[Mb-hair] HAiR - 1968 And Still Relevant Today

[John Zuehlke]

What is it, 1968, that makes it so damn relevant?

I received the following article in my e-mail, and I decided to post it onto
the HAiR list because, IMHO, it gives a pretty good comparison between what
was going on in 1968 and what is happening now. Especially interesting is
the information about how the peace movement back then was co-opted and
divided, with a significant faction being re-captured by the Democratic
Party, which was almost as pro-war as the Republicans. This schism within
the peace movement is being repeated today!
Hope it provokes some thought.


Blessed be with peace, freedom, and happiness,
John

=========================THE ARTICLE===========================
Anti-war movement at critical juncture
Into the streets or into the Democratic Party?
By Richard Becker

What has caused President George W. Bush's approval ratings to plummet to
new lows?

Certainly his numerous anti-worker and generally anti-people policies-such
as the proposed privatization of Social Security-have generated growing
popular opposition.

But without a doubt, the main cause of the deepening sense of crisis in
Washington is the resistance to U.S. occupation in Iraq. In the 27 months
since the invasion of Iraq, the world's most powerful military has failed to
defeat the armed opposition to occupation. In fact, the resistance forces
appear to be more numerous, organized and capable than ever.

As the casualty figures continue to rise, a number of secret documents like
the "Downing Street Memo" have emerged that prove the Bush administration
fabricated the justifications for attacking Iraq. The recently leaked "Memo"
contains the secret minutes of a British government meeting in July 2002. It
reveals that the Bush administration decided in advance to attack Iraq and
that subsequently "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy."

Many military analysts, including some inside the Pentagon, have expressed
the view that the resistance cannot be defeated militarily. This does not
mean the U.S. commanders have reversed their course. The occupation
troops-the real "foreign fighters" in Iraq-have intensified sharply the
repressive and brutal violence carried out against Iraqis in recent weeks.
The increasingly indiscriminate violence of their counter-insurgency
operations, however, has failed to halt or even slow the accelerating tempo
of resistance attacks. The number of casualties suffered by the U.S.
military and the Iraqi puppet army has risen dramatically over the past
three months.

Fissures at the top

The failures of the occupation forces have generated mass discontent over
the war, and also opened fissures within the ruling establishment. Had the
occupation been the "cakewalk" predicted by top U.S. officials, we would not
hear the criticisms now articulated by some Democrats and a few Republicans
in Congress.

These changes in the U.S. political landscape present the anti-war and
progressive movement with great opportunities. They also sharply pose the
question: should the movement become the tail to the kite of ruling class
politicians or should it instead try to develop into an independent
anti-imperialist movement? The two principal anti-war coalitions in the
United States take dramatically different positions on this issue.

The movement has the opportunity to reach out to millions of people who have
never demonstrated-or even imagined themselves protesting-against the
government. As living standards erode and health care costs soar, more
working people have become angered by the war's human and financial costs.

The ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition wants to develop
the power of this incipient movement as an independent political force. By
contrast, the leadership of United for Peace and Justice seeks to subjugate
it to the capitalist politicians who speak out against the war. This could
potentially render the movement harmless and ineffective, no matter the size
of the anti-war demonstration.

Pitfalls of looking to the Democrats

It is essential for the anti-war movement to make an objective and sober
assessment of the various forces in the struggle.
Since the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, most Democrats and Republicans
have supported the war and occupation-and they still do. Just a few weeks
ago, the Senate voted 99-0 in favor of the new $82 billion "supplementary"
appropriations bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the House of Representatives, Democrat Lynn Woolsey recently called for
Bush to submit a plan within 60 days for the withdrawal of U.S. troops at an
unnamed future date. Woolsey's plan also called for the United States to
turn over the occupation to the United Nations, an organization dominated by
the U.S. government, which administered the genocidal sanctions against Iraq
for 13 years.

Another recent Democratic proposal called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops to
begin by October 2006. A resolution introduced by House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi called for Bush to simply establish "criteria" for troop
withdrawal.
Although both proposals were defeated, UFPJ was ecstatic about the
congressional "opposition" to the war. Neither of these proposals set a
timetable for complete withdrawal. This is no coincidence.

In reality, Democrats have no more intention of leaving Iraq than
Republicans. There is near unanimity within the U.S. capitalist ruling
class-and therefore also among its political representatives-about the
importance of retaining control over Iraq and the entire Middle East. Such
domination is only achievable by military means.

But even if substantial numbers of U.S. troops were withdrawn, the U.S.
plans to establish 14 U.S. military bases in Iraq. The Pentagon hopes to
build a proxy Iraqi military force to take the place of U.S. troops and thus
reduce the political cost incurred by continued U.S. casualties. They hope
that having Iraqis kill Iraqis will also obscure the anti-occupation
character of the resistance.

In the Vietnam War, the U.S. government employed a similar tactic of
"Vietnamization," which aimed to build up the puppet army of south Vietnam
in order to speed up the withdrawal of U.S. forces. The tactic failed in
Vietnam and has not been successful in Iraq. No military officials have
expressed great confidence in the U.S.-created Iraqi army and police, which
the resistance has repeatedly targeted, infiltrated and disrupted.

Bipartisan agreement on global domination

Despite a tiny handful of dissenters in Washington-none of whom are in the
leadership of either party-Democrats and Republicans are both committed to
the continued occupation of Iraq, just as they are to the continued
occupation of Palestine, and the control of the entire region. Both support
the Bush administration's hostility toward Syria and Iran, and the
occupation of Afghanistan.

Their bipartisan consensus is not just limited to the Middle East. Whether
it's Haiti, Colombia, Venezuela and Cuba in Latin America, North Korea and
the Philippines in Asia, or Sudan and Zimbabwe in Africa, the Democrats and
Republican stand together, committed to aggression and intervention in
pursuit of global hegemony. They disagree only on tactics-on how to best
achieve their shared objective.

This understanding is an essential element of the anti-imperialist outlook
of the ANSWER Coalition. ANSWER believes that it is critically important for
the developing anti-war movement-particularly inside the United States-to
consciously stand against imperialism and in solidarity with those who are
resisting U.S. domination. Without this understanding, the movement will be
constantly subjected to manipulation by the liberal and conservative
factions of the ruling establishment.

The drive toward war and domination is built into the capitalist system. It
is not a mere option that can be chosen by some presidents and legislators
and rejected by others. Moreover, all U.S. leaders assume that the United
States has a natural right to be the world's dominant power. All of them,
regardless of party affiliation, vote annually for a Pentagon budget that is
larger than the combined military budgets of all other countries on the
planet.

The already monstrous military-industrial-banking-oil complex grows
regardless of whether the Democrats or Republicans hold the majority in
Congress, or control the White House. That war machine demands ever-greater
markets for capital and goods, and occupies an increasingly central role in
the U.S. economy. Without its massive war sector, the U.S. capitalist
economy would be in far deeper crisis than it is today.

Likewise, regardless of which capitalist party is holding sway, the drive to
maximize profits marches on-cutting workers' wages, benefits and social
programs, busting unions, degrading the environment and diminishing civil
rights and liberties.
Placing the leadership of the people's movement in the hands of the
Democrats can only lead to demoralization and disorientation. Although
Republicans are commonly associated with barefaced exploitative policies,
the Democratic Party has played a special role in preserving the same
exploitative political and economic system.

The Republicans are openly the party of big capital and business, which
thrives off a voter base that is comprised of the most reactionary, racist,
sexist, anti-labor, homophobic and national chauvinist elements in society.

Similar financial and corporate interests control the Democrats, who
nonetheless promote themselves as the party of the "common people." The
Democrats perform a key function in the U.S. political system-absorbing
millions of activists from progressive and radical movements. Historically,
they have drained away resources and activists from militant movements,
rendering them relatively harmless to the system.

1968: 'Get clean for Gene'

The year 1968 provides a dramatic example of this phenomenon. The anti-war
movement experienced qualitative growth in 1967, with huge demonstrations in
the spring and fall. At the end of January 1968 came the dramatic Tet
Offensive, a turning point in the war. The conditions existed for a wide
broadening of the movement.

At that time, Eugene McCarthy, Democratic senator from Minnesota, running on
a mildly anti-war program that called for "negotiations" rather than
withdrawal, launched his primary campaign against the incumbent Democrat,
President Lyndon Johnson.

Thousands of newly activated youth rallied to the call to "Get Clean for
Gene." Getting "clean" wasn't just about grooming habits; it was about
playing down radicalism to be more appealing to so-called
"middle-of-the-road voters."

McCarthy's strong showing in the 1968 New Hampshire primary and Johnson's
decision to quit the race proved that opposition to the Vietnam War was on
the rise, and could have spurred the movement's most massive popular
outpourings yet.

Instead, tens of thousands of activists were drawn into the McCarthy
campaign, and even larger numbers to Robert F. Kennedy's bid for the
presidency. Kennedy's position on the war was similar to McCarthy's. These
campaigns were both short-lived.

On June 5, 1968, Kennedy was assassinated after winning the California
primary. McCarthy's campaign had already lost momentum by that point, and
the Democratic nominee became a pro-war candidate, Hubert Humphrey, who lost
in the general election to Nixon.

Due to the election campaigns of the mildly anti-war Democrats, there were
no nationally planned mass anti-war marches in 1968, unlike 1967 and 1969.
There were many independent, local and increasingly radical anti-war actions
in 1968, but the main anti-war coalition did not initiate national actions.
The largest anti-war protest in 1968 took place in July, outside the
Democratic National Convention in Chicago. On the orders of the Chicago's
Democratic mayor, Richard J. Daley, Chicago cops viciously attacked, beat
and jailed the demonstrators. Many of the same young people who a year
earlier had marched in the streets alongside those beaten outside, watched
it all take place from inside the convention center.

Once the election was over, the anti-war movement was able to regain its
momentum. Huge protests took place in the following years. But 1972 was in
many ways a repetition of 1968, as large numbers of anti-war and other
progressive activists entered McGovern's presidential campaign. While there
were many militant protests in 1972, there were no mass anti-war marches
that year, as there were in both 1971 and 1973.

September 24 and the anti-war movement

By early May 2005, it was apparent that the rising level of resistance in
Iraq, and the growing popular opposition to the war and the Bush
administration's policies had again created the potential for large-scale
protests.

On May 12, the ANSWER Coalition called for a mass, unified anti-war protest
in Washington, D.C. to take place on Sept. 24. ANSWER's call is clearly
anti-imperialist, with a central slogan of "Stop the War in Iraq-End
Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine to Haiti." It also raises demands
related to U.S. intervention and threats against a number of other countries
being targeted by Washington, and links the international struggle to the
fight against the racist, anti-immigrant, anti-labor offensive and attack on
people's rights in the United States.

Eleven days later, UFPJ leaders issued their own call for a Washington
demonstration on the same date, focused almost exclusively on the Iraq war
and its impact at home. In its first statement regarding Sept. 24, UFPJ
announced that under no circumstances would it agree to hold a united
demonstration with ANSWER.

Since that time, it has become apparent that the UFPJ leadership is veering
to the right. On the UFPJ website, graphics of an American flag, the Statue
of Liberty and the Capitol building, mix with rapturous praise of members of
Congress.

The UFPJ leaders are preparing their coalition and anyone else they can
bring along for the 2006 elections, when their cry will be "Take Back
Congress"-i.e., regain Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. This
orientation is as fatal for the progressive movement now as it was in 1968.

The only way to end the occupation and radically change the political
climate inside the United States is to build a united mass movement
independent of bourgeois political parties and their anti-working class
policies.



(Articles may be reprinted with credit to Socialism and Liberation magazine.
Reprinted from the Socialism and Liberation Magazine Web Site
www.socialismandliberation.org/mag
Published by the Party for Socialism and Liberation
National offices: SF: (415) 821-6171 DC: (202) 543-4900
E-mail: info at socialismandliberation.org
www.socialismandliberation.org/PSLsite)