Change is gonna hurt.

by Dave J Sun Mar 02, 2003 23:38

The miners were on strike you idiot. Their marches were to build mass pickets of mines and Orgreave. They openly called on workers to join them. Likewise the civil rights marches were about snowballing a movement. We have had mass mobolisations on Feb 15. We needed to use those sorts of numbers down in Shannon. Think what any section could have done on a march of 20-300000. Instead you allowed the media to debate your tactics. The only direct action in history where notice was given to the cops and media. 'We're gonna tear down the fence' said the overeager school children anxious to prove their revolutionary credentials. The IAWM march saved the day. Without it you would have been completely exposed for your utterly childish antics.

by Captain Moonlight Mon Mar 03, 2003 00:17

Bubblehead . . . Can we deduce from that choice of monicker that you are, indeed, a bubblehead? Perhaps you should sit out this debate among non-bubbleheads. And Dave re. Comedy (tee hee), der . . . are you saying that until we’re on strike or attempting to snowball a movement (what?), we can’t use direct action? Or what exactly are you saying because it’s most unclear. Unless . . . unless you’re saying that we should have got 20–30,000 down to Shannon (probably sometime around November, I calculate) for a . . . ahem . . . march, and then torn down the fence. But wouldn’t that scare off the Greens, SF, the Bishop, etc. from further marches? How then to build the mass movement? I know – let’s get them marches bigger and bigger, and then, just as the war ends, pull down the fence. Ha! Too late for those wankers to pull out. Clever.
And by the way, this wasn’t the only direct action in history where notice was given to the cops and media . . . let me see . . . Orgreave, Belfast–Derry, etc. etc. This from ‘Northern Ireland: The Orange State by Michael Farrell’: ‘The People’s Democracy decided to go ahead with a four-day march . . . The march was modelled on the Selma–Montgomery march in Alabama in 1966, which had exposed the racist thuggery of America’s deep South . . . The march was denounced by every establishment organ, by almost the entire middle class, Catholic and Protestant . . . About eighty marchers set off . . .’ What? Only 80? Farrell tells us O’Neill claimed ‘the march was . . . from the start, a foolhardy and irresponsible undertaking. At best those who planned it were careless of the effects which it would have; at worst they embraced with enthusiasm the prospects of adverse publicity causing further damage to the interests of Northern Ireland . . .’ (pp. 249–251) That O’Neill was a smart cookie.

by James Mon Mar 03, 2003 00:18

Tolerance for diversity of tactics was a principle agreed by some of the anti-war groups. The idea is that we all do our own thing and don't attack each other in a way that plays into the hands of the enemy.

Happily most people on Saturday were familiar with that idea and respected it. Obviously some people are having hard time putting aside petty sectarianism in the interest of the broader movement.

The movement is big enough for all strands. Attack the enemy on all fronts and we may succeed. A one organisation, one leadership, one idea approach is outdated and useless.

by non-aligned peacenik Mon Mar 03, 2003 01:26

I'm no fan of the SWP, or any of the other lefties and I'm uncomfortable with bloody Trots trying to sell me the paper every five minutes.. But at least they can organise.

Unlike GNAW who, on yesterday's showing, couldn't organise a monkey's teaparty.

by Anti-war protester Mon Mar 03, 2003 01:57

I also find the Trots and their paper-selling (and persistent attempts at recruitment) really annoying, but full credit is due to both the SP and SWP for yesterday. Joe Higgins spoke well.

And, yes, they have a better handle on organsation than GNAW which seems to be dominated/led by the strongest personalities rather than any elected or accountable leadership - and it does have a leadership, despite claims to the contrary.

by Joe Mon Mar 03, 2003 13:53

In the last week every section of the establishment and far too big a section of the 'anti-establishment' shovelled shit 24 hours a day at GNAW. They told us 'violence was inevitable'.

We were sufficently organised not only to prove them wrong but also to avoid splitting all over the place in the process of doing so. The same can't be said for some of the groups who claim to be more organised, can it?

Really folks learn to distinguish disagreements over tactics from nose thumbing childishness and we'll all achieve a lot more.

by Dermot Tue Mar 11, 2003 14:46 the_meaning_of_it_all at yahoo dot co dot uk

Hi,
In response to the curiously echoing comments in this thread:

Its not very difficult to organise a walk from A to B, especially when you have official permission, etc. The risk involved, to say the least, is limited. The IAWM demo was hardly the Long March fellas.
On the other hand, the GAWM action for all of its reported flaws, was a much trickier operation. Its like comparing a stroll up a gentle slope with climbing a mountain.
And yes I do believe its worth climbing the mountain. It appears to have worked so far, despite all the crowing from the fun walk set after March 1st.
On a last note, what is with all the anonymous posting? There are all sorts of "virtual warriors", and the bould Pat Corcoran, despite his excesses, appears to be using his real name, unlike most of his detractors. Be honest, people.

Peace,
D.