Richard Kuper Archive | ETOL Main Page
From Socialist Worker, No. 94, 26 October 1968, pp. 2 & 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Three demonstrations in the past year against the Vietnam war of a militancy and vigour unparalleled in post-war British history marked a tremendous advance beyond the half-hearted pacifist demonstrations of CND days.
But the eve of October 27 brings into sharp relief the question of what such demonstrations and mass mobilisations are for and what they are expected to achieve.
It is clear what they are not for. No one looks to them any longer as a way of forcing the government to change its mind on a particular issue.
This ‘lobbying’ function only makes sense if one feels that the government, basically sympathetic to the aims of the demonstration, will be forced to take action if the magnitude of a particular problem can be brought home to them in some way. A mass rally might do this.
If the ruling powers are hostile, however, a demonstration will not force them to budge. To have any chance of this it would have to be part of a much wider political movement, and merely express in sharp form the threat contained in the existence and organisation of the wider movement.
Mass mobilisations over the war in Vietnam are not attempts to bring about a changed policy on the part of the powers that be. The function of the demonstration must be sought elsewhere.
It is to be found in what it achieves for those who participate and those who are on the fringes, either physically or emotionally, By its very nature a mass demonstration is a collective experience. It is an assertion of power, a statement of intention, a coming together of diverse and disparate groupings to demonstrate a common aim.
Its success is to be judged by how well it is able to hold itself together, to unite the different groupings and formations participating into a collectivity, to give them an awareness of their own potential strength.
The march on October 27 is a good illustration of this. The previous marches, elatedly militant, have been marred by a general disintegration and fragmentation.
The individual violence, the large numbers of arrests, generally of individuals leaving the demonstration, has been witness to this.
October 22, 1967 was a crucial and dramatic advance on all previous post-war demonstrations in Britain. The demonstrations in March and July this year, although with many important and successful highlights, represent stagnation.
The overall consciousness of those taking part has not been meaningfully heightened, the overall integration of the Vietnam movement has not been significantly cemented by the demonstrations themselves.
As socialists we recognise the violence inherent in the present system of exploitation and the ravages of imperialist aggression which have arisen from it. But individual violence and punch-ups with the police are no solution.
In fact they represent the failure of the movement to be able to absorb the participants into the collectivity itself during the demonstration to manifest a collective assertion of power as against a series of individual, dissipated protests.
Everything is not possible on demonstrations. They are not insurrections as such, but as John Berger has put it ‘rehearsals of revolutionary awareness’.
So it is important to know what we wish to achieve from any particular mobilisation. We must make of it what we can, given the general political and social context and the state of the movement itself.
What we need urgently is one successful demonstration which can go beyond the widespread disorganisation of the recent past. Already some people who have been on previous mobilisations are feeling isolated and disillusioned.
Unless we can overcome this, demonstrations in future are likely to get smaller, not bigger – and to become cowardly.
By a successful demonstration I mean one which maintains its unity of purpose and structure. Every arrest is a defeat of enormous magnitude. It symbolises the fear and disintegration which we must strive to avoid.
A successful demonstration will be one in which those on the demonstration show to themselves their own power; in which those on the demonstration take over the streets and go where they want and maintain their own organisation and unity; in which a solid core of people are able to give a lead to those who come for the first time, not quite sure what to expect, to show by their cohesion and self-organisation what the nature of demonstration really is.
Only if we can accomplish this can we develop a wider anti-imperialist movement as part of a regenerated socialist movement in this country. The demonstration should sum up the months of work and preparation which have gone into it.
It should also show the way ahead. A massive proportion of those who turn out on October 27 will belong to no organised socialist grouping. What we desperately need is for them to feel part of a credible movement, not just part of a wild and pointless punch-up.
What we need is for them to return to their localities with a desire and enthusiasm for working-class politics and activity.
The only place to build a meaningful movement against the war in Vietnam is at the grass-roots. The only way is to link this barbaric war to the overall oppression which capitalism inflicts on the working class.
One demonstration cannot achieve a link-up between the issue of Vietnam and the struggles involving the working class of this country’ against rent rises, productivity deals, and incomes policies. But a successful demonstration can give a tremendous boost to the efforts already being made everywhere to evolve forms of opposition to all the manifestations of a decaying capitalist society.
Richard Kuper | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 22 October 2020