Direct Action or not?

[darth_revan]

Hello comrades.

I'm curious about the idea of direct action. I mean, it instinctively seems necessary and justifiable to me, but I also know that those actions widen the gap between us and the proletariat. But it also hurts capitalism. I'm not sure whether to support or disagree with direct action. Any recommended texts/books?

[punisa]

I'm sure there are plenty of books on such topics.
Call me "old fashioned", but still one of the best things I like to read is the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. I like the way it explains the necessity of a revolution. Although, some elements should be updated to modern times.

Hm.. What kind of direct actions were you thinking about exactly?

[darth_revan]

Like using molotovs to smash capitalist stores like starbucks, mcdonalds. Media often uses those actions to show direct action users as terrorists.

[punisa]

Hmm... to be honest, I know nothing on the subject.
But why do you think a broken window of a store will help smash capitalism?
It'll probably only help smash employee's face, and that's our proletarian comrade.

If you are serious about smashing capitalism, go down to the docks or wherever industrial zone is in your city and talk to the workers, tell them about exploitation and how capitalists earn profit from their labor. Tell them that the means of production on which they operate belong to them. Tell them about future.. Tell them that a system where everyone has everything according to their needs is not utopia. Tell them that fighting for such a future is worthy cause.

Sounds a bit harder doesn't it? But that's the only way my friend. :star2:

[darth_revan]

I might be misusing the concepts, I'm not sure about my English. But you know the anarchists and socialists smashing the glasses of banks and capitalist stores. It seems symbolic to me, smashing something you're against.

I'm not against the worker class struggle, unions etc, I support those actions. I'm just asking about direct action that small masses do. I'm not asking about the direct action workers do when striking, when damaging their own machines to prevent strike breakers.

[CartCollector]

Like using molotovs to smash capitalist stores like starbucks, mcdonalds. Media often uses those actions to show direct action users as terrorists.
Do you really want to be seen as a terrorist? Once your group is seen as terroristic, well, their goes your popular support. You can't effectively fight for the workers if they're against you.

[mikelepore]

The actual meaning of "direct action" is the use of tactics that people can perform by themselves, without having to trust anyone else. It includes an "unauthorized" strike or job slowdown, or a boycott. It means an action that has no dependence on whether it has the support of union representatives or political representatives. The term does NOT refer to violence or vandalism. Insofar as individuals could perform acts of violence and vandalism independently, without reliance on others, those actions come under the term, but the term doesn't refer to those acts.

[¿Que?]

I see three things in this one thread. Here's what I see:

1. A bunch of old timers trying to extinguish the fire of revolt in a young comrade.

2. A bunch of old timers that like the idea, but are too smart to admit to it in public.

3. A bunch of old timers and a douchebag narc trying to shut us down.

I'm leaning towards 3.

[darth_revan]

I see three things in this one thread. Here's what I see:

1. A bunch of old timers trying to extinguish the fire of revolt in a young comrade.

2. A bunch of old timers that like the idea, but are too smart to admit to it in public.

3. A bunch of old timers and a douchebag narc trying to shut us down.

I'm leaning towards 3.

I actually want to hear the opinions of the second group.

How about athens 2008?

[punisa]

I see three things in this one thread. Here's what I see:

1. A bunch of old timers trying to extinguish the fire of revolt in a young comrade.

2. A bunch of old timers that like the idea, but are too smart to admit to it in public.

3. A bunch of old timers and a douchebag narc trying to shut us down.

I'm leaning towards 3.

Was this some weak attempt at an insult?
I agree partially with the "3", but I also sense you might be calling my ass an "old timer" :P

[¿Que?]

yes, I was trying to be clever. And also was making assumptions. :p

[punisa]

yes, I was trying to be clever. And also was making assumptions. :p

If you didn't have an avatar with Stewie sporting hammer and a sickle on his crotch, I'd be really pissed off at you at the moment :p

Anyway, topic does indeed seem to resemble a possible narc intrusion, but I will take a guess and say in this case it is not.
I think darth_revan is just very eager to smash something :laugh:

[darth_revan]

Lol it would be fun but no :D

[el_chavista]

Hello comrades.

I'm curious about the idea of direct action. I mean, it instinctively seems necessary and justifiable to me, but I also know that those actions widen the gap between us and the proletariat. But it also hurts capitalism. I'm not sure whether to support or disagree with direct action. Any recommended texts/books?
You may do a little research on these topics: putchism, voluntaryism ("willpowerism"), the theory of the "focus". Plus some historical research about the epoch of groups like the French Direct Action, the Italian Combatant Communist Cells, the German Rote Arme Fraktion (Baader-Meinhoff group), etc.

[bcbm]

the Italian Combatant Communist Cells

belgian.

[FSL]

I might be misusing the concepts, I'm not sure about my English. But you know the anarchists and socialists smashing the glasses of banks and capitalist stores. It seems symbolic to me, smashing something you're against.


You're anti-glass windows?

[darth_revan]

You're anti-glass windows?
Yeah, that's the source of capitalism, sure.

I also mean rioting, fighting the police. Athens 2008 could be a good example, how about that?

Edit: Putchism isn't what i meant but as long as it's done by few people and they're known as terrorists among the people, that answers my question.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

Like using molotovs to smash capitalist stores like starbucks, mcdonalds. Media often uses those actions to show direct action users as terrorists.
you seem to be mixing up direct action with propaganda of the deed. Direct action is mass action by workers such as strikes etc. Propaganda of the deed is an insurectionist tactic that isnt that great as it does alienated them from the working class.

However in a revolutionary situation, or in a mass uprising then there is no reason to say those sorts of things wouldnt be used or happen. Its all about context. If i go smash a starbucks window i havnt really done much than piss a few people off and possibly get arrested. If however as part of a mass action and i smashed the window of the shop i worked in, that could be justified. Like i said its all about context. The debate on revolutionary and political violence is very complex. At this point with the class stuggle how it is, its now really a good idea to go smash up starbucks. Maybe if you work there try and organise the workers, that would be more productive.

[SandiNeesta]

I agree with Matt... I'm all for direct action, armed revolt, etc...Seems like too many people sit around and theorize about revolution all day waiting for it to happen. I think something like that needs to be planned out and in a direct response to something. Organized with mass support like the Zapatistas taking San Cristobal or in response to police interference in a protest or something. One guy smashing a few windows just looks crazy and isn't going to produce any results except maybe some satisfaction for the guy. 1000 people smashing windows on Wall St...now that might get on the news.

[CartCollector]

Hal Draper wrote a good essay critiquing insurrectionary methods: http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1972/01/cops.htm


In the whole history of movements of social dissent, in this or any other country, I doubt whether there was ever an emptier and more self-defeating theory of revolutionary action than this trend in our recent years which made “offing the pig” its main slogan, and orated about making the “revolution in the streets.” Of course, the two come down to the same thing, because if you sally out into the streets to make the revolution, it’s the pigs you’re going to meet. You are not going to run into the Board of Directors of General Motors in this your chosen battlefield, nor into the Cabinet, nor even the office boys of the Powers That Be: the enemy you meet “in the streets” is the hired scum, that’s all. And the cream of the jest is that, for every cop that is killed by some self-styled revolutionary bravo, not a hair is mussed on the head of the ruling class, who have a right to laugh themselves to death over these pseudo-revolutionary antics while, in public, they make a horrified outcry about the crimes of the subversives.

[anticap]

narc

If that's true, then he's at least earned the collars on a few old-timers: not even the vandals at Wikipedia have the patience to wait five years ripening their sockpuppet accounts before making their move. :p

[jake williams]

You're anti-glass windows?
This is exactly the right point. "Direct action" refers to actions that directly address problems that an activist group is targetting. If the problem is that the local school is bad/doesn't exist, you take it over/set it up. If the problem is that the workers don't control the workplace, you take over the workplace. That's direct action. Smashing windows - whether it's the right or wrong tactic - isn't "direct action", unless you think one of the main problems in the world today is the existence of windows.

[el_chavista]

the Italian Combatant Communist Cells

belgian.

Oh, I confused the Brigate Rosse for the CCC :blushing:

[darth_revan]

I get what you all are saying but i still have questions. For example, protesting the IMF is prohibited and you know that you'll be attacked by the police if you protest. I still would protest and fight the police. If I dont, i would be obeying the government about my actions and it would be a bad practice. it would be a bad practice because if we are afraid of police in such unimportant situations, people will start to think that police and government is unbeatable.

Another example, if the police killed a socialist/anarchist, we should be in the streets whether the police attacks or not.

I'm not saying that fighting the police will result in revolution but if people dont, they will become passive. The "unbeatable" police will prevent strikes because workers will be afraid. I think we should show that we're not afraid of police or government to encourage further revolts/strikes.

It might seem like I'm saying something like "I am man, I fear nothing!" but it's not that. I'm just afraid of the results of being passive against the police, that might discourage the people. Fighting the police isn't the main purpose, but it has a role in achieving the main purpose.

I hope i'm starting to explain my thoughts :)

(IMF protest was only an example, it wasn't prohibited in where I live)

[Jacobinist]

Everyone is wrong here!

Direct action are what civil rights activists did in the 60's by staging sit ins, nonviolent confrontation, peaceful rallies, etc etc.

Direct action is any action taken by individuals OR groups. It can be violent, it can be peaceful. It can have a main objective, or it can be an headline grabber. And when it comes to 'overwhelming odds' the IRA in Ireland underwent a marvelous campaign of direct action to form their free state.

Again, direct action can be defined as 'active action,' or any action aimed actively at the 'problem.'

[kiwigunner]

I think that direct military action or even direct combat action is different from direct outbursts of emotion such as the "anti-glass window" point my comrade rased.

Military action is based around principles that you go out to confront your enemy, you engage your enemy and then depending on how its going advance, retreat or form a static line.

If a police officer shoots and kills a protestor, then there is direct action that the protestors shoot back. If it was military direct action, then the city where this has taken place would be attacked. Taken over and turned into a communist run affair.

I agree with jammoe, smashing windows is not direct action it is a less then suttle way to get your feelings accross. You need to be very careful when comparing action to military action. If you fire on the police with a rifle, they will fire back, if you fire on the army with a rifle, they fire back with bigger guns and planes and tanks....