[Marxism] Re: Bush November 2003 Visit To England

lshan at bcn.net lshan at bcn.net
Wed Mar 31 09:16:45 MST 2004


Louis wrote:

This is simply not true. The British antiwar movement has directed its
fire equally at Blair and Bush. This is from the Stop the War
coalition's website (http://www.stopwar.org.uk/)
________

I was referring to the November 2003 visit. Even so, I believe that as much
emphasis as possible should be placed on Blair. In England, it is called the
Bush/Blair War. Why not call it the Blair-Bush War, instead of the
Bush-Blair War. A small point? Not at all, this is what revolutionists
should do regarding the enemy in their own country.

Let's look at what the same coalition that you refer to above said after the
Bush visit of November 2003.
"We have successfully protested against Bush and should turn this wave of
protest against Blair and the lies he told about the war."
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/bulletin.asp?id=251103&b=5&a=10
This is implicit recognition that the action was against Bush. However, the
Bush visit should have been USED as the occasion to direct the action above
all against Britain's own imperialism.

For more proof that during the November 2003 visit, while Blair was roundly
attacked, the OVERWHELMING focus was on Bush personally, check this out,
look at the pictures, the articles, etc.
http://groups.msn.com/JusticePeaceDemocracy/bushstatevisittobritain.msnw

Now, it could be that The Militant's criticism of he November action was not
properly phrased. Important in this is whether or not an alternative
political line was proposed, one that would have helped direct more, or
most, of the demonstration against Blair. This we don't know, and as I
recall, it appeared that The Militant was jumping in after the fact.
Likewise in the United States, the abstention of the SWP plays a role in the
political line of the March 20 demonstration. "If you are not in it,  you
can't win it."

On reflection, no matter what the cause, it now appears to me that this
issue was not thought through by the British antiwar movement at the time,
or if some did raise the issue as a great opportunity to focus on the
co-leader of the war on Iraq, it was lost in the excitement (and
understandable simplicity) of attacking the visitor. And the points The
Militant makes, however poorly written, about the November 2003 British
actions should be considered by revolutionists whose task it is to lead the
struggle against their own ruling class.

from Brian Shannon






More information about the Marxism mailing list