mis-information and dis-information regarding Direct Action.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Mar 06, 2003 23:04

I've seen this assertion made several times now and I'd like a clear quote from a published position paper that says (or can reasonably be interpreted to mean) that DA is a principle.

Just for the record I'd agree that obviously (duh!) it's a tactic.

Also I'm interested is there a list of things that the above poster considers to be DA and things that are not (you know, sort of like those little lists they have in rags about what's hot this year and what's not).

Here's some to get you started:

Indirect Inactions:
electing someone to have authority over me
buying a newspaper
listening to a speech
bitching in the pub about evil Americans

Direct Actions:
occupying a facility that is not under working class control
destroying war machines
picketing a pro-war politicians office
writing a stinking good letter to the media

by think tactically! Thu Mar 06, 2003 13:26

with all that's been written about direct action, i think it's important to point out that direct action is a TACTIC and not a principle, to which it has been elevated by many anarchists writing here. Tactics have to be evaluated with regard to their usefullness at different stages of any campaign.

what really scared the government on feb 15 was the sight of working class and middle class people who are not members of any political organisation becoming politicised on the issue of the war and taking to the streets. This frightens the establishment, more than a number of usual suspects at a fence.

Of course, Feb. 15 was only a first step. Building the mass movement will give confidence to people to take forms of direct action. For example, the action taken by the scotish train drivers did not come out of thin air. it happened in the context of mass demonstrations and the affiliation of thier union to the stop the war coalition.

We are not waiting for a "general strike" as somebody accused. Rather there is lots of local work to be done in union branches, workplaces, and community groups to ensure that some sort of action takes place on day X. The key thing is to start building people's confidence up for this. 'Cos it does take a hell of a lot of confidence and orgnisation if you haven't done something like this before. the school students' strike yesterday is a great example of what can be done.

finally it is important to remember that no matter how "revolutionary", how self sacrificing, an anarchist or a socialist is, we are Nothing without the working class. proclaiming yourself a "leadership...setting an example" and to go bounding off ahead of the consciousness of the class is no "leadership" at all.

by Citizen of the evil empire Thu Mar 06, 2003 08:08

Whatever one thinks of the politics of the IRA, one can't help admire their military skill -- particularly in the billion-dollar bombings in the City of London and Canary Wharf.

Imagine if the U.S. had to face THAT kind of direct action against U.S. targets in various places around the world! It might make the capitalists and politicians who support Bush, or at least tolerate him, to think twice about allowing him to carry out mass murder.

by Gregor Kerr Thu Mar 06, 2003 00:12 gregorkerr at eircom dot net

The original article on this discussion is one of the best and clearest I've read in quite a while on what DA is actually about. Well done John

by zzzzzzzzzzz Wed Mar 05, 2003 20:51

Still fighting his virtual war

Yawn

zzzzzzzzz...........

by john - organise-asf (personal capacity) Wed Mar 05, 2003 18:51

"Had a mass mobilisation of 20000 people (a realistic prospect after f15) took place - imagine what real direct action could have taken place - could the cops have covered every part of the fence."-Irony is dead.

Hmmm are you suggesting that we should get people to Shannon on the basis of a legal march but then provoke a Direct action? or are you just stupid?

I really dont understand this, are we to wait until the Trade union leadership anounces a general strike or what?

was the actions of germans who sabotaged railway lines leading to concentration camps elitist? Was the action of the two scottish railway workers who refused to transport military equipment elitist? Are the people sabotaging the war effort in Italy elitist?

It is you who doesnt understand leadership. Your leadership is not leadership at all it is stagnant, you talk about mass mobilisation but what use is it without action? What sort of leadership stands back whilst people are bein arrested, nevermind that what sort of leadership refuses to take decisive action against the slaughter of the Iraqi people because they do not want to alienate the wider public?

Well we should all know by now, its the sort of leadership that panders to the most backward. The leadership which sees leadership not as taking the lead and setting an example, nor empowering self organisation. It is not leadership but management! Its the leadership that wants to consolidate its power, that opposes all autonomous action and denounces it as "elitist".

As to your potshot about Union activity, members of Organise-asf can take positions with the unions but these positions can not be fulltime paid posts and must be elected not selected, in concrete terms that means that Shop steward is highest level at which our members can hold positions.

oh yeah and your much vaunted Democratic Centralism was so much use in 1917 that Lenin had to overide so that the "vanguard" wasnt left with its head up its arse whilst those with "trade union conciousness" were occupying the factories!

Bolshevism was backward, mechanical, and plain reactionary in 1917 and its just fuckin laughable now!

by barry Wed Mar 05, 2003 15:31

To all the bored ones out there, look in the top left corner of your browser window, there's a back button there, it'll take you out of this discussion and back to the newswire or wherever you came from. Then you choose (personal responsibility) not to read any more articles on shannon, gnaw or DA/CD. Thus for you the debate is over.

Success for you with diversity and sanity maintained for all.

by seedot Wed Mar 05, 2003 14:05

What happened at the meeting on Feb. 17th?
Did the IAWM inform PANA and NGO Peace Alliance of their support for direct action?
What caused the u-turn in the following week - only 'approved' DA is supported? Or did some of the new friends from Feb. 15th explain political reality to IAWM?

Silly sectarian shite is counterproductive - an analysis of DA in the context of the anti-war movement and how to move forward is healthy.

I think the article is part of the second trend - my questions and most of the gloating and comments are definitely sectarian shite.

by maalox - top secret but open and non-elitist mass covert movement Wed Mar 05, 2003 13:24 maalox at safe-mail dot net

One (higher ranking?) SWP-er tried to convince me that they would have supported the direct action, but only if we had _secretly_ co-ordinated 20 000 people and distributed a covert plan to them first. When i tried to explain that this was impossible without being either elitist or undemocratic it was explained to me that this wasn't the issue.

Later in the conversation, the same SWP-er emphasised that we should have first "won the argument within the movement" in order to avoid being undemocratic or elitist, since this was the issue, seemiongly forgetting that it was the IAWM who took great steps to distance themselves from us on Saturday, not the other way around.

Presumably he meant that we had to convince the IAWM to support us in order to not be elitist, but in order for them to support us we have to act in an elitist manner.

The chicken and the egg anyone?

As for getting back on topic, i'd prefer in future
that certain elements don't stray from the topic of war into invented "protester violence" in the first place. I know it may be fun to try and discredit a movement you see as a rival, but some of us are trying to stop a war. You're _all_ welcome to join in.

by Joe Wed Mar 05, 2003 11:50

I think additional reports about Shannon are very welcome but I'm not surprised that some are not keen on them. They probably don't carry the 'right' message. Of course the whole point of indymedia is that it allows access to the media for those who normally are not considered to be carrying the right message.

I'm also rather tickled by the inability of some to distinguish between clandestine armed struggle and the publically announced mass civil disobediance. But to be fair Brendan O Conoor and Michale McDowell seem to also suffer from this problem.

Finally where did this idea that there would have been 20,000 in Shannon otherwise have come from. The GNAW plan hit the media 4 days before Shannon, are IAWM claiming they had 100 buses mostly booked up at that point and then had to cancel 96 of them. (That would be only 5,000 of course but I'm asssuming 75% of booking would be last minute). Or do they just 'know' that the masses were about to descend! I've little doubt that the media frenzy halved or even quartered the number travelling but suggesting it reduced it by a fact of 15 to 6% seems to require some evidence. And even that reduction needs to be placed at the door of those who hyped up fears of disorganisation and violence.

by pat c Wed Mar 05, 2003 11:10

the sp sabotaged the gnaw da by spreading scare stories. this has been gone over many times already.

the sp also refuse to condemn the airport police. this, despite the fact that the AP have assaulted bullied & harrassed activists & independent (not the paper) journalists. in some of the photos on indy youwill see the AP in full riot gear.

the AP also were in the fire tenders with the water cannon at the ready; to be used in gnaw if necessary.

it really isnt a good idea for either side to muddy the waters of this debate by dragging in the north. all sort of quotes could be used.

historically , platformists would not have opposed liberation struggles. you wont find any trotsky quotes which oppose irish republican violence; quite the opposite.

remember: being against the war is a single issue; keep the debate to it.

by Dazed and Confused Wed Mar 05, 2003 03:46

Quote from Irony is dead:

"there are times when acts of individual terrorism are understandable and can be supported".

What the fuck are you on? Understandable? Yes. Supportable? No fucking way.

Quote from someone else:
"withdrawals of Greens, SP , SF..."

The SP did not withdraw from the Shannon protests.

by person who won't shut up about Shannon and GNAW thingy Wed Mar 05, 2003 03:02

I think we should be allowed to bang on. After all, we...zzzzzzzzzzzz

by bored Wed Mar 05, 2003 01:28

The debate on DA and Shannon was fairly intense in the few days after Shannon and everybody had their say. Now, is there any chance the GNAW people (who obviously feel a continuing need to justify themselves) could move on and get back to campaigning against the war? I mean, what is this? Are the WSM heads (and other diverve anarchos) trying to bore us into submission? Or maybe they really are just cyber activists. Clickedy, click. Move on, for pity's sake.

by xConorx Wed Mar 05, 2003 01:27 xconorx at hotmail dot com belfast

"The nature in which the DA at Shannon was called was done in a manner that cut itself off from a developing mass movement. Until you grasp that you won't understand why it was labelled elitism."

How was it elitist? Everyone was invited to take part and has has been stated many times - if people did not feel comfortable being in the front line fo the action, for whatever reason, they were made to feel very welcome in the line of pink flags. the atmosphere on Saturday was warm and friendly. I stood beside complete strangers, young and old, people who I'd never met. I we laughed, and did silly dances, and ate the sandwiches and all that time had a firm objective I mind to make our voices heard. I am far from a "seasoned activist" but I felt very welcome at the protest and it was an awesome feeling to be beside like-minded people and have the feeling that we could actually acheive something - despite all the negativity and petty attempts that were being made to discredit the people engaging in the "direct action".

What would have brought 20000 people to Shannon on Saturday? Perhaps if the had not been scaremongering from the IAWM, the ensuing media frenzy and the withdrawal of the Greens, SP and SF, then maybe there would have been a bigger crowd. Perhaps if attempts had not been made to continually denigrate those who took a different approach to the event then the split may not have driven so many people away. The actions on saturday, while remainging peaceful, illustrate that we can have an impact in a non-violent way. I know for a fact that some of my friends will now come to the nest protest at Shannon if there is one. I am sure that there will be hundreds more people at the next one, who know, maybe thousand. perhaps I am being optimistic, but don't think the power of action can be underestimated.

by Donnacha - NUJ (personal capacity) Wed Mar 05, 2003 00:55 donnacha at sortedmagazine dot com London

Union activism done properly is direct action in practice. Officials should be delegates of their members and not leaders, listening to those they represent rather than making decisions on their behalf. Union activists also need to respect other people's decisions not to play a part in the union unless that decision directly undermines the union's position (such as strike breaking). The general attitude of it's our march or nothing from the mass of the anti-war movement is just like the Partnership process, where the average member of a union has minimal say. Fuck that, the Grassroots Gathering organised their own protest, on their own terms and didn't interfere with anyone else's, in fact, they made it clear that they welcomed the IAWM movement doing something different and made the details of their action completely clear so there would be no confusion. Centralism is expecting everyone to do your thing, not organising your own thing and expecting others to respect that.

D.

by Irony is dead Wed Mar 05, 2003 00:34

Empowerment is a noble thing but many people feel empowered at a football match or a concert. The point is that millions felt empowered on Feb 15 and thought their actions could stop war. That is the crunch. The nature in which the DA at Shannon was called was done in a manner that cut itself off from a developing mass movement. Until you grasp that you won't understand why it was labelled elitism. Timing is all important. Had a mass mobilisation of 20000 people (a realistic prospect after f15) took place - imagine what real direct action could have taken place - could the cops have covered every part of the fence. Equating it to armed struggle is a suitable comparison. There are times when individual acts of terrorism are understandable and can be supported. There are times when they can be 100% stupid. (hence unconditional and critical). Overall though its the actions of the millions that change the world not the handfuls.

Finally your cheap shot at central committees only exposes your misunderstanding of leadership. Your members stand as shop-stewards, take part in union committees and presumably would participate in strike committees. You would presumably argue for the defence of the picket line. If you say fair enough to all 4 then good - welcome to democratic centralism.

by xConorx Tue Mar 04, 2003 21:58 xconorx at hotmail dot com

and Xdouble wordX