Much has beon writton about the March 17 demonstration doaling with it in contcnt and in detail. Howovor, in viow of the many reactions it ovoked, it is neccessary to try to put it in a wider contoxt and sce if thcore are any goneral lessons to be lezrmt for the socialist movomont as a wholc. The press, radio, television carricd the most hystorical roports as did cinoma nowsreels. We can hardly cxplain it as boing due to pure sonsation— alisme There wore many other competing news storics: the gold crisis, the resignation of George Brown and the Budgct. We also have to look at what was said from a political point of viowe The British ruling class is facing crisis aftor crisis and has bheon compelled, through the medium of tho Labour Govern— ment, to make attack aftcr attack upon the working class and other sections of the community. So far, resistance to these attacks have been minimal but the "powers that be" must be worricd. Such demonstrations as that of March 17, with its lack of "respect" for law and order, could provide a dangorous examplce Throughout this ccontury it has boon noticed that ferment amongst the youth and the students has boen the preeursor of gonoraliscd discontent and social struggle. Furthermore, our ruling class must havo noticcd that in nearly every advanced capitalist country stro t battles with the polico have become a common, almost everyday occurrenco} I+ must view with considerablo alarm a similar state of affairs in London. But this is not tho only factor which provoked the press. Those of us who had considorable contact with the press immediately after March 17 noted that despite all our statements to tho contrary, newspapors continued to refer to the "violont poacc lovers." We, time and time again, pointed out that V.5S.C. was not a "pacificist" organisation, but still this label was applicd to us. We formed the conclusion that this was done: (a) to discredit us in the public eye; and (b) to hide from people tho fact that there is now devoloping in Brit~ ain a politically maturc movoment in support of the Viotnamose revolution. Those who claim that the violonce did harm to the anti-war movoment in this country should ponder these factse The press, Mr. Wilson and the Amorican Embassy are unanimous in "not minding" a peace movement which confines itself to a general call for "peace". Howevor, when it comes to a movement which takes the side of the Victnamese pcoopls they become hystcrical. It should also be noted that the demonstration took place after a polemic inside the Left, a polomic waged by various organisations against the demonst— ration and its political line. Wo have already answered the main antagonists in the special issuc of The Wock but wo need to look at what these people said after the cvonts of March 17. The Communist Party, through tho Morning Star, was goncrally favourable and has argued strongly against cstablishment figures who were speaking of banning such activities. In one editorial, the paper referred to the fact that it had political diffcronces with the organiscrs of tho demonstration but said that it still opposed the witeh hunt. It published a number of lettors, only a few of which wore critical of the demo— nstration, complaining of police brutality. Howover, the Communist Party has yet to come cleans it still hasn't retracted the attack made via the Betty Roid article in Comnaont; neithcor has it attempted to assess things politically. For instance, nowhore has it explained the contradiction between its argument in Comment that by backing the solidarity position one narrows the movement and the fact that March 17 had five or six times as many people as March 24, the YCND domonstration, and that, moreover, there was a far widor Toprog ont7 et
ation on the former demonstration. Al] this, wo might add, despite the fact
that the Communist Party through the Morning Star mobilised oxtonsivoly for
the March 24 actions :
Tho Socialist Labour League, through its now twicc-weckly Newslettor, attack~
ed the Victnam Solidarity Campaign oxtensively. Members of the Socialist
Labour League actively campaigned in the universitics and collogos against
participation in the March 17 domonstration. Wo are told by membors and cx—
members of tho SLL howover, that despite this many Keop Loft Young Social-
ists took part. Tho SLL campaigned as hard as it know how for its own countor—
demonstration for March 24. Supporters of The Week counted the numbor of
people (in many cases arriving on coaches with loss than 10 people on board )
who took part in the March 24 SLL demonstration: less than 300. This com-
pares with a minimum of 25,000 on March 17. Porhaps this is why the News
leticr confined its comments on the March 17 mobilisation mainly to an
account of court cases and police brutality. It is significant that the only
politics that this paper trics to introduco is an attompt to smear mo by using
the comments of a polico commissioner. Icft-wingers will draw their own
conclusions about this "ultra-rovolutionary" papor so fond of accusing others
of sclling out and betraying, using the words of a policoman against a polit—
ical opponent. A sad caso of "sour grapes."
Peace Nows, in its issue after the demonstration provided material for those
who want to fingor tho domonstration and its organisors, and quoted remarks
attributed to Tariq Ali by the capitalist press to attack tho demonstration
without making any attempt to vorify them. We think, that unless this
paper drops this lino many people will follow Malcolm Caldwell in disassoo~
iating thomselves from ite
So much for the tendencics which opposed March 17. Despite their sectar~
ianism, it is ontirely in the interests of the movemont against the war in
Vietnam for all of us to cndeavour to draw those people into a united front
in support of tho Vietnamese people. Many of the thousands on the March 17
demonstration were rank and file mombers of theso organisations or support
ers of their journals. We are convinced that these poople will be cam-
paigning for a chango of lino.
What was, thon, tho genoral effect of the March 17 demonstration? Different
scctions of course, reacted in different ways and the goncral ocffect was
that of polarisation. The militants wero heartoned (we have many, many indi-
cations of this - we are convinced that VSC is going to tako the place of OND
as providing a place for thousands of unattached militants to operate) ; soggy
contrists wore horrified (Bill Hamlin was torribly upset about poor policemon
who had to lose their days' off because of "hooligans") and the right was
provokede But in meaningful political torms the effect on the Left was tho
most important: throughout the country everyone who is opposed to the policics
of British and American imporialism knows ‘that thoro are people willing to
fight those policies. In.a more general scnsc, the domonstration has shown
millions that there is a militant anti-war movement in this country; the
demonstration must have replaced football as the main topic of discussion
on Monday morning in the factories and other places of work. We do not, of
course, wish to oxaggorate the amount of public support for the demonstrat-
ion but the fact that millions discussed the issues is a healthy thing in and
of itself. This fact alone creates a milicu for a fight for our ideas.