KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
Contacts, motivation, access to the supply train etc etc.
STWC - a lost opportunity
- Thread starter KeyboardJockey
- Start date
Contacts, motivation, access to the supply train etc etc.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Heh
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
KeyboardJockey said:
Ah, so you figured the way to decrease the influence of the pacifists in StWC was for all the non-pacifists to leave, thereby decreasing the influence of StWC in its entirety!
ffs you moron - I am happy to accept that working within the confines of an organisation like StWC may be an uphill struggle against an entrenched leadership at times - but if you actually believe in it then you fucking fight for it, you win your decisions, you give the powers at be the fucking opportunity to sodding undemocratically quiet you before you have a paddy and storm out.
There was never any attempt to develop a broad alternative policy to that of StWC's central line. Perhaps you should have fucking started there?
rogue_lettuce
Well-Known Member
I don't know if anyone's mentioned it because I didn't read the whole thread, but the march WAS banned, so that may provide an explanation for the low numbers - chinese whispers and lack of understanding when reading websites can soon turn "the march is banned but STWC plan on going ahead anyway and conducting a static demo which isn't banned" into "oh the whole thing's been called off" or "it's been banned, and I don't want to be arrested, so I won't go", etc.
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
As I understand it the march wasn't only banned but attacked by police
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...o-police-branded-blood-hungry-protesters.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...o-police-branded-blood-hungry-protesters.html
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
I remember odd calls to boycott the Independent because of an article, can't remember what the article was. It seemed strange 'cos the Independent has the best Middle East coverage of a mainstream paper. I think boycott of a newspaper would only work in very specific circumstances, and this wasn't one of them.
Interestingly, unlike in 2004, with the exception of the Torygraph all the papers had front pages that were attacking Bush during this visit.
Apparently in Belfast, some people got up on the City Hall and took down the Union Jack and raised hung the Iraq Flag from Belfast City Hall to co-incide with Bush's visit - nice.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
yes, there was a piece very briefly on the Respect site calling for a boycott because it was nasty about George (iirr). Within about an hour someone had pointed out the stupidity of this and the page was taken down - tho not before all the anarchs and other leftists had had a damned good laugh.
cockneyrebel
New Member
The march was extremely low on numbers (2000 or so) whatever the reasons and it does show there has been a massive decline in the STWC.
The biggest reason for this is, as someone said above, is that the STWC failed to do what is was set out to do and left people demoralised.
The trouble with the STWC was that it was so passive and revolved around A to B marches. Which are a good things in and of themselves but were never going to stop the war. The only thing that would have stopped the war wasn't more and more marches, it was more militant action and strike action.
That's one thing I couldn't understand about the SWP, why they wouldn't say that this was the case. A lot bigger fight should of been put up to stop Charles Kennedy being on the STWC platform and making it far easier for the Liberals to soak up the anti-war vote.
True to an extent but a leadership can also influence the movement. For instance the STWC (including the SWP) said that the STWC couldn't take up the slogan "troops out now" but I should think that there were a massive amount of people who did want the troops out immediately.
The biggest reason for this is, as someone said above, is that the STWC failed to do what is was set out to do and left people demoralised.
The trouble with the STWC was that it was so passive and revolved around A to B marches. Which are a good things in and of themselves but were never going to stop the war. The only thing that would have stopped the war wasn't more and more marches, it was more militant action and strike action.
That's one thing I couldn't understand about the SWP, why they wouldn't say that this was the case. A lot bigger fight should of been put up to stop Charles Kennedy being on the STWC platform and making it far easier for the Liberals to soak up the anti-war vote.
True to an extent but a leadership can also influence the movement. For instance the STWC (including the SWP) said that the STWC couldn't take up the slogan "troops out now" but I should think that there were a massive amount of people who did want the troops out immediately.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
You're right, they should have built up a broad mass movement by excluding the country's most prominent antiwar politician.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
And, for once, both loyalists and nationalists alike couldn't get their knickers in a twist over that!
cockneyrebel
New Member
I don't think that's what people were saying, they seemed to be commenting on his political cynicism. Something which you two probably have in common going by your posts.
Still, tis fun
cockneyrebel
New Member
The STW movement was already a broad and mass movement before Charles Kennedy got involved. And Charles Kennedy and the Lib Dems weren't/aren't anti-war.
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
Stop the War Coalition has always argued consistently for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I know, I was getting people to sign petitions on the mainstreet in my town calling for this from day one of the occupation up until last weekend.
As to Charles Kennedy, I think it was a mistake to allow him on the platform when he had made it clear that he supported the war with a UN resolution, but I think the LibDems would have mopped up the anti-war vote anyway.
As to the Bush demo, while it is true that there has been a decline at the street level in numbers in general, there were other factors at play, for example, most people know that Bush is on his way out. There is also the fact that while the wars are brutal, at the moment it is a stalemate between resistance and occupation forces.
In terms of the movement, I think if there is a major development in the occupied countries that breaks the stalemate this would act to revive things considerably.
For much of the public domestic issues around the credit crunch are coming to the fore, we need to think how the anti-war movement can tap into that mood and maybe begin to pose our arguments in a way that links rising fuel prices, corporate profits, tax bills, inequality and poverty with the drive to war.
We could for example, on picket lines of public sector workers highlight the epic struggle of Iraqi workers against the privatisation of Iraq’s oil as part of the resistance to war and occupation to begin to popularise the idea of Iraqis as workers fighting the same fight (albeit in a colonial situation) against privatisation and neoliberalism.
This begins to situate the Iraq war in an anti-capitalist context as being about profit and begins to fuse an understanding of war being armed corporate globalisation and imperialism as being neoliberalism with guns.
As to Charles Kennedy, I think it was a mistake to allow him on the platform when he had made it clear that he supported the war with a UN resolution, but I think the LibDems would have mopped up the anti-war vote anyway.
As to the Bush demo, while it is true that there has been a decline at the street level in numbers in general, there were other factors at play, for example, most people know that Bush is on his way out. There is also the fact that while the wars are brutal, at the moment it is a stalemate between resistance and occupation forces.
In terms of the movement, I think if there is a major development in the occupied countries that breaks the stalemate this would act to revive things considerably.
For much of the public domestic issues around the credit crunch are coming to the fore, we need to think how the anti-war movement can tap into that mood and maybe begin to pose our arguments in a way that links rising fuel prices, corporate profits, tax bills, inequality and poverty with the drive to war.
We could for example, on picket lines of public sector workers highlight the epic struggle of Iraqi workers against the privatisation of Iraq’s oil as part of the resistance to war and occupation to begin to popularise the idea of Iraqis as workers fighting the same fight (albeit in a colonial situation) against privatisation and neoliberalism.
This begins to situate the Iraq war in an anti-capitalist context as being about profit and begins to fuse an understanding of war being armed corporate globalisation and imperialism as being neoliberalism with guns.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
(I know my reply here is taking this quote slightly out of its original context, but I think it is still appropriate as an example of Donna's wider argument)
While I have a lot of sympathy with Donna's argument that simply blaming the leadership is an easy cop out, there is still an extent to which it is wrong.
Timing is, if not everything, still damned important. Once the war had begun. it was always going to be incredibly hard to stop it (as the anti-war liberals went off to 'back our boys') and so the key time was before the war had started. Up until that point, the STWC very probably did have the overwhelming support of those opposed to the war, and so setting up an alternative (such as the very very small No War But The Class War Groups) seemed to be unnecessary and counter-productive to most. However, when the STWC did fail - in the immediate aftermath of the feb15 demo, imo, there was no time to organise an alternative group that could really call anything. I'd actually agree with The Overdog (I think it was) that something like a permanent occupation of Trafalgar Square, or daily marches on military establishments would have kept pressure up far better than the 'go back to your constituencies and prepare for.......mmm, whatever we think of next' tactic the STWC did employ.
Such a tactic would obviously have involved far fewer people, but would have had far more impact in the long run.
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
I wasn't shouted down from the audience which I would have expected but from the trots on the podium.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
except when they argued for troops out by christmas, and when they simply dropped the slogan, replacing it with 'Troops Out' (after an unspecified period of time). Of course the vast majority of activists agreed with Troops Out Now but that wasn't the official slogan for a lot of the time.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
oh well, there you go then! Everyone supported you really
Even the fucking sparts didn't get shouted down at meetings I went to, that doesn't mean everyone thought they were making jolly sensible, perfectly reasonable points. Everyone thought they were mad as a hatter, but were just too polite to say so.And that you got to make your point shows the evil leadership didn't stop you from making your argument. it's just that your argument was crap.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Let me see. Do I think kicking Kennedy off the platform would have:
(a) increased the size of the movement?
(b) decreased the size of the movement?
cockneyrebel
New Member
Sorry Udo but you're totally wrong on this. You might have done this at a local level but the STWC steering committee (including the SWPers on the SC) voted down the slogan "troops out now" on at least two occassions because they said it would alienate the trade union bureaucracy. That's why the STWC, nationally, had slogans like "troops out by xmas".
Possibly but it made it a lot easier for them.
Also it's not just the Bush demo, all the STWC demos have got smaller and smaller. But you're right about it being possible to revive things and I think it will happen, especially if there is a recession (but got to be honest and don't think a big recession will happen for a few years yet).
cockneyrebel
New Member
To be honest I don't think it would have made a great deal of difference. But what it did do was:
a) Pull the STW movement to the right by having a pro-war leader of the Lib Dems on the platform.
b) Make it far easier for the Lib Dems to mop up the anti-war vote.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
This is what happens when you have leaders. A strong protest movement must be able to act spontaneously and independantly instead of waiting around for a 'steering commitee' or some such bollocks to tell them when the next A to B march will be taking place. STWC drained so much energy and anger out of people by acting as though endlessly marching about would actually make a difference. Without them I think we would have seen large-scale civil disobedience that would have made it very difficult for the government to go ahead with the war.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I think that after the Parliamentary vote, most people felt that the war was inevitable and there wasn't the stomach to try more radical action. I seem to remember arguing at the time, in my local STW group, that all was not lost and that something more could be tried, but there wasn't the support for it. Friendly discussion, but that just wasn't the mood.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I love this sort of argument. If only it wasn't for the organisers, all these things would happen spontaneously. So why didn't they, then?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Well, I think it would have pissed off an awful lot of people who would have seen it as an idiot political manouevre designed to restrict the scope of the antiwar movement.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I'd agree that most people thought that, but even if 10% of the Feb15 marchers had wanted to do more, thats still 100-200,000 people, more than enough for a pretty big and impressive action
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
This smear is bogus. I have never heard anyone from StWC argue anything other than for an immediate withdrawal of British troops. Of course, how you pose the arugment will vary according to the political context, but the anti-war movement has been 100% consistent.
The slogan troops out by christmas (coined by Military Families against the War) was adopted in the run-up to christamas and in that context meant an immediate withdrawal (unlike if it had been posed in January!). Given the traditional connotations of not spending christmas at home with your family etc it is clear to see that the idea was to pick a slogan that would elicit sympathy from the public.
Of course, in certain circumstances, say for example if there was a growing political pressure that the troops should be pulled out by January now, it might make sense for the anti-war movement to try and build momentum behind that demand from sections of the political establisment.
The key thing is that StWC argues that British troops are part of the problem not the solution - it has NEVER deviated from this. In the actual event of the British army being close to pulling out of Iraq we would have to be raising a whole series of additional questions - what are the nature of the neocolonial relationships they are putting in place? What is the nature of what they are leaving behind? Aid money for reconstruction to Iraq etc
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I don't know that they did. There might have been 10% who sympathised with dirction action (or rather more than that, I'd have thought) but not who actually wanted to do it.
cockneyrebel
New Member
I don't agree. I think that if you'd said that as Charles Kennedy was pro-war he wouldn't be on the platform most people would have agreed. I certainly don't think it would have had any impact on numbers. Also there is an argument about balancing numbers against the politics of the movement. Anyway looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.
Similar threads
- Poll
