Louis Proyect wrote
this:
Looking back in retrospect, nearly
every outburst against the war was useful but it was only the boring and
respectable mass demonstrations that encouraged GI's to turn against the
war.
The mass demonstrations were important, of
course, but it is difficult to separate out the various components of the war.
The urban rebellions, Newark, Watts, especially Detroit and the several hundred
after King was killed had a very powerful impact on black GI's. While they
weren't explicitly called in opposition to the Vietnam War, of course, they were
part of a massive climate (including also a strike wave) that encouraged people
to think more critically against the system and to be strong enough to fight
back. The militant demonstrations were also important. Let's not accept the
false dichotomy/choice between "peaceful demonstrations led by Democratic Party
politicians" and "immature, semi-violent outburts by the
"Weather(men)(Underground.) " There was also mass militancy, and that had a very
positive impact on building the anti-war sentiment. Hopefully today's new
(potentially) anti-imperialist can understand that.
Alan Spector
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: what the masses do
> At 11:51 AM 8/1/01 -0700,
Richard N Hutchinson wrote:
> >I don't think this points to any of the
organized groups' strategies as
> >being the correct one. It
simply points to the fact that "the masses"
> >(including those shot
down at Jackson and Kent State, for instance) had
> >their own views of
the situation that did not correspond to the views of
> >any of the
"politicos."
>
> I'd say as a rule of thumb that the
Trotskyist-dominated Student
> Mobilization Committee Against the War in
Vietnam was swimming against the
> stream in the 1960s and early 70s.
While the rest of the student movement
> was acting out fantasies about
being some kind of Vietcong within the
> American borders, SMC activists
were trained--and I use the word
> advisedly--to avoid what were called
"confrontations" at the time. Looking
> back in retrospect, nearly every
outburst against the war was useful but it
> was only the boring and
respectable mass demonstrations that encouraged
> GI's to turn against the
war.
>
> This was something I posted to the Marxism list yesterday
that gets to the
> heart of some of these questions in reply to Joćo Paulo
Monteiro, a
> Portuguese subscriber and critical supporter of the black
bloc.
>
> ====
>
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:02:03 +0100,
Joćo Paulo Monteiro wrote:
> >Could it be that you're getting old,
Lou?
>
> Actually I am no different than I was at 21 years old when
I hooked
> up with the Trotskyist movement.
>
> Let me
amplify on this since it gets to the heart not only of my
> political
beliefs but how I have led my life. Part one is a reply I
> offered today
on the alt.politics.socialism.trotsky newsgroup to a
> former member of
the Healyite organization. Part two is an expansion
> of the story found
in part one.
>
> Part one
>
> "Stephen R. Diamond"
<stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
"But, let me ask you this: what is the mechanism by which protests,
>
even mass protests, contribute to radicalization? This is more an
>
honest question than you probably will realize."
>
> It depends on
what you mean by radicalization. I was not radicalized
> by demonstrating
against the war. Instead it encouraged me to believe
> that I was not
alone in opposing the war. My first demonstration was
> in NYC in 1966,
which brought out more than 40,000 people. It was the
> inaugurating
event of the 5th Avenue Peace Parade Committee, a
> coalition of the SWP,
the CP and pacifists.
>
> Prior to this demo I was utterly
convinced that I was the only person
> in NYC opposed to the war. I was a
philosophy student at the New
> School Graduate Faculty and had never
really given much thought to
> politics. I identified with Camus,
Nietzsche, etc.
>
> Leading up to the demonstration, I noticed
posters and stickers
> showing up all over the place. On the subways and
on lampposts.
> Little did I suspect that these notices would touch a
nerve in so
> many people.
>
> After the demonstration, I
began talking politics more and more with
> classmates including a guy
named Arthur Maglin, who was in the SWP.
> He seemed to have many answers
but I found him totally inflexible.
> Why couldn't electing better
Democrats end the war? I wouldn't admit
> it to him but I sort of knew
the answer to this myself. I had voted
> for LBJ, like a shmuck. Look
what it got me. As much as I found
> myself annoyed with Maglin, I kept
talking to him.
>
> Finally about a year later, I went to work in
Harlem as a welfare
> investigator and discovered real poverty for the
first time in my
> life. I was completely shocked. Then, 5 months into
the job, Detroit
> exploded.
>
> Everything Maglin had been
telling me now started to make sense. I
> asked him about classes on
socialism and he was happy to oblige. So
> while this does not really
answer your question about the effect of
> mass demonstrations, it does
point in the direction of a *process*.
>
> All I can tell you is
this. If the SDS demonstration in Washington
> the previous year had the
character of the Genoa protest, I never
> would have left my apartment to
demonstrate in NYC.
>
> Part 2
>
> If there was
anything I was not interested in at this point, it was
> the "new left"
SDS'ers who appeared to be nothing but pipe-smoking
> sociology grad
students at the New School. Sitting around the
> cafeteria holding
endless bull sessions about "elites" and
> "domination," the last thing
on their mind seemed to be concrete
> activity against the war in
Vietnam. As the rough equivalent of the
> "autonomists" of their day, I
suppose that their reliance on C.
> Wright Mills and Herbert Marcuse was
a step up from Hardt and Negri.
> Years later I discovered that many, if
not all of them, were "red
> diaper babies" who were educated in
"progressive" values by their CP
> parents, but were hostile to the
notion of revolution, "democratic
> centralism", the working class as
agent of change or any of the stuff
> they heard around the breakfast
table growing up.
>
> As I was looking for was the most serious,
disciplined and focused
> revolutionary organization around, the SWP
seemed to fit the bill.
> However, like most radicals, I was not above
doing a little "shopping
> around". Victor Marrow, another classmate at
the New School who was
> also my room-mate for a time at Bard College,
was a contact of the
> Maoist Progressive Labor Party, which was
considered much more
> fire-breathing than the SWP. One of their
African-American leaders,
> Bill Epton, had been arrested for fomenting a
riot in
> Harlem--something that was a real plus in my eyes.
>
> So while taking introduction to socialism classes with the Trotskyist
> SWP on one evening, I'd take the same kind of class with the Maoists
> on another. Jake Rosen, the PLP class leader, was highly touted by
> Victor, since he was a carpenter. The image of a Maoist hardhat was
> certainly appealing, but--alas--the reality was anything but. Jake,
> who sat cross-legged on his sofa in his bare feet, while picking at
> his toes, had little else to say except that "society was divided
> into classes" and that "only the working class had the power to
> change society". Not I was getting the same thing from the SWP in a
> more sophisticated version, they were obviously much more deeply
> involved with the Vietnam antiwar movement. Furthermore, they weren't
> into the cult of Stalin as the PLP was. Mao was okay with me-Stalin
> definitely not.
>
> When I came into join the SWP, they
introduced me to Eddie Shaw, the
> branch organizer in NYC. Eddie was not
only about the same age as my
> father, but dressed identically when he
was in his weekend "good
> clothes". This meant a blousy short-sleeved
white shirt with vents in
> the sleeves and gray gabardine pants. The big
difference between him
> and my old man was the large tattoo on his
bicep, which Jews were
> prevented from wearing for liturgical reasons
(you had to leave the
> world the same way you came in, or else you
couldn't get buried in a
> Jewish cemetery. I never heard of anybody
actually being banned in
> this fashion.)
>
> At this
meeting I learned a little bit about Eddie. He was in the
> merchant
marines during WWII, where he was recruited by the
> Trotskyist movement,
and also when he got the tattoo. During the
> early 1960s he became the
national chair of the Fair Play for Cuba
> Committee and a highly visible
"subversive" in FBI terms. The day
> that JFK got shot, Eddie returned
home to discover his apartment
> building surrounded by NYC police cars.
They were looking for him.
> This was no accident since one of the most
famous pictures of Lee
> Harvey Oswald shows him with a rifle in one hand
and a copy of the
> Militant, the SWP newspaper, in the other.
>
> Another high-profile Trotskyist from Eddie's generation could also be
> seen in the headquarters all the time. He was high-profile in more
> ways than one. At 6'5" tall and 350 pounds, Fred Halstead could not
> be missed even in a crowd. Now in charge of the party's antiwar work,
> he was a garment cutter during most of the 1960s. During the 1950s,
> when he was on a black list, he worked for a time as a bouncer in
> "redneck" bars in Los Angeles.
>
> Fred was a sailor in
WWII who became involved in a mass movement that
> was key to the party's
understanding of the strategic goal of the
> antiwar movement. Stationed
with tens of thousands of other GI's in
> the Pacific arena, Fred
discovered that they were not being shipped
> home after Japan
surrendered. The word went out that they were going
> to be redeployed
against the Chinese revolution. When word of this
> spread out, radicals
in the military ranks organized a huge "Bring Us
> Home" movement that
ultimately forced the US to pull back. One of the
> key organizers was
Ernie Mazey, a UAW sitdown strike veteran, who
> Fred mentions in his
pamphlet on the movement. What he does not
> mention unfortunately is
that Ernie was a central leader of the
> Cochranite opposition.
>
> Although the "Bring Us Home" movement was never widely discussed in
> the party press, there is little doubt that everything it did was
> calculated to replicate something like this in the Vietnam war. In
> plain English, their goal was to foment a troop revolt. In order to
> accomplish this, the peace demonstrations had to be very
>
"respectable" or else the GI's would have never considered joining
> the
movement. While the GI's might be won over in the process-and
> they
were-the pipe-smoking sociology majors in SDS at the New School
> would
not be. That was fine with me.
>
> Although Fred Halstead is long
dead and the SWP no longer resembles
> the organization I joined--even if
you squint--I still retain the
> vision of what they were trying to do.
For me the purpose of a
> revolutionary movement is not to galvanize the
already radicalized
> into some kind of "affinity group" in black masks
or white coveralls,
> it is to reach the masses who have the power not
only to end a war
> but change society. While this work can be
frustrating at times, it
> is the only one that can have a real pay-off
in the end.
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list:
http://www.marxmail.org
>