💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-twelve-myths-about-direct-action.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:52:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Twelve Myths About Direct Action Author: CrimethInc. Date: 15th December 2004 Language: en Topics: myths, direct action Source: Retrieved on 9th September 2020 from https://crimethinc.com/2004/12/15/twelve-myths-about-direct-action
Direct action—that is, any kind of action that bypasses established
political channels to accomplish objectives directly—has a long and rich
heritage in North America, extending back to the Boston Tea Party and
beyond. Despite this, there are many misunderstandings about it, in part
due to the ways it has been misrepresented in the corporate media.
Terrorism is calculated to intimidate and thus paralyze people. Direct
action, on the other hand, is intended to inspire and thus motivate
people by demonstrating the power individuals have to accomplish goals
themselves. While terrorism is the domain of a specialized class that
seeks to acquire power for itself alone, direct action demonstrates
possibilities that others can make use of, empowering people to take
control of their own lives. At most, a given direct action may obstruct
the activities of a corporation or institution that activists perceive
to be committing an injustice, but this is simply a form of civil
disobedience, not terrorism.
To say that it is violent to destroy the machinery of a slaughterhouse
or to break windows belonging to a party that promotes war is to
prioritize property over human and animal life. This objection subtly
validates violence against living creatures by focusing all attention on
property rights and away from more fundamental issues.
Unfortunately, whether or not an action is illegal is a poor measure of
whether or not it is just. The Jim Crow laws were, after all, laws. To
object to an action on the grounds that it is illegal is to sidestep the
more important question of whether or not it is ethical. To argue that
we must always obey laws, even when we consider them to be unethical or
to enforce unethical conditions, is to suggest that the arbitrary
pronouncements of the legal establishment possess a higher moral
authority than our own consciences, and to demand complicity in the face
of injustice. When laws protect injustice, illegal activity is no vice,
and law-abiding docility is no virtue.
In a society dominated by an increasingly narrowly focused corporate
media, it can be almost impossible to initiate a public dialogue on a
subject unless something occurs that brings attention to it. Under such
conditions, direct action can be a means of nurturing free speech, not
squelching it. Likewise, when people who would otherwise oppose an
injustice have accepted that it is inevitable, it is not enough simply
to talk about it: one must demonstrate that it is possible to do
something about it.
On the contrary, many people who find traditional party politics
alienating are inspired and motivated by direct action. Different people
find different approaches fulfilling; a movement that is to be
broad-based must include a wide range of options. Sometimes people who
share the goals of those who practice direct action while objecting to
their means spend all their energy decrying an action that has been
carried out. In doing so, they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory:
they would do better to seize the opportunity to focus all attention on
the issues raised by the action.
established political channels instead.
Many people who practice direct action also work within the system. A
commitment to making use of every institutional means of solving
problems does not necessarily preclude an equal commitment to picking up
where such means leave off.
Some forms of direct action are not open to all, but this does not
necessarily mean they are without worth. Everyone has different
preferences and capabilities, and should be free to act according to
them. The important question is how the differing approaches of
individuals and groups that share the same long-term goals can be
integrated in such a way that they complement each other.
This accusation is almost always made by those who have the privilege of
speaking and acting in public without fearing repercussions: that is to
say, those who have power in this society, and those who obediently
accept their power. Should the heroes of the French Resistance have
demonstrated their courage and accountability by acting against the Nazi
occupying army in the full light of day, thus dooming themselves to
defeat? For that matter, in a nation increasingly terrorized by police
and federal surveillance of just about everyone, is it any wonder that
those who express dissent might want to protect their privacy while
doing so?
rich kids/desperate poor people/etc.
This allegation is almost always made without reference to concrete
facts, as a smear. In fact, direct action is and long has been practiced
in a variety of forms by people of all walks of life. The only possible
exception to this would be members of the wealthiest and most powerful
classes, who have no need to practice any kind of illegal or
controversial action because, as if by coincidence, the established
political channels are perfectly suited to their needs.
This is another speculation generally made from a distance, without
concrete evidence. To allege that direct action is always the work of
police agent provocateurs is disempowering: it rules out the possibility
that activists could do such things themselves, overestimating the
powers of police intelligence and reinforcing the illusion that the
State is omnipotent. Likewise, it preemptively dismisses the value and
reality of a diversity of tactics. When people feel entitled to make
unfounded claims that every tactic of which they disapprove is a police
provocation, this obstructs the very possibility of constructive
dialogue about appropriate tactics.
for others.
Direct action can be dangerous in a repressive political climate, and it
is important that those who practice it make every effort not to
endanger others. This is not necessarily an objection to it, however–on
the contrary, when it becomes dangerous to act outside established
political channels, it becomes all the more important to do so.
Authorities may use direct actions as excuses to terrorize innocents, as
Hitler did when the Reichstag was set afire, but those in power are the
ones who must answer for the injustices they commit in so doing, not
those who oppose them. Likewise, though people who practice direct
action may indeed run risks, in the face of an insufferable injustice it
can be more dangerous and irresponsible to leave it uncontested.
Every effective political movement throughout history, from the struggle
for the eight hour workday to the fight for women’s suffrage, has made
use of some form of direct action. Direct action can complement other
forms of political activity in a variety of ways. If nothing else, it
highlights the necessity for institutional reforms, giving those who
push for them more bargaining chips; but it can go beyond this
supporting role to suggest the possibility of an entirely different
organization of human life, in which power is distributed equally and
all people have an equal and direct say in all matters that affect them.