|
5 Critical
Points of Unity Before the National Assembly
Statement issued by Socialist Action and distributed at the
June 28-29,
2008 National Open Anti-War Conference held in Cleveland,
Ohio.
Five simple but critical elements constitute
the political and organizational framework for the June 28-29 open antiwar
conference in Cleveland, sponsored by the National Assembly to End the Iraq War and Occupation.
They are the unity of the antiwar movement; the compelling need for massive
mobilizations against the war; the demand for immediate and unconditional
withdrawal of all U.S. troops and military bases from Iraq; a democratic inclusive antiwar movement based
on open, one-person-one-vote decision-making conferences; and the
independence of this movement from any political party.
The National Assembly — with its broad array of endorsements of over 500
prominent individuals and organizations—sees itself not as a competing
coalition in the present constellation of national antiwar groups but
rather as a current in the movement aimed at advancing the above
perspectives.
Reaching agreement on the five major proposed points of unity above can
provide a solid foundation for a renewed effort to close the yawning gap
between the present and growing mass sentiment against the Iraq War and the
still modest and sporadic mobilizations against it.
An analysis of the National Assembly’s five proposed points of unity
reveals that they are consistent with a class-based understanding of the
dynamics of social change. This includes the proposition that the history
of all successful struggles that challenge the status quo begins and ends
with the unification and mobilization of the working-class majority to take
the stage of history and fight for its own class interests.
Socialists have always believed that the multitude of evils that permeate
capitalist society — war, poverty, racism, sexism, environmental
destruction, and the ruination of billions of people in the pursuit of the
private profit of the few—are inherent features of capitalism. They are
hardly accidents of history that can be remedied with the election of a new
crop of politicians or the replacement of one party of the ruling rich with
another.
Of course, the broad forces expected to assemble in Cleveland are far from
being in agreement with this premise. Nevertheless, their agreement on the
five points above constitutes the basis for organizing a mighty challenge
to the present slaughter and occupation in Iraq, the consequences of which
will inevitably spill over to the massive struggles to come in other
arenas.
UNITY IN THE MOVEMENT
In its essence the unity conceived of by the
leadership of the National Assembly to End the Iraq War and Occupation does
not include the subordination of one national antiwar coalition to another,
whether it be ANSWER, UFPJ, TONC, or any other. Nor does it mean that any
of the above would be required to alter its programmatic basis, its
leadership, or its organizational structure and principles.
The antiwar movement contains many divergent views over the strategy and
tactics necessary to achieve an end to the war. In fact, the sharp
disagreements that have often arisen in the past within the movement
explain in part the existence of often contending groups and coalitions.
For this reason, it is impossible to conceive of reaching agreement on
anything other than a limited number of demands on the U.S. government,
with the main focus being on the demands for immediate withdrawal of U.S.
troops from Iraq—i.e., "Bring the Troops Home Now!"
But advancing these demands in the form of united and massive mobilizations
of the American people on a specific date or dates inevitably sets into
motion a dynamic wherein past differences can be re-evaluated on the basis
of new and common experiences.
The National Assembly’s open conference is predicated on the view that
unity in action to "Bring the Troops Home Now!" can be achieved
in the months ahead, that the differences that have previously divided the
antiwar movement can be overcome, and that the mass opposition to war can
be effectively channeled into a force capable of altering the course of
history.
MASS ACTION
Contrary to its critics, mass mobilizations
are far from a simple-minded tactic aimed to putting hundreds of thousands
and even millions onto the streets on a particular day and then going home
only to mechanically repeat the exercise six months later.
The engagement of millions in independent mobilizations against specific
policies of the government has a dynamic in itself—a dynamic that proceeds,
in direct proportion to the power of the mass mobilizations organized, from
a challenge to the present war to a challenge to the precise social system
that generates war.
Mass action exposes the contradiction between what the vast majority demand
and what the government refuses to grant. It exposes the minority character
of the U.S. government—exemplified starkly by the fact that the real cause
of the Iraq War has nothing to do with the government’s stated explanation
that the U.S. is fighting "a war for democracy, for the rights of
women, and against terrorism."
This exposure of the minority character of the corporate few who wage war
for profit is critical to the organization of even more powerful challenges
to the prerogatives of the capitalist war-makers.
The power of mass action, therefore, goes far beyond a specific day set
aside to march down the street. Mass action serves to raise the level of
confidence and consciousness of those who have been told their entire lives
that the American people have no role in society’s decisions other than to
be passive victims and perhaps to cast a ballot once every four years for
one or another of the representatives of the corporate "lesser
evil" elite.
POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE
Too often in the past, the struggle against
imperialist war, from the Vietnam era to the present, has been subordinated
to electoral politics, wherein important sections of the antiwar movement
view the victory of a so-called lesser-evil candidate (usually a Democrat)
as preferable to independent mobilizations.
In truth, regardless of which corporate candidate prevails, the fundamental
decisions that determine U.S. policy are made by a tiny ruling-class elite,
whose control over the levers of power in both the political and economic
arenas is virtually absolute.
Consistent mass action by hundreds of thousands, and eventually millions,
of people calling for bringing the troops home now from Iraq can force the
U.S. government to back down from its war policies. But no mass
mobilization against the war can be possible if it is conditioned on
agreement to support or reject any candidate.
|