Exactly, I believe today there are two definitions on direct action, one
torwards civil disobedience. (Based on Martin Luther King ideology)
King never believed in any violence. The point being to make your voice
heard-- and take the consequence of such action, without causing violence. I
believe in some of his writings, and speeches he may of mentioned why
property damage could be considered violent.

While anarchy defines direct action differently-- placing the clause property
damage is ok. If we look at the implications of this-- there certainly
is "damage." (If you goto the anarchist website, I am pretty sure they
justify there thinking of why it is ok as well).

*HOWEVER*

The real problem remains, there is still damage incurred to someone,
economic damage can be just as harmful as physical damage. Depending
on who is damaged. And foremost, most people really will not take
a activists group, who acts in this manner of direct action-anarchy seriously.

For several major differences of how movements work. Anarchist direct
action is weak. Because they often will not take the consequences of their
Action. Painting ELF on a site, is not a political action. It works to do
nothing
to change policies, and it just annoys all involved. People will not be scared
into change. *It may raise public awareness and does,*  but for what?

Non Violent direct action like civil disobedience has shown to work
much better. Mainly because people are taking actions responsibley.
The point of that type action, from even the days of Thearou shows
if we don't believe in this or that --we should try to change that law,
and if breaking is the only when then so be it.

However, even civil disobedient direct action, should not be taken lightly
and used as a last resort,* Many legal and lobbying methods should occur,
before banner hanging.

Have a goodnight,
L. Dangutis




In a message dated 12/8/00 11:24:34 PM !!!First Boot!!!, [log in to unmask]
writes:

<< Asking someone in EarthFirst! about Abbey is beside the point. Why would I
 consider EarthFirst! members as authorities on direct action or
 non-violence?
 Steven

 -----Original Message-----
 From: This list has been established to provide a discussion forum, and
 information, for [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
 Chiaviello, Anthony
 Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:19 PM
 To: [log in to unmask]
 Subject: Re: ECOTERRORISTS STRIKE LONG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE


 Well, I beg to differ. Abbey is considered an inspiration, if not a
 theorist, of direct action - just ask anyone in EarthFirst!
         Also, having read his fiction, I wouldn't call it "good," fairly
 commercial and entertaining, but hardly good fiction. I read Hayduke Lives
 recently and was not impressed. I'm not familiar with his poetry.
         But it is not deifying him to point out that monkeywrenching is
 acknowledged as legitimate direct action and is not considered "violence."
 I guess it would be if the bulldozers, for example, could suffer pain (a la
 Singer), but I think we're a ways yet from personifying machines (not that
 an effort isn't on the horizon!).
 -Tc
 Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
 Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
 Department of English
 University of Houston-Downtown
 One Main Street
 Houston, TX 77009
 713.221.8520/713.868.3979
 "Question Reality"

 > ---------- >>