[Marxism] Thoughts On the US and UK Antiwar Movements

[Jscotlive@xxxxxxx]

After just over three years of existence it is time to face some hard truths
with respect to the antiwar movement in this country. And in facing those
truths it becomes impossible to deny that by and large this movement has failed 
to
effectively challenge Blair's government with respect to the war; failed
completely to impact on the government's ability to aid the US in the 
prosecution
of the war; failed to precipitate the political crisis required to affect the
government's policy or plans with respect to the war; failed to turn the mass
support present in the run up to the war into the kind of vibrant, conscious
and militant movement required to constitute any kind of challenge to the
status quo after three years of war and occupation.
   We only have to look at the recent deployment of more Scottish troops to
Iraq, the recent announcement by the government that another 6,000 British
troops are to be deployed to Afghanistan, to see evidence of the absolute 
failure
of the antiwar movement to present a strong challenge to the ruling class.
   Not that anyone should glory or derive satisfaction from this sad state of
affairs. On the contrary, one of the biggest regrets all socialists and
people of consciousness should experience, now and in years to come, is that 
such a
major opportunity was lost to challenge the State and alter the course of
history in as fundamental a way as was undoubtedly possible at the height of the
antiwar movement in the run up to the war in late 2002 and early 2003.
   February 15, 2003 was a historic day not only in this country but
throughout the world. On that day, in over 600 towns and cities 
internationally, an
estimated 15 to 20 million people took to the streets to raise their voices
against war, against imperialism; against, by extension, the free market variant
of capitalism which lies at the root of the war in Iraq and the current crisis
facing our planet.
   That said, the only two countries in which this outpouring of anger and
protest could possibly have had any meaningful effect were the UK and the US,
given that these were the two nations leading the march to war.
   Within the US on that day, despite it being a nation in the clutches of a
wave of nationalism and fear post-9/11, 2 million came out in over 150 towns
and cities to raise their voices against going to war. For those involved the
sense that something important was or could be happening - the laying of the
foundations of a new political movement of such power and force that it could
not simply be ignored by the ruling class - was palpable. However, for potential
to materialise into actuality human agency in the form of conscious
leadership must be present. Alas, in the case of both the US and UK antiwar 
movements
it is precisely this kind of conscious leadership that has been lacking. And
whilst the US antiwar movement can perhaps offer the excuse that they
represented the minority view in the nation as a whole, given the fear and 
nationalism
that had been whipped up by a government aided and abetted by a complicit
media, the UK antiwar movement cannot.
   When you are two million in the streets of London you own the city. It is
yours, undeniably and emphatically. It then becomes a question of what you do
with the city on the day and in the hours that it is yours. There is no
question that on February 15, 2003, a political crisis could have been created 
if
only the leadership had seen and then seized the opportunity. What was to stop
them taking over the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, indeed any major
establishment building and staging a mass sit-in? Nothing stopped them except
their own lack of courage and willingness to mount a serious challenge to
State.
   Rather than rely on the moral rectitude of a ruling class, political and
economic, in whose interests this war was about to be waged, the leadership of
the movement on this day had an obligation to seize the opportunity presented
by 2 million people on the streets to take the struggle as far as they could.
   Yes, there may have been violence. Yes, people may have been hurt. But in
comparison to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis about to be
slaughtered, the one and a half million already killed due to sanctions, surely 
this
would have been small price to pay for the very real possibility of rocking the
government back on its heels and seriously hampering Blair's ability to continue
to support Bush and the right wing cabal surrounding him.
   The knock on effect which such a crisis in the UK would have had on US
antiwar movement and US body politic is anybody's guess. What we can say for
certain is that there would have been one, and that it would undoubtedly have
produced more political and social opposition to the war in the US than there 
was.
   History provides irrefutable proof that peaceful protest only ever
produces marginal gains for working, poor and/or oppressed people, while 
militancy
and force can and does alter history.
   The Labour movement, both at home and abroad, was built on the back of
violent struggle, as was the movement for women's rights, gay rights, and so on.
The anti-poll tax movement was a movement of mass civil disobedience which
culminated in the riot of Trafalgar Square, an event which shook the British
ruling class to its foundations and led directly to the fall of Thatcher. From 
the
streets of Ireland to the townships of South Africa, and most recently in the
streets of Paris, it has been the willingness of people to confront the
state, thus exposing it true savage and violent nature, which has radicalised
movements and thereby produced qualitative change.
   Many of a weaker consciousness within progressive movements continually
tout the example of Gandhi or Martin Luther King as the model to emulate as a
way forward to social change. This does a disservice to the truth and a service
to the establishment, who would enjoy nothing better than to see ineffective
peaceful protest after protest take place while they continue to plunder the
planet.
   In the case of Gandhi, the British Empire had become unsustainable, with
the collapse of the British economy after World War II, and it was either
sacrifice political power in India in order to retain economic power in the 
face of
Gandhi's peaceful and benign movement, or face the real possibility of losing
it all in the face of the violent and secular forces that were also arrayed
against them, and which were attracting increasing support away from Gandhi.
The British opted for Gandhi.
   Something similar took place with respect the US Civil Rights Movement led
by MLK. His non-violent movement was only as effective as it was due to the
rise of black nationalism in black ghettoes represented by such figures as
Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Fred Hampton, and others. The US government, 
under
John F. Kennedy and later Lyndon Johnson, finally caved in and embraced MLK
and the cause of black civil rights, a man and a cause whom the white
establishment had previously reviled, in order to nullify and check the rise of 
the much
more potent black militancy which constituted the real threat to the status
quo. Indeed, at one time J. Edgar Hoover, then head of the FBI, declared the
Black Panthers to be the biggest threat to the internal security of the United
States. It was this militancy, the threat it posed, which led directly to the
rise of MLK and the non-violent Civil Rights movement that he led.
   The last national demonstration against the war in London, which took
place in September 2005, was pitiful. A mere 25,000 people marched behind the
empty and anodyne slogan, 'March For Peace And Liberty.' A slogan of which the
Salvation Army would be proud, surely this demonstrates beyond a shadow of a
doubt the degeneration which has taken hold within the antiwar movement. It is a
movement shorn of all militancy, fire and coherence, one that has never managed
to break out of a comfort zone consisting of replicating the same tired and
worn actions time after time, in the forlorn hope that somehow, miraculously,
they will suddenly produce the desired result, cause Blair to experience some
sort of Damascus moment and order the withdrawal of British troops from the
Middle East.
   This will not happen. As a complement to the courageous resistance being
offered by the Iraqi people to the occupation, the UK antiwar movement must
take a long hard look at itself. Nothing will change significantly unless people
are willing to make sacrifices and take risks. The only effect that attending
a peaceful demonstration has is to make those participating feel better. This
clearly isn't good enough.
   Ultimately, the verdict of history will be a harsh one unless sooner
rather than later the antiwar movement moves beyond the impotence associated 
with
bourgeois pacifism.

END.

JD
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism