Further Reflections On Stop The War Events

Since Saturdays anti-war rally and march, I have been musing on the decline of the Stop the War movement.

As Class War has pointed out - STWC refused to adopt any tactics that might actually risk victory - there was no attempt made to disrupt the war effort, or the flow of the government's business - the only aim was to take the moral high ground, and hope new Labour caved in. There was - and is - no Plan B.

Listening to the speeches on Saturday, it struck me that the decline of the anti-war movement was not just based on its failure to do what it said on the tin - not stopping the war is actually only part of the problem. The second problem is the approach to the ordinary punter - free Afghanistan and free Palestine was shouted repeatedly from the stage. So all of this freeing this and that - does it apply to me, if I don't live in those countries?

Each of the speakers was careful not to say the word free in connection with Iran, or to comment on the extremely restricted elections held there that week. After all implying the Islamic Republic of Iran is not free may be seen as an attack on that country, which is solely what the STWC wish to avoid. And there is obviously little or no difference between condemning Iran's current leaders, and bombing it to smithereens before occupying the country!
Worse it could be seen as joining in the rising tide of 'Islamophobia' that the STWC is so concerned about. So if you yourself have any concerns about Islam as it is increasingly being practised - you should not have, in fact such concerns are whipped up purely by racists, and you don't want to side with them, do you?

But - what if you don't live in Iran, Palestine or Afghanistan? Well if you live in dreary old London, the message from the stage was pretty clear. Support all these struggles abroad. Write to your MP, listen to the likes of Baroness Symons, march and lobby politicians. It seems in London we are already free, and everything is tickety boo.

Disagree?

Well you won't find your views reflected from the stage at a Stop the War event. I know my MP is not the slightest bit interested in what I think about anything (Meg Hillier is a new Labour careerist) whilst my Councillor is not even capable of returning letters or emails. Yet all I heard on Saturday was a very sorry attempt to legitimise the existing system, albeit with a soft left gloss.

And if I can see it - millions of others can to.............

Comments

[PM]

STWC are surely not the only organisation to be completely ineffective at their stated aims, either deliberately or through being hopelessly inept. Try CND celebrating 50 years of failure this year or BUAV, NAVS, organisations supposedly committed to ending vivisection, well over 100 years of failure each. Is it possible that if these organisations as they are now succeeded in their stated aims they will have failed in their real purpose - possibly to identify, contain and neutralise opposition by engaging that opposition in action(s) designed to be ineffective? Success is failure, failure is success!

Not for nothing did Orwell’s 1984 state ‘ignorance is strength’

There comes a point when not just ineffective leadership becomes a barrier to victory but so does the stupidity of the followers/believers who don’t question why their actions are so ineffective.

The British governments philosophy in Northern Ireland was ‘if you want to beat the enemy, become the enemy’. Think about it.

I doubt if STWC really see anti war opinion as anything other than a platform to raise the public profiles and help fulfill the political ambitions of various people/parties involved in STWC which are to do with attaining political power in some form and not much else.

Grassroots ‘animal rights’ campaigns with small budgets but committed activists have been effective to some degree in their stated aims and the state has responded. 3 leading figures in the SHAC campaign are in prison in what is effectively internment by remand. Campaigns like SHAC have also publicisied the danger of lab animals being used as models for human health as well as the disgrace of the multi billion pound pharmaceutical industry pushing whatever it can on the market to make a big buck while hiding the real human health and enviromental risks attached to their chemicals. Matters the BUAV and NAVS have always chosen to ignore, preferring the moral argument which has always failed as long as people seriously believe it is a choice between their health and the life of a lab rat.

I use that as an example to show that when people take the moral high ground (as you state at the beginning of your piece) it is almost certain to fail but will please the vanity of and give a feel good factor to the people who see themselves as the moral opposition. Do people really want to achieve their stated aim or do they just want to do what makes them feel good?

Sorry for the rant!

PS. Maryam Namazie has plenty to say about islam, whether you agree or disagree she is worth reading

http://www.maryamnamazie.com/articles/islamophobia.html