A-Infos (en) Sweden, Direct Action: Towards an Understanding by the late* Harald Beyer-Arnesen

Campaigning for wageworkers to join the Industrial Workers of the World,
Eugene V. Debs stated in December 1905: "The capitalists own the tools they do not
use, and the workers use the tools they do not own." To this one could add: At times
direct action may mean putting the tools we do not own out of action, at times it may
mean bringing them into play for our own, self-defined needs and ends. In the final
instance, it can only mean acting as if all the tools were in fact our own.
     Direct action brought to its ultimate and logical end is the libertarian social revo-
lution: the working class's direct overtaking, rearrangement, transformation and
deconstruction (when not found appropriate to human needs) of the means of pro-
duction (the material tools of freedom), and the disarmament of the forces protecting
the order that was. If we are talking about a genuine social revolution, this can be
nothing but the collective, direct action by the working class abolishing itself as a
class, and thus the state and class society as such, making us all into citizens of a
world of our own making.
     Many are those who talk about direct actions these days, fewer try to explore its
meaning, asking what kind of tool it is. This is not a semantic question but one of
substance - one that lies at the core of the whole anarchist, social-revolutionary proj-
ect where "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the work-
ing classes themselves," and the means are determined by and contained in our
ends. From this perspective we can define direct action as being an action carried
out on the behalf of nobody else but ourselves, where the means are immediately
also the ends, or if not, as in a wage strike not mediated by any union bureaucracy,
the means (decreasing the bosses' profits by our non-work, and thus also diminish-
ing the bosses' power) stand in an immediate relationship to self-defined ends
(increasing our wages and extending our own power). A direct action successfully
carried out brings about a direct rearrangement of existing conditions of life through
the combined efforts of those directly affected.
     Nobody need wholly agree with this definition, but I find it logical as well as a
potentially powerful instrument in developing a practice where the future society
comes to life within the shell of the old. In all circumstances, we as anarchists and
social revolutionaries must comprehend direct action within the context of our proj-
ect of human emancipation. Direct action is however not like pregnancy, which is
something you either are or are not. Elements of direct action may be contained in
actions that do not fully qualify as such. Part of our task consists in trying to make
these elements as dominant as possible, whenever possible. To this we need a
usable definition, something to aspire towards and measure our actions by, and thus
also acquire a greater awareness of the sources of our strengths and shortcomings.
     We will not always have the power to reach our ends through direct action. More
than any other form of action, it tends to demand a collective, organisational force.
Most clearly this will manifest itself in the working class's direct re-expropriation of
the instruments of production and freedom. We can achieve anything together.
Building that togetherness is the difficult part, and like a muscle not used, the force
of collective action is weakened by passivity. On a local level, where most of our
actions are still confined, or on an international level, through the co-ordinated
actions within one small sector of the working class, our ability to carry out direct
action will be restricted by it being a means not yet generalised. We should still be
able to make use of it some of the time, but not all of the time without being crushed
by the forces we are up against. If you are fired, a sit-down strike might save your
job, but if you are the only one sitting there it might be a good idea to look up a lawyer
or some union bureaucrat. Something which also draws our attention to how the
concept of direct action links up with another old word in the vocabulary of working
class struggles, namely practical solidarity. Solidarity does not mean charity, and
cannot be reduced to altruism. Rather it is something that grows out of an under-
standing of common interests. At the root of the IWW catchword, "an injury to one
is an injury to all," lies more than a moral economy. The words also describe a fact
of social life.
     Direct action has been defined as action without intermediaries. This is a defini-
tion in need of qualification. From an anarchist perspective direct action is connect-
ed not only to solidarity, but also to what tends to be a precondition for solidarity and
the underlying principle of the concept of direct democracy: non-hierarchical human
communication. Such communication lies at the roots of what direct action always
is, individual and collective self-empowerment. As direct action contains its own end,
within that self-defined end it's meaning is also found. The more the ends are man-
ifested in the means, the more it is a direct action.
     If we stay seated or go on playing darts as a means to prolong a lunch break, and
thus shorten our working day, then the meaning of the action is also immediately the
means used. But such collective action has as its precondition the human dialogue.
It is through the mediation of the dialogue that the ends are defined that gives the
action its signification for us as human beings. If we stay seated or go on with our
dart playing because the boss tells us so, then even if this will prolong our lunch
break just as much or more, it is not direct action. Now there are forms of direct
action that may involve only a single person, precisely because it is something which
is of nobody else's concern. But in general, for an action to be effective and have
more than a symbolic significance in a social context, it must involve the participa-
tion of many. A one-(wo)man strike is at best a political statement.
Protesting the modern-day popes and tsars
    If you lack water you might have to dig a well, and the act of digging will be direct
action. You may need the assistance of others and your lack will very likely also be
shared by them, making it into a collective task. But within a class society things are
rarely that simple. The land may be owned by an absent landowner, and an appa-
ratus of force will exist to impose proprietor rights. Just going out there digging the
well would thus be illegal. Still, illegality is not what defines it as direct action.
Collective self-education, for instance, is a form of direct action that often, if not
always, would be perfectly legal.
    We could imagine that rather than digging the well without a permit, we organ-
ised to sit down outside the landowner residence, the King's Palace, the White
House or the parliament building, called in the press and proclaimed we would
remain seated on the lawn (committing the crime of trespassing) until the absent
landowner, a legislative body or somebody else with authority, granted us a permit
to dig for water on his or her property - or until we were carried or otherwise forced
away.
    This surely would be civil disobedience, a breach of law, but would it also be
direct action? Hardly. We had tried to put pressure on an authority to make or undo
a judgment. In this we had abided by their power and authority to make such a judg-
ment in the first place. Rather than letting our ends only be mediated by our own
efforts and (wo)man-made tools - which in this case would be spades or excavators
- we had put their rule between our means and ends. The tools yes, the instruments
of production and destruction, as well as our own creativity: sold hours of life turned
into instruments of our exploitation. We are the ones who employ these tools, but
not according to our own plans, needs and desires. We rarely utilise them as a
means of direct action. The wage working cook does not serve the poor as part of
collective project in the time (s)he has sold to an alien force, instead (s)he casts a
vote, signs a petition, joins a demonstration, breaks some windows or blows up a
building in his or her unwaged time. None of which produces anything immediately
digestible.
    Some would define any non-parliamentary action as a direct action, such as any
street demonstration. But to make a statement about what we would like something
to be, or not to be, is not likely to move any mountain. If the mere words, "Stop the
bombing!" halted bombs in mid-air, or took away their deadly effect, the world be a
better place to live. It is not any more likely that breaking windowpanes would gen-
erate this effect, either.
    That symbolic actions, and actions that borrow their efficiency from the very pow-
ers we are struggling against, more and more have come to be defined as direct
actions, reflects our present organisational impotence, our social fragmentation and
a generalised lack of trust among waged and unwaged workers in their own collec-
tive powers. Under particular circumstances symbolic actions can be powerful. But
they should be seen as what they are at their best: means of communication. Their
degree of efficiency outside this lies foremost in the fear among the owners of the
world that they will be followed up by more direct forms of action. At the present
moment, disorganised as we stand, or organised into passivity, they are also often
all we have, but that should not lead us to the conclusion that they are all we could
have.
    Often, as during the WTO meeting in Seattle, we see proclaimed as direct actions
protests carried out in spectacular and some times violent or destructive ways to
draw the attention of mainstream media. Though often denied, the whole logic of
such actions is to influence the powers that be by way of some imagined "public
opinion." And in the age of the world-wide web, even a demonstration of a few dozen
people can appear as a world event if only the rumour about it is widely enough cir-
culated, while you can live a couple of blocks away without even noticing that it has
taken place. So maybe a better term than direct action in such circumstances might
be virtual or multi-mediated action. Ironically, both larger protests, like those in
Seattle, as well as smaller ones tend to be followed by a critique of the mainstream
media for distorting the (f)acts, for only having reproduced their most spectacular
aspects.
    Of course it could be said, and not without some truth, that the property destruc-
tion in Seattle had a symbolic value that it gained from the particular context it func-
tioned within. I am not arguing against that, though this value would soon be deval-
ued if the same procedure were repeated over and over again. However, apart from
their symbolic value, the actions had no immediate relation to what one wanted to
achieve. The blocking of the meeting or the destruction of property were not means
to bring about any immediate changes in the conditions of trade, exploitation and
oppression: they fed no one, did not reduce the pollution of our environment or in
other ways enrich the lives of working-class people.
    Exploitation and oppression always work in concrete ways, and the realities of
what one was protesting against and the concrete points of possible change
escaped the protesters. Lacking the power to bring about immediate changes, one
appealed to the Pope and the Tsar, some would say in less than polite ways, to use
their commanding powers over us to bring such changes about. Rather than going
out digging the wells to find the water, one demanded of the high and mighty to order
us to do so, and rather than blocking the ruling order from polluting our water, one
called on them to make laws prohibiting such acts, or to refrain from introducing new
ones allowing the pollution. One appealed to the force of their laws, asking for bet-
ter ones: asking for an atheist Pope, a landless Tsar, a capitalism where money
wields no power. Many will find this a misrepresentation: "We demanded the break-
up of the WTO," they will say. But this, even had it been realistic - which it was not
- would at best only substitute a not yet defined set of international laws and power
relations for the particular ones existing or in making. It was a wholly abstract
demand.

    If temporarily halting the mere coming together of the delegates of the World
Trade Organisation was all one had wanted to achieve, then the protesters used
means (their own bodies) appropriate to this end. But was this really their end?
Hopefully, and far more likely, they thought of it as a means. In the age before the
telegraph and telephone, to say nothing about more modern means of communica-
tion, such means might also have had a more immediate effect, and a far closer rela-
tion to the end. But today such gatherings of the high and mighty foremost have
symbolic significance. The decision-making and co-ordination of power takes place
elsewhere, and not in any particular place at any particular date. I for one am cer-
tain that the protesters aspired to bring about an end to particular destructive prac-
tices associated with the policies of the World Trade Organisation, as well as to halt
even more destructive ones, and not to the mere obstruction of the coming together
of some people at a certain place and time. Had practices of exploitation, oppres-
sion and destruction existed only in the minds and the statements of the high and
mighty, we would not have to offer them much attention. Nor would the high then be
very mighty.
    If from every community affected by the policies of the WTO (or rather of global
capitalism) there had been one person present among the protesters in Seattle, they
would be in the wrong place to bring about changes through direct action. The con-
crete and daily manifestations of WTO policies takes place in the communities they
would have left behind, and it is also there that these policies could be directly con-
fronted. On the other hand, such a global assembly could have served as an oppor-
tunity to co-ordinate actions throughout the world, and not primarily to worry about
what was going on in the congress halls where the WTO delegates were gathered.
As it was, people from every community of the planet were not gathered in Seattle.
What is more, those who were there, to the degree they at all considered the option
of direct action, were in Seattle precisely because of their, or rather our, impotence
to bring about the organisation needed to confront the WTO through direct action on
our home ground.

Propaganda by the deed & solidarity revisited
    A critical dialogue in search of forms of action that could directly put whatever has
and will be resolved within the framework of the WTO, IMF and World Bank wholly,
or more realistically at this stage, in part out of operation, has hardly even been
attempted, despite of, or maybe because of all claims of direct action practices.
    In this context, it is interesting that West Coast longshoremen carried out a polit-
ical strike against the WTO. However positive this was a sign of times to come, it
did not go beyond being a symbolic action. But the event may also be considered
as symbolic in another context. The longshoremen (dockers and wharfies) and
transport workers in general, are the wageworkers with the most manifest potency to
directly and materially impose the terms of world trade. Thus also all the efforts to
destroy their strength. But these workers would in no circumstances be able to wield
such power for long if their "propaganda by the deed" did not also bring about man-
ifestations of direct action by the waged and unwaged workers of the world, or at
least within significant parts of it.

     The term "propaganda by the deed" brings forth associations to bombs and other
individual acts of desperation and social impotence. But it need not refer to this.
When tasks meet us on a global scale, direct action carried out locally to bring about
smaller changes in the here and now, or internationally by a small section of the
working class, may be considered as just a drop in the bucket. But if successfully
carried out, direct actions will communicate a message beyond their immediate
ends, carrying within themselves the very seeds of a libertarian social revolution.
Acts of immediate empowerment tend to be contagious as they practically illustrate
roads that may be travelled outside the realm of bureaucratic intermediaries and par-
liamentary representation. Direct action is always "propaganda by the deed."
     This all brings us back to the question of solidarity and its relation to direct action,
and then in particular as defined as an action carried out on behalf of nobody else.
The question also arises out of ecological concerns. Who are the directly affected,
and at what point does an act cease being direct action because it is not being car-
ried out by those directly affected? What interests us here is of course the political
implications of the answer given. The advocates of ideologies of representative
democracy, social democracy and Leninism all claim to act on the behalf of "the peo-
ple" in the interest of "the people." Anarchists have always rejected not only that the
representatives of these ideologies do so, but the very notion that they could. What
is more, even if they could, we claim that this would not be in our best interest as the
value of being our own masters is the very essence of being a human being.
Something, it must be added, which does not imply an escape from the influence and
critique of others, without which we would be nothing.
     On the other hand we uphold the principles of mutual aid and solidarity; that an
injury to one is an injury to all, and thus also the concern of all. We can skip the most
absurd interpretations of non-representation, like: "If we see a person drowning, this
is not our concern." Whether or not saving another person from drowning also
should be defined as direct action is not an interesting question. Philosophical rid-
dles are not the concern here, but the politics of human emancipation.
     On this level the answer to the question leads us to another: who has the defin-
ing power? I define the low wages and bad working conditions in company X, wher-
ever it may be situated in the world, as my concern not only for moral reasons, but
also because, to paraphrase Bakunin: in the hands of the owners of the world, their
exploitation and oppression becomes an instrument for my subordination. Brought
to its logical conclusion this reasoning may however bring us straight back to rule by
representation and enlightened despotism. The defining power must be situated
among the workers of company X. However, my participation in direct action on their
initiative, or through joint initiative and co-operation, would make me part of this
direct action if my acts also otherwise qualified as such, for instance through a block-
ade during a strike. We have realized our common interests.
     There is much more that could be said around this topic. But what is crucial is to
grasp its importance, so that claimed direct action does not become a road that leads
                      Harald Beyer-Arnesen - Page
us towards elitism, and thus also away from the anarchist project of individual and
social emancipation.
    Once again we reach the conclusion that as a rule, the greater the task the more
collective the action - this to fit a libertarian definition of direct action. We should
never lose sight of the fact that the concept of direct action emerges out of people
doing something with their own situation. It is for this reason that it has held such a
central position within the traditions of anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism.
Direct action is an expression of power over our lives: our empowerment. Direct
actions are primarily, if not exclusively, tied to collective forms of actions also for the
simple reason that it is together that we as waged and unwaged workers have the
potency to directly, and often immediately, change our conditions of life. The fewer
the actors the more symbolic our acts as a rule will also be. They then tend to
become, not means to the immediate transformation of part of our reality through our
own efforts but, foremost, to call on the power of others.
    While many may live under the illusion that through direct action we escape the
need for organising, the opposite is true: Generally it requires a greater degree of
organised co-ordination. The degree of our disorganisation is the degree to which
our lives will be organised by others. It is we who make the world, but we make it
as a collective (presently under the command of and through the mediation of the
owners of the world) and it is thus also together that we can make direct profound
changes unmediated by outside forces, and in the final instance conquer the world
and the power over our own destinies.
    Direct action could be seen as a kind of language: a language of practical artic-
ulation. As such it contains also a symbolic force far greater than any mere symbol-
ic action, precisely because its message is contained in and not separated from its
means. Much of the reason for our present impotence to express ourselves through
direct action lies in an ever-increasing division of labour within modern capitalism.
Not so much due to this division in itself but in our failure to bridge it in our minds,
and through organisation and action.
    We need to reconnect our means with our ends. To return to the wage strike - it
used to signify, and still often does, striking the bosses where it hurts them the most,
their banking accounts, by withholding our capacity for labour. So why did the work-
ers of the "public owned" trams in Melbourne ten years ago strike by running the
trams - the tools they do not own - free of charge for the public, while their bosses
struck back by closing them down by force? The reason is obvious. As so often is
the case with public services, the non-work of the publicly employed tram drivers
would not have cost the city council a cent. It could only save them the expenses of
the workers' wages. Free public transport, however, would cost them.
    What is more crucial, this was a manifestation of workers turning the tools they
do not own into means for their own ends, as well as for the working class commu-
nity at large. What if all the waged and unwaged workers (including school and uni-
versity students) of Melbourne had non-hierarchically organised to do the same, if
only for a day or a week? That really would have been a symbolically powerful man-
ifestation of our potency by means of direct action. Reality is still concrete. Let's not
forget it. Also in the struggle against the policies of the World Trade Organisation,
the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank we should seek to find ways to,
on a local and global scale, halt and put into action the tools we do not own for our
self-defined needs.

This text originally appeared
in issue 29 of the Anarcho-
Syndicalist Review
www.syndicalist.or

Copied from:   Zabalaza Books
www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/varpams/direct_action_hba.pdf
 "Knowledge is the Key to be Free"
   Post: Postnet Suite 116, Private Bag X42,
Braamfontein, 2017, Johannesburg, South Africa
       E-Mail: zababooks@zabalaza.net
    Website: www.zabalaza.net
-------------------------------------
* (en) Sweden, The death of Harald Beyer-Arnesen
http://www.ainfos.ca/05/may/ainfos00275.html

_______________________________________________
A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en