As well as a tactic, direct action is also a means for self-empowerment. It is a component of the society we hope to create, where people take control of their lives into their own hands and confront the root causes of injustices directly, without representatives. This sometimes includes property damage, but anarchists take seriously the notions of liberty and equality: that people are capable of speaking and acting for themselves and become even more capable through practice rather than representation.I saw this article entitled "What anarchism really means" and had to share it. It was written by the Anarchist Studies Network and appeared in the British daily newspaper The Guardian, which is a pretty mainstream news source. Check it out
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/18/anarchism-direct-action-student-protests
- the Gadfly
While i do think that direct action is a method of making your voice heard, it also has some negative consequences. First, it does not create direct democracy exactly, especially when violence is used and bystanders or peaceful protesters are sucked in. Property damage is not direct democracy either. Their is no collective agreement during this type of violence, it is a small group of people making a decision that many (honestly, almost everyone except other pro-violence activists) will see it as irrational or unjust. So while your voice is heard, it is not necessarily productive or useful (that being based on direct action protesters having the objective of winning people to their side). I am not saying that I think "peaceful" resistance is more effective though.
ReplyDeleteHere's a pretty interesting perspective on protest:
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2009092714272755
I don't agree with all of it, especially the idea of a cellective revolution of some sort. Some of us are addicted to the thrill of direct action protest. I can say that it is fun as hell. But I think most people that do it see it as a valid means of change, something the author does not address as a reason for protest.
Also, it should not be titled "what anarchism really means." As it says, "Anarchism is a far richer tradition." Direct action is a very small segment of anarchism (unfortunately, it's the best know).
t(h)e GADFLY
As far as the title, I agree. I just titled that on this post because that's what the article is called. I've seen that infoshop article posted around the web and reposted several times, though I have yet to take the time to fully read it. (which i will and comment on in the near future).
ReplyDeleteMy main point in posting this was that anarchism is given a fairer treatment in mainstream media than really ever before. Anarchism is almost always mentioned negatively, and I think it's a step in the right direction to see this in a publication like The Guardian.
Moreover, in this article, direct action is only mentioned in the paragraph posted above. Direct action, and violent confrontation, may come about, and it may not represent anyone, but it is the manifestation of the frustration that peaceful protest cannot and will never adequately express. As the article says "Because this fake democracy doesn't work and the interests of anarchists could never be represented by a political party, direct action is the tactic of choice. And direct action is part of the process of creating direct democracy. It produces results by raising the profile of causes and often halting practices many object to." I agree wholeheartedly with this, and I realize it's a matter of opinion, but I don't think it's possible to get adequate results with peaceful protest against a system that won't hesitate to use state-sponsored repression against our ideologies as radicals.
Moreover, I think the Guardian article does do a good introductory representation of other aspects of anarchism to a public that doesn't know much about it.
I think there are plenty of countries out there with anarchy. It turns out that no one wants to live in them.
ReplyDeleteWell that's a silly comment... If "there are plenty of countries out there with anarchy" then that means a whole bunch of people want to live in them.
ReplyDeleteI would say there aren't a whole bunch though. Why? Because you can't choose to live outside of the capitalist system. For example, I decide I want to start an anarchist society. I need a place to have it. I buy property and then have to pay taxes on it. I have to work and pay taxes on my work to pay for the property and it's taxes. Do I get to pick my own laws? Unfortunately, no. I have to continue to live by the rules of the state of wherever I am. Obviously, there is a lot more to all this then having to work, pay taxes and follow laws though. That being said, I still don't have much choice in whether or not I live in an anarchist society, just the option to try a push back a bit or create something that is somewhat alternative (not too much though, or it will be crushed). Plenty of people want to live in alternative spaces/places, but simply can't. (won't try to argue that most people do or anything like that though...)
the GADFL(why)