Covert or open?

Many in the peace movement, influenced by Gandhi (and more recently the Plowshares movement), have seen openness and accountability as an essential part of nonviolence. Some have felt that the symbolism of individuals taking responsibility for (and suffering for) their actions, is a powerful part of the dynamic of nonviolent action. Others — particularly feminists — have been less convinced of the revolutionary nature of voluntary suffering.

Environmental activists from Earth First! and related groups tend to see nonviolence as more of a tactic than an ideological principle, and have favoured covert actions, arguing that these are more likely to avoid the damaging effects of individual activists becoming martyrs. Instead of symbolic actions, they have often aimed to cause the maximum amount of economic damage, seeing this as the most effective form of protest. A culture of anonymity has traditionally extended to writing as well. Last year, PN printed a series of articles contributing to the debate (July and October 1997).

A group of British environmental protestors recently announced the genetiX snowball campaign (gXs — see July PN), inspired by a 1980s campaign of symbolic direct action against nuclear weapons, explicitly calling for open and accountable actions.

At the recent British Earth First! summer gathering, two anonymous leaflets — "Accountable to whom?" and "Fuck the disobedient, let’s get civil" — were circulated. Both were heavily critical of gXs, as well as of tendencies within the movement towards more open forms of action. Here we reprint edited versions of both leaflets, along with a reply by a member of gXs. As always, we encourage readers to contribute further to the debate.