Why the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest was a success
By Pip Hinman and Alex Bainbridge
Socialist Alliance
September 14, 2007
The success of the Stop Bush protest on September 8 during APEC was not
only a victory for the progressive movements, it revealed that the mass
action tactics being advanced by the DSP/Resistance and the Socialist
Alliance and others throughout the debates among the Stop Bush
Coalition over how to organise this particular protest proved correct.
>From the outset, since the Asia Pacific International Solidarity
Conference in 2005, we argued that the visit of George Bush to Sydney
for APEC would be the key mobilising draw card given the US-led role in
Iraq and Afghanistan. We argued that despite how hated John Howard is,
he would not pull the same attention.
Given that it was apparent for about a year that APEC would be close to
an election, most people (rightly or wrongly) would be more interested
in just voting him out.
We also argued that focusing on APEC as a summit protest would not work
not only because APEC is not a significant trade organisation, even
for the capitalists, but also because the post-Seattle
anti-globalisation movement had, in all significant respects, become
the anti-war movement in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and
beyond.
Focus on Bush
The focus on Bush was disputed among the left: Solidarity and the
International Socialist Organisation (caucusing with each other) were
unconvinced, as was Socialist Alternative at the outset.
A Solidarity position paper sent to the Stop the War Coalition
organising list on May 4 stated: "The biggest possible protest will be
achieved by politically building our actions as an opportunity to
mobilise against the Howard government's agenda (including its
neo-liberal agenda for the region) to help kick them from office and
build stronger movements in the process."
However, most were convinced that having a focus on APEC would not be a
strong drawcard (apart from the Greens who also changed their tune
closer to the protest).
Solidarity, along with the ISO, until the last minute, argued that
Howard had to be the protest's main focus.
Their reasoning was that: as Australia was hosting APEC; as Australian
imperialism is increasing its militarisation of the Asia Pacific
region; and as it cements an even closer alliance with US, having a
focus on Howard would help build a movement to throw the Coalition out
of office. While we agreed with the political critique of Australia's
imperialist role in the region, we disagreed that the sentiment against
Australia's role in the region, and the more abstract question of its
alliance with the US, was enough to bring people out into the streets
during APEC.
While the organised section of the anti-war movement has dwindled in
Australia since 2004, with the invasion anniversary events shrinking to
some 800 people in Sydney this year, we judged that the anti-war
sentiment could be mobilised onto the streets when Bush was in Sydney.
This was confirmed when US vice-president Dick Cheney made a surprise
visit to Sydney in February. We had just two weeks to organise a
response, and more than 500 people turned up to one protest, defying
the police crack down, and about 150 to another the next day.
The following paragraphs are Solidarity's position (largely supported
by the ISO throughout the debates) from their May position paper, a
position its members were arguing right up until the protest on
September 8.
"Within Stop Bush 07 committee, there has been a perspective that
focussing on Bush, ‘world's number one terrorist', and doing
promotional work for this demonstration will bring large numbers of
people and re-invigorate the anti war movement. This is demonstrative
of a tendency [they mean Socialist Alliance] that has held back Stop
the War Coalition since the February 2003 rallies - the idea that there
is a big antiwar ‘sentiment' in society that can be brought into action
simply by promoting some particular rally."
But this is exactly what happened on September 8, and Solidarity is not
honest enough to admit that they were wrong.
Solidarity continued:
"By itself Bush being here won't build big demonstrations. It will of
course be a particularly significant focus and give poignancy to any
demonstration such as we saw when Cheney was in town."
"But for the movement to be built and bigger numbers won to the
importance of street demonstrations, Stop the War cannot fold into
logistics for "stopping Bush", but must redouble its efforts to
creating domestic political issues out of the international situation -
linking the war to prominent local concerns of the day such as
Workchoices ..."
Civil rights attacks
The 10,000-15,000 peaceful protest in Sydney proved Solidarity's
perspective wrong. But rather than let facts get in the way, they are
now arguing that it was their focus on the excluded persons' list that
brought the massive crowd onto the streets. That despicable fear
campaign by the state would have helped make people angry about the
security overkill, but it did not bring people into the streets.
If anything, the lightening rod that made people decide to come out was
the extreme lengths to which the state was prepared to go to keep
people away, and to stop people from entering certain parts of the city
- the security overkill - which the Chasers' stunt so well sent up.
When the barricades went up, the water cannons, the snipers, the mobile
police units, and the excluded people list came out, people were
rightly enraged.
But being angry doesn't necessarily mean that will take action. The
Stop Bush Coalition's emphasis on the need for these protests to be
peaceful to draw in the largest numbers of people, and to show up the
violence of Bush and Howard and the police state - put largely by DSP
member Alex Bainbridge, media spokesperson for the Coalition - had a
huge impact on people deciding to come out on the day. We know that
because so many people, not members, have told us.
Relating to the unions
Solidarity agreed, rightly, that it was important to involve more
groups - in particular climate change groups and the unions. But they
were only prepared to work with those who shared their overall
political perspective.
They paid lip service, at best, to wanting to work with the unions: the
fact that the couple of unions which did decide to support the Stop
Bush protests, the Maritime Union of Australia and the Fire Brigades
Employees Union, stressed that they would only do so if the rally was
peaceful was lost on Solidarity. And it was largely us, and ISO member
Jim Casey from the Fire Brigades Employees Union, who did most of the
work to get union support.
UnionsNSW had, early on this year, met and decided not to allow its
union affiliates to support the Stop Bush Coalition protest, on the
pretext that it did not want union flags to be mixed up with "protestor
violence" as that would jeopardise Labor's chances of being reelected.
This was how the left union, the CFMEU, explained it to one of the
protest organisers. When it looked like the protest was growing,
AFTINET decided to organise a stationary "protest" in Hyde Park, on the
Friday, an opportunity for unions to be seen to be doing something
about APEC.
While it was always clear that the Labor state government was preparing
for a huge security operation for APEC, just how big that was to be was
revealed with the new police powers laws being leaked to the media, and
then all the equipment and numbers of police being assigned.
The militarisation of Sydney for APEC was clearly going to scare a lot
of people away from joining the protest. But Solidarity, along with the
ISO and some anarchists, were opposed to the Stop Bush Coalition
declaring that the protest would be peaceful from the start. For them,
this had pacifist connotations, and would send the wrong signal that
the protestors were not defiant, or militant, enough!
While they continued with this ultra-left posturing right up until the
very last minute, it did not receive majority support from non-aligned
activists in the Stop Bush Coalition meetings.
Ultra left posturing
Solidarity and their anarchist friends scored a phyric victory at the
500-strong convergence meeting the night before the protest when Ian
Rintoul (a leader of Solidarity) put a counter motion to the first part
of a motion being moved by the majority of the tactical committee about
the march route.
This first part of the tactical committee's motion (moved in the name
of Alex Bainbridge (Socialist Alliance), Anna Samson (Stop the War
Coalition), Damien Lawson (Greens), Diane Fields (Socialist
Alternative), Paddy Gibson (Solidarity) and Paul Garrett (MUA) was:
"That we confirm the planned march route for tomorrow's rally will be
from Town Hall, down Park Street to Hyde Park North".
Solidarity's counter motion was: "That we reject the prohibition of
demonstrations in the declared zone and declare that we will march to
the police lines to assert our right to protest and our opposition to
APEC, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to their nuclear agenda and
to Workchoices and the attack on workers rights."
Solidarity's motion won 273 to 221, largely with the help of the
Socialist Party, Workers Power, ISO, Alliance for Civil Disobedience
Coordination, Latin America Solidarity Network - from Melbourne. From
Sydney, Mutiny, Flare in the Void, and some others also supported it.
Ian Rintoul, at the time, admitted his motion would not actually change
the march route. He knew that the Stop Bush Coalition had been informed
by the NSW police that they would be lining the march route and that
given the huge mobilisation of police, there would no chance of
breaking through police lines. But he, and others, insisted that it was
the "attitude" of the motion that was different.
Solidarity's motion was a posture, designed to make out that they were
the "militants". This is despite their consistent refusal to take any
serious responsibility for the overall organisation of the protest, a
product of their lack of political confidence in the overall shape of
the protest as supported by a majority at every Stop Bush Coalition
meeting.
(Solidarity's lack of confidence in the rally and its political focus
was confirmed again on the Saturday afternoon when two of their members
admitted that they'd only expected 3000 people to show up. The Stop
Bush Coalition had been publicly saying it had expected 5000 or more.)
The rest of the tactical committee's motion, which was unanimously
adopted, was:
"That we plan a sit-down (or die-in) in the middle of the march
"That we endorse the list of planned speakers (overleaf)
"That we all on all groups and individuals to respect the unity and
diversity of the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest."
The tactical committee's motion had been discussed and moved by a
majority of the tactical committee, although a member of Solidarity had
implied on the Stop Bush organising list that the sit-down motion was
his idea.
Having lost the overall political debate about tactics, Solidarity, and
others, are now trying to scandalise the DSP, in particular, for not
respecting a "democratic decision" of the convergence meeting to
sit-down at the police lines.
This is untrue. As already mentioned, a lot of people did sit down,
some many times, and a lot didn't (some because the ground was wet).
The biggest sin, apparently, was that Alex didn't announce that there
would be sit-in from the platform!
After the first bracket of speakers, Alex went to the corner of George
and Park Streets to organise to get a mobile sound system there for the
sit-down and the middle bracket of speakers. But getting any sound to
that point was difficult given the police obstruction and size of the
march. In any case, the unions led the march off, and everyone starting
moving, although a section at the back of the march remained at that
corner.
The MUA and others organised a longish sit-down at the front of the
march. Others organised their own - to make a statement that the city
belonged to us, not the cops. The inadequate sound system meant that a
lot of people with megaphones, including Alex, and Paul and Warren from
the MUA, and the union secretary from Geelong (also a Socialist
Alliance member), urged people to sit down.
The criticism that the motion's "politics of defiance" and our
rejection of the exclusion zone was not put from the platform is also
absurd. The Stop Bush Coalition, from the beginning, has stressed that
it did not accept the special police powers and the exclusion zone
(organising public meetings around this very theme, and constantly
putting this line through its media work). This political line was not
only put at the rally by the co-chairs, it was also put by most, if not
all, of the speakers.
The criticism that the motion was to march to the police lines and this
didn't happen is bizarre. The rally was already at police lines before
the march had even started to move!
Paul (MUA), Paddy (Solidarity) and Alex were at the corner of Park and
George Streets and agreed that a sit-down would happen when the front
of the march reached the second set of lights. Paddy agreed with this
course of action. Alex announced it over the megaphone as the rally
marched off down Park Street.
We were at the police lines - we couldn't have gone any closer without
trying to bust through them. But is this what Solidarity wanted to do?
Solidarity, Socialist Party, ISO and others did canvass among
themselves a day before whether they would try and bust through police
lines on the Saturday, and decided that they would only be able to
muster a small number of people to go with them and therefore decided
against carrying out this ultra-left stunt.
The questions that Solidarity (and the ISO) should be asked include:
Why did they want a clash with the police?
How would that have advanced the confidence of the movement?
If they had decided to have a clash, it would have only have fed into
the police operation, and it certainly would have helped John Howard in
his much hoped-for post-APEC electoral boost.
The fact that the majority who came to the protest denied Howard his
much-needed APEC electoral boost with our determination to carry out a
peaceful protest in the face of huge provocation.
This shows that the mass action approach which the DSP, Resistance and
Socialist Alliance had argued for in the Stop Bush Coalition for almost
a year, was correct. It allowed the Coalition to win a section of the
union movement, the Greens and other non-aligned movement activists to
play a big role in making this protest a success. This is also in a
context in which the Sydney anti-war movement coalition, Walk Against
War, had been split by the ALP after the Iraq invasion.
Mass action approach
The feeling on the streets on September 8 was electric and defiant -
but apparently not enough for Solidarity and a section of the
anarchists whose long faces stood out from the crowd.
They argued that their motion was different because it conveyed "the
politics of defiance"! They seemed to completely miss the fact that
people who came to the rally were very consciously being defiant.
Solidarity's argument is the argument of those who wish to separate
themselves out - the so-called "militant minority" - from other working
people.
They believe, wrongly, that they have to show everyone else how to
think and behave politically, and that this is "leadership". In fact,
the real leadership was shown by those who took up the challenges of
organising a protest in difficult circumstances, who did the work
instead of only turning up to meetings to criticise and point score,
and who were prepared to discuss with people who did not always share
their opinions the often tricky tactical decisions. Real leadership was
shown by those who knew the movement would gain confidence from having
pulled off a huge rally.
Trying to scandalise the DSP, now, for the success of the protests back
fires badly on Solidarity (and the ISO).
The success of the Stop Bush protest was that it managed, under very
difficult circumstances, to bring out a slice of that pre-war rally in
February 2003.
The strategy followed by the DSP/Resistance and Socialist Alliance was
one of mass action: that is, to build a broad united front around
concrete demands. It is a general strategy, there is no rule book to
follow, and certain political realities dictate certain choices.
This is a vastly more effective strategy than trying to separate out a
"militant" minority from the rest of us.
The mass action approach derives from our understanding of how change
comes about, through the self consciousness and self-organisation of
the working class. Our tactics should be geared to drawing in the mass
of workers into active struggle and not tactics that drive those
workers out of struggle and help the ruling class strengthen its
ideological influence in the working class.
- 1135 reads
Re: Why the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest was a success
There are I believe misrepresentations of at least some of the "militant minorities" positions here. I argued often in favour of their criticism of only adding the word "peaceful" to the leaflet without any further eloboration on whether or not they stood in solidarity with other non-peaceful protesters.
However, I think that if the criticism out lined here, (that they believed that the action was not militant enough) is accurate they have to re-assess their position. A "diversity of tactics" is just that, a diversity of tactics. If you can't pull significant numbers or the conditions aren't right for the employment of your tactics, then that's life. The others will do theirs and you will do yours.
Personally I think that any civil disboedience or other more militant tactics would have been better suited for Melbourne. One of the first rules of assymetric warfare is you do not show up to battle where your enemy is strongest and the police were never stronger than they were in Sydney.
As for whether or not APEC was a success. It seemed pretty successful, but one would assume you'd get at least 10 000, to Bush in Sydney. I think the peaceful protest as well would have been better suited to a target in Melbourne. That would have completely diffused the government scare campaign, as well as making them look like fools for spending all this money on security for a protest in another city, and the protest was just as symbolic in Sydney as it would have been in Melbourne.
'asymetrical politics'
rather than asymetrical war, would be my preference. That's the language of the military industrial so well described by Naomi Klein in The Good Weekend just gone. By the by that article I think can be counted as another premium benefit of an effective rally.
I say this as the fellow who spent abut 2 hours at the Park/George St police line with a peace dove flag/cape on. I witnessed most of what AB above describes including a close up picture of him at that location in my collage on IMC elsewhere. I was near the funny Queen of England and the Reverend. I spoke at one point to Ian Rintoul "How long Ian?" regarding the sit down action. He told me "ten minutes, 2 speakers".
The police were very pumped by my observation. I commented to their nervy adrenalin line at about 5 spots along "they want to ten minutes, 2 speakers then they will move" (though I didn't know that). One copper said "they'll move allright, you're right in the middle of it too".
I was wearing my solicitors card, and with dove symbol the police line did listen to me without blinking mostly. After about 7 minutes of the sit down (felt like an hour) a police coordinator went along the whole line and told them all "eyes up".
And they did. How it didn't come to a conflict I don't know. But I'm glad. The female second speaker came on finally. People then got a bit bored with sitting as most walked on. And the sit down drew to a close.
I also saw one masked character I spoke to who got arrested late, and one I would describe as a very aggressive seeming skinhead I also saw arrested later.
This is my witness. Also thankyou for the post here, fascinating descriptions. What I think personally is that the overall peace allowed all to get their point across, nerves and all, including the sit downs.
I said to one little group of 3 who weren't part of the 'sit in' but wanted to rest so sat down anyway, 'I'm not the thought police. You do what you want but just be aware this mob are sitting for 10 minutes and then moving on.' [again I didn't know that really but frankly I was worried for them and myself in the crunch spot].
Overall, I commend just about everyone for being true to their beliefs but still pretty respectful to eachother. At least so it seems, glad I didn't do all those meetings either.
Also the question remains if the ALP had endorsed the protest whether it would have been 40,000? But because they didn't, thus big unions didn't, not least no Howard focus and pro big business APEC agenda anyway (Keating, Hawke etc), it was as big as it was I guess. The ALP were never going to support such raw grassroots democracy, incredible to rebuff the big media bad PR too. We collectively vindicated that trust of non aligned public. That's good. Something to build on I would say.
Tom McLoughlin, informal legal observer, news blogger, Gandhi supporter.
Re: Why the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest was a success
Leaving the left verses left politics aside, I still ask, why no strong criticisms of the Chinese dictator, who heads a regime which tortures, crushes political and religious activity and denies democracy of any kind? Millions of our fellow workers in China suffer under this horrendous regime yet the march focus ignored it. Why no reference to the Indonesian president? Attrocities in West Papua continue, military influence and corruption remain. Those responsible for slaughter in East Timor are off the hook. I could go on. The focus on Bush was a mistake. To underestimate the evil being done in China and Indonesia as well as other APEC nations and bring everything back to Buah and Howard was wrong. The left is often accused of opposing the US at all costs and ignoring other attrocious regimes. In this case it lived up to that criticism. Hu and Bush are equally oppresive. Their regimes are both violent and undemocratic. We should be opposing ALL abuses and attacks on people, not just those by the US.
Re: Why the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest was a success
But Australia (i.e. capitalist elite of Australia) is not in a military alliance with Hu whereas they are in a military alliance with Bush. Therefore that has to be the prime target.
In any case, there was a certain focus on Bush and Howard, but the rally was really organised around three demands: end war, stop global warming and defend workers' rights.
Re: Why the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest was a success
For the simple reason that Bush and his administration are the single largest source of destruction in the world today. I agree that the Chinese regime is brutal, but the American one is worse. You can determine that one soley on the numbers. Around 1 million killed in the war on terror so far. A military machine that sprawls all over the world. The war on terror is the primary source of racism against Muslims today. If this is an obsession of the left, it is a correct one. The Chinese ruling class probably wishes it could get away with similar feats of barbarism, but so far, no dice.
Aditionally, in today's climate, to harp on about other attrocious regimes detracts attention from the biggest criminals - the US ruling class. Before the war in Iraq, it would have been madness for anti-war activists to go on about the crimes of Saddam Huissen. This is not because we support his crimes - of course we dont! But more because this would have been to go along with the pro-war build up in the media.
And as a previous poster said, we have an alliance with the united states. In terms of U.S. and Australian imperialism, China is a rival. So to go on about china would be to side with our own ruling classes against thier rivals. Never a good idea for progressive people.
Similarly, to go on about Indonesia (undoubtedly ruled by a brutal, oppressive and intensely corrupt regime) would have fallen into a similar mistake. There is a definite current of anti-indonesian racism in Australian society. Remember that woman who got done for carrying drugs into Indonesia? Sure, the response was brutal, but everyone from Andrew Bolt to Bob Brown was saying "This would never happen in Australia!". Quite untrue, of course, as Dr. Haneef proves. But more to the point, it was distinctly racist. Those indonesians must have missed out on our "australian values". Quick, air-drop them some larrikanism and barbeques!
Finally, the demonstration had a healthy anti-capitalist element to it. This element opposes all instances of exploitation and oppression.
Hope that answers your question.
A critique of the DSP role at APEC
An edited summary/interpretation of Alex Bainbridge and Pip
Hinman's statement:
Alex & Pip's logic seems pretty good - until you recognise the
D.S.P.'s own role in creating the situation which made an obedient
protest the only one possible. This includes, of course, the
actions and public statements of Alex Bainbridge himself.
All year, the capitalist media had been campaigning against the
prospect of "violent protest" against A.P.E.C. in general
and the visit of George W. Bush in particular. The D.S.P.'s
response was to make repeated public statements about how the rally
was going to be "peaceful" and to fight for this program in
the Stop Bush Coalition meetings. They key point over which the
D.S.P. refused to struggle and, indeed, capitulated politically is
that when the media & the State say "peaceful", they
mean obedient.
By buying into the "peaceful/violent" debate, the D.S.P.
assisted the capitalist media in defining disobedience as
"violence" and stigmatising Mutiny and other Anarchist
groups. It was this political victory that allowed the State
get away with passing the A.P.E.C. Police Powers Act and deploying
unprecedented numbers of coppers against the supposedly threatened
"riot" - and the D.S.P. played its own small part in it.
If, instead of using its control of official positions (e.g. media
spokesperson) for its own organisational advantage, the D.S.P. had
acted in a principled manner, defending Mutiny and the other
Anarchists against cop & media smears, some pertinent questions
could have been inserted into public debate. Questions like:
This approach, which needed to have been adopted from the outset,
would have maximised the strength of the anti-A.P.E.C. mobilisation,
exposed the lies & hypocrisy of the State and capitalised on the
the anger of Sydneysiders at having their city shut down and their
civil liberties confiscated just so that the criminal conspiracy that
is A.P.E.C. could run without obstruction from some of its subjects.
In short, it would have enabled a larger and more militant
demonstration than that which eventuated. Who knows, a
successful action of mass civil disobedience could have been
possible?
Of course, if the D.S.P. had done this, it wouldn't be the
D.S.P. Their actions in the course of the anti-A.P.E.C.
campaign were entirely consistent with their history and politics.
These facts need to be taken into account when organising in future.
Re: A critique of the DSP role at APEC
"If, instead of using its control of official positions (e.g. media
spokesperson) for its own organisational advantage, the D.S.P. had
acted in a principled manner, defending Mutiny and the other
Anarchists against cop & media smears..."
This isn't in any way a fair comment. I am DSP member and was one of several media spokespeople democratically decided by the Stop Bush Coalition meetings. These meetings were weekly for at least six weeks leading up to the demonstration - when we got most of the media coverage we received. I was at all times accountable to the group (around 50 people or more for the last six weeks and over 100 for the last two weeks) with regards to the line that was put in the media
If I was putting a line that was not supported by the group, then there were plenty of opportunities for people to discuss a different line that should be put and, if necessary, replace me as media spokesperson. Instead I got overwhelmingly positive feedback from the activists in the Stop Bush Coalition (and others) about the line we put in the media. NEVER did I put a line that was in opposition to the decisions made at Stop Bush meetings.
Further, we all went to great pains NOT to launch any attacks or criticisms against Mutiny or other anarchists despite being repeatedly baited to do so by the media. I would never pretend to speak for Mutiny - I don't think I could and I don't think they'd want me to - that's up to them to do if and how they want to. But as for the Stop Bush Coalition, we DID consistently reject the government/police/media allegations about expected anarchist "violence" at APEC.
Obviously you're entitled to your opinions, but I don't think there is any media line or action that we could have taken that would have prevented the state from "passing the A.P.E.C. Police Powers Act" or deploying police in large numbers. In fact, our tactics and political line made it much harder for the state to be violent to us on the day - in particular because it brought more people onto the streets.
Finally, it is completely wrong to say peaceful = obedient. "Peaceful" is just one of many legitimate tactics open to protest movements. In the context of this APEC summit and the police overkill, it just happens to have been the most effective tactic we could have used in those circumstances.
Alex Bainbridge
alexb@dsp.org.au
Re: Why the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest was a success
Alex and Pip's analysis of the protest and aftermath makes some useful
points, and hopefully has sparked a continuing debate. As a participant
in this protest I feel confident in saying this was at least as
significant as the 2003 pre-war demonstrations, and perhaps more so
given the demobilisation/demoralisation of the anti-war movement since
the invasion. This protest proves that there is an anti-war movement
still, and gives hope to all those who want a better world.
I feel obliged to respond to some of the statements made by
"Ablokeimet", on protest in general, and also on the Democratic
Socialist Perspective (DSP), one of the groups that played a crucial
role in helping to pull off this astounding victory.
The consistent pushing of the Stop Bush protests as a mass, PEACEFUL
protest is painted here as a "capitulation" to the corporate media and
the State. Maybe in Neverland, but I believe in reality-land this
always clearly argued as a tactic to attract the broadest possible
forces into participating in the protest. Isn't it true that the Greens
and the unions were going to walk if this were not so?
Well, it worked - despite the labeling of ANYONE who thought of coming
on Sept 10 as violent thugs - the confident, repeated declaration that
WE are peaceful, is what gave people the confidence and brought in the
numbers that allow the above author to reminisce on some lost chance at
mass
civil disobedience. There would have been no mass to speak of if the
public face of the protest had argued (as suggested) instead for our
right to defend ourselves, for our right to not be peaceful!!! Is this
seriously being advocated as the line we should have used in the press
to attract people to the protest?? Seriously, a "larger and more militant demonstration than that which eventuated"?????! Sure.
And to correct the record, at no point was the State and Media begging
us, or even instructing us, to be peaceful in the leadup to the protest
- their vocabulary was more along the lines of "unprecedented violence"
as I recall. It was us who were talking peace. They WANTED scenes of
"violence", they didn't get them. "Capitulation"? Please.
But
now that the "security" overkill and the state lies have been exposed
by us, even sections of the corporate press has been forced to concede
that we were in fact peaceful!! When was the last time we saw that?!!!?
But in the eyes of some, that apparently means we lost.
The overwhelming message to the Australian people from the State was
this: DO NOT PROTEST! DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT! WE WILL USE TASERS,
WATER CANNONS, AND DRACONIAN LAWS ON YOU! DON'T COME! Anyone not living
underground for the last 6 months knows this. But what happened on Sept
10? Amidst the biggest exhibition of state power we've seen, 10-15,000
people took to the streets! This was a massive victory, a massive act
of defiance, this was disobedience on a mass scale! We didn't obediently hand them the scenes they so desperately wanted.
I
have to agree on one thing though: that the actions of the DSP "in the
course of the anti-APEC campaign were entirely consistent with their
history and politics".
You don't have to look back too far to observe the DSP's leading
role in arguing for and facilitating a mass PEACEFUL 3-day blockade of
Crown Casino during the World Economic Forum in 2000 - Australia's
answer to the then-burgeoning anti-globalisation movement! Oh, and then
there was the DSP-initiated M1 PEACEFUL blockades of stock exchanges
around the country in 2001.
See, civil disobedience, direct action, whatever you like to call it,
is a valuable TACTIC when used correctly - as in 2000, 2001. It is not,
as argued by a depressingly sizeable chunk of the left, a PRINCIPLE.
When you limit your approach at all times to all movements to a single
tactic - as advocated tacitly by "Ablokeimet" and fellow travellers -
you limit the size of that movement, and you limit your relevance to
that movement.
It's heartening to see that the politics of Mass Action, the truly
radical approach of drawing in the largest possible numbers into action
around concrete political demands (in this case, against war, climate
change and for workers rights) was the approach that won out in the
building of this massively successful demonstration. Congratulations to
all who worked to make this a real mass protest, and a decisive leap
forward in Australia's anti-war, climate action and workers movements!
DSP attempts to rewite their role in S11 protest
Actually I do dispute that the DSP played a prominent role in the S11 protests in Melbourne in 2000. They played a prominent role in the S11 Alliance which was the organising group for socialist organisations. The Green Bloc and the S11 AWOL played equally important part in organising the protests outside Crown Casino which kept the protest decentralised. DSP marshalls spruiked at the barricades, and from the stage, but most of the activity was done in affinity groups which mostly ignored the attempts to dictate activity, and most of the protest support tasks were carried out by autonomous collectives, many of which worked through the S11 - AWOL (Anarchist Web of Liberation) spokes councils.
Much of the activity at M1 protests, at least in Melbourne, were also more decentralised than the DSP would have you believe.
See Andy's paper on S11 and the Left
Ciaron O'Reilly's 2c Worth
have written on a previous post about the passivity (rather than assertive nonviolence that is required) of the anti-Bush demonstration I attended at APEC in Sydney.
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/post-apec-can-we-m...e-war
I was primarily in Sydney that day for a wedding so I was not up for an arrest. I was disappointed by some leadership figures moving through the assembling crowd who in speaking seemed to be equating any disobedience (or resistance) with violence. When the police made their initial (successful) intervention to confiscate slim bamboo poles for banners, I started street speaking to the side of the onlooker/cop huddlle. I expressed the opinion if anyone had chosen that day for nonviolent resistance to Bush and the war we should support them. One of the outcomes of this was an interesting conversation with an Australian Vietnam Veteran strongly anti-war, politically isolated and under utilised by the movement.
When a strong clasp took hold of my shoulder, I was relieved to discover it was a Chilean friend I knew form Dublin and not the long arm of the law. There was no reason we could not have had a scene like that in DC last week with a large march and 189 folks up for resisting until arrested.......
SEE LINK Photos and Report-189 Anti-War activists (including Iraq War Vets) Arrested in D.C.
http://dc.indymedia.org/feature/display/131063/index.ph...mment
I would have thought those who believe in the cult of the mass rally would have that srartegy debunked by the mobilisation in 2003, the quick evaporation of the movement (similar to '91 Gulf War) etc. I suspect the phenomenon has a lot to do with the rise of NGO culture replacing grassroots and a Bob and Bono approach to politics and the demise of the recent creative resistance movement from seattle to the 911 attacks.. As expressed before I suspect political groups see such occasions and the war itself as primarily a marketing opportunity than being seriously interested in intervening in it, which would require taking similar risks to those waging it. Those who experiment with resistance are out there
www.pinegap6.org
www.ivaw.org
www.peaceontrial.com
www.raytheon9.com
...its a question of making contact and offering practical solidarity and initiating our own nonviolent resistance.
In the middle of the Sydney march I was unaware why we had stopped. In those situations it is best to sit down to see what is going on. Folks could have got up and do streetspekaing throughout the march. Instead. for me, it turned in quite a good social occasion where I caught up to may friends from S11, Jabiluka and previous struggles.
Without the Chaser there would not have been an edge to the protests.
Re: Why the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest was a success
I think one problem with the left, is groups try to use their favourite
tactic for everything. Different tactics do different things. Be clear about
what it is you are trying to do, and chose the one that will deliver that. The
other problem is it’s always a response to something the governments done. We
take our lead from the media and the government too much. If we are always
responding, they will always be able to set the agenda and get to pick when and
where the battles will happen.
I Agree with the tactic not principle argument, however this applies to mass
action as well as it does to civil disobedience. The nature of Australia
politics guarantees that a 'walk and listen' action will get more people
attending it, than an action involving civil disobedience.
When people are arguing about effectiveness, I think it must be asked of
both sides, “what effect are you looking for?”
If you want to embarrass
Howard/Bush in the international press then do a media stunt. If you want to mobilize "the most people possible" to what ends
are you doing this? If you want to put numbers to opposition why not use a petition
instead? Probably could have got a lot more signatures than 10 000. You could
combine the number of signatures into the media stunt. Such a move would have
had the potential to completely neutralize the governments fear tactics.
In fact purposely having no one show up at APEC, but 100'000's of signatures
of opposition, could help send the message that lots of people oppose Howard,
but don't want to be crushed by his tyrannical police force. Could have had
something that says “100 000 people say screw the water cannon, we’ll get John
at the polls.” This way, any lack of people at APEC itself, would seem ominous.
On the other hand, if you want to do civil disobedience, why? What is it you
are trying to achieve? What are you trying to accomplish? Why are you doing it
at APEC in Sydney which was basically the Mecca of cops? Isn't that
a bit like trying to burn down a fire truck? Civil disobedience is about messing with business as usual, APEC itself already did that. Why not build a civil disobedience action out of APEC and go back (or somewhere else)
when the cops are gone and you have a chance to disrupt something
crucial?
Post new comment