Old Post 2
Those who accuse it of being a total failure often counterpoise alternative tactics as opposed to endless A to B marches they claim that if only the STWC had adopted there position everything would have been great the war would have been stopped, Tony Blair would have turned into a dove and flown round the globe leaving noting but peace and joy in his wake and all the oceans of the world would have turned to lemonade. Well I don’t think so, the two most common alternatives are that the STWC should have focused on direct action mainly at military bases (Menwith [SP] hill etc) and the other (mainly from workers power) is that it should have focused on trying to organise strike action.
Personally I agree with workers power that the only why we could have truly stopped the war would have been by significant strike action. Unfortunately I think we have to be realistic and accept that we are not in a situation where that was viable. There where a few walk outs on the day war broke out Cockney rebel tells us that a WP member got a ballet strike against the war and most significant where the rail workers in Scotland who refused to transport arms. Good though all these things where truth is that on a national scale they where insignificant even if ten times more people where involved it would still have had very little impact. We are in a period of very low industrial struggle (although that does seem to be changing recently) when people aren’t striking over the normal things strike are for (pay and conditions, job losses ect) what are the chances of them striking against war? Especially as it is hard to see how shutting down B&Q for a day would have much impact on the government, it wouldn’t of course unless lots of other places shut down at the same time. The anti-war movement was no where near deep enough or rooted enough to achieve a significant amount of strike action it would take a great deal of work over large amount of time by a large number of activists to achieve that time and activists where what the STWC lacked.*
Now for the direct action issue, I’m going to be honest I fail to see any significant difference between this and a demonstration. Both of them essentially boil down to an attempt to vocalise disagreement over the war and to achieve a degree of notice and publicity. Neither has any real impact on the government or the war effort beyond public relations. Those who argue that it would be possible to shut down military basis and thus impede the war effort are I think deluding themselves if they think they could achieve any significant impact. It is also argued that direct action is more empowering than demonstrations; it is sometimes even argued that demonstrations are disempowering. I think the mistake those who argue this make is that this is how they fell about these things and they generalise to assume the effect would be they same for everyone. I can tell you that for me personally the reverse is true. I feel far more confident and powerful on a demonstration than when taking part in direct action, admittedly my experience of DA is less than those who argue it empowers them but if the water is to cold when you dip you toe in why fully immerse yourself? Don’t get me wrong I do think DA plays a role but it is a complementary one not an alternative one and for those of you who want to focus purely on DA good luck I hope you are successfully but I won’t join you on most of your actions, sorry.
Another argument and the one I have the most sympathy with is that instead of focusing on getting tens of thousands of people to go to London the STWC should have held demonstration outside military basis to blockade them, I would not argue against this as long it was not proposed as an alternative to London demonstrations it would only have made sense during the war however. I think there would be dangers with this though for one thing turnout would be much smaller both because it is easer to get people to demonstrate in London than a muddy field and as any demonstration will draw in locals from the town or city where it is held people who either can’t or wont travel you lose these people if you move the demo to a military base. There is also the chance of putting people of who don’t like the idea of something so directly confrontational either because politically they think nice peaceful strolls through London are the way to go or because while they may support the action they personally lack the confidence to take part, a few years ago I would have fallen into this group. This is why while a demonstration at a military base would have had its place a London demonstration would still have been important. One advantage of the military base demo would be that if it split into those who blockade the road and those who stand to one side and demonstrate it would have allowed people to choose of how far they are prepared to go something lacking in London demonstrations.
Now what are the successes and problems of the STWC? The problem is easy too little time and too few activists. On time it was inevitable that once the war began the movement would subside the same was true after the inevitable US/UK ‘victory’ while the run up to the war did produce an incredible amount of anger against it; it was as other people have pointed out rather shallow had the build up taken longer and had there been more activists then there might have been a chance of developing something deeper and more rooted. Now that the situation has settled into an occupation there is a chance that the anger will surface again overtime and as the occupation will be more protracted than the war there will be a greater chance of the STWC growing real roots, (EDIT: OK this never happened) it’s worth noting that in my local STW group people who disappeared not long after the war started where involved in organisation transportation for the demo last week. The main problem faced by the STWC though fails out of the issue of the shallowness of the movement and that is too few activists, yea I know this is about tenth millionth time I’ve mentioned this but find it hard to get away from. It’s fair to assume that the Feb 15 demo was built by less than 10,000 people plus the daily mirror (although its impact may be overstated slightly, I did not receive many more phone calls after they printed my number than before) last Saturdays probably had less than 4,000 people building it. I feel this is a very small number of activists relative to a large number of demonstrators and I think this makes it hard for the STWC to properly relate to the anti-war felling. This is where I see the argument about the pacifying effect of demonstrations as coming from I just think that people who are prepared to be activists against the war will go further in there attempts to stop it, simply but DA wont turn all those people who go on demonstrations into activist because they just wont turn up.
So what are the success of the ant-war movement, this to be honest is the most difficult part of this post as it is easy to say that we did not stop the war and therefore we failed. However I never thought we could stop the war so I will not measure success or failure by that yardstick, you may be able to argue that we changed the way Blair conducted the war but they is no real way to prove that one way or the other. Anyway here’s my attempt. First the smallest demonstration against the Iraq war was probably ten times larger than the biggest demonstration against the Balkans war, there is probably a core of about 50,000 who regularly turn out on demonstrations, this is a huge step forward for what I would loosely define as progressive politics. Secondly despite my comment that the anti-war movement was shallow I do feel that there is a deeper understanding of the root cause of the war (US imperialism) many people see it as about trying to stop the expansion of US power as well as just saving people from being bombed. I also think the strength of the movement has resulted in considerable pressure on Blair and the labour government, the current fuss about Goldsmiths legal advice for example do people thing this would me the news story it is without the ant-war movement and the STWC do you think Howard and Kennedy would have made as much out of it? The success of the STWC so far is that it existed that it still exists and will continue to exist, that it involved many thousands of people in activity against the war and may well do so again, that it applied enough pressure to the government that the bent a long way even if it did not break, not yet anyway. But as we move into an Orwellian period of perpetually war how can we truly judge if the STWC has failed or not, the final analysis will have to be done many years in the future.
There is more I could say but I have things to do and it has taken me ages to write this, what’s more I’m going to see my parents for Easter so won’t even be able to respond to ant reply’s for a few days, oh well.
*I fell I should explain what I mean by an activist here I’m not talking about someone from outside the workplace or someone with decades of campaigning experience. Just someone who instead of just sitting there thinking god the war is shit they start think about what can they do about it, they start to argue with there workmates both to persuade those who are already against the war to do something about it (and therefore create more activists) and to try an persuade the rest why they should be against the war and finally to try and organise strike action. There where too few people who did this.
Which is probably the SWP's fault as well
