Direct Action

[Kaelin]

I am, myself, in favour of direct action in terms of creating a better, fairer society based upon anarchist principles NOW. However, I am less in favour of direct, violent action in combating fascists and racists, though I agree that there are times when violence is necessary.

What does everyone else think?

[Fawkes]

Direct violent action against fascists is definitely necessary, though it should be done in tandem with non-violent action so as to not make the AntiFAs look as if they are as militaristic as the very people they are fighitng.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:24 pm
Direct violent action against fascists is definitely necessary, though it should be done in tandem with non-violent action so as to not make the AntiFAs look as if they are as militaristic as the very people they are fighitng.
word!!
since the fascists had done so many violent to the Antifa.

[Kaelin]

I agree and Antifa's actions are certainly necessary - just don't know if, in the Uk, they have much of an obvious effect against the fascists - though the reduced presence on the streets may certainly be attributed to the actions of Antifa and similar groups

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:24 pm
Direct violent action against fascists is definitely necessary, though it should be done in tandem with non-violent action so as to not make the AntiFAs look as if they are as militaristic as the very people they are fighitng.
would tend to disagree. As Ive said many times the fash love nothing more than a gang of violent trots. Nothing looks better to them on the front of their newspapers than ''law abiding BNP canvassers assaulted by left wing thugs''!

The trick is to let them attack us, give themselves enough rope to hang themselves with.

[The Grey Blur]

Direct action is only useful when it has an actual purpose and effect.

Some left-wing groups have actually bankrupted themselves through the cost of legal bills of being brought to court on 'Direct Action'. On the other hand, when your action has an actual affect on the Imperialist war effort or Nazi organisation and you can get away with it then fair play.

[Ander]

As PR said, direct action has no use unless it has some kind of purpose or delivers a positive effect. Mindless, angry violence is a waste of time and energy and does nothing but hurt us.

A good example would be the recent American embassy attacks in Greece. All that came out of it was some minor sense of satisfaction for "fucking shit up" which in the end amounts to absolutely nothing. There was nothing progressive, nothing to help our cause.

[rouchambeau]

A good example would be the recent American embassy attacks in Greece. All that came out of it was some minor sense of satisfaction for "fucking shit up" which in the end amounts to absolutely nothing. There was nothing progressive, nothing to help our cause.

The same could be said about posting on RevLeft.

To the OP: direct action is essential to any revolutionary movement. Not only is it practical, but it affirms the idea that people should act on their own behalf and not depend on the government to get things done.

[Janus]

It's certainly necessary in some cases. When time is of the essence, then direct action is the only way to achieve one's goals as opposed to going through the inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy.

[Forward Union]

Well, what other options are there? Symbolic action, Indirect action (reformism) or doing nothing...

Direct action is a tactic, something we can do that will have a direct result in damaging capitalism. But, extreme violence is a no-go area for the next few years im afraid. When the war in Iraq started, military jets, tanks, etc were sabotaged by activists. Recruitment offices had their locks glued etc. This all got a 'thats a bit cheeky' nod of support from almost everyone.

If these targets had been bombed, and soldiers had died, sentiment would turn against the antiwar movement. Because it seems unreasonable to kill people. Extreme violence is only worthwhile if you have mass public support. That's why the Weatherman manifesto is a piece of shit.

[An archist]

How can you think direct action is bad? I can understand that people have a problem with violent action, but in advance saying you won't use direct action is just stupid. Strikes, squatting, sit-ins, sabotage, ... what would a revolutionary movement do if it would exclude these forms of action in advance?

[Organic Revolution]

Direct revolutionary activity is not a bad thing. The issue is, we need to find a base of support within the community so our actions dont serve to alienate people.

"The trick is to let them attack us, give themselves enough rope to hang themselves with."

And if there coming with guns, or bats then do we still let them attack us. Maybe it looks better in the papers if we let them attack us, but strategically, we lose.

[apathy maybe]

Direct action is a necessary part of any revolutionary or even more then a little reformist movement.

Violence is also necessary, though circumstances vary.