mis-information and dis-information regarding Direct Action.

national | miscellaneous | news report Tuesday March 04, 2003 21:02 by John - organise-asf (personal capacity) revol36 at aol dot com Belfast

Direct action and empowerment.

Some thoughts on DA

First things first, the term direct action has been bandied about alot during these discussions so I think i should clarify how anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists understand direct action.

Simply stated, direct action refers to action undertaken directly between two individuals or groups, without the intervention of a third party. In the case of the anarcho-syndicalist movement, the principle of direct action has a specific meaning: the rejection of participation in parliamentary or statist poltiics and the adoption of tactics and strategies which place responsibility for action firmly in the hands of the workers themselves.

okay so thats a wide definition, well thats because direct action is wide. Direct action doesnt have to be confrontational, and it certainly doesnt have to be violent.

The think that the direct action was all about takin down the fence would be to miss principal objective of direct action, empowerment. Those people who went with the pink flags were still engaging in direct action by offering help, relaying news and the people doin the food not bombs were also engagin in direct action by givin out food.

To claim that direct action is elitist is at best ignorant or at worst an attempt to discredit a tatic that the working class has been doin for hundreds of years.

To those people sayin direct action is not right at the moment, that we should be aiming at strikes, walkouts and occupations, YES EXACTLY! but all these are examples of direct action. Workers on strike are engagin in direct action people occupying government offices are engaged in direct action.

As to whether or not the Direct Action failed in its purpose on Saturday, well that depends. Obviously the fence failed to come down, but does that mean it failed, No, because even in its "failure" it did something that marching around Dublin or Belfast didn't(not that im saying these marches werent a great expression of opposition to the war) it broke throught the bullshit of liberal "democracy" it showed that when push comes to shove they will use violence or the threat of violence to maintain there order.Standing arm to arm with a complete stranger but with a common goal is also empowering, it helps us overcome are atomisation and builds real bonds of solidarity.

Anyone watching Bush and Blair using the marches to milk the idea that we live in a democratic society should take note that legal demostrations are not in themselves a serious worry for the state, rather its how this level of opposition will be channeled. Will it stay within the boundaries of protest or will it become resistance! will people go back home to watch the battle on BBC News or will they actively oppose the war. by actively opposing the war im not talking about everyone smashing up planes but strikes, walkouts and occupations.

Those claiming that direct action is elitist is really talkin nonsense, no one was arguin that everyone should be at the fence, obviously not everyone can afford to put themselves in such a position, that was exactly why there was a pink section for people who wanted to show solidarity. let me put like this what is more elitist a group of people who agreed a action at a open meeting and who made sure that there were options that suited everybody or a march which involves people walkin from point a to b to hear a few speeches from some self important proffesional revolutionary/liberal.

To clarify regarding the "hi-jacking" of the march by extremists this is complete nonsense. The action was agreed to by the grassroots network and subsequently the IAWM anounced they would be at shannon at the same time but would not have anything to with the grassroots action.
whilst i respect the right off groups to do their own actions i dont see why they could not have joined the pink section? or at least refrain from stabbin the grassroots network in the back (did they use an icepick? ha ha) to all the media that would listen to them.

As to the actions of the green party or the Shinners well what did you expect? they are more worried about elections and media coverage than stoppin a war.

I also feel the SWP is extremely hypocrtical in its denouncement of violence and vanguardist elitism considering it had no problem givin "unconditional but critical support" to the Provos in the past not to mention its very uncritical line on the FARC or Hamas.Infact i dont think i have ever read or herad the SWP criticise any of these groups more than it criticised grassroots network.

Id just like to add that i didnt agree with the exact tatics used in the direct action but i accepted them as the democratic will of the network and i cannot say i was denied input into the decision.

Social Revolution is about empowerment, its about realising our own strength but its also a learnin process. WE MAY HAVE FAILED BUT OUR FAILURE IS STILL WORTH MORE THAN ANY VICTORY GAINED THROUGH ANY CENTRAL COMMITEE!

"The emancipation of the wroking class is the task of the working class" K-Marx
If only some socialists could grasp that simple maxim more readily than the 3 volumes of Das Kapital!