S.F. coalition sets example for antiwar movement

Scan page 9

«History has shown effectiveness of a mass-action strategy."

SOCIALIST ACTION JUNE 1985 9 On April 20, 1985, tens of thousands marched in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Seattle, Houston, and other cities for jobs, peace, and justice.

The successful April 20 demonstrations were a powerful blow to the warmakers in Washington. The turnout was greater than even the organizers had expected: 65,000 in Washington, D.C.; 50,000 in San Francisco; 8000 in Los Angeles. But more important than the numbers was the breadth of some of these demonstrations.

The recent upsurge in campus activity and the large April 20 actions have revealed that opposition to the U.S. war drive is widespread among the American population. Polls continue to show that a majority of people in the United States oppose Washington's policies in Central America.

Since the April 20 actions, a big debate has broken out in the left press and among antiwar activists over the significance of these demonstrations and over the most effective NO opposing the inclusion of an additional slogan, "No U.S. intervention in the Middle East."

• In the course of building the April 20 actions, opposing viewpoints were argued out and put to the test. Why has Socialist Action come under attack? What is our strategy and why was the strategy we advocated successful in San Francisco?

Mobilize working class

Our starting point is that as socialists our main task must be to reach, educate, and help mobilize the U.S. working class—particularly the organized labor movement and the oppressed sectors of society.

Working people are the majority in this country. They have the power not only to curb the imperialist war machine, but to replace the warmakers with a government that defends the interests of the exploited and oppressed.

The potential for building a mass movement against U.S. foreign and domestic policy has been obvious at least since 1981, when 100,000 people marched in Washington against U.S. intervention in Central America. and over 500,000 workers responded to the AFL-CIO call for Solidarity Day.

The national elections, however, sidetracked the labor and ington's imperialist policies.

It is important to remember that the Democrats actually used nuclear weapons while in power. They also invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965, enforced the "Jim Crow" segregation laws, and denied the Equal Rights Amendment-to give only a few examples.

Supporting one capitalist party or candidate against another in the elections only divides and misleads the independent protest movements.

Mass action

Virtually all the left organizations who today attack Socialist Action argue that periodic mass demonstrations can be employed as a tactic to "divide" the ruling class.

Mass protests can certainly heighten the divisions among the various capitalist politicians. The contra vote in the Congress after the April 20 actions was an example of this. But it would be wrong to direct our protests at liberal politicians for their use as bargaining chips in their congressional disputes.

This is especially fruitless because both the Democratic and Republican parties believe the United States has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of Nicaragua and any other country seeking to break away from imperialist control.

These politicians quarrel with each other over the form ASTOP Peace Contral America U.S. intervention should take but they all share agreement on the fundamental stake imperialism has in maintaining its hold over the economic and political future of Central America.

For Socialist Action, periodic massive demonstrations are a central strategy to force a change in the government's policies and not simply a tactic that is subordinated to supporting ing one or another capitalist political election effort.

History has shown the effectiveness of this strategy. It was the massive demonstrations and rallies of the civil rights movement that were able to force a change in "Jim Crow" segregation laws, not the dispute between the "Dixiecrats" and the mainline Democratic and Republican politicians.

Government documents contained in the "Pentagon Papers" from the Vietnam era dramatically confirmed that it was the impact of the peace actions that toppled two presidents and helped to force the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam, not the Congressional floor debates between the "doves" and the "hawks."

Unfortunately, important sections of the current antiwar movement do not share this analysis and strategy. This accounts for their primary orientation toward the election of "peace" candidates and lobbying.

Pessimism

Some of the criticisms of the San Francisco coalition made by the advocates of "left coalitions" spring from their pessimistic assessment of the mood of the American population. These critics consciously downplay the possiblity of mobilizing large numbers of people in action against the government's war policies.

This pessimism in turn serves to justify a rather narrow political outlook of only reaching out to groups who share a similar "radical" perspective. Many leaders and activists in the Washingtonbased April Actions coalition, in fact, were surprised by the large turnout of 65,000 on April 20.

Only six weeks prior to April 20 key leaders of the April Actions had made their second suggestion to postpone the action because of alleged lack of interest and response. This was an incredible misreading of the consciousness of the movement today.

The leadership of the traditional peace groups that organized the Washington, D.C., actions misread the election of Ronald Reagan. They took Reagan's election to mean support by the American people for the policies of war, racism, and economic austerity. Staking everything on the election of "peace" candidate Walter Mondale, they had become disoriented by the election results.

This demoralization dampened any motivation to appeal to a wide range of groupsparticularly the unions. If you (continued on page 10, in “Aid for Contra”)