by DGR News Service | Jul 26, 2019 | Defensive Violence
Editor’s Note: this is the second in a two-part series on the Art of Rebellion. It was published anonymously under the name “Seaweed” in 2008.
We don’t agree with every detail. In fact, there is more in this essay that clashes with DGR’s strategy and method than in the first installment of this series. For example, we believe that strong leadership and even hierarchy (when justified, accountable, and not abused), can make revolutionary groups more effective.
Although we support small and autonomous acts of rebellion, we don’t believe that these will be sufficient to halt the murder of the planet. We call for a more coordinated form of militant resistance to destroy industrial capitalism and save the planet). This essay nonetheless provides an excellent overview of the importance of martial traditions and developing a culture of militancy.
The Art of Rebellion, Part 2
By Seaweed
I hope that I can stimulate some interest not in the outrage and tragedy that is conventional war, although knowledge of such could be useful, but primarily in the art of revolt. The principles of the art of rebellion might apply in regional secession, guerilla warfare or insurgency. They might apply among a group of friends doing their best to confront the imperialism of the market within their potential territory or their neighborhood. They might allow a stunted, humiliated individual to find dignity and achieve small successes along her life path, rather than resignation.
While conflict, even armed conflict, is as natural as a rainy day in the Pacific Northwest, war, or large-scale invasions in the interest of an elite or ideology, that is, violent brutality as a continuation of politics seems to only begin with urban civilization.
I have read a great deal about the exploits of Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon and so on. There is much to learn from them, but little to be inspired by. Theirs is the story of wretched masses impoverished by the scale and insanity of the conflicts in their lands, of obedient soldiers dutifully following the orders of their superiors. It is the story of plunder and rape and pillage, of senseless slaughter and bloodshed. War has little to do with real courage and more to do with a superficial heroism based primarily in self-preservation, although one does find examples of extraordinary bravery and solidarity, a humanity that asserts itself in the midst of the inhumane.
Calls to class war, from my point of view, represent an ignorance of the realities of war or an example of a general lack of vocabulary among radicals who want to overthrow the present order. These calls are a shallow romanticism, often the privilege of those who live in peace. I am interested in the re-awakening and celebration of the warrior spirit. The call is not for war, but an end to war through revolution. Tecumseh, Pontiac, Zapata, Makhno, Gabriel Dumont, Crazy Horse, Durruti, the uncontrollables everywhere, these are my “heroes”. Perhaps these examples are too militaristic. I’m sure you have friends, neighbors or acquaintances who have the fighting spirit, who stand up to the bullies around them, who aren’t afraid to speak their mind, who give support to rebellious practices, be they attitudes or actions. This is the warrior spirit that should be acknowledged and encouraged, especially when it coincides with anarchic desires.
Martial skills are useful for everyone, including those who simply want to irritate, to vandalize, to commit small low level attacks designed to make public their hatred of the institutions and managers of this culture. And a clandestine group of friends that creates beauty by destructive means or that spreads subversion using playful methods, can also benefit from and help inform the martial approaches I am advocating.
Thoughts of Revenge
Many rebels are tired of laying in bed at night sweaty and angry and filled with impotent thoughts of revenge. They are anxious to explore the possibilities that resisting and (re)claiming offer. And outside of these milieus, there are others whose communities or friends are threatened and haven’t the skills to act on their desires. Is it possible to resist or to defend? Can we engage with the world around us and not get caught? Might we ever win? Ongoing ecological catastrophes cascading into a potential collapse make the situation urgent. Institutions of domination are global, but this doesn’t mean that to overcome this planetary regime local confrontations and occupations are futile. Perhaps the mega-monster can be torn apart limb by local limb.
Low intensity insurgency based primarily on unconventional warfare techniques is one possible avenue to pursue. This doesn’t mean a resistance dominated by a sea of berets and humorless “revolutionaries”. Rather these insurgencies would be primarily based among groups of friends, in geographical or genuine communities. This usually implies some degree of a mutually beneficial and trusting relationship between the actual fighters and the folks around them.
Presently there seems to be widespread interest among anarchists in exploring a variety of martial arts. There is also interest in destructive actions, occupations of shelters and of food producing land bases, in survival and wilderness skills, etc. The urgency brought on by the shredding of the green world has helped create a rebel milieu anxious to fight for a future.
And this era has also helped rebels back into our bodies. There will always be philosophers; incisive people who can easily juggle ideas, but hopefully we will now begin to honor those with sensual wisdom among us as well: more women, the indigenous traditionalists, those with survival skills and earth knowledge, maybe even rednecks, with whom we should be building bridges. A more holistic approach seems necessary if we are going to succeed in our desires for healthy communities and individuals. So perhaps once our philosophizing is complimented by an equal degree of pursuit of sensual knowledge, including martial skills, a more significant threat will begin to emerge. And the more that we integrate martial skills into our ideas the more confident and healthy we will be and the more likely will we begin to see opportunities that we were previously blind to.
Against Militarization
Being organized along martial lines doesn’t imply a hierarchical structure of arrogant superiors and obedient ranks. Obviously we don’t want to militarize rebellion. Rather than the art of war, this is about the art of revolt. The hope is that potential insurgents will develop a richer vocabulary and experience around conflict. There is for instance an enormous difference between attacking, invading and fighting or between claiming and occupying. We can explore these and many other differences and concepts.
Training camps, or anarchist madrassas, places where radical theory, survival skills and martial arts are learned and shared, could be very useful at this point. A martial component will be a healthy aspect of a holistic approach to rebellion. And having an awareness of military history, of martial approaches, could be helpful, even life saving. Luckily, it isn’t necessary to reinvent combative skills, because there are timeless truths and principles that apply to all combat.
Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu is actually an honorific title given to Sūn Wǔ (c. 544 BC – 496 BC), the author of ‘The Art of War’. There is some debate about the original title of this famous text, which some of you may be interested in because it seems that the author intended to suggest martial arts, rather than war. In any case, Sun Tzu looked at both the philosophy of conflict as well as the conduct of military operations, especially maneuvers and combat, making his writings as they stand useful to anarchist rebels. The Art of War is an important text and should be widely read by potential insurgents. This isn’t to say that Sun Tzu was an anti-state communist, rather that his writings are poetic and open ended enough to be used by just about anybody interested in being victorious in “combat” or “conflict”. This means that many, many people have read them, including your adversaries. Therefore to succeed, study this text, among others, and aim to be on equal footing with your opponents, at least in theoretical knowledge.
‘The Art of War’ is widely available, but I thought I’d share some of my favorite quotes from one of the translations:
“Those skilled in warfare establish positions that make them invincible and do not miss opportunities to attack the enemy.
Generally, in battle, use the common to engage the enemy and the uncommon to gain victory.
Those skilled at uncommon maneuvers are as endless as the heavens and earth, and as inexhaustible as the rivers and seas.
To be certain to take what you attack, attack where the enemy cannot defend.
To be certain of safety when defending, defend where the enemy cannot attack.
Subtle! Subtle! They become formless.
Mysterious! Mysterious! They become soundless.
In armed struggle, the difficulty is turning the circuitous into the direct, and turning adversity into advantage.
Therefore, if you make the enemy’s route circuitous and bait him with advantages, though you start out behind him, you will arrive before him.”
Our Own Parables
One of the ways that I understand Sun Tzu and make his work relevant, is through the use of the genre in which he expressed himself. While there is no reason to reinvent useful philosophies of combat and conflict, we can pass on new parables, ones that grow out of our own experience and insights. For instance, based on some of the discussions that friends and I have been having, new ideas have begun to emerge which might be helpful to others. The notion here is that we can all contribute to philosophical meditations on revolt, based on our own study and experience. This sharing might help our projects and attempts and make each of us more worthy opponents of the megamachine.
I think that it is safe to say that anarchist insurgents are a small minority within almost every given population, it is certainly true where I live. For many reasons, mobility, lack of kinship ties, etc., we are a dispersed group of people. Yet, it is important, from the perspective of the art of rebellion, to at times concentrate one’s forces, especially on a vital point of an opponent. Naturally those in control of the repressive apparatus are aware of such things and have planned and trained accordingly. Riot control techniques, for instance, are an example of this. So rather than remaining inactive out of fear of losing a direct, collective confrontation as a group and thus remaining defeated, we can find ways to act as a group without appearing to be a group. Remember Sun Tzu: “subtle, subtle, they become formless.” We can concentrate our forces, we just can’t let our enemy know that we are doing so until it is too late.
Every potential rebel exists in different circumstances, regardless of the fact that we all live within various prisons of capitalist civilization. Therefore it is up to you to decide if it is best for an in-the-street, prolonged, collective confrontation at a counter summit all dressed in black, for instance, or whether it is wiser to avoid uniforms, appear to be unconnected individuals, and coordinate an action that occurs quickly, following which the participants melt away. The latter would be an example of acting as a group without appearing to be a group.
Napoleon’s Campaigns
Since Sun Tzu there have been innumerable treaties and theoretical works on war. For instance in the 1st century AD Sextus Julius Frontanus wrote a book called “ On Military Affairs.” Byzantium produced both Strategikon by Mauricius and the Tactica by Leo the Wise. There are many such books, but I believe that overall they have little benefit for our purposes although a historian or a scholar could find much value there.
Much later, in Europe during Napoleon’s reign, and in fact inspired by his successful campaigns, Carl Von Clausewitz (1780-1831) wrote “ On War”. This is the only text that compares in importance and originality to Sun Tzu’s. As pointed out, many treaties on various aspects of war and military approaches had been written after Sun Tzu, but Clausewitz was the first to introduce a philosophical perspective on it and he did so thoroughly. His contributions are enormous. I won’t attempt to summarize his ideas, but will mention some of the areas that he explored and some of the terms that he used.
Clausewitz wrote about the essential unpredictability of war, explored the asymmetrical relationship between attack and defense, came up with the useful concepts of “fog” and “friction” in war and emphasized that there must be a culminating point of an offensive. Commentators also remind us that he used a dialectical method to present his ideas making them sometimes difficult to understand. If you are truly interested in military theory, then Clausewitz is a must read. It would be difficult for any writer on these topics to claim to not have been influenced by him. We will introduce a few of his ideas later.
By the way, Clausewitz had a contemporary, Antoine Henri Jomini, who was also largely stimulated by Napoleons campaigns into a search for a theory or a collection of laws on war. He is worth investigation for a fuller understanding of the development of the theory of combat.
Finally there is JFC Fuller, one of the greatest military thinkers of the 20th century. He is nearly as important as Clausewitz, if only because his influence is also widespread, but his ambition was not as great. The Principles of War, as they have been known for nearly a century, were first codified by him. The US Army’s list of the principles of war, found in one of their basic field manuals is almost identical to the list first compiled by Fuller. Let’s have a brief look at these.
- Mass
- Objective
- Offensive
- Surprise
- Security
- Economy of force
- Movement
- Unity of command
- Simplicity
Mass:
Bring decisive force to bear at critical times and places.
Objective:
Define a decisive and attainable objective for every military operation.
Offensive:
Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative.
Surprise:
Strike the enemy at a time and/or place and in a manner for which he is unprepared.
Security:
Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage.
Economy of Force:
Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts.
Movement/maneuver:
Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power.
Unity of Command:
For every objective, there must be a unified effort.
Simplicity:
Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans. Complex plans are more likely to be misunderstood or to fall-apart as soon as something goes wrong.
All apply to organized anti-authoritarian rebellion. We should also keep in mind that these are the guiding principles of literally every military organization in the world.
Timeless Truths
The timeless truths of combat, while having been derived from a careful study of centuries, even millennia, of human history, can also, with a little imagination, be applied to social struggles as well. These truths seem to apply in all combative situations, regardless of changes in the technology of conflicts. Keep in mind that these principles and truths are not necessarily intended to be used in direct military battles against state forces, although they could be used in this way. They can also be used in fighting against gentrification, protecting your autonomous space from being destroyed or its valuables taken, to stop developments, to occupy or reoccupy land, etc. And you will notice that the truths of combat often coincide with the basic principles of war elaborated on earlier.
The first and most important truth is that “defense is the stronger form of combat”. This is a quote from Clausewitz, but he was not the first to make this realization. All things being equal, it would seem that the side with the defensive posture will likely succeed. And a defender with well placed and well protected forces, even with less weaponry or less experience or fewer people, can still have an enormous advantage. The practice here would be to dig in, make fortifications, don’t yield for as long as possible, and your opponent will surely take heavy losses, and may even retreat.
An example: a group of friends has spent the last several years building a wilderness camp as a place to hunt and fish from, to go and gather medicines and food, to escape from capitalist civilization, in short, to practice green ways. Somehow a group of “opponents” (forestry officials or whatever) has not only discovered the camp, but has decided to “ remove the squatters.” These officials are intent on evicting the camp dwellers. Luckily, one of the camp occupants was doing a regular peripheral sweep and spotted the officials on their way up. She returns to camp and warns everyone. Because the camp dwellers have studied and practiced martial skills, they don’t just panic and abandon their camp and its valuables. Rather they are confident from the knowledge that because they have the defensive posture they enjoy many advantages and will put these advantages to maximum use by combining them with other skills they have acquired through collective study and practice. In all likelihood, the officials will soon give up and return home or retreat to seek reinforcements, giving the rebels a chance to hold onto their position long enough to gather their stuff, avoid arrest or injury and hopefully escape to another camp.
The defensive posture is the strongest, so it makes absolute sense to focus on where one can have an impact, namely where you live, here and now, with the confidence that comes with knowing that should you manage to wrest even a small area from authority and the market, you have a good chance of holding onto it for a long time, perhaps long enough for other areas to accomplish the same, join you or open new fronts.
In fairness, however, the second truth must also be remembered: “an attacker willing to pay the price can always penetrate the strongest defenses.”
Some military theorists have noticed that superior combat power always wins. This is the third truth of war. All other things being equal, fate smiles on the side with the greatest combat power. For this reason it makes absolutely no sense for a minority of revolutionaries in North America to contemplate attempting an outright military contest against the police and army. The states combat power is simply overwhelming.
Better to focus on making friends within the military and hoping for mutinies or at least treasonous acts (like providing gear or information to outsiders). In any event, destroying the imperialism of the market is not a military exercise. Martial skills are primarily helpful when occupying (reoccupying for First Nations people) and/or defending territory, for building the confidence to initiate small battles and to act as a grounding influence for dreamers. There will be times, however, when the insurgents will have the superior combat power and this would be the time not to be afraid, but to push and succeed.
The fourth truth of combat is what Clausewitz referred to as “friction in war”. During any combat operation, most activities are hindered by mistakes, the dispersal effects of firepower, disruptions caused by confusion and fear in a potentially lethal environment, etc. Practicing in the safety of your local wilderness or in a camp or dojo, is just not the same as the real thing. The pace especially suffers and therefore allowances must be made during the planning stages for this friction. Keep this truth in mind when planning to disrupt a gathering of economists or politicians for instance, and you will less likely be thrown off by the “friction” and its effects.
Achieving surprise in a combative situation is extremely important. This is the fifth truth. Analysis of historical military confrontations has shown that surprise actually significantly increases the combat power of the side that achieves it. In fact, as mentioned in part one, surprise is the greatest of combat multipliers. As noted above, it is included in the US Army’s list of the Principles of War.
T.S. Dupuy writes that offensive action is essential to positive combat results as his first truth. Defense and strength and surprise are important, but ultimate combat success involves offensive action. Even should a strategy of overall defensive posture be the plan, (for example successful local upheavals which are surrounded by hostile adversaries), offensive tactics and operations must be selectively employed for final victory.
While the purpose of this chapter is to encourage the study and practice of martial skills, my focus is on strategy and tactics generally and, when specifically “military”, on ground combat. I have completely ignored air and naval theorists. Such thinkers do exist and any insurgency would have to deal with aspects of each.
Many if not most state forces today use a combination of land and air combat. For instance high tech, high performance helicopters will often do reconnaissance that directs far away tanks, with extremely specific GPS coordinates, to their targets. Land Combat today is rarely unsupported by fixed wing aircraft, drones or helicopters. Thus we should more accurately speak of Air Land Battle in many instances.
As for Naval combat, these ideas can be applied effectively to deter and harass navies or to initiate very small scale naval combat, although we mustn’t forget about the power and potential of a sailors mutiny.
However I do think that what you can learn from these introductions and ideas, especially followed up by your own study and practice, can be applied to all areas of conflict.
Tactics and Strategy
One important and useful exploration is the distinction between tactics and strategy.
Clausewitz believed that strategy belonged primarily to the realm of art, while tactics belonged primarily to the realm of science.
From a military point of view strategy is the planning and managing of the resources available in warfare. The military and political elite, i.e. those with national power to influence these matters, do this.
Just below strategy, the military uses the term operations when the direction of armies or large forces in military (usually combat) activities within a clearly defined theater is involved. Therefore conceptually operations lie between strategy and tactics when engaged in combat.
Tactics are the specific techniques used to achieve your strategic ends. They are influenced by local conditions, or you can say that context determines your choice. Tactics are the detailed maneuvers and offensives used to achieve the objectives of your strategy. They are often plans and moves that gain advantages in the short term, while strategy is the larger-scale framework of direction and control. You can practice your tactics, but you must use intuition for your strategy.
Sieges
One might think that studying the techniques of sieges would only be of interest to hobbyists or scholars of medieval warfare, but this is not the case. In fact, I’ve noticed that many of the most significant conflicts that occur tend to have siege qualities to them. If we look at Oka, Gustafsen Lake, MOVE, Caledonia, squat evictions, etc., we find sieges and siege techniques used by both sides.
“A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by force or attrition, often accompanied by an assault. A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that refuses to surrender and cannot be easily taken by a frontal assault. Sieges involve surrounding the target and blocking the reinforcement or escape of troops or provision of supplies (a tactic known as “investment”), typically coupled with attempts to reduce the fortifications by means of siege engines, artillery bombardment, mining (also known as sapping), or the use of deception or treachery to bypass defenses. Failing a military outcome, sieges can often be decided by starvation, thirst or disease, which can afflict both the attacker or defender.
Generally speaking, siege warfare is a form of low-intensity warfare (until an assault takes place) characterized in that at least one party holds a strong defense position, it is a highly static situation, the element of attrition is typically strong and there are plenty of opportunities for negotiations.”
Variables
Whenever considering an action it is important to reflect on what Clauswewitz called “ the variables representing the circumstances of combat”. Let’s look at an example.
A group of friends decides to destroy a couple of bridges in a nearby wilderness to prevent logging and other industrial activity.
The first step is to look at the many basic security considerations to follow: don’t tell anyone outside the group anything ever, have alibis, don’t use or carry any techno-devices to communicate, document or brainstorm, etc.
Back to our example. You want to destroy some bridges. Security measures have been undertaken. You have used your knowledge of strategy, operations and tactics in making plans. You were conscious of some of the principles and truths of conflict: surprise, movement, economy of force, etc. But what we haven’t looked at yet are the variables that typically come into play, (the concept of friction does take into account these influences to some extent).
Trevor Dupuy breaks down the variables into a few simple categories, although I’ve tweaked these somewhat. There are many that are sure to influence the outcome and smoothness of your action, so please make sure that variables are considered before pursuing your objective.
The variables are Environmental, Behavioral, and Operational. Under environmental we find primarily the weather and terrain, although I would include season, time of day and even lunar cycle as important. Secondly we find behavioral variables. These relate to the psychology and nature of the human participants. Morale, training, emotional well being, stability, drug and alcohol use, experience, etc. Finally, operational includes vulnerability, mobility, fatigue and posture. It should be noted that we have easy influence over these and should take advantage of this fact.
The environmental: It’s cold and rainy. Will this affect your terrain enough to make any changes? Do you need to make a fire, perhaps to burn the bridge, if so can you make a fire in the rain? You were counting on the full moon to help, but the clouds will inhibit this, got your flashlight? Heavier clothing can slow down your escape. The area is primarily a deciduous forest, so in spring there will be plenty of coverage from the leaves, but it’s autumn, and you can’t hide behind bare branches, or can you?
The behavioral: if it is going to be a rainy and cold night and one of your group is inexperienced or weak, you might want to make sure that his backpack is checked for proper clothing, that he is rested enough to do the action, perhaps consider pairing him up with a stronger or more experienced participant, etc. If you expect to be confronted, who has the most training to stand firm, who is likely to flee?
The operational: will the rain make it muddy and slow down your vehicles? Does everyone have the proper clothing? If you have to sit still and hide for a long period of time in uncomfortable circumstances, has everyone trained in this long enough?
Variables and the reality of friction generally, are essential last steps to take before setting out to “battle”. Good hunting.
—
PDF for printing available here: https://ia801308.us.archive.org/19/items/OfMartialTraditionsTheArtOfRebellion/martial_traditions-imposed.pdf
by DGR News Service | Jul 24, 2019 | Defensive Violence
Editor’s note: this piece, A Short Discourse on Revolution, is an excellent introduction to the general theory of revolution. We believe that this general approach needs to be expanded to include an ecological revolutionary framework. While we are not Maoists, we believe it is important to learn from every revolutionary tradition, and this piece is worth studying in detail.
Image: Battle of San Domingo, also known as the Battle for Palm Tree Hill, part of the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804), the first successful anti-slavery and anti-colonial insurrection by self-liberated slaves. The Haitian Revolution was the largest slave uprising since the Spartacus Revolt against the Roman Empire, 1900 years previously.
by Red Sun in the Sky
Revolution is a right. This has been a principle held by most reasonable people since the days of the enlightenment. It is even enshrined in the preamble to the UN Declaration of Human Rights where it states: “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression”. What this does not answer is why it is right to rebel, why someone would, and how they would do it. In this exposition we will elaborate on the essential questions of revolution. Those being: is it right to revolt? when is it right to revolt? and what actions are proper during a revolution? When answering these questions, we will take a dialectical materialist analysis. This means that we will take material conditions and class struggle into account as we analyze. This methodology should allow for an in-depth analysis of the concept of revolution. We will also be using a variety of quotes that will mostly come from philosophical texts.
Firstly, we must answer the question of is it right to revolt. In short, it is right but, that answer is unsatisfactory. One must know why it is. It is right to revolt against a system of government because government, and society in general, operates under a social contract. This social contract establishes the government as a force that voices the general will. If government ceases to govern for the general will, it has become minority rule and is thus tyrannical. The general will is a concept we get from Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his foundational text Of the Social Contract. In the text, Rousseau is often vague as to what the general will exactly is. Sometimes it is what a group of sovereign legislators agree to make law; other times it is the common good or what is generally accepted by the whole of society. The correct interpretation seems to be that the general will is the common good and that a good legislature is able to abide by it. Hence, the state is governed by the general will. Rousseau also states that the general will is not always correct and can be wrong. Accepting that as true we can say that it is right to revolt if the government violates the general will, the revolution is supported by the general will, and that the general will is correct in the first place. A few concerns come up with this list of requirements. Primarily the question of how do we know if the general will is correct? is the most glaring. It is difficult to pinpoint if the general will is correct or incorrect but, a general rule is that if it is productive (meaning that it leads to societal progress and benefit), it is correct. This answer has its own problems but, is generally true with few exceptions. To shift over to a more Marxist point of view, we must look at the role of the working people in revolution. We can say that a revolution is just when the class-conscious people support it. Note, the usage of the term “class-conscious”. As is true in most situations, the majority is not always right and only when the masses are aware of the contradictions and oppression of capitalism, can they truly lead a meaningful revolution. In Marxist terms, it is always right to revolt. This is due to the ever-present need of society to change, even under advanced stages of socialist development. That is not to say that governments should be overthrown on a whim but rather, it is to say that a revolutionary government should operate on a basis where it is able to adapt to changes in society without having to undergo revolutionary periods. This being said; is there ever a time where revolution is not right? Yes. If the revolution seeks to send society backwards or is not backed by the masses (or general will). However, even then, it is still right for people to engage in revolutionary action and protest, even if they are incorrect in their reasons.
Moving onward to the second question of when it is right to revolt. Although already answered somewhat in the previous section, we must delve into material conditions further. According to Marx and Engels; revolution occurs when the contradictions of capitalism can no longer contain themselves and the proletariat overthrow the system of capitalism. This statement can be made less Marxist by stating it as such: when the system of society becomes so unbearable that there is no other recourse, revolution is right. It is a simple statement of fact that most revolutions occur when the population can no longer stand what the government or system does. Another essential factor that contributes to revolution is the level of consciousness amongst a population. People must be aware that they are being oppressed before they can begin to end that oppression. That is why most revolutionaries in history have put a large emphasis on education and awareness. Tyrannical governments will also most likely try and deceive the population into thinking they are not tyrannical. This works depending on the effectiveness and reach of the government. This touches on one of the fundamental aspects of government: they are self-preservationist. Governments, when they have solidified authority, will try to keep it. To do this, they will use public services, propaganda, and oftentimes force. This is not to say that government should act in this way but, it does. It is this self-preservationist attitude of government that creates the conditions needed for revolution. Another crucial aspect to the starting of revolutions is capitalism itself. Capitalism is a system constantly on the brink of collapse, never truly being stable. It requires a state to solidify its standing and bolster it when it fails. Capitalism and democracy are always in conflict. This is because those who truly benefit from the fruits of capitalism are the wealthy minority. Democracy and republicanism are systems that are meant not just for a minority but, for society as a whole. It is this contradiction that leads to the collapse of democracy and the rise of tyranny. From tyranny comes revolution from the masses. This does not just apply to capitalism but, to all other systems as well. Contradictions will exist and if they are not addressed by the government, there will be revolution. The best way to deal with thesecontradictions is to govern for the general will.
We must address what actions should revolutionaries take during revolutions. It is a simple fact that violence is an unfortunate course of action in revolution. It is a necessary evil. There is a limit. We need only to look at the Reign of Terror in France to see where that limit is. Violence is necessary because a system that perpetuates itself through violence can only be overthrown through violence. If there were such a thing as a system that perpetuates itself peacefully, there could be a peaceful revolution. No such system exists or has ever existed. Even an ideal government which was governed by the general will would have to use violence to maintain its existence. This is because there will always be those who wish to see the current state of things overthrown. We can go back to France and look at the Reign of Terror. As terrible as it was, the reason it existed was not unjust. In his speech On the Principals of Revolutionary Government, Maximilien Robespierre stated: “Revolutionary government requires extraordinary action, precisely because it is at war”. This speech was done as a justification of revolutionary violence as a method of dealing with internal counter-revolution. The Bolsheviks during the 1917 October Revolution also used revolutionary violence and fought a war against counter-revolution. Revolution is inherently a violent endeavour, not because revolutionaries want it to be but, because it must be. Earlier we mentioned a limit to the extent of violence needed in revolution and one may ask exactly where that limit is. In short, it is hard to say. This is because every place is different and has different material conditions. What worked in Russia will not work today. The limits of revolutionary tactics change depending on the time and place. Besides violence, there are other ethical dilemmas when it comes to revolutionary tactics. Censorship and suppression of freedoms comes to mind most often. This again depends on the material situation but, it can be generally agreed upon that revolutionary governments should not curtail civil rights and liberties more than is necessary for wartime. Revolutions often come under attack from both within and without. This calls for measures not needed in peacetime. Also, if a revolution is popular, the people will be able to accept extreme measures in order to establish a better system. It is the job of revolutionaries to secure this support. Essentially, when revolution occurs, it is to try and be victorious by any means necessary.
The ethics of revolution may seem convoluted but, are generally quite simple. To answer the three essential questions in brief: Is it right to revolt? Yes, as long as the system oppresses people. When is it right to revolt? Always, as long as there is oppression of the masses. What should one do while in revolution? Anything necessary for victory. For a revolution, victory is the primary goal and quash all who wish to stop it. True revolution is the pure expression of the masses in wanting to change society. Society requires change in order to progress and only revolution can bring about the radical change necessary for progress. This will be the reality until we have achieved the type of society that is truly responsive to the masses.
A Short Discourse on Revolution
Republished under a CC BY 4.0 license
by DGR News Service | Jul 23, 2019 | Direct Action, Education, Strategy & Analysis
Editor’s note: this article contains extensive excerpts from the Irish Republican Army’s Green Book, one of their key training documents during their 20th-century struggle against British occupation.
Written by Liam Campbell
“Don’t be seen in public marches, demonstrations or protests. Don’t be seen in the company of known Republicans, don’t frequent known Republican houses. Your prime duty is to remain unknown to the enemy forces and the public at large.”
Like all successful underground organisations, the Irish Republican Army maintained a strict firewall between their aboveground and underground movements, this ensured that publicly identifiable individuals could not be pressured into revealing underground militants, providing a certain level of safety for both groups. The Irish Republican Army also emphasized the importance of abstaining from alcohol or other drugs, which they identified as the single greatest threat to any guerilla organisation.
“Many in the past have joined the Army out of romantic notions, or sheer adventure, but when captured and jailed they had after-thoughts about their allegiance to the Army. They realised at too late a stage that they had no real interest in being volunteers. This causes splits and dissension inside prisons and divided families and neighbours outside.”
When recruiting, the Irish Republican Army recognised that successful underground members had certain characteristics; they were intelligent, reliable, and they were capable of giving their total allegiance to the cause. These characteristics ensured that they would consistently obey often difficult orders from the chain of command, regardless of the personal cost, and despite any personal issues they may have with their superior officers. Certain qualities could disqualify a person as a candidate: emotionalism, sensationalism, and adventurism were among them.
“The enemy, generally speaking, are all those opposed to our short-term or long-term objectives. But having said that, we must realise that all our enemies are not the same and therefore there is no common cure for their enmity. The conclusion then is that we must categorise and then suggest cures for each category. Some examples: We have enemies through ignorance, through our own fault or default and of course the main enemy is the establishment.”
One of the most essential features of the Green Book was the precision with which it defined enemies. You cannot wage a successful war if your targets are poorly defined. The Irish Republican Army identified three categories of enemy:
Enemies through ignorance are those individuals who can be cured through education. Tactics included marches, demonstrations, wall slogans, press statements, publications, and person-to-person communication. The Green Book stressed that self education was essential, which included ideological understanding and also tactical knowledge about how to organise large groups of people and how to successfully execute different actions.
Enemies through our own fault are the ones created by the Irish Republican Army’s actions, which includes personal conduct and the collective conduct of the movement. These enemies vary greatly. The elderly woman whose door was pulled off its hinges by an IRA member evading capture who doesn’t receive an immediate apology and recompense, the family and friends of an informer who has been punished without their being notified of the reason, and also the collateral victims of violence.
Members of the establishment who consciously take actions to maintain the status quo in politics, media, policing, and business. Although some of these enemies are clearly identifiable, most of them operate with various degrees of anonymity as bureaucratic cogs in a vast machine of oppression; this means that one of the greatest challenges is accurately identifying establishment members. Surprisingly, execution is not always the best way to make a member of the establishment ineffective, often it is better to expose them as liars, hypocrites, collaborators, or subjects of public ridicule.
“Many figures of speech have been used to describe Guerrilla Warfare, one of the most apt being ‘The War of the Flea’ which conjured up the image of a flea harrying a creature of by comparison elephantine size into fleeing (forgive the pun). Thus it is with a Guerrilla Army such as the I.R.A. which employs hit and run tactics against the Brits while at the same time striking at the soft economic underbelly of the enemy, not with the hope of physically driving them into the sea but nevertheless expecting to effect their withdrawal by an effective campaign of continuing harassment contained in a fivefold guerrilla strategy.”
The Irish Republican Army’s strategy included a war of attrition, the destruction of high-value assets, to make large regions ungovernable, to sustain a propaganda campaign, and to protect the movement against criminals, collaborators, and informers. The Green Book emphasized that volunteers need to achieve more than just killing enemy personnel, they must also create and maintain support systems that would not only carry the movement through the war, but would also facilitate a smooth transition after military victory had been achieved.
“Most volunteers are arrested on or as a result of a military operation. This causes an initial shock resulting in tension and anxiety. All volunteers feel that they have failed, resulting in a deep sense of disappointment. The police are aware of this feeling of disappointment and act upon this weakness by insults such as “you did not do very well: you are only an amateur: you are only second-class or worse”. While being arrested the police use heavy-handed `shock` tactics in order to frighten the prisoner and break down his resistance. The prisoner is usually dragged along the road to the waiting police wagon, flung into it, followed by the arresting personnel, e.g., police or Army. On the journey to the detention centre the prisoner is kicked, punched and the insults start. On arrival he is dragged from the police wagon through a gauntlet of kicks, punches and insults and flung into a cell.”
Capture was one of the greatest fears that volunteers lived with on a daily basis, so the Green Book addressed these concerns in detail and prepared volunteers for that possibility. This section was broken down into the actual arrest, the interrogation, and the legal process. There were three categories of torture that volunteers could face: physical, subtle psychological, and humiliation. Physical torture often took the form of beatings, kicking, punching, and cigarette burns. Psychological torture could include threats to family, friends, and self, or threats of assassination and disfigurement. Humiliation included being stripped naked, remarks about the prisoner’s sexual organs, and removing symbolic defense mechanisms.
One of the ways the Green Book prepared volunteers was by reminding them that they could only be held and tortured for a maximum of 7 days. Although the experience would likely be horrific, it could only last for a relatively brief duration; if they confessed or capitulated during their interrogation they could easily face a lifetime in prison where they would experience much of the same torture. One of the coping strategies they employed was to form images in their minds or on the surrounding walls, directing their concentration away from the interrogators and diverting it toward positive or neutral ideas, even something as simple as a flickering candle or a leaf.
Overall, what the Green Book does is it clearly lays out the ideological foundations of the movement, the requirements of its volunteers, the methodology for identifying and categorising enemies, the tactics that should be employed, and it also addresses the greatest fears of volunteers and teaches them how to cope in the event that they must face them. These are the foundational psychological requirements that are needed to recruit and retain effective underground guerillas. They must know why they are taking action, what their actions will achieve, how to behave, who they are targeting, and they need to know that they will be able to overcome their fears should they need to face them.
by DGR News Service | Jul 16, 2019 | Direct Action
Editors note: this text was written as an introduction to a French-language translation of the Earth First! Direct Action Manual. It has been slightly edited for publication here.
by Max Wilbert
The term “direct action” was first widely used by the revolutionary union IWW, or the Industrial Workers of the World, in 1910. It refers to the practice of working directly to achieve social change, rather than using politically-mediated methods such as voting or petitions.
A liberal approach to solving social and ecological problems calls for education, lobbying, and voting. In contrast, direct action calls for people to take matters into their own hands.
The power of direct action lies in its ability to get results. As the saying goes, “direct action gets the goods.” But this is an oversimplification. In any given campaign, a range of different actions could be considered ‘direct action.’ Some people use the term to refer purely to non-violent direct action, mostly various methods of blockades, disruptions, and sit-ins.
But people’s history is a long chronicle of direct action—most of it much more radical and militant than modern conceptions of direct action.
- Instead of only railing against slavery in rhetoric, John Brown gathered comrades, took up arms, and carried out the raid on Harper’s Ferry.
- After failing to win change for decades through aboveground organization, Nelson Mandela and the ANC took up arms and began to sabotage the Apartheid economy and assassinate its foot soldiers.
- Rather than relying on gradualism, the Cuban revolution began with daring attacks on military barracks.
- With the total failure of political change would save their land, Vietnamese communists organized to fight and win against French and then American military aggression.
- The UK movement for women’s suffrage, following decades of inaction, escalated to arson and sabotage.
- The Deacons for Defense and the Black Panther Party both took up weapons to defend their communities against racist vigilantes and police violence.
From the famous bus boycotts that skyrocketed Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement to prominence, to the mass direct action occupation at La Zad and Hambach Forest, to the Zapatistas and the Bolsheviks and the revolution in Rojava, our movements have largely been defined by direct action.
Therefore, for any book to present itself as a “direct action manual” is something of a misnomer. It’s impossible to encompass all of what direct action is in one book. However, this book is valuable, which is why I am writing this introduction.
The main power of direct action is its potential effectiveness. But another secret of direct action’s success lies in its ability to empower people. Modern society is profoundly alienating, and the democracies that dominate the world are participatory in name only. Global empire is ruled by the wealthy, for the wealthy, and the average person has little power. Edward Ross wrote in 1905 that “Nowadays the water main is my well, the trolley car my carriage, the banker’s safe my old stocking, the policeman’s billy club my fist.” Our autonomy, our sense of individual and collective power, has been systematically undermined and destroyed.
One of the few places we can begin to find a sense of our own power is when we rise up—like the angry Black youth who rose up in Ferguson, MO in 2014, or the Yellow Vest movement in France. Action can beget action.
But we also must be cautious about direct action. Spontaneity has limited utility within our movements. Revolutions generally succeed because individuals plan, organize, and train for them. Then, these people are able to take advantage of breaks in normality. To rely on direct action as some sort of superior tactic, without considering when and where and how it must be applied, and for what goal, is to simply waste time. And too many believe that non-violent direct action will succeed without considering legal fees, lawyers, fundraising, and the fact that it’s hard to organize when you’re in jail. When direct action inevitably results in getting arrested, it gives up the initiative that is so critical to winning any conflict.
With that said, direct action can also be at its strongest when applied spontaneously. The 2011 documentary film Just Do It: A Tale of Modern Day Outlaws, represents a strong argument for the value this approach has for building movement capacity and individual bravery.
A variety of situations, methods, and approaches fall under the umbrella of direct action. Direct action is a broad term, with a divergent range of philosophies and tactics falling underneath it.
I emphasize the militant and revolutionary basis of direct action because there is a tendency to underplay this within mainstream social movements. Society glorifies the non-violent resistance of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Color Revolutions, while ignoring movements that have used force.
The modern Earth First! movement sometimes falls into reification of direct action for its own sake. In general, the movement doesn’t have a clear revolutionary strategy. While Earth First! gave birth to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), its modern incarnation tends to emphasize non-violence and defensive blockades.
The diversity of approaches our movement brings to direct action can be exploited. In 2013, there was a leak of documents from the private intelligence company STRATFOR, which has worked for the American Petroleum Institute, Dow Chemical, Northrup Grumman, Coca Cola, and so on.
The leaked documents revealed one part of STRATFOR’s strategy for fighting social movements. The propose dividing activists into four groups, then exploiting their differences to fracture movements.
“Radicals, idealists, realists and opportunists [are the four categories],” the leaked documents state. “The Opportunists are in it for themselves and can be pulled away for their own self-interest. The Realists can be convinced that transformative change is not possible and we must settle for what is possible. Idealists can be convinced they have the facts wrong and pulled to the Realist camp. Radicals, who see the system as corrupt and needing transformation, need to be isolated and discredited, using false charges to assassinate their character is a common tactic.”
Through foundation funding, ideological hegemony, and various means of disruption and infiltration, popular mass movements are usually shaped by the ruling class in one way or another, usually in such a way to blunt their teeth.
Here’s another quote from the STRATFOR leaks that underlines this: “Most authorities will tolerate a certain amount of activism because it is seen as a way to let off steam. They appease the protesters by letting them think that they are making a difference — as long as the protesters do not pose a threat. But as protest movements grow, authorities will act more aggressively to neutralize the organizers.”
And that’s what we’ve seen.
The ideology of non-violence has been championed by people like Srdja Popovic, who rose to prominence as a leader of the Optor! Movement against Serbian president Slobodan Milošević. Optor! Is regularly championed as the perfect example of social movements—despite the fact that it operated alongside a U.S. bombing campaign and a full-scale civil war, and with perhaps $41 million is U.S. funding.
But there is even more to this story. Srdja Popovic’s wife worked for STRATFOR and Popovic himself has worked closely with the CIA to for example, attempt to overthrow Hugo Chavez. Non-violence has become a key tool in the U.S. efforts to overthrow socialist nations and secure geopolitical power and access to resources such as oil. Popovic’s popularity and access to TED talks and Harvard faculty positions reflects this institutional support.
Popovic’s academic collaborator in this project is Erica Chenoweth, another Harvard University faculty member and leading researcher on non-violent resistance movements. Chenoweth has become prominent in social movement circles for co-publishing (with Maria J. Stephan of the U.S. State Department) a study on the efficacy of non-violent resistance. Her research has been championed by countless NGOs worldwide and forms the basis of strategic doctrine at organizations like Extinction Rebellion and 350.org.
Chenoweth’s study is overly simplistic. It does not define violence, and it doesn’t differentiate between campaigns against a colonial occupation and those fighting internal dictatorships. It doesn’t account for the vast majority of movements which incorporate both violent and non-violent wings. The existence of the “radical flank” complicates analysis of these issues. Chenowith fails to account for pre-revolutionary conditions, arguing instead that method (non-violent resistance) and mass participation are the main determinant of success.
To make a clear distinction between non-violence and violence is to miss the point completely. Social movements succeed or fail partially through the strength of their moral suation, but more importantly through their ability to effectively mobilize force, resist repression and co-optation, and strike effectively at strategic targets. Specific methods are less important than the big-picture strategy guiding our operations, and the firm will and organizational structure to resist distraction and compromise.
As Mik’maq warrior Sakej Ward tells us, “Don’t confuse the non-violent ‘peaceful warrior; with the wise warrior. The ‘non-violent peaceful warrior’ detests violence and conflict to the point of rejecting the teachings of war. The wise warrior knows conflict exist on a much broader spectrum than simply two ideas of peace and war. The wise warrior sees the vast ground between the two. That warrior understands conflict on multiple levels and can utilize many different paradigms, strategies, tactics and tools that exist between peace and war but is also wise enough to know that he/she must still master the ways of war.”
Even Gene Sharp, the CIA-funded non-violent theorist who Popovic learned from, describes non-violent resistance as a form of warfare, just as Clausewitz called war a “continuation of politics by other means.”
Only when liberals abandon the mythology of non-violence can they begin to grapple with the methods required to achieve our goals by any means necessary. In 1948, U.S. State Department Director of Policy Planning George Kennan wrote that “[The United States has] about 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population… Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity…”
This is the naked face of empire: violent, devious, cunning, relentless in pursuit of power and willingness to destroy the planet and exploit people. We must be equally cunning if we are to stand a chance of victory. This isn’t a time for amateurs. This historical moment is calling for us all to become skilled, to train, to study.
The Earth First! direct action manual is a starting point for this process. Study this book and learn its methods. Test them, as I have done (in the drawing on the front cover, I’m one of the people on top of the excavator at a disruptive direct action against the Utah Tar Sands project in 2013). And be prepared to escalate further. Time is short, and everything is heading in the wrong direction. Our future depends on our ability to become the people who are needed, and to take matters into our own hands.
Good luck.
