# March 18th - Stop the War demo



## mk12 (Jan 16, 2006)

Will you be going?


----------



## Groucho (Jan 16, 2006)

Why not a public poll? 

I will of course be going with my union banner and work colleagues.   

Waiting for the 'demo's achieve nothing..blah blah..I'm too hard to march from a-b' posts.


----------



## silentNate (Jan 16, 2006)

Demos achieve nothing, all that marching from a to b is a waste of time...

Lets hope the SP have their crib sheets 

Will be there with sandwiches and a flask


----------



## laptop (Jan 16, 2006)

Bugger sandwiches. I want my £35!


----------



## mk12 (Jan 16, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Why not a public poll?



Because I didn't know how to do it


----------



## silentNate (Jan 16, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> Bugger sandwiches. I want my £35!


----------



## Groucho (Jan 16, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Because I didn't know how to do it



It's just a tick box found when you scroll down a bit.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 16, 2006)

Oh well, can't do anything about it now.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 16, 2006)

Not another fucking demo!


----------



## knopf (Jan 16, 2006)

*looks at length of time between post number 8 & post number 9*

Says it all, really.


----------



## deeplight (Jan 16, 2006)

About time we had another one. Especially with all the shit brewing over Iran.


----------



## tollbar (Jan 16, 2006)

As I'm likely to be in England I might.  I wouldnt travel from Glasgow for it though.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 16, 2006)

I feel I should as i've never actually been on a demo   , I wanted to go to the huge one before we went to war but the night before was my first time doing pills whilst out and the come down was very nasty the next day.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 16, 2006)

9 people have said no - why won't they be going?


----------



## aurora green (Jan 16, 2006)

I don't know if I'll be going yet, but most especially after the million+ march, I find them utterly disempowering. Walk the same tired old route, no one listens, rarely even makes the news these days, it's hard to see the point really.


----------



## Onket (Jan 16, 2006)

I expect my girlfriend will be going so I may well too. We will see.

<edit> What aurora said.


----------



## Hanfstaengl (Jan 16, 2006)

I wish it was a Sunday.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 16, 2006)

deeplight said:
			
		

> About time we had another one. Especially with all the shit brewing over Iran.


  

I won't be going because I won't be in London, but if I was I'd defo go.  I love a good march, me.  Take along a can of brew and a dog on a string, maybe a bit of harmless name calling/pushing and shoving with the cops - also a great opportunity to do some leafleting for your own group/cause/project.  Then retire to the pub with any out-of-town mates who've come along, job done, great day out had by all


----------



## aurora green (Jan 16, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I won't be going because I won't be in London, but if I was I'd defo go.  I love a good march, me.  Take along a can of brew and a dog on a string, maybe a bit of harmless name calling/pushing and shoving with the cops - also a great opportunity to do some leafleting for your own group/cause/project.  Then retire to the pub with any out-of-town mates who've come along, job done, great day out had by all




Actually, that's much more like it. 
Don't know exactly when I became so jaded.  
I like your spirit Thora.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2006)

lets make Thora leader

shes the only one left who cares


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

aurora green said:
			
		

> I don't know if I'll be going yet, but most especially after the million+ march, I find them utterly disempowering. Walk the same tired old route, no one listens, rarely even makes the news these days, it's hard to see the point really.



Pretty much sums it up for me as well.

I live in Plymouth, on the other side of the country. I'd have to get up at about 5:30 AM, pack a bag, walk halfway across town, spend about five or six hours on a coach, wander about London for a bit, another five or six hours journey back, walk halfway back across town to my home and I'd get home for about 11:30PM if I was lucky.

And for what?

In terms of concrete results, what exactly does it achieve?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 16, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I won't be going because I won't be in London, but if I was I'd defo go.  I love a good march, me.  Take along a can of brew and a dog on a string, maybe a bit of harmless name calling/pushing and shoving with the cops - also a great opportunity to do some leafleting for your own group/cause/project.  Then retire to the pub with any out-of-town mates who've come along, job done, great day out had by all



Apart from the poor sods clearing up the litter and dog shit after the event.


----------



## shandy (Jan 16, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> 9 people have said no - why won't they be going?



6 Nations fixtures

March 18th

13:30 GMT  	Italy  	vs  Scotland, 	Stadio Flaminio
15:30 GMT 	Wales 	vs  France, 	Millennium Stadium
17:30 GMT 	England  vs  Ireland,	Twickenham


----------



## mk12 (Jan 16, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Pretty much sums it up for me as well.
> 
> I live in Plymouth, on the other side of the country. I'd have to get up at about 5:30 AM, pack a bag, walk halfway across town, spend about five or six hours on a coach, wander about London for a bit, another five or six hours journey back, walk halfway back across town to my home and I'd get home for about 11:30PM if I was lucky.
> 
> ...



I'd have to agree with the Pilgrim here. Especially as it's my birthday that weekend too


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 16, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Apart from the poor sods clearing up the litter and dog shit after the event.


Capitalism sucks innit.  Lets have a march!


----------



## big footed fred (Jan 16, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> 9 people have said no - why won't they be going?




I would love to see troops out of iraq (even more if they had never gone) but would be worried that the country is now unstable and until a real government comes to the fore we now have a responability to help those who live there.
By this I mean that we are the police who's job it is to keep the peace until we can be replaced by their own people.
We do need to get out as soon as is realistic but as we were part of the problem, lets try to be part of the solution before we do what is right and get out.
I feel if we left now the US would take over the south and the locals would suffer even more.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 16, 2006)

Do you think the Brits are better than the Americans in Iraq then?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jan 16, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> 9 people have said no - why won't they be going?



Been there, done that, got the war.


----------



## deeplight (Jan 16, 2006)

Come on you poor jaded people. Im with Thora on this one. 

Lets just do it and have some fun first. And see what comes after instead of prejudging everything before it even starts.

At the very least do it if its a reflection of who you love to be and because you still fukking can! If we dont exercise our freedom it becomes stagnent and easily stolen.

I love a good march personally theres a tangiable group energy and the feeling of being a rebel in the best sense.   Plus I can get away with having a good natured jibe at the law. I can think of a single reason why I wouldn't go.

As for concrete results well awareness in the masses is increased and if everything happened just after you did something positive there wouldn't be much to have faith in eh.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 16, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I won't be going because I won't be in London, but if I was I'd defo go.  I love a good march, me.  Take along a can of brew and a dog on a string, maybe a bit of harmless name calling/pushing and shoving with the cops - also a great opportunity to do some leafleting for your own group/cause/project.  Then retire to the pub with any out-of-town mates who've come along, job done, great day out had by all



I can't stand marches.

The name calling/pushing and shoving with the cops isn't exactly harmless if you convince yourself it's some sort of meaningful political activty and it totally alienates a lot of people.

Whilst going out drinking with your mates is fun, you hardly need to surround yourself with loads of Trots to have a good time.

I will not be going because I'd rather keep my weekends for having a laugh.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

deeplight said:
			
		

> Come on you poor jaded people. Im with Thora on this one.
> 
> Lets just do it and have some fun first. And see what comes after instead of prejudging everything before it even starts.
> 
> ...



It isn't so much (for me, anyway) a question of being jaded.

I, and I suspect many others here, have other campaigns to be involved with.

But, being as objective as I can be, I don't see what yet another march is actually going to achieve.

If the February 15th march, which I was on, didn't stop the war, then what will yet another and, no doubt, much, much smaller march do?

If I'm going to schlepp up to London, yet again, like I did last time and I forget how many times before that, it's going to be to attempt something that actually has a concrete effect, or will lead to something that has a concrete effect.

And I don't see yet another A to B march actually doing that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Take along a can of brew and a dog on a string,



 Has anyone here ever really gone on a march with a dog on a string and some special brew?


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Has anyone here ever really gone on a march with a dog on a string and some special brew?



we used to get tanked up on alcopops coz they were easier to drink at 6 in the morning on a coach!


----------



## aurora green (Jan 16, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Has anyone here ever really gone on a march with a dog on a string and some special brew?









Only almost everyone I know...


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 16, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> I can't stand marches.
> 
> The name calling/pushing and shoving with the cops isn't exactly harmless if you convince yourself it's some sort of meaningful political activty and it totally alienates a lot of people.
> 
> ...


I think the last march I went on I bumped into you   Actually I didn't go on the march so much as just turn up to get pissed at the end.

Deeplight - don't get me wrong, I don't think marching is good for freedom or democracy or to challenge capitalism or anything.  I'm just there for the special brew and promotional possibilites.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Has anyone here ever really gone on a march with a dog on a string and some special brew?


Yeah, me    Well, more likely K super cider and a dog on a bit of rope, but you get what I mean.


----------



## big footed fred (Jan 16, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Do you think the Brits are better than the Americans in Iraq then?



I hope so but still want them out asap


----------



## deeplight (Jan 16, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I think the last march I went on I bumped into you   Actually I didn't go on the march so much as just turn up to get pissed at the end.
> 
> Deeplight - don't get me wrong, I don't think marching is good for freedom or democracy or to challenge capitalism or anything.  I'm just there for the special brew and promotional possibilites.



If your there then its all good. The more smiling faces the better  .

My feelings on it all are quite clear. And yes I live in faith, hope and optimism and feel its a long road. I just get tired of peoples cynicsm. 

For what its worth I have other projects and interests, so far as activism goes but I enjoy the marches so Im there too.

I really believe that humanity will get there eventually but evolutions a long and arduous road for us sentient beings. In the mean time I'll do what I can and have as much fun doing it as I can. Why anyone would do otherwise is beyond me.


----------



## deeplight (Jan 16, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I think the last march I went on I bumped into you   Actually I didn't go on the march so much as just turn up to get pissed at the end.
> 
> Deeplight - don't get me wrong, I don't think marching is good for freedom or democracy or to challenge capitalism or anything.  I'm just there for the special brew and promotional possibilites.



If your there then its all good. The more smiling faces the better  .

My feelings on it all are quite clear. And yes I live in faith, hope and optimism and feel its a long road. I just get tired of peoples cynicsm. 

For what its worth I have other projects and interests, so far as activism goes but I enjoy the marches so Im there too.

I really believe that humanity will get there eventually but evolutions a long and arduous road for us sentient beings. In the mean time I'll do what I can and have as much fun doing it as I can. Why anyone would do otherwise is beyond me.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 16, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Capitalism sucks innit.  Lets have a march!



Go on then.


----------



## tollbar (Jan 16, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Pretty much sums it up for me as well.
> 
> I live in Plymouth, on the other side of the country. I'd have to get up at about 5:30 AM, pack a bag, walk halfway across town, spend about five or six hours on a coach, wander about London for a bit, another five or six hours journey back, walk halfway back across town to my home and I'd get home for about 11:30PM if I was lucky.
> 
> ...



Been there, done that when I lived outside Exeter in the 70s and early 80s.  The bloody South West coaches always turned up late along with the scottish ones. Did the marches and you never had time for a beer afterwards. Some of it achieved something, I dont doubt that some of the big anti aparthied marches helped the situation along in South Africa by boosting the morale of the opposition, but I wouldnt want to be starting out now with the feb 15th failure behind me. 

I prefer the Glasgow anti war marches. Usually Start in George square, march around the city centre, sit down outside the recruiting offices, back to George square and into Weatherspoons for a few pints. You may not achieve much but at least you dont end up knackered for days.


----------



## JonnyT (Jan 16, 2006)

Much as I mght not want to go, see it as pointless, and rant both before and after, chances are i'll end up turning up for one reason or another. pub being most likely. plus, watching trots fight each other is amusing in its way. *shrug*

- Jonathan


----------



## wiskey (Jan 16, 2006)

deeplight i dunno if i'm not old enough to have become jaded (but i have been going on marches for 25 years) but i'll be going, and i'll be smiling and i'll be near a smaba band cos they're fun, and i'll take any leaflets given to me by anybody promoting their own cause and i shall keep smiling and i shall read some of them recycle them all that evening. but i shant carry a placard.

why? partly cos its nice to be able to walk up the middle of whitehall without getting flattened by a bus, partly cos i rarely get the oppotunity to do something within a large group of people (the only other thing i can think of that comes close is a footy match).  

if nobody notices sod it, i noticed, i had a nice day out, with a bit of luck i didnt get into a scrape with a policeman and i didnt drink any alcohol and its all good 

wiskers


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 17, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Pretty much sums it up for me as well.
> 
> I live in Plymouth, on the other side of the country. I'd have to get up at about 5:30 AM, pack a bag, walk halfway across town, spend about five or six hours on a coach, wander about London for a bit, another five or six hours journey back, walk halfway back across town to my home and I'd get home for about 11:30PM if I was lucky.
> 
> ...



Good grief!! No wonder the left hasn't achieved anything with that sort of laxadaisical attitude. A little more effort son and a little less moaning might make all the diffrence.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 17, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Good grief!! No wonder the left hasn't achieved anything with that sort of laxadaisical attitude. A little more effort son and a little less moaning might make all the diffrence.



good to have you back chuck, your glove puppet lletsa's been leading us a merry dance (coiled like a rusty spanner), a bit of tell-it-like-it-is common sense  is what we need this time of year.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Good grief!! No wonder the left hasn't achieved anything with that sort of laxadaisical attitude. A little more effort son and a little less moaning might make all the diffrence.



I already do as much as I can, thanks.

And I severely doubt that yet another A to B march will make the slightest difference whatsoever.

Besides, I'm more busy with local work at the moment.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 17, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I won't be going because I won't be in London, but if I was I'd defo go.  I love a good march, me.  Take along a can of brew and a dog on a string, maybe a bit of harmless name calling/pushing and shoving with the cops - also a great opportunity to do some leafleting for your own group/cause/project.  Then retire to the pub with any out-of-town mates who've come along, job done, great day out had by all


Yeah last time i went on one was with you lot and it was boss.

Depends who you go with really.

STW demo's never really kick off (the more gauche ones like 'day x' and the school strikes did a bit) so you can take a brew.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

It's always a bit silly to slag off "A to B marches"unless you've (a) got a better idea (b) got a better idea that a substantial number of people are interested in.

It's too much the game of attacking people who organise _something_ while neither doing anything yourself nor proposing anything that anybody else can realistically accomplish.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> It's always a bit silly to slag off "A to B marches"unless you've (a) got a better idea (b) got a better idea that a substantial number of people are interested in.
> 
> It's too much the game of attacking people who organise _something_ while neither doing anything yourself nor proposing anything that anybody else can realistically accomplish.



That depends on whether or not you see direct action as being a better idea.

Personally, I do. February 15th was, to be fair, an historic event, but it didn't stop the war. Mass direct action, sabotage, strikes, civil unrest and so on might have.

DA hasn't got a mass following as of yet, but I prefer that to marching. That said, I wouldn't ignore marches altogether. I'm inclined to believe that both have their time and place.

And many of the people who criticise an endless diet of A to B marches ARE busy with other things, myself for one. Just because people criticise a particular tactic, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are merely sitting on their arses with nothing better to do than snipe at others.

And direct actions can be suggested, planned and performed by almost anyone. It's not rocket science. Its a case of being willing to take certain risks and accept certain consequences. You support a cause you believe in, you see what sort of action you are able to handle, you plan it, you consider the possible consequences (if any) and then you do it.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 17, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> February 15th was, to be fair, an historic event, but it didn't stop the war. Mass direct action, sabotage, strikes, civil unrest and so on might have.



Were people up for ^ at the time?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Were people up for ^ at the time?



Some people were, yes.

Various actions went on during the Iraq war and the period leading up to it.

And if the union leaders and the self-proclaimed 'leaders' of the anti-war movement (we all know who they are) had supported us, then I believe more people would have been up for various forms of direct action.

Granted, there weren't nearly as many people as we needed to actually call a halt to the war, but my faith in direct action as a tactic remains as strong as ever.


----------



## aurora green (Jan 17, 2006)

I totally agree that direct action was what was missing from the stop the war campaign, and that it could (perhaps) have made  the difference, but I'm as guilty as the next person for not getting involved on that level.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

aurora green said:
			
		

> I totally agree that direct action was what was missing from the stop the war campaign, and that it could (perhaps) have made  the difference, but I'm as guilty as the next person for not getting involved on that level.



It is as much the fault of the union bosses and the self-proclaimed 'leaders' of the anti-war movement for copping out and not openly supporting and advocating direct action as it is anybody's. If the union leaders had called for strikes, and the supposed 'leaders' of the anti-war movement had advocated blockades and sabotage then I believe many more people would have turned to direct action in various forms. They didn't, though. They copped out when their 'leadership' might have been needed most.

Referring to Donna's remark about people slagging off A to B marches in a previous post, would DF be equally inclined to criticise those involved in the A to B march protests who slagged off Anarchists and direct action crews for various reasons?


----------



## chilango (Jan 17, 2006)

Pilgrim. I didn´t expect you to be so reliant on "leaders". I know what you mean, but it´s  not sounding a million miles from the SWP´s old "TUC off your knees" slogans.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> Pilgrim. I didn´t expect you to be so reliant on "leaders". I know what you mean, but it´s  not sounding a million miles from the SWP´s old "TUC off your knees" slogans.



I don't consider them to be my leaders, but the fact remains that a lot of people look to that crowd for whatever reason.

Just because I don't acknowledge them as leading me personally, doesn't mean that others feel the same.

They had the chance to come out openly in favour of direct action and ran away from the opportunity.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 17, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Some people were, yes.



"Some people" is not a "mass" though is it?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> "Some people" is not a "mass" though is it?



I didn't say it was.

If it had been, then maybe the war would have been stopped.

But there weren't enough people up for it, that is a fact.

But if the union bosses had had the balls to call for strike action, and the self-appointed leaders of the anti-war movement had had the balls to openly back and encourage as much direct action as possible, in as many forms as possible, then I do believe that civil unrest at home might, just might, have taken us out of the war.

But we'll never really know the answer to that question one way or the other.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> That depends on whether or not you see direct action as being a better idea.


Well not really. Firstly, it depends how many people are up for direct action. Secondly, whether they are or are not, one shouldn't fall for the fallacy whereby something is equated with nothing.

Also, one shouldn't think that (for instance) STW were in a position to get epople to do more than they actually did. Occasionally I'd like to see some of the people who verbally call for more - not a bad thing in itself - to actually try and _get people to do it_. If they can't, it strikes me that there may be reasons for this.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> But if the union bosses had had the balls to call for strike action, and the self-appointed leaders of the anti-war movement had had the balls to openly back and encourage as much direct action as possible


This is the sort of thing that I take issue with these days. If they were "self-appointed", why not appoint yourself and people life yourselves instead? Why don't _you_ take a lead? Could it be that you just don't have that much of a following, that much of a constituency? Could it be that there just weren't very many people who wanted to go down that road?

After all, nobody was stopping you from doing anything or calling for anything. Nobody.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Well not really. Firstly, it depends how many people are up for direct action. Secondly, whether they are or are not, one shouldn't fall for the fallacy whereby something is equated with nothing.
> 
> Also, one shouldn't think that (for instance) STW were in a position to get epople to do more than they actually did. Occasionally I'd like to see some of the people who verbally call for more - not a bad thing in itself - to actually try and _get people to do it_. If they can't, it strikes me that there may be reasons for this.



If the union bosses had had the nerve to call for strikes and self-appointed anti-war leaders had called for direct action and supported those who took part, then I believe that many more people would have taken action of the kind I mentioned earlier.

And as far as getting people to do it goes, I've been involved in supporting direct actions for several years now.  And I've seen the gains that can be made from direct action first hand.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> If the union bosses had had the nerve to call for strikes and self-appointed anti-war leaders had called for direct action and supported those who took part, then I believe that many more people would have taken action of the kind I mentioned earlier.
> 
> And as far as getting people to do it goes, I've been involved in supporting direct actions for several years now.  And I've seen the gains that can be made from direct action first hand.


It's the "self-appointed" bit again. It doesn't make any sense. Nobody was forced to follow these people. If people were following them and not, say people like yourself, is it not possible that this is because they agreed with them and not with you?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 17, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I didn't say it was.





> Mass direct action, sabotage, strikes, civil unrest and so on might have [stopped the war].



There was not a catting hells chance of "mass direct action" to stop the war at the time, so get off the holier than thou soap box and enter the real world.


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 17, 2006)

the SP tried to get STWC to call for a general strike but the SWP just laughed. now many SWPers say  a general strike would have been the only way to stop the war from taking place. its funny how these things work......


----------



## audiotech (Jan 17, 2006)

socialistsuzy said:
			
		

> the SP tried to get STWC to call for a general strike but the SWP just laughed. now many SWPers say  a general strike would have been the only way to stop the war from taking place. its funny how these things work......



General strike? How many followed that bit of advice btw?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> This is the sort of thing that I take issue with these days. If they were "self-appointed", why not appoint yourself and people life yourselves instead? Why don't _you_ take a lead? Could it be that you just don't have that much of a following, that much of a constituency? Could it be that there just weren't very many people who wanted to go down that road?
> 
> After all, nobody was stopping you from doing anything or calling for anything. Nobody.



Certainly, the direct action side of protest doesn't have the kind of following it needs or deserves.

Yet.

And, as a member of the AF, and not being a hypocrite, I'm somewhat reluctant to simply junk my principles by setting myself up as a little tin god seemingly accountable to nobody, then insist that others follow my decisions and slag them off if they don't. I'm also not going to become the very kind of self-appointed and unaccountable 'leader' that I so often criticise.

And we will never know exactly how many people wanted to go down that road, because those union bosses and self-appointed 'leaders' didn't seem to encourage any sort of direct action, at least not on any grand scale.

And as far as the 'nobody stopping us' part goes, I beg to differ. I was on one of the Fairford protests, usually a rather smaller affair than the London ones. I was discussing this particular protest with a colleague of who is well-respected and who I would trust completely. She related to me a discussion about an email, sent from the offices of the Stop The War Coalition, informing people that the protest at Fairford had been cancelled and that all people planning to go should instead head for the demo in London on the same day.

I'd trust this particular person completely, and she doesn't have any axe to grind with the Coalition and has no reason to lie about it.

Hardly a display of solidarity.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

Give it a rest with the "self-appointed". It's just a way of covering up the fact that other people had far more support than you did.

Oh, the Fairford malarkey? Absolute bollocks. That claim was made on this website at the time and was contradicted by the fact that it was still advertised on the STW website. Even if it weren't, by the way, that still wouldn't constitute _stopping anybody_.

I have very little patience for this stuff. It simply involves blaming other people for the fact that your ideas have very little support.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Give it a rest with the "self-appointed". It's just a way of covering up the fact that other people had far more support than you did.
> 
> Oh, the Fairford malarkey? Absolute bollocks. That claim was made on this website at the time and was contradicted by the fact that it was still advertised on the STW website. Even if it weren't, by the way, that still wouldn't constitute _stopping anybody_.
> 
> I have very little patience for this stuff. It simply involves blaming other people for the fact that your ideas have very little support.



I never denied that direct action doesn't have as many followers as it needs and should have.

But I retain my faith in direct action as a tactic.

Properly planned and executed it can get the job done.

Another A to B march simply won't have any real impact.

If February 15th didn't work, and it didn't, then why persist with a failed method?

Why not attempt something that might work, as opposed to something that almost certainly won't?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

_Because there isn't the support for it_.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> _Because there isn't the support for it_.



Which rather begs the question, if you are content to simply repeat a failed tactic, over and over again, what is the actual point of protesting about anything?

People can troop up and down through London as many times as they like, and the powers that be will be content to allow us to do that, at the price of maybe being made to feel a little uncomfortable. They'll put up with pre-arranged marches, along pre-determined routes, with people shouting slogans from inside police pens and all that, because it simply doesn't pose any real threat to them. 

We can march a thousand times, and they can ignore us a thousand times.

And they probably will.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

But that's just rhetoric, because you have no means of bringing about anything more effective.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

As for the point - well, protest is better than silence.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> But that's just rhetoric, because you have no means of bringing about anything more effective.



Come to somewhere like Faslane, or Aldermaston or Devonport.

Visit an Earth First! gathering.

Look at the case of Francesca's Cafe in the Broadway Market. That situation is still ongoing, but what would have been achieved by standing across the road in a police pen and shouting a few slogans?

As a result of the occupation and so on, if memory serves, Wratten has now agreed to sell to the highest bidder.

You wouldn't have got that result with an A to B march alone.

But direct action, in the form of the occupation, appears to be having a much greater effect.


----------



## sovietpop (Jan 17, 2006)

I went to see Chomsky speak tonight in Dublin. An SWP member asked him would he endorse the March 18th march and he said demonstrations weren't a principal, they were a tactic, so you had to ask in each case, is this demonstration useful. He said they did influence the elites in society, though the elites pretended that they didn't however their main importance was that they could inspire activists to do more important work, which was to be constantly struggling. He said people shouldn't expect instant gratification, that any one demonstration will change anything, change comes from continuous work and the commitment of activists. (I quote) 

"Demonstrations are vaccous if they are understood as a call for one day and back to your life. Demonstrations are useful if they inspire the commitment of activists, and harmful if they are a substitute for that committment."


----------



## Random (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> _Because there isn't the support for it_.



Fatuous, 'common sense' conservatism.

Just because some people don't have the bottle to do direct action, Donna, don't pretend that there's not the potential to organise it en masse.  Thousands and thousands of people have participated in that kind of stuff, and if the resources of the STWC were swung behind offering people direct action opportunities, many more would do so.

As it is, the resources of the 'coalition' are monopolised by those who see the medis and parliament as the main focus of their efforts, and people in the STWC who advocate more direct methods are bullied and booted off.

I know it's cosy to sit back and let the SWP be your vicarious mass movement, and then you can pretend that everyone else is as passive as you are.

'Well if people wanted social change, it would have happened by now, wouldn't it?'


----------



## free spirit (Jan 18, 2006)

Problem with the 'Stop The War Coalition' for me was that when it really came down to it, when we really had the momentum behind us to actaully stop the war in it's tracks, had just come off the back of the biggest demonstration in UK  history etc. they showed their true colours and stopped being a 'Stop the war coalition' and became a 'WAIT UNTIL THE WAR STARTS BEFORE PROTESTING AGAIN COALITION'.

so fuck em, they are either completely fucking incompetent, utterly lacking in the balls or imagination to do something radical, or infiltrated and compromised like most of the big movements before them.

That march should have been the launch pad for a wave of co-ordinated national actions (anything from DA to mass attendence of MPS surgeries) instead it seemed like the STWC just shrugged, said well we did our best now lets just let the politicians get on with having their war so we can say we told you so when it all fucks up.

STWC took it upon itself to be the big umbrella organisation to stop the war, and to be fair were incredibly successful in mobilising people for that march, but completely failed to follow that up with any meaningful co-ordination of any type of actions to stop the war, thereby leaving a massive vacuum at a point when it was too late for any other grouping to mobilise effectively to actually do anything meaningful.

Just my opinion like, but I'm buggered if I'm going to travel the length of the country for a pointless march run by an organisation that I've completely lost faith in.


----------



## rich! (Jan 18, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Apart from the poor sods clearing up the litter and dog shit after the event.


After the big one in 2003, I went for "a couple of ales" and then wandered back into the park. Surprise! the organisers had no provision for litter. Me and a few other random fools engaged in a spot of Autonomous Litter Picking - a hobby I'd recommend to those who go to demos with gloves. (*Don't* do it without gloves)


----------



## rich! (Jan 18, 2006)

aurora green said:
			
		

> I don't know if I'll be going yet, but most especially after the million+ march, I find them utterly disempowering. Walk the same tired old route, no one listens, rarely even makes the news these days, it's hard to see the point really.



Well, it's a spot of exercise, an opportunity to get pissed with different people, and a chance to wander *very slowly* around central london.

Plus, it turns up on the policing budget, and hence the London budget, which makes it hard to ignore even if the media do.


----------



## rich! (Jan 18, 2006)

free spirit said:
			
		

> or infiltrated and compromised like most of the big movements before them


no surprises there then.

I assume you've read the counter-insurgency stuff, and you know the importance of putting up a plausible moderate but impotent front organisation to ensure that any activist organisations will have no base to operate from?


----------



## laptop (Jan 18, 2006)

sovietpop said:
			
		

> I went to see Chomsky speak tonight in Dublin. An SWP member asked him would he endorse the March 18th march and he said demonstrations weren't a principal, they were a tactic, so you had to ask in each case, is this demonstration useful. He said they did influence the elites in society, though the elites pretended that they didn't however their main importance was that they could inspire activists to do more important work, which was to be constantly struggling. He said people shouldn't expect instant gratification, that any one demonstration will change anything, change comes from continuous work and the commitment of activists. (I quote)
> 
> "Demonstrations are vaccous if they are understood as a call for one day and back to your life. Demonstrations are useful if they inspire the commitment of activists, and harmful if they are a substitute for that committment."



Trust Noam to manage to say "no" with semicolons in


----------



## free spirit (Jan 18, 2006)

> I assume you've read the counter-insurgency stuff, and you know the importance of putting up a plausible moderate but impotent front organisation to ensure that any activist organisations will have no base to operate from?



well i guess i've read some of that kind of stuff, and seen enough examples of them doing it in the past to realise that it's fairly likely to have happened again this time round given all the other bullshit that went on to get us to war at all costs


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 18, 2006)

I really wish I could, but I've already made plans to hit myself in the face with a hammer over and over and over that day.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I won't be going because I won't be in London, but if I was I'd defo go.  I love a good march, me.


that's as maybe, but if you 'love a good march' why go on a swc load of wank stroll?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> Fatuous, 'common sense' conservatism.
> 
> Just because some people don't have the bottle to do direct action, Donna, don't pretend that there's not the potential to organise it en masse.  Thousands and thousands of people have participated in that kind of stuff, and if the resources of the STWC were swung behind offering people direct action opportunities, many more would do so.
> 
> ...


Oh, bullshit.

If you think many thousands of people are ready to be signed up to DA, then why not call for it? Nothing STW does prevents you from doing that. You could create your own organisation, issue your own calls to action and all the rest of it. Nobody is preventing you and nobody is interfering with you.

You don't, because you can't. So what you do is _blame somebody else_ for not making those calls instead. But why should they? They don't think the same things you do.

It's indicative, to me, of how parasitical a lot of this stuff is. You have people who, they say, believe in organising themselves and doing their own thing. But in practice, they do very little of that. What they do is denounce other people who organise things, for not organising the things _they_ want. They denounce other people for not calling for the things _they_ want. You'd think they'd go off and organise these things themselves, wouldn't you? If they were honest? But they don't.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Oh, bullshit.
> 
> If you think many thousands of people are ready to be signed up to DA, then why not call for it? Nothing STW does prevents you from doing that. You could create your own organisation, issue your own calls to action and all the rest of it. Nobody is preventing you and nobody is interfering with you.
> 
> ...



More sweeping generalisations.

Have you ever heard of Earth First!, Trident Ploughshares, the three national Anarchist/Anarcho-Syndicalist federations, Greenpeace, the various smaller direct action crews and Anarchist groups at local level?

Do any of those names ring any bells?

We ARE creating our own organisations.

And we DO issue calls to action.

We also organise our own events, benefit gigs, direct actions, public meetings and so on.

Your ignorance of direct action and the people involved in it is awesome.

Go away, do some research, maybe meet and talk with some people who are involved in direct action groups and then come back with having at least tried to learn something.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

Your point-missing capacity is really quite something.

If you have these things (which are of varying size and influence) then you are not being stopped from doing anything. If you have these calls to action then you are not being prevented from making them.

So what's your gripe?

Your gripe is that people aren't listening and aren't joining in. Which isn't actually anybody's fault. But you pretend that it is.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Your point-missing capacity is really quite something.
> 
> If you have these things (which are of varying size and influence) then you are not being stopped from doing anything. If you have these calls to action then you are not being prevented from making them.
> 
> ...



My gripe is that the union bosses COULD have called for strikes against the war.

But they DIDN'T. They had the chance, and they pussied out.

Likewise, the self-appointed clique that ended up running the Stop The War Coalition COULD have issued a call to direct action.

Again, they had the chance, and they pussied out.

Why, because they were fucking spineless.

And there is something about direct action that you, with your monumental ignorance of the subject, have failed entirely to spot.

First, there is more to direct action than high risk or arrestable actions. There is always a need for plenty of support roles to be filled. Legal observers, stewards, drivers (to collect people when released), people to man the phones, police liaison (on some actions/campaigns), media liaison and various other jobs that all need doing at various times.

Second, for all the talk about those who get arrested and go to jail, no sorted direct action crew will push anybody into doing something they don't want to. If you don't want to be arrested, or can't afford to be, then simply don't take part in arrestable actions and stick to support roles. For every person who gets arrested there are, more than likely, at least half a dozen supporting them in various ways.

And you failed to answer Random's earlier point about more militant voices being pushed out of the Stop The War Coalition. If this is true, then that surely constitutes 'stopping people' from having their say and encouraging others to take a stand.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> And you failed to answer Random's earlier point about more militant voices being pushed out of the Stop The War Coalition. If this is true, then that surely constitutes 'stopping people' from having their say and encouraging others to take a stand.


No it doesn't. You've said yourself that you have no problems setting up yuour own organisations and issuing your own calls to actions.

As for the rest of it, it's just another tired denunciation of other people for not doing what _you_ demand of them. It serves the purpose of allowing you to pretend that the reason things don't go your way is not because very few people agree with you. It's rhetoric at its emptiest.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No it doesn't. You've said yourself that you have no problems setting up yuour own organisations and issuing your own calls to actions.
> 
> As for the rest of it, it's just another tired denunciation of other people for not doing what _you_ demand of them. It serves the purpose of allowing you to pretend that the reason things don't go your way is not because very few people agree with you. It's rhetoric at its emptiest.



Just so we all know, Donna, and remember not to incriminate yourself or others...

Exactly how much experience of direct action do you have?

Have you ever taken part in an action?

Have you ever taken up a non-arrestable support role at an action?

Have you actually done any research (whatsoever) on the subject of direct action, its theory and practice?

Have you ever been involved with any direct action groups? Feel free to list any groups you have been involved with, that won't incriminate anybody.

Now, to reply to your post:

I don't personally follow leaders, but apparently many people still do, although why I don't know. I haven't disappeared so far into the activist ghetto that I'm not aware of that.

If the so-called (and self-appointed) anti-war 'leaders' had issued a call for direct action, or even pledged some support for those who willing to take direct action, then I believe many more people would have followed. Not all, by any means, but enough to make going to war difficult if not impossible.

Direct action, as a tactic, when properly planned and executed, WORKS.

I've seen it work.

With my own eyes.

And I've seen as much (if not more) positive effect come from decent direct action than from the A to B marches I've been on, and there are no shortage of those.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

All very informative but mostly irrelevant to the point - which is not the efficacy of direct action _per se_ but whether substantial numbers of people are actually interested in going down that road.

Now you do say this:




			
				Pilgrim said:
			
		

> If the so-called (and self-appointed) anti-war 'leaders' had issued a call for direct action, or even pledged some support for those who willing to take direct action, then I believe many more people would have followed. Not all, by any means, but enough to make going to war difficult if not impossible.


Well, maybe. But probably not. Because, as I say, _there *were* people making such calls_. And very few people followed them. So what you have to do is to blame some other people ("self-appointed", like you) for that.

You don't have any evidence for your contention, but never mind, you're quite happy to denounce other people anyway, for the fact that you couldn't get people to listen to you. In all honesty I have no patience for this stuff these days. It's really unpleasant, denouncing people who did a lot of work because they didn't substitute for _your_ lack of numbers. It also deliberately evades the point that _the whole reason they had influence_ (because they had no _official_ status, remember) _was that they were saying and advocatingthings that people agreed with _. People like you had no influence _because you were advocating things that people did not agree with._

As it happens, I remember the STW meetings in the last couple of weeks before the law, after the big demo. People were saying they reckoned that the game was probably up and that the war was going to go ahead. I was in a small minority in saying we shouldn't give up yet, perhaps there was still a chance if we could blockade Parliament or central London or whatever else we could think of. It didn't happen: not because anybody was a sell-out but because there simply weren't sufficient people with sufficient will and energy to bring it about. I could pretend that if only the STW leaders had argued otherwise, it would have been difference, but I don't because that would be an evasion of reality on my part, as it is an evasion of reality on yours. In truth there had been a lot of political discussion at all levels of the movement for a very long time and people knew pretty well what they wanted to do (and were capable of doing). Pretending that if only the leaders had used their influence things would have been different is a way of blaming somebody else for the unfortunate fact that people don't often agree with that the radicals say.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> All very informative but mostly irrelevant to the point - which is not the efficacy of direct action _per se_ but whether substantial numbers of people are actually interested in going down that road.
> 
> Now you do say this:
> 
> ...



So, seeing as you had access to 'all levels of the movement', as you must have had to know what all levelswere discussing, perhaps you can explain why the so-called and self-appointed 'leaders' were too gutless to openly issue calls for direct action?

With your direct line, connected as it was to 'all levels of the movement', perhaps you can explain once and for all why the 'leaders' lost their nerve at a time when proper and competent leadership might have changed things?

Do you have a decent explanation for why our so-called 'leaders' pussied out when a call to direct action was still worth trying, even if it had only made going to war more difficult, or possibly, just maybe, stopped it altogether?

Well?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> So, seeing as you had access to 'all levels of the movement', as you must have had to know what all levelswere discussing, perhaps you can explain why the so-called and self-appointed 'leaders' were too gutless to openly issue calls for direct action?
> 
> With your direct line, connected as it was to 'all levels of the movement', perhaps you can explain once and for all why the 'leaders' lost their nerve at a time when proper and competent leadership might have changed things?
> 
> ...


There's no "well?", no "gutless", no "pussied out". _You_ tried these things and got no response - what is your justification for blaming other people for not wishing to emulate your example?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> There's no "well?", no "gutless", no "pussied out". _You_ tried these things and got no response - what is your justification for blaming other people for not wishing to emulate your example?



Are you actually acquainted with what went on at places like Fairford, Faslane, Coulport, Glen Douglas, Devonport, Shannon Airport in Ireland, Aldermaston and other places.

Here's an example for you:

If memory serves, a couple of train drivers refused to deliver munitions trains from the arsenal at Glen Douglas. 

They were against the war, so they did what they could to stop it by refusing to deliver the necessary munitions. 

That is called DIRECT ACTION.

And it is but one example of the sort of thing people around the world were doing in various places at various times. There were plenty of other examples just like that one.

Why did the union bosses and 'leaders' not issue calls to movement as a whole to consider doing whatever they could to directly hinder the march to war?

They could have done, and if they had, enough people to cause serious hindrance might have followed.

I don't blame the rank and file for failing to follow my or any other direct activists example. As I stated earlier, proper direct action crews don't do all that 'Well, if you don't go on actions you're a lightweight' rubbish. Although you wouldn't know this as you seemingly know absolutely NOTHING about direct action whatsoever. 

I blame the 'leaders' for not issuing a call that they could have made and were too cowardly to make.


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Jan 18, 2006)

sovietpop said:
			
		

> I went to see Chomsky speak tonight in Dublin. An SWP member asked him would he endorse the March 18th march and he said demonstrations weren't a principal, they were a tactic, so you had to ask in each case, is this demonstration useful.


 Unlike direct action - which is *NOT* a tactic.





			
				free spirit said:
			
		

> so fuck em, they are either completely fucking incompetent, utterly lacking in the balls or imagination to do something radical, or infiltrated and compromised like most of the big movements before them.


 Yeah, but they don't even need to be infiltrated. The problem with the STWC is that it was a tactical alliance  - a coalition of groups *AGAINST* war. If you take the attitude _my enemies enemy is my friend_ then failure is ultimately what happens. It's also this attitude that confuses those who insist that anyone who would rather protest in the absence of SWP, Globulise Resistance etc... is sectarian.




			
				Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> If you have these things (which are of varying size and influence) then you are not being stopped from doing anything. If you have these calls to action then you are not being prevented from making them.


Except by the various groups jumping on the bandwagon, and effectively sabotaging an entire movement, by confusing those new to protest, and by electing themselves as representatives and tarting it about in front of the media.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

I know you do. And I've given a load of reasons to explain that people are generally in positions of influence precisely because they _don't_ generally do that, that people don't generally listen to people like yourself when you do that and that therefore it's wholly empty for you to blame other people for this.

Unfortunately you'ree not capable of engaging in that discussion - you're just on a Denunciation Drive.

I'll leave you to it.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> UExcept by the various groups jumping on the bandwagon, and effectively sabotaging an entire movement, by confusing those new to protest, and by electing themselves as representatives and tarting it about in front of the media.


Ha ha ha. "Confusing those new to protest". As if people were children.

What you mean is, "I can't hack it that other people's ideas were rather more popular than mine so I have to obscure this with phrases like "sabotaging" and "jumping on the bandwagon".

It's the intolerance and paranoia of a certain sort of radicalism, and I despise it.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Ha ha ha. "Confusing those new to protest". As if people were children.
> 
> What you mean is, "I can't hack it that other people's ideas were rather more popular than mine so I have to obscure this with phrases like "sabotaging" and "jumping on the bandwagon".
> 
> It's the intolerance and paranoia of a certain sort of radicalism, and I despise it.



OOOOH!

Get her!

And I personally prefer the 'certain sort of radicalism', the one with a bit of heart, spirit and commitment, to the sort of faux-radicalism (more conservative than radical, tbh) that you seem to peddle.


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Ha ha ha. "Confusing those new to protest". As if people were children.


LOL!

If you're new to something you're new to something. Doesn't matter if it's protest or learning how to tie a knot.




			
				Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> What you mean is, "I can't hack it that other people's ideas were rather more popular than mine so I have to obscure this with phrases like "sabotaging" and "jumping on the bandwagon".


 Actually, unlike most of the _radical_ organised left (SWP et al.), I say what I mean.

My observation is this - through the nineties an incredibly powerful and effective direct action movement concerned with social justice and ecology grew up to become a major force for authentic social change. After J18 in 1999 the organised left (or whatever they prefer to label themselves) realised they'd been left behind and reacted by jumping on the bandwagon. Witness that rather nasty little book Anti-capitalism: A Guide to the Movement.  Who's doing the obscuring?  

If you see it any other way you're fooling yourself big time.

And for crying out loud - how is it sectarian to want to distance yourself from groups which share no common values or desires with you.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 18, 2006)

sorry; the main contention seems to be around the claim that there was a large STW meeting at which direct action was proposed and voted down; did this happen or not? Who was at this meeting?

FWIW i think there were 1000's of people on f15 who would have taken direct action if it were organised or if it had happened spontaneously.


----------



## Random (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Oh, bullshit.



Wish I'd thought of that




			
				Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> If you think many thousands of people are ready to be signed up to DA, then why not call for it?



The STWC leadership has consistently made sure that the 'coalition' isn't there for local grops, such as the Sussex and Bristol STW groups, who want to organise direct action.  So they're lying when they call themseves the STWC; they do this to make out that they are the movement.

Sure yo'd like it for us to split off and 'do our own thing'; then you could call us elitist.  But the anti-war movement belongs to me, and people like me.  The SWP and their labour and Islamic leader allies are good at ESF-style bureaucratic stitch ups, but that's no reason to abandon the protests to their direction.

And I agree with what thora said about having a laugh 8)


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2006)

EF! et al. grew of their own accord. No trade unions, left groups or anyone called on people to get involved, indeed EF! was denounced by the left, and by the leaders of the "green movement" in the UK. Yet it grew, and was able to do its thing of direct action. Most of the time not many people were involved. Occasionally it would call an action that caught people`s imagination and could get  a few thousand involved.

Direct action  of this sort does not need TUs etc. calling for it. If they did chances are it wouldn`t end up as DA - for political and practical reasons.

Why did those opposed to the war develop a movement of this kind?

I dunno, maybe because unlike the antiroads actions there seemd little chance of winning? Maybe. I dunno. But I see little point in blaming those that we oppose anyway for not helping us.


----------



## mutley (Jan 18, 2006)

Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> LOL!
> 
> If you're new to something you're new to something. Doesn't matter if it's protest or learning how to tie a knot.
> 
> ...



Are they still a 'major force for authentic social change'?

I don't think so, and I don't think it's because of anyone jumping on any bandwagon. It's because you didn't manage to mobilise enough ordinary people and break out of a smallish circle of activists, and i'd say that's because most ordinary people don't have the confidence (at the mo') to take direct action/strike except when they feel that a lot of people are going to get involved. So there are far less of the J18 style street actions. 

Most people at the moment don't have enough confidence to fight for their own interests, let alone stop a war. That can change quickly in the right circumstances, as the strike/demos in Ireland showed recently, but not just by the increased activity or will of revolutionaries (of whatever kind), or by just getting the right slogan. SWP members may say we needed a general strike to stop the war, but that's not the same as saying that one was on the cards back then.

Get out on March 18th cos they're lining up to 'do' Iran next, and the awareness of that means we can build this one bigger than the last. If you can then do DA stuff on the 19th, 20th or whenever great, I'll be cheering.


----------



## mutley (Jan 18, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> EF! et al. grew of their own accord. No trade unions, left groups or anyone called on people to get involved, indeed EF! was denounced by the left, and by the leaders of the "green movement" in the UK. Yet it grew, and was able to do its thing of direct action. Most of the time not many people were involved. Occasionally it would call an action that caught people`s imagination and could get  a few thousand involved.
> 
> Direct action  of this sort does not need TUs etc. calling for it. If they did chances are it wouldn`t end up as DA - for political and practical reasons.
> 
> ...



Sorry if i've missed it in 100 odd posts but what's 'EF!'?


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Sorry if i've missed it in 100 odd posts but what's 'EF!'?



Sorry.

Earth First!


----------



## mutley (Jan 18, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> Sorry.
> 
> Earth First!



Ah. Well a lot of STWC types probably kind of disagree with their emphasis anyway. 'Neither people or Earth first but both at once cos both are linked!' is what i'd say..

But that would be another thread...


----------



## audiotech (Jan 18, 2006)

*Axis of Weavels*




			
				Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Which rather begs the question, if you are content to simply repeat a failed tactic, over and over again, what is the actual point of protesting about anything?
> 
> People can troop up and down through London as many times as they like, and the powers that be will be content to allow us to do that, at the price of maybe being made to feel a little uncomfortable. They'll put up with pre-arranged marches, along pre-determined routes, with people shouting slogans from inside police pens and all that, because it simply doesn't pose any real threat to them.
> 
> ...



If by 'they' you mean the UK government, then I hazard a guess they are not planning to give support to any military action in Iran, North Korea and Cuba anytime soon, if ever?


----------



## laptop (Jan 18, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Are they still a 'major force for authentic social change'?



"They" don't have or need organisational continuity.

"They" flourish while they are operating beneath the radar of the Trots (you-know-which group in particular).

As soon as the Trots want to get involved, they start wasting huge amounts of time. The outcome that direct action movements fade for a while suits the Trots - it mean they can maintain the fiction that they are the _only_ "major force for authentic social change". 

Over many years I have concluded that bandwaggon-jumping is motivated more by the wish that there be _no other_ movement than anything else. Bugger destroying capitalism: being the only current shouting ineffectually at it is what drives recruitment!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

Well, that strikes me as being not only cobblers, but cobblers directed at the right people. Because if you'e looking for "there must be no other movement than us", you might try the anti-party people: thou shalt _not_ have parties, that shalt _not_ have ermanent structures, thou shalt _not_ have approaches to organisation other than the spontaneous. If you do, we shall be entirely hostile: we shall treat you not as people of different opinions, but as people ill-motiated, people with no place in the movement.

Everybody else is always _taking over_ things: because the "anti-authoritarians" _don't get things the way they want them_. Like spoiled kids, stamping their feet unless they get their way.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> My observation is this - through the nineties an incredibly powerful and effective direct action movement concerned with social justice and ecology grew up to become a major force for authentic social change.


Did they? Did they actually change anything? Did they actually have the _numbers_ to change anything?

I don't think they did, not _remotely_: and at the same time, they never really had any plans to engage with the rest of the population (or, shall we say, those parts of it that might have been sympathetic) in any consistent or organised way. So when things didn't go their way, they were absolutely baffled that people hadn't joined them _en masse_ and instead of examining their own shortfallings, started to scream that they'd been sabotaged by other forces on the left. They'd not been, of course, but sabotage is always an extremely powerful myth.




			
				Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> After J18 in 1999 the organised left (or whatever they prefer to label themselves) realised they'd been left behind and reacted by jumping on the bandwagon.


Mmm, yes, that would be the way in which old socialists like me got told we were jumping on the bandwagon by teenage radicals some of whom were born after my first picket line....

In a way, it all reminds me of the Old Left/New Left thing in the US in the Sixties. Granted, the New Left brought a degree of energy and commitment that revitalised the left in all sorts of ways, but, like their modern counterparts, they didn't like parties or permanent organisations or all the other things which the Old Left had understood: and so, when things got harder, they disappeared almost as quickly as they had arrived, _never having put down any roots_. They used to denounce the rest of the left too, and claim that they were something new and something particularly effective for having created what they thought were new methods of struggle: but they weren't and they hadn't.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 18, 2006)

Exactly.


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Did they? Did they actually change anything? Did they actually have the _numbers_ to change anything?




It wasn´t a numbers game. Initially DA tactics were specific to specific limited goals (eg. Lets break _this_ bulldozer, so that it doesn´t knock down _these_ trees or whatever). These tactics often proved successfull in acheiving limited goals.

However, in a move that i´m sure you´d agree with, many in movement knowing, or realising, that limited victories would only be that without a wider social change, many turned their attentions to wider campaigns, to point of trying to take action against capitalism itself. Which although it had its moments, has of course not been so succesful. For this we do need numbers, and imo different tactics and strategies.



> I don't think they did, not _remotely_: and at the same time, they never really had any plans to engage with the rest of the population (or, shall we say, those parts of it that might have been sympathetic) in any consistent or organised way. So when things didn't go their way, they were absolutely baffled that people hadn't joined them _en masse_ and instead of examining their own shortfallings, started to scream that they'd been sabotaged by other forces on the left. They'd not been, of course, but sabotage is always an extremely powerful myth.



That´s neither completely true or fair.

Many in the movement did attempt to engage. We had EF! people on striking signal workers support groups, we initiated  community based anti JSA groups, we even became TU activists in some cases. trying to apply the lesson we had learnt from DA activities.

As I said to Pilgrim above, i don´t agree with whining about how TU leaders, the Labour party etc. has sold us out. We stand or fall on our merits.

However, there a large number of cases where the left (usually, but not always, the SWP) deliberately attempted to wreck movements or campigns it could not dominate. If you want examples I could give you them. 




> Mmm, yes, that would be the way in which old socialists like me got told we were jumping on the bandwagon by teenage radicals some of whom were born after my first picket line....



Plenty of people involved were older than you or me, I suspect.

...and others like myself were on picket lines before we moved to the DA movement.



> In a way, it all reminds me of the Old Left/New Left thing in the US in the Sixties. Granted, the New Left brought a degree of energy and commitment that revitalised the left in all sorts of ways, but, like their modern counterparts, they didn't like parties or permanent organisations or all the other things which the Old Left had understood: and so, when things got harder, they disappeared almost as quickly as they had arrived, _never having put down any roots_.



This is an important point. the antiauthoritarian groups that sprung up in the mid 90s too often did _exactly_ this.

But this is I think, a problem with the destruction of communities,and the mobilty of people in general these days. rather than because we didn´t join a political party.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

In some ways, and of course one doesn't individually have to be a member of a party to make a contribution, that's not my suggestion. But I'm sceptical about this business of trying to apply lessons from DA to strikes: they're very different animals indeed. Which is part of the problem, really, and the cause of much mutual incomprehension and hostility: that different types of activity really require very different methods of organisation and that people who not only _prefer_ one to the other (which everybody does) but who embrace one entirely and reject entirely the other tend not only to behave unpleasantly and destructively, but to genuinely think that it's _the other lot_ who cause all the problems.

I do personally have a real problem with "anti-authoritarians" who do nothing but denounce other people when those other people _actually organise things_ - and then are quite happy to turn up on the events that are organised (by the people they've denounced) and behave disruptively and even destructively. I really can't hack that at all.

I also consider it important(as an old socialist, and a believer in solidarity) that you acknowledge the contribution other people make before you make your disagreements known, and that you accept that other people, though they differ from you, are part of the same movement. I don't get any of that here, which is why I find it hard to take seriously. For instance, if you want to disagree with STW people, fine. But they put in an _enormous_ amount of work for the peace movement, and still do: every month I get my mailing for Brixton STW telling me about the events they're organising. I respect that, and therefore respect them. In the constant, relentless denouncing of these people, by people on P&P, what, please, can I possibly respect?


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> In some ways, and of course one doesn't individually have to be a member of a party to make a contribution, that's not my suggestion. But I'm sceptical about this business of trying to apply lessons from DA to strikes: they're very different animals indeed. Which is part of the problem, really, and the cause of much mutual incomprehension and hostility:




I don´t know. I neverxeperienced this hostility. Most of the people I met in this context were happy to see different faces and hear new ideasand ways of working, even if they then decided it wasn´t appropriate. Which was fine. 



> that different types of activity really require very different methods of organisation and that people who not only _prefer_ one to the other (which everybody does) but who embrace one entirely and reject entirely the other tend not only to behave unpleasantly and destructively, but to genuinely think that it's _the other lot_ who cause all the problems.



Sure. I agree. and it goes both ways. Have you ever seen a trot on an antiroads protest  ? I remember watching the SWP paper sellers get swept away by the riot police at claremont rd whilst everyone else calmbered to safety. Point is to learn what works where and when, to be flexible and willing try to stuff out. Lets face it. we usually lose, so its got to be worth a punt, no?  



> I do personally have a real problem with "anti-authoritarians" who do nothing but denounce other people when those other people _actually organise things_ - and then are quite happy to turn up on the events that are organised (by the people they've denounced) and behave disruptively and even destructively. I really can't hack that at all.



Again, I have seen it go the other way, many many times. The SWP (and others) wrecking events and campaigns that they have not built, nor have control of. 

Solidarity works both ways.



> I also consider it important(as an old socialist, and a believer in solidarity) that you acknowledge the contribution other people make before you make your disagreements known, and that you accept that other people, though they differ from you, are part of the same movement. I don't get any of that here, which is why I find it hard to take seriously. For instance, if you want to disagree with STW people, fine. But they put in an _enormous_ amount of work for the peace movement, and still do: every month I get my mailing for Brixton STW telling me about the events they're organising. I respect that, and therefore respect them. In the constant, relentless denouncing of these people, by people on P&P, what, please, can I possibly respect?



But if the STW tactics are patently not working, sure those who want to stop the war have a right to argue for a change in tactics? and to argue why the current ones won´t work?

Should activites that are counterproductive to the cause be criticised? 

Of course.

It´s not about _how much _ activism. its about _how effective _ it is.

Incidentally, I´m not sure the DA talked about above would work either. I dunno what actually could´ve stopped the war.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2006)

> As it happens, I remember the STW meetings in the last couple of weeks before the law, after the big demo. People were saying they reckoned that the game was probably up and that the war was going to go ahead. I was in a small minority in saying we shouldn't give up yet, perhaps there was still a chance if we could blockade Parliament or central London or whatever else we could think of. It didn't happen: not because anybody was a sell-out but because there simply weren't sufficient people with sufficient will and energy to bring it about. I could pretend that if only the STW leaders had argued otherwise, it would have been difference, but I don't because that would be an evasion of reality on my part, as it is an evasion of reality on yours. In truth there had been a lot of political discussion at all levels of the movement for a very long time and people knew pretty well what they wanted to do (and were capable of doing). Pretending that if only the leaders had used their influence things would have been different is a way of blaming somebody else for the unfortunate fact that people don't often agree with that the radicals say.



donna, it's totally understandable that those people who'd been actively involved in organising the london demo would have been totally wiped out emotionally after it, but if they'd stopped and thought for a minute about the sheer amount of energy and enthusiasm there was out there from the 1-2 million people who'd been on that march and enthused by the experience, maybe they would have understood that it didn't need to be about how much energy the few hundred people who'd organised that march had left, all they needed to do was to unleash the energy of the million plus who'd gone on that march and left determined to stop the war.

All they needed to do was to issue a call for nationwide action on a specified day / days and left the rest to those who had the energy to get organised in their local area. Instead of this they effectively issued a national call to inaction, until the war starts. This completely disempowered the entire movement as any local groups wanting to do something could only do it on a local level, so their actions could be written off as isolated incidents.

IMO this happened because those running STWC were from an authoritarian top down background, and couldn't cope with / didn't even understand the idea of empowering people to go and do it themselves / or didn't trust us.

This nationwide action could have taken any form, from blocking bridges to having 100 people turnup at evey MP's surgery in the country, at least we'd have been doing something to turn up the pressure, and it would have required bugger all effort from STWC central command, just a little imagination and trust.


----------



## aurora green (Jan 19, 2006)

I think the momentum for mass direct action was definately there. 
I mean we had school kids running out of the school gates and turning up in parliament...
There was a tiny moment there when anything was possible. 
It seems to me  pretty tragic that people weren't prepared to learn any lessons from the the mid nineties counter cultural movement.


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Jan 19, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Did they? Did they actually change anything? Did they actually have the numbers to change anything?
> 
> I don't think they did, not remotely: and at the same time, they never really had any plans to engage with the rest of the population (or, shall we say, those parts of it that might have been sympathetic) in any consistent or organised way. So when things didn't go their way, they were absolutely baffled that people hadn't joined them en masse and instead of examining their own shortfallings, started to scream that they'd been sabotaged by other forces on the left. They'd not been, of course, but sabotage is always an extremely powerful myth.


How about you tell me what the Trots _et al._ have achieved then? You're obviously oblivious to the very real achievements of the direct action movement.

Which parts of the popluation are you talking about? The working class? Here's what a Liverpool docker said about RTS:

*The others talk about doing something–this lot actually do it.*

(N.B. for clarification - *DOING* is different from *TALKING*)

I can see you don't like the term sabotage. How about hijack then?

Maybe it was just a coincidence that when mass direct action got replaced with marching up and down, placard waving and speeches by terribly important people, it coincided with the arrival of the SWP. Hmmm.. Cause and effect perhaps?




			
				Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I do personally have a real problem with "anti-authoritarians" who do nothing but denounce other people when those other people actually organise things - and then are quite happy to turn up on the events that are organised (by the people they've denounced) and behave disruptively and even destructively. I really can't hack that at all.


What kind of 'organising' are we talking about? I for one have always been impressed with the ability to organise mass distriubution of placards, posters, etc..Very revolutionary I'm sure. Shutting the City of London down by contrast required no organisation - just a fluke by a bunch of moaning 'anti-authoritarians'. As for turning up and other people's events... Don't make me laugh...


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

We are seeing the usual crap on this thread.
It amounts to saying that the StWC are crap because they failed to follow the anti-authoritarians in organising sabotage and direct action and mass strikes.

The truth is all the so called effective Direct Action by anti-authoritarians came to nothing. If it is so effective why simply berrate someone else for not doing it? Why not oerganise it yourselves?

As for blocking roads. Roads were blocked on a number of occasions - organised by the SWp at SWtC demnstrations! @ seem to have failed to organise anything.

School student strikes were inspirational - and should have been a lesson to trades unionists. They were organised by Socialists and StWC not @s.

Strikes - the StWC called for walk-outs. There were a few. There were also plenty of lunchtime protests and 'mass sickies' and short notice absences on Flexi leave. Those of us who tried to organise illegal unofficial walk-outs with limited success risked losing our jobs. Especially in my case as I was quoted in the FT, BBC on-line, Daily Mirror etc and my boss (Permanent secretary, not local manager) complained to my union HQ. We defied a management dictat not to organise a protest using union facilities. It was Socialists in Trade Unions who did all this - mainly SWP (some WP). Not a single protest was organised by the @'s favoured union - the largely imaginary IWW. 

The mass protest of 1 or 2 or whatever million was what put strikes on the agenda. It was the a- b march that gave people the confidence to even begin to discuss action beyond just marching. The fact that we largely failed to break through the lack of confidence amongst workers was a crying shame. But we tried. 

Did any of you @'s risk the sack over the war? Were any of you dragged off roads by police risking arrest? 

Carry on just carping from the sidelines. A - B marching not radical enough for you so you...do nothing. Carol singing protest in defiance of the ban on protests in Parly Square not radical enough - so you do nothing.

Shut up or organise something. Prove the validity of your ideas in practice. If you can't, then shut the f**** up!

Blair/Bush now threatening Iran. US threatening possible nuclear strike (after all they can't commit troops given the mess in Iraq. March to build the movement or sit on your arse. Up to you, but stop trying to undermine other people's efforts. If you can do better prove it!


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> We are seeing the usual crap on this thread.
> It amounts to saying that the StWC are crap because they failed to follow the anti-authoritarians in organising sabotage and direct action and mass strikes.




What? People rightly pointing out that the StWC´s strategy failed to to stop the war, and wondering why the SWP et al won´t listen to these criticisms?

Is this the same old crap?

You mean the SWP have failed before  ?



> The truth is all the so called effective Direct Action by anti-authoritarians came to nothing. If it is so effective why simply berrate someone else for not doing it? Why not oerganise it yourselves?



Yes DA failed too. But my guess is that those organising it were constantly obstructed by the StWC leaders when approaching StWC groups. Indeed, experience tells us that when action independent of theSWP is organised the SWP will try and prevent it happenning. I personally have had SWP members threaten to report actions to the police (antifacsist rather than antiwar, but still...)



> As for blocking roads. Roads were blocked on a number of occasions - organised by the SWp at SWtC demnstrations! @ seem to have failed to organise anything.



Sitting in a road for a bit, whilst cars drive around you is not Direct action! maybe when SWP cadre try and organise road blocks they should listen to advice rather than shouting "Fuck Off Wanker!"at those with experience...(again, this happened to me)



> School student strikes were inspirational - and should have been a lesson to trades unionists. They were organised by Socialists and StWC not @s.



True enough. But kids walking out of school, whilst inspirational, is still only a _demonstration_, and therefore can only be the opening shot in a succesful strategy. 



> Strikes - the StWC called for walk-outs. There were a few. There were also plenty of lunchtime protests and 'mass sickies' and short notice absences on Flexi leave. Those of us who tried to organise illegal unofficial walk-outs with limited success risked losing our jobs. Especially in my case as I was quoted in the FT, BBC on-line, Daily Mirror etc and my boss (Permanent secretary, not local manager) complained to my union HQ. We defied a management dictat not to organise a protest using union facilities. It was Socialists in Trade Unions who did all this - mainly SWP (some WP). Not a single protest was organised by the @'s favoured union - the largely imaginary IWW.



Have any anarchists slagged off the strike attempts (which were no more succesful than DA attempts). No.

Perhaps you should find find out what IWA affiliated unions such as the CNT did if you want a true picture of anarchist TU actions.



> The mass protest of 1 or 2 or whatever million was what put strikes on the agenda. It was the a- b march that gave people the confidence to even begin to discuss action beyond just marching. The fact that we largely failed to break through the lack of confidence amongst workers was a crying shame. But we tried.



Exactly. So why simply repeat the march again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again...

..only with everdecreasing numbers.

Why not stop. Think. and try something different?



> Did any of you @'s risk the sack over the war? Were any of you dragged off roads by police risking arrest?



 

Yes.

...and far worse too.

So what?

Its not about martyrdom. 



> Carry on just carping from the sidelines. A - B marching not radical enough for you so you...do nothing. Carol singing protest in defiance of the ban on protests in Parly Square not radical enough - so you do nothing.



Again, criticising tactics that fail. Is that wrong? Advocating other tactics, is that wrong?



> Shut up or organise something. Prove the validity of your ideas in practice. If you can't, then shut the f**** up!



Been done. many many times. But you guys never listen.



> Blair/Bush now threatening Iran. US threatening possible nuclear strike (after all they can't commit troops given the mess in Iraq. March to build the movement or sit on your arse. Up to you, but stop trying to undermine other people's efforts. If you can do better prove it!



Do you actually want to stop this happennning?

Then why are you so against trying a new strategy?

Why are you so intent on repeating a failed strategy?

Or do you have a different agenda?


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Jan 19, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> Or do you have a different agenda?


Well, we know what that is don't we?

They want to be in authority. 

I wonder who'd they go to war against first?


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

come on!
All we get when we ask the @s what are you doing to oppose war and occupatioon is either silence or 'we've done loads far more effective than StWC but we er can't tell you what'. What are you planning to do 'something really really radical and very very effective but we can't tell anyone because it is top secret.' So secret no-one ever notices...

At Gleneagles while the @s blocked roads achieving nowt Socialists organised a march on the centre in defiance of an attempted police ban and symbolically tore down the fence. At least it was newsworthy. Meanwhile thousands had been organised to attend a counter-conference to discuss organising against capitalism while @s huddled in their tiny little groups away from the 'liberals' and 'reactionaries' - i.e. everyone else. So easy to condemn, but it takes politics to engage with people.

As far as opposing the Iraq war, the StWc committee can point to the mass protests, the walk outs, the school student strikes and the consequent terminal illness at the core of Blair's New Labour Govt, as well as the effective Military Families Campaign and international co-ordination of demonstrations which has inspired and assisted the development of a now mass antio-war movement in the States. @s can point to er er nothing.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> come on!
> All we get when we ask the @s what are you doing to oppose war and occupatioon is either silence or 'we've done loads far more effective than StWC but we er can't tell you what'. What are you planning to do 'something really really radical and very very effective but we can't tell anyone because it is top secret.' So secret no-one ever notices...
> 
> At Gleneagles while the @s blocked roads achieving nowt Socialists organised a march on the centre in defiance of an attempted police ban and symbolically tore down the fence. At least it was newsworthy. Meanwhile thousands had been organised to attend a counter-conference to discuss organising against capitalism while @s huddled in their tiny little groups away from the 'liberals' and 'reactionaries' - i.e. everyone else. So easy to condemn, but it takes politics to engage with people.
> ...



So you´ll happily repaet the same tactics for the next war?


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> So you´ll happily repaet the same tactics for the next war?



Meetings to bring people together and organise activity? Yes.
Protests to build the confidence and bring the movement together? Yes.
Trying to organise mass strikes? Yes.
Attempts at Days of Civil Disobedience? Yes.

Now. Come on. What are you doing? Because after all your tactics succeeded in stopping the war while we failed? 

your tactics were so gopd no-one even noticed them. Assuming you did anything at all.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Meetings to bring people together and organise activity? Yes.
> Protests to build the confidence and bring the movement together? Yes.
> Trying to organise mass strikes? Yes.
> Attempts at Days of Civil Disobedience? Yes.
> ...



How many people do you think you will get at the next march?

WhY?


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2006)

Incidentally, I´ll repeat: I´m not sure if DA could stop the war. i don´t think so. 

but i do know that repeating failed tactics is disempowering, it will mean people not bothering to turn up to antiwar activities, and will stifle any attempts at new activities.

therefore, there is a real danger that mindless activism that knows knows it is going to fail is harmful to the antiwar movement.

therefore doing nothing (for the time being whilst a debate is had on the best way forward) is better than doing something counterproductive.

Hell, the anticap/anarch blah blah movement made exactly the same mistake.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> How many people do you think you will get at the next march?
> 
> WhY?



At the moment? 20,000? 10,000? 100,000? I am not sure. Partly depends on the events building up to it.

Now I do agree with you on one point. Marches on their own will not stop a war. Nor will meetings, petitions, letters to MPs, T-shirts, badges, stickers, cartoons, leaflets, shouting, or mass nudity*.

The StW movement was so huge it threw up the prospect of lost elections, and mass disturbances. It rattled MPs. An electoral assault via Respect will assist this and potentially give confidence to 'the movement' (short-hand for loose notion of networks of people opposed to the status quo/neo-liberal agenda/war). So it made further war-mongering more difficult that it otherwise would have been.

To stop wars though we will need mass strikes. We will need action that stops he ability of the State to prepare for war. Mass illegal stoppages against war cannot be summoned into being by a leader or a committee. A movement has to grow in confidence and militancy. 

The FBU were indispute in the run up to the Iraq occupation. When the issue of the onset of war politicised their action the 'left-wing' leadership bottled it. 

For the movement to move forward significantly the power of workers needs to be mobilised. This is the crucial missing factor at the moment. There is a confidence deficite. There is an organisation deficite in parts of the private sector. There is a timid and cowardly union leadership much of which is wedded to New Labour. There needs to be rank and file networks of militants capable of forcing action. 

I favour certain forms of direct action provided they form part of a mass movement and are not counterposed to it. 

The StWC, as well as the anti-cap process, has helped revitalise parts of union branches. Recruitment to the military is at a very low level. But victory of any sort seldom comes overnight. People look for shortcuts. If only a dedicated few could make up for the lack of mass strikes by e.g. sabotaging the railways? (counter-productive and dangerous) Or assassinating politicians? (counter-productive) Or superglewing the doors to the Army Recruitment Office (a bit more effective than writing to your MP). But in the end there is no substitute for mass action. That requires engaging with people whose ideas are different, more moderate, than your own. 



*this was suggested at a Stop War meeting. People looked around at the attendees and thought Hmmm....nah.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> At the moment? 20,000? 10,000? 100,000? I am not sure. Partly depends on the events building up to it.
> 
> Now I do agree with you on one point. Marches on their own will not stop a war. Nor will meetings, petitions, letters to MPs, T-shirts, badges, stickers, cartoons, leaflets, shouting, or mass nudity*.
> 
> ...




Thanks Groucho

I more or less agree with much of this (aprt from the Respect bit - but thats another argument).

As i´ve said I´m not overly confident of DA. You hit the nail on the head here:



> We will need action that stops he ability of the State to prepare for war.



Some DA doesthis - Ploughshares are good here. of course these actions are not mass actions, they don´t need to be. Strikes? Not going to happen. People rarely strike for their own defence these days (yeah, maybe this is slowly changing, but too slow to stop any forthcoming military actions) 


and here too i agree with you completely:



> Mass illegal stoppages against war cannot be summoned into being by a leader or a committee. A movement has to grow in confidence and militancy


.

Marches etc are one way of starting this, but they cannot be repeated ad nauseum with having exaxctly the opposite effect. Especially once the decline in numbers starts to snowball.

DA has an attraction here. It doesn´t need huge numbers. It can be very empowering to directly target the war effort, albeit in a small way. But only when it produces direct and concrete results. This gives people confidence too. 

It wont stop the war though.



> That requires engaging with people whose ideas are different, more moderate, than your own.



Yup. and with those whose ideas are more radical (and I don´t just mean the anarchists) any campaign needs to be sustainable. Endless marches are not.

All I´m saying is, instead of automatically calling a march as first response (and then repeating it - cos you know how to organise them?) listen to other ideas try them out, don´t just dismiss DA etc. cos you don´t agree with the anarchists. After all what have you got lose, that you won´t loseanyway with the strategy of marches (given that mass strikes are highly unlikely)


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2006)

> Or superglewing the doors to the Army Recruitment Office (a bit more effective than writing to your MP).



But....

....if one kid who goes down to army recruitment office on impulse in gung ho war fever, can´t get in, goes home and thinks better of it...

...then thats a very effective use of 50p and 5 mins work by one activist, no?


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2006)

God the Trotbots are really delusional, if mass direct action had gone ahead, it may not have stopped the war, but it would have been on such a scale(and no, i don't think it is always the best tactic) that it would have set down a major marker and a precedent for the future




> As it happens, I remember the STW meetings in the last couple of weeks before the law, after the big demo. People were saying they reckoned that the game was probably up and that the war was going to go ahead. I was in a small minority in saying we shouldn't give up yet, perhaps there was still a chance if we could blockade Parliament or central London or whatever else we could think of. It didn't happen: not because anybody was a sell-out but because there simply weren't sufficient people with sufficient will and energy to bring it about.


----------



## deeplight (Jan 19, 2006)

If everyone. And I mean everyone unites under what we can agree on. ie That peace in our time is worth our inconvinience. We are sure to achieve alot. When that is achieved folk can argue to their hearts content knowing that they changed something.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 19, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> but i do know that repeating failed tactics is disempowering, it will mean people not bothering to turn up to antiwar activities, and will stifle any attempts at new activities.
> 
> therefore, there is a real danger that mindless activism that knows knows it is going to fail is harmful to the antiwar movement.
> 
> therefore doing nothing (for the time being whilst a debate is had on the best way forward) is better than doing something counterproductive.



Nail on the head.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> come on!
> 
> At Gleneagles while the @s blocked roads achieving nowt Socialists organised a march on the centre in defiance of an attempted police ban and symbolically tore down the fence. At least it was newsworthy. Meanwhile thousands had been organised to attend a counter-conference to discuss organising against capitalism while @s huddled in their tiny little groups away from the 'liberals' and 'reactionaries' - i.e. everyone else. So easy to condemn, but it takes politics to engage with people.




the anarchists provided food, transport, & accommodation, meeting space, conference space, entertainment, in 3 different locations in scotland during the g8 for anyone & everyone who wanted or needed it. Plus provided full legal support during & after the event, long after the headlines have faded into nothing. 

Don't be a fucking arsehole & pretend _Socialists_ did anything other than let people fend for themselves. As always. If _Socialist_ organisation around the g8 is a glimpse of their future role as post revolutionary leaders you wouldn't last a fucking night. Seriously.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 19, 2006)

sihhi said:
			
		

> Nail on the head.



& utterly frightening.


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 20, 2006)

ISR/CWI held a joint camp at the G8 and it was for 200 young people from germany belguim, ireland, uk etc. we had food including packed lunches cooked by a belgium chef, drink for 1euro a can, political debate and discussion transport to all the events, social events, football competion, tour of edinburgh, transport to scotland etc etc all for £80 and if you had difficulty paying they funded you. 

so some socialists did not leave you to fend for yourselves.


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> At Gleneagles while the @s blocked roads achieving nowt Socialists organised a march on the centre in defiance of an attempted police ban and symbolically tore down the fence.



How do you now that the road blocks achieved nothing?  At least some of thw G8 personnel were trying to get in via the roads, no?

As for the 'symbolic' tearing down of the fence, fair play for the SSP and SWP leaders for not condemning it, like I thought they would, but don't pretend that you organised it!  The march on the fence was started by a group from the DR Congo, and a load of us (including anarchists) followed them.  Meanwhile, up the road, George Galloway and other supremos were putting themself in front of angry protestors, trying to stop any attack on the fence.

Come one, is this what you were told?  Stop trying to rewrite history, or at least do it away from people who were actually there


----------



## Groucho (Jan 20, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> Come one, is this what you were told?  Stop trying to rewrite history, or at least do it away from people who were actually there



I was actually there.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 20, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> I was actually there.



So was I.

And I never heard, from any source, that the Trots organised the tearing down of the fence.


----------



## mutley (Jan 21, 2006)

sihhi said:
			
		

> Nail on the head.



Nail in the head more like. I think Groucho has summed it up over a few posts.

We all wish that there'd been more mass action, but there wasn't the confidence. 
(Look - the paranoid stuff about the SWP not really wanting to see direct action or whatever.. just leave it folks, lifes too fucking short to watch people barking up a tree that doesn't even exist. Listen carefully: That.. is.. not.. the.. problem..)

There's loads to learn about last time, and we should keep up this debate without ranting. But an argument to just stay off the streets cos we feel powerless? No.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 21, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Nail in the head more like. I think Groucho has summed it up over a few posts.
> 
> We all wish that there'd been more mass action, but there wasn't the confidence.
> (Look - the paranoid stuff about the SWP not really wanting to see direct action or whatever.. just leave it folks, lifes too fucking short to watch people barking up a tree that doesn't even exist. Listen carefully: That.. is.. not.. the.. problem..)
> ...



If memory serves the SWP were slating direct action as 'elitist' and claiming that its exponents were trying to 'impose their elitism upon the rest of us', or so said Lindsay German.

But that's by the by. Personally, I'm not dropping activities because I feel powerless, I'm simply working on projects that I feel will do much more than simply toddling round London for the umpteenth time. Around the time of the March 18 demo, I'll be beginning to help plan TP's latest Devonport camp. I'm working right now on a large public conference in Plymouth with TP, the new local CND group and a host of others. All I've done is move towards other avenues of protest that will do much more good.

And what is your SWP organiser doing, while I and others are working on a local project that will be a focus for people in Plymouth and the surrounding area?

He's going summit-hopping to Venezuela apparently. 

At least that's what I've heard from several sources.


----------



## mutley (Jan 21, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> If memory serves the SWP were slating direct action as 'elitist' and claiming that its exponents were trying to 'impose their elitism upon the rest of us', or so said Lindsay German.
> 
> But that's by the by. Personally, I'm not dropping activities because I feel powerless, I'm simply working on projects that I feel will do much more than simply toddling round London for the umpteenth time. Around the time of the March 18 demo, I'll be beginning to help plan TP's latest Devonport camp. I'm working right now on a large public conference in Plymouth with TP, the new local CND group and a host of others. All I've done is move towards other avenues of protest that will do much more good.
> 
> ...



Well if he is, seeing as the swp's subs are what pays for him to go isn't that up to the swp?

And the wider obvious point is that when activists go to things like the WSF in Venezuela the dialogue there and the energy and insights that can be brought back are of benefit locally. Which I'm sure you'd agree with if it was someone closer to your politics going.

I went to one of the ESF's paid for by my union locally. I know that the recharging of my political batteries, and the energy that I then felt able to bring to the movement (and my union work) here made it worth while. I've paid it back in political grafting. 

Let's not get into a 'local movements for local people' frame of mind. People need to build locally but don't counterpose it to the international.


----------



## treelover (Jan 21, 2006)

So that Guy Taylor can talk to six men and women and a dog in some provincial town about the 'lessons of Argentina, its like those local cllrs who go on on 'fact finding trips' , if you ask me. 




> And the wider obvious point is that when activists go to things like the WSF in Venezuela the dialogue there and the energy and insights that can be brought back are of benefit locally. Which I'm sure you'd agree with if it was someone closer to your politics going.


----------



## treelover (Jan 21, 2006)

yes, but surely this was for a selected group, the Dissent camp, afaik was for anyone.



> ISR/CWI held a joint camp at the G8 and it was for 200 young people from germany belguim, ireland, uk etc. we had food including packed lunches cooked by a belgium chef, drink for 1euro a can, political debate and discussion transport to all the events, social events, football competion, tour of edinburgh, transport to scotland etc etc all for £80 and if you had difficulty paying they funded you.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 21, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Well if he is, seeing as the swp's subs are what pays for him to go isn't that up to the swp?
> 
> And the wider obvious point is that when activists go to things like the WSF in Venezuela the dialogue there and the energy and insights that can be brought back are of benefit locally. Which I'm sure you'd agree with if it was someone closer to your politics going.
> 
> ...



It just disappoints me that the leader of what little of RESPECT exists in Plymouth chooses to ignore an issue that is having increasing impact at local level and chooses to be elsewhere when a major public event is planned.

I can deal with that, but then RESPECT locally haven't offered any help, they haven't turned up to any of the planning meetings (I've been to all of them as I'm on the steering committee) and they seem to be ignoring a local issue that they previously though important enough to put a motion to RESPECT'S national conference about.

I always knew that the organiser was going to Venezuela, but RESPECT locally could always have offered help from other members locally.

And they haven't.

TBH, I think it's one of the major problems that besets the Left, when its members spend too much time supporting events abroad and not enough time campaigning on their own doorstep. It's not a case of Royston Vesey-style 'This is a local campaign for local people' at all. It's a case of the Left here ignoring a local issue that to an increasing number of people round here matters. The local organisers of RESPECT could have deputed a few bodies to assist in the planning and preparation of this Conference, or even just encouraged people to get involved in the several months of planning and preparation that has gone into this event. But no support WHATSOEVER has been forthcoming from RESPECT.

And whatever happend to 'Think Global, Act Local'?


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 21, 2006)

> yes, but surely this was for a selected group, the Dissent camp, afaik was for anyone.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ISR/CWI held a joint camp at the G8 and it was for 200 young people from germany belguim, ireland, uk etc. we had food including packed lunches cooked by a belgium chef, drink for 1euro a can, political debate and discussion transport to all the events, social events, football competion, tour of edinburgh, transport to scotland etc etc all for £80 and if you had difficulty paying they funded you.



it was open to everyone, public and all.


----------



## mutley (Jan 22, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> It just disappoints me that the leader of what little of RESPECT exists in Plymouth chooses to ignore an issue that is having increasing impact at local level and chooses to be elsewhere when a major public event is planned.
> 
> I can deal with that, but then RESPECT locally haven't offered any help, they haven't turned up to any of the planning meetings (I've been to all of them as I'm on the steering committee) and they seem to be ignoring a local issue that they previously though important enough to put a motion to RESPECT'S national conference about.
> 
> ...



OK, if you have a specific local event that you think the swp or respect are ignoring that's different. I can't comment on the specific event and whether they should be involved, I was taking issue with the notion that people shouldn't ever go off to international events.

But that's not what your saying so fair enough.

However, I'm sure I'm right in thinking that you've argued on here for everyone to try and exclude the swp from everything (fat chance of that but whatever). Now you seem to be criticising us for not getting involved. What would you say if the swp did try to get involved locally?

Lastly, if you did want stwc or respect to have some input in order to have a broad based event have u considered actually writing them a letter? Old fashioned but people seem to respond to good old paper. (Awaits brisk response).


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 22, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> OK, if you have a specific local event that you think the swp or respect are ignoring that's different. I can't comment on the specific event and whether they should be involved, I was taking issue with the notion that people shouldn't ever go off to international events.
> 
> But that's not what your saying so fair enough.
> 
> ...



RESPECT have known about this Conference for the last couple of months, and haven't offered any help at all. They haven't sent anyone to so much as one planning meeting, and I've been to all those meetings.

And my personal opinions regarding the SWP would have been put aside in favour of what the steering committee as a whole wanted.

It just strikes me as odd that my local branch seems more interested in events in Venezuela than in what is happening to people right on their own doorstep.


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> I was actually there.



So was I.  And you saw the SWP organise a tearing down of the Red Zone fence?  No you didn't.  SWP members may have participated in this, but that's as far as it went.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 23, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I already do as much as I can, thanks.
> 
> And I severely doubt that yet another A to B march will make the slightest difference whatsoever.
> 
> Besides, I'm more busy with local work at the moment.



I am sure you do but can I suggest that you don't sacrifice quality for quantity. Perhaps you are a bit unorganised ( let's face it most students are) or simply get overwhelmed easily. Have you tried doing lists and then giving each action a score based on impact and urgency?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 23, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I am sure you do but can I suggest that you don't sacrifice quality for quantity. Perhaps you are a bit unorganised ( let's face it most students are) or simply get overwhelmed easily. Have you tried doing lists and then giving each action a score based on impact and urgency?



I'd hardly consider yet another A to B march as possessing much in the way of 'quality', TBH, Chuck.

And I'm not a student, either.

Regarding 'impact and urgency', people in Plymouth are far more likely to consider what Halliburton and Co are doing to the city to be of much greater importance to them than whatever is going on in Venezuela at the moment.

I'm not saying that what happens in Venezuela is of no account, but locally it really doesn't make much difference.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 24, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I'd hardly consider yet another A to B march as possessing much in the way of 'quality', TBH, Chuck.
> 
> And I'm not a student, either.
> 
> ...



Congrtas on getting the degree then.Sorry, you seemed -how do I put it- quite well written compared to some posters on here.

Local versus international: In that case put Halliburton and Co top of the agenda and Venezuala lower down and prioritise your time accordingly. I suppose as Workers Power are  now building a new mass party of the working class that you could  possibly ask them to concentrate on the Venezuala bits ( they are always finding somewhere to have solidaity with providing its as far as way as possible) leaving you and the locals to put 100% in with the strike at Halliburton and Co.?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 24, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Congrtas on getting the degree then.Sorry, you seemed -how do I put it- quite well written compared to some posters on here.
> 
> Local versus international: In that case put Halliburton and Co top of the agenda and Venezuala lower down and prioritise your time accordingly. I suppose as Workers Power are  now building a new mass party of the working class that you could  possibly ask them to concentrate on the Venezuala bits ( they are always finding somewhere to have solidaity with providing its as far as way as possible) leaving you and the locals to put 100% in with the strike at Halliburton and Co.?



I think that's something the Left seems to do a lot nowadays.

I'm not saying that internationalism is a dead idea, far from it.

If people go abroad and learn something that is of value back home then that's fine, and showing solidarity with people in other countries is fine as well. Essential, in fact, IMHO.

But it seems that a lot of attention goes into summit hopping and foreign fact-finding trips, while people in the local community, on whose streets activists actually live, day to day, sometimes have their issues that matter to them going uncared for.

If the Left wants to have one last shot at making itself relevent, and Heaven knows it has had enough chances already, then it needs policies that matter and strike a chord with people on the doorstep, in the pub, at work and in their daily lives.

I don't see what, for example, wanting to twin Preston with Nablus (IIRC) has to do with bread-and-butter community issues like anti-social behaviour, littering, crime and similar issues that require REAL policies for REAL people. I've nothing against the example I gave, which was one of Michael Lavalette's ideas IIRC, but I don't see what relevence it has to the lives of many ordinary Preston folk. If there is some striking relevence then by all means enlighten me.

For instance, if people on an estate (or anywhere, for that matter) are being intimidated, threatened, bullied and generally made to suffer unnecessarily because of nuisance neighbours, then there should be some sort of policy for that. That's a simple, everyday, bread-and-butter issue that affects ordinary people up and down the land. And it's likely to be of far greater importance to people affected by neighbours from Hell (and I've put up with a few myself) than some abstract policy that seemingly involves a place that may be thousands of miles away.

The Left as a whole, and I accept this is not always the case, seems to have acquired a nasty tendency to want to ignore what people on the doorstep say they want, in favour of what various lefty academics, beard-stroking types and committees have decided for them that they're actually going to get. That simply doesn't work.

It's basic politics, at least electorally speaking, to ask the ordinary voter what THEY want and offer policies that are geared to giving it to THEM. Never mind that it doesn't conform to the Nth degree with your carefully laid-out worldview.  Electoral politics is essentially, IMHO, a service industry. You work like a waiter in a restaurant. You talk to people, you take their order and you try your hardest to give it to them. If you please enough of the people enough of the time, you stay in your job a while longer. If you don't, you pick up your cards at the next election. Simple as that.

That doesn't mean you shed your principles like the Emperor's New Clothes, far from it. By all means, try and convert people to your point of view. But present your policies in a way that make sense and are REAL ideas relevent to REAL people.

I've sat in meetings and online forums, hearing again and again the cry to break out of the activist ghetto.

It's about time people fucking well did somehting to make that call a reality.


----------



## TAE (Jan 24, 2006)

deeplight said:
			
		

> About time we had another one. Especially with all the shit brewing over Iran.


Agreed. I'll be there.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 24, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I've sat in meetings and online forums, hearing again and again the cry to break out of the activist ghetto.
> 
> It's about time people fucking well did somehting to make that call a reality.



Agreed.


----------



## kasheem (Jan 28, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Just so we all know, Donna, and remember not to incriminate yourself or others...
> 
> Exactly how much experience of direct action do you have?
> 
> ...



That's what I was saying around the time of the demos. Why aren't they doing direct action, national strikes? I would have supported that.. I would maybe even have volunteered to help in some 'support position'. As it was the only option available was to get on a bus to London with all the students for a day of complete fuck all except be on TV and preached at by old hippies (Tony Benn).

So I didn't go to the demos.. You are right about leadership. Most people who are not activists don't know what is going on. They'll only find out and be able to get involved if someone high profile says it in the media.

Anyway, it's sometimes worse to do not enough than to do nothing at all.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 31, 2006)

kasheem said:
			
		

> That's what I was saying around the time of the demos. Why aren't they doing direct action, national strikes? I would have supported that.. I would maybe even have volunteered to help in some 'support position'. As it was the only option available was to get on a bus to London with all the students for a day of complete fuck all except be on TV and preached at by old hippies (Tony Benn).
> 
> So I didn't go to the demos.. You are right about leadership. Most people who are not activists don't know what is going on. They'll only find out and be able to get involved if someone high profile says it in the media.
> 
> Anyway, it's sometimes worse to do not enough than to do nothing at all.


as somebody who along with other people of other political affiliations put an awful lot of effort into helping to organise, promote, and totally supporting the demonstrations I find the argument I should have done more, a bit disingenuous.  As part of that effort I DID put as much effort as I could in to building strikes amongst school students, FE students, hospital workers, bus workers, and leafleting at least 15 other workplaces in my area to strike.  and at least one section of the leadership of the stop the War movement, my SWP leadership section, did encourage us to take direct action creatively.

Respect.  ResistanceMP3


----------



## kasheem (Feb 2, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> as somebody who along with other people of other political affiliations put an awful lot of effort into helping to organise, promote, and totally supporting the demonstrations I find the argument I should have done more, a bit disingenuous.  As part of that effort I DID put as much effort as I could in to building strikes amongst school students, FE students, hospital workers, bus workers, and leafleting at least 15 other workplaces in my area to strike.  and at least one section of the leadership of the stop the War movement, my SWP leadership section, did encourage us to take direct action creatively.
> 
> Respect.  ResistanceMP3



Hi. 

Yes, but what did it achieve? Over 2 million turned up in London for the main demo. Would 3 million or 4 million have made any difference? I don't see how.

What I'm saying is that in my view the demos were a waste of time/energy.

The only thing that could have made a real difference is a strike that physically harms the process of going to war and is hundreds of times more effective per person you've got participating. I just don't see how waving placards can be more effective.

What were your arguments against a strike?

Maybe there should have been a public demo first where anybody can come to show how much support there is and then a strike.



> one section of the leadership of the stop the War movement, my SWP leadership section, did encourage us to *take direct action creatively*.



What does that mean? Unless it's a strike it's the same as a demo isn't it.. you're just hope the media takes notice of you and that the MPs care enough to influenced by that.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Feb 2, 2006)

The SWP voted down motions by the SP and Workers Power at the People's Assemblies saying the STWC should put pressure on the trade union leaders and TUC to build for strike as well as building among the rank and file for strikes.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 2, 2006)

kasheem said:
			
		

> Hi.
> 
> Yes, but what did it achieve? Over 2 million turned up in London for the main demo. Would 3 million or 4 million have made any difference? I don't see how.
> 
> ...


I think you've misunderstood my post.you asked me "what  were your arguments against a strike?"  as I said "I DID put as much effort as I could in to building strikes amongst school students, FE students, hospital workers, bus workers, and leafleting at least 15 other workplaces in my area to strike."  so my argument were FOR a strike (and any other form of direct action that workers wished to take part in), not against.

secondly, I agree with you "The only thing that could have made a real difference is a strike that physically harms the process of going to war and is hundreds of times more effective per person you've got participating."I did try to do that.  Some of the students from where I had visited did come out.  but with virtually all of the workplaces, I tried, but I failed.  But those same workplaces are did send coaches to the demonstrations.  So what do you suggest I should have done about that?

lastly, I agree with the fundamental point you are making, but I think you are overstating your case when you say the demonstration produced absolutely nothing.  I think the demonstration has had an effect on the consciousness and body politic.  Not as big as we would have liked, but an effect no less.

Fraternal greetings.  Resistance MP3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 2, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> The SWP voted down motions by the SP and Workers Power at the People's Assemblies saying the STWC should put pressure on the trade union leaders and TUC to build for strike as well as building among the rank and file for strikes.


the leadership of the SWP did encourage us, the members of the SWP, to try and build for strike action.  Surely the SWP party notes must have been reproduced on here, they usually are.  

fraternal greetings comrade


----------



## kasheem (Feb 2, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> lastly, I agree with the fundamental point you are making, but I think you are overstating your case when you say the demonstration produced absolutely nothing.  I think the demonstration has had an effect on the consciousness and body politic.  Not as big as we would have liked, but an effect no less.
> 
> Fraternal greetings.  Resistance MP3



As far as I can see the only thing that's changed is even greater cynicism than before. People don't believe that they can make a difference, whether by talking to their MPs, voting or expressing their views in any other way. Apathy is like a vicious circle..


----------



## mutley (Feb 2, 2006)

The SWP encouraged all of its members to go for strike action, and if that couldn't be won then anything that could be, like protesting at lunchtime, or whatever. 

This demo vs strike dichotomy is bollocks. Both were argued for. The problem was people didn't have the confidence to do it wothout support from the official leadership. Simple as.

I _think_ NATFHE did encourage it's members to take strike action, but even so very few did. Which just reinforces the point - the issue was confidence, not what various groups argued for.


----------



## kasheem (Feb 2, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> The SWP encouraged all of its members to go for strike action, and if that couldn't be won then anything that could be, like protesting at lunchtime, or whatever.
> 
> This demo vs strike dichotomy is bollocks. Both were argued for. The problem was people didn't have the confidence to do it wothout support from the official leadership. Simple as.
> 
> I _think_ NATFHE did encourage it's members to take strike action, but even so very few did. Which just reinforces the point - the issue was confidence, not what various groups argued for.



OK. Why didn't the leadership act?


----------



## Azrael23 (Feb 2, 2006)

I like to use marches to speak to the police. Its good for handing out leaflets on your own issues. 

 People who moan about marches being ineffective should perhaps tell us all how they stopped the Iraq war    

 Marches are historic sometimes, look at the march of the workless from the north to London that was aaaaages ago but people remember that more than they remember the situation which gave rise to it.

 The more people which are there, the more connections are made, the more networking is done, the more information is spread.

 This is an information war, nothing more.

 Direct action is flawed because it marginalises us.

 Protests are a small part of the struggle, its through the creation of our own media and information networks that any progress will come.


----------



## kasheem (Feb 5, 2006)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> I like to use marches to speak to the police. Its good for handing out leaflets on your own issues.
> 
> People who moan about marches being ineffective should perhaps tell us all how they stopped the Iraq war
> 
> ...



Information is useless if you don't act on it..

If protests get you hard then yeah go march. But you're deluded if you think you're going to change anything.


----------



## mutley (Feb 5, 2006)

kasheem said:
			
		

> OK. Why didn't the leadership act?



In most cases they're too close to Blair and New Labour. That's one of a number of reasons why the question of building a political alternative is so important.


----------



## Azrael23 (Feb 5, 2006)

kasheem said:
			
		

> Information is useless if you don't act on it..
> 
> If protests get you heard then yeah go march. But you're deluded if you think you're going to change anything.



 In your opinion that is.


----------



## MatthewEdwards (Feb 5, 2006)

The party line of the nihilists - "nothing changes, there's no point" - is absolute, blatant, flagrant, monumental, diabolical, gargantuan, leviathan nonsense.  It is the whimpering of those that have sold out their own power to the thought police inside their heads.  

The marches that I have been on - and all the political activities I have been involved in - have made me realise that I have the power, and that I need fear no authority when the cause is just.  That is what changing the world is.  All across the world there millions of people who are experiencing that revelation.

The point is not to interpret it.  The point is also not to bury your head in your  own misery and murmur and mumble.  The point is to change the world.  It's easy.  It happens every moment of every day.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2006)

kasheem said:
			
		

> OK. Why didn't the leadership act?


It kind of misses the point that question.  Emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class, and so more importantly the question is why didn't the rank-and-file spontaneously self organise the needed strike action?

FRats Rmp3


----------



## deeplight (Feb 15, 2006)

kasheem said:
			
		

> Information is useless if you don't act on it..
> 
> If protests get you hard then yeah go march. But you're deluded if you think you're going to change anything.



I suspect that your comments have more to do with your own individual negativity and jadedness than they do with any concrete fact.

What is this march if not information being acted on? What were the great strides being made in the cancellation of third world debt if not the same? 

Much is changing but it requires a positive eye to see it as there is alot that is negative running tandem to it.

The awareness which Azrael and Matthew speak of is also on a subtler level, which changes much in society through changing peoples views and attitudes, and how they carry themselves through the mire of a subtly controlling society. 

Nihilists such as yourself are just a reaction to societys control and still have to discover individual power on any of these matters.

 IMO you are the cement in the walls which are built around our freedoms.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 15, 2006)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> People who moan about marches being ineffective should perhaps tell us all how they stopped the Iraq war


The same way you did, we didn't.  You numpty


----------



## mutley (Feb 15, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> It kind of misses the point that question.  Emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class, and so more importantly the question is *why didn't the rank-and-file spontaneously self organise the needed strike action?*FRats Rmp3



Are you being ironic? Cos I don't think that happens very often.

Read that book about the 70's upturn, and what struck me was that if you look at the strikes in support of the pentonville 5, in every case where people struck the author was able to identify an organised group of militants that argued for action. Sometimes CP, sometimes IS, didn't matter who, but someone argued for it. It's never really 'spontaneous' - there's always someone who initiated it..

The books called 'glorious summer' i think, can't remember who by and can't lay hands on it just now!

edit- by ralph darlington


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 16, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Are you being ironic? Cos I don't think that happens very often.
> 
> Read that book about the 70's upturn, and what struck me was that if you look at the strikes in support of the pentonville 5, in every case where people struck the author was able to identify an organised group of militants that argued for action. Sometimes CP, sometimes IS, didn't matter who, but someone argued for it. It's never really 'spontaneous' - there's always someone who initiated it..
> 
> ...


kind of being ironic.  Kasheem seemed to be under a illusion that the SWP leadership held back the members from trying to build direct action in the form of mass strikes, mass direct action etc.  The truth was completely the reverse.  that point proven KAsheem also seems to believe that giving a lead to the working class is somehow part of the problem.  So what is the alternative to organised revolutionaries trying to play a lead with the working class?  I'm guessing kasheem believes the working class can spontaneously self organise, and so the question is why didn't they?

I agree with you Mutley, history shows organised revolutionaries can play a leading role. We attempted to lead in the anti-war movement, but the working class did not respond as we and kasheem would have liked.  I believe the answer to why the working class did not respond as both we and kasheem would have liked, and why workers didn't spontaneously self organise against the war, points to the need for a revolutionary party.


Frats Rmp3


----------



## articul8 (Feb 16, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> We attempted to lead in the anti-war movementy.



You tried to position yourself in the leadership of the STWC - in that respect you were successful.

But you didn't offer a genuinely _ political _ lead.  SWP speakers rarely - if ever - spoke of the need for a socialist alternative from a STWC platform.  Neither did you exaplain that mass demos were insufficient to "stop the war" (quite the contrary in fact).


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Feb 17, 2006)

Unfortunately i have met many SWP "activists".

Not one of them gave a fuck about what working class people think.
(Except to berate them for not thinking correctly.)

The only revolution with any moral authority,
Would come from the working classes,
Be lead by the working classes,
And be for the benefit of the working classes.

I doubt many in the SWP could stomach such a notion.
(Particularly the Streatham branch of the SWP.)
(What a bunch of jokers.)


----------



## TeeJay (Feb 17, 2006)

--edit--


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 17, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> You tried to position yourself in the leadership of the STWC - in that respect you were successful.
> 
> But you didn't offer a genuinely _ political _ lead.  SWP speakers rarely - if ever - spoke of the need for a socialist alternative from a STWC platform.  Neither did you exaplain that mass demos were insufficient to "stop the war" (quite the contrary in fact).


I am confused by your comments, have you actually read the rest of the thread?

I have no problem whatsoever in conceding that the SWP played "politics" a role in the stop the War coalition.  What I mean by that, is that the SWP intervened in the stop the War coalition to make sure that the highest common denominator of action could be achieved.  The SWP calculated which demands, and what actions, could achieve the maximum amount of support from organisations of the working class to mobilise the biggest number of working-class people against the war.  The SWP had to play politics to keep on board leaderships of working-class organisations who were just looking for an excuse not to embarrass Tony Blair.  And I have absolutely no problem in conceding that in order to achieve this we had to make concessions and compromises which were not in line with pure communist ideals of what should have been done.

I have absolutely no problem in conceding that when a democratic decision was made in the stop the War coalition the SWP had no problem in sticking to that decision, and promoting with every means at their disposal the aims of those democratically decided upon while acting as part of the coalition.  However, I have made it quite clear above, when it was possible we did argue for and build actions that went beyond demonstrations.  What did you do?  And more importantly, (a genuine question), why didn't you stop the War?

Fraternal greetings comrade, ResistantMP3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 17, 2006)

Sesquipedalian said:
			
		

> Unfortunately i have met many SWP "activists".
> 
> Not one of them gave a fuck about what working class people think.
> (Except to berate them for not thinking correctly.)
> ...


so I take it this post is an attack upon articul8s position "But you didn't offer a genuinely  political  lead. SWP speakers rarely - if ever - spoke of the need for a socialist alternative from a STWC platform. Neither did you exaplain that mass demos were insufficient to "stop the war" (quite the contrary in fact)."  

so basically or arguing revolutionaries should provide no lead role, and the working-class will spontaneously self organise for revolution?  please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.

I do find it quite ironic that articul8 is lecturing the SWP for not providing enough of a lead, whilst you are lecturing us for providing too much of a lead.  Them two post quite happily delineate the more pragmatic approach the SWP takes than most revolutionaries.  On the one hand I totally agree with you that the revolution has to be a revolution by the working class for the working class.  The emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class.  However I also agree with articul8, I do not think revolutionaries can just sit at home watching Eastenders and wait for the "inevitable" revolution to happen.

Same question to you.  What did you do to stop the War?  Why did you fail?  And how did your failure convince you you had the one true shining Path to social revolution?

Fraternal greetings Comrade.  ResistanceMP3

PS. These are important questions to me.  Because one thing that distinguishes the SWP from most revolutionaries I have come across is their sensible and pragmatic approach.  The SWP has always argued while I have been a member that the SWP does NOT want any grouping on the left to be smaller.  The more anarchists, reformists, revolutionaries the better, the SWP has always argued.  The more diverse approaches that are to achieving social revolution the better in my opinion.  It seems basic Darwinian logic.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 18, 2006)

Edit: Ignore me, I am a complete fool


----------



## Sunray (Feb 18, 2006)

What, exactly is the point of this march?  Which war do people want stopping?  

If its the Iraq one then its not really a war any more is it, more an occupation with the odd lethal explosion.  If not I suppose there are plenty of other wars going on that deserve a march.


----------



## soulman (Feb 19, 2006)

What war is this march/demo about?


----------



## soulman (Feb 19, 2006)

Are they against legal wars?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 19, 2006)

sun & soul >>>> http://www.stopwar.org.uk/


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 19, 2006)

Fwiw, I never understood why the organised opposition to the occupation of Iraq chose to fight on  their terms, and not on terms that might influence the decision-makers.

These are capitalists (political and otherwise), fighting a war for capitalist reasons, it would seem reasonable to assume that if you wanted to influence them you would adopt a strategy that would affect them. As capitalists.

A lot of people marching around with placards  - why should they care. It would seem (to me) a capitalist would find such an event irrelevant ?

Imo, you need to move on from the 60s and 70s, cos the opposition certainly has, and I don't think I'm the only one who is bemused by the lack of imagination around the 'anti' campaign.


----------



## treelover (Feb 20, 2006)

What arrogance, what hubris, maybe they just didn't trust you idiots

btw how many fronts do you have now, 




> We attempted to lead in the anti-war movement, but the working class did not respond as we and kasheem would have liked.


----------



## mutley (Feb 20, 2006)

treelover said:
			
		

> What arrogance, what hubris, maybe they just didn't trust you idiots
> 
> btw how many fronts do you have now,



Oh, so the working class would have struck against the war, but they didn't trust Lindsey German.

Maybe not.

btw, what's your fucking alternative, you seem happy to diss both stw and uaf so what's your great secret for taking 'the struggle' forward?

Or do you just snipe at any movement involving more than two people and a dog?


----------



## treelover (Feb 20, 2006)

No, not at all, just the SWP and its many fronts and no, i'm' not in the slightest apologetic or embarrassed about it. I saw (from the inside) how you (the SWP) destoyed the ethos and spirit of the  London European Social Forum and consequently the Social Forum movement in the U.K, (an outcome Respect dearly wanted) and i for one will never forget. The sooner you go the way of that other parasitical party: the C.P with all its fronts, the better.



> Or do you just snipe at any movement involving more than two people and a dog?


----------



## mutley (Feb 20, 2006)

treelover said:
			
		

> No, not at all, just the SWP and its many fronts and no, i'm' not in the slightest apologetic or embarrassed about it. I saw (from the inside) how you (the SWP) destoyed the ethos and spirit of the  London European Social Forum and consequently the Social Forum movement in the U.K, (an outcome Respect dearly wanted) and i for one will never forget. The sooner you go the way of that other parasitical party: the C.P with all its fronts, the better.



And i suppose it's our fault the social forum movement in Italy has virtually disappeared too?

You still haven't said what your alternative is, or what you think people should do.

I think that stw and uaf are both much bigger than the swp, and while we are key parts of the leadership of both, we are not the majority, we actually have to convinve other sof our arguemnts, and hence they are not fronts. 

What is your alternative?????????


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 20, 2006)

London_Calling said:
			
		

> Fwiw, I never understood why the organised opposition to the occupation of Iraq chose to fight on  their terms, and not on terms that might influence the decision-makers.
> 
> These are capitalists (political and otherwise), fighting a war for capitalist reasons, it would seem reasonable to assume that if you wanted to influence them you would adopt a strategy that would affect them. As capitalists.
> 
> ...


So why didn't YOU stop the war with your more 'enlightened' methods?

fraternal greetings.  ResistanceMP3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 20, 2006)

treelover said:
			
		

> No, not at all, just the SWP and its many fronts and no, i'm' not in the slightest apologetic or embarrassed about it. I saw (from the inside) how you (the SWP) destoyed the ethos and spirit of the  London European Social Forum and consequently the Social Forum movement in the U.K, (an outcome Respect dearly wanted) and i for one will never forget. The sooner you go the way of that other parasitical party: the C.P with all its fronts, the better.


  so your alternative method is so poor you have to wait for a "insignificant sect" to disappear before you can do anything? 
you are going to be waiting a long time mate, and in that time we will continue doing what we always do, we will unite with anybody and everybody who is prepared to work in United front in the interests of the working class, and just ignore those people like you who do nothing but snipe from the sidelines.

Rmp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 20, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> What is your alternative?????????


how did he/she stop the war?


----------



## soulman (Feb 21, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> so your alternative method is so poor you have to wait for a "insignificant sect" to disappear before you can do anything?
> you are going to be waiting a long time mate, and in that time we will continue doing what we always do, we will unite with anybody and everybody who is prepared to work in United front in the interests of the working class, and just ignore those people like you who do nothing but snipe from the sidelines.
> 
> Rmp3



You really believe that working class women want to walk a given number of steps behind their male counterparts? You really believe working class women want to be denied education and be expected to hide their beauty to satisfy certain religious zealots?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 21, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> So why didn't YOU stop the war with your more 'enlightened' methods?
> 
> fraternal greetings.  ResistanceMP3


For the record, I  find the ineptitude and impotence of the liberal left (to be) the great sadness of modern politics; there is no leadership and there are no new ideas to meet the exponential success of consumer-capitalism in general and the Neo-Cons in particular.

Placard waving in 60s stylie . . . thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 21, 2006)

and anudder thing . . . at least in the 60s they took the time and trouble to knock up their own placards and slogans. 

It feels like the ultimate  achievement of consumer society that thousands and thousands of people march down the road with an identical slogan printed on A5 off the photocopier - if I buy three Big Macs do I get a placard free ?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 22, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> You really believe that working class women want to walk a given number of steps behind their male counterparts? You really believe working class women want to be denied education and be expected to hide their beauty to satisfy certain religious zealots?


   and meanwhile back in the real world, young working-class women who have played a leading role in the anti-war movement have learned lessonS and gained confidence from that ACTION, and are taking on all kinds of injustice.

I'd say my attitude to working-class women is a bit like my attitude to Iraq.  You cannot impose democracy on Iraqi people, it is a contradiction in terms.  Likewise, the emancipation of working-class women has to be the act of working-class women.  I consider myself very privileged to have played a small role in facilitating that self activity.  

however, if you feel you have a less profligate method of achieving the emancipation of working-class women, or even more important and on the topic of the thread stopping the war, please share it with us.  (Why do I get the feeling you won't.  )

Respect.  ResistanceMP3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 22, 2006)

London_Calling said:
			
		

> For the record, I  find the ineptitude and impotence of the liberal left (to be) the great sadness of modern politics; there is no leadership and there are no new ideas to meet the exponential success of consumer-capitalism in general and the Neo-Cons in particular.
> 
> Placard waving in 60s stylie . . . thanks, but no thanks.


couldn't agree with you more.  The ineptitude and the importance of the left is indeed disheartening.  however, I am quite amazed that someone with such an obvious and awesome intellect as yourself does not share with us lesser beings the revolutionary method you employed to stop the War.

.  Respect.  ResistanceMP3

PS.  It isn't just about waving placards.  It is about building a network "a swarm" of people, coming from all different political angles, but sharing goals.  People who can agree to disagree about the minutiae of left-wing politics, but can agree to work together on the big issues that unite us.  As a revolutionary I am not going to dictate to those people how they must and must not behave.  Today if they decide to march, I will march with them.  Tomorrow if they decide to go on general strike, how much better will that be?


----------

