Talk:Direct action
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] POV reversions
RE: the POV reversions and vandalism by ThereIsNoSteve and SEWilco: user:SEWilco has repeatedly POV vandalized this page, starting with "What society wants is not relevant to activists" in edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Direct_action&oldid=1338204 . The latest instance is the linking of this page to the "end justifies the means" page, a trite and overused smear tactic, as discussed on the page itself as follows: "Few people will use the ends justify the means to describe their own views; instead, the phrase is often used to cast suspicion on the actions or motivations of others."
user:ThereisNoSteve has contributed to SEWilco's failure of NPOV by engaging in anti-reversions that merely removed SEWilco's POV vandalism. (commented by user:Bangarang 2003-10-15T12:12:09)
[edit] Direct action = illegal?
Is direct action necessarily illegal action?
- Not necessarily. One form of low-level direct action is when workers are (illegally or not) told to stay at work to perform unpaid overtime, and choose to go home on time instead, or when workers take a break when one is not given to them. This is in contrast to "indirect action," such as pleading with the boss, going to a union official, making a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, etc. -Danspalding 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Dan is correct with his example. A lot of what is describe in this article can constitute crimes that are felonies in many U.S. states, but worker disobedience is a good example of direct action that is not illegal. Equinox137 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Violence
From above: Is stealing and breaking an entering not a form of violence...LOL!?
From the article: The ALF have largely abandoned their commitment to nonviolence in more recent years, primarily turning to arson, intimidation and destruction of private property.
- If arson and destruction of private property is violent, then breaking into labs and farms and liberating animals is also violent. But that is an if. I think including ALF in the NVDA is inherently POV--if you say they are non violent that is obviously pov, but saying they are violent is also pov. It comes down to a defintion of violence as Millerc says below.
Just wondering, what do others think that the word "violence" means. The concept of "violence against property" has always seemed a bit contrived to me, and the ALF, as far as I know, has not physically harmed anyone. So it might be a bit POV to claim that the ALF has turned away from non-violence; I doubt they would agree with that phrase. millerc 21:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Was the property destruction of Kristallnacht violence? I think so.
- How do ya'll work the Night of the Broken Glass into your "property destruction is not violence" ethos.
- "PROPERTY DESTRUCTION IS NOT VIOLENCE!" This mantra of the contemporary anarchist community, is also one of its defining statements. Moped45 (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the last sentence about ALF should be dropped. It is about ALF not about direct action - violent or non-violent - and adds little or nothing to the subject. Actually, dropping the whole ALF paragraph would be fine.
[edit] Military uses
Should we mention that the military also uses the term "Direct action"? Usually meaning when special forces actively seeks out and engages the enemy or destroys a target, as opposed to simple recon. No idea if they got the terminology from the same source as the radicals. References: [1], [2] --Identity0 07:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Anti abortion activists are mostly considered radicals(right wing radicals), and they describe their clinic bombings as direct action. Its direct action the only distinction is who is taking action. Its like describing enemy violence as terrorism. Language we use to obscure our behavioral connections/similairities to our enemies only further perpetuates our conflicts with them. This prevents communication, understanding, and therfore resolution. Moped45 (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- That may be worth starting an entirely new page for, as in Direct Action (Military). That's pretty different from the activist tradition, and not that different from what the military does anyway (dropping bombs, etc). I do not think that's a good fit for this page. Other thoughts? -Danspalding 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Indeed, military 'direct action' has nothing to do with the 'Direct Action' described on this page. They are 2 different and separate concepts - so yes, we'd be wrong not to shift it to a new 'Direct action (military)' page, and set up a disambiguation page....
Tartanperil 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I found this page searching for military DA operations. I even seem to recall a wiki page on it before. --Joffeloff 14:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Direct action (military) is alive and well, under the Military History Project. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Definition
I think the definition in the first section might be a little broad. Some mention of political motivation might be good, as it stands getting a drink because I'm thirsty is a direct action. Maybe that's the intention though. - cohesion★talk 07:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] bias?
I'm getting a pretty strong "indirect action sucks; direct action is the only way to go" vibe from the second paragraph of the "Overview" section. (The part after the bulleted list) Could this be rewritten to be more neutral? ejstheman 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge?
No way! Other than the word "direct" there is no major similarity. Although some supporters of direct action might support direct democracy (and vice versa) they are not the same and need seperate articles. The Ungovernable Force 21:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with The Ungovernable Force - direct action and direct democracy are two very different things. Many people who take direct action don't want democracy, government, laws, elections, trials etc... full stop. NickW 08:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm removing this merge proposal--there was no reason given and I cannot see any conceivable reason why the two should be merged. If anyone thinks it should be merged, re-add the template and discuss here, but I don't see any remote similarity. This page doesn't even mention direct democracy, and the direct democracy page only mentions direact action in the see also section and in a discussion on the talk page (saying that what someone is describing isn't direct democracy but direact action). The Ungovernable Force 08:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] anarchism
"As a principle, direct action is central to many strands of anarchist theory, including anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, insurrectionary anarchism, green anarchism and anarcho-pacifism."
is there any strand of anarchism that doesnt embrace DA? if so, ive never heard of it. why not just leave it at As a principle, direct action is central to anarchist theory
- Because anarcho-capitalists will get upset, since the (falsely) consider themselves anarchists, and since they don't do any action at all except talk about wanting a free market economy and maybe voting for libertarians. The Ungovernable Force 20:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
anarcho-christians may also be another example of a strand of anarchism that is against any type of direct action.Maziotis 15:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Minor cleanup
Just been doing some minor rewording and making the article a little easier to read whilst preserving the original meaning Stui 11:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] accidentally saved too early
I couldn't finish my last edit summary because I accidentaly hit enter while typing. Anyways, I took out demonstrations because they are not direct actions unless combined with something like blockades or property destruction. I changed "most" to "some" since you have not given a source to show that is true (I wouldn't object too much to "many" though, and I accidentaly said "many" in my incomplete edit summary). I removed Direct action tactics are popular choices for anarchists, grass roots unions, neo-Nazis and some ordinary working class people as it seems unencyclopedic and not incredibly informative--just about every political cause participates in direct action. I added squatting. I also did some minor grammatical things and such. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 08:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Animal Liberation Front
I think it would be appropriate to mention that groups like ALF argue that the term "violence" should be applied only to attacks on living organisms or those that can feel pain, and that therefore they're not committing acts of violence.
"Animal rights groups such as the Animal Liberation Front have also used the tactics of NVDA, such as breaking into laboratories where animal experiments are carried out and physically removing ('liberating') the animals from the premises"
Is stealing and breaking an entering not a form of violence...LOL!?
- No. Theft and breaking & entering are property crimes. Equinox137 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
