The
New Left Project website has published a piece by Ian Sinclair, author of a recent book about the great 15th February 2003
march, on the Socialist Workers Party's record in the Stop the War
Coalition.
The
article is, in truth, a critique of the Stop the War Coalition itself,
but Sinclair uses the handy cover of framing it as a critique of the SWP's
role in a the coalition (a position that is more likely to generate a
sympathetic response, and one that opportunistically exploits the
current mania for bashing the SWP in the wake of its own self-inflicted
crisis). It is, however, a critique that appears devoid of any actual
substance.
Because
the article is in fact an attack on STWC, it is entirely appropriate
that Andrew Murray, a senior Stop the War figure who has never been a
member of the SWP, should have responded with a brief but excellent
refutation. He was chair of the coalition from its founding in 2001
until last year. There is no point in me writing my own response when he
has done a commendable job already, so I re-post his contribution (from
the comments thread of the original article) below.
-----------
This
is a disappointing piece. I say so because Ian Sinclair’s book is
actually pretty good within the limitations of any oral history
project. He interviews a wide range of those involved in Stop the War
and gives space to the views of most of those centrally involved and
captures much of the spirit of the period. In that context, the space
he gives to critical issues - the role of the SWP, the politics of
‘direct action’ - is not just defensible but essential.
I agree with
his point that a critical self-examination of any movement’s strengths
and weaknesses is a political necessity. My main beef with his book is
that too much space was given not to critics, but to people who didn’t
play all that major a role in the events of and around February 15 2003
to begin with.
The article here, of course, goes much further in that
direction in only expressing their views. First, Mike Marqusee. For
the record, again - Mike was involved in Stop the War from the start
until September 2002, when he quit as an officer to write a book about
Bob Dylan, something I thought and think was a curious sense of
priorities. Be that as it may, at no time was there any political
issue, on either side, behind his resignation. None of the criticisms
of the role of the SWP did he make when he was involved, or at any time
afterwards until he had a major unrelated falling-out with the SWP in
the Socialist Alliance. He then subsequently read-back that entirely
separate row into his time in StWC - but in any case he played no role
of consequence at all in the build up to February 15 or for months
previously.
Regarding James O’Nions, I scarcely remember him attending
more than a couple of meetings and all I can say is that the vast
majority of those who did attend Steering Committees would not recognise
his caricature of their proceedings. To
be a “loose cannon” is not a crime but not a virtue in and of itself
either, unless one is indifferent to the danger of friendly fire.
Carol
Naughton does of course deserve to be taken more seriously, as CND
Chair at the time, and I am am sure she strongly felt the views quoted
at the time she wrote them. There were indeed clashes of the sort that
are unavoidable in organising immense mobilisations on the scale of of
February 15, and I am sure that some things could have been handled
better or at least more emolliently by myself and others. However, when
I last spoke to Carol she herself acknowledged that it was all a bit of
a storm in a teacup and what StWC and CND achieved together was vastly
more significant. her comments at the time should also be read in the
context of arguments within CND in 203 over their relationship with
StWC, a debate ended decisively in favour of the closest continuing
cooperation.
Ian’s
choice of voices is here highly unbalanced and unrepresentative of
those involved at the time.
Two final points - while the debate about
direct action is a worthwhile one, and I strongly refute the idea that
StWC tried to suppress it, for Ian to simply assert what is an
unarguable hypothetical proposition that different tactics could possibly
have produced a different outcome without specifying what or how is,
after ten years time for reflection, less than helpful.
And to
insinuate that there is something sinister about myself, Andrew Burgin
and Kate Hudson being strong allies of Lindsey German, John Rees and
Chris Nineham is silly. None of the three former knew any of the three
latter at all before the formation of StWC, so the suggestion that this
was a self-selecting group of SWP leaders and their stooges is
nonsensical. If we have worked together well over many years as we
have, and unusually for people on the left from very different
traditions, it is because of both the importance of the cause and
because we have learned to build on our mutual strengths and recognise
that weaknesses are best addressed in unity, rather than being the point
of departure for a new split.
And
Stalin didn’t airbrush Lenin out of Soviet history. Someone is
confusing Lenin with Trotsky. Mike Marqusee should not be confused with
neither.
Share
No comments:
Post a Comment