Mass action

Scan page 10

disarm U.S. brinksmen The military-political strategy of the U.S. ruling class is based on convincing the world that, if necessary, it will not flinch at triggering a nuclear holocaust to forestall the ultimate victory of world revolution.

Star Wars, the popular designation given to President Ronald Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative" program, is a logical extension of the American imperialist strategy of nuclear brinksmanship. [See article on Star Wars in the April issue of Socialist Action.)

Reagan, as the chief executive officer of his class, deliberately adopts the role of a free-enterprise fanatic who is prepared to destroy all life on earth to save it from communism.

While Reagan is not crazy, there is an underlying madness driving U.S. imperialism. Star Wars testifies to the historical bankruptcy of a social system that has outlived its usefulness. Capitalism's grim strategy for survival is based on holding the world hostage with the threat of detonating the nuclear doomsday machine rather than giving in to the irrepressible revolutionary tide.

The Star Wars doomsday threat must be taken seriously. In the first place, the bigger the nuclear powder keg, the greater the likelihood of accidental detonation. And in the second place, the longer the world teeters on the brink, the greater become the odds that humanity will be exterminated.

The U.S. capitalist class, like all other ruling classes, will not be induced to give up its power merely through the force of logical argument. And so long as that power includes the awesome U.S. nuclear arsenal, the existence of life on earth is threatened.

Ultimately, the power to destroy the world must be wrenched forever from the hands of the capitalist class by a mass revolutionary movement led by the working class. How can we get to that point? What must be done now?

Deadly connections

Mass mobilizations such as the ones that took place April 20 point the way toward what must be done now to stay the hand of U.S. imperialism.

The movement against U.S. intervention in Central America and the Caribbean is an entirely progressive democratic movement when based on defense of the principle of self-determination. On this basis it is, at the same moment, an objectively anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movement because it goes counter to the inherent logic driving U.S. capitalism toward bloody intervention in Central America.

The "Freeze, or antinuclear-weapons movement, is similarly an entirely progressive movement. Both movements are objectively anti-capitalist despite the "The bigger the nuclear fact that the consciousness of most participants lags behind such an understanding.

Antiwar mass action, moreover, has the salutary effect of making opposition visible to the population at large and, even more significantly, to the capitalist government itself.

Most demonstrators, by far, do not consider themselves anti-capitalist or, for that matter, even anti-imperialist. Nevertheless, their protest meetings, marches, and demonstrations seriously restrict imperialist options. And when the U.S. government shows its unwillingness to abide by the will of the majority, it leads millions to a higher level of understanding and to more potent measures of anti-capitalist action.

The abrasive ruling-class disregard for democracy is aggravated by the accompanying appalling diversion of funds from human needs to feed the ravenous war budget.

And when the imperialists send our precious youth to die in defense of hated dictatorships—as well as U.S. banks and corporate profits-further advances in consciousness will be inevitable. The organic connection between strikebreaking and other repressive acts, at home and abroad, will become ever more apparent.

We saw only the palest expression of this process SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 1985 of heightened consciousness unfolding during the Vietnam War, when our young men were being steadily shipped home in plastic body-bags. Opposition to the war at home, focusing on the demand "Bring Our Boys Home Now,, encouraged a growing resistance to the war by the GIs themselves.

Although limited to the war issue alone, this movement proved potent enough to force U.S. imperialism to pull out of Vietnam-the U.S. government experiencing its first clear military defeat in its history.

This momentous shift in consciousness took place despite the capacity of the capitalist rulers to buy both guns and butter. The current interventionism, however, is accompanied by a mounting economic crisis marked by a relentless drive against the living standards of those who will be asked to sacrifice and die or whose sons will be asked to do so in defense of profits.

Neither does it appear that the economic picture will get better. On the contrary, the relative economic stability of the postwar era is on the verge of a colossal breakdown.

A strategy for the antiwar movement It is certainly true that there are forces at work within the anti-intervention and antinuclear-weapons movements that strive to divert the movement into harmless channels. These forces advocate support for capitalist politicians who claim to be for the "freeze" and/or for a negotiated settlement to the war in Central America.

Among these forces are crass political agents of capitalism. In the "Freeze" movement, Democratic Party "liberals" seek to obstruct the connection with the anti-intervention forces and strive to point the movement toward placing equal blame on the Soviets for the nuclear-arms race.

At a minimum, they seek to diffuse the legitimate protest by the American people against their own government's policies by promoting support for one or another imperialist-sponsored treaty.

We witnessed such a grotesque performance earlier this year when, as the March 25 New York Times reported, "A group of powerful liberal and centrist Democrats in the House of Representatives... sent a letter to Mikhail S. Gorbachev warning that the Soviet Union must comply with existing arms treaties or risk the most 'serious consequences for th future of arms control! "

If the antinuclear-protest movement adopted this stance it would destroy itself. A political line that in any way directs the movement's fire against the Soviet Union defeats its essential purpose. In fact, it assists the U.S. rulers to carry out their planetthreatening strategy unhindered by giving credence to the basic imperialist premise of "Soviet aggression."

Indeed, the mounting movement of millions that is striving to break free of capitalist domination and misery-especially in the semi-colonial world—is completely independent of Soviet policy. It is not at all the product of a "communist threat" to conquer the world. On the contrary, the worldwide anti-capitalist revolution is proceeding despite Soviet government and Communist Party policy.

Strengths and Limitations

But what stance should the antinuclear-weapons movement take toward treaties whose ostensible purpose is to limit and even roll back the tendency to military confrontation? What should, for example, the movement's stance be toward a freeze of the production and deployment of nuclear weapons?

Obviously, the movement should agitate for and welcome any such move toward a freeze and reversal of the nuclear arms-race. But while imperialists may be forced into a temporary agreement that goes counter to their long-term trajectory, so long as they retain power and possess nuclear weapons, the threat of a nuclear holocaust remains.

To the extent that a "freeze" agreement represents a setback to imperialist aims, the movement should relentlessly demand further retreats until such time as the capitalists are totally disarmed.

Practical advances for the antinuclear-weapons movement can be accomplished without endorsing specific "freeze" treaties. Treaties are by their nature compromises that only limit imperialist banditry. The imperialists, moreover, inevitably encroach on the agreements, driven as they are by the pressing needs of their economic system.

The Soviets may be compelled to sign such agreements in the course of the struggle to win over world public opinion to an understanding of imperialist culpability for the arms race.

But it is completely unnecessary-in fact it is counterproductive-for the movement to take responsibility for a treaty imposed by force that will inevitably be violated by imperialism. This would get the movement caught in the web of charges and countercharges over which side first violated the treaty.

A similar problem is posed to the anti-intervention movement in relation to the demands raised by the Central American revolutionists for a negotiated settlement with the U.S. government. A look here will shed light on the stance the movement must take toward disarmament treaties.

The demands of the Nicaraguan Sandinista government for a compromise with U.S. imperialism are completely just. Conversely, any demand by the U.S. government upon the Nicaraguans is completely unjust.

The Nicaraguans have every right to negotiate whatever compromise they may feel forced to make, just as when a citizen held at gunpoint By a bandit may be forced to give his money in exchange for his life.

The responsibility of the antinuclear-weapons and anti-intervention movements is to continue unremittingly to make demands on the U.S. government to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and to withdraw from Central America and the Caribbean. This is completely consistent with opposing any concessions wrenched by the imperialist bandits from their victims at the point of a gun.

The April 20 national actions raised the simple democratic demand of "No U.S. Intervention in Central America and the Caribbean."

This expresses the essence of a correct and powerful antiwar strategy.

The demand to "Freeze and Reverse the [Nuclearl Arms Race" if it, too, avoids the trap of giving legitimacy to any particular compromise, can also raise mass consciousness and build the movement on an independent axis. This is the only road to peace.

Dan Youngdahl, 1939-1985 Members and friends of Socialist Action are saddened by the death of Dan Youngdahl, a founding member of Socialist Action and a member of our Twin Cities branch. Dan, who was 46 years old, finally succumbed to the leukemia which he had courageously battled since the late 1970s.

Dan joined the Socialist Workers Party in Chicago in the mid-1970s. As a member of the Chicago branch, he was one of the first SWP members to study and become involved in the antinuclear-weapons movement.

Dan resigned from the SWP in 1983. As loyal party members began to be purged from the SWP for defending the party's historic program, Dan, like many members and party supporters, became alarmed. In October of that year he attended the Chicago founding conference of Socialist Action.

Dan will be remembered fondly by all his comrades. The family requests that contributions be sent in Dan's name to the Bone Marrow Patient Research Fund, Box 809, The Mayo Building, 420 Delaware St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455.

Scan page 11

British antinuclear activist speaks:

«Greenham women forge links"

The following interview with Helen John, an activist at the women's peace camp at Greenham Common in England, was conducted by Michael Schreiber in London on March 12, 1984.

Socialist Action: What effect did Britain's decision to allow cruise missiles to be stationed here have on the peace movement?

Helen John: It reawakened the opposition to nuclear weapons in a way that no other weapons system had ever done previously. That opposition went right through Europe. And it grows; it doesn't diminish.

We're beginning to hear the true story now. These weapons are there to keep NATO intact-to do whatever NATO wants. The American people were told that the people of Europe were crying out for these weapons because they were frightened of the Soviet threat. Now the story is that we must keep NATO intact. And the people of Europe have never been consulted.

S.A.: I take it that many of the Greenham Common women had not encampment. How did they become involved?

John: They were in many cases apolitical but became so concerned about weapons that were designed to start a nuclear war that they were forced to make a personal commitment.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament hadn't really managed to get the message across to the public. The political parties really don't have the will to how their own case was misrepresented in the press. They were then ready to understand just how easily the women at Greenham had been misrepresented. They began to understand that there was a very definite link between trying to close down the coal mines and the government's policy of establishing more nuclear-power plants.

Those links will grow in the future. In December and January there is going to be a march of women into Central America-through Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and into Nicaragua. We're firmly opposed to the situation that the Nicaraguan and Salvadoran people are facing from the American government's aggression.

One of the suggestions that I heard this week is that we should suggest that miners' wives be sent to take part in that Dutch peace activist: march and that the miners' union back the trip. So the links will grow and they will become much more international.

S.A.: With this proliferation of struggles, to what degree does the peace camp at Greenham remain a focus for the movement?

John: Greenham must remain a very clear international focus for women's opposition to the illegality and immorality that these missiles represent. Now we have to build joint actions with other peace camps to show that we are in cooperation with each other, not in competition. We have to build symbolic actions that include our counterparts in West Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, and the United States-where these appalling weapons are shipped out.

I think we'll probably have some symbolic actions built around the fourth anniversary of Greenham in September. We know that we can rely on the women and men in America to assist us.

S.A.: Some people in the United States have counterposed actions of civil disobedience organizing mass actions. I take it that you don't?

John: I think that you build up to those mass actions by keeping the small actions alive. That's what happened during the Vietnam War. People burned their draft cards and helped young men get out of the country long before the mass of people were out on the streets.

Because we took a court case opposing the weapons of the United States, some of us have had the privilege of being in the United States and meeting the peace groups. We know that we have their support, and we're not as nervous as when we started.

S.A.: Can you tell us more about that court case?

John: We started a lawsuit in the federal court of New York that focuses on the illegality of the weapons. We want to prosecute the real criminals, the ones who are breaking the law, the people who own the weapons. The current administration is the current owner of these weapons. If this administration had changed for a Democratic one, it would be the Democrats.

Judge David Edelstein refused to look at the suit because he said it was a political, not a legal, issue. We argued that breaking international laws in preparation for genocide is indeed a matter for the courts. That was established in Nuremberg.

We haven't finished with this case yet. We're going to publish the findings of the expert evidence that supports our case so that ordinary decent human beings can see what's happening in their name and with their money. That has to be the American people. They're the only ones who can stop this happening to all the people of Europe.

DEN HAAG, 29 OKTOBER

----- pull-quotes -----

powder keg, the greater the likelihood of detonation."

FREEZE OR FRY Socialist Action/ Joe Ryan

been at all "political" before the "Demonstrations can confound and confuse the military authority."