SWP condemns direct action

by pat c Fri Nov 22, 2002 14:39

"Remember when the protestors set fire to the British Embassy in Dublin in 1972? What would your tactics have been? Walk around waving banners saying: "Jail corrupt soldiers". "

i don't know what the swp did in 1972 but in july 1981,at the brit embassy, swp(swm) members were at the head of the crowd trying to break thru the garda lines.(as were anarchists) at least one swp member was seriously injured in the hand to hand fighting. there were no members of militant present.

the swm were involved in building support for the h block hungerstrikers. kevin, (who was a busworker at the time)worked to organise strike action. strikes took place in waterford, sligo, dundalk, drogheda, tralee, cork, limerick, derry, belfast, armagh and to a lesser extent in dublin. (militant condemned these strikes as being sectarian)

anarchists also played an important role in bringing the struggle in suppoort
of the hungerstrikers into the trade union movement. as did the LWR, peoples democracy & shop steward cttes in waterford, drogheda, dundalk & derry.

tom darby (not the nbu one) deserves particular praise for the work he did bringing building sites out in dublin.

there, that needed to be said.

i'm sure i'll be back criticising the swp in a later posting.

actually i'll slip one in now:(its been asked elsewhere by others but not answered)

why does richard boyd barrett have to be chair of so many different cttes?
what sense does this make?
how can someone adequately carry out "leadership" roles in so many campaigns?

by Independent Fri Nov 22, 2002 11:42

I hate to challenge people's self-reassuring oversimplifications and ready made shemes, but the anti-war movement is not divided between the good and wise IAWM steering committee and "anarchist" troublemakers. The organising meetings for the protest at Shannon thus far have involved a majority of non-anarchists. Some of the people who have come along have said that they have never been to a protest before, but will be at Shannon on the 8th of december. Kevin Wingfield might be shocked to hear the news, but there is a growing number of people in this country who oppose the war on Iraq but don't feel represented by a small clique of party-politicians and committeemen, and have decided that they want to speak and act for themselves. If he really believes that we'll all be silenced in the name of some broader movement, that is never broad enough to include our voice, then he is seriously mistaken on this one.

by Andrew Fri Nov 22, 2002 11:11

I agree that 5,000 at Shannon taking part in mass direct action couldn't 'stop the war'. I'm not sure anyone has argued that they could. BUT they could stop refuelling which would be stopping Irelands involvement in the war.

And that is the difference with a march around Dublin (which I continue to also support). It can be ignored. The closing of an airport and the occupation of its runways, terminal buildings and hangers could not. In that sceanerio the government would either have to find a way to back down or decide to seriously repress the movement. In the context of the large scale passive opposition to the war that exits the second option would be a difficult one for them.

All actions re not simply determined by numbers, this should be ABC to the left. 1000 people grumblin in the pub will always be less effective then 1000 people marching in the street which will always be less effective then 1000 people taking direct action (whether by strike, occupation or whatever).

It also might help if the SWP posters on the thread stopped pretending that everybody disagreeing with them was part of the same organsiation or even that they are all anarchists. Quoting one persons post to answer that of another is simply dishonest in this context

by Ddj Fri Nov 22, 2002 00:18

The title of this piece says "SWP condemns direct action." But nowhere in what follows do the SWP "condemn" direct action. Instead they argue for Mass Direct Action.

So the headline was a lie designed to deceive. As was much else from the same people.

It's peculiar and extremely hypocritical that anarchists should talk of honesty after having so blatantly destroyed any vestige of credibility and exposed their rampant bad faith.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Thu Nov 21, 2002 23:29

I found German's article rather dull, particularly its predictable triumphalism with regard to the Stop the War Coalition in Britain showed a remarkable inability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation.

The StWC has achieved some important things. It has sponsored some large demonstrations and co-sponsored a truly enormous one. It has built a good level of name recognition. It has thoroughly outmanouvred the likes of CND and ARROW and the wing of the "respectable" peace movement which would prefer to keep the far left marginalised and to focus opposition to war around a moralist pacifism rather than issues like oil and US/UK interests.

Still, the coalition is very small. A wide range of bodies have affiliated to it in name, ranging from religious groups to the far left. In practice, though, its local groups tend to function sporadically at best and nationally its activist layer consists largely of the usual suspects - the far left along with some liberal peaceniks. The StWC can jointly organise mass protests, but it is by no stretch of the imagination a mass organisation or anything approaching one.

A sober analysis of the StWC would acknowledge the problems as well as the achievements: after all, we can't improve if we don't recognise that there is room for improvement. And in the case of the StWC there is a lot of room.

Local anti-war groups all too often are a sham. They are switched on and off as postering and leafleting needs dictate and almost none of them have been allowed to develop any real life of their own. The outmanouevring of the liberal-pacifist wing of the movement has all too often been more organisational than political, with socialists masquerading as liberal-pacifists. You can go a very long time at Coalition meetings without hearing the words "workers", "working class" or "socialism". Lindsay German correctly criticises Tribune (a magazine belonging to the tiny left wing remaining in New Labour) for wanting a safer, entirely pacifist anti-war movement, but her reply is frankly disengenuous. The Coalition is already an extremely top-down organisation. The only point of difference the British SWP has with Tribune is over who holds the leash of the top-down apparatus.

As you can see, I think that there is much to criticise in the article, but I think that it is very strange that the part which seems to have caused controversy here consists of a couple of fairly reasonable sentences about the need to avoid counterposing "direct action" to building a mass movement.

Somebody above (sorry, I forget who) criticised the SWP for creating a false opposition between direct action and building a mass movement. Although I agree that there should be no opposition between the two, I don't think that the SWP are falling into that trap. This was not an article about the evils of "direct action".

The dangerous attitude I see displayed on this thread isn't that of the SWP, but that which makes a tactic into a principle.

Our goal is to end Irish assistance to the American war effort. To do that we need to build a powerful mass movement. "Direct action" is a tactic, or more precisely a varied collection of tactics. Every action we take "direct" or otherwise has to be assessed in terms of our goals.

So far the various "direct actions" which have taken place - tresspassing in Shannon and spraypainting a warplane - have been symbolic actions. They are no more capable of stopping the war than a march or a press conference or some leafleting. Like the marches or the leafleting or whatever they are ways of making some noise - of broadcasting our arguments. That is a good thing and I applaud the initiative of those involved, but let's not pretend that these actions are qualitively different from other propaganda actions.

Most of the comments hostile to the German article I think recognise this at some level, but I'm not entirely sure. For instance the repeated contrasts drawn between 5,000 people marching in Dublin or 5,000 tresspassing in Shannon seem to me to miss the point in a number of ways.

Neither would in and of themselves stop Irish involvement in the war. In fact to argue that 5,000 utilising direct action could stop the war is a deeply elitist notion, differing only in degree from the view that 500 could. Both would in essence still be propaganda actions.

I would love to be in a situation where 5,000 people were willing to tresspass in Shannon, not because their action is any more capable of "directly" stopping the war but because it would mean that we were dealing with a much bigger movement: let's be clear about this, many more people are willing to come on a march or give a leaflet to their friends than are willing to break the law.

Would I be arguing for those 5,000 to go ahead and tresspass? Well it depends on what precisely is proposed in what precise situation. Will the action serve to convince others or to alienate them?

The Socialist Party has a long record of involvement in all kinds of direct action, from strikes to the mass non-payment of the water charges to the tearing down of fences at detention centres for refugees in Australia. Nobody can seriously accuse us of opposing "direct action". The point remains though that direct action is a tactic and not a principle.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Nov 21, 2002 22:35

Here is part of what the article says:

"Iraq became the main political question of the day and it became clear that the British government was prepared to act alongside George Bush, regardless of the wishes of the people in Britian or indeed the rest of the world."

So Dave, explain again why it is that marching around in front of the GPO is going to do anything?

Support the symbolic Dec7th mobilisation prior to going down to Shannon on Dec 8th to do something!

by rebel with a cause Thu Nov 21, 2002 21:01

well done MG for having both the sense and the guts to criticise the looney tunes marches and slogans of the swp, not to mention their infernal, crackly loudhailers. Young people instinctively recognise real revolutionaries e.g Che Guevara and quickly see trough Trotsyist
'revolutionary' groups such as the swp or sp.

by Brian Thu Nov 21, 2002 20:35

"who are free to do whatever they want, imposing their tactics on the broader movement"

now this quote could almost read like something taken from an SWP internal bulletin, like the one leaked on indymedia a couple of months, in that there was specific detail on imposing the SWP's idea of what the "movement" should be on the broad "movement" here in ireland, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

by silo Thu Nov 21, 2002 20:05

I know this might seem like going off on a somewhat hippyish la la la I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing-type tangent, but it's encouraging to see a debate on the newswire that actually stays (mostly) on one line of discussion, that doesn't degenerate (too much) into slagging and that might even be characterised as (somewhat) constructive, even despite certain evasions and typical rhetorical devices. (Or is that too much to hope for and is the idea of a rational and constructive Indymedia.ie too much for some to bear?) So, eh, keep doing that.

by MG Thu Nov 21, 2002 19:40

And Paul: I didn't say hate, I said "regard as rent-a-cause fanatics". There is a difference. Does everybody in the SWP avoid the real questions and respond to things that were never said?

by MG Thu Nov 21, 2002 19:33

Remember when the protestors set fire to the British Embassy in Dublin in 1972? What would your tactics have been? Walk around waving banners saying: "Jail corrupt soldiers".

Yeah, people would have really rallied to the cause then, wouldn't they?

by Paul Tree Thu Nov 21, 2002 19:31

So the vast majority of young people hate the SWP. So that would be you and your mates then?
Such crass statements.
Just a question, what will the police presence be like in Shannon. Is everyone willing to get arrested if it came to it?
PT

by MG Thu Nov 21, 2002 19:11

You say: "Andrew keeps claiming I misrepresent the anarchist position when I say they rubbish the big protests organised by the IAWM. Well look above at what your comrade writes: Here MG describes recent Dublin protests wrongly as "silly SWP marches"."

Firstly, I'm not an anarchist (though I'm not insulted by being called one). I do not represent the anarchist position. So I think you owe Andrew an apology.

Secondly, when I referred to "silly SWP marches", I was referring to every march your pathetic party ever organised, and not just "recent Dublin protests". Walking around waving banners and chanting immature slogans will change nothing. Do you guys even realise that the vast majority of young people (who, by the way, are much more inclined to be progressive than older conservatives) regard the SWP as a bunch of rent-a-cause fanatics. Is this you're way of building a mass movement? Your intentions may be good, but you are doomed to failure because silly marches will achieve nothing. They are ignored by the press, they are ignored by politicians and, most importantly, they are ignored by the public.

by Kevin Wingfield Thu Nov 21, 2002 18:38

Anarchist MG wrote:

"The IAWM march - which you claim attracted 3,000 people - didn't stop Cowen voting for war.

Eoin Dubsky's single act of bravery was more effective in raising awareness than any of your silly SWP marches."

As it happens neither has stopped the war. It's going to take a lot more to do that. Which is why I support a strategy that buildings tens of thousands of anti-war activists.

MG also wrote

"Do you condemn Eoin for not consulting with everybody else who opposes the war before he carried out his actions?"

Of course not. He didn't demand everyone else should do what he did. We applauded his actions and interviewed him for Socialist Worker by the way.

We are arguing what we see as the best tactics and strategy for THE MOVEMENT and not rubbishing this or that act of protest. Is that so hard to understand?

Andrew keeps claiming I misrepresent the anarchist position when I say they rubbish the big protests organised by the IAWM.

Well look above at what your comrade writes: Here MG describes recent Dublin protests wrongly as "silly SWP marches".

People will have to judge for themselves in this controversy. Just to clear the air. As I said before I wish luck to ALL anti war protests; The SWP will put its energies, via the IAWM into trying to build MASS opposition to the war and that includes MASS direct action.

That' about as clear as I can make it.
Have no time for any more just now.

by Ray Thu Nov 21, 2002 18:31

- So let's stop kidding around and begin to build a MASS anti war movment and not get too obsessed with small scale stuff.

So Eoin Dubsky's actions and the mass trespass at Shannon - both of which were widely reported in the news - are 'kidding around'. Wow, where did anyone ever get the idea that the SWP don't like direct action?

How do you build a mass anti-war movement? By organising demonstrations AND by organising direct action. You make your demonstrations as big as possible, and your direct actions as big as possible, and each will support the other.

I think this is considerably more realistic than Kevin's formula, which is to organise demonstration after demonstration in the hope that they will get bigger* and then when you reach a magic number (50,000? a million?) you clap your hands and say "Right! NOW we can have some direct action! Who brought the wirecutters?"
Or maybe I'm missing something... possibly the bit were everyone joins the SWP and becomes part of an advanced vanguard, capable of leaping tall buildings with a single bound...

*of course, so far all of the anti-war marches have been about the same size. Maybe we should give them another few years...

by Andrew Thu Nov 21, 2002 18:20

Kevin you still are replying to stuff I never wrote - I really don't see what the point of that is on a forum like indymedia where people can check back to see what I actually wrote.

Lets leave aside the nonsense for the moment. Your fundamental argument seems to be that we have to hold off taking direct action until we build a big enough movement. From the above it appears that would be in Ireland a movement of tens of thousands.

I have two replies to this
1. It is NOT a case of one and then the other. In other words I see Direct Action as part of building a mass movement rather then as something to consider once the movement is built. The Direct Action's to date have not only attracted a lot of additional media attention, they have also started public discussion around the issue of Shannon. This should help to build the movement rather then subtract from it.

They have also helped to create the sort of 'buzz' that gets people moving from passive opposition in the pub to active opposition on the streets. The SWP likes to talk of the 'anti Capitalist movement' emerging from Seattle. Don't you understand that what created this movement was not the number demonstrating (no bigger then at the Cologne demonstration the previous year) but rather what they did? And what they did was engage in Direct Action - blocking the entrances of the building and trashing a number of transnationals. Indeed only a minority of a few thousand carried out the inital blockade.

2. War is looming - we can disagree about numbers but even by SWP figures the largest demonstration to date in Ireland has been 3,000. How many can be expected on Dec 7th? Maybe 5,000? The problem with waiting for a movement of tens of thousands to emerge before considering direct action is that by the time this happens the war may well be long over. The problem also is that a series of identical marches often have the effect of boring some people off marches.

Overall the SWP position only makes sense if the true intention is to try and isolate those who engage in Direct Action. This of course was your main tactic in relation to the 'anti-capitalist movement' (and I find you constant bleating about slander in that respect ironic to say the least).

I will continue to build for both events rather then rubbishing one in favour of the other.

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Thu Nov 21, 2002 18:20

Andrew says I mischaracterise the anarchist position when I wrote: "You don't build [mass anti war movement which can involve mass direct action] on the basis of anarchist obsession with small scale direct action. (A march of a million or even a thousand can't stop and discuss tactics on the hoof)."

Then his fellow anarchist comrade Ray says:

"At the moment we only have the numbers for small-scale direct action"

Right. So let's stop kidding around and begin to build a MASS anti war movment and not get too obsessed with small scale stuff.

by MG Thu Nov 21, 2002 18:20

The IAWM march - which you claim attracted 3,000 people - didn't stop Cowen voting for war.

Eoin Dubsky's single act of bravery was more effective in raising awareness than any of your silly SWP marches.

Do you condemn Eoin for not consulting with everybody else who opposes the war before he carried out his actions?

People (in theory at least) are free to make their own choices. If 100, or 20 or even two anarchists decide to break away from a march to engage in direct action, this does not mean that the others have to follow like sheep. If people choose to follow, it will be because they are free to choose. Ditto if they choose not to follow.

Also, the people who led the 1916 rising were small in number. They decided to take direct action to pursue their beliefs. They didn't wait for the so-called "masses" to take up arms. They made a personal sacrifice that eventually led to a free Irish State. Is that your idea of elitism?

by Ray Thu Nov 21, 2002 18:08

Kevin says - The point is they are not the same 5,000. It takes a higher level of consciousness to defy the law than come on a protest march. The march can be a bridge, a means of building consciousness of larger numbers of people.

I actually agree with Kevin on this - its easier to get people to go to a march first, and then get them involved in direct action. Its fairly simple, right? You hold a march, and then you hold a direct action. Trouble is, the IAWM haven't managed to get beyond step 1. They hold a march. Then they hold another march. Then they hold another march. Then they hold another march.

For all that Kevin says he supports mass direct action, the IAWM have never even tried to involve people in direct action (and have even tried to block the attempts of others). But don't worry, direct action is coming. Maybe after the next march. Or the one after that. Sometime soon, anyway.

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Thu Nov 21, 2002 17:59

Lot of Red herrings:

Points 1,2,3,4 are the same: "does this give the IAWM a right to decide what tactics are and are not legtimate in opposing the war?"

I don't speak for the Irish Anti War Movement but as a supporter of the IAWM I understand it takes responsibility for the actions it organises.
And it organises strewards for that purpose.

Those who want to do their own thing at other events are of course perfectly at liberty to do so. It's just silly to suggest that the IAWM expects to be asked its permission for people to go onstrike or whatever. Disingenous Andrew.

Andrew claims::
"The disagreement is over whether a march of 5,000 in Dublin is more effective then a similar number occupying the airfield at Shannon."

Why stop there? If the 5,000 are as infintely malleable as the anarchists think, why not have mount an insurrection?
The point is they are not the same 5,000. It takes a higher level of consciousness to defy the law than come on a protest march. The march can be a bridge, a means of building consciousness of larger numbers of people.
See my comments above about Florence.

Andrew says:--"The whole opposition between Direct Action and Mass Demonstrations that the SWP are trying to create is a false one."

False: On these pages we have seen a number of anarchists disparage 3000+ demos in Dublin as "wandering around" and "well behaved marches" Lindsey German was replying to similar sentiments from anarchists in Britain. We want mass direct action. But it must be mass, and it must involve not just "specialists" but load of working class people.

You want the direct action but you have no idea how to get the masses of people involved, so you hop over it, content with small scale stuff or simply imagine that you get 5,000 on a protest and bounce them into direct action willy nilly.
People will engage in big numbers in mass direct action if it is seriously built for and organised and they know ahead of time what they are in for..

Our replies to the slanders against us are about how you build a movement to achieve these things.

by Ray Thu Nov 21, 2002 17:37

- In that context well-organised direct action is possible and necessary. I am thinking of mass sit-downs, occupations of schools, colleges and workplaces; strikes, .etc.

Kevin says he is not against direct action, but it has to involve lots of people, and it has to be well-organised*. That's great, Kevin, we'd all like to see mass direct action too. At the moment we only have the numbers for small-scale direct action, just like the IAWM can only get a couple of thousand people to a demonstration, but the more the merrier.

So what kind of direct action has the IAWM organised?
(Hint - sitting down for five minutes in the middle of a march is not 'direct action'. Unless you're protesting against insects on the streets, I suppose.)

* This is kind of odd, though. I mean, at the last Shannon protest a group of people tried to organise some direct action, and were prevented from doing so by the IAWM stewards. Surely if the SWP supported well-organised direct action, they would have been enthusiatic supporters of holding a meeting to plan direct action. I suppose it would make more sense to me if I were a full-timer.

by Andrew Thu Nov 21, 2002 17:33

Kevin's reply above is an almost prefect example of the SWP 'technique'. If you go to marxism you'll hear lots more of it. It works like this

1. Ignore what those who disagree with you have actually said
2. Instead claim they said something else all together eg "You don?t build that sort of movement on the basis of anarchist obsession with small scale direct action. (A march of a million or even a thousand can?t stop and discuss tactics on the hoof)."
3. Proceed to argue against this.

It works quite well in a verbal situation where people may not remember what someone actually said exactly. But on indymedia it works very badly as anyone can just scroll up and compare what was actually said with the strawman Kevin is arguing against! Give it a try by comparing my actual remarks with what Kevin claimed was being said!

Just on the factual end while I agree that a march of a million would have serious problems making decisions on the hoof there is actually an established tradition in the 'anti-capitalist movement' of decision making methods that have allowed decisions to be quickly made by groups numbering in the low thousands. Of course such methods are not perfect but there are better then having a small self-selcted 'committee' making the decisions some days ahead of the even in a back room in Dublin! Once it looks likely we will have over a few thousand at Shannon then we will need to use other forms of decision making to tackle this. Again the anarchist and other movements that actually make decisions 'from below' have developed mechanisms to do this for large numbers of people well into the millions.

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Thu Nov 21, 2002 17:21

The extract from an SWP author that got the anarchists so excited was the following:
"When we talk about direct action and civil disobedience we mean mass direct action which can involve large numbers of trade unionists, students and peace campaigners. If small groups of people want to go off and do their own thing, or spend time training in non violent direct action techniques, that is fine, but they should not try to impose this elitism on the rest of us."

This seems to me to be obvious.
If we are to change the world then we need masses of people doing it. Those who believe it is the preserve of a small number of specialists are elitists. There is no other word for it.

One million people marched in Florence recently against he war. Many were people who probably had not a lot of time between work and family for political activity. For most this was their first piece of political activism. Yet each one of them felt the solidarity of a demonstration that put Berlusconi’s cops on the back foot.

Despite dire warnings and threats, the police were kept out of sight.

Each protestor met others and knew they were not on their own. Each went back to their workplaces or neighbourhood with their morale raised, more likely to tell neighbours or argue with workmates against the war, more likely to become involved more political activism again, more likely to organise others against the war; more likely to consider strike action or occupying their factory against the war. Each felt that with hundreds of thousands beside them they had the power to stop the war and much elese besides.

It is only by getting non-specialists involved that we will build a mass movement against the war. That involves an anti-war movement that is a broad coalition and involves a conscious decision to prioritise major population centres and working class people.

In that context well-organised direct action is possible and necessary. I am thinking of mass sit-downs, occupations of schools, colleges and workplaces; strikes, .etc.

You don’t build that sort of movement on the basis of anarchist obsession with small scale direct action. (A march of a million or even a thousand can’t stop and discuss tactics on the hoof).

All direct action like all protest (short of insurrection) is ultimately a token. When you go home the planes come in again. The point is to make the costs as high as possible for the other side. To really hurt them we need BIG numbers.

If anarchists want to be the specialists in small-scale direct action I wish you luck, but your way is not our way. To believe you don’t want or need to organise masses is elitist. You have not felt it necessary to participate in the broad-based Irish Anti War Movement preparations for the large protests it has organised, preferring instead an overtly anarchist gathering to organise your protest. If you want to split in this way that’s your business but nobody should expect us in the broader movement to abandon our serious work because of it..

The call came from the Florence events for mass action when war is begun by the US culminating in a European-wide day of action on February 15th. The SWP believes this should involve those sorts of actions I have described above. In the context of 10,000 or more on the streets of Dublin, etc and 10 million across Europe mass strike action and occupations etc could really take off.

A first step to this sort of perspective is a big March to the US Embassy in Dublin on December 7th. I wish all success to every action against the war including the December 8th protest, but our priority is reaching to the great untapped numbers of those who can be won to participating in a genuine mass anti war movement.
This weekend in Trinity College Dublin, fighting the war and international capitalism figure strongly in the Marxism 2002 conference. For details tel 01-872 2682

by Andrew Thu Nov 21, 2002 16:33

Dave says
"Lindsey does not condemn direct action but is against small groups of direct actionists, who are free to do whatever they want, imposing their tactics on the broader movement."

There are several problems with the argument Dave is making above, an argument at the heart of the centralising politics of the SWP.

1. What is this broader movement? In Ireland for instance there are lots of groups opposed to the war. Some are members of the Irish Anti War Movement. Some of these actually send people along to the Dublin committee meetings of the IAWM? But does this give the IAWM a right to decide what tactics are and are not legtimate in opposing the war? The problem here is that those who happen to attend an IAWM committee meeting in Dublin somehow are the anti-war movement.

2. Even if there was a delegate body why would this have the right to dictate tactics to any and every group and individual who opposes the war? Maybe Dave fancies this is 'democracy'. But in that case activists in the US would have to accept that most people there support the war right now! Obviously there are times when we refuse to be ruled by majorities.

3. The examples Dave gives contradict what he is arguing. Take the firefighters strike for instance, this will have an impact on the war. But did the fire fighters go to the AWM to ask if they could go on strike? No, they decided themselves to take what action they thought was in their best interests.

4. In what way was Eoin Dubsky 'imposing his tactics on the broader movement' when he climbed the fence in Shannon and spray painted a Hercules C130?

5. The SWP themselves in the past have shown no respect for decisions taken in mass assemblies at protests they were involved in. Most notably in Prague where they actually sabotaged the plan to surround the IMF conference centre despite the fact it had been ratified at a mass meeting of some 3,000 people the day before the protest. Yet there they seem to feel that everyone should obey the decisions of an organisation created by the SWP whether or not they are involved with it!

The whole argument is so full of holes that we can only conclude that it is a red herring designed, as the original poster claimed, to allow the SWP to talk about Direct Action while doing their best to make sure it doesn't actually happen.

"The campaign of slander against the swp on the internet is such an attempt at imposition."

Now this is really odd but consistent with the pattern of SWP claims that free speech on indymedia is censorship! It seems that we can write what we like providing it agrees with what the SWP have to say. Anything else is 'imposing' on them!

"We argue for mass direct action in particular large demonstrations and where possible strikes."

It seems the 'in particular' above should really read 'but only if they are'. Most, if not all, anti-war activists are in favour of large demonstrations and strikes against the war. This is not where the disagreement is. The disagreement is over whether a march of 5,000 in Dublin is more effective then a similar number occupying the airfield at Shannon.

"Millionms of peoplke on the street removes the moral and political authority of our rulers to make war. Recent governmnt [papers released in britain show that it was the mass movemnt against the war that prevented britain from entering the war."

Err which war was this? Not Suez obviously or WWI or WWII, not was it Korea or Kenya or the Gulf in '91. It also wasn't the Malvinas or even the north of Ireland. I guess maybe its Vietnam but in this case Dave forgets that the mass demonstrations included attempts to storm the US embassy in London? Opposition to the Vietnam war was not limited to large well behaved marches. In fact large 'badly behaved' marches and other events including the burning of draft cards and the sabotage of military equipment were part of that opposing.

Again large demonstrations against the war are good but if they are simply a well behaved parade around London or Washington or Dublin they can be ignored by the state. They become effective when the government feels there is a threat of them becoming more then this - that was the real strength of the Vietnam movement. And Direct Action is fundamental to creating this threat.

The whole opposition between Direct Action and Mass Demonstrations that the SWP are trying to create is a false one. The reality is that both can work hand in hand - Seattle being one very good example. It should be the case that mass demonstrations are a route to Direct Action for many activists. And it should be that Direct Actions help create the mood of 'something happening' that gets anti-war opposition out of the armchair and into the streets.

by As do many many other ghosts Thu Nov 21, 2002 16:23

like 30-50 perhaps.

A good way of not tolerating dissent /

by Ray Thu Nov 21, 2002 16:13

Off the top of my head...
Reclaim the Streets, Critical Mass, the Anti-Bin Charges Campaign, the grassroots gathering, the Reclaim the Old Head of Kinsale campaign, Libertarians Against Nice, various anti-war protests, Gluaiseach (sp?), anti-partnership campaigns in the trade unions, and all the other stuff I've left out*. Oh, and there are at least one or two involved in indymedia.
Is that enough for you?

*Most of these campaigns also involve many non-anarchists as well, of course. I'm not trying to claim them on behalf of anarchism.

by Jay Thu Nov 21, 2002 16:03

Ok, so the anarchist movement in Ireland is small, in the 100s - if even - but where are their actions, tactics, direct actions, grass roots building?

I haven't seen or heard of any occupations, daring actions, co-op shops and cafes, alternative social centres, etc. recently! what do Irish anarchists do apart from talk, discuss and teach us the theories. I thought real anarchy was about getting on with it and building what you need NOW!

by MG Thu Nov 21, 2002 15:56

"Our movement has also avoided the trap of elitism . . . Nor does it rely on a small and self appointed elite to carry out the protests."

Dave, you're not doing yourself any favours by printing this shit. The SWP's self-appointed elite attempts to control every protest in Ireland. Also, by describing the anti-war movement as "our" movement, your shitty party has perfectly highlighted its own arrogance and elitism. And the US left Vietnam because it was defeated by the National Liberation Army, not because it was forced to retreat by anti-war protests.

by seeker Thu Nov 21, 2002 15:50

:: unity in diversity ::
:: unity in diversity ::
:: unity in diversity ::
:: unity in diversity ::
:: unity in diversity ::
:: unity in diversity ::
:: unity in diversity ::
:: unity in diversity ::
:: unity in diversity ::
:: unity in diversity ::

by Anticapitalist Thu Nov 21, 2002 15:42

Anti-war protest
8th December
2pm Shannon airport

by Ray Thu Nov 21, 2002 15:42

- mass direct action in particular large demonstrations

What do you think 'direct action' means Dave?

(and why mention the anti-war demo on the 7th, but not the one on the 8th?)

by dave lordan - swp Thu Nov 21, 2002 15:34 dlordan at hotmail dot com

Moving on up

The Stop the War Coalition has created the biggest anti-war movement in generations, as Lindsey German explains

The biggest anti-war demonstration ever in Britain. One of the largest demonstrations in Britain ever. The largest multiracial demonstration ever in Europe. The superlatives have mounted up for the massive protest march against war on Iraq and for a free Palestine on 28 September in London. Despite early police estimates of 40,000, around ten times that figure turned up, exceeding the expectations of even the most optimistic organisers. There was much anecdotal evidence of its size: people who never left the Embankment because they had only scheduled in two or three hours for demonstrating and had to leave before it began; the demo organiser who was phoned by a friend in the Embankment asking when the march was going to start moving -there were already tens of thousands in Hyde Park; the couple who had last been on a demo in 1968; the very large number who had never been on such a protest before.

The immediate issue motivating most people was, above all, to stop Tony Blair's drive to war alongside George Bush. The TUC earlier in September had demonstrated widespread anger within the working class movement. On the eve of Labour's conference many wanted to underline this anger, and to give concrete support to those who were to challenge Blair at the conference itself. A number of mainly Labour MPs were on the march, as were several general secretaries of trade unions, along with their national union banners. Most importantly, however, there were people from every town and city across Britain, from a variety of backgrounds, races and nationalities, young and old, gay and straight, all united in their opposition to the war.

A matter of honour

Why did they turn out in such huge numbers? Obviously the immediate issue galvanised people who were sufficiently worried about war in Iraq to turn out on the streets. We were also helped in a contrary way by the Countryside Alliance march the previous week. Anti-war protesters who might once have stayed at home felt it a matter of honour to turn out in greater numbers than the foxhunters. It was a huge achievement of the anti-war movement that we organised a march of comparable size with only a fraction of the resources in terms of money, transport or full time apparatus. The massive media coverage given to the countryside marchers also forced a shamefaced media to give us a fraction of the previous week's column inches.

However, none of these elements on its own would have been sufficient to bring 400,000 onto the streets. The demonstration was the result of a year's work which has succeeded in building a coalition capable of mobilising through the roots it has locally, through its democratic and open approach to involving as many different forces as possible, and through consistently campaigning against the 'war on terror' over the space of a year. The Stop the War Coalition has been able to build a mass movement because it took a number of important decisions at its outset or in the course of the past year which helped to increase its strength.

It has built a broad and diverse grouping bringing together various key elements-the left and the peace movement, the trade union movement and the Muslim community. It has therefore been able to become a genuinely multiracial mass force, which had made it easier for each grouping to go beyond its traditional constituencies.
It always understood that the main enemy for those fighting the war against terrorism in Britain had to be the British and US governments. Therefore calls to equally condemn the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, etc, have always been rejected-not because of any support for, or illusions in, such regimes, but because it was felt that such demands could only play into the hands of pro-war elements here.
It rejected a specifically anti-imperialist programme, arguing that all those who opposed the war, racist attacks and attacks on civil liberties were welcome to join. To limit membership of the coalition to those who had an understanding of imperialism would be to cut it off from a genuinely broad level of support.
At the same time, much of the leadership of the Coalition was comprised of people who defined themselves in some way as anti-imperialists. This meant they had a strategic understanding of what was happening with US imperialism, and that they could link up the various wars of the past decade as part of an overall onslaught.
The Coalition always tried to keep focused on what it was possible to do and what was the next step in the campaign.
The Stop the War Coalition was formed after the events of 11 September last year. It was launched at a meeting in London's Friends Meeting House which attracted so many people that there were two overflow meetings, including one in the street. Its first organising meeting the following week attracted 500 people and voted to adopt policy against racism and in defence of civil liberties, as well as to oppose the 'war against terrorism'. The Coalition mobilised large numbers for a CND demo shortly afterwards, which had the bombing of Afghanistan as its focus . The Coalition demo against the Afghan war on 18 November attracted 100,000- even more remarkable given that the war looked like it was drawing to a close. Perhaps the most striking element of this protest was its multiracial nature. It was held during Ramadan, and when the time came for Muslims to break their fast this took place in Trafalgar Square, with Muslims and non-Muslims alike sharing food and drink.

People coming together

The demonstration attracted many black and Asian people who were non-Muslims as well. There were people of all nationalities and ages coming together to protest at war. It was a landmark in protests in Britain and throughout the world, and was the beginning of Britain being seen as one of the centres of the anti-war movement internationally. Muslim involvement created major arguments with some on the left in Britain, who echoed much of the European left in believing that any Muslim who defended their clothing, culture or religion could not be an ally but must in some way be 'fundamentalist'. The Coalition always welcomed and valued Muslim involvement, which in many areas has been the backbone of Coalition activity. Time and again, young Muslim women have played key roles of organising and political leadership, belying the conventional view.

With any campaign it is important to assess its ups and downs, and why it is possible to mobilise on issues at any one time. Clearly, after the Taliban regime was overthrown and a pro-western regime installed, the government and media declared that there were no problems left and that peace had broken out. Although these views were strongly contested by most anti-war activists, there was little possibility of mobilising the huge numbers who had turned out while the bombing was still taking place on a daily basis. At the same time, the war was still continuing in a more general sense-in Afghanistan itself, possibly exploding into Kashmir or Palestine, and of course the main thrust of US military might was increasingly aimed at Iraq. How could we keep the Coalition going when we didn't know the speed or scale of where the war would strike next?

There were a number of suggestions and competing calls on the Coalition's resources. We held a 1,000 strong demonstration over Palestine outside the Israeli embassy at the end of January, and also decided to organise a national demonstration over the war for early March. This was somewhat controversial. Many on the left claimed that few would mobilise for it, and there was obviously less interest among the Muslim community and peace campaigners than there had been the previous November. However, those of us organising the Coalition felt it was important to show that we were still there, to rally our supporters and, most crucially, to tap into an anti-war mood within wider society. This we did very successfully, with 20,000 demonstrating, and with a strong anti-imperialist core. The trade union conference season brought some real successes for the Stop the War Coalition, which held a number of important fringe meetings and won union support.

Substantial demonstrations

Events in Palestine erupted in the spring, when the Coalition gave its support to two very substantial demonstrations which took place within a month of one another. It was soon after these that we took the decision to mobilise for a demonstration around the theme of 'Don't Attack Iraq' in the run-up to the Labour Party conference. The organisers of the April demonstration on Palestine, the Muslim Association of Britain, had called a demonstration on the second anniversary of the Al Aqsa Intifada, and both sides felt that rather than have two competing demonstrations, the events were sufficiently connected to be able to mobilise one large protest. The demonstration therefore became about two issues: Iraq and Palestine. There was some scepticism in the early summer that Iraq would be an issue. We were as certain as it is possible to be given that we can't see into the minds of Tony Blair or George Bush (thankfully) that invasion of Iraq was very much on the agenda. This had been the key aim of the Bush administration following 11 September and there was a fairly rigid timetable worked out in Washington. Although the situation in Palestine, especially the events round Jenin, deflected the US administration for a time, they clearly did not alter its basic trajectory.

Our analysis was borne out over the summer, as Iraq became the main political question of the day and it became clear that the British government was prepared to act alongside George Bush, regardless of the wishes of the people in Britian or indeed the rest of the world. The drive to war provoked opposition here, at the TUC where a large minority opposed any war against Iraq; at meetings up and down the country, where speakers such as the Labour MP George Galloway attracted huge audiences; in schools and colleges where we are seeing the beginning of a mass protest movement among young people. All this came together in our amazing and historic demonstration, which has had reverberations around the world. Ron Kovic, Vietnam veteran and author of Born on the Fourth of July, e-mailed us the following day to say 'you have inspired the world'. We have been inundated with requests and messages from anti-war campaigners as far away as Japan and the US.

In Britain the demo gave a new impetus to existing activists and pulled in new ones. In many towns and cities around the country, activists are meeting weekly to discuss how they take the campaign forward. The 'Don't Attack Iraq day' on Halloween looks like being a success in bringing the anti-war protests home. School assemblies, workplace meetings and student occupations will all draw attention to the heightened war drive. But the Coalition cannot rest until we have stopped the war. A Europe-wide demo in Florence in November, a conference to pool the experience of the past year, and a big national demo in February are all on the agenda-as well as joint action with CND when war breaks out.

Our movement has also avoided the trap of elitism. Many different parties, MPs and celebrities have now sponsored it, but it does not simply rely on those at the top-it is a genuinely grassroots movement whose strength lies in unity in action across the different components of the movement. The astonishing claim by Robert Taylor in Tribune that the movement had to become a mass movement- as if 400,000 is somehow not mass enough -might just be ignorant. But it also reveals that he and those like him only want the sort of mass movement of which they approve and which is firmly controlled from the top. The Stop the War Coalition has shown that not only can it match anyone in the size if its demonstrations, but that they are also the most multiracial and mixed in every sense.

Nor does it rely on a small and self appointed elite to carry out the protests. One tradition of the peace movement has been moral protests carried out by the few to represent the views of the masses. When we talk about direct action and civil disobedience we mean mass direct action which can involve large numbers of trade unionists, students and peace campaigners. If small groups of people want to go off and do their own thing, or spend time training in non violent direct action techniques, that is fine, but they should not try to impose this elitism on the rest of us. Instead we should be building the movement outwards, by establishing groups round workplaces and unions, organisations such as 'Out Against the War' which aims to organise gays and lesbians, 'Artists Against the War' and much more.

As we go to press, a UN resolution phrased in terms acceptable to the US looks on the cards. Some people will no doubt believe that this gives any war an authority which US and British involvement alone does not give it. However, a war which is wrong in every respect before a UN resolution does not suddenly become right because the US bribes and bullies the other members of the security council-including Vladimir Putin, who has just used chemical weapons against his own people. We have the potential to stop war. Bush and Blair have set a determined course and they will not allow one demonstration to stop them. But we have shaken them, and we have the power to keep shaking them until they are forced to retreat, as they did over Vietnam. That will take a deepening of the movement here, and a determination to keep going until we win.

by dave lordan - swp Thu Nov 21, 2002 15:33 dlordan at hotmail dot com

as this is selective quotation i think it is fair enough to print the article below this in a seperate contribution.
Lindsey does not condemn direct action but is against small groups of direct actionists, who are free to do whatever they want, imposing their tactics on the broader movement. The campaign of slander against the swp on the internet is such an attempt at imposition. Throw enough shit and some of it will stick.
We argue for mass direct action in particular large demonstrations and where possible strikes.
For example a greek train workers strike in april 99 prevented nato from moving tanks etc into kosovo. The firefighters strike in britain at the moment can prevent the british army mobilising for war.
Millionms of peoplke on the street removes the moral and political authority of our rulers to make war. Recent governmnt [papers released in britain show that it was the mass movemnt against the war that prevented britain from entering the war. The american mass movement prevented the americans from using nuclear weapons in vietnam. Direct action by small groups of committed activists can destroy a part of the war machine
or even block a runway for a couple of hours. Well and good but only tens of thousands of people on the streets in dublin could change the irish governments mind about the war.
This is why we argue that all those who are against the war, christians, muslims, environmentalist, socialists etc should work together to achieve the mass movement. Slander and villification will get us nowhere.
Anti-war march
7th december
2pm from the central bank plaza dame street, dublin

by Ray Thu Nov 21, 2002 15:27

So according to the SWP marching is now 'direct action and civil disobedience'?

We are at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia, chocolate rations are up to 20g, we are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia, and Big Brother is happy to announce that chocolate rations have been increased to a post-revolutionary high of 15g...