o_195qg5dto17o4rbc85q1ge61i84a.pdf
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
152<br />
anarchism: a beginner’s guide<br />
helping to revive local community networks. RTS argue that these<br />
illegal actions often wrong-foot the authorities because they emphasize<br />
the extent to which anarchism fosters collective responsibility,<br />
communality and fun. Whilst some class-struggle anarchists<br />
denounce RTS campaigning as middle-class posturing, others point<br />
out that RTS actions have mobilized effective mass support for<br />
old-style workers’ struggles.<br />
civil disobedience<br />
Civil disobedience is usually defined as an act of non-violent resistance<br />
(even in the face of violence) to a specific injustice for which<br />
participants anticipate arrest. The definition distinguishes civil disobedience<br />
from direct action: a monkeywrencher who attempts to<br />
disable bulldozers covertly wherever they are found is engaged in<br />
direct action, whilst a monkeywrencher who commits the same act<br />
publicly and in order to frustrate a particular building scheme is performing<br />
an act of civil disobedience. Like symbolic and direct action<br />
it is popular with non-anarchist as well as anarchist protestors.<br />
However, in contrast to non-anarchist civil disobedience, anarchist<br />
civil disobedience does not imply an acknowledgment of the state’s<br />
legitimacy. To the contrary, anarchists disobey with the long-term<br />
commitment to its overthrow (some anarchists prefer the term<br />
‘social’ to ‘civil’ disobedience in order to emphasize this<br />
difference).<br />
Civil disobedience is associated with four particular writers and<br />
activists – Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King – and<br />
takes two forms. For followers of Thoreau civil disobedience can<br />
take violent or non-violent forms. In 1859 Thoreau famously<br />
defended the murder of five unarmed pro-slavery settlers by the<br />
abolitionist John Brown as an act of civil disobedience. In Thoreau’s<br />
view, each individual should decide what constitutes appropriate<br />
action. In contrast, Tolstoy, Gandhi and King rejected violence.<br />
Indeed, Tolstoy not only believed that violence was immoral, he<br />
specifically rejected the appeal to conscience as a justification for<br />
anarchist terrorism. There was, he believed, an intimate relationship<br />
between the means and ends of revolutionary change such that an<br />
act of violence was more likely to perpetuate than overcome an<br />
injustice based on the exercise of violence. Gandhi adopted a similar<br />
view. One of the outstanding features of his Sarvodaya movement<br />
was that means are never instrumental, but always end-creating. 62