In defense of a strategy for mass action

Scan page 5

Civil rights movement of the 1960s developed independently of the Democratic Party

B CARL FINAMORE

In June, Congress approved nearly twice the amount of funding it had earlier rejected to the Nicaraguan contras. This vote, together with news leaks about plans to invade Nicaragua, has given an urgency to plans for fall anti-intervention protests.

In this light, local antiwar activists and coalitions are continuing to evaluate the experience of the April 20 demonstrations held in seven major cities, which included turnouts of 65,000 in Washington, D.C., and 50,000 in San Francisco.

One question has become hotly debated-how to involve the Black, Latino, and other oppressed nationalities in the fight against U.S. intervention?

This discussion was sharply posed at a June 6 meeting of the San Francisco Spring Mobilization. Berkeley Mayor Eugene "Gus" Newport openly accused the coalition of being racist.

Newport pointed to the lack of participation by oppressed nationalities in the coalition steering committee as his evidence. The Communist Party and the U.S. Peace Council have also echoed Mayor Newport's charge of racism.

What's behind this charge? Is the San Francisco Spring Mobilization racist? The answer is a blunt no. This accusation is actually nothing more than an attempt to introduce a different political orientation into the coalition.

Racist April 20 coalition?

The San Francisco Spring Mobilization, which organized the successful April 20 demonstration, held a founding meeting of 350 people in late January. This meeting unanimously elected a steering committee with over 30 percent Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American representation. Mayor Newport, as one of co-chairs of the coalition, recommended the steering committee for approval.

While the coalition succeeded in attracting important sections of the Latino and Asian community, it "Jackson tapped the hopes of many-but urged votes for Walter Mondale."

is true that it was never able to reach out significantly to the Black and Native American community organizations. But, this weakness was not because the coalition was racist. The Spring Mobilization worked strenuously to broaden its appeal among the oppressed communities.

First, the coalition started with four powerful demands: U.S. Out of Central America and the Caribbean; End U.S. Support to South African Apartheid; Freeze and Reverse the Arms Race; and Jobs and Justice.

These demands are especially in the interest of the oppressed nationalities, who are the first to be used as cannon fodder in military adventures. The bloated military budget has contributed to the cuts in social spending for schools, medical care, and job training. These cuts have hit the oppressed nationalities the hardest.

In addition, special leaflets were addressed to the Black, Asian, and Latino population, including a pamphlet on South Africa and a Latino community speak-out. Literature was mailed to hundreds of Black, Latino, and Asian organizations and activists.

Translations into Spanish and Chinese were made of the major April 20 leaflet and the coalition purchased radio ads on Spanish stations. Full-page ads were also run in Chinese, Latino, and Black papers. And finally, Latino, Asian, and Black coalition outreach committees regularly met to further work in these communities.

These examples are cited in order to dispense with the false and divisive charge that the San Francisco coalition is racist.

Undeniably, we are still left with the very real and lingering problem of minimal participation by the oppressed nationalities in most of the local anti-intervention coalitions. But addressing this problem is far more productive if we refrain from hurling false accusations and charges of racism against sections of the movement.

The racism charge reflects deep political differences inside the San Francisco coalition, where sharp debates often occurred. For example, the Communist Party and the U.S. Peace Council, along with Mayor Newport, unsuccessfully urged the coalition to adopt the demand of "U.S. Out of Asia, Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East." Anti-apartheid contingent on April 20 in San Francisco The June 6 steering committee meeting voted 26-6 to reaffirm the four demands because it understood that adoption of the Middle East demand would split the coalition.

The organizations that endorsed April 20 simply did not agree on a common approach toward Middle East policy, whereas they were united in support of a demonstration demanding "U.S. Out of Central America and the Caribbean. (Similiar considerations also led the Bay Area Free South Africa Movement to reject adding the Middle East demand to its anti-apartheid program.)

Iwo different approaches On many occasions the Communist Party and other groups who today are charging the coalition with racism pressed to remove the action focus of the San Francisco coalition by attempting to impose a more "radical" program. This approach is most directly expressed in the pages of Frontline, the newspaper of Line of March..* "In our opinion, a May 27 major editorial-type article states, "the fate of the left wing of the peace movement rests with the... ability to consolidate ties with the forces of the Rainbow Coalition."

The article observes that "greater unity is already being developed among the forces within the left wing of the peace movement that substantially overlaps with many of the perspectives of the Rainbow Coalition."

The endorsement of the "left perspectives" of the Rainbow Coalition and the insistence that these perspectives provide the basis for the antiwar movement explains the attempts by a series of political forces to change the character of the current action-oriented program of the San Francisco coalition.

Thus, efforts to reform the capitalist and racist Democratic party-via the Rainbow Coalition-is offered as the "left-wing" alternative to the broad unity-in-action approach of the Spring Mobilization. And the totally unfounded charge of racism is being used to discredit the very same policies that made April 20 a success.

Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition tapped the hopes and frustrations of millions of Black, Latino, and other oppressed nationalities. But, they delivered this powerful force back into the Democratic Party by campaigning for Walter Mondale, who, among other things, was the first candidate to suggest an economic quarantine of Nicaragua.

Unfortunately, many antiwar activists today are spending their time rationalizing participation inside the Democratic Party-and finding ways to "revive the Rainbow"-instead of fighting to deepen the tremendous gains of the April 20 antiwar demonstrations by preparing for nationally coordinated fall actions.

The San Francisco Spring Mobilization limited itself to agreement on four issues in order to preserve its action focus. And it maintained its non-partisan character by completely refraining from electoral activity or the adoption of a party program.

Fortunately, most supporters of the Rainbow Coalition and Democratic Party in the San Francisco coalition do not insist that the Spring Mobilization adopt the program of the Rainbow Coalition. Recognizing this simple fact is what allows the unity in action against U.S. intervention to grow beyond those who share similar electoral perspectives.

Reaching the oppressed communities The situation today is quite different from the 1960s, when Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and student Black nationalist organizations like the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) were organizing mass protest actions in defense of the Black community.

Today, no organization exists in the Black or Latino communities which consistently mobilizes those communities in defense of their rights. Most organizations look to the Democratic Party for leadership. But demonstrations, marches, rallies, and picket lines in the Black and Latino communities are never organized by the Democratic Party machine.

However, the Black, Latino and oppressed nationalities have massively respondea whenever community leaders have shown the will to protest. Militant Black community actions for desegregation in the 1970s and the 250,000-strong national march on August 27, 1983, were powerful examples of the mobilization of the oppressed nationalities.

The organizing efforts of the peace and justice coalitions alone cannot fundamentally overcome the lack of leadership among the organizations of the oppressed nationalities.

But independent anti-intervention coalitions can help reach out to militant Black and Latino activists who can begin to organize in their communities and unions. Work in the unions is a major part of this process, considering that millions of union members are from oppressed nationalities.

Literature explaining the relationship between the war drive and the conditions in the Black and Latino communities has been distributed, not by the Democratic Party, but by the local April 20 coalitions. This is true as well of the numerous teach-ins, speakouts, and rallies aimed at the Black and Latino population.

And, most importantly, the local coalitions, working with the unions and other organizations, have called demonstrations which attempt to mobilize the Black and Latino people in actions defending their interests. This has never been done by the Democratic Party.

These measures are insufficient but they point in the right direction. Ultimately, a new leadership must be forged among the oppressed nationalities— just as a new leadership must be formed in the unions.

The independent struggles of the oppressed will themselves develop a new leadership that places the interests of working people, and particularly its most oppressed sections, above the interests of preserving an orientation to the capitalist and racist Democratic Party.

Leonard Freed SOCIALIST ACTION JULY 1985

Scan page 6

that unions are incapable of organizing

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

End US. Suppo For South African Ap