abour and community activists trying to build alliances in the past have stumbled over the issue of direct action, and since the mass actions against the WTO in Seattle last November, the issue has once again come to the forefront.

What is direct action? It would be impossible to list all the forms of direct action because in each country, in each important struggle, direct action can take a variety of forms. For A. Losovsky, writing after the Russian Revolution in 1921, direct action was defined less by its form than its content and from the point of view of this revolutionary, not all immediate actions were worthy of the name direct action.

Demonstrations, strikes, occupations, armed insurrection - for Losovsky, the question wasn't the tactic, but what it achieved. Did working class people have the chance to act on their anger towards those who ruled their lives? Did they learn more about who those rulers were and how they exercised power? Did they learn more about themselves as a class and who their allies were? Did the action fire the imagination? Strengthen the resolve? Offer some lessons about struggle and organization for the next time? Did the direct action unite working class people or divide them?

Proponents of direct action, and its opponents, often contrast it to other actions like writing letters, electoral politics, legal challenges, signing contracts or lobbying governments - the "normal channels" of redress (often gained, historically, through direct action). But what's clear from a close look at the history of important struggles - from revolutionary working class movements, union organizing, and feminism, to civil rights movements, anti-colonial struggles and environmentalism - is that a range of methods are usually used and direct action need not be in contradiction with other means.

When direct action is used, organizers have often tried to use the normal avenues to address grievances or bring about meaningful change, unless past experience has shown these avenues to be ineffective. For a growing underclass of unemployed, underemployed, or low paid, non-unionized workers - most often youth, women, people of colour, and immigrants - normal channels of redress are especially frustrating and ineffective, structured as they are to accommodate the educated middle classes or the lawyers of the wealthy. The marginalized quickly learn that 'business as usual' and its 'solutions' are limited. In any case, actions like letter-writing campaigns, submissions to government bodies, legal challenges, or consumer boycotts often provide formative political lessons, radicalizing organizers and groups. Creative media work, outreach and education are also cornerstones of effective organizing and the basic legwork needed to pull off effective direct actions. This was obvious in the Battle of Seattle. One of the reasons direct action was so effective was because it was proceeded by a thorough and well-planned public awareness campaign which provided a clear context for resistance on the street.

From guerilla gardening to community-run day care, actively engaging in the creation of alternatives is one of the most powerful forms of direct action - and one rarely covered by the mainstream press. Some of the most effective uses of direct action have included a constructive component. Medical clinics and breakfast programs for inner city kids were central to the Black Panther Party's work, and were pursued with as much energy as other methods of struggle. Historically, actions like squatting, guerilla gardening, and factory occupations combine strategies for reclaiming and defending "unused property" with the work of creating and maintaining vital community resources like food, housing, and jobs.

Constructive forms of direct action not only get the attention and sympathy of third parties, but if they are truly viable and functional alternatives, this kind of direct action can present a fundamental threat to the powers that be and their mantra, coined by Thatcher, that "there is no alternative."

olitical work and community organizing do not begin or end with direct action, nor are effective movements built by using direct action as their only tool. But, as we saw in Seattle, direct action can be one of the most effective tactics to use in building a movement against global capital. When it comes down to it, those who claim to "own" the world's resources simply can't protect their "property" from the rest of us, especially when most of us are the very workers who create the resources in the first place.

Direct actions of various forms have been tried and true tactics for workers throughout the world. When workers strike, using their collective power to shut down the workplace, when workers prevent scabs from taking their jobs, they are practicing direct action and hitting the bosses where it hurts. And bosses hate long strikes, not just because it cuts into their profits, but because they fear the way it can bond workers and whole communities against them, making for bigger problems.

Picket lines have been known to turn into blockades, a tactic that has proven to be quite effective when workers and communities get fed up with being treated as disposable by companies and governments. As environmentalists and native sovereigntists have demonstrated, capitalists "rights" to "their property" are a moot point if they can't gain access - and no access means no profits. This is not 'business as usual.' If it does end in negotiations, there's a good chance the bosses will find themselves sitting across the table from a group only strengthened in their resolve and with even bigger demands.

Strikes are only one way workers use direct action to concentrate the boss's mind. Some of the most effective actions are taken on the job - otherwise known as fighting the bosses on company time (and getting paid to do it!). A number of different approaches have been used in the past, such as the slowdown (workers work more and more slowly until the bosses give into their demands), work to rule (all the useless rules that workers normally ignore so they can actually get work done are followed to the letter, bringing production to a screeching halt), good work strikes (doing an extra good job, giving the customer the most for their money, which is usually not very good for profits), and sick-ins (everyone calls in sick the same day).

Monkey-wrenching (physically damaging machinery or tools to undermine the production process) has always been a popular form of resistance. During their enslavement 3000 years ago, Israelites were known to sabotage Egyptian building efforts. Workers have ample opportunity to engage in this highly effective form of direct action as they are not only those closest to the means of production, but they know how the production process works - and how to shut it down.

lobal capital does not lock itself into one set of tactics but moves to consolidate its power by any means necessary. For forces of opposition, an outright rejection of any action that smacks of direct action is just as limiting as direct action for direct action's sake. The trick is learning a range of tactics, knowing when to retreat, escalate, or consolidate, and sharing these lessons in ways that build movements intent on fundamental change. How do we start to share our tactical know how and build alliances at the same time? Those committed to direct action could broaden and greatly enrich their community organizing with a schooling in the methods used by union organizers. Why not invite community activists into union organizing schools? At the same time, labour organizers could work with direct action training groups as some striking workers are already doing.

Whether or not direct action tactics unite labour and community activists or divide them is an important question worthy of debate. But when the mainstream media covering the Battle in Seattle created "legitimate" protesters - "peaceful" demonstrators in an AFL-CIO marshalled parade - and "illegitimate" protesters - everyone else, especially those who damaged property - we have to make sure that our debates are first and foremost about the real issue of legitimate and illegitimate institutions and power.

Community and labour activists need to argue. We do have differences. But in the streets of Seattle we also got a glimpse of our collective power and the range of tactics we'll need to take back our cities and our future. It's with our eyes on this prize that we should look again at the question of tactics and alliances.

By Suzanne Baustad with Peter Edelman
(thanks to Ali Yerevani for circulating and
commenting on Losovsky article)

Tibetan children protesting in Seattle