FIVE YEARS LATER
The most convincing estimate of the numbers involved in the huge demonstration on 15th February 2003 was 2.2 million, this estimate was based upon the work of an academic geographer, who had random sampled the number of households where someone had attended.
The roads leading into London were packed with coaches queuing, and I remember giving a live radio interview over my mobile phone for the BBC from our bus, as we began to realise just how big it was going to be – a nation gathering to speak against war.
In an appropriate symmetry, the last time London was thronged with such numbers was VE day, when the Peoples’ war was won, European fascism was smashed and the red flag flew over Hitler’s chancellery. It seemed on that surprisingly sunny day in February 2003 that we were again on the cusp of making history. This time we would stop the war. How could the politicians ignore this?
Only just a few times in politics do you experience that feeling where all the barriers melt. In the pub after the demo, strangers were talking together, and even hugging due to a shared feeling that we had done something extraordinary.
The political movement that led up to February 15th was almost prefect, The Daily Mirror was actively building the demo, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy was to speak on the platform, right around the country local peace groups were lobbying and debating with MPs, every town centre was being leafleted and there was a wave of direct action, particularly around RAF Fairford.
The mood was even affecting the armed forces. Leaflets from the Stop the War coalition were distributed by servicemen in RAF Brize Norton, and the daughter of a serving soldier led her school mates in a lunch time protest in Market Lavington.
Yet we did not stop the war. Indeed we here in Swindon felt the war as more immediate than most: we were the first to know, with the B52s used to bomb Baghdad being based just 12 miles from here, and we saw the war birds fly.
There has been insufficient debate about the fact we didn’t stop the war. Following February 15th the strategy of the Stop the War Coalition became unfocussed. This is easier to see in hindsight, but while we entered into a feverish month of political activity in late February and March, the tempo of leafleting, local demos, and protests intensified; but our focus was on what would happen if war broke out – the immediate demos we would call, and the wave of civil disobedience we would unleash.
Looking back, we made two mistakes, and both of these were related. The key event was not the date the war would start, but the day parliament would vote. There was in fact a very large amount of direct action when war broke out, for example we occupied the Town Council chamber and stayed until we were interviewed on radio and TV – but the scale of it was not really reported as it was swamped by news from Iraq; and in any event, it was too late.
After February 15th we had enough media profile to have constructed the day of the parliamentary vote as the trigger for direct action, which would not have been too late to stop it, and would also have focussed the politics on lobbying the MPs.
This brings me to the second mistake, that having very successfully widened the appeal of the anti-war movement leading up to February 15th, the Stop the War Coalition seemed to steer left immediately afterwards, emphasising direct action and anti-imperialism, at exactly the time when it would have been correct to steer to the right, concentrating on parliament, and seeking to win the argument that war on Iraq was not in Britain’s national interest, and was unpatriotic.
The defeat was very bad. The paradox was that while the war was being fought we actually increased the numbers of activists involved, but our resonance with wider society was weaker; and just three months later in the local elections in May it was already clear that for most people the war was not the main issue – although the boost of two million votes to the Lib Dems was significant.
It is an achievement that the Stop the War coalition continues to be supported by almost all the non-sectarian left, and continues to campaign, but we need a more sober assessment of our lasting impact on politics.
1 Great post. Agree with you. No attempt by the STW laedership to engage in a genuine united front with the trade union leadership and put demands on them in front of the movement. Instead we got not critical tail ending and pressure on Labour MPs to vote against the war. Poplulism by any other name ! A great opportunity was passed up the leadership of the movement.
Comment by Raphie — 18 February, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
I think Andy is right in some points. In the aftermath of Feb 15th, our focus was on direct action for when war broke out. (That we did achieve on the day). However, the majority of people who came on Feb 15th were then focused on the vote in Parliament. But we did not have a strategy for concentrating the pressure on MP’s, or building the movement through this.
I think this is because of the politics of the ageing 1968′ers leading the movement. Its said that generals always have a strategy for fighting the last war, not the current one. That’s the same for the generals of the STWC.
Years in the SWP drummed this message into me: “The anti-Vietnam war movement was tiny in 1964 when that war started - but by 1968 when the US was bogged down in a quagmire , and the Vietnamese resistance broke through - then the mass anti-war movement shook the capitals of the west”. This can be found in Harmans book the ‘Fire last time’, etc - and was repeated again and again in early 2003.
I remember people thinking along the lines of - “well if we had 2 million on the streets before the war - what happens when the US/UK are stuck in an Iraqi quagmire, facing a guerilla war of resistance there? Were gonna make 1968 look like a vicars tea party!”
But there was also a bitter memory of the movement against the 1990/91 Gulf war - which virtually vanished when that war started.
The fact is that Feb 15th was not followed up with an immediate strategy for escalation. In the provincial Essex town where I was at the time we had 1,000 people on the streets - there were lots of big local demo’s everywhere - but nationally we were waiting for the war to start, imagining that would be the prompt for a society wide for escalation. The public mood did peak after Feb 15th - but in anger around Parliaments vote. And we did not relate to that - although we could probably have had another national mega-demo then.
But those of us critical of the SWP were even more focused on ‘direct action’ etc. I was helping organise blockades of military institutions - as well as big local marches. Neither was the call by Martin (#1) above for trade union action realistic - of course its formally correct - only mass strikes could stop war - but in the context of twenty years of defeat for the trades unions, this was unlikely.
One comparison I have heard people talk about is with the tactics of the ‘orange revolution’ in Ukraine - or the ‘Cedar Revolution’ in Lebanon - here mass demos lead to massive tented encampments in the capitals, as people refused to go home after the demo’s. Imagine if STWC had called on people to camp in Trafalgar Sq and not leave - that could have kept the pressure on. And we know now that the cabinet was wobbling, that we nearly won! But in a way I think we thought the war actually starting would escalate active opposition.
Now, its easy to say this in retrospect! And easy to learn the wrong lessons for next time - where the situation will be different again.
Comment by Larry R — 18 February, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
“Only just a few times in politics do you experience that feeling where all the barriers melt. In the pub after the demo, strangers were talking together, and even hugging due to a shared feeling that we had done something extraordinary”.
Yes, it was one of the first times I can recall people coming off the pavement and joining the marchers instead of the usual gawping from the sidelines. There was a sense of solidarity and unity against this unjust war. I had a very similar experience of marching through working class area in Florence (I mean, translated, I think it was Antonio Gramsci Way) during the anti-war demo (”don’t attack Iraq”!)at the European Social Forum (ESF) Oct 2002, there was about 1 million marchers and when we marched through this wc district we got so much support and solidarity. Never seen anything like it, people waving flags and shouting slogans. Some even came up to us and gave us water… It was bloody amazing…..
Martin: “4) a complete failure to engaged in the wider politics of why the war should be opposed except for glib, vague anti-imperialism.”
Interesting comment there Martin and a bit rich considering the political trajectory of your own organisation… Troops in anyone?
Comment by Louise — 18 February, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
The size of the demonstration is even more staggering when you recall just how fucking cold it was that day!
Comment by Ed — 18 February, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
I think Andy asks a very relevant question here- “There has been insufficient debate about the fact we didn’t stop the war.”
It’s hard to agree through with Andy and Larry R’s assessment that there was too much focus on direct action. May be amongst some activists direct action was a popular call but one of the biggest weaknesses of the movement and particularly the leaders was the failure to build mass civil disobedience, workers’ strikes against the war and physical blockades.
This is because numbers on the street in and of themselves do not stop a war. What’s needed is in fact direct action- making the country ungovernable, making the war impossible.
Of course just calling for direct action is not enough- though if StW had called for direct action that may have been a start. The main leaders of StW- the SWP actively tried to prevent civil disobedience. http://www.newstatesman.com/200305190007
They did rightly support strike action http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=3251but didn’t call on trade union leaders to call for it or make serious attempts or call for rank and file action for strike action.
They blocked the move to social forums in every town and city.
What should have been done was to encourage social forums, local groups, rank and file groups in the unions to debate how we could link fighting against the war with fights to oppose privatisation, cuts and other issues. These local groups could and should have linked up and actively planned direct action. Only a wave of mass civil disobedience, blockades, strikes and general mayhem could have stopped the war.
It’s one thing to debate the past. It’s another question to think about what we should do now.
How should we organise against Brown, the continuing chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia? How can we link anti-cuts fights, public sector pay battles, campaigns against deportations and other actions? It’s high time the left came together to both plan united action and debate the ways forward.
Comment by Jason — 18 February, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Larry R at least brings the discussion back to earth, but I think saying that Feb 15 was not followed up with an immediate strategy for escalation misses the point. Feb 15 was necessarily the high point in terms of numbers - outside a revolutionary situation, you don’t follow the biggest mobilisation in living memory with an even bigger one the following week.
But we came close. I don’t ever remember discussions about why we failed after the Falklands, Gulf War One or Kosovo - we assumed that we wouldn’t actually stop the warmongers, but that it was important to protest anyway. I’m sure in hindsight this tactic or that was wrong or could have been done better, but our mistake was not getting five million out on Feb 15.
Comment by chjh — 18 February, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
We all have been to many big demos over the years.
But that was the mother of all. I still get the goose pimples when talking or reading about it
Comment by lanu — 18 February, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
“and seeking to win the argument that war on Iraq was not in Britain’s national interest, and was unpatriotic.”
This is such a reactionary thing to say.
Surely one of the main problems is that anti-war movement didn’t challenge patriotism, so that thousands decided that they had to support the war once it began because it would be wrong not to back “our boys”?
Andy touches on one problem, the anti-war movement wasn’t able to exert enough pressure on MPs and Trade union bureaucrats.
In my anti-war group we had MPs, Cllr’s and Assembly Members begging to speak on the marches we had after Feb15 in the run-up to the invasion. 3 weeks later when we had a march as the war was going on, suddenly it was, “oh i’d love to speak but I’m so busy with constituency work” etc. and we struggled to get elected representatives to speak on our platforms.
Comment by Adamski — 18 February, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
I was in Amsterdam that day, when more than twice as many people showed up as expected, marching with my dad, who had last turned out for the anti-cruise missile protests of the early eighties.
Andy makes a good point that the next nationwide protests, when the war had started, were too late. I’m less sure a turn to the right and a focus on parliament inbetween February 15th and March 19th could’ve worked. What misses here is the role the media played, with a traditional leftleaning newspaper like The Observer leading the pro-war cheerleading. How much influence did that play in deciding how Parliament voted? Would lobbying MPs have countered this influence?
Another point is what would have happened had Britain stayed out of the war. I don’t think this would’ve stopped the war entirely, though perhaps could’ve delayed it, but we might’ve ended with the same scenario as actually played out in the Netherlands. Because an overwhelming majority of the population was dead set against Dutch involvement, we didn’t take part in the initial invasion, but as soon as the situation stabilised we provided occupation forces. I could see the same thing happening in the UK if it had stayed out of the war itself.
Comment by Martin Wisse — 18 February, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
At the time I would not have been in favour another, similar march immediately after Feb 15th. I was for organising direct action and strikes. But millions of people were entering political activity for the first time, and felt that Parliament should listen to them. For everyone who was on Feb 15th there would be more saying - ‘wish I was there - when’s the next one?’ And the Parliamentary vote was a big issue in the publics mind, and we knew its exact date in advance - unlike with the actual invasion. I now think that month was exactly the time for another demo - we should not have waited until the war started as a pretext for the next mass national mobilisation. In the Ukrainian ‘Orange Revolution’ etc they did not restrict themselves to one big demo - they were on the streets for several days. Our movement maybe could have achieved this - but it probably could not have achieved mass strikes. But so what - that was then - what now?
Comment by Larry R — 18 February, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
This brings me to the second mistake, that having very successfully widened the appeal of the anti-war movement leading up to February 15th, the Stop the War Coalition seemed to steer left immediately afterwards, emphasising direct action and anti-imperialism, at exactly the time when it would have been correct to steer to the right, concentrating on parliament, and seeking to win the argument that war on Iraq was not in Britain’s national interest, and was unpatriotic.
Reply:
This I disagree with. In fact the opposite was the case and now five years on we have an antiwar movement almost shorn of politics. On Feb 15 the demos around the world were a mile wide but an inch deep. Apart from the day itself, when a massive and almost unique opportunity was lost for some exemplary direct action, the socialist component of the movement failed completely in their task of moving it left and linking it with domestic struggles and the economics that lies at the root of both.
I attended the national STW Conference in London last year and left disappointed. Speaker after speaker extolled the virtues of breadth as constituting success. They reminded me of an avid gardener standing back to admire his rose garden. The movement should have been viewed from inception as the means to the end and not as an end in itself, as has occurred. It has been hijacked by its weaker elements - pacifists, bourgeois liberals, etc. - who have succeeded in purging any and all overt support for the resistance from STW platforms and public meetings.
Five years on the ‘movement’ owes an apology to the Iraqi and Afghan people for failing to fulfil its obligations. We have failed to mount any meaningful challenge to the govt and its policies over the war and, devoid of ideas, the movement has shed support and numbers at a phenomenal rate. Nobody should glory in this failure but lessons need to be learned. Alas, whilst the existing leadership continues to brag about how the movement was responsible for driving Blair from office they won’t be.
Comment by John W — 18 February, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
I recall I was still the the SPGB back then, hoplding an effective counter demonstration outside UCL gates at Gower street (well, standing in the middle fo the road with a comrade as we gave out leaflets - lessee if I can find the text - this may have been it). I then chatted with a copper who was ex-RAF who made comments like “You couldn’t have had this marcgh in Baghdad”…
Comment by Red Deathy — 18 February, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
I wrote most of the Wikipedia article on Feb 15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_anti-war_protest
I’d like to encourage people to add any referenced information they’ve got on the day to that page.
Peace.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 18 February, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
” . . . The Daily Mirror was actively building the demo, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy was to speak on the platform . . . “
It’s refreshing that for a change someone actually acknowledges the role that the Daily Mirror and others played in mobilising the massive numbers for the 15th. Sorry, but I think it’s a myth that the StWC coalition got 2 million people on the streets that day. And I think the StWC leadership bought into that myth.
What was most striking about that day was that none of us seasoned demo-attenders expected the numbers turning out. I can remember the Swuppies and the Millies around me were as surprised and overwhelmed as the rest of us. And you could tell that the overwhelming majority of the marchers were first time marchers because of the lack of cynicism towards those of us in the leafletting brigade. People queuing up to take literature. Who’d have imagined it?
Comment by Darren — 18 February, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
#7
I did actually raise exactly the same argument I make here at a national steering committee meetinig of the STW Coalition about six months ago, and Lindsey german did agree that if we look back in hindsight we might have done some things differently. Back in 2003 I had exactly the same perspective as the STW leadership, and one of the activists in our group who had been a national vice chair of Farmers for Action was completely exasperated by both our conservatism, and our failure to see that the vote in parliamant was the key date - so my argument is not “I told you so”.
BUt when i raised it in the steering committee, Chris Nineham repsonded in exactly the same way as Charlie here in comment #7. It is utterely obtuse to read what I have written here and conclude that i am criticsing the organisation of either fifteen Feb, or the scale of the action in response to the war actually breaking out.
If we follow Charlie’s complacency in #7, we did excatly the right thing and couldn’t have stopped the war, so there is no reason for any relfection or taking account of what we might have done differently. The conservatism of “outside of a revolutionary situation” it was not possible to escalate beyond 15th February exactly explains the problem with the SWP.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 February, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
Whilst rightly remembering the 2M who marched in London, its also worth remembering that 100,000+ marched in Glasgow, a colossal number in Scottish terms. I remember travelling up to Glasgpow from Ayr in the morning and realising how big it was going to be when it seemed that nearly everyone on the train was going to the demo.
I dont think that StWC prepared people for the possibility that the move against the war in parliament would be defeated and that other forms of action would be necessary. Given what was known of the trajectory of the Labour party post 97, the strong possibility of parliamentary defeat was always likely. The one positive thing that came out of that period was the virtual ‘youth uprising ‘ that took place across Britain in response to the threat of war and the way that it was organised, that gives hope for the future if the left can see beyond textbook responses.
Comment by Jim Carroll — 18 February, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Another important consideration, is that two million people marched in London and the Lib Dem vote went up two million, 100000 matched in Edinburgh and the SSP’s vote went up 100000.
Now i don’t think that the truth is quite as uncomplicated as those numbers suggest, but I wonder what would have happened if the whole of the English left had worked together to promote the Socialist Allaince on Feb 15th and its aftermath.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 February, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
John W - For me as a socialist i saw the anti-war movement as both a ‘means’ and an ‘end’. An end to the extent that it would have both saved the lives of millions of iraqis (not a insignificant achievement in itself) and to the extent that victories on particular issues - tends to galvanise and imbue confidence for wider struggles.
Incidentally, while i disagree with Andy’s conclusions - i agree that we as a movement have suffered from a distinct lack of self-reflection on our immediate history
Comment by AA — 18 February, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Someone wrote to me offline to ask me to clarify what I meant by the national interest and patriotism, here is what I replied:
There are two aspects to the national interest/patriotism argument:
i) there clearly was an argument in the ruling class and the military that the UK should have more of an independent role from the US, but this was never exploited by the anti-war movement; I remember going to lunch witha ayoung army officer in the lead up to war, and I was also on a course with a couple of officers and NCOs from the RAF, and they clearly articulated the message that the higher ups in the services wer earguing against war behind closed doors.
ii) and of course there is a much more left variant of the argument - that the armed forces should only ever be used for national defence, and that working class young men should not be used as cannon fodder for the bosses, in which case starting foreign wars is unpatriotic, in the sense of being against the ethos of our society, or rather the ethos that the left campaigns for our society to have. This is the argument the Michael Moore brilliantly uses in Fahrenheit 9/11.
After the event the STWC have done much better with these arguments through Military Families against the war,
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 February, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Andy,
This stuff about the need to be more patriotic sounds like dangerous tosh.
I think there are some interesting reflections, five years on though. For a start there were a multitude of opinions about the war amongst those who marched against and that militated against a coherent response. So a number of people would probably have been happy to see the UN endorse the war (Charles Kennedy would) and that would explain the lack of militancy once the UN sanctified the invasion.
Furthermore, many people thought that once troops had gone in, it was some kind of duty to stay and ‘clear up the mess’ rather than ‘abandon’ Iraq. Undoudtedly, IMO, the anti-imperialist stance was the appropriate one even if this automatically cost a swathe of support. But here, comparisons with Vietnam are not too helpful. I believe that around 1968 whilst marches were smaller they were more political. There was a more obvious leftism and many would identify with the Vietnamese resistance as ‘left wing’. That would explain much of the potency of anti-Vietnam war marches. The situation is not similar today, many who opposed the Iraq war will have supported Kosovo and Afghanistan, regretably. It must also be the case that many marchers would have baulked at supporting the insurgency which was presented as fragmented and religiously driven.
Of course, 2 million marchers will not stop a war. Those who point to the need for trade union leaders to come on board are being slightly naive. It is odd to expect too much from unions (though obviously people should do their best) when members are not, by and large, taking action over their own issues. This makes it easier for pro Blair union leaders to do nothing. From 1968 onwards, of course, there was a rise in class struggle.
It remains something of an open question, however, as to whether the sheer size of the opposition stopped the western powers sending many more troops and abandoning plans to invade elsewhere. In fact, the mobilisation against Israel in 2006 was pretty impressive.
Comment by stuart — 18 February, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Interesting discussion.
It’s all very well looking back in hindsight to what could, should or might have been.
Yes,15th February 2003 was a fantastic day. Not only in terms of it having been the largest political demonstration in Britain’s political history but also because it was part of a global coordination of thousands of demonstrtations throughout the World, involving between 15-30 million people. As far as I’m concerned, that should never be forgetten, as it was wholly unprecedented. Nothing on an equivalent scale ever happened during the sixties against the war in Vietnam. It showed the great potential which is available given the right time and circumstances as well as coordination and organisation.
My reservation about many people who were on the Feb 15th march was that for many it was probably their first and last march. Many lib dems were on a day out,never returned again once their party leadership caved in completely and backed the war once it had started.
I know many many people who say they went on the march but gave up completely once the war started. This I read as an indication of the great depth of liberal naivety that exists in Britain. If people believed that just on the basis of having a large massive demonstration then the government would cave in, then I think they are and were extemely naive which is largely due to lack of political consciousness and understanding.
As if we didnt march in our hundreds of thousands against US Cruise missiles and nuclear weapons in the 80’s not to see barely a word or an image about it in the ‘mainsteam’ media that evening or the next day.
All Government’s see to what extent they can get away with anything.Blair and Bush had the vast percentage of the global corporate media behind them in support of the War lies and I would say that they had the vast percentage of their respective voting populations and the political and military establishments. The NEW lABOUR government had the vast percentage of New Labour MP’s in support and their voters.That is not to say the anti war movement hasnt created ‘doubt’, we have never been in a position to further develop this ‘doubt’ as we dont possess a suitably effective alternative media channel or source which can rebut mainstream capitalist media on a daily basis eg something like ‘Democracy Now’ in the states is the nearest to it that I am aware of other than Telesur in Latin America.
Nevertheless,the follow up demonstration on the 22nd March(as far as I can recall) was about 500,000,probably much less but it nevertheless felt much more determined, focussed and political.
I think the biggest mistake and misconception to have been perpetuated by the anti war movement is to try to say that we are the voice of the majority.This is untrue.If it were the case then people have a very funny way of showing it.It creates a false sense of optimism based on mush.
I’m still involved in my local anti war group, which has dwindled to a tiny core. The level of political debate is appalling poor. Most of the group are tired but dermined but still have many entrenched beliefs and illusions about so called British ‘patriotic’ values of ‘fair play’,'justice and democracy’ and the decency of the British armyeg the sysematic torture of Iraqi citizens buy British solidiers is not something people find easy to accept.’Imperialism’ is a word that is beyond most people’s grasp nevermind having any critical understanding of Britain’s blood and torture drenched colonial past.And that is some people against the war!
I dont actually feel anyone has really moved on in terms of their politics and nevermind moved further to the Left because we have such a frozen terror of actually discussing the politics lest it causes further divisions within, splits and unltimately weakens the group.
The usual fare on the street at the weekly stall from predominatly white working class people is to say, that the war was right,Thank god for’our boys are brilliant’,'bomb Iran’ and the fact that over a million Iraqi’s have died is simply ‘unfortunate’.Interestingly among militasry serving now they are increasingly questioning their Iraq and Afghanistan roles and feel let down.That doesnt mean to say they are questioning the nature of the British army and about to mutiny(chance would be a fine thing)
Our group is a coalition of odds and sods, liberals,lib dems, liberal tories, old labourites, a socialist worker, rightwing anarchists, climate change deniers,non aligned pasifists and quakers.
I feel a big mistake for the anti war movement is that the leadership have been unaccoutable and any pretence at genuine internal democracy is and was soon dispelled by seeing how the SWP and the CPGB have manipulated and determined the movement in the way they have just, endlessly whistling the troops up to London again and again and again to no real effect. Whereas, if the Stop the War coalition had been able to develop greater internal democracy within the movement then it might have been able to be far more responsive to what the actual grassroots activists were experiencing and thinking on the ground. Personally,I never had any illusions that it would or could be anything other than it is.Suffice to say we lost alot of activists totally bored of going down to London for yet another demo.
Why not target fucking Sandhurst or wherever ‘our’ patriotic prince Royals are being trained up? In my opinion we should have targetted and should be now targetting the military bases, barracks and recruitment offices on a regular basis.Questioning the basis of the BRITISH imperialist forces.To what extent there is support for that is another question.
Strikes were never going to happen and it was madness to think that they were just going to materialise out of thin air.Obviously, if there had been a strong level of support and comitment behind them then it might have been a very different matter.Whatever did occur amongst the RMT should be remembered.
For me the lesson is about politcal consciousness and organisation.
The hopelessly divided British Left and the Labour movement has suffered a vast multitude of defeats over the last 29 years since 1979.The level of political awareness and consciousness,organisation and struggle is now very low. We, as a population have been intensely subjected to the heavy neo-liberal capitalist onslaught for all this time.Along with a mass intensification of selfish consumer capitalist individualism, greed and celebrity bolocks shite on every level.
On top of the fact that now the vast majority(in my opinion) of people ‘appear’ to be doing well economically and just dont really care a shit about much else apart from their own lives, families, interests and personal wealth and advancement(I’m alright jack! lves on) other than it’s just easier to go along with whatever the media say.
Every day British ‘conservatism’ is very deep just as is the everyday unthinking uncritical racist imperialist and colonialist thinking and patriotic feeling about being BRITISH.Look at the level of global climate change denial.
The mass mobilization of the Muslim community was a great step forward and the development of Respect held great promise but has receded now as the state and media have consciously turned up the racist anti-muslim Islamophobia to create and reinforce the racist scapegoat which has also given great stength to the racist and fascist BNP.The destruction of the Socialist Alliance(nevertheless still in existence) and the serious weakening of Scottish Socialist party and Respect is something else and the lessons of that great debacle are still being aborbed and processed.
The struggle continues!
I agree with Jason about Social forums.There was a great moment of opportunity at the height of the WSF and ESF, when there were Social Forums developing across the country bringing together many different activists together eg Manchester and elsewhere. Had there been sufficient political will, organisation and resources available this could have ben a very positive development.Those that did develop were by all accounts very positive developments. What was learnt from them is another matter.There was great resistence on the part of the SWP to this development because it would be beyond it’s control.
Essentially, I feel the Left as well as most progressive movements including much of the anti capitalist and anti-globalisation Social forum movement, which exist in this country are permeated by a very controlling and pervasive culture of British conservatism and have a real problem with developing genuinely democratic structures and allowing real democratic participation of members / activists and the openning up of political debate and discussion so that people really feel involved. Without being able to relinquish control and being so controlling inorder to properly involve people then we do not move forward.
Comment by Bush fires — 18 February, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
I then chatted with a copper who was ex-RAF who made comments like “You couldn’t have had this marcgh in Baghdad”…
He was right, wasn’t he?
Comment by Gene — 18 February, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
At the time I did not think we could ’stop the war’ from starting - instead I thought we were building for an even bigger movement for after the war started and then failed, and reached a quagmire. As I pointed out above, I (and much of the far left) was trained by the legacy of the anti-Vietnam war movement and 1968. I thought at the time only a general strike and militant direct action by many millions would actually stop the war.
Only in retrospect, with leaks from the cabinet and the top of the military do we realise how near to victory we actually came in those crucial weeks after Feb 15. Thats why we should have stayed on the streets, and not waited until war broke out.
Now the Iraq war has had its quagmire for years - (and also earlier on we had the ‘no WMD’s found’ revelation etc) - disagreement and discontent with the war is bigger now five years on than Feb 15th 2003. But the movement has almost vanished. Thats because before the war the argument was simple - ‘One Big No!’ But after the war started, the argument became more complicated - you have to be an anti-imperialist to oppose the war and occupation and call for the defeat of the US and the UK - and the politics of the mass of the UK population is not that developed. Most people are not convinced that if the west withdrew it would get any better in Iraq - because of the nature of the insurgency, the sectarian divisions etc.
So our 1968-trained mindset failed the moment between Feb 15th - March 18th. We were not in tune with the ideas of the people we mobilised, its almost like we were so left wing we had a passifying effect! Illusions in Parliament would have helped us focus millions of people on the streets at this crucial moment.
But also, lets remeber the biggest problem of the time for the anti-war movement was the question of the second UN vote. The media opponents of the war like the Mirror - and lots of Labour and Lib dem MP’s etc - all denounced going to war without the backing of the UN. No doubt this demand exposed the ‘illegitimacy’ of the war in terms of international law, and helped strenthen the legitimacy of the protests. But it also made us a hostage of the UN - we feared that if the UN did manage the 2nd vote and back the invasion - then some of the new forces briefly drawn to the protests through the influence of the media and the lib dems etc would suddenly be seen to back the war. To its credit, the STWC avoided this trap. But this reminds me how fragile we felt the movement was at the time - and how it was possible to have an attitude that the necessary anti-imperialism would only strengthen with time and experience, and only then allow for more action.
Comment by Larry R — 18 February, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
‘the anti-imperialist stance was the appropriate one even if this automatically cost a swathe of support’ Stuart King
Stuart, please could you expand on what you actually mean here. How are you defining ‘the anti imperialist stance’? And what do you feel about losing a ’swathe of support’.Is this support merely expendable? How do you maintain the support of a movement? How do you win people to an anti- imperialist perspective?
Clearly,the anti Vietnam war movement had completly different dynamics as there was a mass movement of rebellion and mutiny of conscripts and other troops within US forces actually in Vietnam itself as well inside the US which fed into the movement.
Comment by Donkey — 18 February, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
Gene,
as I said to him at the time, our government had come pretty close to banning the march. Now, i suppose I’d point out that several hundred thousand Iraqi’s wonj’t be marching anywhere….and I wonder what sort of marches coulod be organised now for those that are left.
Comment by Red Deathy — 18 February, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
StW campaigners should also not forget to support this: http://ivaw.org/index.php ?
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 18 February, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
I don’t mean to intrude on what one might describe as an extra-Parliamentary Left post-mortem (I don’t intend to be entirely trollish here, and generally enjoy the read), but there is one thing that strikes me.
In a democracy it is not street politics which determines public policy. I’m quite glad that that’s the case, because there are some pretty ugly forms of street politics.
Of course, it can feed into it, and I myself was on that march (fairly shortly afterwards concluding that I had been wrong to be there). But, whatever the rights and wrongs of military action, the elected government of the day made the decision, there was a vote in Parliament (not a total charade - the govt could have lost) and that government was re-elected a mere two years later.
Quite apart from that re-election, polls in 2003 were very mixed over the war, showing fluid changes of opinion over the whole of the year, and given different scenarios. So, whilst it might be poetic to talk about “a nation gathering to speak against war”, that isn’t really what happened, though it was a dramatic and impressive event to witness.
I just wonder whether you guys accept that the decision of Parliament, and the lack of conclusivity of polling evidence, weighs in any way against the “nation overwhelmingly against war” narrative? That is not to say that views were not divided, and 1-2million (or even 2.2m) is an extraordinary number.
Comment by Ben — 18 February, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Ben, you say ‘In a democracy’…presumably you are referring to the Britain, the deeply reactionary imperialist country in which we live,where everyday life is dictated and determined(as elsewhere) by the control of the forces of global capitalism.Perhaps more specifically you are refering to the wholly antiquated and deeply rotten and corrupt House of Commons which is in no way representative nevermind ‘democratic’.
What exactly is your definition of this so called ‘democracy’?
I am interested why you were “on that march (fairly shortly afterwards concluding that I had been wrong to be there)”. Could you please explain a bit further?
Comment by Zog — 18 February, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
I feel that Andy’s right about the lack of a focus on the parliamentary vote.
Now, obviously, I never thought that street protests would stop the war - I doubt that a no vote in parliament would have stopped it, actually.
You don’t run before you can walk: in future (god forbid that we should be faced with the government joining the US in an attack on Iran or Syria) we should point out that marching is a way of showing support for a policy - not actually getting it implemented.
So direct action needed to take place after the parliamentary vote, not on the day the war actually started. Perhaps on the day of the vote, a form of protest would have been the staging of a referendum - taking the vote on the issue to town and city centres and highlighting that sovereignty should lie with the people, not parliament.
I didn’t get the sense that there was any kind of coherent plan by the StWC to actually stop the war from taking place (though it became clear that the SWP at least, had some plans). And so, we saw the direct action failed to make the impact it could have, if preceded by a tent city outside parliament and staging a vote on going to war, which would have made the actions more notable in media terms and hence could have had an impact on service personnel.
Comment by Charlie Marks — 19 February, 2008 @ 1:27 am
Odd comment the ex-RAF copper made. Surely the Baathists wouldn’t have had a problem with a march opposing the war?
Comment by Charlie Marks — 19 February, 2008 @ 1:29 am
Donkey,
#25,
I may have given a slightly misleading impression when referring to ‘anti-imperialism’ in STWC as in fact STWC tried to create a ‘broad base’ of support and placed no particular conditions on who should be included. However, perhaps mainly due to the hostile media, much was made of the political (Trotskite or Communist) affiliation of leading members hence there was an implicit message to would be supporters to steer clear.
My post was framed in response to Andy’s suggestion that STWC should have adopted some kind of ‘patriotic’ stance, in defiance of the political inclinations of the SWTC leadership. Presumably this would keep hold of Liberals and Left Tories, I do not regard that as principled politics and/or a productive way forward.
As regards Vietnam comparisons, I think people often forget that demos remained large by historical standards for some time after Feb 2003, it’s just that comparisons were made with the big one. I don’t think there was much in UK after the 100,000 strong march in 1968 (although of course no UK troops were fighting). The situation in USA was different around Vietnam as you indicate, not least because of the civil rghts stuff at the same time.
Comment by stuart — 19 February, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
I ended up being what you would probably call a “Decent”, Zog. Not much of a leap from moderate Labour against the war, which is what I was to start.
Charlie Marks, I doubt very much that your proposed vote, given it would hardly have been an indication of the totality of public opinion, would have had any effect. No one who was not wishing to be persuaded would in fact be persuaded by public theatricals.
Comment by Ben — 19 February, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
Ah ben, the public theatricals might not change the minds of politicians, but it sure can piss them off.
Take, for example, the “I Want A Referendum!” campaign’s experiment with this idea - staging referenda on the EU consti-treaty in marginal seats.
It’s had an impact, and the play’s not yet begun (if it even does!)
Comment by Charlie Marks — 20 February, 2008 @ 2:02 am
A few comments on the above. A subject that hasn’t been much discussed because the leadership of the StWC prefer a cycle of ‘activity’ that leads nowhere to a genuine discussion of where the movement might go.
Martin Ohr has a bit of a cheek though given the refusal of his own organisation even to call for troops out!
But I think we should reflect on a number of things. One of which is that given the weakness of the left, not least the anti-capitalist left, was it ever possible that we could have stopped the war? I have my doubts. It would have taken more of a popular uprising or general insurrection, not just a mass demonstration and lots of local ones at the beginning of the war to do that. I am doubtful of the possibilities of doing that.
The fact is that the working class in this country has been defeated. It is also a fact that British capitalism more than its European counterparts depends for its fortunes as an independent financial power on its alliance with the USA. Given that I doubt we would, short of a pre-revolutionary situation, to prevent the war.
What clearly contributed to the sentiment and opposition to the war in the country was that the ruling class, as evidenced by the Mirror’s support and that of the Lib Dems and others, was itself split.
But where I think Andy is wrong in believing that tacking to the right and adopting some form of social patriotism would have been the answer. Moving to the right would have meant becoming even more ineffective as almost by definition that means confining oneself to bourgeois politics, and I’m not dismissing the argument that a bigger mobilisation on the day that Parliament voted would not have been of help.
What Andy portrays as patriotic arguments are nothing of the kind. To point out that it is not in the soldiers’ interests to die for British or US oil companies is an assertion of class not cross-class interests.
As regards the opposition of the army top brass that was not something we could ever relate to other than by building a mass movement which would effect the soldiers.
I think the real problem has been that the anti-war movement has been controlled politically by the SWP and CPB, a very narrow political coalition and that this has actually resulted in a narrowing of the anti-war movement, not least its direct action component. It has also stifled any genuine debate on where to go next. Coupled with the fact that the SWP’s comparison of Iraq with Vietnam merely demonstrates their inability to think beyond cliches and hackneyed phrases. Vietnam, with its national liberation movement, which had clear political aims, is very different unfortunately from the opposition in Iraq, which was sectarianised very quickly. It is not surprising that the US appears to having some success in buying off local leaders there.
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 20 February, 2008 @ 3:18 am