The article described how the visit here by U.S. president George Bush allowed him and British prime minister Anthony Blair to highlight the “special relationship” between Washington and London and lay out the pillars of their commonly agreed upon foreign policy. It explained that from the vantage point of the Anglo-American imperialists the visit had been a success, which “was only reinforced by the anti-American, pro-British tone of the demonstrations.”

“Focusing their fire on the U.S. government and portraying Blair as a mere ‘puppet’ of Washington, they buttressed the nationalist framework of the British rulers’ efforts to assert their own imperialist interests in the world,” the article correctly said. A further sign of this progress for the UK rulers is their move to reorganize their military in order to better join with Washington in their “war on terror” around the world. (See front-page article.)

The “Stop Bush” protests were literally that, pointing the finger almost exclusively at Bush, as though what was happening was the result of policy decisions of one individual, and an American one at that.

In fact the leaders of the protest went so far as to suggest that the bombing of the British consulate in Istanbul was a product of “George Bush visiting London.” You could almost hear them saying, “If only we ‘British’ could be left to manage our own affairs then there’d be peace and harmony the world over.” The reality that London is hated the world over for its bloody and brutal record to this day hardly gets a look in!

The protests, though, did attract tens of thousands of young people repelled by imperialism and its wars. That made what communists did on that day doubly important—not to pander to the themes of the protest organizers. Members of the Communist League and Young Socialists set up campaign tables to distribute the Militant and Pathfinder books. They carried banners and signs declaring: “British troops out of Iraq, Ireland, Sierra Leone and the Balkans.” These signs turned the fire where it belongs for a demonstration in the citadel of British imperialism: London and its war against working people the world over.

Those staffing the tables also discussed with participants the significance of workers struggles today as potentially the most significant resistance to imperialism and its wars, including the strike by miners in Huntington, Utah.

Substantially more is required than “larger protests” pleading to the rulers for “peace.” That’s a theme that Bolshevik leaders Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin constantly stressed in response to imperialist war moves in their time. In his 1938 article “Lenin and imperialist war,” Trotsky wrote that “It is impossible to fight against imperialist war by sighing for peace after the fashion of the pacifists. ‘One of the ways of fooling the working class is pacifism and the abstract propaganda of peace. Under capitalism, especially in its imperialist stage, wars are inevitable.’ [he quotes Lenin]… Only a revolutionary mass struggle against war and against imperialism, which breeds war, can secure a real peace. ‘Without a number of revolutions the so-called democratic peace is a middle class utopia.’” The Bolshevik strategy rested on forging parties that could lead working people to end the system that breeds war—capitalism.

Another point of disagreement with Lyons is his suggestion that French and German imperialism have a “timid opposition to the war against Iraq.” But this is false. The French and German rulers’ problem with the Anglo-American war on Iraq is that their imperialist interests have been marginalized. Where they can in other parts of the world, they have no hesitation in backing the use of military force to fatten their pockets.

Finally, Lyons suggested the Militant article on the London “anti-Bush” protests selectively reported aspects of the rally to prove pre-conceived notions. We don’t share the criticism. Lyons would be hard pressed to find any other speaker at the protests who said anything fundamentally different from the coalition spokesperson that the Militant article quoted. They all aimed their fire at Bush, not London first and foremost. They all fed the illusion these protests were somehow going to “stop the war.” The core of the issue is that London and Washington did make progress on their course during Bush’s visit and have continued to do so. You can remain in denial of that or face the fact that the protests had little impact and their nationalist character objectively aided the war party. The crucial thing, and the reason communists did take part in those actions, is the effort to win youth and working people to see the need to fight and eventually defeat British imperialism—from Belfast to Pristina to Baghdad.
 
 
Related article:
London to restructure military and tie operations to U.S. army  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home