A few things that are accessible within the USA include:

  • Participating in mutual aid programs
  • Campaigning on the local level, including for positions like poll watchers
  • Making your voice heard in community events in general
  • Joining your local DSA, networking
    • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
      0·
      8 months ago

      It’s a small level of harm reduction. It is not a substitute for direct action. But it is necessary if you care about reducing any kind of harm in the world no matter how small.

      • doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml
        0·
        8 months ago

        I object that it is necessary to believe that these actions will lead to harm reduction, although I do agree that these actions are much better classified as harm reduction attempts (whether effective or not) than direct action.

        It’s an egregious category error, especially in a discussion supposedly for leftists.

          • doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml
            0·
            8 months ago

            And I agree with you about the importance of harm reduction. I know we won’t all always agree on the most effective methods, but I can appreciate anyone doing what they personally believe will reduce suffering in the world.

      • JCPhoenix@beehaw.orgEnglish
        0·
        8 months ago

        Time to push up my glasses and say “well akshually…”

        I think they’re saying that because Direct Action has a particular definition.

        Direct action may include activities, often nonviolent but possibly violent, targeting people, groups, institutions, actions, or property that its participants deem objectionable. Nonviolent direct action may include civil disobedience, sit-ins, strikes, and counter-economics. Violent direct action may include political violence, assault, arson, sabotage, and property destruction.

        So on one hand, they’re right. Direct Action is not done at the ballot box. It’s done in the streets.

        But on the other…it doesn’t matter. Just like most “well akshaully” statements!

        Because people should do everything you’ve laid out, regardless. And don’t forget to vote!

        • doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml
          0·
          8 months ago

          You’re right about what I meant, but it’s hardly a “well akshually” moment - OP defined direct action as things that are explicitly not direct action with the sole exception of mutual aid.

          And it’s not like the requirements are stiff. Direct action: 1. Aims for immediate effect, and 2. Is not action taken through traditional political processes. That’s it. It’s not hard to come up with dozens examples that fit those two basic criteria.

          OP addressed a bunch of leftists while getting their 101-level theory entirely backwards. If OP wants to use the term Direct Action in a way that undermines actual advocates of direct action, the least a leftist can do is call them out on it.

          And as an anarchist I’m definitely going to call out users with anarch— in their names who post total “How do you do fellow kids leftists?” opinions. Right-wingers already won the war on redefining libertarianism as neoliberalism, and I’m not ready for them to do the same to the term anarchist while I’m still around. I hope the OP is more naive than right-wing, but it all works towards the same end.

          If they would have just said “harm reduction” I would have had no reason to open my mouth, even if I question the efficacy of such tactics. But if they are going to refer to theory, then they need to be held to the appropriate standard to maintain the significance of that theory. And the significance of DA is that it is extra-political.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        8 months ago

        While I think it’s important to vote, the user you are replying to is mostly correct. It’s just important to understand that “direct action” isn’t the only viable domain of activism or civil engagement.