What's the diference between anarchist "direct action" and "vigilantes taking justice into their own hands"?

Question

I know everyday people are prone to ask this one whenever the topic of direct action comes up. The idea of "justice" has been addressed well enough hear, but what of "vigilantism"? What distinctions can be made from this dismissal?

Answer 1

Vigilantes are often described as "taking the law into their own hands." Wikipedia defines a vigilante as someone who, "illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker." The law, being a state institution, is not the motivation for direct action. Anarchists realize that the law is often unjust, and that theoretically-sound regulations are often not enforced, anyway.

Direct action is usually taken against specific pieces of infrastructure or equipment to prevent its use for exploitation or destruction, rather than a person. Thus the reasoning behind it may have less to do with justice than for, say, saving the life of would-be test animals or sabotaging a factory whose working conditions are unbearable.

This distinction is not sufficiently satisfying for me, but maybe someone can use it as a starting point.

Answer 2

there is a huge difference and no difference, i think.
i would argue that vigilantes act within the system as the sort of black market of power, existing *with* the law as its shadow face. allowed/encouraged to do things that the law has to be seen as rejecting--much the way that the kkk has been used by politicians to keep areas under their control.
whereas direct action is not that. direct action exists away from the law (post law, if you will ;) ).

so the argument is one of context.