Feb. 15---Day Of Action

by iosaf Wed Jan 08, 2003 16:59

Mass mobilisations against the War seemed to peak much earlier this year.
the largest everyone remembers was Florence bolstered by the ESF and Hub.

Unless these marches are happening every day, they do not exert pressure on the state.
rather they can have a counter productive effect often causing some people to begin thinking that "their bit is done".

Venezuela is a diferent example there we see multitudes on the street everyday and that is actually having an effect of maintaining a state structure by highlighting ordinary people´s feeling on the overthrow of that state.

Bringing people onto the street can be fun, sometimes in can be dangerous. It is very grown up! except when it´s just kids as new years day B.Aires Argentina. But half a million people in Hyde Park will not stop the Iraq war. The realities of that war and it´s brokers mean that conceivably the worst bits will be done "covertly" by the time we are told the war has officially "begun". I am not saying don´t go out and march, but it is important to realise what the effects of marching are and the limitations of such activity. Also when we see huge assemblies of people on a near regular basis you can be pretty sure that some careerist politician will try and claim organisational credit or mandate.
We have seen that in Spain with the increased appearances of opposition PSE (akin to New Labour) leaders speaking out against Oil polution, ETA, terrorism, Gallicia anything at all, in an attempt to give the impression that they are "leading" a popular movement.
So peace camps are better.
Go to Shannon and shit in a bag and post it to the US state department.
and call it bio-action
(that´s a joke)=(you can tell can´t you?)

by Ray Wed Jan 08, 2003 14:50

I think you were right first time.

by Bungi Wed Jan 08, 2003 14:46

In my comment above, "anarchy" should be "I don't like people"

by Andrew Wed Jan 08, 2003 13:13

The organisers of the Feb 15th demonstration say it is "the last chance to stop the war". It seems obvious that if a march of 300,000 through London (some say 400,000) didn't stop it that it is pretty unlikely that a march of 500,000 through London will do so. This isn't an argument against having the march but those organising it need to recognise a need to build from such marches to effective action against the war whether that be mass invasions of army bases, a general strike or whatever.

We also need to recognise that the assumption that each march will be bigger then the last cannot be made. The last Dublin demonstration was considerably smaller then the two before it. If as it seems the large demonstrations are simply being ignored by those in power that unless they are seen as part of something else people who made the effort to go on one will become less and less likely to do the same thing again.

by Bungi Wed Jan 08, 2003 13:09

Half a million people demonstrating, great, but why don't you get those half a million to protest at US or UK air force base, take down the barriers, smash the death machines. I think "anarchy" is suggesting that prancing around the streets, asking our politicians to stop doing what they're doing concedes the power to them, whereas physically stopping elements of the war machine is empowering and effective.
Is the Irish version of this march going to take place in Shannon? I propose that it is.

by I don't like people Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:15

Yeah. Half a million people taking to the streets is'nt something we want to be involved in. We'd rather sit with half a dozen other dimwits doing fuck all and feelin' revolutionary.
What the fuck is wrong with organising such a massive demonstration? Or are you interested in stopping this war at all?

by Anarchy Wed Jan 08, 2003 00:38

Is that what the SWP (sorry Stop the War Coalition) mean by action????