[this text is out of order and wonky. it will be fixed sometime.]

Direct
ADirect ADirect ction
Twelve Myths about Direct Action | Voting Vs. Direct Action
The idea is to dream up and practice the many ways we can
take power out of the hands of the elite, be they elected or
unelected, and redistribute it to everyone through a network of
free communities and neighborhoods. We do not do this to gain
control over others, but to attain control together? over how we
provide each other with shelter, education, art, and information,
over how we resolve confl icts, over how we share resources and
ideas, over how we determine our own live.
Twelve MythsTwelve Myths
Direct action? that is, any kind of action that bypasses established
political channels to accomplish objectives directly? has a long and rich
heritage in North America, extending back to the Boston Tea Party and
beyond. Despite this, there are many misunderstandings about it, in
part due to the ways it has been misrepresented in the corporate media.
1. Direct action is terrorism.
Terrorism is calculated to intimidate and thus paralyze people. Direct
action, on the other hand, is intended to inspire and thus motivate
people by demonstrating the power individuals have to accomplish
goals themselves. While terrorism is the domain of a specialized class
that seeks to acquire power for itself alone, direct action demonstrates
possibilities that others can make use of, empowering people to take
control of their own lives. At most, a given direct action may obstruct
the activities of a corporation or institution that activists perceive
to be committing an injustice, but this is simply a form of civil
disobedience, not terrorism.
2. Direct action is violent.
To say that it is violent to destroy the machinery of a slaughterhouse
or to break windows belonging to a party that promotes war is to
prioritize property over human and animal life. This objection subtly
validates violence against living creatures by focusing all attention on
property rights and away from more fundamental issues.
This pamphlet has been provided by the
Crimethinc Association of Concerned ex-Citizens
To request other works of literature, send a song or play to the
Crimethinc Unoffi cial Press Unoffi ce.
2695 Rangewood Dr.
Atlanta GA 30345
The writings featured in this pamphlet are also available online at
www.crimethinc.com
provide each other with shelter, education, art, and information,
over how we resolve confl icts, over how we share resources and
ideas, over how we determine our own live
To request other works of literature, send a song or play to the
Crimethinc Unoffi cial Press Unoffi ce.
The writings featured in this pamphlet are also available online at
agendas of candidates, while direct action can be applied in every
aspect of your life, in every part of the world you live in.
Voting is glorifi ed as ? ? freedom? in action. It? s not freedom?
freedom is getting to decide what the choices are in the fi rst place, not
picking between Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Direct action is the real thing.
You make the plan, you create the options, the sky? s the limit.
Ultimately, there? s no reason the strategies of voting and direct action
can? t both be applied together. One does not cancel the other out. The
problem is that so many people think of voting as their primary way of
exerting political and social power that a disproportionate amount of
everyone? s time and energy is spent deliberating and debating about it
while other opportunities to make change go to waste. For months and
months preceding every election, everyone argues about the voting
issue, what candidates to vote for or whether to vote at all, when
voting itself takes less than an hour. Vote or don? t, but get on with it!
Remember how many other ways you can make your voice heard.
Those who are totally disenchanted with representative
democracy, who dream of a world without presidents and politicians,
can rest assured that if we all learn how to apply deliberately the power
that each of us has, the question of which politician is elected to offi ce
will become a moot point.
aboutTwelve MythsaboutTwelve MythsTwelve MythsaboutTwelve Myths
Direct ActionDirect Action
about
Direct Action
about
3. Direct action is not political expression, but criminal
activity.
Unfortunately, whether or not an action is illegal is a poor measure
of whether or not it is just. The Jim Crow laws were, after all, laws.
To object to an action on the grounds that it is illegal is to sidestep
the more important question of whether or not it is ethical. To argue
that we must always obey laws, even when we consider them to be
unethical or to enforce unethical conditions, is to suggest that the
arbitrary pronouncements of the legal establishment possess a higher
moral authority than our own consciences, and to demand complicity
in the face of injustice. When laws protect injustice, illegal activity is
no vice, and law-abiding docility is no virtue.
4. Direct action is unnecessary where people have freedom
of speech.
In a society dominated by an increasingly narrowly focused corporate
media, it can be almost impossible to initiate a public dialogue on a
subject unless something occurs that brings attention to it. Under such
conditions, direct action can be a means of nurturing free speech, not
squelching it. Likewise, when people who would otherwise oppose an
injustice have accepted that it is inevitable, it is not enough simply to
talk about it one must demonstrate that it is possible to do something
about it.
5. Direct action is alienating.
On the contrary, many people who fi nd traditional party politics
alienating are inspired and motivated by direct action. Different
people fi nd different approaches fulfi lling a movement that is to be
broad-based must include a wide range of options. Sometimes people
who share the goals of those who practice direct action while objecting
to their means spend all their energy decrying an action that has been
carried out. In doing so, they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
they would do better to seize the opportunity to focus all attention on
the issues raised by the action.
6. People who practice direct action should work through
the established political channels instead.
Many people who practice direct action also work within the system.
A commitment to making use of every institutional means of solving
problems does not necessarily preclude an equal commitment to
picking up where such means leave off.
7. Direct action is exclusive.
Some forms of direct action are not open to all, but this does not
necessarily mean they are without worth. Everyone has different
preferences and capabilities, and should be free to act according to
them. The important question is how the differing approaches of
In a lot of ways, direct action is a more effective means for
people to have a say in society than voting is. For one thing, voting
is a lottery? if a candidate doesn? t get elected, then all the energy his
constituency put into supporting him is wasted, as the power they
were hoping he would exercise for them goes to someone else. With
direct action, you can be sure that your work will offer some kind
of results and the resources you develop in the process, whether
those be experience, contacts and recognition in your community, or
organizational infrastructure, cannot be taken away from you.
Voting consolidates the power of a whole society in the hands
of a few politicians through force of sheer habit, not to speak of
other methods of enforcement, everyone else is kept in a position of
dependence. Through direct action, you become familiar with your
own resources and capabilities and initiative, discovering what these
are and how much you can accomplish.
Voting forces everyone in a movement to try to agree on
one platform coalitions fi ght over what compromises to make, each
faction insists that they know the best way and the others are messing
everything up by not going along with their program. A lot of energy
gets wasted in these disputes and recriminations. In direct action,
on the other hand, no vast consensus is necessary different groups
can apply different approaches according to what they believe in and
feel comfortable doing, which can still interact to form a mutually
benefi cial whole. People involved in different direct actions have no
need to squabble, unless they really are seeking confl icting goals (or
years of voting have taught them to fi ght with anyone who doesn? t
think exactly as they do). Confl icts over voting often distract from the
real issues at hand, as people get caught up in the drama of one party
against another, one candidate against another, one agenda against
another. With direct action, on the other hand, the issues themselves
are raised, addressed specifi cally, and often resolved.
Voting is only possible when election time comes around.
Direct action can be applied whenever one sees fi t. Voting is only
useful for addressing whatever topics are current in the political
is occasionally misunderstood to mean another kind of campaigning,
lobbying for infl uence on elected offi cials by means of political activ-
ist tactics but it properly refers to any action or strategy that cuts out
the middle man and solves problems directly, without appealing to
elected representatives, corporate interests, or other powers. Concrete
examples of direct action are everywhere. When people start their own
organization to share food with hungry folks, instead of just voting
for a candidate who promises to solve ? ? the homeless problem? with
tax dollars and bureaucracy, that? s direct action. When a man makes
and gives out fl iers addressing an issue that concerns him, rather than
counting on the newspapers to cover it or print his letters to the editor,
that? s direct action. When a woman forms a book club with her friends
instead of paying to take classes at a school, or does what it takes to
shut down an unwanted corporate superstore in her neighborhood
rather than deferring to the authority of city planners, that? s direct
action, too. Direct action is the foundation of the old-fashioned can-do
American ethic, hands-on and no nonsense. Without it, hardly any-
thing would get done.
VotingVotingVoting
versusVoting
Direct ActionDirect ActionVotingDirect ActionVotingversusDirect ActionversusVotingversusVotingDirect ActionVotingversusVoting
People in the U.S. are preoccupied with voting to an unhealthy
degree. This is not to say that everyone votes, or thinks voting is effec-
tive or worthwhile on the contrary, a smaller and smaller proportion
of the eligible population votes every election year, and that? s not just
because more and more people are in prison. But when you broach the
question of politics, of having a say in the way things are, voting is just
about the only strategy anyone can think of? voting, and infl uencing
others? votes.
Could it be this is why so many people feel so disempowered?
Is anonymously checking a box once a year, or every four years, enough
to feel included in the political process, let alone play a role in it? But
what is there besides voting?
In fact, voting for people to represent your interests is the least
effi cient and effective means of applying political power. The alterna-
tive, broadly speaking, is acting directly to represent your interests
yourself. This is known in some circles as ? ? direct action.? Direct action
8. Direct action is cowardly.
This accusation is almost always made by those who have the privilege
of speaking and acting in public without fearing repercussions that is
to say, those who have power in this society, and those who obediently
accept their power. Should the heroes of the French Resistance have
demonstrated their courage and accountability by acting against the
Nazi occupying army in the full light of day, thus dooming themselves
to defeat? For that matter, in a nation increasingly terrorized by police
and federal surveillance of just about everyone, is it any wonder that
those who express dissent might want to protect their privacy while
doing so?
individuals and groups that share the same long-term goals can be
integrated in such a way that they complement each other.
9. Direct action is practiced only by college students/
privileged rich kids/desperate poor people/etc.
This allegation is almost always made without reference to concrete
facts, as a smear. In fact, direct action is and long has been practiced
in a variety of forms by people of all walks of life. The only possible
exception to this would be members of the wealthiest and most
powerful classes, who have no need to practice any kind of illegal or
controversial action because, as if by coincidence, the established
political channels are perfectly suited to their needs.
10. Direct action is the work of agents provocateurs.
This is another speculation generally made from a distance, without
concrete evidence. To allege that direct action is always the work of
police agent provocateurs is disempowering it rules out the possibility
that activists could do such things themselves, overestimating the
powers of police intelligence and reinforcing the illusion that the
State is omnipotent. Likewise, it preemptively dismisses the value
and reality of a diversity of tactics. When people feel entitled to make
unfounded claims that every tactic of which they disapprove is a police
provocation, this obstructs the very possibility of constructive dialogue
about appropriate tactics.
11. Direct action is dangerous and can have negative
repercussions for others.
Direct action can be dangerous in a repressive political climate, and
it is important that those who practice it make every effort not to
endanger others. This is not necessarily an objection to it, however--
on the contrary, when it becomes dangerous to act outside established
political channels, it becomes all the more important to do so.
Authorities may use direct actions as excuses to terrorize innocents, as
Hitler did when the Reichstag was set afi re, but those in power are the
ones who must answer for the injustices they commit in so doing, not
those who oppose them. Likewise, though people who practice direct
12. Direct action never accomplishes anything.
Every effective political movement throughout history, from the
struggle for the eight hour workday to the fi ght for women? s suffrage,
has made use of some form of direct action. Direct action can
complement other forms of political activity in a variety of ways. If
nothing else, it highlights the necessity for institutional reforms,
giving those who push for them more bargaining chips but it can go
beyond this supporting role to suggest the possibility of an entirely
different organization of human life, in which power is distributed
equally and all people have an equal and direct say in all matters that
affect them.
action may indeed run risks, in the face of an insufferable injustice it
can be more dangerous and irresponsible to leave it uncontested.