 North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?
US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty Anti-Empire >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.? We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).?
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
|
The anti-war movement in Ireland: A critical appraisal
 national |
anti-war / imperialism |
news report
 Tuesday March 09, 2004 00:34 by Dominic Carroll
One year after the US invasion of Iraq, the anti-war movement around the world must ask itself the question: Why were we unable to stop the war? In addition, we urgently need to consider how we can sustain and develop our opposition to US imperialism. In Ireland, it’s tempting (and many have been tempted) to blame the 'failure' of the anti-war movement on its leadership: the argument goes that a handful of Trotskyists established a stranglehold on the opposition to war and led it up a garden path; specifically, the SWP – and to a lesser degree the Socialist Party – pretty much refused to countenance any tactic other than the set-piece march, and that to ensure they got their way, these organisations engaged in typically undemocratic behaviour.
On one level, all of this is true. More fundamentally, though, we can hardly blame Bush’s ability to wage war or our government’s craven complicity on the SWP (amazingly, some in Ireland have done exactly that). Globally, the anti-war movement did not amount to very much. How could it? The US war machine is a juggernaut. The UN failed to stop it. France and Germany couldn’t stop it. Opposition in the US itself was brushed aside, and governments in Italy, Britain and Spain (and elsewhere) were able to ignore the obvious and widespread anti-war sentiment (I use the word sentiment advisedly, since mass opposition rarely developed beyond sentiment). Paradoxically, the most powerful state on earth – the US – failed to force into line those governments who – for whatever reason – were reluctant to support Bush’s adventure. The fact that the US was itself powerless in some situations serves as a useful reminder of how difficult it can be to get governments to do what you want. In the US, the movement against the Vietnam War took years to ‘succeed’: by then, millions were dead (including 58,000 US combatants), and, in truth, the anti-war movement only succeeded in stopping the war when its opposition coincided with various objective factors which served to convinced Nixon and the American ruling class that the game was up. Until that moment, the anti-war movement was something that had to be faced down with force.
The point of all of this is to remind ourselves of just how difficult – perhaps impossibly so – it is to stop a state from waging war. Equally, we need to acknowledge how long it could take to undo something as powerful as the Project for a New American Century or Bush’s War on Terror (assuming, for the moment, that these are different things), particularly if Bush wins the election. In that case, it could take years. And we have to recognise the kind of forces and organisation we need to bring to bear on the situation. In short, our task is no small thing.
But we must try, and try we have. And perhaps, in our eagerness to stop Bush, we had little to no time to consider what it would take. Instead, from the moment Bush went to war, we went to anti-war. Bush mobilised his forces and we – I mean the worldwide opposition to war – pressed our forces into action. One obvious difference was that the Pentagon had been planning for years; we had to make it up as we went along.
At this point, the role of the traditional far-left parties should be considered, since in many countries they were pivotal in anti-war movements, especially in the West. Typically, they argue that the only sure way to stop the likes of Bush – and war itself – is to overthrow capitalism. Perhaps – at a pinch – a general strike in America might have put the brakes on Bush, but that would amount to a revolution, so it’s the same thing. Revolution, they would correctly contend, won’t be easy and isn’t likely to happen for years. More contentiously, they insist that no anti-capitalist revolution can succeed without the leadership of revolutionary mass parties. The priority, then, is to build the party. Privately – within the revolutionary parties – this thesis is further elaborated along these lines: anti-war movements stand little to no chance of stopping war, but we like them because it gives us an opportunity to increase our profile, recruit new members to the party and participation in the anti-war protests can give workers and students a sense of their own power. The key thing is to make sure these anti-war movements stick to our plan: lots of demos and lots of general anti-war/anti-capitalist propaganda.
That’s it. The no-frills recipe for each and every anti-war movement. To ensure its implementation, far-left parties purposely and actively obstruct any proposal or activity that deviates from this template. To put it another way, the point is not to put the revolutionary party into the service of the anti-war movement (as is claimed by party literature), but to press the anti-war movement into the service of the party. Which is precisely what the SWP/SP succeeded in doing in Ireland. (In fairness, it should be clearly stated that both organisations have worked hard within the anti-war movement, and that many individual members are sincere in their commitment; even the more cynical leadership figures are sincere in that they are genuinely concerned to bring an end to the current wars and war itself – the problem is their dogmatism and the way they have operated within the anti-war movement.)
However, I would argue that those who opposed such naked opportunism and obstructionism also made mistakes. A central criticism of the Irish Anti-War Movement was that it lacked clear objectives, a strategy and tactical nous. This is true. But what of the many individuals and groups beyond the IAWM? Did we take the time to formulate our own goals and strategy? No – not really, or if we did, we failed to communicate our ideas effectively.
So, what kind of objectives should the anti-war movement formulate? Here, it gets tricky. Some opposed the war because they are anti-war, full-stop. Some because they are concerned to protect Ireland’s neutrality. Others, because they are particularly opposed to US imperialism (New American Century, War on Terror, etc.). And there are no doubt lots of other reasons. It follows that establishing objectives for the anti-war movement was never going to be straightforward. But hardly impossible.
The grand objective, surely, is to put an end to US imperialism. But we need to formulate subordinate objectives. We also want the US/UK out of Iraq and Afghanistan. No argument there. But is it enough? What does the anti-war movement want from the United Nations? Should we not establish as an objective the removal of Bush, et al from the White House? And the related issues of Palestine (and Chechnya, etc.) surely come into play. Not to mention the arms trade, chemical/nuclear weapons, the militarisation of Europe, defence expenditure – what are our demands on these issues and what will we do to further them?
In Ireland, we also need to firm up our objectives. The demilitarisation of Shannon, yes. An end to Irish government complicity, yes. But what specifically do we demand of our government with regard to the EU and the UN? What have we to say about Irish troops abroad? Should part of our programme be the political realignment of Ireland – say, out of the US camp, into the non-aligned movement? And to return to Irish government complicity, should we favour a Fine Gael government over the FF/PD junta. Or Labour, Sinn Fein and the Greens. Thorny questions, but surely they deserve debate, even if agreement can’t be reached. Undoubtedly, the revolutionary party would have switched off a few paragraphs ago; these issues are no-go areas when your objective – primary, subordinate, every which way – is purely the overthrow of capitalism. To get specific about the UN, says the party, is to foster illusions in it and to prop it up. The same goes for the EU and elections (unless the demand goes no further than a plea to vote for the infinitesimal parties of the left). Which is why the ‘voice’ of the anti-war movement in Ireland – the IAWM – rarely goes beyond generalities and sloganeering: ‘Stop the war’, ‘One solution, revolution’, ‘Bush out [of Ireland, not the Whitehouse – they’re all the same]’.
Hopefully, a revitalised anti-war movement in Ireland will come up with a programme, not just two or three slogans. So how to achieve our objectives? Here, the failure of a strategy becomes most obvious and painful. Since its inception, the IAWM has attempted to restrict the activity of the movement to marches, preferably in Dublin. Its lame argument against those who insist on protests at Shannon Airport is that the government is located in Dublin, so marches must be held there. Ignoring the crass, Dublin-centrist motivation for this assertion, and its outdated and easily refuted rationale (after all, we’re not making a bid for power, are we?), it’s clear that this government – virtually any Western government for the past century or thereabouts – has happily accommodated its citizenry on the march. Ahern even went so far as to praise the 100,000-strong march in February of last year. But what’s also abundantly clear is that both governments – ours and the one in the White House – are sensitive to anti-Shannon protests, and especially sensitive to direct attacks on US warplanes at Shannon.
So why does the SWP/SP oppose a firm focus on Shannon, and why are they so dismissive of direct action (even something as moderate as a blockade, IFA-style)? Before attempting an answer, we should expand the question: why do Trotskyist and Stalinist parties – ostensibly committed to the violent overthrow of the state – oppose direct-action movements in general and those focused on anti-war targets specifically (Faslane, Shannon, etc.). Why do they insist on moderation and pour scorn on those they denigrate as ultra-left and infantile? In brief, because these parties are rooted in the politics and traditions of the late nineteenth century. Back then, Marx convinced a sizeable section of the fledgling socialist movement that the only agency for change is the organised working class, its means the strike (since the 60s, students have been added to the mix, though strictly subordinate to the workers – a useful addition, though, given the preponderance of students in left organisations). And in Karl’s day, there was nought like a demonstration to flex the proletariat’s muscle; aye, look at the bosses cower when we take to tut streets. In fact, back in Marx’ time, any demo was virtually revolutionary – certainly something feared by each and every government. Today, those who subscribe dogmatically to the ideas of Marx insist that the working class are not only key but more or less indispensable in the struggle for meaningful change. An anti-war movement without them, the argument goes, is on a hiding to nothing. Worse, when a section of the anti-war movement can be characterised as somehow counter-cultural (no cloth caps in sight), it poses a danger; worse still if the word anarchism is heard in these circles. The danger is that the working class will become confused about its role as THE agent for change (especially when, as has been the case in Ireland till now, the organised working class is not inclined to involve itself in the anti-war movement). Worst of all, even members of the party might begin to give these non-traditional ‘agencies’ credence. In addition, direct action is problematic in that the working class are generally afraid of it until they ‘undergo a change of consciousness during struggle’; until then, not only is it confusing to show that action other than strike action can be effective, it alienates peaceable and passive workers, vulnerable as they are to the lies of the capitalist media; the Trotskyist party, it follows, must distance itself from such activities – pour scorn on them – in order to keep the ear of the working class. But don’t worry – when the class is ready to take action, you just wait and see what it can do.
Which is why the SWP/SP have been to keen to keep the movement away from Shannon: the commitment required to reach demos in Shannon (not the effortless walk up O’Connell Street for Dubliners), the ‘character’ of the protests themselves, the increased relative weight of anarchists/counter-culturalists, the heavy police presence – these are the real reasons for the anti-Shannon thrust of the IAWM/SWP/SP.
But here I wish to take issue with those who, when advocating militant protests at Shannon, made something of a fetish of the tactic (not everyone interested in Shannon is guilty of this). In a sense, those who became fixated on this single tactic to the exclusion of all others (beyond lip service) mimicked the traditional left. One tactic, it hardly needs saying, is not enough.
It’s undoubtedly true that the IAWM has failed us. But we failed to take the initiative from the SWP/SP/IAWM. That’s also a failing. The grassroots anti-war movement (I use this as a tag of convenience) failed to take the initiative, primarily – I think – because of a lack of cohesion and – in some cases – an understandable but nevertheless debilitating aversion to permanent, directive structures. Ninety-nine years of Leninism, Stalinism and Trotskyism have taken their toll.
We also failed to broaden the base for the anti-war movement. Yes, radical groups and individuals are a legitimate component of the anti-war movement. But the widespread anti-war sentiment evident here as elsewhere was hardly tapped. Anyone who speaks out, writes against or in any way opposes the Bush adventure is part of the anti-war movement. Yet, we have failed to incorporate them, or invite them in. And too often, an insensitivity to the fears and concerns of others has been all too apparent (sorry Black Bloc – this includes you, amongst others; I always enjoy seeing you on the protests, but I don’t doubt for one moment that you know how off-putting and frightening you are to so many others who, but for your presence, might join the protests).
Strategy has also been woeful. Direct action at Shannon and associated activities can’t be the be-all and end-all. We need a multi-faceted strategy that encompasses the varied facets of life in Ireland: campaigning groups, trade unions, political parties, students, young people, the media, sport, music, journalism, TV, art, theatre, etc. etc. And we need a strategy that gives a role to the individual; each and every one of us has limited individual power; our strategy must suggest ways of exercising it.
Which leads into the question of tactics: we need tactics that can encompass in many and varied ways the hundreds of thousands in this country opposed to war. Demos, yes. But what else? Most people won’t go to Shannon and face the cops – who can blame them? Those who will should continue to do so because it’s effective. But we need other, more inclusive tactics: the set-piece march has a part to play, but we need to be far more imaginative. We need to devise tactics that will appeal to different individuals and groups in different but complementary ways. Nor must we shy away from promoting tactics that lack the ‘edge’ of direct action – to do so amounts to posturing, the very thing the Trotskyists have been accused of.
Flowing from all of this is the question is the practical need for organisation – democratic, of course, but effective. We may even need professional, full-time organisation. But always democratic. The Pentagon is full-time and professional (and undemocratic – at least the Pentagon and the IAWM has that in common). There is surely a role within radical politics for organisation that goes beyond ad-hoc amateurism.
Ultimately, we need to recognise that the goal of stopping war and promoting social justice will require such a leap in human behaviour and societal organisation as to be – sorry to say – nigh impossible (but I haven’t given up hope). As to revolution? Who knows? But while we’re waiting (and again, I use these words advisedly), we need amelioration. Lives must be improved now. Serious, non-devious consideration must be given as to how a problem can be tackled and, if not resolved, at least diminished (for instance, no war would be great, but less war is preferable to more war). During the past several centuries, amelioration – rarely revolution – has accounted for the improvements in our lives. The process of improving things is ongoing. Any time we oppose injustice, we tip the scales in the direction of justice. And vice versa. Our task is to combine with others across the world to tip the scale in favour of justice and against war and reactionary politics. We can’t be certain of quick success (if at all), but surely our very efforts will be an ameliorating influence? And, who knows, if we keep at it, we might one day put the likes of Bush and Blair out of business for good.
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (42 of 42)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42"Ninety-nine years of Leninism, Stalinism and Trotskyism have taken their toll."
Dominic catch yourself on.
This is an excellent article, and its a shame that the only comment made so far is so unhelpful.
In a brief survey of Indymedia users I did in December last, I found that most visitors valued breaking news, photos from demos and online discussions (commenting) most about Indymedia Ireland. Only online videos from demos were valued less than these sort of reflections and wider analyses. When broadband connections become more affordable I expect online videos and audio to move up the scale.
We've got to take time for reflections like this, so that we can figure out where we're at, what we've done, what we've failed to do, and what we can do next.
I agree with 95% of what Dominic has said above, and am grateful to him for putting words to so many feelings and thoughts I've had over the past two years or so in the Irish peace movement.
is to implement technologies that have been scientifically shown to raise collective consciousness and improve governmental decisions.
This can be easily achieved by setting up groups of a couple hundred to a few thousand experts in technologies of consciousness in every country of the world.
but please don't blame Marx for the idiocy of the SWP
Dominics article is fine as far as it goes. But Fintan Lane put it much better in his summing up of the failure of the Irish Anti War movement.
The problem is the SWP and their lunatic members who want a one party steering committee.
Without learning from this analysis, nothing can be learnt.
I think the article above is not only about the IAWM (an organization), its about the broader peace movement (including black bloc for example). Forget the IAWM, there have been many autopsies here about that organization, lets move on and stop picking on the trots.
Eoin Dubsky, you sure are hard to follow. Do you agree with D. Carroll's analysis or not. And if so why are you now effectively dismissing it? A discussion about what went wrong in the IAWM is needed.
Oftentimes people can get bogged down in the minutae of activism, who said what to who and whichever nasty group opted for opportunism at the expense of victory.
I think this article is valuable in that it attempts to look at the ideology behind the decisions and actions taken by the Leninist parties in the anti-war movement. It is easy to just blame the SWP and put the whole thing down to the fact that they are nasty (much like they blame the failure of the bolsheviks on the nastiness of Stalin). It's much more worthwhile to look at the political ideas behind people's actions rather than pointing the finger of blame at individuals and their personal failings. The politics of Leninism is a much greater problem than the SWP and much more important to be clear about. All in all, an interesting analysis Dominic, from a well informed perspective.
Sorry LKJ if I didn't make myself clear, but I was responding to Alan's comment immediately above mine. Alan said that he felt "Fintan Lane put it much better in his summing up of the failure of the Irish Anti War movement." In my reply to this I said that "I think the article above is not only about the IAWM (an organization), its about the broader peace movement (including black bloc for example)". Comparing Fintan 's analysis of one particular organization within the peace movement (the IAWM) with Dominic's appraisal of the the broader movement isn't comparing like with like.
So to clarify: I still agree with 95% of Dominic's article above. I think his article invites us to go further than to just look at how the SWP and SP have behaved, it is a challenge to us all (including anarchists, black bloc heads, libertarians, catholic workers, plane spotters, peace campers, Labour party moderates and others).
Look,
we have nothing to aplogise for, if every Irishman and woman had the same resolve that we have shown, this war would be over by now.
The SWP will do anything to prevent this occuring, their sinister one party and thats us attitude is the main stumbling block, this is what Fintans work exposes so brilliantly, and should never be forgotte or sidelined.
Well done Dominic on yet another very good article and analysis. Will take a proper read after work and comment properly.
Eoin, of course, is correct. My critique of the IAWM was of an organisation rather than the anti-war movement as a whole. Indeed, one point I have made repeatedly is that it is a mistake to confuse the IAWM (one organisation) with the wider anti-war movement, and also wrong for the IAWM to assume that it speaks for the totality (or majority) of the movement.
Dominic's piece clearly deals with the anti-war movement in a much wider sense, and is a very valuable analysis (containing important insights) that should be taken on its own terms.
Anonymous you're now commenting on and praising articles THA T YOU HAVEN'T EVEN RED!!!!!
Would you catch yourself on, what does the above comment actually add to this thread?
Really good analysis, Dominic; obviously coming from the voice of experience. It's also a very fair-minded critique, which avoids pointing the finger at any one organisation, but sees the strengths and weaknesses of all of the anti-war groups, organisations, networks, etc.
I agree that it's easy to blame the IAWM for everything, and that there are weaknesses in other models that have existed. I also agree that there's not enough time or energy put into reflecting on where we're coming from, what our objectives are and where we're going. I hope this well thought through article will stimulate further discussion and debate. Well done.
Do you understand the word "Proper"??
Please give us your opinions on Dominics piece - Agree, disagree, comment etc. etc.
Dominic's piece focuses on the wrong thing - he's assuming that the anti-war movement is ONLY about preventing war, closing Shannon to the US, etc. He neglects to acknowledge the success of the anti-war movement in providing a sense of purpose and importance to Irish activists. Many of us who would otherwise feel ineffectual and excluded have been able to feel important and relevant because of this movement. This psychic benefit to those who dearly need it should not be overlooked. It's a shame that the US continues to use Shannon with impunity, but surely our own feelings of self worth are ultimately more important.
"It's a shame that the US continues to use Shannon with impunity, but surely our own feelings of self worth are ultimately more important."
Yep, as long as we feel good about ourselves the small matter of our complicity in massacres of third world peole is completely irrelevant. In fact, if we market it right, we could attract stressed-out senior executives from arms companies and oil multinationals to our protests / group therapy sessions. We can call the book: "The Power of Protesting: feeling good about yourself and soothing your conscience in a world that you can't change". We could eventually start to compete with Tony Quinn for the shattered psyches that fall off our modern production lines.
Dude, you really need to get your head out of your ass if you think that the primary focus of the anti-war campaign should be to provide group therapy sessions to the privileged and complicit while bombs rain down on the heads of the poor and innocent. If you're just in it for feelings of your own worth, there are many gurus, religious cults and self-help fads out there that will take tell you how great you are. But while Ireland continues to do what it can to assist the slaughter of the poor, none of us are that great.
Of course ending war and the killing of innocent people is critically important - witness the writings of Leon Trotsky, Mao Zedong and Marshall Tito. All I'm saying is that anti-war activism also makes us feel needed and significant, and that's a good thing. Maybe we haven't been very successful in making the world more peaceful, but at least we have been successful in bringing dignity and self-respect to each other, and we should celebrate that. That's all I'm saying.
Just intolerant. I do agree with you that empowerment is a good thing. I was just trying to point out that there are far more important things and it is a bad idea to focus too much on ourselves, who are generally sitting towards the top of the global pyramid. But don't be put off by my harshness, it is aimed at the idea that results aren't important, not at you. The Internet lends itself to fortrightness, when we don't know who we are arguing with. Most of us aren't that harsh in the flesh. It's a good thing.
What could be more important than feeling needed and useful? Many of us live three to a room in crummy flats and work at mindless boring jobs washing dishes and wiping cars at the garage and have no social life and have to put up with people laughing at us and mocking how we dress and telling us that we smell bad and everything and nobody listens to us or reads what we write and its not easy to take classes at night when your tired and all you want to do is watch the telly and have a pint when you can afford it. So don't tell me that its not alright to feel a bit of pride and significance and to have a bit of self-respect and dignity when I drag meself out to a meeting or scrape up the bus fare to head to Shannon for a demo or something. It might be a bad idea to focus too much on ourselves, but for fecks sake nobody else will focus on us, so cop on will ya...
Hate to tell ya Badman but you've been hooked by a troll. Cut the line!
Ya try to be nice the one time and you get snuck up on. That'll teach me.
Makes me feel bad about myself. Anybody up for an antiwar protest to give me back my self-worth?
Many thanx for the reflection. Reflection is needed in the context of action...otherwise we become word merchants.
The Catholic Worker 5 excepted bail conditions last January...this was tactical related to the absence of a support group on the outside required for a ploughshare witness.
Our strategy and praxis has been far from "Shannon obsessed" due to this compromise. The themes, however, remain nonviolence, direct action, experimentation in community building (being the new intheshellof theoldas the wobblies would term it)..in this journey we connect with a variety of folks from a variety of traditions.
The weakness in the scene in Ireland was the lack of connect between those willing to protest (130,000 on F15) and those willing to resist (approx 23 under this State). This was made clear on F15 when the March organisers censored those anti-war resisters in prison. This conscious attempt to marginalise anti-war resisters continues. The motives of movement leaders are left to guess work....fears of alternative leadership for a movement that is seen as recruitment fodder by a variety of political sects etc. may be a good hunch!
What is obvious is the militarisation of Shannon Airport as the most significant Irish contribution to the ongoing U.S. wars in Afghanistran and Iraq.
What is long overdue is a campaign of nonviolence, direct action, solidairty and outreach to demilitarise Shannon.
A lot of energy has been wasted entering the IAWM, trying to wrest it off the SWP etc. We need to start from scratch.
The military is the catylyst of this global economy of theft ....that's why radicals prioritising resisting it. It is not merely another issue on the neverending ambulance chasing of the left.
We will continue to work with anyone on the basis of nonviolence and direct resistance to this war as we journey to trial and probable further prison time.
There are 2 individuals and 2 other communities in Ire/Scot/England in a similar situation to us awaiting trial after serious disarmament actions during the war. Like the militray resisters emerging, the protest movement needs to connect and support the smallamount of resistance undertaken and continuing against these wars. Otherwise all the activity and words are merely an opportiunist ambulance chase for media attention by groups and indiviulas with questionable motives making mileage out of an enormous amount of human suffering.
Thanks again for the reflection
PS I would recommend viewing the recently released "Fog of War" with Robert Mc Namara to grasp what we are up against
Ciaron, you seem to be saying that the way forward is for people to adopt your approach to anti-war resistance/protest. You really come off as a bit smug.
You talk of outreaching and all that but the Catholic Workers spend most of its time focussed on its upcoming court case (understandably) and you've won nobody intothe Catholic Worker Movement, partly cos of your open hostility to almost every other approach other than your own.
Your action was magic but its not the only way to challenge Irish complicity. Your smugness and rightousness are unbecoming.
Stop lecturing others and try 'dialoguing' (you know that word you use a lot but dont seem to understand in practise).
1. Ciaran O'Reilly is kiding himself if he thinks the IAWM/SWP feared him as 'an alternative leadership'. He's completely unable to reach out to large groups of people and hasn't even involved himself with any local antiwar group. He thinks all that type of work is beneath him. There is an alternative leadership to RBB he defintely isnt it.
2. It is insulting to talk of only 23 'war resisters' in Ireland. What, only those gaoled are resisting the war? Bullshit. I support & applaud those who go to gaol but lots of other people are doing equally important work.
3. Does he think this movement can be built on small-scale guerilla direct actions against Shannon? And everybody else just provides the support network etc? This is the most primative version of 'direct action' I've ever heard. People like Fintan Lane called for the involvement of large numbers and demos in other parts of the country as well. The WSM and GNAW called for big numbers on March 1st also and wanted to be inclusive. O'Reilly wants tiny groups and everybody else cheers. Its martyrdom stuff and the man comes off as incredibly self-righteous. Dont get me wrong - I support people who engage in these type of actions but only an idiot would think that you could have such actions as the basis of the mass antiwar movement. Active groups are needed and I dont see Ciaran O'Reilly helping to build them. Thats beneath him obviously.
4. The people who tried to reform the IAWM at least tried to do something positive while O'Reilly stood back with his hands in his pockets. Thing is most of them were in the IAWM already so I dont think its even right to say they 'entered' it to do whatever. They tried to change something they were in. We cant all be cynics, O'Reilly.
Don't quite follow you?????
We have been operating as a resistance community for over a year with no emphasis on recruitment. Our wider extended community draws a mutual nourishment and we all keep on going. (as the mass movement has predictably evaporated from the streets along with Murdoch coverage!)
We have a respect for folks whatever tradition they are from and for many who are journeying and searching who have yet to locate themselves. We do not try to pressure people to become us or join us.
We offer solidarity laterally with other groups doing other thangs....squatters, immigration, homeless folks etc.
What is relevant is resistance to the war...and if you're not doing it (for whatever understandable reason) you should be in proactive solidarity with others who are.........
We are all operating in a very conservative colonised atmosphere here and in a very McArthyist period.
Efficacy is not our bag (the call is to be faithful rather than effective)...but I guess one could argue given our numbers our scant resources and isolation from a conservative church and an uptight left..we are one of the more effective activist groups around.
We'll leave that argument to the acdemics...but thanx for your concern. Don't worry about us we are pretty much on schedule. If you've got time we could discuss tis further while vigilling outside the Aviation Building through the Lentern period. Reflection inthe context of action was the original point of the initial posting!
Mary it's an Irish curse (rooted deeply in the colonised psychie)...the confusion between being rebellious and contray. And you seem to have a bad dose of it here!
A mass movement would be nice and I'll yodel for it as much as the next person. But if the sedated distracted masses in the 1st. World don't turn up...who do you blame the people who do or don't???
I have 25 years of local organsing behind me and hopefully another 25 years in front of me. After this night shift at the homelss shelter finishes, I'll stroll down to Pearse St. sign on and start a solo vigil outside the Aviation Building. Solo vigilling is an opportunity to connect with all sorts of folks. So if I didn't make it the your sanctioned IAWM local group meeting doesn't mean I missed out on grassroots, maybe you're thinking more astroturf here!
I'm stopped daily (a year on) in the street and affirmed for the disarmamanet we did at Shannon. So no the person in the street or this shelter or the next jail cell they thow me into is not beneath me.
I think you missed the point...I wasn't applying for a leadership position. The movement bureaucrats (some who denounced us in the media/ some who don't let us speak on anti-war platforms) feared us as an alternative leadership. In a similar fashion the average parish priest gets distressed at uppity laity.
The other thing is until the peace movement is willing to take as much risks (nonviolently) and is prepared to make the same kind of sacrifices (interms of disrupting ones life location separation etc) as those willing to wage war you're not in the same league. So why bother calling, yodelling, confering about peace - is it as a therpeutic exercise or one in moral superiority or one in recruitment/brand profile for your group etc etc???????
Sorry mate can't remember the other criticisms you raised in order to rebut...but I did get the feeling they were a little unkind. Hope you don't make the jury. Focus a little less on what folks "call" for and what they do. By the fruits ye shall know them etc etc
Not all a failure - The need for dialogue / not war - Organization & Professionalism
(Sorry for going on – scroll through if needs be!!)
As mentioned already Dominic, excellent article and analysis, which I am in general or definite agreement with on most of the points you raise. I also agree with Eoin's survey findings that these are amongst the most interesting articles & debates, in which Indymedia provides a valuable forum for.
It is interesting and funny that no sooner had you said "More fundamentally, though, we can hardly blame Bush's ability to wage war or our government's craven complicity on the SWP(amazingly, some in Ireland have done exactly that)" that a few comments later we get "If every Irishman and woman had the same resolve that we have shown, this war would be over by now. The SWP will do anything to prevent this occurring". : )
I agree with you that "(it is important) to remind ourselves of just how difficult - perhaps impossibly so - it is to stop a state from waging war" (Though I do not think it is impossible). I think we should be careful not to beat ourselves, and more importantly, each other, up over our "failures". Our failure to stop the war, and more in particular, as this was obviously far more realizable, our failure to stop to the Shannon stop-over and our governments implicit and explicit support of the war. I use the word failure advisedly as I believe there have been many great successes in the anti war movement - the mobilization of the largest demonstration in Irish history not being least among them. The movement has also led to an increased activism both in Ireland and around the world, an increase that will be imperative if future attempts to stop war and other human injustices and atrocities are to prove successful. The effects of our actions are also on-going. Though we did not stop them, we damn near toppled them. The Bush and particularly the Blair administration came under huge pressure. Blair survived, for the time being, by the skin of his teeth, and the actions of activists around the world, including us, will have lessened the chances of Bush being re-elected. By getting 150,000 people onto the street and millions around the world, I believe we have woken the minds of the general public and also journalists to certain situations, the neo-liberal agenda and the huge worldwide opposition to it. We have given journalists more liberty to write about and criticize such things. There are many more successes.
How much have things changed since Seattle '99 (a mere 4 years and 4 months ago)??? What increase has the world seen in the activist community around the world?? What increase has the world seen in more mainstream critics like Michael Moore? What increase has the world seen in the proliferation of activism on the web, such as Indymedia? The American/Neo-Liberal "Empire" is the greatest the world has seen since the Roman Empire. But how the mighty will and historically have always fallen. But like evolution, things take time.
My greatest concern is to see the "rate of increase of activism", and the awakening of consciousness of the Neo-Liberal agenda in Ireland and more particularly around the world, continue. If the same rate of increase continues since that of '99 how strong will we become?? You finish Dominic saying that "We can't be certain of quick success". I would add that we can be near certain that we will NOT achieve quick success. But yes of course our efforts will be, and have been, an ameliorating influence. And if the same rate, that of which I have spoken about above, continues, who knows where it will take us and the world to, and I would hold out great hope and optimism.
But the task at hand is to hold onto this rate of increase. I am hence greatly pleased so see any critical appraisal such as Dominic’s. A period of reflection, and, as you eloquently put it, "non-devious" thoughts on how we can become stronger and more successful is very important. It also gives me great solace to see Indymedia about to evolve (in a more permanent sense) out of the web and onto the street. I hope, and expect this will, happen right across the planet. The ISF, ESF & WSF, I also believe will be of particular importance over the coming years and it behooves on all of us to get involved in these organizations, through the ISF and local social forums, in whatever way we can and make them stronger and more successful. It is these inter-linked, world wide social forums, together with Indymedia, that I see as being among the key vehicles to bring us all together, worldwide - that will see us becoming our own juggernaut, to take that one down of which Dominic speaks of.
To get onto the more specifics of the "weaknesses" of the anti-war movement in Ireland and possible resolutions of. I see it in terms of weaknesses as much as in terms of failings, but we must nevertheless set ourselves high standards, and the failure to close the Shannon stop-over must be considered a failure.
As I have written in an earlier recent thread on the breaking up of the IAWM I see the problem with the Swp (lesser extent Sp) as being two sides of the one coin:-
1. The Swp have seemingly made themselves untrustworthy and very difficult to work with. The IAWM fiasco is an obvious example of this. But this problem had been going on for a very long problem before this.
2. But the Swp, I believe, are an integral and important part of activism in Ireland. They have some full time staff, a large activist membership (in relative, comparative terms), they have finance - and put an awful lot of raw, hard work into activism in Ireland.
The raw hard work that the Swp put it, I think, needs to be respected and valued. And I think they should be worked with where ever possible. I would prefer to see a more united national anti-war movement like the IAWM though this is obviously not looking on the cards now. But again I believe in examining its failures I also think the project has also given us some knowledge. I revert to the saying "it is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all". At least we know now, EXCACTLY, how difficult it is to work under the one organization with the Swp (lesser extent Sp). And it has demonstrated these difficulties to the general activist community, such as myself. I am one of the people who have long tried to defend theses Socialist parties, both on these web pages and within the activist community. But the failings of the IAWM have exposed the Swp/Sp to me and I no longer can come to their defense. If they are to be worked with again under the same organization, or even on a partnership basis, I think great insight has been discovered as to how this might work. For me if such an organization is to work - be it on war, Nice, anti-globalization, bins! or whatever - a totally democratic structure must be put in place BEFOREHAND. No one group or groups must be allowed to gain a stranglehold on the organization as that what happened with the IAWM. For me, there should be ONE representative of each group on the steering committee of the organization. One group - one rep. - one vote. Care would obviously have to be taken of dummy groups. And care would also have to be taken that no one ideology is allowed take hold of the organization. Not an easy task no doubt, but the only way, at the moment, that I can see an organization like the IAWM succeeding. These thoughts are really more for future umbrella organizations and it is certainly looking unlikely at present that any attempts will be made to re-formulate the IAWM. I probably would be for such attempts but they dant look likely.
But in the absence of such attempts I think it is important that representatives from all the break away groups meet in person with reps from the IAWM/Swp/Sp. Either bi-laterally or multi-laterally or better still, both. I believe it is important that the air is cleared. That there be no bitterness left in the mouth between different groups, though disappointment and disagreement most certainly. I believe some sort of framework should be reached where the IAWM can still be worked with on certain mutually beneficial issues or protests. We should know damn well in this country, more than most, that DIALOGUE (NOT WAR), and always better in person, is one of the primary keys to success.
Outside of the IAWM, it seems to me from your article Dominic that there is a crying out for some sort of organization and organizational structure. In the aftermath of the IAWM split up it would seem that some other form of umbrella grouping needs to be formed. Of course the GNAW may already be the perfect forum for this. Though I am not too sure if anarchists will work with specific organizational structures. But it seems to me before you can delve into the complicated areas of programs, policies, goals, methods, strategy etc. etc. “some” form of organizational structure that helps different groups outside the IAWM co-ordinate their activities to some degree needs to be put in place. Even a forum to meet and discuss these methods and stratageys etc.!! This structure then should also be able to work with the IAWM where possible.
I agree with Dominic’s analysis that not only has the IAWM failed (again I am using this term loosely – see above), but the grassroots anti-war movement has failed in many areas as well, some of which Dominic has pointed out. In particular the failure to tap into the general publics “widespread anti-war sentiment”.
I think that these failings need to be seriously discussed and solutions need to be put forth. I for one would be for a bit more organization and with several groups now having dropped out of the IAWM, that if these groups could combine with groups already outside the IAWM. I feel it is hard to discussing tactics until this is in place – even though conversely discussing tactics may be an integral part in its formation!
Dominic says we “may” need professional, full-time organization. For me this is a “definite”, if real success is to be achieved. Not only are the Pentagon full-time, but so are the Swp, i.e. they have some full-timers. I think to have at least one or two full time (or at least part time) people employed in the anti-war movement will be vital to see it really succeed. All organizations and all of us as individuals need to be as professional as possible. And the skills of business & military, we should not be adverse to but rather copy and employ fully. See a recent debate I was having on this with “David C”. He has compiled a nice list at the end of this debate which he entitles:-
“10 Ways to bring Irish activism to a new level”
Though they might sound like vomit to some people, I fully endorse these and well worth having a read off, I reckon:-
(scroll down to the end)
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63655&results_offset=30
I hope that Dominic’s article and the follow on discussion will help lead us some where.
Back to yummy work…..
Minor point in the scheme of things, I know, but Anonymous have you forgotton that epic thread on anarchism last summer?
Anarchists don't have problems with organisational structure. "The question is not really one of organisation or not, but rather of what type of organisation: Libertarian or Authoritarian.
By authoritarian I mean the ability to enforce your will on another. Decisions are made by a few which must be carried out by the rest......By libertarian I mean direct involvement in the decision making process and actions which affect you. The right to federate is balanced with the right to disassociate..... "
You'll have to retake that course in anarchist theory!
Anyway most people involved with Gnaw weren't anarchist.
Any chance of you getting your finger out and instead of offering constructive advice about whatever we need to do, actually FUCKING doing it.
We need a full time paid anti war movement. How will it be funded?
Instead of vague suggestions of what needs to be done, how about explaining how the nuts and bolts get sorted.
You say people must work with the SWP but don't bother explaining how this would work.
I think you're a bullshiter who mistakes spouting off on indymedia with actually doing something achievable and workable.
Get your thumb out stop posting this turgid crap and start DOING something.
All mouth no trousers
Ah now James how could I forget that epic thread - By Chekov, Which way the revolution - Socialism or Anarchism
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60525&time_posted_upper_limit=1059019200&time_posted_lower_limit=1058932800
Still haven't figured out how the state can be reconciled with Libertarian practice - but I'm workin on it : )
Regarding organizational structures. Certainly not a minor point. Thank you for clarifying this. Must brush up on me anarchism!
Dominic mentioned the problems he felt GNAW were having with this as well - "in some cases an understandable but nervetheless debilitating aversion to permanent, directive structures". The subsequent events of the IAWM will have done nothing to appease this aversion!!
Another article published on this site maybe worth a read at this juncture is "The State of the Anti-War Movement (in Ireland)". Written in March 03 just after the big protests in Shannon which saw a split in strategys:-
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=34110&time_posted_upper_limit=1047531600&time_posted_lower_limit=1047445200
The author prophetically states:-
"The danger is that the failure to build an open democratic campaign may well lead to a long detour through the existing political organisations that have already failed the test of this imperialist war."
Do you know what the situation is regarding GNAW at the moment? I note their website:-
http://grassrootsgathering.freeservers.com/gnaw.htm
What are your opinions regarding the importance (or maybe not??) of getting proper organizational structures together now??
.
Will you ever fuck off from this site unless you are actually going to contribute something to the debate. This site and these debates are not about putting up a poster. It is about a melting pot of thought out of which we hope things will grow.
I know you are not supposed to feed the trolls but you are such an annoying little child.
Hi Anonymous,
There’s about much chance of anybody reconciling libertarianism with the state as there is of atheism being reconciled with a creator god! They’re mutually exclusive concepts.
On Gnaw, we weren’t good enough at emphasizing our desire for mass actions to the wider public. For many reasons, and no I’m not interested in re-hashing well-worn differences with other groups, we didn’t succeed in mobilising the numbers. I guess a few thousand were needed. Nevertheless efforts to do so, such as March 1st last year, had to be made. A few hundred simply wasn't enough.
The organisational structure of Gnaw doesn’t exist, but the folks involved are in regular contact with each other, for example at last weeks GG in Cork, and informally.
The Dublin Grassroots group has agreed to broaden its activities beyond anti-war stuff and is involved in organising Mayday actions and propaganda. It’s called simply the Dublin Grassroots Network.
They’re discussing setting up a similar group in Cork and, I think, Galway. A lot of the same people probably are meeting anyway discussing similar things, so these developments are not huge.
There is ongoing dialogue amongst people involved in various anti-war groups, but I’m not directly participating myself, so I can’t tell you where it’s at.
Briefly on anti-war organisation: I’m not very interested in simply changing some of the faces at the top or indeed interested at all in the IAWM. This is an opportunity to think about the methods of organising used to date rather than to blame failure on certain individuals or groups. Domnic’s article, though I’d differ with its analysis in parts, is a good contribution that provokes thinking about the reasons why groups behave as they do. These are lessons which can be applied to all future campaigns. Also worth reading is http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr7/iawm.html
Libertarians generally view centralised decision making through a permanent steering committee as unattractive. We would be more interested in active autonomous local groups that co-operate as appropriate. This could lead to trust building up, and perhaps a federal arrangement put in place that respects local autonomy yet can efficiently co-ordinate national events.
By the bye couldn’t you pick a better name pseudonym? Is it hard to break with a brand!?!
Thanks for the above James. Ya its hard to break with a brand indeed! Used to call myself by my real name but there are so many god damn trolls on this site (see above) I stopped. Don't like using pseudonym's so I just called myself Anonymous.
Anyhow will respond to the above when I get the chance. 8 friggin pm. Got to get outta work, and Celtic v Barcelona calls!!
Anonymous X
; )
Re: James and Anon.
Galway Grassroots has been meeting regularly - weekly - since around December 6th, or before then if you count the organisation of the Galway Grassroots Gathering - previous to that eco soc nuig was the local part of the grassroots network - organising for the various actions coming out of the Grassroots Gathering
They're always room for improvement, but it looks to me like y'all are doing a great job! Remember that this is a global movement. We have had enormous success. I think that we have been fooled into believing, because of the period of history we live in with television etc, that meaningful social change can be created on a massive scale in the course of a year or two.
This war is failing. The US/UK will lose, if for no other reason than the fact that there isn't enough money and there aren't enough willing bodies to put into uniform. Bush knows it, Blair knows it, we all know it.
Nevertheless, our work is important. Meetings and demonstrations do matter. By protesting this war, we are building a momentum and creating peace in our spirits. Every act of defiance to the imperialism and tyrrany of this series of wars makes a difference. We matter. Even if we don't have any money. Even if Parliament pretends not to notice. Even when the media pretends we're not here.
Well done all who took part. It is now 2004 and lots has changed and lots is the same.
You are all still mostly "anti-war" and you are still mostly "in Ireland" and hopefully some of you remember how "movement" works.
Sorry If this comment is intepreted as an insult or provocation. Isn't that the problem with open publishing? Loads of space and yet sometimes not enough.
The Irish Bars in the Ravel district of BCN remained open today as well whilst everyone stopped and took stock and reflected, the guinness poured on and a team of ten men still managed to win a game. Interestingly they barred anti-War protesters last year. They we may presume are not in the "movement". Are you "celtic" fans?
Why do you people in different countries have to worry about the affairs of anoter. We did the right thing, by toppeling the empire that Sadam built, we made the world a safer place for everyone. The US went to war, a justified war, in which the armies of Radical Islam first attacked innocent civilians, and the war in Iraq is not a retaliation, but a counter offensive. We have an enime, we are not useing chemical weapons, and we are doing our best not to kill innocent civilians. Would you rather allow Sadam to kill thousands of people, and harbor terrorists who the US is seeking? If we did not do something now, they would most certainly do something about us later.
"Clayton Langeneckert" would appear to be Lone Drbinoche. How else would one explain the ghastly spelling.
Do yourself a favour and take your medication.
North Korea is bent on fighting the USA. Iraq would've been another N. Korea if we (yes, we Americans) hadn't gone in and kicked ass.
Your opinion is not very useful if you don't support it with some facts, discussion and context. Can you support your claim that iraq would have been another N.Korea?
Also can you first explain what you mean perceive N.Korea to be?
Are you aware that the USA has actually been intervening in N.Korea (and S.Korea where it supported a military dictatorship) for a long time?
Who's gettin their sorry ass kicked now Darren eh? Looks like GI Joe ain't so welcome in Sadr City afterall!