The October 27th mobilisation against the Vietnam war has been the most successful in Britain until now. It was not only important in terms of size, in bringing into activity more people than ever before, and in reaching new layers of support for Vietnam protest activity, but it was a tremendous expression of solidarity with the Vietnamese revolutionaries. Although the organisers of the demonstration, the Ad Hoc Committee, hoped that between 50,000 and 100,000 would turn out, they were as surprised as anyone by its immensity. October 27 should be seen in the context of a mass radicalisation beginning in Britain, the [illegible] mass street action against the Labour Government [illegible]
[illegible] National Council meeting of the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, contrary to what one would have expected, not all who helped to organise the demonstration were so enthusiastic. Several actions taken [illegible] implemented, would effectively transform VSC from a single-issue organisation [illegible] abandon the affiliation clause in the constitution [illegible] fully by VSC over the past year; this reveals a danger for VSC's existence. There is a possibility of it being bypassed and the valuable ground it has won on the Vietnam protest front being irrevocably lost.
But primarily, these moves indicate a very real sectarian blindness in assessing the recent mass action. Perhaps it is only "post-demonstration depression" suffered by people whose only political activity is around the Vietnam issue. For one reason or another they are unwilling to join any of the existing groups which make up VSC, but instead want to change VSC into something more suitable to their own individual requirements (again unstated). In the forthcoming issues of INTERNATIONAL we will be returning to this question in preparation for the coming national conference of VSC, but meanwhile it is necessary to mark out what we think was achieved on October 27th.
1) The most singularly striking feature of the October 27th demonstration was its sheer massiveness. Estimates are that it was well over 100,000. It was this characteristic which determined everything. Confronted with such a mass of humanity, it was impossible for the police to impose their will. Right up to the time of the demonstration, police officials stubbornly refused to acquiesce to requests to permit the full use of the streets without hindrance [illegible] not to break up the demonstration at traffic lights, etc. But on the day of the demonstration, the state was visibly forced to relent. The 7,000 police who were called in for the action, were in the main hidden from sight. True, the retreat by the police was done in typical British ruling class style, making a virtue out of necessity (what else should we expect?), but one had only to be on the demonstration to realise that everyone understood - especially the police - that if any attempt had been made to interfere with the march, there would have been active resistance. The demonstrators were on the streets, im[illegible]
2) Programmatically the demonstration was very advanced. It called for the victory of the National Liberation Front and the Vietnamese revolution. In the past, the "official" peace movement and the Communist Party have maintained that these slogans would isolate the Vietnam protest movement. The programme should also be especially noted by those who demagogically insist that there is no difference between [illegible] square on the side of a revolution? On that fact alone, the march demonstrates that important changes are taking place in the pattern of British politics: Not since the Russian revolution has there been such a massive anti-imperialist opposition in the country.
3) The demonstration, although its largest social component was students, nevertheless was the largest "unofficial" working class demonstration to occur in Britain in a decade. It is only an estimation, but we judge that from 30-[illegible] per cent. was working class, with the bulk being youth. There were also a considerable number of mature trade unionists out. Many voluntarily came forward on the day to help with the many practical tasks of organisation - without them, the whole affair would have been chaos at times.
what with the attempts by the maoists of the British Vietnam Solidarity Front to divert the march and several provocations by ultra-right elements. Surely this latter factor alone must cast [illegible] in the minds of all those who have maintained all along that it is impossible to obtain mass support on an issue which would not appear of immediate interest to workers, such as wage increases or rents. Will the argument now be that the issue is not that vital - so therefore it is of no significance?
4) The mobilisation became transformed from being just a Vietnam protest action into being a general anti-Labour Government, anti-capitalist manifestation. This was clearly seen in the multitude of slogans seen on the march. This was ensured by the combined role the Government, the big business press and the police played in doing all in their power in the weeks leading up to the demonstration, to isolate the organisers and scare away potential support. All organs of the establishment were brought into play. All the major national newspapers; Callaghan, who spoke for the Government; the heads of the police; and every fourth rate little hack politician, made it as plain as day, that all citizens should avoid the demonstration and shouldn't even come to watch. Cars and vehicles entering London, driven by anyone who looked under thirty years of age were stopped and searched by the police: the message was clear: young people were suspect. Yet rather than isolate and make ineffective the demonstration, these measures only succeeded in having an opposite effect of gathering mass support. For many who came out, it was simply an expression of solidarity with the organisers over the right to demonstrate, a question posed because of the reaction of the authorities.
5) The demonstration was organised and led by a coalition of avowed marxist organisations and individual revolutionaries, generally representing a broad spectrum of the extreme left in Britain, and who refused for one moment to conceal their identity. Unlike the CND, which was led by a bunch of preachers, etc., behind whom hid the Communist Party and other elements, this time everyone was out under his own name and banner. Basing themselves on the principle of non-exclusion, they sought to build a unity of all those who accepted the basic slogans of the march in an ad hoc committee, especially constructed for the single action. They managed for the first time in British politics to win a mass audience. Bearing in mind the right sense of proportion, this experience is similar to the May and June events in Paris when the so-called "groupuscules" won a mass audience for their ideas in competition with the Communist Party.
6) The October 27th mobilisation shows that the hold of the mass organisations of the working class, especially the Labour Party, has begun to be loosened. This began last October 22nd and can be seen as the logical consequence of four years of betrayals. In previous periods, during the CND experience, for instance, many left leaders in the Labour Party found it advantageous to place themselves at its head and use it as a pressure for their parliamentary actions. In this instance, the parliamentary lefts were by-passed - instead of the title of MP being an asset in winning popular support, it is now a liability among the young militants because of its general association with betrayals. One can now safely say that there is now the beginnings of an extra-parliamentary opposition in the country.
7) Mass mobilisations as a weapon to be used by the working class, can assume, in the near future, its historical place in the class struggle. October 27th set a powerful example for all those sections of the working class who have grievances against the system. Mass action is a pre-condition for social revolution and the overthrow of capitalism. It reawakens in the working class a sense and realisation of its own strength and solidarity, and thereby the weakness of the ruling class and the capitalist state. If small leftist organisations with very small resources can succeed in pulling out masses of people against the Government, on what could be termed a relatively abstract question, and in addition impose their will and force the capitalist state to retreat, then what excuse can we accept from trade union bureaucrats, who with all their organisational and financial resources, do not struggle against the Government? Already the question is being asked in working class circles. At the last conference of the women's campaign for equal rights held in London, the October 27th action was referred to as an excellent model to help to achieve their ends.
In the days ahead, the need is not to fritter away the gains of October 27th in fragmented activities over diverse issues, but to concentrate all forces of the campaign in a drive to force the Government to allow representatives of the National Liberation Front into Britain, and force it to retreat from its complicity in the Vietnam war. Discussion must now begin on how that campaign will go forward, but it can only go forward if we understand the big victory was achieved on October 27th.
* The Liverpool resolution itself was not passed. See the latest VSC Bulletin for relevant texts.