Direct Action
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Direct Action
What do you think of the essay?
I like that she supports direct action by offering praised historical examples, such as the Boston Tea Party. Also, I like that she argues that true pacifists (who she calls "non-resistants") could only use direct action not political action (mainly voting) because, while direct action can be violent or non-violent, voting for government is always violent. To that effect, she wrote, "The basis of all political action is coercion; even when the State does good things, it finally rests on a club, a gun, or a prison, for its power to carry them through."
What do you think?
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Direct Action
And yes, she is right when she says that political action is always coercive; the state uses force to achieve its ends. Although that seems to be presented as if it were a bad thing, I do not see how a state could be any other way. How is it that one would stop a murderer, and prevent him or her from murdering again, if not by force? Is anyone foolish enough to suppose that asking nicely will end murder? Does anyone suppose that a serial killer will stop if only asked nicely to stop?
I might also add, I am not surprised that you did not get any replies before mine, as the essay is long (for something online), and people who post online are loathe to read much. It is overly optimistic of you to expect people to read the essay as I did, just as it is optimistic to start an online philosophy forum in the hopes that the people who join will write reasonable things in their posts. Of course, some will generally do that, but many are incapable of that, and without some way of keeping fools out, the results are never going to be pretty.
- thrasymachus
- Posts: 520
- Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am
Re: Direct Action
But do you also like: And finally they must learn that even then (when they have a complete organization) they can win nothing permanent unless they strike for everything -- not for a wage, not for a minor improvement, but for the whole natural wealth of the earth. And proceed to the direct expropriation of it all!Scott wrote
I like that she supports direct action by offering praised historical examples, such as the Boston Tea Party. Also, I like that she argues that true pacifists (who she calls "non-resistants") could only use direct action not political action (mainly voting) because, while direct action can be violent or non-violent, voting for government is always violent. To that effect, she wrote, "The basis of all political action is coercion; even when the State does good things, it finally rests on a club, a gun, or a prison, for its power to carry them through."
There is something of a scorched earth about this, as well as a ring of communism and revolution. It is the combination of a disparagement of the political process, the voting and the "action" taken through such channels that are explicitly political as rife with the taint of corruption or inherent limitations, and the zeal for taking it all! that occurs to me. It sounds like an essay for apt for very troubled times and places of worker grievance about exploitation and oppression. But this is not to say she is wrong about grass roots organizing and the power to resist institutionalized oppression, which is what I think the gist of it is. Talk to a modern Marxist, and you won't get Revolution Today! You will get exactly what Voltairine de Cleyre defends: the rise of workers to claim "the whole natural wealth of the Earth" where this wealth is defined as their labor's rightful compensation; thereby freeing working people from the corruption of absolute power.
I agree with this....but only working through the processes that exist over time. There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution.
- thrasymachus
- Posts: 520
- Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am
Re: Direct Action
But it does stand to reason most crime and poverty rises out of an appalling distribution of wealth and opportunity. I believe, mostly, the reason people behave badly is because they live under the oppressive conditions that present no way out. If you ask me, we could all but eradicate structural crime and poverty if education could be "enforced" at the outset of life. Of course, 'enforced' is a dangerous word, but at the impressionable ages, this is what the world already does. It is, if you will, what infantile conditioning is all about, considering that force here is not to be conceived as simply explicit and violent. A child is "forced" implicitly through a number of nuanced parental gestures and encouragements. When I say forced, I mean conditioned, and here I simply refer to Skinner from his Beyond Freedom and Dignity: No one comes into the world of human affairs unconditioned. Why not see this, and take the those early years into controlled environments? See is Walden II. Not that such a thing would be problem free as he presents it, but it is a move in the right direction.Jack D Ripper wrote
And yes, she is right when she says that political action is always coercive; the state uses force to achieve its ends. Although that seems to be presented as if it were a bad thing, I do not see how a state could be any other way. How is it that one would stop a murderer, and prevent him or her from murdering again, if not by force? Is anyone foolish enough to suppose that asking nicely will end murder? Does anyone suppose that a serial killer will stop if only asked nicely to stop?
So. less time in dysfunctional home environments, more time at school, more money for more teachers, fewer students per class, a curriculum that includes a great deal of humanizing content: poetry, literature, philosophy (yes, even in elementary school). Do this, and a child will grow to disinclined to hate the world.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Direct Action
thrasymachus wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2020, 2:32 pmBut do you also like: And finally they must learn that even then (when they have a complete organization) they can win nothing permanent unless they strike for everything -- not for a wage, not for a minor improvement, but for the whole natural wealth of the earth. And proceed to the direct expropriation of it all!Scott wrote
I like that she supports direct action by offering praised historical examples, such as the Boston Tea Party. Also, I like that she argues that true pacifists (who she calls "non-resistants") could only use direct action not political action (mainly voting) because, while direct action can be violent or non-violent, voting for government is always violent. To that effect, she wrote, "The basis of all political action is coercion; even when the State does good things, it finally rests on a club, a gun, or a prison, for its power to carry them through."
There is something of a scorched earth about this, as well as a ring of communism and revolution. It is the combination of a disparagement of the political process, the voting and the "action" taken through such channels that are explicitly political as rife with the taint of corruption or inherent limitations, and the zeal for taking it all! that occurs to me. It sounds like an essay for apt for very troubled times and places of worker grievance about exploitation and oppression. But this is not to say she is wrong about grass roots organizing and the power to resist institutionalized oppression, which is what I think the gist of it is. Talk to a modern Marxist, and you won't get Revolution Today! You will get exactly what Voltairine de Cleyre defends: the rise of workers to claim "the whole natural wealth of the Earth" where this wealth is defined as their labor's rightful compensation; thereby freeing working people from the corruption of absolute power.
I agree with this....but only working through the processes that exist over time. There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution.
What do you mean by:
"I agree with this....but only working through the processes that exist over time."
If you mean that one must obey the law and work through legal means, then I think you would often not get anything accomplished. If we look at sit-ins that were done at racially segregated lunch counters in the middle of the last century in the U.S., that was illegal. Without doing anything illegal, very likely nothing would have changed.
We could use many other examples, like the French revolution. Those in power were quite happy exploiting the poor, who had no legal means of improving their lot in life. Violence was the only way to achieve a chance at a decent life.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Direct Action
thrasymachus wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2020, 3:01 pmBut it does stand to reason most crime and poverty rises out of an appalling distribution of wealth and opportunity. I believe, mostly, the reason people behave badly is because they live under the oppressive conditions that present no way out. If you ask me, we could all but eradicate structural crime and poverty if education could be "enforced" at the outset of life. Of course, 'enforced' is a dangerous word, but at the impressionable ages, this is what the world already does. It is, if you will, what infantile conditioning is all about, considering that force here is not to be conceived as simply explicit and violent. A child is "forced" implicitly through a number of nuanced parental gestures and encouragements. When I say forced, I mean conditioned, and here I simply refer to Skinner from his Beyond Freedom and Dignity: No one comes into the world of human affairs unconditioned. Why not see this, and take the those early years into controlled environments? See is Walden II. Not that such a thing would be problem free as he presents it, but it is a move in the right direction.Jack D Ripper wrote
And yes, she is right when she says that political action is always coercive; the state uses force to achieve its ends. Although that seems to be presented as if it were a bad thing, I do not see how a state could be any other way. How is it that one would stop a murderer, and prevent him or her from murdering again, if not by force? Is anyone foolish enough to suppose that asking nicely will end murder? Does anyone suppose that a serial killer will stop if only asked nicely to stop?
So. less time in dysfunctional home environments, more time at school, more money for more teachers, fewer students per class, a curriculum that includes a great deal of humanizing content: poetry, literature, philosophy (yes, even in elementary school). Do this, and a child will grow to disinclined to hate the world.
Yes, but my point was an abstract one, that there can be no government without coercion. A government that was unwilling to enforce its rules would soon cease to exist, as some other government, run by people willing to use force, would take over (it could be an external government, or it could be a group of people rising up within the country; that does not matter for my point).
But, again, you are right that poverty and crime are often the result of the way a government is run. A better run country will tend to have fewer occasions when force is necessary. However, force is necessary when dealing with a sociopath who likes killing people for pleasure. One may have fewer sociopaths if one runs the country well, giving people a chance at a decent life, but there is no reason to suppose that such people will cease to exist entirely.
- thrasymachus
- Posts: 520
- Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am
Re: Direct Action
I think you're being facetious. No? Remember, France got lucky. It could have plunged into decades of war. But then, no one can argue with the result. This doesn't mean revolutions are always well ending at all: One word, Lenin! Then another: Stalin! Then another: Mao! Revolution is the worst thing one can imagine. The US's Civil War was, for us, by far the worst of all we ever had.Jack D Ripper wrote
What do you mean by:
"I agree with this....but only working through the processes that exist over time."
If you mean that one must obey the law and work through legal means, then I think you would often not get anything accomplished. If we look at sit-ins that were done at racially segregated lunch counters in the middle of the last century in the U.S., that was illegal. Without doing anything illegal, very likely nothing would have changed.
We could use many other examples, like the French revolution. Those in power were quite happy exploiting the poor, who had no legal means of improving their lot in life. Violence was the only way to achieve a chance at a decent life.
I think one needs to be able to push the envelop without out tearing it. Trump may have just won the election and he pushed VERY hard, all but declaring war on BLM. A true fascist mentality, this one. Would have been a shining example in Hitler's Schutzstaffe. This could lead to domestic horrors of the first magnitude.
- thrasymachus
- Posts: 520
- Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am
Re: Direct Action
It's that I don't lean toward Hobbes, but toward Rousseau. Not that I think we are so wonderful beneath the skin of civilization, but that we have extraordinary desire to do the right thing. I have Trump supporters right down the street and I meet them occasionally. The nicest people imaginable. The German's who supported Hitler were the same, just confused, their thinking warped by propaganda. Our propaganda comes from Fox news and the like.Jack D Ripper wrote
Yes, but my point was an abstract one, that there can be no government without coercion. A government that was unwilling to enforce its rules would soon cease to exist, as some other government, run by people willing to use force, would take over (it could be an external government, or it could be a group of people rising up within the country; that does not matter for my point).
But, again, you are right that poverty and crime are often the result of the way a government is run. A better run country will tend to have fewer occasions when force is necessary. However, force is necessary when dealing with a sociopath who likes killing people for pleasure. One may have fewer sociopaths if one runs the country well, giving people a chance at a decent life, but there is no reason to suppose that such people will cease to exist entirely.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Direct Action
thrasymachus wrote: ↑November 4th, 2020, 9:10 amI think you're being facetious. No?Jack D Ripper wrote
What do you mean by:
"I agree with this....but only working through the processes that exist over time."
If you mean that one must obey the law and work through legal means, then I think you would often not get anything accomplished. If we look at sit-ins that were done at racially segregated lunch counters in the middle of the last century in the U.S., that was illegal. Without doing anything illegal, very likely nothing would have changed.
We could use many other examples, like the French revolution. Those in power were quite happy exploiting the poor, who had no legal means of improving their lot in life. Violence was the only way to achieve a chance at a decent life.
No, I am not being facetious. Slavery in the US was only ended by extreme violence. It may be still going on today if no one had been willing to fight. The idea that one can make a just society without violating laws would only work in a country that was already really, really close to being right about most things. Even in the middle of the last century, working against segregation involved breaking the law, as already mentioned. The idea that it would all magically go away with everyone following the laws is just silly.
Broadly speaking, yes. But the poor had pretty close to nothing to lose, so it was worth the attempt. That, by the way, is a lesson for dictators, that if one oppresses the people excessively, they will have little to lose in starting a rebellion, so it is unwise to oppress the people too much. Of course, dictators can be stupid, just like anyone else.
thrasymachus wrote: ↑November 4th, 2020, 9:10 am It could have plunged into decades of war. But then, no one can argue with the result. This doesn't mean revolutions are always well ending at all:
Of course not. A revolution is a terrible thing, an act of desperation in most cases. But when one has almost nothing to lose, it is worth taking a chance.
thrasymachus wrote: ↑November 4th, 2020, 9:10 am One word, Lenin! Then another: Stalin! Then another: Mao! Revolution is the worst thing one can imagine. The US's Civil War was, for us, by far the worst of all we ever had.
I think one needs to be able to push the envelop without out tearing it. ...
Ideally, that is what one would do, but the times when revolution occurs are never ideal situations.
But, of course, one need not do a full revolution to be violating the laws, as, for example, the sit-ins at segregated lunch counters last century in the U.S. Those actions were illegal, because the law enforced segregation. But those actions likely brought about change and a more just society, that would not have happened if everyone had simply followed the law.
Not being a follower of Hobbes, I am suggesting that violating unjust laws is not wrong. Of course, one risks the weight of the state falling upon one if one chooses to break the law. Many of the people participating in sit-ins last century went to jail for their actions. They were not generally surprised by this, of course. People seeing the brutality against the protesters helped turn public opinion more against segregation than it was previously.
America would be a much less just society if all Americans had always followed the laws of America.
- thrasymachus
- Posts: 520
- Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am
Re: Direct Action
Ain't THAT the truth! It's part of a social, moral, political dialectic, which seems to be the only way to an enlightened world. But Nietzsche and Foucault were right, unfortunately: History is not a series progressive events. It's messy and filled with dramatic missteps. But I've always had a soft spot for Skinner's Walden II. Real revolution could happen at the grassroots level. Failed utopian communities litter history, I know. But the idea remains attractive: it's not about pushing envelopes, but putting the envelop down, nicely. Another that comes to mind is M. Night Shyamalan's The Village.Jack D Ripper wrote
America would be a much less just society if all Americans had always followed the laws of America.
Not likely, granted. But possible.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Direct Action
She wasn't allowed to vote. Women were not granted the so-called right to vote in the USA until after Voltairine died. During Voltairine's time it was legal for a man to rape his wife.thrasymachus wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2020, 2:32 pmBut do you also like: And finally they must learn that even then (when they have a complete organization) they can win nothing permanent unless they strike for everything -- not for a wage, not for a minor improvement, but for the whole natural wealth of the earth. And proceed to the direct expropriation of it all!Scott wrote
I like that she supports direct action by offering praised historical examples, such as the Boston Tea Party. Also, I like that she argues that true pacifists (who she calls "non-resistants") could only use direct action not political action (mainly voting) because, while direct action can be violent or non-violent, voting for government is always violent. To that effect, she wrote, "The basis of all political action is coercion; even when the State does good things, it finally rests on a club, a gun, or a prison, for its power to carry them through."
There is something of a scorched earth about this, as well as a ring of communism and revolution. It is the combination of a disparagement of the political process, the voting[...]
I completely support civil disobedience (i.e. criminal behavior) in such circumstances, and while I do support erring on the side of responding to apparent non-defensive violence with non-violent disobedience rather than defensive force in situations that are not very black-and-white, which is most situations, I nonetheless fully support the universal right of all humans to use defensive force when one is the blatant victim of non-defensive violence, such as but not limited to murder, rape, and slavery, and that includes criminal force such as a slave breaking the law by defending him or herself from a slavemaster in places or times where slavery or rape were or are legal.
If "working through the processes that exist" means only peacefully appealing to violent victimizers (e.g. rapists) through legal avenues to attempt to persuade them to stop their non-defensive violence, then I cannot remotely understand such a narrow limitation. For example, even if it entails the use of illegal defensive force, I generally agree with the choice to use illegal defensive force to defend a rape victim from a rapist attempting to rape or already in the middle of raping. Don't you?thrasymachus wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2020, 2:32 pmI agree with this....but only working through the processes that exist over time.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Direct Action
"Scott" are you even aware of ALL of variables involved in ALL, so called, "rape" cases?Scott wrote: ↑February 16th, 2021, 3:38 pmShe wasn't allowed to vote. Women were not granted the so-called right to vote in the USA until after Voltairine died. During Voltairine's time it was legal for a man to rape his wife.thrasymachus wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2020, 2:32 pmBut do you also like: And finally they must learn that even then (when they have a complete organization) they can win nothing permanent unless they strike for everything -- not for a wage, not for a minor improvement, but for the whole natural wealth of the earth. And proceed to the direct expropriation of it all!Scott wrote
I like that she supports direct action by offering praised historical examples, such as the Boston Tea Party. Also, I like that she argues that true pacifists (who she calls "non-resistants") could only use direct action not political action (mainly voting) because, while direct action can be violent or non-violent, voting for government is always violent. To that effect, she wrote, "The basis of all political action is coercion; even when the State does good things, it finally rests on a club, a gun, or a prison, for its power to carry them through."
There is something of a scorched earth about this, as well as a ring of communism and revolution. It is the combination of a disparagement of the political process, the voting[...]
I completely support civil disobedience (i.e. criminal behavior) in such circumstances, and while I do support erring on the side of responding to apparent non-defensive violence with non-violent disobedience rather than defensive force in situations that are not very black-and-white, which is most situations, I nonetheless fully support the universal right of all humans to use defensive force when one is the blatant victim of non-defensive violence, such as but not limited to murder, rape, and slavery, and that includes criminal force such as a slave breaking the law by defending him or herself from a slavemaster in places or times where slavery or rape were or are legal.
If "working through the processes that exist" means only peacefully appealing to violent victimizers (e.g. rapists) through legal avenues to attempt to persuade them to stop their non-defensive violence, then I cannot remotely understand such a narrow limitation. For example, even if it entails the use of illegal defensive force, I generally agree with the choice to use illegal defensive force to defend a rape victim from a rapist attempting to rape or already in the middle of raping. Don't you?thrasymachus wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2020, 2:32 pmI agree with this....but only working through the processes that exist over time.
What 'you' consider is "rape" from a third or outside perspective may NOT be 'rape' at all, and vice versa, what you consider is NOT 'rape' from a third or outside perspective may in fact be 'rape' absolutely. So, when would you KNOW to intervene or NOT?
Also, your use of the "non-defensive violence", and/or "defensive violence", terms is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being just 'trying to' "justify" their own views and beliefs of when it is all right to do what is essentially WRONG.
If you want to BELIEVE that it is all right to be 'violent' towards ANOTHER 'human being', then so be it. But they are just your OWN DISTORTED BELIEFS, to "others", which can NOT ultimately be 'justified'.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023