|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
Direct Action - your questions answered national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Wednesday March 26, 2003 14:32 by WSM
 This article addresses Direct Action in the context of the sometimes hysterical debate about the Grassroots Network Against War (GNAW) action at Shannon on March 1st. What is Direct Action? Direct action simply means acting for yourself without intermediaries. For example, with regard to the use of Shannon by the US military we could plead with TDs to plead with the cabinet to plead with the US authorities to move their operations to Germany. That type of action relies on other people acting on behalf of you. Direct action is simply where you act for yourself. An example would be if thousands of people occupied the runway at Shannon preventing US Military from refuelling there. Is Direct Action always Violent? Nope, though they're not mutually exclusive either. Anyway violence against people (as opposed to property) usually originates from the state forces as they react (by batonning & imprisoning) demonstrators. The morality of violence is a separate though not unrelated question and, in my opinion, each use of force needs to be justified on its own merits. Why publicise a Direct Action? In the afterglow of February 15th it was reasonable to assume that a couple of thousand would show up at Shannon. The reason for publicising it was to encourage the maximum number of participants in the direct action itself. The plan to tear the fence down was dependent largely on numbers. The fact that the numbers didn't materialise was disappointing, and all the publicity, far more than expected, probably served to scare away people rather than attract them. If people don't know about an event then they we can't expect them to participate. Open publication of the plan allows people to make an informed decision about the extent of their involvement. It minimises the chances of them being drawn into events they are uncomfortable with. On the other hand, it could be fairly argued that direct action instigated by a few can be more successful than a pre-planned one. For example, the fence destruction at Shannon in October was a spontaneous action instigated by a few which led to a mass trespass. The very public plan on March the 1st failed in its objective and may even have appeared as a standoff designed to attract media attention. I think there's merit to both positions. Does Direct Action frighten people off, particularly those new to political activity? This argument is often connected to the cry 'let's build the movement' first. There are hundreds of thousands of people against this war. The movement is built. The question is what to do now? There was no change in policy after February 15th. We can either sit back and hope that the government will change it's mind about refuelling in Shannon or we can try to stop it ourselves The latter is the harder option and it's entirely possible that such attempts will be both unpopular and a failure, but a start has to be made. If direct action isn't appropriate at this time and on this issue then it'll never be. Direct action also leads to people feeling empowered in the struggle as it has an achievable aim and does not rely on our 'masters' doing what we ask them. If peaceful protesters are attacked by police then surely it's the protesters' own faults ? In the run up to March 1st concerns were expressed that attempts to cause a security breach at Shannon would bring violent retribution form the security forces and therefore the action was inappropriate. This highlights the degree to which some people, even anti-war supporters, are committed to the legitimacy of State violence even if such violence is used to continue an unethical policy in the face of peaceful civil disobedience. The GNAW demo, whatever its organisational flaws, was intended to be entirely peaceful, as indeed it turned out. At its most extreme a fence was going to be torn down. This is so minor compared to punching someone in the face or an aerial bombardment that I'm embarrassed it needs pointing out. The security forces on the other hand were prepared to violently resist this peaceful (or at most barely aggressive action) action by thumping people ? hence the batons ? and imprisoning them against their will. Therefore any violence was likely to come from them and it is they and their masters who ought to be called upon to desist from acting violently, particularly as they were acting in the service of an unethical (and unpopular) war. Excusing the security forces because they're "just following orders" has a long and inglorious history. Is DA is a Distraction ? A distraction from what? The Green Party leadership disassociated themselves from the actions of the Catholic Workers and the March 1st demo partly because they considered such action a "distraction". In fact the opposite is true. Every time an action took place more attention was focussed on Shannon, the scene of the Irish State's complicity in the war effort. Not only is direct action not a distraction it has had specific positive results, namely the withdrawal of some of the airlines ferrying the hardware to the Middle East. Ireland's role in the war is minor and no doubt dispensable. Nevertheless it's our responsibility to stop that involvement. It's not up to us to stop the war, we can only change that which we have control over. But you must admit that the cost to the State of securing the airport is a waste of taxpayers' money? Defiantly true, the quickest way to stop it would be to prohibit the planes from using the facilities in the first place. Aren't Workers strikes are the best form of direct action? True again, and while we should do our bit to encourage and support them there's no reason to wait for them to do it. They mightn't be agreeable to the anti-war case or they mightn't have the confidence to risk going on strike. If we're going to call for them to take a risk we should at least be prepared to take a few ourselves. Workers' strikes and breaching security are not mutually exclusive tactics. James O'Brian ---- Next action at Shannon Dead Slow March for Peace Mourning the Death of Irish Neutrality and All Deaths in Iraq Next Sunday, 30th March will see a Dead Slow March for Peace taking place at Shannon Warport.(Meeting 2pm at the shopping centre). People will gather at Shannon from all over the country to express opposition to the war in Iraq and to Irish participation in it, through the use of facilities at Shannon by US military on their way to the Gulf. This will be a solemn occasion, an act of mourning for all those who have been or will be killed in this war and for the final death of Irish Neutrality. Organisers are asking participants to wear black clothes, white face paint and to bring red paint or fake blood to put on their hands. This protest has been called by the Grassroots Network Against War and is being supported by the Cork Peace Alliance. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (19 of 19)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19fair play to the wsm - in all the battles for the "middle ground" in the IAWM (the actual movement,not the swp branch) its good to hear some straight talking with practical connectations.
im sick of hearing the arguments for getting gardai/security staff at shannon to strike.
its not going to happen!!!
i guess the main arguments against DA come from those who turn up at an antiwar protest/action(sitdown at the dail for example last thursday), hijack it,wave their flags, shout , and then fuck off when the gards move in (joe carolan swp anyone??).
the more genuine trotskyites get stuck in ,and their arguments carry some weight.
the greens tell the crowd to move on.
The WSM are at it again (how many members? Less than 20 nationally anyway), talking the talk but ultimately doing the walk.
What's planned for Shannon this coming Sunday?? A stroll from the town centre out to the airport where we'll hear more blow-holing about direct action but none will actually happen. Useless bunch of fuckers. Good at talking big but worthless when it comes to actually mobilising people or engaging in successful DA. And always with the excuses...
What is this focus on neutrality and its 'passing' at the Shannon demo next Sunday? Since when did anarchists rise in defence of this thing called 'nuetrality' that the bourgeoise try to delude us with? Are WSM and GNAW now wading in behind PANA and that shower? To hell with defending 'nuetrality': no war but the class war!!
Seven people turned up this morning to carry ou an anti war lobby of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Annual Delegate Conference. No one from the SP was present.
Given the way the SP have counter posed Strike Action to Direct Action; why did they miss out on this opportinity? 400 trade union delegates were assembled in the one place; surely this was the ideal opportunity to lobby in support of anti war industrial action.
The reaction to Sunday demonstration from some on indymedia is quite funny. March 1st was 'too violent' and 'too public' but Sundays slow march is 'too passive' and people want more details made public.
Presuming those making the comments are being serious (and not simply r-r-revolutionary trolls) can I suggest that rather then whinge about how GNAW should do it they set us an example. GNAW came into existance because those involved felt that rather then whinging about the reformism of the IAWM we should provide a counter example (and do something useful at the same time). Now the same challenge is there for the sideline whingers. Either get involved in GNAW and suggest alternative actions or if you reckon its irreformable get together, set up something new and get down to work.
As to the WSM involvement - unlike most of the left we don't pretend to be big, we are realistic about the limitations placed on us by our small size. But far from talking but 'doing nothing' around 25% of our members are facing charges for actions at Shannon and ALL of them have taken part in at least one action.
I think our small size demonstrates what a few determined people can achieve who are open to honestly working with others. If the organisations that claimed memberships in the 100's had the same level of committment I don't think we'd be seeing US warplanes flying into Shannon.
Bottom line - if you think things can be done better (and of course they can) don't simply whinge on indymedia. Get involved and set an example others can emulate.
"Since when did anarchists rise in defence of this thing called 'nuetrality' that the bourgeoise try to delude us with? Are WSM and GNAW now wading in behind PANA and that shower? To hell with defending 'nuetrality': no war but the class war!!"
Yes ....however when you are in a broad group you sometimes have to compromise (I very much doubt if the WSM people were arguing in favour of the neutrality thing). You will have noticed that the publicity for March 1st was very pacifist, but only some of the people involved were pacfist.
to 'person making a comment'
For the record several members of the WSM are currently facing charges over breaking the law at Shannon, so as organisations go. I'd say that we are particularly good at putting our money where our mouth is, in comparison to the other r-r-revolutionary organisations - with the exception of the Catholic workers.
WSM members in Dublin and Cork have also done a huge amount of work in mobilising people to get to Shannon, printing posters, booking buses, responding to the press, etc... How much of this boring work have you done? I agree that, due to our small size there are obvious limits to what we can achieve, but considering our size, I believe that our impact on the Irish anti war movement has been extraordinary and if the larger 'anti-war parties' had put in a proportional effort in the attempt to close Shannon, the warport would be long gone.
I would love to see other groups and people organising and promoting direct action, so if you feel that we are merely showboating with the issue, why don't you organise something yourself?
To Anarcho-syndicalist:
I'd agree that concentrating on neutrality is problematic and open to mis-interpretation, however in the Irish context, 'neutrality' effectively means the non-participation of the Irish state in imperialist wars. This is something that should be wholly supported by anarchists.
For the record, the dead slow march has the potential to significantly disrupt the operation of Shannon during the event. Personally I think that we still need to aim at the fences and undermining the security at Shannon if we are to drive the warplanes out, but those type of actions require a huge amount of work and preparation in advance. Suffice to say, I reckon that we will be upping the ante in the not too distant future, but meanwhile there is no harm in less ambitious actions that require less work, disrupt the operation of the warport to some extent, keep the state on its toes and keep the focus on Shannon.
Again, the bottom line is, if you want more militant action, get involved with GNAW, argue for it and help to make it work. Or if you think that GNAW is beyond reform as a vehicle for direct action, organise your own event. If you do so, we will wish you every success. The issue is much too important to care about the 'branding'.
is there plans for an action on Sat 5th Apr at shannon, or did I dream it?
My understanding is that April 5th is an (international) day of local actions so rather then another national demo at Shannon GNAW groups (and others?) will be taking local actions across Ireland. I guess the people in Limerick and Shannon may do something at Shannon though!
I think it would have been worthwhile to have another combined action at Shannon, but i guess local action will be cool too.
I thought the Socialist Party were dead set on winning over workers to take strike action against the war. They are on the record as saying that the industrial muscle of the trade unions is the only thing that will stop Irish collaboration with the war.
It seems this is only so much rhetoric, they are happy with their cosy relationship with the Burocrats. Getting them to speak from a platform is enough.
They would have embarrassed the likes of Geraghty if they had turned up at the lobby. They would have had to point out that Congress was doing nothing about opposing the war.
Actually in Northern Ireland Congress are supporting the troops. The ICTU speaker at a rally called for support for the troops! Not a whisper of protest from the Socialist Party.
The IAWM had another of their semi secret meetings last Sunday. At this the SP voted against any lobby or even leaflet distribution at the SDC.
I wonder if they really want strike action to take place?
No of course not the SP are against strike action this is why we call for it. For christs sake some of this debate is ridiculas. I agree with alot of the points the wsm make on direct action. But just two things if you want to make small individualistic direct action such as the catholic workers do it in secret and don't try to pretend its some sort of mass action. You can't please all the people all the time, I think the direct actioners problem was they wanted to do that, have democratic mass direct action when the mass wasn't there. It would have made more sense to do a secret one if at all. You can't have it both ways. Places where there has been mass direct action they have been supported by striking trade unions. Especially in Pisa in Italy where 50,000 took part in mass direct action there. Also people should remeber in a city with a long and proud fighting communist tradition not something that appeared overnight.
And to many people marching is direct action, blocking a road is direct action. And that banner over the railway bridge to me is direct action. One or the other is only as illegal as the state makes it. For example Reclaim the Streets type actions are legal and take part regualy in Italy. It is and has been normal to close down city centres for parties for decades. And its not illegal and wouln't be seen as direct action. Occupying your school even is considered a normal part of growing up! Really at the end, and remebering Italy has done every form of direct action possible as far as the shooting prime ministers variety! And in the end the general strike had the most effect. The fifty thousand couldn't stop refuleing camp darby but workers in Livorno have stopped the loading of weapons onto civilian ships there and workers in genova shut down the port dfor 24 hours. To get rid of the US bases you'll need a political solution as military do all there own loading and they have guns! Either way direct action is a tactic to be used along with marching strikes and any other intervention possible. It shouldn't be turned into a fetish. But for the moment anyone who does any secret individualist direct actions that don't hurt anyone have my complete support!
If 25% of WSM are facing charges in Shannon then the group has 8 members. By the way, it is utter bullshit to claim that every WSM member has been involved in direct action at Shannon! Who do you think you are kidding? If it wasn't for one particular individual down in Cork (and he's a republican by vocation) ye would have no rep as direct actionists.
The real issue under debate seems to be individual direct action versus mass direct action and when each tactic should be employed.
Sorry Jamie I used to be a republican but I am not any more. I would describe myself as an anarchist now. I regard that as progress on my part, but I respect others right to their views. As to DA and the WSM, my fellow members have been involved in all the DA stuff I've got stuck in. Unfortunately for me certain elements of the state seem determined to harass me, comes with the territory.
You still havent answered the question:
WHY DID THE SP OPPOSE THE LOBBY OF THE ICTU CONFERENCE WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED AT THE IAWM MEETING LAST SUNDAY?
WHY DID YOU PASS UP ON THE OPPORTUNITY OF LOBBYING 400 TRADE UNION ACTIVISTS?
A colleague at work was down there and is incensed by
the the crap politicking going on. The IAWM were
approached to back the lobbying of the ICTU over the
weekend. They said that it wasn't a good idea. I don't
know why this is but it seems to be borne of a desire
to please some of their not-so-radical new found
friends . Empty rhetoric only please!.
It should also be noted that some of the more
progressive elements of the IAWM were not at the
meeting at the weeekend ie ISN. The SP and SWPERS have
banged on about the elitism of our approach on
Indymedia. Me and other GNAW and non GNAW people have
regularly asked them for concrete details of how they
are going about organising for action in Shannon and
guess what....absolute silence over the wire.
Anyone for another march?
By 'facing charges' I'm including those who have been summoned and who might yet be summoned - It took the state several months to summon the Oct people, others are still potentially in the pipeline. BTW your estimate is also too low in relation to those who have been summonsed so maybe your not as informed as you think (there was also a stupid extra harassment summons thrown in on someone else along the way.)
And as half of us have been over the fence the idea that its just down to one guy in Cork is also wrong. In any case we don't claim to be some sort of direct action commando outfit and we don't pressue any of our members to do stuff that may leave them open to prosecution. Just about all of us have chosen to do this anyway at Shannon. Trying to undermine what we say by claiming we implement none of it is simply a lie - in comparison to almost any other organisation active in opposing the war we have nothing to prove in that regard.
Throwing these sort of accusations out on a newswire read by the cops is actually pretty irresponsible - it is very hard to answer them without identifying individuals who in a sense are already in their hands (ie facing charges or potential charges). I appreciate that you didn't name anyone but you have to recognise that it is hard for us to argue against you without identifying people. Given that the secret police (Special Branch) have already raided peoples houses in connection with Shannon lets not make there job any easier.