What do you think?
Rate this book
Disobedience and Democracy : Nine Fallacies on Law and Order
Howard Zinn’s cogent defense of civil disobedience, with a new introduction by the author. In this slim volume, Zinn lays out a clear and dynamic case for civil disobedience and protest, and challenges the dominant arguments against forms of protest that challenge the status quo. Zinn explores the politics of direct action, nonviolent civil disobedience, and strikes, and draws lessons for today.
148 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1968
23 people are currently reading
849 people want to read
About the author
Howard Zinn
243 books2,813 followersHoward Zinn was an American historian, playwright, philosopher, socialist intellectual and World War II veteran. He was chair of the history and social sciences department at Spelman College, and a political science professor at Boston University. Zinn wrote more than 20 books, including his best-selling and influential A People's History of the United States in 1980. In 2007, he published a version of it for younger readers, A Young People's History of the United States.
Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist." He wrote extensively about the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and labor history of the United States. His memoir, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (Beacon Press, 1994), was also the title of a 2004 documentary about Zinn's life and work. Zinn died of a heart attack in 2010, at the age of 87.
Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist." He wrote extensively about the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and labor history of the United States. His memoir, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (Beacon Press, 1994), was also the title of a 2004 documentary about Zinn's life and work. Zinn died of a heart attack in 2010, at the age of 87.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
November 15, 2019
“És amennyiben a társadalom igazságtalan marad, akkor igenis ütközzön nehézségekbe a kormányzás.”
Aki polgárjogi aktivista volt, annak az 1960-as, 70-es évek Amerikája ölég izgalmas éveket biztosított: adott volt egyfelől a határokon belül a polgárjogi mozgalmak forrongó közege, a Martin Luther King által elkezdett Szegény Emberek Kampánya, a határokon kívül pedig a vietnámi háború, ami szintúgy felpaprikázta a kedélyeket. És ne feledjük, ez az időszak nemcsak nekik jelentett jó sok munkát, hanem azoknak is, akik velük foglalkoztak, köztük egy bizonyos Fortas bíró úrral, aki meg is jelentetett egy köbö ötven oldalas írást a polgárjogi mozgalmakról, kifejtve, hogy ezek a kezdeményezések csodásak, tiszteletre méltóak, cukik, mint egy vöröspanda unikornisos alsóneműje, de azért abba kéne hagyni őket. Mert ugye a törvény az törvény. És amúgy is minden jól van úgy, ahogy van. Fortas bíróra persze manapság már a kutya se emlékszik, de írása alkalmat adott Howard Zinnek, aki történészként és aktivistaként is kompetens személynek érezte magát a válaszhoz, hogy elmondja, ami a szívét nyomja. És ez a válasz most megjelent magyarul is. Aminek örüljünk.
Örüljünk mégpedig azért, mert Zinn bő száz oldalas reakciója a tiszta logika kristályfényű palotája, és egyben a polgárjogi aktivizmus puhakötésű bibliája is. Tökéletesen élvezhető a megválaszolt tanulmány ismerete nélkül is, mert bár egy nagyon is konkrét szövegre reagál, de a reakció maga egyetemes, és azóta is gyakran felmerülő konzervatív kétségekre ad adekvát választ. Fortas bíró szövegének veleje ugyanis az volt, hogy a törvények az erkölcs megnyilvánulásai, amelyek önértékkel bírnak – következésképpen a törvényszegés, még ha jogosnak tűnik is, magát az erkölcs szövedékét roncsolja, és a káoszba vezető utat kövezi ki. Zinn viszont fogja magát, és ezt az állítást (és mellesleg Fortas majd összes állítását) imponáló magabiztossággal cincálja szét, mint valami papírzsebkendőt. Felhívja a figyelmet, hogy az emberi jogok és az állami törvények nem feleltethetőek meg automatikusan egymásnak – ha így volna, el kéne fogadnunk a nürnbergi bűnösök védekezését, miszerint ők csak a hatályos birodalmi törvények alapján cselekedtek. A törvény ugyanis nem valaminek az „eleve elrendelt” lepárlódása, hanem emberi produktum, és mint ilyen, nem feltétlenül tökéletes. Pláne ha figyelembe vesszük, hogy jellemzően olyan emberek alkották, akik maguk a hatalom és az előjogok birtokosai, és így módjukban áll olyan törvényeket keresztülvinni, amelyek megőrzik számukra ezeket a hatalmakat és előjogokat. A jól működő demokráciának következésképpen egyenesen szüksége van a polgári aktivizmusra, mert ez biztosítja, hogy a törvényhozásban közvetlenül részt nem vállalók is hallathassák a hangjukat, és akár önkorrekcióra kényszerítsék a kormányzat túlhatalmát.
Az meg külön imponáló, ahogy Zinn kijátssza Fortas ellen az USA legnagyobb bűnét. Ugyanis Fortas szerint az egyén nem szegheti meg a törvényt még egy jól körülhatárolt probléma elleni tiltakozás folyamán sem, tehát nem foglalhatja el – birtokháborítást elkövetve – a napalmot gyártó vegyiüzem irodaházát, a cég eljárása ellen tiltakozva. De ha ezt el is fogadjuk, akkor maga az Egyesült Államok milyen jogon vethet be napalmot, megszegve ezzel az általa aláírt ENSZ-egyezményt? Törvényt sért az állam is, ráadásul közel sem olyan jól körülhatárolt célok érdekében, és eljárása során sokkal nagyobb veszélynek tesz ki civileket, mint amilyen veszélyt egy nyüves irodaház ideiglenes elfoglalása jelent. Hogyan magyarázza meg Fortas ezt az anomáliát, hogy a kormány megtehet valamit, az állampolgár viszont nem? Sehogy. Akkor viszont ne beszéljen arról, hogy a törvények valamilyen erkölcs szublimációi – nem, legyen őszinte. A törvény is csak erő dolga.
Erőteljes, lendületes, jól összeszedett fejtegetés. Mind érveléstechnikai értelemben, mind a polgárjogi mozgalmak működését illetőleg csemege az agynak, azok számára pedig, akik szívesen megnehezítenék egy adott – közelebbről meg nem határozott – kormányzat életét, egyenesen kötelező olvasmány.
Aki polgárjogi aktivista volt, annak az 1960-as, 70-es évek Amerikája ölég izgalmas éveket biztosított: adott volt egyfelől a határokon belül a polgárjogi mozgalmak forrongó közege, a Martin Luther King által elkezdett Szegény Emberek Kampánya, a határokon kívül pedig a vietnámi háború, ami szintúgy felpaprikázta a kedélyeket. És ne feledjük, ez az időszak nemcsak nekik jelentett jó sok munkát, hanem azoknak is, akik velük foglalkoztak, köztük egy bizonyos Fortas bíró úrral, aki meg is jelentetett egy köbö ötven oldalas írást a polgárjogi mozgalmakról, kifejtve, hogy ezek a kezdeményezések csodásak, tiszteletre méltóak, cukik, mint egy vöröspanda unikornisos alsóneműje, de azért abba kéne hagyni őket. Mert ugye a törvény az törvény. És amúgy is minden jól van úgy, ahogy van. Fortas bíróra persze manapság már a kutya se emlékszik, de írása alkalmat adott Howard Zinnek, aki történészként és aktivistaként is kompetens személynek érezte magát a válaszhoz, hogy elmondja, ami a szívét nyomja. És ez a válasz most megjelent magyarul is. Aminek örüljünk.
Örüljünk mégpedig azért, mert Zinn bő száz oldalas reakciója a tiszta logika kristályfényű palotája, és egyben a polgárjogi aktivizmus puhakötésű bibliája is. Tökéletesen élvezhető a megválaszolt tanulmány ismerete nélkül is, mert bár egy nagyon is konkrét szövegre reagál, de a reakció maga egyetemes, és azóta is gyakran felmerülő konzervatív kétségekre ad adekvát választ. Fortas bíró szövegének veleje ugyanis az volt, hogy a törvények az erkölcs megnyilvánulásai, amelyek önértékkel bírnak – következésképpen a törvényszegés, még ha jogosnak tűnik is, magát az erkölcs szövedékét roncsolja, és a káoszba vezető utat kövezi ki. Zinn viszont fogja magát, és ezt az állítást (és mellesleg Fortas majd összes állítását) imponáló magabiztossággal cincálja szét, mint valami papírzsebkendőt. Felhívja a figyelmet, hogy az emberi jogok és az állami törvények nem feleltethetőek meg automatikusan egymásnak – ha így volna, el kéne fogadnunk a nürnbergi bűnösök védekezését, miszerint ők csak a hatályos birodalmi törvények alapján cselekedtek. A törvény ugyanis nem valaminek az „eleve elrendelt” lepárlódása, hanem emberi produktum, és mint ilyen, nem feltétlenül tökéletes. Pláne ha figyelembe vesszük, hogy jellemzően olyan emberek alkották, akik maguk a hatalom és az előjogok birtokosai, és így módjukban áll olyan törvényeket keresztülvinni, amelyek megőrzik számukra ezeket a hatalmakat és előjogokat. A jól működő demokráciának következésképpen egyenesen szüksége van a polgári aktivizmusra, mert ez biztosítja, hogy a törvényhozásban közvetlenül részt nem vállalók is hallathassák a hangjukat, és akár önkorrekcióra kényszerítsék a kormányzat túlhatalmát.
Az meg külön imponáló, ahogy Zinn kijátssza Fortas ellen az USA legnagyobb bűnét. Ugyanis Fortas szerint az egyén nem szegheti meg a törvényt még egy jól körülhatárolt probléma elleni tiltakozás folyamán sem, tehát nem foglalhatja el – birtokháborítást elkövetve – a napalmot gyártó vegyiüzem irodaházát, a cég eljárása ellen tiltakozva. De ha ezt el is fogadjuk, akkor maga az Egyesült Államok milyen jogon vethet be napalmot, megszegve ezzel az általa aláírt ENSZ-egyezményt? Törvényt sért az állam is, ráadásul közel sem olyan jól körülhatárolt célok érdekében, és eljárása során sokkal nagyobb veszélynek tesz ki civileket, mint amilyen veszélyt egy nyüves irodaház ideiglenes elfoglalása jelent. Hogyan magyarázza meg Fortas ezt az anomáliát, hogy a kormány megtehet valamit, az állampolgár viszont nem? Sehogy. Akkor viszont ne beszéljen arról, hogy a törvények valamilyen erkölcs szublimációi – nem, legyen őszinte. A törvény is csak erő dolga.
Erőteljes, lendületes, jól összeszedett fejtegetés. Mind érveléstechnikai értelemben, mind a polgárjogi mozgalmak működését illetőleg csemege az agynak, azok számára pedig, akik szívesen megnehezítenék egy adott – közelebbről meg nem határozott – kormányzat életét, egyenesen kötelező olvasmány.
November 20, 2019
Howard Zinn történész 1968-ban rap párbajra hívja B̶r̶e̶t̶t̶ ̶K̶a̶v̶a̶n̶a̶u̶g̶h̶ Abe Fortas legfelső bírót a polgári engedetlenség témakörében. Öt csillagos szöveg, mert egyszerűen van megfogalmazva és logikusan felépítve, miközben végig higgadt marad – egy politikai vitairatnak ilyennek kell lennie.
Zinn élesen elválasztja egymástól az államot és a társadalmat, mondván, érdekeik és lehetőségeik különbözőek. Az államnak összehasonlíthatatlanul több lehetősége (anyagi erőforrások, média, erőszakszervezetek, törvények) van érdekeinek megfelelően cselekedni, mint egy mezei könyvmolynak. Demokrácia ide vagy oda, bizonyos helyzetekben az egyszerű polgár nem tud törvényes és békés úton nyomást gyakorolni az államra. Attól még, hogy x évenként egyszer elballaghat a szavazóurnáig, nem sokat tud tenni akkor, ha törvényes úton elüldöznek egy egyetemet vagy ledarálnak egy akadémiát, netán beszántják az alkotmánybíróságot. A petíciókat, úri tüntiket, sajtótájékoztatókat, ultimátumokat megfelelő hatalomkoncentráció esetén könnyen figyelmen kívül hagyhatják.
Ilyen esetekre találták ki a polgári engedetlenséget (épületfoglalások, ülősztrájkok, ablakbetörések, spontán táborozgatások köztereken), amely abból az egyszerűnek tűnő, de idehaza mégsem túl elterjedt felismerésből táplálkozik, hogy a demokrácia minden nap zajlik, nem x évente egyszer történik meg. Zinn számos példát hoz békés és kevésbé békés módszerekre és az elméleti alapozással sem adós. Különösen érdekes és vitára ingerlő lehet az erőszak alkalmazásáról szóló fejezet, hiszen ez minden tüntetés kínos dilemmája.
Zinn élesen elválasztja egymástól az államot és a társadalmat, mondván, érdekeik és lehetőségeik különbözőek. Az államnak összehasonlíthatatlanul több lehetősége (anyagi erőforrások, média, erőszakszervezetek, törvények) van érdekeinek megfelelően cselekedni, mint egy mezei könyvmolynak. Demokrácia ide vagy oda, bizonyos helyzetekben az egyszerű polgár nem tud törvényes és békés úton nyomást gyakorolni az államra. Attól még, hogy x évenként egyszer elballaghat a szavazóurnáig, nem sokat tud tenni akkor, ha törvényes úton elüldöznek egy egyetemet vagy ledarálnak egy akadémiát, netán beszántják az alkotmánybíróságot. A petíciókat, úri tüntiket, sajtótájékoztatókat, ultimátumokat megfelelő hatalomkoncentráció esetén könnyen figyelmen kívül hagyhatják.
Ilyen esetekre találták ki a polgári engedetlenséget (épületfoglalások, ülősztrájkok, ablakbetörések, spontán táborozgatások köztereken), amely abból az egyszerűnek tűnő, de idehaza mégsem túl elterjedt felismerésből táplálkozik, hogy a demokrácia minden nap zajlik, nem x évente egyszer történik meg. Zinn számos példát hoz békés és kevésbé békés módszerekre és az elméleti alapozással sem adós. Különösen érdekes és vitára ingerlő lehet az erőszak alkalmazásáról szóló fejezet, hiszen ez minden tüntetés kínos dilemmája.
February 24, 2017
Disobedience and Democracy is a short essay Howard Zinn wrote in response to a short essay about Law and Order written by a Supreme Court Justice. Zinn outlines nine fallacies in the original essay, quoting extensively enough so that reading it is unnecessary. Each fallacy deals with a more fundamental question on law and order; when, if ever, is it morally permissible to break the law through protest? According to Judge Fortas, the justice who wrote the piece Zinn is eviscerating, the answer is never. Zinn disagrees.
It’s hard not to look at Zinn’s argument as a relic. The moral peril the nation was in at the time of his essay seemed greater than that of today's. We’re talking about the Vietnam War, McCarthyism, redlining, and remnants of Jim Crow. So when Zinn states the scope of the civil disobedience in question did not outweigh the immorality of the things they protest, this seems, somehow, more true than today. When Zinn argues that burning your draft card or blocking the road to a chemical weapons manufacturer doesn’t compare to the atrocities of an illegal war, the benefit of hindsight means there are few of us who would disagree.
That said, it is important for the modern reader to understand that Zinn’s arguments, at the time, were not widely accepted. That which he advocated the protest of is more comparable to what is happening today than we may be willing to admit while reading argumentative essays of the past. The Vietnam war and the conquests of Indoasia/Latin America can strike parallels to the relentless wars in the Middle East today. Surely we can use the same fallacies of law and order when assessing the moral decision demanded of the nation in the case of Edward Snowden, or Standing Rock, or Flint Michigan.
In this regard, Zinn’s words are more relevant than ever. Providing a moral justification and guidebook for disobedience against the state, Disobedience and Democracy becomes essential reading at a time when democracy is most threatened. While we like to believe we exercise control over our lives by merely participating in democracy, the reality is that we don’t have a say in far too many ways. Americans don’t vote on foreign policy or wars, they don’t decide how much of their taxes go to schools vs corporate subsidies, and with so much corporate spending in elections they don’t really even elect the leaders that make these decisions. Zinn makes the compelling argument that when democracy becomes an obsolete tool of change, disobedience becomes increasingly necessary.
Whether you’re protesting the state at Standing Rock or the Bundy Ranch, Zinn’s line of questioning will prove invaluable. What do we owe the sanctity of law and what does it owe us? Why must civil disobedience necessarily be non-violent? What are the limits of our government and how do we keep it in check?
If you’re planning to get organized, don’t leave home without your copy of Democracy and Disobedience.
It’s hard not to look at Zinn’s argument as a relic. The moral peril the nation was in at the time of his essay seemed greater than that of today's. We’re talking about the Vietnam War, McCarthyism, redlining, and remnants of Jim Crow. So when Zinn states the scope of the civil disobedience in question did not outweigh the immorality of the things they protest, this seems, somehow, more true than today. When Zinn argues that burning your draft card or blocking the road to a chemical weapons manufacturer doesn’t compare to the atrocities of an illegal war, the benefit of hindsight means there are few of us who would disagree.
That said, it is important for the modern reader to understand that Zinn’s arguments, at the time, were not widely accepted. That which he advocated the protest of is more comparable to what is happening today than we may be willing to admit while reading argumentative essays of the past. The Vietnam war and the conquests of Indoasia/Latin America can strike parallels to the relentless wars in the Middle East today. Surely we can use the same fallacies of law and order when assessing the moral decision demanded of the nation in the case of Edward Snowden, or Standing Rock, or Flint Michigan.
In this regard, Zinn’s words are more relevant than ever. Providing a moral justification and guidebook for disobedience against the state, Disobedience and Democracy becomes essential reading at a time when democracy is most threatened. While we like to believe we exercise control over our lives by merely participating in democracy, the reality is that we don’t have a say in far too many ways. Americans don’t vote on foreign policy or wars, they don’t decide how much of their taxes go to schools vs corporate subsidies, and with so much corporate spending in elections they don’t really even elect the leaders that make these decisions. Zinn makes the compelling argument that when democracy becomes an obsolete tool of change, disobedience becomes increasingly necessary.
Whether you’re protesting the state at Standing Rock or the Bundy Ranch, Zinn’s line of questioning will prove invaluable. What do we owe the sanctity of law and what does it owe us? Why must civil disobedience necessarily be non-violent? What are the limits of our government and how do we keep it in check?
If you’re planning to get organized, don’t leave home without your copy of Democracy and Disobedience.
February 20, 2011
So basically, back in the 60's, an associate Justice of the Supreme Court wrote a pamphlet about Civil Disobedience in response to all the upheavals of the time. His name was Abe Fortas. His argument was essentially that disobedience was acceptable only if it didn't go directly against the laws of the country.
Another guy named Howard Zinn read it, got really pissed off, and wrote the book I am now reviewing.
It's pretty much 124 pages of Abe Fortas getting bitch slapped.
Zinn, though especially radical at times, does make some very compelling arguments such as: "how many lives does it take until a law becomes unjust," and "disobedience ensures the health of democracy." He's an excellent writer and extremely educated. I may have a slight intellectual crush.
At the end of the day? Zinn gets the big thumbs up from me.
Another guy named Howard Zinn read it, got really pissed off, and wrote the book I am now reviewing.
It's pretty much 124 pages of Abe Fortas getting bitch slapped.
Zinn, though especially radical at times, does make some very compelling arguments such as: "how many lives does it take until a law becomes unjust," and "disobedience ensures the health of democracy." He's an excellent writer and extremely educated. I may have a slight intellectual crush.
At the end of the day? Zinn gets the big thumbs up from me.
August 30, 2019
A short but very illuminating book about the need for civil disobedience. ”We are thus led to the conclusion that the only way to escape the twin evils of stagnation and chaotic violence at home, and to avoid devastating wars abroad, is for citizens to accept, utilize, control the disorder of civil disobedience, enriching it with countless possibilities and tactics not yet imagined, to make life more human for us and others on this earth.”
November 7, 2020
La desobediència civil no és només justificable sinó necessària.
April 28, 2015
"We are a nation of laws." Even in periods of acute social unrest in the United States, when government has played a dynamic role in stifling change and perpetuating and extending various inequities, it has not been uncommon to hear liberal social critics articulate a doctrine of loyalty to a state.
Such was the case in 1968 when Howard Zinn wrote his Nine Fallacies on Law and Order. Abe Fortas, justice of the American Supreme Court, had just published a book arguing for unflinching loyalty to the law as the most efficacious means of advancing democracy and the commonweal. Fortas condemned all means of social protest operating outside the law, enumerating a castrated "defense" of civil disobedience limited to those actions which did not pose an existential threat to government, namely protestors who resist imprisonment.
Zinn's essential response to this argument was that obedience to law and authority was incidental to the advancement of social goals and thus ought to be subordinated to a process of evaluation of the validity of actions on moral principles at a grassroots level. Zinn goes on to argue that the assumption that law guarantees peace and civility is only acceptable if definitions of "peace" ignore a state's external aggression toward other countries and violent oppression of minorities under its own yoke.
Although Zinn was speaking to a specific instance in history, his arguments and insights are as relevant today as ever. The basic problem of deference to violent and unscrupulous authorities and widespread collective irresponsibility has robbed our democracy of the vigor to adequately respond to the profound social issues of our time. To the extent that this is the case, Zinn's book will always be relevant.
Such was the case in 1968 when Howard Zinn wrote his Nine Fallacies on Law and Order. Abe Fortas, justice of the American Supreme Court, had just published a book arguing for unflinching loyalty to the law as the most efficacious means of advancing democracy and the commonweal. Fortas condemned all means of social protest operating outside the law, enumerating a castrated "defense" of civil disobedience limited to those actions which did not pose an existential threat to government, namely protestors who resist imprisonment.
Zinn's essential response to this argument was that obedience to law and authority was incidental to the advancement of social goals and thus ought to be subordinated to a process of evaluation of the validity of actions on moral principles at a grassroots level. Zinn goes on to argue that the assumption that law guarantees peace and civility is only acceptable if definitions of "peace" ignore a state's external aggression toward other countries and violent oppression of minorities under its own yoke.
Although Zinn was speaking to a specific instance in history, his arguments and insights are as relevant today as ever. The basic problem of deference to violent and unscrupulous authorities and widespread collective irresponsibility has robbed our democracy of the vigor to adequately respond to the profound social issues of our time. To the extent that this is the case, Zinn's book will always be relevant.
April 21, 2015
For being a response to a specific publication (Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas' "Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience") in a specific time/place (the US circa 1968), Disobedience and Democracy is an impressively broad treatise on "civil disobedience" - taken by Zinn to encapsulate all the tools at the disposal of citizens to leverage their collective power and bring about a more just society. There is idealism at work here (Howard Zinn is Howard Zinn), but the content is rock solid. Historically, he points out example after example of times that civil disobedience has been necessary to end what would be obvious to the modern reader as blatant injustice, and example after example of times that the arms of the state (in particular the Supreme Court) have served to maintain the interests of nationalism and the status quo. Ethically, Zinn cuts through Fortas' apologetics and exposes just how sinister their implications really are, never letting his righteous anger get in the way of a carefully-argued case.
A profound read - I'd recommend it not only to anyone eager to give their time and energy to the cause of social justice (duh) but also to anyone who fancies themselves an expert on American government and democracy in general. If any book can relieve someone of the delusion that strict adherence to the laws of the state, as it stood in 1968 and as it stands now, is enough to fulfill the goals of democracy, this is that book.
A profound read - I'd recommend it not only to anyone eager to give their time and energy to the cause of social justice (duh) but also to anyone who fancies themselves an expert on American government and democracy in general. If any book can relieve someone of the delusion that strict adherence to the laws of the state, as it stood in 1968 and as it stands now, is enough to fulfill the goals of democracy, this is that book.
August 26, 2025
Zinova Demokratija i neposlušnost: Devet zabluda o redu i zakonu (1968) nastala je u jeku američkih protesta protiv rata u Vijetnamu i borbe za građanska prava, kao polemički odgovor na tada dominantnu doktrinu “reda i zakona” koju su zastupali političari, intelektualci. i pravnici, poput sudije Ejba Fortasa, s kojim Zin direktno polemiše. Zin analizira devet rasprostranjenih zabluda o demokratiji i građanskoj neposlušnosti, pokazujući da “vladavina zakona” nema nikakvu inherentnu vrednost ako ne služi ljudskim potrebama, da izborni procesi ne garantuju istinsko učešće građana u donošenju odluka, naročito u pitanjima rata i spoljne politike, i da institucije poput Vrhovnog suda funkcionišu više kao instrumenti moći nego kao zaštitnici slobode. Knjiga je zapravo teorijsko opravdanje neposlušnosti kao legitimnog, pa i nužnog sredstva demokratije – kao načina da se ospori nasilje države i pokrene društvena promena kada institucionalni kanali zakazuju.
Ova tanka knjiga (jedva 120 strana) deluje kao da je pisana za Srbiju danas: u trenutku kada vlast pokušava da silom uguši proteste, a građansku neposlušnost diskredituje kao neprihvatljvo “nasilje” i “anarhiju”, koji uništavaju državu i terorišu ljude što samo žele "normalno" da žive, Zin briljantno pokazuje koliko su te optužbe u suštini ideološke magle. On raščlanjuje devet “zabluda” o zakonu i poretku, od verovanja da je “vladavina zakona” sama po sebi vrednost, preko dogme da onaj ko prekrši (manji) zakon, protestujući protiv nekog lošeg, a većeg, mora prihvatiti kaznu, do iluzije da izbori i sudovi predstavljaju dovoljan kanal za političke promene. Njegov glavni argumentacijski manevar je stalno poređenje “nasilja odozdo” (razbijanje prozora, demonstracije, blokade) i “nasilja odozgo” (ratovi, državne odluke koje odnose hiljade života). Kada se uporedi razbijen prozor u Pentagonu sa hiljadama mrtvih koje proizvodi sama ta institucija, jasno je da termin “nasilje” ima sasvim različitu težinu u zavisnosti od toga ko ga i s kojim ciljem, i s kojim posledicama, upotrebljava.
Zinova knjiga je i precizna dijagnoza krize (američke) reprezentativne demokratije: glasanje, kaže on, proizvodi tek privid učešća, dok ključne odluke – rat i mir, raspodela bogatstva, međunarodni ugovori – ostaju izvan domašaja birača. Sem toga, način informisanja birača - mediji - u rukama je najbogatijih. “Glasač je u spoljnoj politici bespomoćan kao neko ko sa planine gleda kroz dvogled dok se na drugoj planini dešava ubistvo”, piše on. Zato protest i neposlušnost nisu hir i terorizam, već osnovni oblik političkog delovanja onih koji žele više demokratije.
Za Srbiju danas, gde se monopol vlasti održava mekom kolonijalnom upravom, kontrolom medija i zloupotrebom izbornog procesa, ova knjiga je dragocen priručnik: pokazuje da građanska neposlušnost nije “rušenje države”, već poslednja odbrana društva od sistemskog nasilja vlasti. Šteta je što nikada nije prevedena, jer bi mogla biti jedno od ključnih oruđa za teorijsko legitimisanje otpora.
Ipak, postoji i jedna kritička tačka: Zin građansku neposlušnost zamišlja iz progresivne, levo-liberalne perspektive, polazeći od ideje univerzalnih ljudskih potreba. Naravno, sasvim u skladu sa kontekstom 1960-ih. Ali danas znamo, posle alternativne desnice, da ako se logika proširi na “moralne vrednosti” kao centar političkog sukoba, što i Zin neretko radi, onda i desnica može pozvati na neposlušnost – na primer u ime zabrane abortusa ili protiv prava manjina. U eri “kulturnih ratova” to znači da građanska neposlušnost postaje dvosmerna ulica, oružje koje ne garantuje emancipaciju, već može da legitimiše i autoritarne, konzervativne projekte. Upravo zato knjigu treba čitati i sa kritičkom rezervom - svaki put postavite desničara kao sledbenika Zinovih argumenata, i završićete u raspravi o kvalitetu moralnih vrednosti za politički razvoj društva. To, naravno, nije materijalistička debata o strukturi nasilja u kapitalizmu, već debata o demokratiji - ali i kao takva je danas suštinski relevantna.
Knjiga je kratka, polemička, jasno pisana, intelektualno oštra i ideološki transparentna. Za mene – jedno od najboljih štiva o neposlušnosti i demokratiji, relevantno i tada i danas.
Ova tanka knjiga (jedva 120 strana) deluje kao da je pisana za Srbiju danas: u trenutku kada vlast pokušava da silom uguši proteste, a građansku neposlušnost diskredituje kao neprihvatljvo “nasilje” i “anarhiju”, koji uništavaju državu i terorišu ljude što samo žele "normalno" da žive, Zin briljantno pokazuje koliko su te optužbe u suštini ideološke magle. On raščlanjuje devet “zabluda” o zakonu i poretku, od verovanja da je “vladavina zakona” sama po sebi vrednost, preko dogme da onaj ko prekrši (manji) zakon, protestujući protiv nekog lošeg, a većeg, mora prihvatiti kaznu, do iluzije da izbori i sudovi predstavljaju dovoljan kanal za političke promene. Njegov glavni argumentacijski manevar je stalno poređenje “nasilja odozdo” (razbijanje prozora, demonstracije, blokade) i “nasilja odozgo” (ratovi, državne odluke koje odnose hiljade života). Kada se uporedi razbijen prozor u Pentagonu sa hiljadama mrtvih koje proizvodi sama ta institucija, jasno je da termin “nasilje” ima sasvim različitu težinu u zavisnosti od toga ko ga i s kojim ciljem, i s kojim posledicama, upotrebljava.
Zinova knjiga je i precizna dijagnoza krize (američke) reprezentativne demokratije: glasanje, kaže on, proizvodi tek privid učešća, dok ključne odluke – rat i mir, raspodela bogatstva, međunarodni ugovori – ostaju izvan domašaja birača. Sem toga, način informisanja birača - mediji - u rukama je najbogatijih. “Glasač je u spoljnoj politici bespomoćan kao neko ko sa planine gleda kroz dvogled dok se na drugoj planini dešava ubistvo”, piše on. Zato protest i neposlušnost nisu hir i terorizam, već osnovni oblik političkog delovanja onih koji žele više demokratije.
Za Srbiju danas, gde se monopol vlasti održava mekom kolonijalnom upravom, kontrolom medija i zloupotrebom izbornog procesa, ova knjiga je dragocen priručnik: pokazuje da građanska neposlušnost nije “rušenje države”, već poslednja odbrana društva od sistemskog nasilja vlasti. Šteta je što nikada nije prevedena, jer bi mogla biti jedno od ključnih oruđa za teorijsko legitimisanje otpora.
Ipak, postoji i jedna kritička tačka: Zin građansku neposlušnost zamišlja iz progresivne, levo-liberalne perspektive, polazeći od ideje univerzalnih ljudskih potreba. Naravno, sasvim u skladu sa kontekstom 1960-ih. Ali danas znamo, posle alternativne desnice, da ako se logika proširi na “moralne vrednosti” kao centar političkog sukoba, što i Zin neretko radi, onda i desnica može pozvati na neposlušnost – na primer u ime zabrane abortusa ili protiv prava manjina. U eri “kulturnih ratova” to znači da građanska neposlušnost postaje dvosmerna ulica, oružje koje ne garantuje emancipaciju, već može da legitimiše i autoritarne, konzervativne projekte. Upravo zato knjigu treba čitati i sa kritičkom rezervom - svaki put postavite desničara kao sledbenika Zinovih argumenata, i završićete u raspravi o kvalitetu moralnih vrednosti za politički razvoj društva. To, naravno, nije materijalistička debata o strukturi nasilja u kapitalizmu, već debata o demokratiji - ali i kao takva je danas suštinski relevantna.
Knjiga je kratka, polemička, jasno pisana, intelektualno oštra i ideološki transparentna. Za mene – jedno od najboljih štiva o neposlušnosti i demokratiji, relevantno i tada i danas.
February 16, 2020
This is an excellent book, but it was a bit of a slow starter for me. It was published in 1973 in direct response to another book, 'Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience' by Abe Fortas. I have no knowledge of this book and after reading Zinn's response I have no desire to, but my ignorance about its details meant I was pretty lost on what got Zinn so riled up. I mean, I can figure out the broad strokes from context, but I went in thinking it was going to be a general treatise on law and order and not a specific riposte.
The book also deals with at least three separate issues, which were all very much boiling at the time of writing: civil rights, anti-Vietnam protests, and poverty in general. It's pretty damn depressing that you could swap those out for Black Lives Matter, War on Terror, and Occupy Wall Street without changing much else about the book. (I bet Zinn would have really liked Extinction Rebellion.) The reason he weaves them all in is because activists for all three causes employed various levels of civil disobedience that Fortas was trying to suggest was a Big No, because The Law. What it comes down to is that breaking bad laws is not actually a crime. I guess we all tend to forget that legislature, like 'the economy', is something we as a bunch of humans made entirely up.
Some quotes for my memory bank:
"In speech, absolute toleration is a social good. In action, the existence of values other than free speech demands we choose right over wrong, and respond accordingly. Free speech gives the citizenry the informational base from which they can then make social choices in action. To limit free speech is to limit our capacity to make such choices."
"Are not nations, operating in this tumultuous world, comparable to gangs inside the nation - seeking to enforce law and order in their own limited sphere, without considering law and order in their relations with others? When nations ignore international agreements at will, are they not contributing to gang warfare in the world?"
"What he does say is that such selective conscientious objection 'would destroy the state's ability to defend itself or perform the obligations it has assumed, or to prevent the spread of attempts to conquer other nations of the world by outside-inspired and aided subversion'. But what if those very issues are in question? What if the individual denies that any of those consequences would follow? Something seems to have happened to the old claim that what distinguishes the democracy from the totalitarian state is its belief in the rights of the individual over the rights of the state."
"The instruments are dispensable. The ends are not."
The book also deals with at least three separate issues, which were all very much boiling at the time of writing: civil rights, anti-Vietnam protests, and poverty in general. It's pretty damn depressing that you could swap those out for Black Lives Matter, War on Terror, and Occupy Wall Street without changing much else about the book. (I bet Zinn would have really liked Extinction Rebellion.) The reason he weaves them all in is because activists for all three causes employed various levels of civil disobedience that Fortas was trying to suggest was a Big No, because The Law. What it comes down to is that breaking bad laws is not actually a crime. I guess we all tend to forget that legislature, like 'the economy', is something we as a bunch of humans made entirely up.
Some quotes for my memory bank:
"In speech, absolute toleration is a social good. In action, the existence of values other than free speech demands we choose right over wrong, and respond accordingly. Free speech gives the citizenry the informational base from which they can then make social choices in action. To limit free speech is to limit our capacity to make such choices."
"Are not nations, operating in this tumultuous world, comparable to gangs inside the nation - seeking to enforce law and order in their own limited sphere, without considering law and order in their relations with others? When nations ignore international agreements at will, are they not contributing to gang warfare in the world?"
"What he does say is that such selective conscientious objection 'would destroy the state's ability to defend itself or perform the obligations it has assumed, or to prevent the spread of attempts to conquer other nations of the world by outside-inspired and aided subversion'. But what if those very issues are in question? What if the individual denies that any of those consequences would follow? Something seems to have happened to the old claim that what distinguishes the democracy from the totalitarian state is its belief in the rights of the individual over the rights of the state."
"The instruments are dispensable. The ends are not."
April 23, 2018
A brief and thorough study on morality and the law. It's a quick read, but I go back to it time and again. "Democracy must improve itself constantly or decay." and "The problem is how one perceives the "peace" that society enjoys when civil disobedience is absent. We live in an era when the national state monopolizes power and information. It therefore tries to persuade us that Domestic Tranquility is all-important. It insists that we do not rebel against its authority, that we keep the "peace" despite the fact that it, the state is disturbing the peace on two other levels of our lives," (violence to the body and spirit--no health insurance, unemployment, police humiliation and killing and even young people forced to "fit into money-worshiping, success-idolizing culture. This is the result of a society which distributes wealth irrationally, condemns black people to a special status, destroys the sense of oneness with nature and with people that we all want. The other level is external--disorder abroad, inflicted outside the country against others." and it was written in 1968.
January 22, 2022
Zinn explique, à travers une analyse matérialiste, que l’histoire n’est en fait que l’insatiable mouvement des luttes sociales des classes laborieuse contre la domination , les hiérarchies , l’exploitation capitaliste et les états bourgeois. Dans un contexte américain et à travers une liste exhaustive d’événements historiques de lutte : grève générale , sit-in , boycott, manifestation , etc, Zinn explique l’importance des historiens et de la compréhension de l’histoire comme une relation dialectique entre les masses opprimés et les élites capitaliste bourgeoise. Sa notion d’impossibilité d’une histoire neutre par l’idéologie intrinsèque de l’historien, donc de l’être humain analysant l’histoire à travers sa propre perspective personnelle et sont système de valeurs est magistrale. Théorie reprise aussi par Gérard Bouchard. L’histoire comme outil d’analyse de la réalité matérielle et de la lutte des classe me semble être la prémisse de Zinn que je partage au plus haut point. Pas surprenant de voir à quel point cet homme même près sa mort est calomnié et cancellé par les conservateurs réactionnaire au États-Unis. Bon livre , je lirai d’autre œuvre de Zinn pour sur.
July 30, 2018
Have you ever wondered if or when it is appropriate to protest violently? Or to even protest impolitely? As in marching in the street or sitting-in? Well then this little book is for you!
In this wonderful little piece, Zinn goes through a booklet by SCJ Abe Fortas, "Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience". This was during the late 60s and Fortas was adamantly opposed to many forms of protest. Zinn goes through the nine of these--ranging from "That the rule of law has intrinsic value apart from moral ends." to "That we, the citizenry, should behave as if we are the state and our interests are the same."--and nullifies them. He uses modern examples like people protesting war drafts to how Americans actually protested against slavery to validate his claims, and even provides support through quotations froms people such as Ghandi and MLK Jr. that explain how there are times when being violent can be moral.
If you want to actually be part of a resistance, whether against the current government or a future one, then this is a book you need to read.
In this wonderful little piece, Zinn goes through a booklet by SCJ Abe Fortas, "Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience". This was during the late 60s and Fortas was adamantly opposed to many forms of protest. Zinn goes through the nine of these--ranging from "That the rule of law has intrinsic value apart from moral ends." to "That we, the citizenry, should behave as if we are the state and our interests are the same."--and nullifies them. He uses modern examples like people protesting war drafts to how Americans actually protested against slavery to validate his claims, and even provides support through quotations froms people such as Ghandi and MLK Jr. that explain how there are times when being violent can be moral.
If you want to actually be part of a resistance, whether against the current government or a future one, then this is a book you need to read.
December 23, 2018
I have to agree with Zinn's conclusion:
"It is very hard, in the comfortable environment of middle-class America, to discard the notion that everything will be better if we don’t have the disturbance of civil disobedience, if we confine ourselves to voting, writing letters to our Congressmen, speaking our minds politely. But those outside are not so comfortable. Most people in the world are hungry, have no decent place to sleep, no doctor when they are sick; and some are fleeing from attacking airplanes. Somehow, we must transcend our own tight, air-conditioned chambers and begin to feel their plight, their needs. It may become evident that, despite our wealth, we can have no real peace until they do."
Within "They" in the final sentence, we can include ourselves because of the current (2016-2018) movement toward totalitarianistic government buy the wealthy oligarchs of America.
"It is very hard, in the comfortable environment of middle-class America, to discard the notion that everything will be better if we don’t have the disturbance of civil disobedience, if we confine ourselves to voting, writing letters to our Congressmen, speaking our minds politely. But those outside are not so comfortable. Most people in the world are hungry, have no decent place to sleep, no doctor when they are sick; and some are fleeing from attacking airplanes. Somehow, we must transcend our own tight, air-conditioned chambers and begin to feel their plight, their needs. It may become evident that, despite our wealth, we can have no real peace until they do."
Within "They" in the final sentence, we can include ourselves because of the current (2016-2018) movement toward totalitarianistic government buy the wealthy oligarchs of America.
May 10, 2020
“the realities of american politics, it turns out, are different than as described in old civic textbooks, which tell us how fortunate we are to have the ballot. the major nominees for president are not chosen by the ballot but are picked for us by a quadrennial political convention which is half farce, half circus, most of whose delegates have not been instructed by popular vote. for months before the conventions the public has been conditioned by the mass media in who is who, so that it will not be tempted to think beyond that list which the party regulars have approved.”
written in response to justice abe fortas’ pamphlet “concerning dissent and civil disobedience.” zinn writes of the necessity of civil disobedience in the context of the civil rights movement and the vietnam war. much of this is still relevant today. this book is informative and well constructed.
written in response to justice abe fortas’ pamphlet “concerning dissent and civil disobedience.” zinn writes of the necessity of civil disobedience in the context of the civil rights movement and the vietnam war. much of this is still relevant today. this book is informative and well constructed.
September 23, 2024
4.5⭐️
A very helpful book to make you realize the many ways the current system jeopardizes qnd paralyses social movements and what is most important morally necessary change. Considerig a big fraction of examples are taken ou5 of the civil rights movement and the Vietam War you can tell the book was written many years ago and yet its matured in a fascinating way, still speaking volumes in our current climate. Can't really say I have objections, I didn't agree with the author every single time but it's undeniable he's pretty spot on. MORE PLEASE
A very helpful book to make you realize the many ways the current system jeopardizes qnd paralyses social movements and what is most important morally necessary change. Considerig a big fraction of examples are taken ou5 of the civil rights movement and the Vietam War you can tell the book was written many years ago and yet its matured in a fascinating way, still speaking volumes in our current climate. Can't really say I have objections, I didn't agree with the author every single time but it's undeniable he's pretty spot on. MORE PLEASE
May 19, 2025
“To exalt the rule of law as an absolute is the mark of totalitarianism, and it is possible to have an atmosphere of totalitarianism in a society which has many of the attributes of democracy.” Howard Zinn 1968, 120
“The degree of disorder in civil disobedience should not be weighed against a false ‘peace’ presumed to exist in the status quo, but against the real disorder and violence that are part of daily life, overtly expressed internationally in wars, but hidden locally under that facade of ‘order’ which obscures the injustice of contemporary society.” Howard Zinn 1968, 121-122
“The degree of disorder in civil disobedience should not be weighed against a false ‘peace’ presumed to exist in the status quo, but against the real disorder and violence that are part of daily life, overtly expressed internationally in wars, but hidden locally under that facade of ‘order’ which obscures the injustice of contemporary society.” Howard Zinn 1968, 121-122
January 11, 2019
A sharp exposition on how to judge the ethics and of a law when it entails the attempt to override a right—whether intrinsic or depending on the immediate conditions. All in all, Zinn is a progressive firebrand that not only delivers a scathing critique on the separation of powers, primarily the judiciary, its fallacies, its prerogatives, but also on how to argue against a lawful violation of citizens’ rights.
July 1, 2020
A good foundational text for people beginning to unlearn the notion that our systems of governance are just and perfectly balanced. Still worth reading in 2020, if only to provide some continuity for our current struggle. Things have always been like this, and a lot of the same people have been pushing the same lies to maintain the status quo for a long time.
December 9, 2020
This was a direct response to an essay by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas on dissent & civil disobedience, and so it doesn't read quite as well on its own as one might hope. But it still is useful for some context on what the New Left was thinking when it came to civil disobedience in the Vietnam antiwar era.
July 23, 2019
Written in 1968, this is a 124 page rant aimed at (then) Supreme Court Justice Fortas’ booklet “Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience.”
Nothing groundbreaking, just Zinn doing what he does best: providing a counter note to the oppressive drone of establishment politics and powers that be.
Nothing groundbreaking, just Zinn doing what he does best: providing a counter note to the oppressive drone of establishment politics and powers that be.
October 17, 2019
Many, if not most, of the topics Howard Zinn discussed in his response to Abe Fortas's essay, Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience, still plague America today. This was written nearly 50 years ago and America is no closer to ending racism, poverty and war today than it was in the 60's.
August 11, 2019
Un muy buen análisis de los méritos y necesidad de la "desobediencia civil".
September 25, 2025
Es uno de mis ensayos políticos de referencia.
March 7, 2021
Sembla que no hagin passat els anys. Continua sent molt necessari i molt actual!
July 1, 2016
This book is very, very American, which is not a problem but I picked this one up out of curiosity in a charity shop in England.
Civil Disobedience intrigues me intensely, having read Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward Abbey and Walden Pond by Thoreau I feel quite connected to the anti-establishment sentiments of the Americans.
The first quarter of the book flew by, filled with great words and ideas. Then I found Zinn became too preoccupied with countering what this Mr Fortass had written about Civil Disobedience. Having not encountered the article, it reduced the impact of the argument. Some things that caught my eye whilst reading:
"When nations ignore international agreements at will, are they not contributing to gang warfare in the world?"
"Something seems to have happened to the old claim that what distinguishes the democracy from the totalitarian state is its belief in the rights of the individual over the rights of the state."
"What does all this mean - the country reaching fever pitched, and the old medicines not enough? It means that if we want to prevent a perspiring, writhing, life-and-death struggle involving massive violence, we had better develop devices for change, prods to the government, that go beyond what we are now willing to accept, yet trying to keep inevitable costs of turbulent change to a minimum. A new politics of protest, designed to put pressure on our national leaders more effectively, more threateningly, more forcefully than ever before is needed. We need techniques of civil disobedience which will not only ruffle the complacency of the powerful enough to bring needed changes - but begin to replace the old institutions, the old leaders."
I've written this review a week after the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. Something I support and I have found it quite serendipitous to have read a book upon Civil Disobedience when I had already come to the conclusion that for many of the older voters; their vote to leave the EU was an act of Civil Disobedience.
Civil Disobedience intrigues me intensely, having read Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward Abbey and Walden Pond by Thoreau I feel quite connected to the anti-establishment sentiments of the Americans.
The first quarter of the book flew by, filled with great words and ideas. Then I found Zinn became too preoccupied with countering what this Mr Fortass had written about Civil Disobedience. Having not encountered the article, it reduced the impact of the argument. Some things that caught my eye whilst reading:
"When nations ignore international agreements at will, are they not contributing to gang warfare in the world?"
"Something seems to have happened to the old claim that what distinguishes the democracy from the totalitarian state is its belief in the rights of the individual over the rights of the state."
"What does all this mean - the country reaching fever pitched, and the old medicines not enough? It means that if we want to prevent a perspiring, writhing, life-and-death struggle involving massive violence, we had better develop devices for change, prods to the government, that go beyond what we are now willing to accept, yet trying to keep inevitable costs of turbulent change to a minimum. A new politics of protest, designed to put pressure on our national leaders more effectively, more threateningly, more forcefully than ever before is needed. We need techniques of civil disobedience which will not only ruffle the complacency of the powerful enough to bring needed changes - but begin to replace the old institutions, the old leaders."
I've written this review a week after the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. Something I support and I have found it quite serendipitous to have read a book upon Civil Disobedience when I had already come to the conclusion that for many of the older voters; their vote to leave the EU was an act of Civil Disobedience.
December 24, 2020
Written as a critique of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas' Concerning Dissent & Civil Disobedience, this really serves as an excellent rebuttal to any critics of extra-legal civil disobedience, dismantling their arguments one by one. Zinn's language is precise, accessible, and utterly logical. One can sense the seething emotion behind his words even though he does well maintaining his argument dispassionate. I suffered a minor cringe within the first few pages upon seeing his "The time for action is now" reference, bracing myself for a dated 60's political diatribe. Most of his argument, however, is beautifully timeless. Only towards the end does Zinn lapse into somewhat generalized ideas of the ripeness of the 60s for political change, and the extreme turbulence of the period begging for revolution. He then betrays a now-quaint idealism, though it does little to damage his main argument. This is a must-read for anyone sympathetic to civil disobedience as political action. Zinn offers invaluable arguments in its defense.
@pointblaek
@pointblaek
October 24, 2012
A surprisingly robust, almost seething though dispassionate/cogent, tear down of quote/unquote liberal opinions regarding actual political change i.e. civil disobedience re: race, Vietnam, etc in the 1960s.
His defense of "violence" as a resistance tactic was AWESOME 2 SEE. Why don't more people talk about this book? He is young and angry and a smartie here, whereas he sometimes came off too Clintonville liberal in his later work.
His defense of "violence" as a resistance tactic was AWESOME 2 SEE. Why don't more people talk about this book? He is young and angry and a smartie here, whereas he sometimes came off too Clintonville liberal in his later work.
September 7, 2008
Written in 1968 as a rebuttal of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas's book on civil disobedience, this slim volume still holds important points that every activist should know about defending the practice of civil disobedience--then, after successfully defending it, we can move beyond it...
December 15, 2016
A gross capsule summary: what is legal is not always moral, and what is moral is not always legal. True democracy can exist only when citizens exercise their power to disobey and disrupt an unjust state, often by breaking the laws of the state.
Thought-provoking.
Thought-provoking.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews