Weekly Worker 573 Thursday April 21 2005

Useful anti-war record

Andrew Murray, Lindsey German Stop the war: the story of Britain’s biggest ever mass movement Bookmarks publications, 2005, pp276, £15.99

Tony Benn’s foreword does not augur well for the rest of this book. The political response to “American” imperialism? “Preaching non-violence, as practised by Mr Gandhi and his followers.” Benn expresses the aim of the anti-war movement as that of mounting a “challenge to the capitalist concept of globalisation, involving exploitation and bloodshed, by offering a perspective of internationalism, cooperation and solidarity”. Unfortunately there is no mention of the role of the working class.

The foreword seemed like a bad omen for the rest of the book - surely there could not be another 276 pages of frankly boring reformism to go? Luckily things do get better once Benn leaves the scene. It is, I suppose, quite remarkable, though, that the ‘Stalinist’ Andrew Murray (of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain) and the ‘Trotskyist’ Lindsey German (of the Socialist Workers Party’s central committee) can come to a coherent common position.

The political analysis of the global balance of power in the first chapter was a pleasant surprise. The authors give a fairly standard analysis of the roots of terrorism, and the contradictions of a United States policy which supports various terrorist movements (eg, against Cuba), while claiming to be fighting a ‘war on terror’. Comrades Murray and German make the pertinent point that for Bush terrorism is a “method”, not concretely defined by borders or ideology. Therefore attacks on ‘terror’ boil down to attacks on anyone who challenges US world domination (p10).

Three main factors, we are told, determine the direction of current American policy: “the collapse of the USSR, … overwhelming military hegemony … and the gradual decline of the US share of world production” (p13). These conditions mean that “now is the time for the US to seek a reordering of the world, structured around its own priorities” (p16). Their analysis tends to focus on the political, at the expense of the underlying economic situation which is at the root of America’s aggressive foreign policy.

The authors move on to the reasons for British involvement, including the personal motivations for Tony Blair’s support of US policy. I was surprised by how well the nature of British imperialism was analysed. It is pointed out that, whereas “British imperialism is habitually referred to in the past tense”, it is of course alive and well (p22). Many people lacking a Marxist analysis see imperialism as little more than militaristic adventures, but in reality imperialism is a politico-economic phenomenon.

Blair continues to be driven by the belief that the “world must be reordered along free-market capitalist lines”, the comrades state, yet his philosophy is hidden behind what Mark Curtis calls the “use of humanitarian propaganda” (p25). This is exposed by arch-Blairite Robert Cooper, who, unlike Blair, actually uses the ‘I’ word, talking of a “new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values” (quoted on p28). For his part, Blair has the sense not to use the words ‘imperialism’ and ‘human rights’ in the same sentence!

The third chapter begins with a summary of the last 100 years of Iraqi history. No surprises here, but a useful reiteration of many points: ie, US support for the Ba’ath Party in the 1960s. Moving up to modern times, the authors focus on the US government’s reasons for war: primarily Israel and oil, we are told. An oversimplification that ends up being completely wrong - the systemic failings of US capital are understated. Without this context the ‘war against terror’ can seem to be portrayed as resulting from a particular nasty president and prime minister.

Of course comrades German and Murray are no apologists for Ba’athism, rightly suggesting that “regime change by the people” was the way to rid Iraq of its oppressive dictatorship (p42). The authors give the examples of Portugal, Greece, Spain and South Africa, where popular movements successfully removed particularly oppressive regimes.

The first three chapters thus provide an international political overview - on the whole an effective one - of the circumstances leading to the war. At this point the authors turn their attention to the domestic front, and things start to go downhill! The formation of the Stop the War Coalition is described as a bureaucrat’s nightmare - people actually wanted to debate politics and some even had the nerve to disagree with the wise leaders!

Clearly such people must be wreckers of the worst kind: “Every small political sect in London was represented by its most argumentative cadre. The fact that the bombing of Afghanistan was only days away failed to impose the slightest self-discipline on that minority, who heckled and barracked repeatedly” (p48). I was not around at the time, but the reports I have read paint a rather different picture. But for comrades Murray and German the STWC had to be based on ‘lowest common denominator’ politics. Dissenting voices were criticised as splitters and the CPGB and Alliance for Workers’ Liberty were excluded. Of course we need unity, comrades, but this needs to be solidly based on agreement won through debate, not the suppression of dissenting voices.

It is interesting to note the claim that “building a united left-led campaign without the involvement of the SWP would simply be impossible” (p54). This is at the moment correct, but tragically the SWP has failed to utilise its numerical and organisational domination in a way that could take the working class forward rather than build a movement apparently for its own sake. But of course anyone who dares say so is just a ‘sectarian’, while, by contrast, the aim of comrades German and Murray is to leave behind a left “long polished in splendid isolation” (p62). But the answer is not to abandon Marxism - rather to reclaim it from its various distortions (not least those of comrades Murray and German).

Chapter five looks at the ‘hearts and minds’ campaign conducted by those who both supported and opposed the wars in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq. Of interest is a detailed discussion of the role played by the Muslim Association of Britain, with the authors at great pains to try and show that their new friends are not “reactionary fundamentalists” (p87). Faced with huge marches and widespread public opposition, the Blair government was forced in desperation to produce its collection of lies and innuendo, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Of course this document, the infamous “dodgy dossier”, was so blatantly false that it still haunts Blair to this day. The book succeeds in capturing the twists and spins, the political manoeuvring and pathetic attempts to persuade an increasingly sceptical population that the Bush war was justified. The language, however, is more characteristic of Guardian-style left liberals than supposed Marxist revolutionaries.

Halfway through the book a considerable amount of space is dedicated to a number of poems and photographs. Whilst of course others may disagree with me, I found the poetry frankly rather boring - dominated by pacifistic and even religious themes. Not my taste, I’m afraid. Fortunately the excellent selection of photographs more than make up for it. The artwork, from paintings to catchy slogans on banners - which has been one of the most striking features of the anti-war movement - is well represented.

Any book about the anti-war movement in Britain will inevitably give pride of place to the February 15 2003 demonstration. Future chronicles will look back on that momentous day as one of the landmarks of contemporary politics. The behind-the-scenes organisation is detailed by the authors, but ironically its dramatic success only serves to highlight their bankruptcy. Where next? “Could the demonstration be extended into other forms of more confrontational action?” Unfortunately not: “It seemed that any such initiative would divide the movement” (p158).

In fact the key was not “more confrontational action” per se. It was politics. Yes, a principled assault on the “democratic deficit” that Blair’s war revealed for all to see would certainly have ‘divided the movement’, but it was the only way not only to stop his schemes, but to actually take the movement forward with the working class at its head. Yet On February 15 there was not even a speaker from the Socialist Alliance in Hyde Park. Why not? Instead a motley crew of trade union leaders, Labour politicians and vaguely leftwing celebrities spoke. And of course there was Charles Kennedy. All in the name of ‘keeping the movement broad’.

The authors are right to focus on two vital groups in British society - the trade unions and young people. Evidently the union bureaucracies were unable and unwilling to mobilise their members in a serious challenge to the warmongers. What of the young? The largely spontaneous school strikes, walkouts and sit-downs were tremendously encouraging: “a generation was shaking off its undeserved reputation for political apathy and passive consumerism” (p179). The comrades go on to state: “If strikes were to be called, it would be better done by the students themselves, free of middle-aged ‘supervision’” (p179). However, better still would be an anti-imperialist movement under a working class leadership capable of winning respect and loyalty among every generation.

When the war started, a variety of actions against it were organised, but the drama of the invasion itself largely overshadowed the reporting of anti-war events, and the authors justifiably go to great lengths to show the commitment of many dedicated activists.

One section which I feel deserves particular mention is the book’s focus on the “weaknesses of the movement” (p200). The traditional ‘labour movement’ in the shape of the trade unions and of course Labour Party never looked like delivering anything like effective action. The obvious conclusion that what the working class needs is not warmed over reformism, but a revolutionary Communist Party, is unfortunately lacking, however. The overriding theme of this book is that the old left has failed and therefore needs to be superseded by a ‘new’ left based upon popular frontism, class compromise and low expectations.

The decades of defeat for the working class in Britain should not make us despair in this way. Rather it should imbue us with a determination to achieve organisational unity based on theoretical clarity.
The final part of the book deals with events since the US declared victory in Iraq. The witch-hunt of George Galloway - “he was hounded and demonised” (p219) - the Hutton enquiry and death of David Kelly are all covered. The “pro-war left” - Christopher Hitchens, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Johann Hari, John Lloyd, etc - are given an ideological battering for their disgusting support of the invasion and subsequent occupation. Finally the ongoing opposition to the brutal occupation is covered - although the debates that have raged on the left are not mentioned. Should we support all elements of the Iraqi resistance or only the working class, secular and democratic anti-imperialist forces? And what does ‘support’ mean anyway? These key questions are simply skirted around.

As far as Britain is concerned, talk of ‘the movement’ and ‘the people’ provides the cover for the comrades’ abandonment of principled politics in favour of left populism combined with idealistic pacifism. Yet the cost of synthetic unity is political impotence. So when they write that “the anti-war movement failed to stop the war because it was insufficiently implanted in a militant working class movement” it is a hollow complaint (p201). It is they who are responsible for excising all trace of working class politics from the movement they led.

I would, however, recommend that anyone on the left reads this book, which, for all its flaws (and there are many), provides a useful record of the anti-war upsurge.
Ted North