|
Oct.
27 saw tens of thousands of antiwar protesters across the United States
mobilize to demand an end to the war in Iraq and the immediate withdrawal
of all U.S. troops.
This,
first of a kind, coordinated regional effort in 11 selected cities was
initiated by the June 22-24, 2007, National Assembly of United for Peace
and Justice (UFPJ), a nationwide antiwar coalition with some 1200
affiliates. Three hundred delegates and observers attended that meeting.
Unlike
previous mobilizations that saw unremitting factional differences among
various coalitions divert the attention of leading activists and
organizations, Oct. 27 was largely a united effort. Both major national
antiwar coalitions, UFPJ and ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism),
and thousands of co-sponsoring and endorsing groups in several cities,
collaborated formally or in practice to build the first regional actions
since the war began.
In
most instances the local sponsoring coalitions included demands opposing
a U.S. war against Iran or any other nation, as well as demands to stop
all Iraq War funding. Also included were demands in defense of civil
liberties and for a reordering of social priorities: "Money for
human needs, not war!"
In
Boston several popular chants initiated by youthful marchers, who were
close to half of the demonstration, included, "No Blood for Oil!
U.S. off Iraqi soil! And "No Justice, No Peace! U.S. Out of the
Middle East!" Rally speakers in several cities denounced U.S.
support for Israel's occupation of Palestine and the horrors perpetrated
against the Palestinian people.
Defense
of Palestinian rights was raised by several speakers at the Boston rally,
an indication that the U.S.-backed oppression of Palestinians is widely
seen as an integral part of U.S. policy in the Middle East. A central objective of the Oct. 27
mobilization was to close the gap between the mass sentiment against the
war (with polls showing a significant majority opposed) and the still
modest numbers that have taken to the streets in united and massive
demonstrations in recent years.
While
undoubtedly many newcomers to the antiwar movement participated, with few
exceptions the turnout was considerably less than organizers expected. In
New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and Seattle 7,500 to 10,000
participated, with perhaps a few thousand more in a few cities.
The
Chicago and Boston mobilizations, drawing protesters from across the
Midwest and the New England states, were among the few that recorded
impressive numerical gains.
"We
organized one of the largest, if not the largest, recent antiwar
demonstration of its kind in this town," said Carl Davidson, Oct. 27
Mobilization Project Director in Chicago. "More important than the
numbers themselves, we brought out substantial numbers of people for whom
this was their first peace march, especially from the labor movement and
the African
American
community, and from other communities as well. This was the most
multinational, inter-generational and diverse crowd I have seen in a very
long time. This was the main task we set for ourselves, and we
succeeded."
Longtime
Boston antiwar activist Marilyn Levin reported: "We had the largest
antiwar mobilization in New England since before the attack on Iraq in
2003; 10,000 people turned out in spite of bad weather and the energy and
enthusiasm was contagious." Similarly, bad weather marred the
demonstrations in New York and Philadelphia.
Levin
noted, "Many of the participants were young and were attending their
first antiwar action and they were inspired and activated to continue.
"For the first time, we developed a regional structure and
leadership that was able to work very well together, incredibly so, as we
had no history of collaboration or trust. We came out of the action with
a name, a website, an email address, a bank account, respect, and a good
reputation."
But
unprecedented turnouts were not the case in most other targeted cities.
Most striking were the results in New York and San Francisco, where
previous mobilizations had regularly attracted hundreds of thousands.
Orlando,
Fla., saw 2000 mobilize; close to 1000 marched and rallied in Salt Lake
City, 5000 in Los Angeles, and over 2000 in Philadelphia. Modest results
were reported in New Orleans, and Jonesborough, Tenn. Cape Cod, Mass.,
not on the official list of designated cities, surprised many activists
with some 2000 in attendance.
In
several cities speakers initially announced figures that were obviously
inflated. In New York, the number was put at 45,000; in Chicago and San
Francisco, 30,000. Few if any experienced organizers agreed. Indeed, in the days that followed more
balanced assessments emerged as coalition leaders met to more carefully
evaluate their efforts.
Although
the corporate media had virtually ignored pre-march press releases and
media conferences, they tended to report favorably and in significant
detail on most all the actions.
The
Philadelphia Inquirer was a case in point with a major Oct. 27 article, reading:
"They came marching and chanting along East Market Street, 10 to 20
people across, in a procession five blocks long. ‘What do we want? Peace!
When do we want it? Now!’
The
Inquirer continued: "That call-and-response echoed off tall
buildings today as Philadelphia witnessed its largest peace demonstration
since the first days of the Iraq war in March 2003. Organizers estimated
that 2000 people joined in the march and a rally that
followed
it on the sodden lawn of Independence Mall. The police estimate was
higher: 5000.”
New antiwar groups organize
In
a number of cities a large portion of the crowd was mobilized by
grassroots peace groups and coalitions, many of which had come into
existence in the process of organizing for the action. One such coalition
from Worcester, Mass., according to Hartford, Conn., activist James
Jason, "had not found the time to settle on a name for itself, yet
brought 200 people.
“Its
members were from the Catholic Worker, Worcester Friends Meeting House,
Worcester Peaceworks, and students from local colleges, Clark University,
and Holy Cross.”
Jason
continued, "Nancy Lessin, founder of Military Families Speak Out,
whose son served in Iraq in 2003, co-chaired part of the Boston rally.
She said that two military families founded MFSO in 2003. Now their group
has over 3700 military families.
"Lessin
explained that MFSO has three main demands on the government, the
immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq; the provision of all
necessary government resources to help veterans heal and return to U.S.
civilian life and reparations to the Iraqi people.
"One
of the most popular Boston speakers of the day appeared on stage along
with a group of two dozen Iraq veterans in desert camouflage wearing Iraq
Veterans Against the War t-shirts.
“’Why
do we protest?’ the militant veteran asked. ‘Because we don't have the
eight-hour week because we voted for it. We had to strike for it. Because
women didn't win the right to vote by voting for it, they had to fight
for it. African Americans didn't vote for civil rights, they had to fight
for them. Our opposition party is a myth. Our system is broken. And
master's tools aren't going to be able to fix master's house.’”
Similar
sentiments were echoed by vets across the country. In Seattle the march
was led by veterans, with a 12-year-old boy following along carrying a
sign reading, "I already hate the next president."
Labor endorsement minus the ranks
The
Oct. 27 mobilizations undoubtedly registered important gains. The
first-time formal sponsorship of several national, regional, and local
trade-union bodies was impressive. A website statement representing the
national AFL-CIO's views opposing war funding helped to open the door
wider to union support.
The
AFL-CIO's 1.5-million-member California Labor Federation endorsed, as did
its affiliated central labor council in Los Angeles. All seven San
Francisco Bay Area labor councils followed suit, a first for the antiwar
movement.
But
these endorsements were not matched by significant labor contingents. A
hearty group of 500 trade unionists joined the San Francisco march and
rally. The situation in the New England area was similar, with the
AFL-CIO's state federation in Connecticut endorsing and its leading
official, John Olsen, speaking at the Boston rally. But the organized
ranks of labor were barely visible.
The
active, leading, and highly visible participation of Iraq War veterans,
as well as Vietnam vets, served to boost the movement's confidence and
was another indication that the opposition to the war in the general
populations is matched by the same sentiments in an increasingly
questioning military.
The
unity achieved in the formation of new regional coalitions also marked a
noteworthy advance. In San Francisco, the ad hoc coalition that sponsored
the protest of some 8000-10,000 often saw its planning meetings
co-chaired by leaders of ANSWER and UFPJ. In New England, the enthusiasm
generated by common work among participating groups may well give rise to
an ongoing coalition for future actions.
These
gains notwithstanding, serious antiwar activists across the country have
now to come to grips with the fact that the Oct. 27 mobilization succeeded
in bringing out only a small fraction of the numbers previously organized
in massive street demonstrations.
The national bi-coastal mobilization in the first years of the war
totaled nearly 800,000, if not one
million,
with subsequent actions repeatedly bringing out similarly impressive
numbers.
The
60,000 who joined the Oct. 27 actions were a far cry from what the
movement had previously achieved. The decline requires a serious
explanation, especially in light of the fact that antiwar opposition today
stands at an all-time high—a contradiction indeed.
Is Palestine a "wedge issue?"
A
few obvious points are helpful to begin this discussion. First, it cannot
be said, as it has in the past, that the demonstration suffered from the
inclusion of demands opposing
U.S. support to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the horrific
persecution of the Palestinian people. Such demands were not adopted by
any of the 11 regional organizing bodies, although they were addressed by
a number of speakers.
The
exclusion of such demands served as sort of an informal, or unofficial
test for the movement, several of whose constituent groups argued that
Palestine was a "wedge issue," that is, one whose inclusion
could only narrow participation. Of course, all organizations were free
to carry whatever signs and banners or distribute whatever literature
they chose. There was no
censorship, to be sure.
While
the debate on this issue is far from settled, one fact is clear. The
number and proportion of Arab Americans and people of Middle Eastern
origin was significantly less on Oct. 27 than in previous actions.
Socialist
Action has argued that in the context of today's political realities,
intervention around the world is the norm, not the exception, with regard
to U.S. foreign policy. Whether it be the present wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan or the immediate threats of war against Iran, approved by the
Senate in the recent Kyl-Lieberman resolution, or military threats
against
Syria,
or U.S. support to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon or U.S. policy to
finance and arm Israel in its unceasing efforts to drive virtually all
Palestinians from their homeland, it is clear to increasing millions,
Arab Americans and Muslims in particular, that the war against the Iraqi
people is part and parcel of a broader U.S. policy.
Add
to this the growing threats against Cuba and Venezuela, and one can
easily conclude that the antiwar movement's opposition to these wars and
threats of war can be a powerful factor in reaching out to new sectors of
the population. Demands addressing these subjects, in our view, serve to
broaden, not narrow, the movement's appeal.
The
use of new reactionary legislation to persecute and imprison thousands in
Arab and Muslim communities as suspected terrorists has also sounded the
alarm for the witch hunter's victims as well as for all who cherish
fundamental democratic rights.
The
earlier mobilizations against the Iraq War all included demands relating
to the Palestine issue. The antiwar movement's solidarity with Arab and
Muslim victims of the post-9/11 hysteria also sent a powerful message to
these communities. There was a place for them in this new struggle
against U.S. intervention as well as a safe haven at a time when the new
McCarthyities were knocking at their door.
The lure of the 2008 elections?
It
has often been argued, and correctly so, that with the approach of
national elections the present antiwar movement tends to subordinate
united-front-type, politically independent massive mobilizations in the
streets to electoral activity, usually in support of so-called
lesser-evil Democrats.
The
2004 elections witnessed this phenomenon in tragic and major proportions
as virtually all national antiwar coalitions ceased organizing massive
protests to bring the troops home now in order to support, indirectly or
otherwise, the candidacy of Democrat John Kerry. This pro-war
multi-billionaire, the richest U.S. Senator in the country, had
distinguished himself by demanding that the U.S. send 40,000 more troops
to Iraq than the Bush administration had recommended.
It
must be said that this was not the case with the Oct. 27 demonstrations.
All national antiwar coalitions were on board and engaged in trying to
make the demonstrations as successful as possible. While a small number
of "liberal" and sometimes equivocating local Democratic
politicians appeared on the movement's platforms to oppose the war, the
clear "Out Now! character of the official demands, placards, banners, media releases and speakers was
obvious. The handful of stray Democrats that did appear usually found
themselves compelled to demand an end to the war. Their presence on an
"Out Now! platform in the face of their party's blatant pro-war
stance was their contradiction, not the movement's.
Thus,
it cannot be said, at least at this point in time, that the very modest
turnout was a product of the movement’s or coalition leaders' lack of
effort, or their desire to turn the movement's energies toward electoral
activity or even to use the platform to highlight and promote the
Democratic Party. Indeed, the pro-war stance of the Democratic Party
serves as a major obstacle to those who would or will attempt to do so in
the future.
Hillary
Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edward's statements rejecting any pledge
to withdraw U.S. troops by the end of their terms in 2012, should they
win the presidency, is far from inspiring and certainly insufficient, at
this time at least, to deliver up the antiwar ranks to pro-war Democrats.
This
is not to say that that this will not be the case in the months ahead.
UFPJ's leading political analyst, Phyllis Bennis, for example, has
already published the first polemic effectively motivating an antiwar
movement turn toward "anyone but the evil Republicans"
politics. Bennis' virtual but unstated endorsement of Hillary Clinton was
barely hidden. (See "Deepening the Majority: Anti-War Organizing in
an Election Year" published in the latest issue of PeaceWorks.)
Chicago: Democrats on stage?
There
were some in the movement, for whom an invitation to a few Democrats to
speak on Oct. 27 was sufficient to formally withdraw support from the
demonstration. Such was the case with the International Socialist
Organization (ISO) in Chicago.
In
a lengthy statement that included various organizational criticisms of
the local coalition's
leadership
policies, the ISO publicly proclaimed, "The reason we are
withdrawing our endorsement is because of the invitations extended to
certain politicians to speak, especially senators Richard Durbin and
Barack Obama." The ISO pointed out that neither of these had voted
in September to oppose Iraq War funding. In the case of Obama, the ISO
noted, he was absent when the vote took place.
The
ISO's argument properly stated that an invitation to Democrats who were
against the war was certainly not a matter of political principle. But
distinctions between purported "antiwar" Democratic politicians
and others who, like Obama and Daley, generally have
reactionary
records on the war, not to mention on a myriad of other critical issues,
serves no useful function.
Such
a distinction means little in the context of capitalist politics, where
the shell game of
counterposing
"antiwar liberal Democrats" to "Republican conservatives"
is employed to corral the unwary. Today's Democrats, not to mention
yesterday’s who administered the Vietnam War—which slaughtered four
million Vietnamese—serve the same ruling class, for whom war is an
economic and political necessity.
Dennis
Kucinich, for example, a "liberal" capitalist candidate for the
Democratic Party presidential nomination, did vote against Iraq War
funding.
Kucinich
today serves as the Democratic Party's "antiwar" fig leaf. His
function—along with the Progressive Democrats of America—is to foster the
illusion that the Democrats, the historic graveyard of social movements,
are a diverse party that can be pressured to side with the masses as
opposed to their capitalist benefactors.
But
Kucinich opposes immediate withdrawal, the agreed-upon demand of the
Boston coalition and all others involved in building Oct. 27. And yet the
ISO did not withdraw its endorsement from the Boston demonstration when a
vote was taken to invite Kucinich to the stage to be recognized and
present brief remarks. Indeed, the ISO did not withdraw its support for a
September antiwar rally in Kennebunkport, Maine, with Kucinich as an
approved speaker. As it turned out, in Boston, Kucinich decided to speak
elsewhere. Obama and Durbin declined the invitation in Chicago.
The united-front-type coalition
The
antiwar movement's coalitions operate as united-front-type organizations.
They include a broad range of political and social forces whose politics
widely diverge on many issues. Leading components of the UFPJ, for
example, including the Communist Party and the Committees of
Correspondence, regularly support the candidates of the Democratic Party.
Most
of the coalition's constituent or supporting organizations—ranging from
faith-based groups to pacifists, veterans organizations, environmental,
feminist, labor and anti-racist groups—largely do the same. With the
exception of a small number of revolutionary socialist organizations, for
whom support to capitalist candidates and parties violates a core
political principle of working-class independence, the leaders and ranks
of today's coalitions largely support "lesser evil" Democratic
Party politicians.
While
less obvious, this is also the case with the ANSWER coalition, whose
leading force, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, in the name of
"fighting the right" or in other guises, also supports
capitalist candidates of the Democratic Party.
What
holds these coalitions together is not agreement on a broad range of
political principles or support or non-support to any party but rather,
limited and specific agreements to oppose the Iraq War by organizing
massive independent actions in the streets. Revolutionary socialist
parties enthusiastically participate in and often play leading roles on
this basis and on this basis alone.
The
independent exercise of the power of working people, in the streets, and
based on principled demands that challenge capitalist prerogatives,
especially the right to wage war, stands in the best traditions of the workers'
and socialist movement.
Challenging capitalist war in practice, consciously or otherwise,
serves to advance the political maturation and solidarity of the working
class as a whole. Independent
mass actions of this type exert a
qualitatively
greater force than a few dedicated individuals marching together on a
revolutionary program.
Mass
action against the Iraq War serves to expose better than any other tactic
available at this time the contradiction between what the government does
and what the masses demand. It undermines confidence in the government
itself and leads participants to broaden their inquiry into who or what
this government really represents in the first place.
It
serves no useful purpose to withdraw support from a clearly antiwar demonstration
designed to engage millions in the streets against an imperialist war
just because a few fake antiwar Democrats—who declined to accept, no
less—were extended an invitation.
The classical united front
The
united-front-type coalition differs from the classical united front. The
latter has been
historically
based on limited agreements between mass workers' organizations, like
trade unions and mass socialist parties.
If
the bosses, for example, attempted to run scab workers through union
picket lines, challenging the right of workers to defend their jobs and
advance their cause in strike action, labor's best tradition was to
mobilize the broadest possible power throughout the labor and workers'
movement to counter the capitalist strikebreakers.
The
united front was essentially limited to one critical class-based issue,
the physical defense of striking workers against all comers. Agreement on
all other issues that may have divided various unions and workers'
parties was subordinated to united and powerful action in the streets.
This
tradition has been largely lost in the labor movement. It needs to be
rebuilt. The absence of mass workers' organizations and parties operating
on the principle of solidarity, and on the principle of "an injury
to one is an injury to all," has greatly diminished labor's power,
as well as all progressive social movements.
Today's
united-front-type coalition is the closest substitute available to
exercise mass power in the streets around a few limited demands, centered
on "Bring the Troops Home Now!" In contrast to past decades,
however, the class composition of these fronts has changed. Today, the
movement is properly open to all who oppose the war, regardless of class
or political affiliation.
Representatives
of ruling-class parties, as well as individuals who support them, are not
infrequently included on the platforms of antiwar demonstrations. Their presence, it has often been
said, is "their contradiction," not ours. They participate on
our political platform, not theirs. They stand before our banners, not
theirs.
Their
exclusion, even when they are ambiguous or hostile to our Out Now!
politics, usually results in unnecessary fractures of the
united-front-type coalition itself, the components of which are today
essential to the coalition's success.
The
key to understanding the contradiction between an antiwar demonstration
that includes a few not-so-antiwar capitalist politicians, is the action
itself, inseparably connected to clearly stated political objectives or demands
against the policies of the capitalist government.
A
mass march to Bring the Troops Home Now!, in the context of an
imperialist war in progress, more than compensates for a decision to have
a handful of opportunist politicians on stage who seek to divert the
movement into the capitalist electoral arena. Indeed, their presence on a platform where the vast
majority of speakers denounce the war and the parties that perpetrate it,
is again, truly "their contradiction," so much so in the
present instance that no Democrat running for president, from Obama to
Kucinich, bothered to take the risk of entering hostile territory.
A central contradiction
We
have thus far discussed two elements that do not account for the U.S.
antiwar movement's present diminished mobilization. What then does
account for this state of affairs?
The
answer is far from simple. It lies in large part in another important and
potentially explosive contradiction. This consists in the ever deepening
anger of the American people at the continuous blows struck against their
standard of living and social well being on the one hand and in their
seeming paralysis in the face of these attacks on the other.
The
crisis of U.S. capitalism has resulted in a series of uninterrupted,
catastrophic, and still unanswered attacks on working people that include
the loss of one million decent paying jobs a year, the destruction of
earned pensions of millions, the elimination or major reduction of "guaranteed" health-care
benefits, and the yearly transfer in taxes and wage cuts of one trillion
dollars from working people to the tiny ruling-class elite.
We
have also seen the ongoing decimation of fundamental civil liberties,
civil rights, public
education
and social services; the impending mortgage foreclosures on millions of
families; the rapidly approaching impact of an environmental horror,
fossil-fuel-induced global warming, which threatens the existence of the
human species; and the prospect of never-ending wars for profit and
plunder.
Workers
of every type have been stunned by these unprecedented attacks and
compelled to absorb one after another of them for some time now, while
lacking the leadership and fighting organizations to counter and win. The
relatively modest "concessions" that began in the 1970s have
today turned into a wholesale assault on everything that has been taken
for granted for decades, on the fundamental ingredients for a decent life
and secure future.
The
present quiescence masks deep feelings of frustration, resentment, anger,
and fear. In the absence of a single important victory on any front, in
the absence of even a semblance of fighting leadership in the labor and
social movements, working people see no present possibility of winning.
In the political arena the usual suspect misleaders are preparing the
ground to elect yet another Democratic Party administration as an alleged
alternative to the
current
ruling-class standard bearers in the Republican Party.
This
historically low level of fightback in the trade unions is matched by
similar phenomenon in the communities of the oppressed and in the
feminist, environmental, and antiwar movements.
The
heat lightening that we witnessed when 50,000, mostly Black youth,
mobilized in Jena, La., and five million immigrants on May Day 2006, has
yet to give rise to new organs or vehicles of struggle. But these
virtually instant mobilizations are indicative of the deep discontent
harbored by hundreds of millions of capitalism's victims.
The
present silence is more the product of a crisis of leadership that fuels
passivity than it is a reflection of satisfaction with the status quo.
It
is only a matter of time until the anger finds an expression in a
powerful mobilization and victory that breaks through the morass of
defeats and opens the door to renewed struggle on a scale never before
seen. And that struggle, as
history teaches, will sweep away whatever bureaucratic and self-serving
misleadership stands in its way.
The
momentary dip in antiwar activity on Oct. 27 can only give way to future
mobilizations in the millions that challenge the warmakers more
decisively than ever before. These mobilizations, properly organized and
led, are bound to include major sectors of all of
capitalism's
victims.
As
we approach the fifth year of horrendous slaughter in Iraq, the movement
has yet to organize an open, democratic, and massive national conference
of the increasingly broad forces that potentially make up its ranks. Such
a conference will prove to be an invaluable vehicle to discuss, debate
and resolve past differences and plan the next round of mass actions that
will give full expression to the power that presently exists.
|