On Thursday October 9, the Stop the War Coalition called an activists'
meeting to discuss what action would be taken when George Bush arrives for a state visit to Britain on November 19.
meeting to discuss what action would be taken when George Bush arrives for a state visit to Britain on November 19.
The Stop the War Coalition
On leadership, democracy and how to wreck a mass movement
On Thursday October 9, the Stop the War Coalition called an activists'
meeting to discuss what action would be taken when George Bush arrives for a state
visit to Britain on November 19. Unfortunately, and in line with past practice of the
Stop the War steering committee - which seems to be dominated by members of the
Socialist Workers' Party - a day before the activists' meeting we received an e-mail
telling us of the events planned - which basically amounted to a petition, some
cultural events and a pop concert - with some well known actors and 'famous' people
invited -all of whom I have never heard of (but doesn't mean they aren't 'famous') -
were invited.
The meeting of around 250 activists could have been a springboard to
mobilise in colleges and schools and all around London to regenerate the political
activity that has waned since the million-plus demonstration of February 15 this year.
Formally many correct things were said: trade unions need to be involved, school
student strikes should be called, and colleges occupied. However the analysis of
what should be done to attain these objectives lacked all correspondence to reality. One
Westminster Unison convenor called for workers in Westminster to go on
strike, students from SOAS and LSE called for occupations, one school student called
for mass school strikes, and speakers talked of 'our Genoa or Seatle'.
Nothing has been learnt by these people. If there were no strikes of any
significance when war broke out, why do they imagine that suddenly everyone
would come out on a political general strike? In the pages of Socialist Worker and
in the mythology of the Stop the War 'leadership', school students took mass action
the day the war broke out - but this is simply not true. There were at a maximum
3,000 school students on the demonstration in London that day; they had no
organisation to speak of, and they simply charged around and only when they were given a
platform by the Marxists from Speakers Corner Against the War did they have the chance
to express themselves. The fact is that school students are not organised. This
would require action committees for specific demonstrations, or more permanent
school students' unions.
The problem essentially boils down to leadership. Leadership in schools
means those students who for reasons of their understanding and energetic campaigning
for the rights of the students are able to form a nucleus who are able to win a
majority through democratic debate. Simply arriving with a bunch of leaflets and
newspapers will never create a viable movement. One properly organised school can
appeal to other schools and can form democratically elected committees of action
across a city. The task of a Marxist current is not to control the movement, but to
offer the best strategy and tactics to develop and strengthen the movement, to offer a
perspective and direction.
In the universities and colleges one or two determined comrades can also win
a majority. In the fluid moods of the student youth a silent and quiet period
can rapidly be followed by explosive discontent and militancy. Marxists should
not insist on the superiority of their ideas but must convince the most
forward-thinking students in the ideological plane as well as in their intervention in the
student movements. Again whilst there was reasonable participation by students in
the anti-war movement, however when the National Union of Students called a
national demonstration at the American embassy at the height of the bombing of
Baghdad, some 800-1000 students attended, hardly a mass student movement. The Socialist
Workers' Party and other sectarian groups' representatives on the National Executive
simply wanted the students to chant and shout slogans, and preferably have a
conflict with the police. It was the Marxists from Speakers Corner Against the War who
provided explanation and background, as well as allowing the students themselves to
speak from the platform instead of listening to endless chants and slogans. Inside
the London universities and one may assume everywhere else, any anti-war
initiatives coming from students themselves were smothered by the Stop the War
'leadership' which would simply select a member of the Socialist Workers' Party at the
college and call them the college representative of the anti-war movement. Any
normal student soon sees through such Stalinist behaviour and is repelled by it,
thus a layer of discontented activists seek solace in anarchistic actions. This is
attractive because rather than waste time trying to deal with student union careerists and Socialist Workers' Party Stalinists some direct action and result can be attained. However the
anarchists don't even bother with the mass of the students except in that they shock
them with their happenings, some of which are colourful and quite inventive, but are
ultimately futile unless they win over and involve the mass. By divorcing
themselves from the mass of the students they leave the careerists and such alienating
groups as Socialist Worker 'in charge' of 'student activism'.
How not to hold a demonstration The most astounding thing about the anti-war demonstrations was how stagnant, dull and foolish many of the platform speakers were. At the best were people like John Pilger who explained the role of US Imperialism - but this is not something many people aren't aware of. Then people from the Labour Party like Tony Benn and Audrey Wise played a terrible role - the former constantly harping on about the role of the United Nations and the latter constantly shouting Vive La France! Surely when a million people demonstrate, someone who wants the Labour Party changed must provide a perspective on the Labour Party and make a direct appeal to the demonstrators to join and transform the Labour Party?
Then comes the greatest farce of all, rather than speak to the million-plus and ask them to vote on the suggestions for the next actions...Who is for? Who is against?
The Stop the War coalition sent out an e-mail, three days after the biggest demo in British history, announcing that a dozen or so people have decided the date for the next demo...a month away...presumably so the Socialist Workers' Party members can get a rest and make enough placards for the next demo!
Stop the War Coalition 'leadership' suppresses democracy
A few days after the demo on Feburary 15, a so called People's Assembly was called opposite parliament, supposedly to act as a forum for discussion and debate, except that nearly every minute of the agenda was allocated to 'famous' speakers, like Tony Benn, (the United Nations...blah, blah, the United Nations...blah ...blah) -
Audrey Wise, vive la France again! and Bianca Jagger - labelled "human rights activist" -although far more famous because she is the daughter of Mick Jagger. Why couldn't Mick himself come?
The Marxists from Speakers Corner Against the War moved a resolution. It stated "this assembly has no faith in the United Nations, which is an unreformable organisation...and that war will only be ended by establishing a society of common ownership and democratic control of the largest multinational companies."
The Stop the War 'leadership' decided to destroy the offending resolution. They simply threw it away. When we protested and demanded the right to speak on the resolution, the Socialist Workers Party sheep began a baying call of "we want action!...we want action!" and then voted to prevent our comrades from speaking.
Back to the present. On Thursday October 9, after discussing what to do when George Bush comes to London, the Marxists from Speakers Corner Against the War asked "when will there be votes on what should be done?" "Shut up" was the reply from the chair...."ok let's have a vote on if there should be no votes"... we replied...still all was not lost - they did have a vote in the end...to kick out the Marxists from
the meeting for daring to ask for votes!
Heiko Khoo
On leadership, democracy and how to wreck a mass movement
On Thursday October 9, the Stop the War Coalition called an activists'
meeting to discuss what action would be taken when George Bush arrives for a state
visit to Britain on November 19. Unfortunately, and in line with past practice of the
Stop the War steering committee - which seems to be dominated by members of the
Socialist Workers' Party - a day before the activists' meeting we received an e-mail
telling us of the events planned - which basically amounted to a petition, some
cultural events and a pop concert - with some well known actors and 'famous' people
invited -all of whom I have never heard of (but doesn't mean they aren't 'famous') -
were invited.
The meeting of around 250 activists could have been a springboard to
mobilise in colleges and schools and all around London to regenerate the political
activity that has waned since the million-plus demonstration of February 15 this year.
Formally many correct things were said: trade unions need to be involved, school
student strikes should be called, and colleges occupied. However the analysis of
what should be done to attain these objectives lacked all correspondence to reality. One
Westminster Unison convenor called for workers in Westminster to go on
strike, students from SOAS and LSE called for occupations, one school student called
for mass school strikes, and speakers talked of 'our Genoa or Seatle'.
Nothing has been learnt by these people. If there were no strikes of any
significance when war broke out, why do they imagine that suddenly everyone
would come out on a political general strike? In the pages of Socialist Worker and
in the mythology of the Stop the War 'leadership', school students took mass action
the day the war broke out - but this is simply not true. There were at a maximum
3,000 school students on the demonstration in London that day; they had no
organisation to speak of, and they simply charged around and only when they were given a
platform by the Marxists from Speakers Corner Against the War did they have the chance
to express themselves. The fact is that school students are not organised. This
would require action committees for specific demonstrations, or more permanent
school students' unions.
The problem essentially boils down to leadership. Leadership in schools
means those students who for reasons of their understanding and energetic campaigning
for the rights of the students are able to form a nucleus who are able to win a
majority through democratic debate. Simply arriving with a bunch of leaflets and
newspapers will never create a viable movement. One properly organised school can
appeal to other schools and can form democratically elected committees of action
across a city. The task of a Marxist current is not to control the movement, but to
offer the best strategy and tactics to develop and strengthen the movement, to offer a
perspective and direction.
In the universities and colleges one or two determined comrades can also win
a majority. In the fluid moods of the student youth a silent and quiet period
can rapidly be followed by explosive discontent and militancy. Marxists should
not insist on the superiority of their ideas but must convince the most
forward-thinking students in the ideological plane as well as in their intervention in the
student movements. Again whilst there was reasonable participation by students in
the anti-war movement, however when the National Union of Students called a
national demonstration at the American embassy at the height of the bombing of
Baghdad, some 800-1000 students attended, hardly a mass student movement. The Socialist
Workers' Party and other sectarian groups' representatives on the National Executive
simply wanted the students to chant and shout slogans, and preferably have a
conflict with the police. It was the Marxists from Speakers Corner Against the War who
provided explanation and background, as well as allowing the students themselves to
speak from the platform instead of listening to endless chants and slogans. Inside
the London universities and one may assume everywhere else, any anti-war
initiatives coming from students themselves were smothered by the Stop the War
'leadership' which would simply select a member of the Socialist Workers' Party at the
college and call them the college representative of the anti-war movement. Any
normal student soon sees through such Stalinist behaviour and is repelled by it,
thus a layer of discontented activists seek solace in anarchistic actions. This is
attractive because rather than waste time trying to deal with student union careerists and Socialist Workers' Party Stalinists some direct action and result can be attained. However the
anarchists don't even bother with the mass of the students except in that they shock
them with their happenings, some of which are colourful and quite inventive, but are
ultimately futile unless they win over and involve the mass. By divorcing
themselves from the mass of the students they leave the careerists and such alienating
groups as Socialist Worker 'in charge' of 'student activism'.
How not to hold a demonstration The most astounding thing about the anti-war demonstrations was how stagnant, dull and foolish many of the platform speakers were. At the best were people like John Pilger who explained the role of US Imperialism - but this is not something many people aren't aware of. Then people from the Labour Party like Tony Benn and Audrey Wise played a terrible role - the former constantly harping on about the role of the United Nations and the latter constantly shouting Vive La France! Surely when a million people demonstrate, someone who wants the Labour Party changed must provide a perspective on the Labour Party and make a direct appeal to the demonstrators to join and transform the Labour Party?
Then comes the greatest farce of all, rather than speak to the million-plus and ask them to vote on the suggestions for the next actions...Who is for? Who is against?
The Stop the War coalition sent out an e-mail, three days after the biggest demo in British history, announcing that a dozen or so people have decided the date for the next demo...a month away...presumably so the Socialist Workers' Party members can get a rest and make enough placards for the next demo!
Stop the War Coalition 'leadership' suppresses democracy
A few days after the demo on Feburary 15, a so called People's Assembly was called opposite parliament, supposedly to act as a forum for discussion and debate, except that nearly every minute of the agenda was allocated to 'famous' speakers, like Tony Benn, (the United Nations...blah, blah, the United Nations...blah ...blah) -
Audrey Wise, vive la France again! and Bianca Jagger - labelled "human rights activist" -although far more famous because she is the daughter of Mick Jagger. Why couldn't Mick himself come?
The Marxists from Speakers Corner Against the War moved a resolution. It stated "this assembly has no faith in the United Nations, which is an unreformable organisation...and that war will only be ended by establishing a society of common ownership and democratic control of the largest multinational companies."
The Stop the War 'leadership' decided to destroy the offending resolution. They simply threw it away. When we protested and demanded the right to speak on the resolution, the Socialist Workers Party sheep began a baying call of "we want action!...we want action!" and then voted to prevent our comrades from speaking.
Back to the present. On Thursday October 9, after discussing what to do when George Bush comes to London, the Marxists from Speakers Corner Against the War asked "when will there be votes on what should be done?" "Shut up" was the reply from the chair...."ok let's have a vote on if there should be no votes"... we replied...still all was not lost - they did have a vote in the end...to kick out the Marxists from
the meeting for daring to ask for votes!
Heiko Khoo
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
if
21.10.2003 13:39
Or is the real reason that you need an excuse for failure and it's easier to blame the SWP than look realistically at your own failings?
Sonic
The squabbling circus
21.10.2003 16:15
LONG LIVE THE JUDEANS PEOPLES FRONT!
Andrew
yeah...not
21.10.2003 16:36
zz
Forget Marx
21.10.2003 16:47
Not Althusser
The activists meeting
21.10.2003 23:36
"On Thursday October 9, the Stop the War Coalition called an activists'
meeting to discuss what action would be taken when George Bush arrives for a state
visit to Britain on November 19. Unfortunately, and in line with past practice of the
Stop the War steering committee - which seems to be dominated by members of the
Socialist Workers' Party - a day before the activists' meeting we received an e-mail
telling us of the events planned..."
I thought it was a bit strange that the decision on what activities would be had already been made. Was there any explanation of why this was done? What was supposed to be the purpose of the activist meeting if it had already been decided?
"In the pages of Socialist Worker and in the mythology of the Stop the War 'leadership', school students took mass action the day the war broke out - but this is simply not true. There were at a maximum 3,000 school students on the demonstration in London that day; they had no organisation to speak of, and they simply charged around"
Basically it should not have been up to students to stop the war in Iraq. There were hundreds of MPs who voted in favour of it, and millions who voted for them in the first place. Also it would have only been London students in London. The idea on the day war broke out was for people to stay in their own towns and hold demonstrations there. I think we should congratulate any students for opposing the war / not criticize them for not being organized enough.
Brian B
some answers to critics
25.12.2003 12:10
The article sought to expose the misleadership
to the stop the war movement, surely an important issue
if we are every to succeed in stopping a war.
I proposed various alternative methods explictly
and implicitly, this does not mean I represent any
views but my own.
As regards anarchism, it is a long discussion
there is nothing anti-authoriarian in much of anarchist
history. Bakunin was certainly an extreme authoritarian,
but this is senseless to discuss here. I merely pointed
out what I felt the consequences of stop the war being so
manipulated by the SWP were in fostering anarchistic
reaction, you are of course welcome to encourage such
actions.
As regards the students the issue is how to develop a mass
anti war movement (or for that matter any movement) amongst the
students. And this has nothing to do with london vrs anywhere else,
it has to do with how you win the majority. There is not short cut by
pretending there are mass strikes in colleges or schools when
there clearly weren't, except in a few cases.
It is important to ask were are we really at and where are we going,
no matter your creed. Unfortunately those who 'lead' the anti war
movement do not ask the question, everything they do was, is and will always be
right.
Thanks for your contributions, I note there is no room for contributions on
the stop the war web site. (probably they have not got the disk space:-))
Heiko
Heiko khoo
e-mail:
heiko@khoo.org
Homepage:
http://www.speakerscorner.net