what is direct action and what does it mean?

Direct action for me is that im fed up with their shit and way of saying i care and i try.And also a fun to fuck up some rich scumbag property \m/

 

You are speaking of negative direct actions; in that, it is against something. No matter what protesters may say they are still present at a protest 'against' whatever it is they are protesting. Negative direct action receives a lot of attention and for many it is really the only action they ever perform.

Direct action can also be positive, for something. Squatting, dumpster diving, growing your own food, volunteering time can all be forms of direct action that create something even if only for a brief moment. Sadly, positive direct action rarely receives attention and it is significantly more productive,

 

I'd also include civil disobedience and strikes as forms of direct action.

 

Well, I think militant direct actions, like blowing up things mentioned in the post linked in the OP are counterproductive. What happened to Ravachol? If I were not an anarchist i would never know who that guy was. Violence only produces more violence, more police, more CCTVs, more control. The system appreciates these kinds of actions because the media can portray you as a terrorist, the politicians can enact more opressing laws to ensure the "safety" of the population and so on.
I may sound as a pacifist (i'm not), but i would prefer peaceful direct actions anytime. Ideally the best direct action you can take is to escape from the capitalist system as Danarchy does (or wants to do) by settling down on a farm or in a commune producing your own food. :anarchism:

 

Then please don't quote Oi Pollois' Bash the Fash in your signature, that doesn't make sense.

 

I agree, but the idea of "settling" down on a farm is not our intention. We believe in creating spaces that are open, welcoming and models of collective or communal control. The use of the word "settling" invokes the image of a hippy commune and associated "drop out" of society. It may not be what you intended to infer but the last thing we want to do is disappear. We would rather reach a state of self-sufficiency that includes urban allies as well as our rural existence. One can not escape the financial system.

In the same respect, no one would refer to an urban squat or collective coffee house as "settling down". It is only when we speak of rural existence that such isolationist language is used. I doubt that your reference was meant to infer isolation but felt it worthy to address.

Idealistically speaking I would prefer that pacifism were effective solution but realistically I do not believe that it is possible. Another reason that rural collectives/ groups MUST ally with urban collectives/ groups. In the event that we are raided/ shut down we need a visible contingent of support in urban areas whereas urban areas and protests (such as Occupy) require our material support and in the event of a catastrophic failure or actual rebellion would require a means of sustenance.

What I intended illustrate is that Direct Action is not just a negative "one off" protest rather a "positive" way of life; with each step a calculated decision to effect change. I do support both forms of Direct Action but the work in the latter category between protests is the work that will actually create change and build the momentum to the point where the former category becomes truly effective and garners greater mass support.

 

I don´t like this negative/positive view of direct action. Direct action will allways be viewed as ¨negative¨ by whoever is in control of any city, state or nation. it is all awsome, it is all wondefull, it is all amazing, it is all liberating, it is all for anarchy
\m/

The state and media create the dichotomy of "GOOD" and "BAD" protester or action, or whatever....becarefull and don´t fall into their view of what is acceptable and what is not accepable behavior...

 

I understand what you are saying BN and don't disagree. I do NOT view what I term "negative" direct action as bad and "positive" as good. Negative does not mean bad, positive does not mean good. To use a DC battery as an example both charged polls are necessary to create electricity/ energy. When used properly they compliment each other, when one exists without the other they achieve nothing. I use the terms to differentiate two separate but inclusive tactics. Failing to recognize the importance of either is self destructive.

Whether or not the media or political elite view something as negative is irrelevant. They would view guerilla gardening and squatting as destructive to their perceived property rights. However, amongst ourselves it is very important to understand the importance of both forms of direct action, when they are employed and how we can work within our daily lives to achieve goals. Direct action is a tactic, the type of employment is strategy, tactics without strategy is meaningless. Limiting tactics to or focusing our attention on the spectacle is what they want us to do, creating radical spaces and alternative social structures is an employment of direct action that rarely gets attention or is not viewed "as relevant" even amongst ourselves.

I have gone to some length to ensure that I am not creating the impression of good/ bad tactics. Good tactics achieve the desired result whether a "negative/ destructive" or a "positive/ creative" direct action is employed. I may question or disagree with the desired outcome or that the tactic employed will achieve the expressed outcome but I rarely view direct action as bad.