STWC - a lost opportunity

[chilango]

Quizá. But I wonder whether any action carried out with far fewer numbers than were previously involved is likely to feel like the last thrashings of the defeated.

De todas maneras, es la hora de siesta y tengo que dormir. Hasta luego.

¡Suerte!

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Yeah people *loved* Saddam.

I think people are quite capable of distinguishing between a people and their govt.

Agree. However, it was much easier to point out the difference between the people and the govt when it came to Iraq and there was the very well documented problems that the sanctions regime had caused.

Thats why so many people turned out against the Iraq war.

With Iran we know a lot more about how shitty the govt is and its much easier to justify military action.

 

[winjer]

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

As I've asked before how was it banned? What was the penalty if it went ahead? (none)

It's ironic that in October the STWC claimed the police had 'banned' their march by saying they wouldn't close roads for them, and now they say it was 'banned' when police had already closed the road...

 

[winjer]

Well, the anarchs certainly had done, but they were never going to organise a piss up in a brewery.

Fairford 'weapons inspections'/coaches?

 

[Das Uberdog]

As I've asked before how was it banned? What was the penalty if it went ahead? (none)

Errr, they got beaten back with truncheons?

 

[winjer]

For demonstrating?

Was everyone else just allowed to walk up and down Whitehall as they pleased?

 

[Kaka Tim]

Why? If there were large numbers of people interested in that course of action why didn't other organisations spring up to promote it?

They did - fairford actions etc. And they got high levels of support in the circumstances. Several thousands went to fairford, that would have been something like 50,000 if the STWC had prmototed it.

And - for the third time - the STWC were in the postions of power and influence that enabled them to take leadership of the anti-war effort. The rag bag of anarchists and independants were not. The likes of Galloway and Lyndsey German could easily get on major media outlets. Your indie DA activist cant.

The STWC leadership failed the huge numbers of people who wanted to stop the war by concnentrating on an overcautious strategy that avoided any confrontation with the state in order not to frighten the liberal horses.

Their priority was numbers of names on petitions and bums on buses - not persuing what would be the most effective strategy to counter an govnernment hell bent on war and which was quite clearly prepared to ignore any number of peaceful protestors. And DA/confrontation could have been done as well as the 'safer' startegies - they would have reinforced each other. And DA and conforntation would not have people put off if it had been effective (think of the support for the non-payment of the poll tax).

What does rapidly loose support is doing something thats ineffective - hence the pitiful level of political activism in this country since the faliure of the anti-war movement.

 

[chilango]

Again, I repeat, the anti-roads movement(and the animal rights movement before it) succesfully had liberal protests and direct action hand in hand without alienating each other or writing each other off.

Why can't/couldn't STWC happily accomodate and support the whole range of tactics?

 

[Das Uberdog]

For demonstrating?

Was everyone else just allowed to walk up and down Whitehall as they pleased?

They closed off Whitehall for 'security' reasons. This might be legal - it might not 'legally' constitute a ban - but in effect, they spuriously used anti-Terror legislation to justify a perfectly legitimate protest on the grounds that StWC could, theoretically, be providing cover for some kind of terrorist attack against the President.

They banned the march, which should have been allowed by every right.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Do fuck off theres a good chap.

An obsessed tramp is how many Haw is percived outside of the activist bubble. If you are going to have someone going out on limb like BH at least make sure that they are coherent.

Said the 'sexual deviant' to the 'obsessed tramp'.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Said the 'sexual deviant' the 'obsessed tramp'.

Sod off. I might be a deviant but I'm reasonably nicely turned out at least.

Some good points coming up here.

STWC failed for a variety of reasons; The leadership - both the groups and how the personalities were percieved by the general public; the fact that STWC was not offering any alternatives (I staffed a STWC stall in East London and this was the one question the party line couldn't offer), there was the increasing central control by the main groups which drove more autonomous people away, a general getting behind the troops feeling as well didn't help.

More later but dinner ready

 

[chilango]

Does anyone have any concrete suggestions for STWC if Iran is attacked (or indeed for Iraq. though tbh I think that one is long lost)?

 

[rogue_lettuce]

As I've asked before how was it banned? What was the penalty if it went ahead? (none)

Actually, I think you'll find the penalty would be arrest for anyone participating in it. Read the Public Order Act 1986 if you want to know more.

Some people.

 

[winjer]

Actually, I think you'll find the penalty would be arrest for anyone participating in it. Read the Public Order Act 1986 if you want to know more.

I have, have you?

 

[Das Uberdog]

So what's it called when we're not allowed to march down Whitehall?

 

[winjer]

In this instance: a closed road, it was also closed on Monday morning when Bush came back, was that also to stop Sunday's march?

 

[Bolshevik]

For a political analysis of the underlying reason for the STWC's failure see the International Bolshevik Tendency leaflet "Class Collaboration – at the Ballot Box and on the Streets" (www.bolshevik.org/Leaflets/Respect_and_StWC.html)

To discuss these and related questions come to the IBT public meeting - Respect and the SWP: A self-inflicted disaster

Sunday 6 July 2008 - 2pm
Room 2A,ULU, Malet Street, London WC1E

When the popular-frontist Respect Coalition was launched by George Galloway in 2004 what did the British left do?

• Helped to found it, defending its policies even when they didn’t agree?
• Criticised it, but called to vote for it anyway?
• Didn’t support Respect, but supported the equally cross-class Stop the War Coalition?

‘The question of questions at present is the Popular Front.The left centrists seek to present this question as a tactical or even as a technical maneuver, so as to be able to peddle their wares in the shadow of the Popular Front. In reality, the Popular Front is the main question of proletarian class strategy for this epoch. It also offers the best criterion for the difference between Bolshevism and Menshevism.’
(Leon Trotsky,‘The POUM and the Popular Front’, 1936)

No support to popular-frontism wherever it raises its head!

[email protected], www.bolshevik.org

 

[chilango]

No support to popular-frontism wherever it raises its head!

 

[geoff64]

No support to popular-frontism wherever it raises its head!

I don't approve of popular frontism, but i don't approve of hysterical sloganeering either ...

meeting looks interesting, tho - if i'm not doing any real politics i may pop in