.
When this happens you can forget about socialism. A minority is running
things. At first they convince themselves that it is a âtemporaryâ
measure, but a ânecessaryâ one. But rather than handing away their power
they begin to develop into a group with its own interests, and then into
a fully fledged ruling class. This is what happened in Russia, and every
single time a minority has been trusted to rule a country after a
revolutionary upheaval.
Only a self-confident, active and politically aware working class can
create the true democracy that will prevent this happening. We start
getting that confidence through taking direct action.