LENIN'S TOMB

Monday, November 30, 2009

The shade of Labourism posted by Richard Seymour

We on the Left are in a bad shape. We face massive spending cuts and job losses, and an accompanying war on the remaining strongholds of organised labour. We face a far right on the move, not just in this country but across Europe. A constant drumbeat of more or less explicit attacks on Europe's Muslim minority has now been punctuated by the small, cowardly decision by Swiss voters to ban the construction of minarets on the grounds that such buildings constitute a surreptitious Islamic 'colonisation' (this in a country with only four minarets). The far right are in ascendant, and they are abetted by a media and political class opportunistically using their language and validating their politics of resentment. More on that in a future post, but for the moment, consider John Denham's latest remarks. We have beatings, we have cemetery desecrations, we have attempts to march on local mosques. Our ability to meet such challenges is not negligible, but responses have proven to be patchy and fragmented. Organisationally, the left is atomised into some local strongholds in communities, unions, councils, etc. What is ailing us? I am not pedling any voluntarist illusions here - we can't just will mass resistance into being - but we do have to think about what our strategy is for overcoming our limitations.

For the last decade or so, much of the far left at any rate has shared a perspective that there needed to be a drastic realignment on the left, and that the window for this was provided by disaffection with New Labour's right-wing rule. This disaffection has been real enough. It is so severe that the Labour Party saw an unprecedented collapse in membership to below 1918 levels, and lost several heartland seats with previously mountainous majorities. The question would then be whether those former Labour Party members could be provided with a more radical home, and whether the party's angered ex-voters could be given a realistic alternative in the voting booths. It was not realistic to expect such a constituency to immediately break with reformism which, after all, is not a programme but a default disposition. Everyone feels its gravitational pull, especially during periods in which the left is weak. And while political disillusionment was manifest, and particularly evident in street politics, a sudden upsurge in labour militancy could not be counted on as a talisman.

There had been, and continues to be, a general decline in union density, as the working class has been reconstituted, and new sectors of the economy emerged that kept themselves more or less union-free. In addition, workers have become far more mobile. We hear a lot about immigration statistics, but rarely about the other aspects of this story: mass emigration from the UK, and mass migration within the UK's borders. For, in addition to the 427,000 workers who emigrated from the UK in 2008, over 100,000 workers migrated in and out of the North-West alone in 2005-6. 163,000 workers moved into London that year, but 243,000 moved out. This sort of turnover on an annual basis means that models of trade unionism elaborated on the basis of a relatively more static workforce are increasingly difficult to sustain. Days lost to strike action were at an all time low when New Labour were elected, and the number continued to decline for the remainder of the millenium. Traditions of militant trade unionism, 'DIY reformism', that enabled a powerful response to both Labour and Tory attacks in the late Sixties and early Seventies, no longer existed. And given New Labour's abject abasement before every passing millionaire with a friendly wink, it was necessary to fight for the most basic ideas, the class politics, that could articulate demands for a militant response to employers and the government. So, what was sought was a kind of organisation that could relate to the street campaigns (around Jubilee 2000 or the arms trade, for example), plant some feet gingerly in the unions, serenade disappointed Labour members and voters, and articulate popular grievances in socialist language. It was to meet that challenge that the SSP and the Socialist Alliance, and then Respect, were formed. The present remainders of those initiatives constitute most of the fragmentary footholds I mentioned earlier.

Those socialists who were sceptical of such a venture from the start, though, could appeal to a certain bowdlerised version of 20th Century politics. For over 100 years not a single other party has been able to seriously challenge the Labour Party for the loyalty and support of working class people either in terms of votes, members or union funding. No attempt to construct a mass socialist party to challenge Labour has been successful. Think of some of the attempts. The British Socialist Party, founded in 1911 as an explicitly marxist alternative to Labour, did contribute to the building of an initially strong Communist Party following the Russian Revolution. However, the Communist Party more or less abandoned the idea of an independent road to socialism in the early 1950s, with its British Road to Socialism programme, which stressed that socialism could be achieved through the existing parliamentary institutions. In practise, this meant supporting the Labour Party, and by the 1980s it meant supporting the Kinnockite right-wing and its attacks on the left, and adapting/capitulating to the 'New Times' brought about by Thatcherism. The ILP made gains in the 1930s as Ramsay MacDonald led Labour into the National Government, but was squeezed in the postwar period and eventually folded into a pressure group within Labour by the 1970s. A number of very small far left parties stood against Labour in the late 1970s, including the WRP and SWP, and got derisory votes. Arthur Scargill's SLP, launched when just about everyone in the labour movement was swinging behind Blair and Brown to get the Tories out, has rarely received more than derisory votes. Other challenges prior to the present decade are perhaps too recherche and nugatory to mention. Until the millenium, such challenges experienced diminishing returns.

They could go even further. Not only have socialists been unable to successfully challenge Labour for the support of the working class, but about a third of workers have always voted for the right - a higher proportion than in much of the continent. Perhaps, you might argue, the British working class is much too conservative to embrace anything other than a party of gradualist social reform, a party that has never seriously sought to challenge the capitalist framework within which it seeks to deliver such reforms. Given such a diagnosis, it would make sense for left-wing workers to embrace labourism not necessarily out of conviction, but from a belief that the only a broad front including reforming liberals and right-wing social democrats could provide the appropriate vehicle for advancing the interests of workers. Only, that is, a party like the Labour Party. At the very least, they could say, such efforts were premature, undertaken initially before there was the first sign of a real crisis in the Labour Party. It was all very well to attract Labour left-wingers like Liz Davies and Mike Marqusee (before rapidly losing them, ahem-hem, cough cough, moving along). But, so it was argued, that hardly amounted to a substantial split, certainly not enough to base a new party on.

The example of Respect did briefly answer those arguments to some extent. Its founders correctly anticipated that the antiwar movement would, despite the Labour leadership's ironclad grip on the party apparatus, feed into a crisis in the party. The self-defeating decision to expel George Galloway followed from that crisis. It was also obvious that a substantial segment of trade unionists were questioning their funding of and affiliation to a party that repeatedly treated them with contempt. In the same year that Respect was formed, the RMT was kicked out of the Labour Party for allowing its branches to affiliate to other political parties, notably the Scottish Socialist Party. There was, then, an opportunity to win the argument for democratising the political fund and opening it up to more radical competitors. An organisation with a parliamentary presence and some strong local performances under its belt could feasibly win the support of the most militant workers and gain enough funding to build a lasting political machine (though it was unlikely that such a party/coalition would have taken the form of Respect).

But it was a narrow window of opportunity. The coalition was still too small, unstable and ramshackle and ultimately fell apart over a mixture of substantial strategic disagreements and old-fashioned sectariana that has long dogged socialists who have for too long acted in relative isolation. We made utter prats of ourselves, and I exclude no one from that criticism. Part of the problem is that there was not enough of a crisis in Labour. The biggest mass movement in British politics had certainly caused the Blairites some real headaches, but it didn't register on the conference floor. This says a lot about the enervation of any resources of resistance that remained in Labour after years of top-down control and 'restructuring' by the party's Whigs. And the fact that only one MP defected - and then after being forced out - is a warning not to underestimate how seemingly natural the Labour Party has been, no matter how right-wing, as a vehicle for those wishing to deliver reforms.

We now have a left that is Beyond the Fragments, a 'plural' left that may have more organisations than individual members, certainly not capable for the time being of recomposing itself in a new organisation to challenge the Labour Party for its base. In fact, the current state of affairs makes it very difficult for us to resist the coming Tory onslaught. Moreover, absent a movement to relate to, it is not clear that such an organisation would fare even as well as its immediate predecessors. Even so, given that New Labour is not about to reconstitute itself as a party of even old-fashioned right-wing social democracy, given that the Blairites are not relinquishing control but steadily tightening it, it would be prudent not to bet on a revival of the Labour left, (and, if it needs to be said, an entryist strategy would simply be suicidal at this point). If anything, the crisis of Labourism has new chapters awaiting elaboration. And unity on the left, if not immediately achievable in the sense described above, is surely a state to aim for in the interim.

Labels: george galloway, labour, new labour, respect, socialism, socialist alliance, ssp, stop the war coalition, tories, trade unions, working class

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Strasbourg protests: down the memory hole? posted by Richard Seymour

Guest post by Futurecast:

For reasons that perhaps are not entirely inexplicable, the demonstration against NATO last Saturday has been all but ignored by the bourgeois press. Over 30,000 activists demonstrating on the city of Strasbourg has been reduced to the activities of tens of Black Block supporters. Unfortunately it has also somewhat slipped through the lefty-media as well, (barring Socialist Worker). This is a shame as throughout the weekend there were clearly considerable steps forward to building international solidarity with other anti-capitalist/socialist organisations throughout Europe, but there were a lot of hard lessons learnt as well.

One of the particularly exciting events that I was not able to attend was the international rally held the NPA (New Anticapitalist Party/Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste) on the the 3rd of April. While I’m sure everyone is currently in the know by now, the NPA is the new united left party in French that socialists throughout Europe have been dampening their underwear with in excitement. While there were whispers of the rally not having enough time for discussion everyone who was there seems to have found it impressive indeed, hopefully more coverage will soon be on its way.

Stop the War Coalition sent three coaches (two from London, one from Manchester) to Strasbourg on the 3rd of April, many of those going were young and some of them politicized from the recent wave of University occupations. Arriving there was incredibly difficult as effectively the entirety of Strasbourg’s outer roads were blockaded by police - which made getting a coach load of demonstrators to the peace camp fairly difficult to say the least.

The Peace Campsite was in many ways similar to Climate Camps in Britain of recent years, it was a central rallying point for all those taking part in the protests where food, information, and electricity were available and where you could attempt sleep to the pleasurable sounds of multiple surveillance helicopters circling the site 24 hours a day (often doing so particularly low and loudly at night) and black drone helicopters circling at night also. The key difference with Climate Camp was who was manning the blockades, in our case it was hardened Black Blockers. As we walked down the barricaded street leading up to the campsite for the first time a STWC organiser told us ‘not to be concerned with the looks of things as it was all a bit theatrical.’ But walking through thick fog, down a clearly residential, yet very deserted-looking and very ransacked road guarded by an army of anarchist-ninjas, it just looked to like they’d taken the fucking street and buried the residents in their patios.

On Saturday STWC and the NPA marched together toward the front of the demonstration often sharing the same chants together in each others languages :

Hell Yes We Can - Stop the War!

Oo Ah - Internationale Solidarité!

Soon the demonstration began to swell with numbers as we reached the outer parts of Strasbourg. As the surveillance helicopter followed us some of the anarchists engaged in bizarre and complex methods to remove CCTV cameras from there poles and at this moment at least we all felt pretty united.

The protest reached a bridge where for reasons unbeknownst to any of us the police had blockaded the way forward. Such a thing was expected, but much later along the route than this. Soon enough tear gas canisters were fired into the air. Although some were fired directly into the crowd at very high speeds (something which I’ve been told breaks human rights law) narrowly missing people’s heads and faces. Supposedly at least one activist took one to the head. Despite many activists experiencing the CS in STWC our block held together stoically and extraordinarily well, refusing to run in the face of the gas or sometimes to fall back at all. My first experience of CS was on this demonstration, the first round was something like having citrus jabbed in your eye, which is pretty bearable. But the second time felt like being kicked repeatedly in the lungs and breathing had suddenly been assassinated by a coup d'état of deep and painful coughing (solidarity to the faceless protestors who gave me water and eye droplets while I spluttered by way to the ground.)

Eventually the protest broke through the police lines and pushed up the bridge. There is some debate within the STWC as to why this happened, some believe it was the actions of the Black Block, e.g. setting up fire blockades and throwing projectiles at the police. But in a discussion later it was agreed by the majority that what the police didn’t want was a melee clash with far larger number of protesters than policemen, which is precisely why they kept firing tear gas from such a distance.

The demonstration continued, the Black Block celebrated by burning garden allotments, smashing a petrol station, a post office and bus stops - all ‘collateral damage’ I’m assured. The demonstration continued to a huge gravel plain where the demo became its largest with tens of thousands assembled representing the IFA anarchists, the Black Block, Maoists, NPA, PCF (French Communist Party), Kurdish independence supporters, the SWP, STWC, SEK (Greek Socialist Worker’s Party) and their respective STWC, Linkswende, as well as very solid peace/pacifist pressure groups and so on. From here began the rally and all speakers that spoke from the platform unilaterally condemned the role NATO has played throughout the world as well as the actions of the police on the demonstration. Andrew Murray delivered an excellent speech by being the only speaker to actually sound suitably pissed off about his topic.

The representatives of ‘Blockade NATO’ announced they had delayed the summit by one hour with civil disobedience which met huge cheers. Yet that same day Sky News weeped tragic-bile one moment on how they prevented Michelle Obama from visiting a cancer hospital at and at another time how the protesters have made no impact at all:

“Clive, it seems as if this has had no actual disruption to the summit and effectively NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER?”

“Well you’re right Jane, it does seem that despite all this interference there has been NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER. Back to you.”

The rally ended with Bianca Jagger. Someone who clearly has done herself considerably proud with her defense of human rights and solid opposition to Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Just before she began to speak we were informed that the dark clouds continually growing in the background (but being pretty much ignored) where in fact large buildings in massive flames, i.e. hotels and houses. At around this point continual rounds of tear gas were shot into the sky. While none of it reached the rally’s location it was considerably close and the nearby helicopter was circling extremely low. The fact that this somewhat distracted people from her speech made Ms Jagger become rather flippant, moaning like a school teacher: “I can tell you’re not listening..!” and eventually she threw a strop leaving the stage altogether. The selfish bastards.

The demonstration continued for many more hours in the blistering heat, but the police had totally blocked off the way forward with multiple vehicles on the bridge we were hoping to turn down. Instead we were lead onto an island by the demo organisers. Eventually after waiting a long time for the authorities to put out a fire so the demonstration could move on in the opposite direction from the bridge, clashes between the anarchists and the police begun once again and endless rounds of tear gas were fired into the sky. By now the demonstration had become so disorientated that it more or less collapsed, yet activists marched back to the camp site with their heads held high, still chanting and protesting, the IST’s block was out in full force and vigor which for many was a huge morale boost. Later that night there was a deep and detailed discussion with various comrades on the lessons of the demonstration, mostly focussing on the tactics of the Black Block, the state and how to fight repression by drawing in the masses and not isolating them with individual acts of extreme direct action.

On Friday and Sunday there was a rival anti-Nato peace conference which was good on left unity, with a broad turnout of different organisations, but when I was there it certainly suffered from a relatively low attendance. Some of the most valuable contributions I heard came from John Rees who said that he didn’t realise that the Hotel Ibis was one of the top ten imperial sites in the world, or that burning homes in working class areas of Strasbourg helps fight imperialism in anyway whatsoever. Further debate was had in a British caucus on the lessons and mistakes of the protest by the organisers, as well as improvements to be made for STWC’s actions also. The level of debate was strong and reflects a growing sense of democracy, accountability and internal challenging that is excellent to see alongside the movements of the left.

While the demonstration was entirely chaotically organised, heavily policed (there were more police in Strasbourg than there are troops being sent to Afghanistan on the back of the summit), misdirected by the poverty of politics of some protestors, ignored and attacked by much of the media, it won many key victories. It helped us further bridge international solidarity with our comrades across the various borders, it reminded the ruling class that their current projects of imperialism will be protested in huge numbers even when they police their summits to a ridiculous level, or hold them in cities with fairly small populations and even when they block the roads relentlessly (preventing an additional 7000 German comrades getting across the border).

On our way out of the campsite the police politely searched all of our belongings, asking us to empty everything we had into the street, confiscating Socialist Worker papers, flags, leaflets, books, clothing or anything remotely political. When questioned several times they said they had ‘a permit’ and it was ‘orders’. Clearly an odd few of them sensed a sort of guilt and awkwardness about this, yet little effort was made by them to do anything against their orders. Regardless if we can make the Gendarmerie feel unsure and awkward about the status quo and their rulers, then surely another world is possible.

ps: in related news, the Met are in trouble. And their case against supposed anticapitalist 'terrorists' in Plymouth has fallen to pieces.

Labels: antiwar, imperialism, NATO, protest, stop the war coalition, tactics

Friday, March 13, 2009

Also appearing posted by Richard Seymour

I will be munbling at the Internet for Activists conference tomorrow, on the subject of 'blogging for campaigns'. You can find me at room G2, SOAS, 14.30 - 15.45. I see Tim Ireland is on the panel, and rather suspect he will bring the big-hitting technical expertise. SOAS folks can also see me speak, on the subject of The Liberal Defence of Murder, at a Stop the War meeting next week. It starts at 5pm on Thursday 19th March, and takes place at the Khalili Lecture Theatre, on the lower ground floor of the SOAS building. Finally, though I am not speaking at it (blast the organisers) anyone attending Birkbeck's 'On the Idea of Communism' conference today (for which free tickets are now available) might find me loitering there. Not that you should try and approach me if you do - as I'm sure others will testify, I'm right stuck up.

Labels: blogging, imperial ideology, internet, stop the war coalition, the complete and utter works of richard seymour, the liberal defense of murder

Monday, January 26, 2009

Update from Glasgow Stop the War posted by Richard Seymour

Glasgow Stop the War Coalition

BBC Scotland headquarters occupied after refusal to show DEC Gaza aid appeal – Occupation victorious in highlighting the issue

GLASGOW – Over 100 people participated in an occupation of the BBC Scotland headquarters today, demanding that the broadcaster show the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza. Occupiers entered the building at 5pm, and despite the police threatening mass arrests to remove everyone within 15 minutes, the occupation remained for almost 4 hours.

The occupation was successful in applying additional pressure on the BBC through extensive national and international media coverage, including CNN, CBS and Al-Jazeera. Tony Benn also telephoned the occupation to offer his support, saying 'The decision to occupy the BBC in Glasgow must be understood as a plea for the people of Gaza, who are suffering so much and who need our help to help get the money through'.

A delegation from the occupation was elected to meet with Ian Small, Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs and member of the BBC's Executive Board, who was called in specially to meet with the occupiers. The occupation had three main demands:

* That the BBC reverse its decision and show the DEC Appeal for Gaza.
* That the BBC director responsible for the decision not to air the appeal should be asked to resign.
* That the BBC show coverage of the outrage of the British people against the stopping of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

The BBC agreed that it will arrange a meeting with the delegation with Ken McQuarrie, the Controller of the BBC Scotland, and Atholl Duncan, the head of news for BBC Scotland on Wednesday the 28th of January. Glasgow Stop the War Coalition is asking its supporters and those who support humanitarian aid to Gaza to gather outside the BBC on Wednesday at 4.30pm.

Protestors also promised to return unless the DEC appeal is aired. Glasgow Stop the War also called for others to take similar actions around the UK.

All the occupiers decided to leave the building together, and no arrests were made.

'The life of every man, woman and child in Gaza is just as valuable as the lives of people anywhere else in the world. The people of Britain want to help the people of Gaza, and the BBC should give them the information to do so. Every day that the BBC waits to show this appeal, more people in Gaza will die,' said Penny Howard, of the Stop the War Coalition.

Labels: bbc, gaza, humanitarianism, Israel, stop the war coalition, war crimes, zionism

Friday, January 23, 2009

The facts are insufficiently impartial posted by Richard Seymour

Facts are awkward. They take sides. They do not conveniently distribute themselves evenly along the spectrum of opinion and, therefore, they lack balance. They must either be suppressed or complemented by some lies. For instance. It is a matter of controversy only to Tzipi Livni that Gaza is experiencing a profound humanitarian crisis. Aside from the thousands dead and wounded, 50,000 people have been left homeless, 400,000 have been left without water, and 84% of the population have no secure source of food. Power shortages are normal - 40% of the population gets no electricity, while the remaining 60% only have intermittent access. Eight of Gaza's hospitals were partially destroyed by bombing and shelling during the war and 26 clinics were hit, and the whole medical system is suffering from severe shortages, including those resulting from having inadequate or non-existent power supplies. For over a month, access to Gaza's already diminished medical structure was severely reduced. By standards that are commonsensical, this is a humanitarian catastrophe. It has been worsened by the fact that, due to Israeli attacks on humanitarian workers, much aid delivery had to be suspended during the war itself. 89% of the people have received no aid at all. The simple fact is that if aid doesn't arrive soon, a great many people will suffer horribly and die.

The Disasters Emergency Committee, an umbrella group of 13 UK-based humanitarian agencies, did what it usually does in such circumstances. It prepared an urgent campaign to raise funds from the British public, for Gaza. Under an agreement dating back to 1963, the BBC broadcasts the DEC's emergency appeals, and other broadcasters tend to follow suit. Yet, this time, they have refused, a decision that will deny the campaign millions of pounds. Other broadcasters are now using this as an excuse to refuse to carry the appeal. The BBC says that its decision was prompted by concerns that broadcasting such an appeal would call its impartiality into question. I have to confess, I have absolutely no idea what this can mean. Does it actually mean anything? Note that the BBC didn't consider its broadcast on Kosovo, just under a decade ago, to have any implications for its impartiality. This despite the fact that the (very real) humanitarian crisis in Kosovo was at that point being used as a justification for war by the NATO powers that were at that point actually co-responsible for the crisis through their bombing campaign. In that case, there was an obvious consequence of broadcasting the DEC's appeal, inasmuch as it could have fed into pro-war propaganda and facilitated further carnage - but only a miserly sod would have demanded that it be withdrawn on those grounds. In the case of the Gaza appeal, the only likely consequence of broadcasting it is that some people get a slightly more comfortable and prolonged life. Obviously, the consequence of not broadcasting it is that they don't. The BBC is therefore clearly not being impartial. It is taking sides, effectively boycotting aid for Gaza on the apparent assumption that their job is to avoid offending Israel's supporters.

Tomorrow's protest starts outside BBC Broadcasting House at Portland Place, from 1.30pm. In the meantime, Stop the War recommends that you call the BBC and complain, on this number: 03700 100 222. Press 3 for complaints. And you might also consider donating to the DEC appeal.

Labels: bbc, gaza, humanitarianism, Israel, stop the war coalition

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Government attempts to block Gaza march posted by Richard Seymour

From the Stop the War Coalition:

GOVERNMENT BLOCKS GAZA DEMONSTRATION AT ISRAELI EMBASSY

Ministers are obstructing the holding of a national demonstration on Saturday
to protest against the Israeli invasion of Gaza, march organisers said today.

Officials of the Royal Parks Agency, acting under the authority of Culture
Secretary Andy Burnham, have blocked a plan to hold a rally in Kensington
Palace Gardens near the Israeli Embassy in London.

The demonstration, organised by the Stop the War Coalition, Palestine
Solidarity Campaign and British Muslim Initiative, is expected to attract tens
of thousands of people from across the country, outraged at the massacre of
Palestinians taking place in Gaza.

"The arrangements for our march and rally were notified to the police days
ago," Stop the War Coalition chair Andrew Murray said today. "We have now
found that they are being blocked by the Parks authorities, in consultation
with ministers, on the spurious pretext of a lack of precedent.

"This nonsensical argument recalls government attempts to stop the rally
against the Iraq war in February 2003 on the grounds that the grass in Hyde
Park might be damaged.

"Ministers should understand that the anger against Israeli aggression against
the Palestinian people is also without precedent. We are determined to
exercise our democratic right to express that outrage in a public space near
the Israeli Embassy.

"Attempting to block our plans - which have been drawn up with a view to
ensuring a peaceful and orderly protest on Saturday - risks making thousands of
people angrier still.

"We are therefore seeking an urgent meeting with Mr Burnham to ensure that he
removes these bureaucratic obstructions and allows our protest to proceed as
planned."

Labels: air strikes, gaza, hamas, invasion, Israel, palestine, stop the war coalition

Saturday, January 03, 2009

The Invasion Begins: emergency protest tomorrow posted by Richard Seymour

From the Stop the War Coalition:

STOP ISRAEL'S CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY
EMERGENCY PROTEST AGAINST GROUND INVASION
SECOND NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION CALLED
DAILY PROTESTS AT ISRAELI EMBASSY

Following the start of Israel's ground invasion of Gaza, an
emergency demonstration for Sunday 4 January and a daily
programme of protests has been announced, culminating in a
second national demonstration in London on Saturday 10
January. (See below for details.)

Israel is escalating its already barbaric attacks on Gaza by
sending in ground troops, which will inevitably lead to the
killing of yet more civilians, including many women and
children, and will deepen the humanitarian catastrophe which
the United Nations says Palestinians are suffering.

UN representative Richard Falk says, "The magnitude, the
deliberateness, the violations of international humanitarian
law… warrant the characterisation of a crime against
humanity."

This crime against humanity has provoked nationwide anger
and outrage in Britain, as was shown by today's
demonstrations calling for an immediate end to Israel's
attacks on Gaza, with 50,000 demonstrators in London, 4000
in Manchester, 3000 in Edinburgh, and many thousands more
around the country.

EMERGENCY DEMONSTRATION
SUNDAY 4 JANUARY 2.00 PM
ISRAELI EMBASSY, KENSINGTON HIGH STREET
Following Israel's ground invasion, an emergency
demonstration has been called for Sunday, 4th January at
2.00 pm. (Nearest tube High Street Kensington).

DAILY PROTESTS AT THE ISRAELI EMBASSY
There will be daily protests at the Israeli Embassy from
Monday 5 January to Friday 9 January, at 5.30 pm - 7.30 pm.

NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION: SATUDAY 10 JANUARY
The national demonstration on Saturday 10 January is planned
to march to the Israeli Embassy. Stop the War is asking all
its local groups outside of London to book coaches or
arrange other transport to help make this the biggest
demonstration yet seen in this country in the cause of
Palestinian freedom.

Labels: air strikes, gaza, hamas, Israel, palestine, protest, stop the war coalition

Monday, December 29, 2008

Gaza protests posted by Richard Seymour

Two quick observations. First of all, there is another protest today between 4 and 6pm, opposite the Israeli embassy at Palace Greens (nearest tube High Street Kensington). I am told that yesterday's was extremely impressive, the successful street occupation resulting in riot cops having to physically remove people from the road. Secondly, the protests across the country yesterday, called at extremely short notice in a holiday, demonstrate the continuing urgency and necessity of the antiwar movement. Granted, it has not had the centrality it once had as the recession has taken hold. But, clearly, the 'war on terror' isn't going anywhere, and neither is Israeli aggression. Obama's signals during this attack clearly indicate that he backs it and will continue to back such aggression once in office. Indeed, it has to be said that he is one of the more extreme supporters of Israel to have entered the White House. So, the antiwar movement still plays a significant role as the major force for humanitarian intervention in British politics. The fact that thousands could be mobilised across the country within 24 hours (pics here, footage here) shows that the lessons that were learned over Afghanistan, Iraq and the Second Intifada, and then again over Lebanon, have not been forgotten.

Labels: antiwar movement, gaza, humanitarian intervention, Israel, stop the war coalition, zionism

Monday, October 06, 2008

March in the City posted by Richard Seymour

Two quick points. First of all, there is to be a march in the City of London, starting at Mansion House station from 4pm on Friday 10th October, opposing bail-outs for the bankers and demanding that the government defend pay and jobs instead. As the seriousness of this crisis becomes ever more apparent, so does the ability of governments to do anything meaningful to stop it. Even today, both Wall Street and the European stock exchanges have plunged as more companies fired staff and reduced operations. What the government can do, however, is stop running policy in the interests of those who have benefited most from the boom and are most responsible for the slump. So, turn up if you're available, why not?

Second point, if you attended the anti-Bush protest in June, you need to be aware that the police are still pursuing people from that protest. Bear in mind that this follows revelations that there were police provocateurs in the march trying to stir things up and create a conflict. Clearly, there is a politically motivated attempt to deter protests and undermine the morale of oppositional movements. In this vein, at least one person I know of has had his face splashed in the London papers with a Crimestoppers number underneath it, and he has had to go and turn himself in to face charges. Subsequently, because his face was in the papers, his employers have started a witch hunt against him. So, bar this in mind: anyone who was there - even if you didn't do anything likely to give rise to suspicion - does face the possibility of harrassment. There may be attempts to nab people at future demonstrations, but please don't allow this nonsense to intimidate you. When the state is on a campaign to deter protest, it becomes all the more important to defy that campaign. Stop the War's advice is to contact a solicitor first, and then to let the StW office know.

Labels: capitalism, financial sector, protest, stop the war coalition

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Manchester special brew posted by Richard Seymour

Predictably, yesterday's thousands of antiwar protesters outside the Labour Party conference in Manchester received less coverage than the BNP's pathetic 300 turnout for its totemic rally at Stoke. On the other hand, David Cameron's bicycle helmet got more coverage than the antiwar protesters. Anyway, like the contents of said helmet, this week's festival of New Labourism is likely to be a hollow affair. Anyone expecting a coup is going to be disappointed. The supporters of David Miliband wouldn't be so stupid as to use the conference as their springboard, the Left isn't going to be represented, and the unions will save their blows for block voting on policy desiderata such as higher public sector pay. Jon Cruddas may be staking out territory for a broad left leadership campaign, but for now he is backing Brown's pathetic loyalty campaign, presumably sensing that he hasn't yet the strength to prevail in any sudden leadership election.

Even so, with figures this bad, it has to be an uneasy week for the Brownites. The Independent tries to save Brown's hide with this deceptive headline, showing a big fall in the Tory lead. They attribute this to Brown's pledges to 'clean up' the City. In fact, the rise in Labour's standing is within the margin of error, while the Tory fall is mainly due to a 5% surge in Lib Dem support, which I would imagine is a statistical anomaly rather than a tribute to the former Hitchens intern Nick Clegg and his aristocratic charisma. As the Indy's report demonstrates, voters may not like Miliband or Cameron that much, but they are sick to the back teeth of Brown's leadership. So, the fact remains that Labour is headed for a wipeout in both marginals and 'heartlands' in 2010. They will lose seats they've held since the Great War, and the cabinet will be gutted. Given the logic of defending Brown at all costs, those soft left PLP members who want a modest change of policy - by, for example, imposing a windfall tax on the energy companies - are relenting on any serious campaign to obtain such change. Ironically, though they seem to be worried about the arch-Blairites taking over, this strategy concedes the argument to Charles Clarke et al: Labour can't win with Brown, they will say, and no one else is stepping up to the plate. Everyone else is locked into Brown's electoral suicide-pact.

This week's proceedings, though there will be tussles below the surface, will not be about a leadership challenge, but about re-asserting Labour's claim to government. To that extent, it will in all probability deliver the following sentiments (in no particular order): things are tough, but the main problem is that our message isn't getting out to people (a whinge about the media); British people are rightly concerned about the economy, but don't want to go back to the old ways (rebuke the Left, reassure business); we said we'd do x and we've done x, we said we'd do y and we're doing y, we said we'd do z and plans to fastrack z are already in place (delivery schtick); people have legitimate concerns about immigration, and we are responding to that, but we must also make the argument for a sensible immigration policy (we should be prudently racist); let's have a frank and honest debate about a, b and c (shut up and listen); we must work to strengthen our international commitments, to defend our values - sure to be pronounced 'vawlyews' at some point - not only against extremism but also against poverty and disease (let's hope Obama wins so that we can continue to throw troops at perpetual war zones and impose neoliberal measures without being associated with a bunch of headcases); we must act on the environment using the most technologically efficient solutions for a clean, modern economy (more nuclear power stations for us, less for Iran); so let us show boldness and vision, now more than ever, and let us show that the people of this country - who are intelligent and rational - will do better with a government of 'the many, not the few' than with a party that whatever their promises to the contrary will always represent the few against the many (we have nothing else up our sleeves, but it's either us or the Tories). Unto which, the party faithful will lard praise and exultation in the desperate hope that their enthusiasm will prove cathing enough to prevent the inevitable massacre.

Labels: bnp scum, conference, manchester, neoliberalism, new labour, stop the war coalition, unite against fascism

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Stop the War meeting on "Georgia, Nato and the Spread of War" posted by Richard Seymour

Ady Cousins has done the usual sterling work:

Labels: Georgia, NATO, russia, stop the war coalition, US imperialism

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Stop the War meeting on "Georgia, Nato and the Spread of War" posted by Richard Seymour

(Via Solomon's Mindfield). I thought it was worth mentioning this:

Georgia, Nato & The Spread of War
Public meeting-all welcome

Venue: Friends Meeting House (Small Hall), Euston Road, London
Date: Thursday 14 August, 2008
Time: 6.30 pm

with

MARK ALMOND, lecturer in History, Oxford University and expert on the Caucasus

KATE HUDSON, Chair of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

BORIS KAGARLITSKI, former director Institute of Globalisation Studies, Moscow
and author of, 'Empire of the Periphery: Russia and the World System'

JOHN REES, Officer of Stop the War Coalition and author of 'Imperialism and Resistance'

The outbreak of war in Georgia is already a disaster for the people of the region. It risks being turned into a still broader problem by Dick Cheney's threats. The conflict is in large measure the product of George Bush's policy of US global hegemony, in the Caucasus as in the Middle East. Attempts to extend NATO eastwards, specifically incorporating Georgia, directly challenge Russian interests.

Please come to the meeting to discuss this latest flashpoint in an increasingly dangerous world and forward this message to your contacts.

You can also read Mark Almond's analysis of the conflict here.

Labels: Georgia, NATO, russia, stop the war coalition

Friday, July 11, 2008

Are they building up for an attack on Iran? posted by Richard Seymour

Belligerent rhetoric about Iran's global status is business as usual. Plans for an attack of some kind are a frequent feature of Israeli gasconade, and the propaganda machine is constantly churning out new intrigues - with confections about the scale of Iran's putative nuclear threat now on the agenda of many pro-Washington reporters, as they attempt to efface the memory of the calamitous NIE. Incidentally, an attempt by MediaLens to check one of the journalists involved in reproducing such guff, one Bronwen Maddox of The Times, resulted in an absurd legal threat from one of Murdoch's lawyers. There is, detectibly, an escalation in the war rhetoric. Ehud Barak has indicated that Israel is ready to do to Iran what it did to Iraq in 1981 (which would actually be very difficult because Iran's nuclear energy programme - not nuclear weapons programme - is far better protected than Saddam's weapons systems).

The US is now permitting Israeli planes to use Iraqi air space and American air bases in Iraq - they presumably don't have to ask Maliki what he thinks about it. And though it has sort of slipped into the recesses of media memory, the recent Iranian missile tests were preceded by Israeli military exercises in the Mediterranean. The US is already escalating its campaign of subversion and terrorism inside Iran. Every major contender in US politics, including Barack 'sweetie' Obama, has to pay lip service to the supposed threat from Iran - about which something must be done.

So, is it serious, or are they just paper tigers? Are the running dogs of imperialism all bark and no bite, as Tom Engelhardt suggests? I must admit that I don't find myself reassured by his answers. Yes, oil prices could soar catastrophically, but so far the Bush administration has not demonstrated much concern about high oil prices, in part because the energy sector that backs them so heavily is making a killing out of this. Yes, Iran could retaliate, but if they really want to whack Iran they would be willing to risk that. It's small beer compared to letting that punk Ahmadinejad run his mouth whenever he feels like it. One possible counterargument is that Iran is a stabilising factor in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the protestations of the US government and its Israeli ally. But this all depends on a calculation about Iranian behaviour in the event of a short, sharp attack. If they calculate that the Iranian ruling class is divided and that a substantial enough sector would prefer a Modern Right president to Ahmadinejad's 'populist' administration, then they might see a bombing raid as a perfect catalyst to open those divisions and weaken the Iranian president. There may indeed be substantial opposition within the US ruling class and the state apparatus to such an attack, but this adventurist administration not only ruled out reality - we create our own reality, remember? - but sidelined sizeable dissidence from within the state. One can talk about Bush being a lame duck, but neither he nor his confederates show any sign of being chastened (Bush has recently shared one of his little 'jokes' which roughly resembles a large, bony middle-finger to the world). Certainly they have had to deal with political realities that override their urge to radically restructure the global order, as in the removal of North Korea from the 'Axis of Evil', but Iran is far more geopolitically central to US designs than North Korea, and actually doesn't have the nuclear weapons programmes that North Korea does have, and openly states it has. The causes for trepidation in the case of North Korea, and sensible bargaining, are not necessarily present to the same degree in Iran. And while they are no longer threatening North Korea, they are threatening Iran, big time. Besides, it would be nice to leave Bush's successor with a little parting gift.

And if the belligerents can't force the policy through at a national level, they can always egg Israel on. Israel may be susceptible to counter-attack. It may have been humiliated by Hezbollah when it tried to subsume Lebanon as the basis for a proxy strike on Iran and Syria. But it is hardly the sort of state to simply absorbe defeat and sit on its hands. It likes to be in charge, and its military leadership would probably like to deliver a punishment beating to its most vocal and potentially most powerful opponent in the region. It wouldn't have to be major, just enough to let the world know they still mean business. And the political culture inside an increasingly crazed and bunkered state is such that most Israelis would probably cheer it on, and reward the government with renewed popularity.

I'm not saying they're going to do it, because how the hell would I know, but can you really put it past them?

Labels: george w bush, iran, Israel, stop the war coalition, US imperialism

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Pretzel-eating invasion monkey to visit London posted by Richard Seymour

Don't forget the Bush visit, folks. As those of you who get the Stop the War Coalition's newsletters know, the march planned against Bush's visit has been banned. Now, what is it about the Stop the War Coalition that makes them want to keep trying to ban our marches like this? Why do they have to keep testing us? Do they just want to see if we really mean it this time, or if we're just taking the piss? Less crudely put, that could actually be the answer: they really want to see if they can break us, if we really are in decline as the newspapers say. I don't see this tactic working, of course: they'd have to nick Tony Benn, Steve Bell, Jeremy Corbyn MP, probably a few other MPs and trade union leaders; and they're probably going to find a sizeable turnout for a Sunday evening. I suggest you get down there - this Sunday, 5pm, Parliament Square. If any of you doesn't show up, you better either be dead or in another country. Or both.

Labels: george w bush, london, protest, stop the war coalition

Friday, April 04, 2008

Wall of Sound posted by Richard Seymour

Ady Cousins brings footage from last night's very noisy anti-Blair protest:

Labels: stop the war coalition, tony blair, wall of sound

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

The British antiwar movement: new research. posted by Richard Seymour

Via Socialist Worker, I see there's some interesting new research by academics at Warwick University on the antiwar movement in the UK. Rachel Lara Cohen and Natalie Pitimson carried out random sample surveys at three different protests to determine the kinds of people attending and the reasons for doing so. They found some intriguing things. First of all, about a quarter of participants were 'demo virgins' - on their first ever protest. Seasoned, hardcore activists, those who attended all six post-9/11 major antiwar demonstrations, were a minority - about a third of sampled participants. This militates against the view which sees the antiwar protests as embodying a single pool of activists which just shrinks. Of course large numbers people attend one demonstration but can't make others or get disillusioned or decide to be there 'in spirit', but getting new people to attend doesn't just mean having more feet on the ground - it means more discussion, more arguments, more connections made, and a larger base for future 'hardcore' activists. It means that the momentum is still very much there. Secondly, there was actually a wide spread in the age range of people attending. It is often remarked that the demonstrations attract a large number of young people, but actually new participants from all age groups are being pulled into activity. While we should be gratified that new generations are getting into political activity, discussing ideas, reading the books and getting acquainted with various strategies, this research suggests that the focus on youth is based on a misleading stereotype. Pensioners are also stirring themselves into political activism for the first time.

Thirdly, despite the emphasis on the internet as a tool for online activism, most people use the internet in a very different way. Over 90% of people who attend the demonstrations actually use the internet, which is higher than the corresponding figure for the reference population (see Oxford University's most recent figures), but most people don't rely on the internet to hear about protests (those who do tend to be older and are better able to find useful information on the net, which dispels the myth about young people being especially technophilic). Those who take part in online activism tend to be those who are very active offline. Most people who do use the internet find it useful for sharing information, but not as an independent activism tool in itself. I might mention that this tallies with my own experience, and it is hardly to be sniffed at: I remember when something big happened and you had hardly any sources of reliable information, especially if there was a bit of military censorship going on. Now you've got news filter sites, blogs, radical newspapers with regularly updated online systems, handy search tools and so on. You don't have to read the newspapers and watch television bulletins in disgust - that can be quite demoralising and demobilising. However, a surprisingly large number of people, approximately a third, are put off using the internet for activism because they don't like the way others communicate online: on this point, I suppose the main issue is trolls and jerks, but there's also spam, sectarian lunacy, diversionary nonsense, competitiveness, high-handed rhetoric, any of the many ways in which people can just waste time. From personal experience, I would say that you hardly get this sort of thing at all on exclusive activists lists, where seriousness of purpose overrides the temptation to get into spats.

Such research has obvious limitations, being focused as it is on the most visible signs of organisation, which are not always the most important forms. They have a media impact, which is sometimes exactly what is called for, and they reflect sudden upsurges of anger and outrage, such as during the Lebanon war in 2006. But, as the research actually indicates, there is a lot that goes on beneath the radar. There are meetings, leafletings, posters, street stalls, film events, fundraisers, anti-recruitment campaigns, union activism (the NUT has recently voted to oppose military recruitment and propaganda activities in schools, for example), local protests, lobbies of the local MP, media-focused campaigns, all the stuff that actually keeps the arguments and facts in people's minds, and keeps the pressure on those who would otherwise get too comfortable and start thinking about - I don't know - maybe bombing somewhere else or sending troops back into Basra. There are two recent news items that I think reflects where we are. On the one hand, the Tories are opportunistically calling for an inquiry into the war, clearly hoping to capitalise on antiwar opinion even though they have been overwhelmingly supportive of the 'war on terror' in all of its dimensions. The neoconservative ascendancy in the Tory party is presumably okay with this. On the other, the MoD has embarked on a wide-ranging PR campaign to overcome the damage done to the military's image and sell the virtues of 'humanitarian' war. Expect a lot more pro-military news angles. (Perhaps the most glorious PR initiative of all is that, after the scandals over Saudi arms deals, the red-faced former CBI windbag and current trade minister, Lord Digby Jones, has announced his intention of implementing an ethical arms-dealing policy.) Some want to co-opt us, others want to neutralise us - and neither has been successful so far.

Labels: antiwar movement, britain, stop the war coalition

Sunday, March 16, 2008

MoD's war with the British mind posted by Richard Seymour

One of the welcome effects of the antiwar movement in the UK has been to, perhaps to some extent irreversibly, roll back a long tradition of militaristic patriotism. This, despite some waning in the postcolonial era, reasserted itself during the Falklands campaign and the first Gulf War. During the 1990s, this was conjoined with the ideology of 'humanitarian intervention', so that the British Army was seen as an anti-genocide action man outfit. But under the surface, opinion was shifting, especially as Iraq wilted and suffered under the sanctions regime and even Daily Mail readers were apprised of its horrors. And that is one reason why the narcissistic compassion that Gilbert Achcar talks about - the exaggerated and ostentatious sympathy with 'people like us' - was less pronounced in the UK than it might otherwise have been after the attacks on the twin towers. People knew almost instinctively that US foreign policy had contributed to bringing about the attacks The antiwar movement over Afghanistan, despite the obviously difficulties, was surprisingly large.

Since 2002, the warmongers have been losing the battle for public opinion. The scale of the antiwar movement, and the foundation of groups such as Military Families Against the War, has done for militarism what the poll tax riots did for Thatcherism (an analogy which contains warnings against complacency, I might add). Recruitment in the armed forces has dropped sharply, as has retention; opinion remains overwhelmingly against participation in the 'war on terror' in its many forms; there is no support for a war against Iran; and the decades-long pro-Israeli consensus has reversed. Even the head of the armed forces has started espousing antiwar views.

Like the US armed forces, the Ministry of Defense has responded to this crisis in part by abolishing or easing restrictions on recruitment. They have also tried the tactic favoured by every tobacco manufacturer, booze merchant and drug-dealer in the world - nail the kids, get them when they're young. One of their more developed programmes is the Defence Schools Initiative, which involves among other things getting elderly veterans to talk to the kids and inspire some weird emotion they call 'respect'. They upped their game in dealing with the press as well, so when it emerged in 2006 that the government had trebled the amount of money spent on propaganda, the Ministry of Defense had - next to the Central Office of Information - the largest number of PR personnel.

The unions have rightly resisted recruitment activity in schools, and the UCL students union has incurred a great deal of contrived wrath for voting to ban military recruiters from campus. The MoD's latest attempt to force pro-war propaganda into the schools' syllabus has been rightly rejected by teachers, and the government has been put on the defensive. And now a multimillion pound PR drive by the MoD to present the bright side of 'military intervention' has angered military families. So, what's next? Send Harry out again? Moan about soldiers not being able to wear their fucking uniforms again? I suppose another round of medals for derring-do, or the lionisation of one particular soldier, will produce a brief PR boost. In some ways, however, the cat is already out of the bag. Groups of people never before touched by antiwar feeling are part of the movement. Former soldiers, military families, an SAS trooper, and a former ambassador, are all in a position to expose the seaminess, corruption and violence of the government's global strategy. The way soldiers are used, chewed up and spat out, is public knowledge, and it militates against the attempt to inspire irrational admiration for those who are essentially victims of the war machine.

Labels: imperialism, ministry of defence, propaganda, stop the war coalition, warmongering

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Year Five: Still On The Streets. posted by Richard Seymour

Footage of some of the speeches and march here:

Labels: gaza, iran, iraq, palestine, stop the war coalition

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Centcom Chief Resigns: strike on Iran soon? posted by Richard Seymour

Admiral Fallon has resigned after criticising Bush's war drive against Iran in an interview with Esquire magazine. He said he would resign before taking part in any such action. Perhaps they'll promote Petraeus - he's an ambitious young tiger, and he'd like nothing better than to get into Iran. It looks like the neocons are on the hunt for a last-bid exertion of American power before they lose the executive. You know where to be: