In support of direct action

In the popular imagination, the term “direct action” conjures up images of violence and chaos. Masked thugs rampaging the streets, battling with the police, spraying graffiti on walls, throwing eggs, bricks. Smashed windows, social disorder, and impotent alarms caterwauling into the night.

But, as with all that offers a challenge to the ruling class and the status quo, the public perception is wildly different from the reality.

Black bloc demonstrators draw attention to the divide between anarchic direct action and liberal "moderation"

Black bloc demonstrators draw attention to the divide between anarchic direct action and liberal "moderation"

I argue that, far from sowing the seeds of disorder, direct action – in all its forms – is the precise reason that we enjoy the (limited) freedoms we do today. Moreover, that it remains the most effective way of forcing positive societal changes from the ruling classes.

What is direct action?

In order to make a positive argument in favour of direct action, we must first understand precisely what it is. As a useful starting point, Wikipedia defines the term thus;

Direct action is politically motivated activity undertaken by individuals, groups, or governments to achieve political goals outside of normal social/political channels. Direct action can include nonviolent and violent activities which target persons, groups, or property deemed offensive to the direct action participant. Examples of nonviolent direct action include strikes, workplace occupations, sit-ins, and graffiti. Violent direct actions include sabotage, vandalism, assault, and murder. By contrast, grassroots organizing, electoral politics, diplomacy and negotiation or arbitration does not constitute direct action. Direct actions are sometimes a form of civil disobedience, but some (such as strikes) do not always violate criminal law.

The aim of direct action is to draw attention to, and support for, an action or position at a grassroots level. Its purpose is to force its cause onto the agenda and bring about change, outside of the normal bureaucratic and political channels which by design bar all interests unpalatable to ruling elites.

The best way, perhaps, to explain this concept fully is by providing select examples and listing their achievements.

Direct action in history, and its achievements

As alluded earlier, direct action is responsible for all of the freedoms that we enjoy today. Society has not advanced because a benevolent ruling class has granted the masses generous concessions out of the goodness of its heart, not because of passive petitioning and asking politely if we might, please, have better conditions. Rather, even the tiniest concession of liberty by those in power is begrudging, forced from them by revolutionary actions and large-scale disobedience by the masses, and remains under constant threat of being rolled back as long as a ruling class exists.

The unknown rebel: one of the most iconic images of direct action in the 20th century

The unknown rebel: one of the most iconic images of direct action in the 20th century

Direct action by the peasantry, the workers, or the popular masses has won us everything from the eight-hour day and the right to join a trade union to universal suffrage and basic freedom of speech. As a demonstration of this, I will run through a few examples;

1. The Haymarket massacre

See also: May Day: in remembrance of Haymarket, elsewhere on this site.

On 1st May, 1886, Chicago’s working class – with the city’s anarchist movement at the fore – began a series of strike actions in support of the American Federation of Labor’s resolution that “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labour from and after May 1st, 1886.″ They came to a head on May 3rd when police assaulted and shot at marchers.

In response, anarchist August Spies organised a demonstration on May 4th in Haymarket Square against the attacks. When police moved in to forcibly disperse the protesters, a bomb was thrown at them. They responded with gunfire, mass slaughter, and the rounding up of the eight ringleaders. Four of them – including August Spies – were executed.

Libcom sums up the aftermath of the executions;

600,000 working people turned out for their funeral. The campaign to free Neebe, Schwab and Fielden [the surviving Haymarket anarchists] continued.On June 26th 1893 Governor Altgeld set them free. He made it clear he was not granting the pardon because he thought the men had suffered enough, but because they were innocent of the crime for which they had been tried. They and the hanged men had been the victims of “hysteria, packed juries and a biased judge”.

The authorities has believed at the time of the trial that such persecution would break the back of the eight-hour movement. Indeed, evidence later came to light that the bomb may have been thrown by a police agent working for Captain Bonfield, as part of a conspiracy involving certain steel bosses to discredit the labour movement.

When Spies addressed the court after he had been sentenced to die, he was confident that this conspiracy would not succeed:

“If you think that by hanging us you can stamp out the labour movement… the movement from which the downtrodden millions, the millions who toil in misery and want, expect salvation – if this is your opinion, then hang us! Here you will tread on a spark, but there and there, behind you – and in front of you, and everywhere, flames blaze up. It is a subterranean fire. You cannot put it out”

As a result of the struggle and sacrifice of men like Spies, workers in the west now enjoy the right to work no more than eight hours per day. The struggle continues elsewhere, in the Haymarket tradition, but there can be no doubt that the direct action of that day in 1886 bears prime responsibility for any enjoyment of eight-hour days in the present.

2. The Suffragette movement

Without a doubt, the reason that women have the vote today is because of the women whom the New York Times of November 18, 1906 described as “a handful of violent cranks.” The paper describes how the movement was “making a deliberate and well-organized attempt to shame and scare Parliament into granting votes to women.” “They came to the conclusion that the cause of woman suffrage [sic] would be best achieved were the Suffragists to make themselves as unpleasant as possible to the authorities.”

In this assumption, they were proven right. As even the Times article concedes, twelve years before the Representation of the People Act 1918, “the Suffragettes have done more in the last few weeks to obtain victory for their cause than the old-fashioned Suffragists succeeded in accomplishing in many years.”

3. The Battle of Cable Street

On October 4, 1936, the British Union of Fascists, led by Oswald Moseley, planned a march through the East End of London. At the time, the BUF were gaining in popularity, and this march was aimed at promoting their fascist agenda by claiming the streets of the East End, where there was a large Jewish population.

However, in response to these plans, a great mass of anarchists, socialists, Jews, trade unionists, and – after retracting their initial opposition – Communists organised to oppose the march. The clash between the two groups would become known as “the Battle of Cable Street.”

The working class activists erected barriers to bar entry to the fascists, and resisted the advances of bothe the fascists and their police collaborators in a series of running battles that ultimately saw the march dispersed. An article in the Guardian from 2006 quotes eyewitness Bill Fishman, who was 15 at the time of the battle;

I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley. I shall never forget that as long as I live, how working-class people could get together to oppose the evil of racism.

Ultimately, this action by the ordinary people of the East End spelled the demise of the BUF, and set a powerful example that would be instrumental in repelling the National Front in the 1970s. Without the warriors of Cable Street, one can only speculate where British fascism might have ended up. Or how different history might have been.

4. The Civil Rights Movement

On 1st December 1955, a black woman refused to give up her seat on a bus for a white passenger. Rosa Parks’ action drew greater attention to the plight of blacks as second class citizens in the United States and inspired the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the spark that lit the tinder of the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

The Bus Boycott was only the first in a broad campaign of direct action. In 1960, sit-ins at lunch counters, parks, beaches, libraries, theaters, museums, and other public places forced the issue of segregationist policies onto the public agenda. The following year, in the face of massive violence from the Ku Klux Klan and state collaborators, activists engaged in “Freedom Rides” aimed at integrating seating patterns and desegregating bus terminals, including restrooms and water fountains, in the Deep South.

After the Freedom Rides, and again in the face of KKK and state repression, there was a massive drive to organise and register black voters in Missisipi. After a swathe of desegregation and integrationist campaigns, 1963 saw the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. This massive protest march, comprised of all of the major civil rights organizations, the more progressive wing of the labor movement, and other liberal organizations as well as black civil rights groups, aimed at pushing for “meaningful civil rights laws, a massive federal works program, full and fair employment, decent housing, the right to vote, and adequate integrated education.”

The above is just a snapshot of the direct action that took place in support of black civil rights. Activists were arrested and jailed, beaten by police and racist groups alike, took part in marches, sat down and refused to move, occuppied buildings and places of business, and forcibly upset the double standards of the status quo. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, and visible change to the very psyche of the United States, the achievements of the movement are undeniable.

Direct action today

Today, the tradition of direct action continues apace. To give just a few examples, anarchists in Greece are engaged in running battles with neo-fascist paramilitary groups and their police collaborators, anti-deportation activists continually engage in blockades protesting illegal detention and mass deportation, auto workers in Korea occupied their place of work in protest at proposed job losses, and parents in Lewisham have occupied Lewisham bridge primary school in protest over its closure. One might also cite the Camp for Climate Action and the No Borders Camp in Calais as examples of ongoing direct action aimed at highlighting broader issues.

Black and red anarcho-syndicalist flags flown in solidarity with Greek anarchists and anti-fascists

Black and red anarcho-syndicalist flags flown in solidarity with Greek anarchists and anti-fascists

However, almost without exception, direct action is derided as “counterproductive,” a “mere distraction,” “hooliganism,” “out of touch with the real world,” and even “terroristic.” Authoritarians and “moderates,” better known as apologists, don’t like it for the simple reason that it upsets the status quo.

But that is precisely the point.

If all protest was of the “legal” and “orderly” type – i.e. confined to cordoned-off “free speech zones,” drowned in police presence, unseen, and unheard – then nothing would ever be accomplished. Indeed, we might even begin to move backwards. Progress is what happens when ordinary people take to the streets en massé and force as much concession from the ruling classes as possible. Societal advance is the result of ever more layers of power being stripped from the state and capital.

During the Spanish Revolution, Buenaventura Durruti Dumange said this;

It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute.

The only thing that stops this being true is our submission. When those in power cannot use the brutal force exacted against the Haymarket rioters, it locks us up in pens and calls it “free speech,” and the hounds of the media print lie after lie after lie. Whatever form suppression takes, it must be resisted. “Moderation” is the admission that you have no desire to see your goals and visions come to pass. Direct action is the only guaranteed agent of progressive change in our society.

Waiting on the benevolence of those above will achieve nothing. Only direct action can force through positive change. If we are to see a better world, then it is our duty to disobey.

Comments
7 Responses to “In support of direct action”
  1. Greg says:

    Phil, what you’ve done here is to take a problem and turn it on its head. Essentially you are saying that violence is permissible because on certain occasions it has achieved certain things. By the same logic, I could justify an invasion of Burma, North Korea and China right now.

    To call something “direct action” is equivalent to calling civilian casualties “collateral damage” , you are purposely softening the semantics of violence.

    I have (and I suspect you haven’t) lived under Communist rule, Socialist rule, military dictatorship, republicanism and a constitutional monarchy. I have witnessed a coup and civil conflict first hand. What I have learned from this is that when people decide they have a moral high ground they can be very, very dangerous people, and excuse things they never normally would accept. This is particularly true when they identify certain groups of people as ‘the enemy’ as anarchists certainly do.

    Therefore, I become very worried when I see people talking about or advocating ‘direct action’ as you call it. Yes there are times when it is justified and has achieved good things, but if you look at your examples, it’s notable that most of them involved widespread or at least substantial support from some social-economic group. The ‘direct action’ by far leftists today usually gathers miniscule support. How many people supported the morons who graffitied Churchill’s statue? What did it achieve for their cause?

    That brings me back to my previous point about people taking a moral high ground and permitting violence. As a minority group, what gives them the right to do so? What will they achieve it with? What separates them from terrorists? When you break an existing order, how will you be sure you can replace it with something better?

    These are all questions which – despite your obvious intelligence and fluency – you have failed to ask or answer in your article or within the ideology you profess to support.

    Greg
    theantipolitician.wordpress.com

  2. Greg, I fear you’re misunderstanding me here. As I said at the start of this article;

    The aim of direct action is to draw attention to, and support for, an action or position at a grassroots level. Its purpose is to force its cause onto the agenda and bring about change, outside of the normal bureaucratic and political channels which by design bar all interests unpalatable to ruling elites.

    This definition includes violent and non-violent direct action, and certainly doesn’t give any overwhelming emphasis to the former. One of my main citations as proof of direct action, you’ll note, is the non-violent civil disobedience of the black civil rights movement. This campaign was one of the most effective and innovative in history. I could also have cited Ghandi’s opposition to British imperial rule.

    Where the controversy comes, however, is with my divergence from Ghandi and King by not adhering to absolute pacifism. Non-violent resistance can work, and to great effect, but to me the ideology of absolute pacifism is utterly abhorrent. Gandhi’s advice to the people of western Europe to “allow yourselves, man, woman and child to be slaughtered,” and insistence that the Jews “should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs” because “collective suicide would have been heroism” is the inevitable result of such an absurd notion.

    Of course, this doesn’t mean I advocate wanton violence and terrorism. On the page “anti-authoritarian resistance and the issue of violence” I quote an anarchist pamphlet titled “you can’t blow up a social relationship;”

    You can’t blow up a social relationship. The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what would replace it. Unless a majority of people had the ideas and organization sufficient for creation of an alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed unchallenged in their own personalities.

    Proponants of terrorism and guerrillaism are to be opposed because their actions are vangaurdist and authoritarian, because their ideas are wrong or unrelated to the results of their actions, because killing cannot be justified, and finally because their actions produce either repression with nothing in return or an authoritarian regime.

    I do not advocate murderous violence or coercion, but by the same token I will not advocate that anybody take such action lying down.

    The militias in Spain were utterly necessary for the defense of the collectives against Franco’s forces. The war against Hitler and Mussolini was vital. Armed resistance to US-supported fascist regimes in Greece, South Korea, Chile, El Salvador, etc, and armed resistance against genocide and neo-colonialism today in Palestine, Darfur, Iraq, and Afghanistan are utterly justified. Red terror, death squads, suicide bombings, and terror attacks against civilians (including those that occurred alongside the more noble defensive actions just mentioned) are emphatically not.

    The only violent direct action cited in the article above was in such circumstances – the Battle of Cable Street against the fascists, and the Greek Anarchists’ battles with the fascist paramilitary Golden Dawn, whose more notable achievements include throwing a grendade into an anarchist-run migrant shelter.

    I hope this answers your questions.

  3. Kiran Kaur says:

    Dear Phil Dickens,

    I am a text researcher working on Gale’s forthcoming textbook ISSUES THAT CONCERN YOU: SOCIAL PROTEST, scheduled to be released in the second quarter of 2014. As a part of Cengage Learning, Gale is a provider of high-quality educational and reference materials to libraries.

    The editors of this volume wish to include your blog post above. Is there an email address to which I can send more information and a permission letter?

    Thank you,
    Kiran Kaur

  4. Kiran Kaur says:

    Dear Phil Dickens,

    I am a text researcher working on Gale’s forthcoming textbook ISSUES THAT CONCERN YOU: SOCIAL PROTEST, scheduled to be released in the second quarter of 2014. As a part of Cengage Learning, Gale is a provider of high-quality educational and reference materials to libraries.

    The editors of this volume wish to include your blog post above. Is there an email address to which I can send more information and a permission letter?

    Thank you,
    Kiran Kaur

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. [...] used excessive force to remove them “severely and quickly.” As I have discussed previously, “direct action – in all its forms – is the precise reason that we enjoy the (limited) [...]

  2. [...] I wrote in support of direct action; If all protest was of the “legal” and “orderly” type – i.e. confined to cordoned-off [...]

  3. [...] outlined the broad case for direct action here, as well as expanding upon my opposition to pacifism and what purpose “violence” [...]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers

%d bloggers like this: