new boundaries six march 1981
Post on 06-Mar-2016
217 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
NEW BOUNDARIES NO. 6 MARCH 1981
WIN WHITE SUPPORTFOR NEW BOUNDARIES
CONTENTS
I Introduction 1
II Revolutionaries and Abolitionists 3
III Glory Days Revisited: U.S. Whites Duringthe Depression and World War II 11
IV The Civil Rights Movement 25
V The Anti-War Movement 33
VI The Present 43
Send printed material to
H. MARTIN
Box 2761, D.^r'mculh Easf*
Novo Sco'ia Canada
B2W 4R4
Send correspondence to
G. SMITH
>x 102, Lakeside, Nova f- ;uCanada 60.1 1Z0
A list of New Boundaries publications is on the back cover.
-1-
I
INTRODUCTION
Just over one-hundred years ago, white abolitionists capped
decades of consistent sacrifices and risked execution to fight with
Black troops in the Civil War. Their dedication moved other whites
to join the anti-slavery cause and contributed in a significant way
to Emancipation, a big step for the New African nation. Today, Black
liberation remains to be won and white support is urgently needed.
The legacy of the abolitionists must be carried on.
Our goal is to help create new boundaries in North America
based on justice, on real self-determination of nations. To- reach this
end, we must develop white support for the struggles of oppressed
peoples within the United States. The predominant force in mobilizing
whites is the strength and clarity of the oppressed peoples1 struggles.
We are greatly encouraged, therefore, by the growing unity of the Afro-
American, Puerto Rican and Mexican liberation movements. Pro-
independence organizations representing these people have recently come out
-2-
strongly in favor of told and state power for all three nations. Native
Peoples are also involved in courageous struggles to defend their land
and culture.
What prompted us to write a paper on U.S. whites at this time?
We came to question our past total rejection of white Americans. We had
considered most of them to be too poisoned by great power chauvinism for
recruitment into the anti-imperialist struggle. Hence, we devoted our
efforts to theoretical development and considered most practical work
as adventurist and unrealistic. Yet, it is significant that several
white organizations in the U.S. have made support to national liber
ation forces their main goal in recent years.
We note particularly the support given to the Republic of New Africa
and its program for liberation of land in the South. Because the New
African struggle plays a key role in the U.S. anti-imperialist movement,
support to Black liberation is an essential issue on which to evaluate
whites who participate in the movement.
Our efforts to understand why these progressive organizations are
developing now and where they came from have led us to study those U.S.
whites who played positive roles in earlier struggles. Selected periods,
the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Depression, Civil Rights and
anti-war movements will be discussed. We hope to determine why some whites
(at times only a small minority) took a positive stand on the issues of
the day and how we can best use these lessons to further our goals: the
defeat of imperialism and victory for the national liberation struggles.
-3-
REVOLUTIONARIES AND ABOLITIONISTS
Since its earliest days, the history of the white nation in the
United States has been tarnished by slavery of Africans and genocide
against Native Peoples. There were, however, times when our nation was
able to play a more positive role in the world. We take as an example
the two great events of our early history: the American Revolution
and the Civil War.
The Revolution
The United States has been for some years the main bulwark of
imperialism and- reaction in the world. Once, however, the
United States was a revolutionary center struggling against one
of the main colonialist powers. Even then, only a few Americans
thought that the ideas contained in the Declaration of Independence
should apply to non-Europeans. Nevertheless, this document says
"all men are created equal" and has been often paraphrased by revol
utionaries from Bolivar to Ho Chi Minh. New African comedian Dick
-4-
Gregory gives a forceful reading of it on one of his records.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuinginvariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce themE tl™IT* dfsP°tlsm> ic *• their right, it is their dutyto throw off such government, and to provide new guards fortheir future security.
"The Declaration, whatever the sober intentions of its signers, wasinescapably a revolutionary document, and although it bound no one toanything but independence, it remained as a consecrated statement ofrevolutionary purpose to which American radicalism thereafter could alwaysappeal, reminding Americans that the American Way was arevolutionarytradition."1
In New Boundaries we have not followed this tradition. Because it isimportant to expose as false the idea that any large sector of the whitenation can be won over to support the oppressed nations today, we, havestressed its weaknesses in the past. The evidence is not hard to find.In spite of the fine words, the American Revolution brought about arapidgrowth of slavery and increased genocide against the Native Peoples.At this time, we want to look back and see if the small minority of ournation who want to support the oppressed peoples can find some roots.
When John Brown was vilified for causing bloodshed and committingacts of treason against the duly constituted government, WendellPhillips and Henry David Thoreau defended him partly on the groundsthat the heroes of the American Revolution did the same and for much lessreason. If we can use Jefferson's words to defend New Africans, PuertoRicans and patriots of other oppressed nations that will be afine thing.If we can use Jefferson's words to organize white Americans to support aRepublic of New Africa, that will be even better. Nevertheless, we mustbear in mind that millions of Americans will not be won over just becausewe quote from past presidents.
-5-
Beside the formulation of some good ideas, did the American Revolu
tion contribute to the struggle of oppressed nations in any material
way? By weakening England, the most aggressive colonialist power, the
American Revolution shook the whole colonial system. By stimulating
the revolution in France the colonial system was further destabilized.
By weakening the colonial system and by providing an example of a suc
cessful revolution the Americans surely helped precipitate the revolu
tions in Haiti and in the Spanish colonies. The ending of slavery in
Haiti and Mexico surely brought nearer the day when it was ended in
the British empire and eventually in the United States.
In the past we may have been too negative about the revolution but
most Marxists have been too positive. Lenin said:
The history of modern, civilized America opened with one ofthose great, really liberating, really revolutionary warsof which there have been so few compared to the vast numberof wars of conquest which, like the present imperialist war,were caused by squabbles among kings, landowners or capitalists over the division of usurped lands or ill gotten gains.That was the war the American people waged against the British robbers who oppressed America and held her in colonialslavery, in the same way as these "civilized" bloodsuckersare still oppressing and holding in colonial slavery hundreds of millions of people in India, Egypt and all parts ofthe world.
In reality, of course, the American Revolution was very much a
struggle over usurped lands of Native Peoples and ill-gotten gains
from slavery. The oppression of English settlers in America was
qualitatively different from the oppression of India and Egypt. The
Haitian Revolution, which pitted slaves directly against planters and
colonial power would be a better example of a "really liberating,
really revolutionsry war." The Haitian Revolution has been ignored
by leading Marxists.
There was, of course, a revolutionary aspect to the American
Revolution from the point of view of the classes within the white nation,
The farmers and workers gained some power as well as formal political
-6-
rights and many of the rich fled to Canada as Loyalists. In the
North feudal and colonial restrictions on industry were ended. For
all the talk about democracy there was surprisingly little talk about
slavery. However, there was some.
The first anti-slavery society in the world was organizedin Philadelphia five days before the battle of Lexingtonand Concord, "at a time," the society noted, "when justice,liberty, and the laws of the land are general topics amongmost ranks and stations of men." During the 1780*s slaverywas abolished in one after another of the states north ofMaryland, freeing about 50,000. In the meantime twice asmany slaves were freed in Virginia through manumission aswere freed in Massachusetts through abolition.
This shows that the struggle for democracy within the \Shite nation
had a small beneficial effect on the Blacks, at least in the short
run. The main aspect, however, is that slavery was left intact in
the South where most of the slaves lived.
Jefferson himself recognized that slaves also deserved the
democratic rights that white Americans demanded but he wasn't ready
to make a big fight over it. Perhaps he and other revolutionary
leaders honestly believed that slavery would fade away for economic
reasons or as part of the general movement toward democracy. It
soon became evident that things were moving the other way.
In 1806 a Rhode Island abolitionist observed that members of
"the young and rising generation felt less repugnance against slavery
than did older men who had lived through the inspiring days of the
American Revolution." It was not until the early 1830's under the
influence of Walker's Appeal and Nat Turner's Rebellion that anti-
slavery sentiment began to grow again in the white nation.
The abolitionists seem to be the best model in our history for
those who want to support New Africans and other oppressed nations
today. Although their ranks grew dramatically leading up to the Civil
War they remained a minority. Abolitionists considered themselves and
were considered by others as a special part of the wider anti-slavery
-7-
forces. Unlike the Colonization Society, the Free-Soil movement or the
Republican Party, they believed that slavery was the main issue in
America and judged other issues in that light. They were against slavery
not from narrow self-interest but because they considered Blacks as humans
with the same rights as whites. They fought against racism because it was
an excuse for slavery. Their main weakness was that they did not, see any
thing positive in the culture of New Africans but saW only the^.nsgativeeffects of slavery which they felt kept New Africans from being justlike them. ^ \
Although the Civil War largely resulted in the domination of the
South by Northern industry rather than slaveholders, the capitalists them
selves did not favor abolition. It was the Black nation which finallyforced the ending of slavery. Within the white nation the abolitionists
tried to represent their interests. Although a few were rich (Gerritt
Smith, the Tappans) they certainly did not have the backing of the wealthyand respectable classes. Nor did they have much support among the workingclass. Early Marxists did not throw themselves into abolitionist work.
Their main interest was union organizing, which was not the most importantissue of the day. It is true that their newspapers and meetings didoccasionally make anti-slavery statements and the German Immigrant workersthat they represented were more anti-slavery than the rest of the workingclass. However, letters written by Marx and Eng els to American Marxistsdid not mention slavery until the Civil War was actually underway and eventhen not very much.
The abolitionists were mainly middle-class intellectuals, especiallyministers. Some came from or represented the small farmers who hated
slavery because it competed with them for land and limited their markets
in the South. The Quakers played an Important role in the abolitionist
movement, at least in terms of numbers. Most of them were farmers or
businessmen. Eventually their pacifism outlived its usefulness.
-8-
An Uphill Struggle
In the 1830's the distinguishing feature of the abolitionists wasthe slogan "Immediate Emancipation". It was not popular. "It was arare abolitionist lecturer in the 1830's who did not repeatedly faceharassment from mobs. Henry B. Stanton recalled that he was mobbed onehundred and fifty times before 1840."6
The depression conditions of the late 1840's gave abolitionists a
wider audience among people who saw that slavery was hurting the economy.Their main break with northern opinion came over the war against Mexico.The abolitionists opposed the war as they had the annexation of Texas
because it was an extension of slavery. Their opposition to slavery madethem the main force to support Mexico against Yankee aggression. Al
though their opposition was not very effective they did break with the
"patriotic" manifest-destiny sentiments of the North and South.
The slogan of many abolitionists in the 1850's was "No union with
slaveholders."
This slogan was on the face of it an expression of non-resistant, pacifist conviction—one would not fight evil but ratherwould turn away from it. But the slogan had another bloodieraspect that has frequently been overlooked, although its proponentsat the time were fully aware of it. Abolitionists believed thatslavery was sustained by the coercive power of the federal government. Remove that power by dissolving the_Union and slaverywould collapse in a great slave rebellion.
Many abolitionists finally dropped their pacifism under the influence
of the more numerous and militant Black abolitionists*. Henry Highland Garnet
laid great emphasis on revolutionary action by the slaves.
The practical application of the slogan "No union with slaveholders" was
to disobey federal law which was seen as being controlled by the slave-owners.
The Fugitive Slave Law was a center of opposition. Activity increased drama
tically on the Underground Railroad. In addition, federal slave-catchers in the
North were confronted sometimes by anti-slavery mobs and sometimes by small armed
bands both white and Black. In Kansas John Brown taught the free-soil settlers
-9-
to take the law into their own hands and strike back at the slave
owners. The abolitionists were winning some converts and were at
least tolerated by the majority in the North. John Brown "could walk
the Northern streets boldly and solicit aid for purposes which were
recognizably subversive, but which he was not called upon specific-Q
ally to declare'.' Aid was forthcoming in the form of "Beecher's
Bibles", the Sharps rifle, which was becoming an important tool of the
abolitionists.
Finally, John Brown carried the struggle a step further by
invading the South at Harpers Ferry. This act, though unsuccessful,
helped push the country towards a war which New Africans could use
to end chattel slavery. John Brown's raid was important because
there were forces in the North who supported him. William Lloyd
Garrison quickly dissociated himself from Brown but he had to admit,
"whereas ten years since there were thousands who could not endure mylightest rebuke of the South, they can now swallow John Brown whole, andhis rifle into the bargain."
John Brown was not the only one to repudiate-pacifism. At the
beginning of the Civil War many abolitionists volunteered to fightsince most of the regular army went with the South. It was mainly
the abolitionists who volunteered to serve with Black troops whichmeant certain death if captured.
A few forces continued to operate during Reconstruction when
some poor southern whites were also won over tto support New African
struggles against the planter class. They were eventually destroyed bythe Klan and the treachery of the Federal government. In New
Boundaries No. 3, we emphasized the reactionary, self-serving and
treacherous nature of the white nation as a whole during the Civil
War and Reconstruction. That is important to remember for it is true
today that New Africans cannot rely on the majority of the white
nation, no matter how liberal or democratic it claims to be. It is
also important to remember that there were many people who struggled
and sacrificed in support of an oppressed people.
-10-
The abolitionists did not really survive the Civil War as anorganized political force. Their main goal, the end of slavery, wasaccomplished. Not many of them were able to organize around the nextstep which the Black leaders and masses demanded—forty acres and a mule,Even most of the Black leaders at that time did not see that the trueapplication of the great democratic ideals in,tne Declaration of Independence would not be Black and white equalfty\within the United States.Today, another century has added to that "lon§ train of abuses andusurpations" and convinced many New African lekders that they mustfight for their own independence. To support this leadership we mustlook to the revolutionaries and abolitionists of our own nation, notonly as a source of inspiration but as a challenge to do even better.
***
1. Gilman Ostrander, The Rights of Man in America, 1606-1861.University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri, 1969.
2. Vladimir I. Lenin, Letter to American Workers. Progress Publishers,Moscow, 1966, pp.3-4l
3. Ostrander, p. 98.
4. Merton L. Dillon, The Abolitionists: The Growth of a DissentingMinority, Northern Illinois University Press, Dekalb,Illinois»1974,p.18.
5. New Boundaries ;No. 3, 1979.
6. Dillon, p.76.
7. Dillon, p.152.
8. Louis Filler, The Crusade Against Slavery, 1830-1860, Harper&Row,New York, 1960, p.242.
9. Howard Zinn, "Abolitionists, Freedom Riders and the Tactics ofAgitation,", in Martin Duberman, ed., The Anti-Slavery Vanguard,Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1965, p.432.
-11-
III
GLORY DAYS REVISITEDU.S. WHITES DURING THE DEPRESSION AND WORLD WAR II
During the Great Depression of the 1930's and World War II,millions of U.S. whites were politically active in causes which werebeneficial to oppressed peoples. The experiences of strikes and ofbattles in Spain and World War II are often cited as precedents forpresent and future actions by whites in opposition to U.S. Imperialism.This section examines selected aspects of this period. We focus onhow white movements related to Afro-Americans and other oppressedpeoples.
Causes of the Great Depression
The Great Depression started in the U.S. and spread to Europeanimperialist countries already weakened by World War I and the economicand political impacts of the Russian Revolution. Hardest hit wereoppressed nations —within Imperialist borders, in colonies and semi-colonies.
-12-
Overproduction and underconsumption were two principal causesof the Depression. During the 1920's, U.S. industrial productionspurted almost 50%. Much of the growth came from automation, as thelabor force did not increase. Surplus built up in the hands ofcapitalists as profits multiplied far faster than wages. Some ofthe profits were reinvested in new plants and equipment bringing thecrisis of overproduction closer. The surplus of investment funds also
fed the stock market boom driving up prices of financial securities
without creating anything new of real value. By 1929, consumer
purchases of homes, automobiles, and other goods were slowing down.
Cutbacks in production of consumer goods led to cancellation of orders
for construction, machine-tools, steel and other capital goods.
Unemployment was the result leading to further drops in purchases of
consumer items.
International trade also helped to destabilize the economy as
European and oppressed nations piled up loans to buy U.S. exports.
As their credit became exhausted, foreign nations had to reduce
purchases of U.S. exports and to default on past loans.
The stock market crash destabilized the financial system and
brought these fundamental economic problems to a crisis point the
U.S. economy could not continue on course.
The breakdown of U.S. industry triggered the collapse of farm
prices because agriculture never recovered from the depression just
after World War I and was already depressed. Further, European
capitalist economies tumbled when the financial shock from the U.S.
hit. European countries had suffered far more during World War I
and, as a result, never enjoyed a boom during the 1920's.
But the worst damage of all fell to oppressed nations. While
industrial production dropped to half the 1929 level in the U.S.,
export economies of oppressed nationswere almost wiped out. In Chile
and Bolivia , for example, exports fell to 20% of the 1929 figure.
-13-
Colonial Africa, too, was hit by a large decline in its exports of
primary products. To make things even worse, the prices of those
agricultural and primary products that still had a market fell faster
than industrial prices leaving the colonial economies with greatly
reduced purchasing power. These conditions led to a surge of revolu
tionary activities in oppressed nations, notably in South and Central
America including Cuba, Chile and El Salvador.
Within U.S. borders, Blacks were hit especially hard by the
Depression. Within the agricultural sector, even worse off than indus
try, southern Black sharecroppers were driven off the land. North and
South, Black workers were fired so that whites could take their jobs'.
Depression Conditions for Whites
Everyone has some idea of the conditions suffered by whites from
1929 through 1939. In 1932 one in four workers was unemployed. One
family in six was on relief. Relief measures were the responsibility of
each city and town and fell far short of what was needed. In some places,
only $2 or $3 per week was provided for an entire family. Some white
families faced real starvation. From the stock market crash in 1929 until
1932 the Hoover administration endorsed business's approach carried over
from earlier economic crises: wages were reduced up to 35%; the federal
budget remained balanced. The main activity of the federal government
was issuing bulletins of hope that "prosperity is right around the corner."
As the Depression worsened, whites increased their political
activity in support of programs which promised to recoup the losses in
living standards. They called on the federal government to take respon
sibility for relief measures and to institute programs to promote economic
recovery. The most popular government plan was Roosevelt's New Deal,
discussed briefly below. The same general theme encompassed mass move
ments which made stronger demands for relief from the federal government—
Bonus Marchers, Townsend Plan supporters, Father Coughlin's National Union
for Social Justice and Huey Long's Share-the-Wealth movement.
-14-
Resistance to the Depression also took the form of union organizingagainst wage cuts by which labor tried to shift some of the Depression'sburden to the capitalists.
A third avenue led to preserving white living standards at the expense of Blacks. Blacks were driven from land taken over by whites orfired from low-paying jobs to be replaced by white workers who, now thatthe boom of the 1920's was over, no longer scorned dirty jobs as janitorsor railway firemen. The movements for government reform and for union
organizing were also heavily tainted by white supremacy. Yet, the Depression and World War II periods did provide some positive examples showingthat the practical results of white supremacy can be neutralized to a
considerable extent when whites need Black support in order to advance
their immediate interests. The break comes when advances for Blacks set
back white living standards or when Blacks develop nationalist politics.
Movements along three themes—government reforms, labor organizing
and attacks on Blacks—were influenced by the examples of Communist Russia
and Nazi Germany. Russia was largely untouched by the Depression because
its planned economy was isolated from the West. The socialist system
seemed to be immune from the problems besetting the West and this enhanced
the prestige of U.S. Communists. The U.S. Communist Party aggressively
championed the unemployed and later led in organizing the CIO. Its
influence spread and membership grew from 14,000 in 1932 to 24,000 in 1934.6
The example of Nazi Germany was also influential during the Depres
sion. Hitler took power in 1933 and reduced unemployment through heavy
military spending. These arms were to be used to win higher living stan
dards for Germans by enslaving other nations. These tactics appealed
to a sizeable number of U.S. whites.
With the examples of Russia and Germany before them, mass movements
sought more action from the U.S. government.
-15-
Demands for Government Reforms
A wide range of political groups shared the demand that the federal
government reform the country out of the depths of the Depression. We
will discuss briefly four groups that were typical in combining pressurefor concessions from the government and capitalists with opportunisticmoves to seek relief at the expense of Blacks.
Father Coughlin was a Catholic priest who built a political careeraround aweekly radio program. The biggest radio audience in history-over 10 million people—listened to his weekly combination of socialprescription and invective. Father Coughlin was openly sympathetictoward fascism and preached hatred against Jews. His program fornational recovery through price linflatfon, was popular especially inthe Midwest.
Huey Long's Share-Our-Wealth plan called for taxing high incomes toprovide a homestead and other necessities for every family.7 Built onthis program, Long's political machine made him governor of Louisianaand later U.S. Senator with awide following among poor white farmers
Q
and white workers in the South. Long introduced some welfare
reforms for whites in his state without challenging the white supremacist base of its economy.
A third popular movement involved hundreds of thousands of backersof the Townsend old-age pension plan.9 It was proposed that every person over the age of 60 receive a pension of $200 per month to be financed
by a 2% tax on all business transactions. Although the plan was noteconomically feasible—it would have required about 25% of the totalnational income—support for pensions was very strong.
Another well-known Depression social movement centered on the
Okies fleeing the Dustbowl in search of a better existence in California.Around 250,000 came between 1930 and 1940. Very few got any land and theoverwhelming majority worked as agricultural laborers. The migrants lost
-16-
the immediate fight for better working conditions as is documented bySteinbeck in Grapes of Wrath. Yet, as the Depression ended, they settledin towns and became the "domestic" workers who enjoyed better conditionsthan transient Mexican workers. "It was from the ranks of domestics that , .the agriculture industry recruited row bosses, field foremen, checkersand camp overseers." V;YA.
• .' •' > \ *
Such movements and others like them reflected the determination of \"•>•''•whites to take some action rather than starve quietly and they forced theU.S. capitalists and federal government to institute reforms. The
adoption of Social Security, for example, was hastened by pressure fromLong and Townsend supporters. On the other hand, these movements concen
trated on whites and had many of the trappings of fascism. Although there
was a sizeable contingent of conscious anti-fascists rallied around the
Communist Party, there was also significant pro-fascist feeling. Fascism
failed to come to the U.S. not mainly because of resistance from U.S.
whites but because U.S. imperialism chose to maneuver in the liberal
cloak of the New Deal. As the dominant power, the U.S. sought to justify
the international balance of power where Hitler wanted to overturn it.
For example, the U.S. dominated the economies of Central America.
Without openly declaring it a U.S. colony, U.S. Marines landed in Nicar
agua to collect debts owed U.S. banks. In 1933 President Roosevelt
declared his "Good Neighbor Policy" proclaiming an end to U.S. intervention.
The intervention continued—in 1934 with U.S. blessing an assassin killed
General Sandino, namesake of today's anti-imperialist government in Nicar
agua. But the liberal "Good Neighbor" facade deceived people about the
goals of U.S. imperialism in Central and South America making its opera
tion far more effective than it would have been under the fascist
alternative.
Within U.S. borders the New Deal operated under the liberal banner
aiming to. restore depressed business conditions and r.eJ&«vethe plight of
U.S. whites. The buildup of war production from 1939 on was needed to
XX
-17-
get the economy to advance beyond 1929 levels, but New Deal programs
had led to a partial recovery.
Labor Organizing
On another front white workers won some important tactical advances
against their employers during the Depression. Major basic industries—
e.g. steel and auto—were organized for the first time and labor unions
won the legal rights to collective bargaining and a minimum wage.
During the Depression, the union movement of white workers received
important support from Black workers. In turn whites allowed Blacks to
join the CIO, removing the traditional bar still maintained at that time
by the AF of L. Whites also attacked Black workers, when, they sought fullequality. *
This section goes into selected aspects of the union movement concen
trating on relations between whites and Blacks. We agree with Foner
who summarized the work of his fellow Communists during the Depression:
...while the Communists never succeeded in building a revolutionary alliance between white labor and Black labor, theydid manage, aided by the impact of the Great Depression, tocreate a greater willingness on the part of white labor tocooperate with Blacks on the basis of mutual interest.12
The mutual interest seems to have been stronger in the North. In
the South, advances for Blacks were more clearly tied to demands for land.The Communist Party had a formal resolution in 1928 supporting self-determination for the Black nation in the South but it was never put into
13practice. The Communists put far more effort into winning white supportand international backing for the Scottsboro boys than for the AlabamaSharecroppers Union.
The National Recovery Act (NRA, 1933) and subsequent legislation
granted white labor the right to organize and some protection from the
most brutal anti-union tactics of employers. Minimum wage scales were
-18-
established for each industry. This represented an advance and spurred
unionization for whites. For Blacks the NRA legalized the prevailing
arrangement of lower wages. Employers in the South refused to pay
higher rates to Blacks. While this was not directly the fault of white
workers, many took advantage of the NRA to take over jobs formerly held
by Blacks. These whites considered NRA minimums "too much money for
Negroes". Blacks termed the NRA the "Negro Removal Act".
During the Depression, KKK terror and lynchings increased in the16
South. Organized labor was divided on the Klan. For example, Foner
tells how the Klan murdered CIO organizers working with Black citrus
workers in Florida in 1936. State leaders of the AF of L joined the
KKK and followers of Father Coughlin in opposition to the CIO. An
Imperial Wizard of the KKK praised the AF of L for its anti-Communism.
AF of L national leaders never endorsed the KKK but neither did they
investigate reports that AF of L members belonged. At the other extreme
the Southern Tenant Farmers' Union was able to recruit former KKK members.18
It organized under the lead of a white chairman and a Black vice-chairman.
According to Foster, "the building of the C.I.O. unions was the19
greatest stride forward ever made by the American labor movement." It
marked the all-time high point in the mass influence of the Communist Party
in the U.S. For, in spite of Depression conditions and increasing mili-
tance, before the CIO organized labor was in bad shape with fewer members20
in 1933 than in 1917. The CIO drive organized industries previously
without unions and brought labor into an influential position by 1940.
Although benefits for Blacks were limited and betrayals occurred, the CIO
was the best example of whites supporting Blacks in order to advance the
cause of white labor during the Depression era.
The CIO drive concentrated on two basic industries—steel and auto;
both had sizeable numbers of Blacks. Blacks had never shown any interest
in the overtures of white unions before. This was partly because they had
plenty of reasons to mistrust the sincerity of whites and in part due to
paternalistic support by employers for Black churches and fraternal groups.
-19-
Henry Ford was well regarded by many Blacks in Detroit. Yet the CIO did
succeed in organizing steel and auto because it won the support of Black
leaders like the National Negro Congress by promising equal membership
for Blacks.
The CIO's National Maritime Union (NMU) provided a fine example of
whites fighting for the rights of Black workers. The union instituted a
hiring hall system and one wage scale for all. Led by Communists, the
NMU carried on an education campaign to winwhite backing for this system.
There were incidents in which shipowners and some crews refused to
accept Blacks sent from the union halls but the NMU persevered and won.
In brief, during the late 1930's the CIO proved that whites were
willing to admit Blacks to the labor movement. Why has the attitude of
the industrial unionists degenerated to almost the same white supremacy
of the craft unions? We believe it is because white workers are no
longer down and out and because Black nationalism has surged ahead.
Support for Black demands today holds no promise of immediate gains
for whites as it did in the 1930's.
The Spanish Civil War and World War II
World War II was fought for many different causes. German, Italian
and Japanese imperialists sought to break the dominance of the U.S.,
England and France. They also sought to conquer the Soviet Union, then
the only large territory outside the control of any imperialist power.
The fascists introduced into. Europe the vicious genocidal methods used
routinely by Europeans in their colonies and by the U.S. in the South.
The fascists used the Spanish fascist revolt led by FrancQt as a testing-
ground to prepare for conquest of Europe. Events in Spain reflected the
motivations of the major participants in World War II three years later.
Spain in 1936 was neither an oppressed nation nor an imperialist
power. Rather it was a sub-imperialist power with colonies in Africa
and the Basque region but lacking the industrial base to compete with
-20-
21the major powers. When the fascists attacked the Republican govern-mant—an alliance of Social-Democrats and Anarchists—the Western imperialist governments were officially neutral. They offered no material
support for the Republicans and created difficulties for their supporters
abroad while still allowing them to raise money and recruit volunteers.
The U.S., England and France hoped that the fascists, if unprovoked,
would leave western Europe alone and turn against the Soviet Union.
To the Russian Communists it was clear that the fascists intended
to attack them. They sent what limited support they could to the Spanish
Republic and organized a worldwide campaign in opposition to fascism.
In the U.S., the majority attitude toward Spain (and later toward
World War II before the U.S. entered) favored neutrality. Although many
people were outraged by fascist attacks on non-combatants in Spain as in
the infamous air raid on Guernica, they also wished not to get involved
as no American interests were Immediately threatened. The U.S. Communists
were able to influence a sizeable minority to support the Republicans in
Spain. Rallies were held to raise money and to protest the neutrality
of the U.S. Three^thousand volunteers joined the International Brigades.
According to Foster, 2600 were whites and 1500 died in what he calls22
"the most glorious event in the entire life of the Party."
We share Foster's admiration for the volunteers who sacrificed their
lives in Spain. The fight against fascism and eventual victory in World
War II was a positive cause for it opened up great possibilities for
national liberation. U.S. whites who supported the Republican cause in
Spain indirectly supported national liberation even though Spain was not
an oppressed nation. Yet it was a special combination of circumstances
which helped such heroism develop. The U.S. government was officially
neutral. Further, the U.S. Communists were at the height of their
prestige in 1937. The Depression was still on and people were readier
to take chances. Finally, the people of Spain are white Europeans, which
made it easier to identify with their misfortunes.
-21-
These factors help to explain why U.S. whites acted differently in
Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam from the way they acted in Spain.
Unlike in Spain, the U.S. government openly opposed these liberation move
ments and used its power to break up internal opposition. It is harder
for whites, prosperous today as they were not in 1937, to make sacri
fices in support of non-white peoples. The example of Spain remains a
positive one but is unlikely to be repeated in the immediate future.
During World War II the contradictions discussed above were fought
out to an Allied victory. Once the U.S. entered the war, whites were
fighting in part to defeat Japan—obj ectively in support of nationalliberation in China, to defend—again in the objective sense—the
Soviet Union, and partly to preserve and extend the U.S. empire.
The conditions of both white and Black workers Improved duringthe war. Labor was in short supply and Black leaders used this to
their advantage pressuring Roosevelt to appoint a Fair EmploymentPractices Commission to force companies with government contracts to
hire Blacks. Some CIO leaders defended Black workers' demands providingoutstanding examples of whites willing to fight other whites for Blackadvances.
Other leaders and union members opposed admitting Blacks to goodjobs to the point where their opposition slowed down the war effort.In Mobile, Alabama, federal troops had to be called in to stop a four-day riot by 20,000 white workers objecting to upgrading of Black jobs.After the riot federal officials restored the status quo and Blacks failedto get better jobs.
Such "hate strikes" were common and cost over 100,000 man-daysof work. The worst was in Philadelphia in August 1944 when whitestreetcar workers walked out in protest over assignment of eight Blacks
as motormen. Public transport was closed for six days and it took 5,000federal troops to restore service.
-22-
On the positive side, the CIO had afairly consistent policy oftreating Black workers fairly and Black membership grew. CIO leadersintervened against white supremany when hate strikes erupted.
In late 1941, 500 white workers at the Curtis-Wright aircraftplant in Columbus, Ohio struck when a Negro was promoted tothe tool and die department. Thomas (U.A.W. president)Immediately removed the local union official who had endorsedthe strike and ordered the men back?to work. This unequivocalaction won praise from the NAACP...
Even such limited efforts against white chauvinism would be almost
unheard of in the labor movement today. During the Depression and todaywhite chauvinism is restrained by the democratic format favored by U.S.imperialism. Black workers won sizeable participation in the autoindustry, for example, as a result of Ffird's paternalism and CIO demands
during the Depression. Had fascism come the the U.S. it is likely allBlacks would have been driven from their jobs and placed in concentration
camps. Even today things have not reached this extreme although genocide
threatens. Although Black labor is no longer essential to the U.S.
economy and Black unemployment very high, there are still a sizeable
number of Black auto workers. Yet white auto workers have changed so
there is no longer any section, let alone the leadership, sympathetic to
Black demands.
Some of the main reasons for the change have been discussed above.
The U.S. is now the main enemy—limited alliances between the U.S. govern
ment and anti-imperialists are virtually Impossible. Whites no longer
have vivid memories of the Depression; they are tied to the system bysubstantial bribes. The upsurge of nationalism after World War II and
the Impact of the Vietnam War have given Black nationalists considerable
influence over Black labor. These leaders make it clear that advances
are tied to "Freeing the Land"—a just demand for an independent country
in five states in the South which will cut into white bribes.
These reasons must be kept in mind as we try to learn from the role
of whites in the Depression and World War II. We cannot expect to win
-23-
white supporters for national liberation by using the tactics of 1936-
organizing white workers around economic demands. Conditions today
call for different tactics focussed on national liberation.
;\x-:- i.\\\ \
1. John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash, Houghton-Mifflin Company,Boston, 1961, pp. 185-187.
2. William Z. Foster, Outline Political History of the Americas,International Publishers, New York, 1951, p. 405.
3. J. Forbes Munro, Africa and the International Economy 1800-1960.J. M. Dent & Sons, London, 1976, p. 150.
4. Philip S. Foner, Organized Labor and the Black Worker 1619-1973.Praeger Publishers, New Yonk, 1974. Also New Boundaries No. 3,July 1979.
5. Gilbert C. Fite and Jim E. Reese, An Economic History of the UnitedStates, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1965, p. 59.
6. William Z. Foster, History of the Communist Party of the UnitedStates, International Publishers, New York, 1952.
7. Fite and Reese, p. 616.
8. Foster, History of the Communist Party of the United States, p. 316,9. Fite and Reese, p. 615.
10. Ernesto Galarza, Farm Workers and Agribusiness in California 1947-1960, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1977, p. 28.
11. Fite and Reese, p. 629-630.
12. Foner, p. 197.
13. New Boundaries No. 3. July 1979.
14. Foner, pp. 192-193.
15. Foner, p. 200.
-24-
16' F°Ster* H^tory of the Communist Par^ .f the Unlted s,a,oc p^ ^ •17. Foner, pp. 230-231.
18. Fonery p. 207, footnote.
19' F°Ster> History of the Communist Pari-y of the Unl,^ ^a,ae ^ ^20. Fite and Reese, p. 617.
21- aa&g^ysyct:^:f Modeni s^n-Holmes and Meir22. Foster, History of the Communist- Party of the tTn^H q-....., p. 373.23. Foner, p. 265.
24. Foner, p. 255.
-25-
THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
The Civil Rights period of the 1950's and 1960's is worth studyingaa an- example. o£ active -white: support for the Afro-American struggle. TheCivil Rights Movement was an important step forward for the Black libera
tion struggle. It won widespread support among Afro-Americans who saw itas a way to win their freedom. The fact that it did not achieve that
goal is an indication of its limitations and of the temporary strengthof U.S. imperialism following World War II. Like any national struggle,the Black liberation struggle must go through different stages, evensetbacks, before complete victory is achieved.
National liberation struggles in Africa, Asia, and Latin America
during and after World War II had the strongest influence on the Black
people in the U.S. There was a new anti-colonialist spirit among theoppressed nations of the world; the people of China, Vietnam and the
Congo served as inspirational examples to all suffering colonialist andand imperialist oppression, including the New Africans. Showing that
-26-
the imperialist yoke could be thrown off, such examples played a crucial
role in stimulating the growth of the Civil Rights Movement, It in turn
inspired hundred of whites to participate.
As late as 1960 young people born during World War II were called
the "uncommitted generation". They were so apathetic that they were
described in the following way: "What distinguishes them is that they
are not committed to any cause." The Civil Rights Movement changed this.
The Black youth who committed themselves to the freedom struggle were a
tremendous example to all whites and in particular to white students.
A Brief History
The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision against school segregation
helped convince many people in the following years that integration was
not only desirable, but also attainable. It was often pointed to as an
example of the fairness and impartiality of the U.S. legal process.
The Court judgment made an impact not because of its results but mainly
because it admitted the prevailing inequality. Many of those.who joined
the Civil Rights Movement with the hope that the legal system could be
used to bring about equality were to become bitterly disillusioned by
the mid-1960's.
The Civil Rights Movement is considered to have begun in 1955 with
the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott. This action, which involved over
95% of the Black population in Montgomery, forced the repeal of discrim
inatory laws on public transportation. The Montgomery struggle was the
first leadership test for Dr. Martin Luther King.
An attempt by nine Black schoolchildren to integrate the high
school in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 was rebuffed by angry white
mobs and the National Guard. President Eisenhower, who had once vowed
he wouldn't use federal troops to enforce the 1954 Supreme Court decision,
federalized the Arkansas National Guard and ordered it to protect the2
Black children and to allow them to enter the school of their choice.
-27-
The sit-in movement got its start in North Carolina in 1960 when four
Black college students refused to leave a department store that wouldn't
serve Blacks. The tactic caught on and became a great catalyst for
the Civil Rights Movement. Soon sit-ins were occurring all over the
South at local branches of department store chains that served whites
only. Thousands of white students held sit-ins in the North in sympathy
with the activists in the South. SNCC was formed in that year to
coordinate the sit-ins. Its charter members included several white
students, mostly from the North.
The following year, CORE sponsored "freedom rides" to the South.
In all about 4,000 people took part, many of them white. They challenged
segregation of restaurants, bus stations and other public facilities.
Many of the riders were beaten and injured by hostile whites.
SNCC began a campaign in 1961 to register Blacks to vote in the
South. At that time in more than 40 Southern counties no Black was
registered. In at least 20 counties, white registration exceeded .the
white population. These statistics reflect the deliberate policy ofterror and violence carried out against the Black population. The
voter registration campaign carried on for several years, despite numerous
murders, beatings and jailings. SNCC and CORE joined forces in 1964 to
organize the Summer Freedom Project in Mississippi to register Black
voters. Some 500 white students, many from the North, volunteered.
The Freedom Project led to the creation of the Mississippi FreedomDemocratic Party by SNCC.
Dr. King led important Civil Rights compaigns in Birminghamin 1963, Selma in 1965, and Memphis in 1968.
The march in Selma in 1965 was put down in an especially brutal
fashion by the Alabama state police. It marked a turning point formany Blacks who had hoped the Civil Rights Movement could be a wayto achieve their rights through legal and peaceful means. The
repeated violence of police, Klan, and white mobs during the Civil
-28-
Rights years had eroded their hopes. The violence in Selma was the
last straw. Embittered Blacks had not forgotten the assassinated
Malcolm X who supported the struggle for Black rights but warned
against non-violence and opposed integration .
The rejection of the candidates of the Mississippi Freedom
Democratic Party by the U.S. Congress coupled with the passage of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 signaled the end of the electoral struggle
era of the Civil Rights Movement. The prospect of extra-legal struggle
appealed to those who were dissatisfied with the progress of the CivilRights Movement. Blacks in increasing numbers abandoned the Civil
Rights Movement for Black Power.
The imperialists had hoped violence would intimidate Civil Rightsactivists to keep them from challenging the status quo. Besides localpolice and the Klan, they counted on the FBI. The FBI maintained linkswith the Klan during this period and has been implicated along with its
informers in several fatal bombings and shootings of Civil Rights
workers. J.Edgar Hoover secretly ordered the FBI to destroy Dr. King
and thereby the Civil Rights Movement.
The Legacy of the Civil Rights Movement
The Civil Rights Movement won some concessions for Afro-Americans.
The Federal government passed Civil Rights Acts in 1957, 1960, 1964,and 1968 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Traditional anti-Black
discriminatory practices such as barring Blacks from using publicfacilities were ended. The right to vote was guaranteed and conseq
uently Blacks acquired new electoral strength, electing many localofficials in the South for the first time in 100 years. The Civil
Rights laws barred discrimination in hiring. This forced sometrade unions to admit Blacks for the first time. The Federal government
and some private industries instituted "affirmative action" programs
that gave preferential hiring to Blacks.
-29-
The legal gains were not sufficient to alleviate the poverty,
unemployment, and poor housing of the large majority of Afro-
Americans. Statistics show that, in the last ten years, living
conditions for the average Afro-American have deteriorated.
In other words, not only has equality not been achieved, but things
have become more unequal than before. Now the Reagan government is
working to increase the disparity by wiping out economic gains,
including government jobs held by Blacks due to affirmative action.
Reagan is lobbying to let the Voting Rights Act lapse, endangeringthe Black voting capacity.
Black Leadership
Those of us who followed the leadership of Hammer & Steel wereslow to acknowledge the positive side of the Civil Rights leadership.For several years, we had criticized Dr. Martin Luther King and theCivil Rights Movement with a one-sided approach, ignoring what wasanti-imperialist in their work. Dr. King did not consider himself anationalist. It was only after he was assassinated that we reexaminedhis role. While we disagreed with his advocacy of integration and nonviolent tactics, we recognized his prestige among the Afro-Americanpeople and his important anti-imperialist roles in the strugglesin Montgomery, Birmingham, and Memphis. We noted his public oppositionto the war in Vietnam.
It was correct to support the Black Civil Rights leaders for theirpositive contributions against white supremacy, for seeking justice fortheir people. It was not correct to refuse to work with them because wedisagreed at times on tactics like non-violence. Non-violent tacticswere used effectively on many occasions but we would not supportnon-violence as a long-term solution as advocated by some CivilRights leaders. Anti-Imperialists must find ways to join with otherswilling to fight imperialism when necessary even if tactical differences exist. We must work with the Martin Luther Kings and theKhomeinis if we are to smash imperialism. If we worked only withthose who agreed with us on everything, we would find few to work withindeed.
-30-
Whites and the Civil Rights Movements
There is no doubt that the Civil Rights Movement and the Black
rebellions in Northern cities in the 1960's generated sympathy for the
Black plight. A majority of whites recognized the oppressive
conditions for Blacks immediately after the rebellion in Detroit,
according to a poll. But within a few years, as the demonstrations,
sit-ins, and rebellions faded from memory, the perception of whites
changed and only a minority saw any serious problems for Blacks.
At no time was a large percentage of the white population actively
involved in the Civil Rights Movement. Even on the campuses, activists
were in the minority. At different times, many thousands who didn't
participate in activities did contribute money to Civil Rights organ
izations. This had a positive side, because it helped the Movement
carry on its work; but on the negative side it often inhibited the
organizations from taking militant positions for fear of alienating
white financial backers. This was the reason that the CORE leadershipo
refused to endorse a resolution condemning the Vietnam war in 1966.
It is true that most white Civil Rights workers were idealistic
college students who accepted integration, non-violent struggle, and
faith in the courts. However, so did millions of Afro-Americans in the
early stages of the Movement, even though their daily experience
showed that the Federal and state governments, police, and courts
worked against their interests. It was positive that whites supported
the demands of the Civil Rights Movement and took part in activities
on their behalf. It put them in opposition to white supremacy and
the system of privileges U.S. imperialism provides for whites of all
social circumstances.
At that time, however, we dismissed white Civil Rights workers as
upholders of the status quo. We thought that practical work like
Civil Rights activity was unimportant. We spent most of our time
developing theory. This was a good thing because theory on the
-31-
national question had been under attack. However, we tended to
overemphasize trying to develop a theory that was 100% correct. We
implied that if only we, along with others, could develop a correct
theory on the national question, then we could launch an international
attack on imperialism. We said that no anti-imperialist struggle
could be effective in the absence of such international coordination.
This approach wrongly ignored the effect of the national liberation
struggles on anti-imperialist ideology. It is mainly the material
conditions of the oppressed peoples in this era that will promote the
development of theory to insure victory against imperialism.
Just as we believed in coalescing with bourgeois Afro-American
forces fighting imperialism, we should have had a similar approach
toward the white Civil Rights workers. Since we felt obligated to
bring whites to support Black self-determination, it should have
been natural to look to the Civil Rights organizations for recruits.
Those organizations were far more effective than anyone else (inclu
ding us) at bringing people into the anti-imperialist struggle. We
may have been more advanced theoretically, but we cannot deny the
value of the experience of struggle in the South, of exposure to Black
freedom fighters.
Moreover, students are not an insignificant portion of the U.S.
population. Students and intellectuals have played important roles
in other anti-imperialist struggles. Many of the Black activists in
the Civil Rights Movement were students or intellectuals. During the
decade of the 1960's, the SDS was the most prominent white organization
to endorse a policy against white chauvinism. We know that the Civil
Rights Movement strongly influenced the SDS. Had we been more advanced,
we would have joined organizations like SNCC, CORE, or SDS. This would
not have meant endorsement of all their policies. We would have worked
with them where possible on the issues most likely to promote Black
self-determination. We would have urged the whites to take the advice
of Malcolm X, to go to the white communities and try to immobilize the
-32-
Klan, to fight white chauvinism. We would have tried to present our
viewpoint to the most advanced people; that integration could not solve
the problems of Blacks, but self-determination irr the Black Belt was
the best long-range solution.
As long as the Civil Rights Movement welcomed white participation
and maintained hope for integration, there was little chance for us to
win much immediate support for Black self-determination. We could not
expect many whites to advocate ideas that were not supported by the
Black leadership they followed, or indeed by most of the Black population.
It was more realistic to anticipate that as time went on, the lessons of
the struggle would help bear out our views. In the late 1960's, on the
strength of the Black nationalist leadership, several key leaders of SDS
endorsed Black separatism and viewed the Afro-American people as "an in-9
ternal colony within the confines of the oppressor nation .
The lessons of the Civil Rights Movement indicate that we should
work with those whites who are following Black leadership to counter
white supremacy and win allies for the oppressed peoples whether the
situation calls for going to the South in the 1960's or winning support
for the Republic of New Africa in the 1980's.
These lessons are reinforced when we look at the anti-war movement.
1. Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic, quoted in Howard Zinn, SNCC:The New Abolitionists, Beacon Press, Boston, p. 2.
2. Sig Synnestvedt, The White Response to Black Emancipation, Macmillan,New York, p. 176.
3. Synnestvedt, p. 183.
4. Synnestvedt, p. 177.
5. New York Times, May 21, 1973, p. 25.
6. See New Boundaries #3, author, July, 1979, pp. 14-26.
7. Synnestvedt, p. 212-213.
8. August Meier and Elliot Rudwick, CORE, Oxford University Press, NewYork, 1973, p. 404.
9. Irwin Unger, The Movement: The American New Left, Dodd, Mead, & Co.,New York, 1974, p. 165.
-33-
V
'HE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT
Opposition to the Vietnam war produced the largest white movement to oppose the U.S. government since the abolitionists. We want tofind out why this opposition was so much greater than during the Koreanwar or the many brutal imperialist wars earlier in our nation's history.By answering this question we will be better able to predict whetherthere will be opposition to imperialist wars in the future. Also wemust decide how effective this opposition was in weakening U.S. imperialism so that we can work for even more effective opposition in the fu-ture.
The main reason that theanti-war movement developed was that thenational liberation forces were gaining enough strength that the eventual destruction of U.S. imperialism was seen by more people. Thesequence of wars in China, the Philippines, Korea, Algeria, Cuba andVietnam was beginning to force into people's consciousness the reality
-34-
that national liberation struggles met by fierce imperialist attackswere the main feature of today's world. Due to its geography and itshistory of defeating the French some people saw that Vietnam might be thecountry to end the American boast that "we never lost a war".
Because the main forces for change were outside the imperialist
nations, it is not surprising that students were the largest contingent
of the anti-war movement. Not because they were oppressed but because they
had more leisure time for reading, more inclination toward intellectual work,
greater access to books and news sources, including foreign sources,
students came to the fore. In addition they had greater freedom to go on
demonstrations, print leaflets, etc.
With the possible exception of the great heroism of the Vietnamese
themselves, the "single most important influence on white (anti-war)
students remained the example of black students in the South".1 In thesummer of 1964 when three Civil Rights workers were slain in Mississippi,
Bob Moses of SNCC tied these killings in with the killings in Vietnam.
Many of the early anti-war activists first became critical of their own
country when they saw the poverty and terror and lack of democracy in the
South. Mario Savio, the leader of the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley,
was just back from Mississippi and a leader of the Friends of SNCC group
on campus. Even in Congress, Adam Clayton Powell was the only member of
the House who did not support the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. (He voted
present.)
The growing strength of the oppressed nations had important indirect
influences on the anti-war movement. European, Japanese and Canadian
imperialists had doubts about U.S. policy in Vietnam. These imperialist
nations wanted to maintain their profitable trade and investments in
oppressed nations which might eventually turn against the U.S. in greater
numbers. Perhaps also they did not think they could afford military
adventures of the scale the U.S. was involved in. In any case, this was an
important difference from the Korean War. U Thant, Secretary General of
the U.N., criticized the U.S. bombing in Vietnam whereas in Korea, the U.S.
-35-
and its allies had fought under the U.N. banner. This division
among the imperialists made it more difficult for the U.S. govern
ment to hide completely what was happening in Vietnam. Eventually
the "credibility gap" grew so that even supporters of U.S. war policy
did not believe government statements.
The economy was not a major factor in the development of the anti
war movement. As in Korea, and a number of other wars that the U.S.
fought on someone else's soil, the economy boomed. It is true that
many Blacks and some whites thought that, if it were not for the war,
more social programs would have been funded to eliminate poverty. The
post-war years have certainly seen no such development. A great deal
of present-day inflation was caused by failure to raise taxes enoughto finance the war. At the time, the economy was not a major motivating factor for the anti-war movement.
The immediate, personal reasons for opposing the war were of
course the obvious immorality and brutality of the U.S. invaders and
the draft with its threat of death. However, these factors which
loomed so large cannot in themselves explain the difference between
Vietnam and Korea or other earlier wars. Indeed the draft, which wasthe center of so much protest, had relatively little effect on the
students at the prestigious universities which were the earliest
centers of anti-war activity. The length of the war may have providedmore time for people to understand the immorality of the world's
richest country going halfway around the world to bomb, burn crops,and massacre a poor and poorly armed people. But the length of thewar was only another reflection of the main factor, the growingstrength of the oppressed nations in their struggle against imperialism.
The fact that some people were becoming aware of the growingstrength of the national liberation struggles does not mean that manyof them welcomed it. Many were not ready to give up the many privilegesthat they received as members of an imperialist nation. They feltcaught between the government which they were beginning to see as an
-36-
enemy and the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed people which
they had been brought up to see as the enemy. At first many turned
to pacifism and said both sides were wrong. Fearing that some would
move closer to the oppressed the imperialists encouraged them to drop
out of the struggle. Drugs, formerly restricted to the ghettos, began
to flow onto college campuses where the anti-war movement was largest.
Drugs were also made freely available to the troops in Vietnam to
keep them from thinking too much.
Although the anti-war movement was quite large, it was always a
minority even on the college campuses where it had its greatest
strength. No matter what tactics were used, it probably would not
have been able to interfere greatly with the imperialist war machine.
Yet, the imperialists would no doubt have been happier if no large
group had opposed the war. In that case, it would have been easy
for them to claim to be democratic at home even while they committed
genocide in Vietnam. As it was, they were still able to maintain
their democratic facade with a few notable exceptions: the assassin
ations of Malcolm X, Reverend King and the Kennedy brothers, the
handling of the 1968 Democratic convention and the shooting of students
at Kent State. At the same time, there were many atrocities against
New Africans such as at Jackson State, the Chicago Panther headquarters,
and the Republic of New Africa headquarters in Mississippi. Although
these were not directly connected to the Vietnam war, they worked to
undermine the image of U.S. democracy at home and abroad.
The main complaint that the government made of the anti-war move
ment was that it might strengthen the resolve of the Vietnamese
people to keep fighting by making it appear that the American people
were seriously divided. If the Vietnamese believed this, they were
mainly mistaken. However, there is one sense in which it is true. A
protracted war does wear down the resolve of an imperialist nation.
There were millions of -people who backed Kennedy or McCarthy because
"If tYre \3.S. doesn't go in there all the way we should get out."
-37-
Given that the Imperialists did not go all the way, that is invade
North Vietnam or use nuclear weapons, the anti-war movement may have
had some small effect on the morale of the U.S. public and U.S.
troops. Had the imperialists seen this as a major threat, however,
they could have crushed the anti-war movement by suppressing literat
ure, arresting leaders, assassinations, etc. If the government had
done so, the majority of Americans would have supported the government
or remained discreetly silent. After the killing of white students
at Kent State in 1970, a poll showed that 72.2% of the population
of Ohio felt the National Guard should load with live ammunition2
and use it whenever its officers deemed necessary. The govern
ment might have inflated this figure to justify its actions. Still,
it is clear that a large percentage of the population favored repression
of anti-war forces along with New Africans the main target of
the National Guard.
From our viewpoint, the existence of large-scale discontent with
an imperialist war was positive. But, the tactics used to organize the
discontent often played into the hands of the imperialists. This
is not surprising when we consider the privileged position of the
people who provided its base white Americans, mainly middle class.
There must also have been a large number of full- and part-time
government agents working hard to keep activities relatively harmless.
Nevertheless, anti-war sentiment did grow. The number of people
supporting victory for the NLF also grew. There was an increase in
the numbers who saw the war as symptomatic of U.S. imperialism
rather than as an abberation.
Unfortunately, there was also a move towards Marxism with its
incorrect class analysis of the U.S. Orthodox Marxism replaced
pacifism as the main problem in the anti-war movement. Marxists
told the movement that the American working class was their natural
ally because it, like the Vietnamese, was oppressed by U.S. imper
ialism.
-38-
Then and now, the Marxist picture is not reality. U.S. workers as
a whole get more from imperialism than they lose through exploitation.
If the world's wealth is to be more equitably distributed, the majority
of U.S. workers will experience a decline in living standards. It
is not true that the working class supports imperialism mainly through
ignorance of its real interests. Nor is it true that if revolutionary
intellectuals help the working class on bread-and-butter union issues
that the workers well be won over to support national liberation.
Workers can be appealed to on the basis of building a more just world,
a more sane world. We can appeal to them to come over to the side that
will eventually win to avoid retribution. We cannot appeal to them on
the basis of higher wages or cheaper gasoline. They know the imperialists
are more likely to give them that.
The Anti-Draft Movement
The draft which subjected young men to the idiocy of the imperialist
military along with the danger of being killed in Vietnam, was the main
price which Americans paid for the continued oppression of Southeast
Asia. The anti-war movement was largely a student movement especially
in the early years and therefore its members were not affected by the
draft as much as other groups. Still it hung over the heads of those
who would graduate, fail or drop out. Some saw the draft as contrary
to America's democratic traditions since Vietnam was not a declared
war.
All anti-draft techniques favored the white middle class. Student
deferments, conscientious objector status, faked medical problems or
going to Canada were all more difficult for oppressed nationalities and
poor whites. Since the U.S. always got the number of soldiers needed,
the anti-draft movement simply replaced middle-class white youth with
oppressed people Blacks,Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. But this is only
part of the picture. Although the oppressed did have a disproportionate
-39-
share of combat duty and death only a tiny part of this can be
attributed to the anti-draft movement, as compared to economic
pressures on the oppressed and imperialist draft laws.
The main victims of the U.S. military were not, at that time,
the oppressed nations within the U.S., but the Vietnamese peasants.
The U.S. government would have liked to see students flock to the
military and provide the officer corps with its best men. Actually,
it is known that both the morale and efficiency of officers and
and men in Vietnam were low. This certainly helped the Vietnamese
maintain their resistance. On the other hand, what we would have
considered ideal was for all draft resisters to go in the army,
study the art of war and plan for revolutionary support to oppressed
nations. That, of course, was unrealistic. We spent too much
energy attacking the anti-draft movement. What we should have done
is said that it is a good thing that people don't want to cooperate
with the military but those who are really serious should do this...
Those of us who followed Hammer & Steel did not take this stance
because we did not- think any movement within the white nation made much
difference until a major ideological breakthrough was made internat
ionally. We hoped that the Chinese or Albanians could be convinced
of the importance of the struggle for New African and Mexican land
within the borders of the U.S. We thought that a powerful internal
ional anti-revisionist movement would quickly sweep away the errors
of the American New Left and show the correct way to struggle.
Therefore, we were more interested in exposing the errors of various
leaders than in really trying to influence any movement. There
was a lot positive in developing a correct ideology on the national
question compared to the pure "activist" tendencies of many of our
generation. But, once it was clear that China was siding with the
U.S., our reliance on pure ideological struggle became an idealist
approach. We ignored the fact that ideological development will
come about mainly as a result of the strengthening of liberation
-40-
struggles and weakening of imperialism. This is happening even though
there are only partial victories and less than perfect leadership.
By 1969 or 1970 there began to be a fair number of soldiers and
veterans who were against the war. Anti-war newspapers and coffee
houses were started near many of the major army bases. In 1968, SDS
did adopt a resolution saying "we should move into the liberation
struggle now being fought in the armed forces and take an active part."
In 1969 and 1970, there were two deserters for every draft dodger
coming to Canada. By 1971, this added up to half a division. There
were a total of 40,227 desertions in 1967, 53,352 in 1968 and 73,121
in 1969. About one-third of these men returned to their units. It
would be wrong to say that most of those who deserted were ideologic
ally anti-imperialist or even anti-war. Nevertheless, the fact that
the war had less than unanimous support must have been a contributing
factor. Desertion probably cost the army more than draft-dodging*
Still deserters who returned were not subjected to heavy punishment.
During the Vietnam war and probably for some time in the future the
imperialist army will have less trouble from real anti-imperialists
than from individuals who don't want to give up their personal freedom
to fight for imperialism. The government could change to repressive
tactics in a future war. Desertions and disobeying orders could be
heavily punished. Newspapers, coffee houses and all literature
questioning U.S. policy could be suppressed. But such tactics may not
work very well for several reasons. Unlike the McCarthy era and
the Korean war, Canada, Europe and Japan may not back the U.S. all
the way. Unlike Hitler's Germany, the U.S. may not be able to raise
the standard of living above its already high level. Discipline is
hard to enforce in a war like Vietnam where small units are used.
Also, as long as large numbers of oppressed nationalities are used
in the imperialist army there will be resistance which may inspire
resistance among whites.
-41-
This does not prove that the imperialists will never be able to
mold the white nation into a disciplined and motivated fighting force.
We cannot forget the lessons of Germany but we cannot be sure that the
U.S. will follow the same model. The imperialists are not sure either.
That is one reason that they are maintaining lenient and democratic
structures.
If it is true that the white nation will give the imperialists
more trouble through unwillingness to sacrifice rather than by con
scious anti-imperialist struggle, does this have any implications for
dedicated anti-imperialists? Should we concentrate on building a small
consciously anti-imperialist force, or along with this are there things
we can do to help neutralize the reactionary potential of the white
nation? The experience of Vietnam would indicate that building a
conscious anti-imperialist movement is the best way to stimulate spon
taneous opposition to imperialism. The fact that people who were
consciously against the war, if not anti-imperialist, dodged the draft
or deserted encouraged others who were only interested in "saving their
own skins" to do the same. The fact that there was not universal
support for the war meant soldiers were more reluctant to carry out
dangerous assignments. Therefore, we should concentrate on building
conscious revolutionary support for oppressed nations. This will weaken
imperialism and aggravate all other contradictions within the white
nation.* * *
1. Thomas Powers, The War at Home, Grossman Publications, New York,1973, p. 24.
2. James A. Michener, Kent State, Fawcett Publications, Greenwich,Connecticut, 1971.
3. Students for a Democratic Society, "Towards a Revolutionary YouthMovement," reprinted in John Erlich and Susan Erlich, eds., StudentPower, Participation and Revolution, Association Press, New York,1978, p. 186.
-42-
• i ^
•c-;j5. r.'i.v
m
X:i:-.X'^
• v \;- !>'v>. ;'-
-\.-.V&.lr\m •
8>
-43-
VI
THE PRESENT
Economic State
Persistent double-digit inflation and the 1980 recessioncombined to depress the real income of American familiesby 5.5% last year [1980], the bigpst drop since 1947...the Census Bureau reported today.
This drop follows over a decade of slow growth and small declines
in real income (i.e., income adjusted for inflation) for white house
holds. The white real household income for 1979 remained the same
as it was in 1969 despite a significant increase in the number of2
households with more than one wage-earner.
U.S. whites, about 6% of world population, still consume
many times that percentage of the world's production each year. If
anything, their standard of living has improved relative to oppressed
nations', whose standard of living is in steep decline. Ours has
merely slipped. U.S. whites could weather many 5% declines before
-44-
facing starvation. If there is an economic crisis, it is not the U.S.
whites who are bearing the brunt of it. Yet, whites have traditionally
lived better than their parents who lived better than their parents did
and this expectation has not been fulfilled recently. For them this
setback to the "American Dream" is a new and disturbing fact of life.
One cause of the whites' economic problems is the just assertion
by OPEC and Iran of greater control over their oil. Increased oil
prices are a major factor behind high inflation, high interest rates
and high unemployment. Oil also illustrates the resilience of the U.S.
economy based on still very great oppressive power. By that we mean
the U.S. economy is in relatively good shape given the ten-fold increases
in OPEC prices during the 1970's and cutroff of Iran's oil. The U.S.
imperialists have to have oil at any price, in the short term to ensure
their supply and buy time to develop alternate sources, but they have
managed to keep the Arab governments disunited over Israel and oil and
to reduce slightly the demand for imported oil. As they turn more to
"domestic" oil and to nuclear power, they increase the pressure on
oppressed peoples' land within U.S. borders and on nations which possess
uranium. It is not impossible that technological development and
shifted emphasis of oppression will produce another period of cheap
energy. This will renew some whites' optimism.
However, we note that oil was the cheap energy source. If the U.S.
were still as dominant as in the 1950's it might have invaded Iran and
forced her into supplying oil cheap, buying dear, and policing the region
for the U.S. again. Instead U.S. imperialism is shifting and retrenching,
Even before their complete national liberation, oil-possessing peoples
are striking economic blows at the imperialist order. The same will come
to apply to the possessors of uranium.
-45-
Economic Concerns
The large AFL-CIO-sponsored march in Washington to press economic
demands on the U.S. government showed the dissatisfaction of some U.S.
whites. On the other hand hundreds of thousands of employees are agree
ing to reductions in pay and benefits to help keep their companies or
industries going, as in the notable case of the Chrysler Corporation.
This increasing economic discontent within its own borders makes it a
little harder for U.S. imperialism to maneuver. However, economic pro
tests are not in themselves anti-imperialist. In one of the few recent
anti-imperialist labor actions, unions took part in demonstrations against
U.S. intervention in El Salvador. This action was anti-imperialist
because it focussed away from economic demands of U.S. whites and on
the heeds of the oppressed peoples.
Much of whites' economic discontent has expressed itself in attacks
on the oppressed, as in Proposition 13, the Bakke case and anti-
busing movements. These preceded Reagan and his budget cuts which attack
the welfare categories on which many oppressed people rely. It is now
open official policy to do what many whites always advocated—ax the
oppressed to keep up government spending for whites.
U.S. imperialism's economic problems can only intensify in the
long run. The money from Reagan's budget cuts in reality goes more to
the military than to services for whites; this diversion will be magni
fied many times in the future. More whites, still comfortable by world
standards, will grow disillusioned with their government. These bitter
people will hamper U.S. imperialism to the advantage of the national
liberation struggles even though they might be equally bitter against
the oppressed and newly liberated peoples.
Paramilitary Involvement
Building along with white economic concern is white participation
in violent repression of oppressed people. Government and citizens alike
-46-
fear the results of the true and intensifying economic crisis the New
Africans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and Native People are suffering.The imperialists are also aware that these peoples' leaders have
grown more united and clearer on the necessity of reconquering their
land while the imperialists need it more than ever as security
against oil difficulties in countries they control less tightly.
In short, the home front is tenser.
The U.S. government has always participated in non-official
attacks on the oppressed within U.S. borders. The Klan's consistent
good connections with the FBI are well-documented from the Civil
Rights movement to the present. Bill Wilkinson, head of a major
national Klan, has admitted he passed information to the FBI.3This means the FBI in turn influences Klan activity. It also obviously
directs the oppressive activities and military-style armament of
police and prison guards and the court system that allows white
vigilantes to murder and go free.
During the Civil Rights period the U.S. government directed FBI-
Klan murders of Blacks and their supporters while officially trying
to end Jim Crow. At present it supports white involvement in oppression
more openly and more whites are "getting involved." This involvement
in armed national oppression at home is analogous to volunteering to
fight for U.S. imperialism abroad. However, the anti-war movement
around this type of war is small.
Leadership
Most white Americans have had little exposure to the idea of
breaking up present U.S. boundaries and are unaware of the movements
supporting this plan. When presented with correct ideas on the above
very few will consider them. The chauvinism of our people is so all-
pervasive, especially concerning internal colonies, that, if one didn't
know better, it would seem genetic rather than environmental.
-47-
In the past, our people's endemic chauvinism has turned manyopponents of the U.S. government toward focussing on class struggle
as the main force for change within U.S. borders. With few small
exceptions, the bribes received by all whites have been ignored and
the Afro-American nation's existence and right to land denied.
The main positive development of the present is the growth of white
leadership which supports the Black nation's right to a Republicof New Africa and makes this the first test of every white. The
very best leaders may not move many U.S. whites at this time but there
is no hope for white political advance without anti-imperialistleadership.
Why are there now a few white organizations working for white
support to the Black nation's independence from U.S. imperialism?
The reason is not to be found in the economic or political conditions
of the whites but in the leadership of New Africans. The mass Black
Power movement declined in numbers and force under sharp imperialist
attack in the late 1960's and early 1970's. However, some of the
people who had carried it to its theoretical conclusion—the demand
for &•New- African state—have consolidated, focussed more clearly
on the need for land and recently grown more influential among
Blacks. There are now several Black organizations calling "Free
the Land!" Furthermore, they have established mutual support with
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Quebecois and Native independence organizations.
Why are some whites now willing to follow the leadership of
Blacks demanding U.S.-claimed land? A major factor is the strength
ened focus on land that was absent in the Black Power movement
as a whole. Also, Mao is dead, China collaborates openly with the
U.S. and neither is as weighty a source of ideas as the New
African leaders.
-48-
Issues
We of New Boundaries did not anticipate the establishment of
organizations focussed on New African self-determination and have not
been on hand to participate in it. We now realize that the struggles
are helping to develop their own theory and materially aiding them is
important to the development of common anti-imperialist understanding.
We used to consider ideological work our main form of material support.
We still think ideological work is an essential part of anti-imperialist
work. Oppressed peoples' spontaneous struggles are often anti-imperialist,
but for victory in the long run the leaders have to take into account the
local and global balance of forces, previous experiences of revolutionary
movements and possible future developments. Our people are chauvinist
yet i^ we want to organize long-range support for the oppressed peoples
we need to see beyond our people's Immediate attitudes. This requires
a sound ideological foundation to guide our practical work.
In practice, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Angola and others have used aid from
the U.S.S.R on balance to their advantage they are freer, better off,
and helping to weaken the imperialist system while partly dependent on
the U.S.S.R.; a greater degree of liberation in a world still dominated
by imperialism was not possible. Similarly, Iranian, Angolan and
Congolese revolutionaries have correctly isolated or exposed the pro-
China forces who were actually supporting U.S. policy in their countries.
Must Angolans, Zimbabweans and their supporters accept the U.S.S.R.
uncritically because these Africans have been helped by them, or should
they publicly support the Eritreans under attack with Soviet and Cuban
backing? Even within Angola the picture is not all positive, for
Russian trawlers are fishing Angola's coastal waters to the detriment
of the Angolan catch. The Angolan experience has been a lesson to all
on the possibilities of taking advantage of U.S.- U.S.S.R. contradictions.
Yet it could be a more valuable experience if generalized, if linked
-49-
with Eritrea's or Vietnam's experiences, if considered in the light
of possible future external supports to North American liberation
wars.
Our organization's experiences illustrate the value of emphas
izing ideology and the importance of the liberation struggles in
giving force to anti-imperialist ideas. The people of New Boundaries
supported Hammer & Steel of Boston, Massachusetts. H&S was foundedt••• y
in 1960 by dissidents from the Communist Party of the U.S. who were'•v \
determined to carry on the positive work of Stalin and the Third
International and to support China, Cuba and the "Afro-American
nation in the Black Belt". By the mid-1960's, H&S's line on the
Black nation was very clear, correct and a focal point of its work.
By 1968, H&S recognized the damage China's Cultural Revolution and
Mao's Thought were doing to the Black Power movement and to the
Left in general. Without having discussed at great length these
issues which were receiving little consideration in the white
Left at the time, we would not be able to contribute anything to the
anti-imperialist movement within the U.S. in 198.2, On the other
hand, it is only since the resurgence of New African demands for land
that our work has met with some interested response and vital
criticism. This has led us to consider practical as well as
ideological forms of struggle.
Another subject for ideological consideration is Marxism.
Whites who agree that the national liberation struggles are primary
and who attempt to apply dialectical materialism are the front edge
of white anti-imperialist activity. They are also mainly Marxists.
We have been accused of throwing the baby out with the bathwater
by positing another source of value land alongside the labor
theory of value. However, can those who feel a critique of Marxism
is superfluous explain the oppression of North American Natives,
the wipe-out of Amazonian tribes and'increasing redundancy of Black
-50-
labor by the labor theory of value? Resorting to the two-tier, racially-divided labor market as the the sole explanation leads to the primacy ofnulti-national class struggle. We need a theory which expresses whatwe already know in practice—New Africans and all other peoples needtheir own land on which to organize their labor. It will help us explainto our people how our wealth is based on ill-gotten gains from other
peoples' land, even though whites have been the majority labor force within U.S. borders.
One of our key functions as whites is to support the Black organizations which work for liberation of southern U.S. land. We used to see
support work as a weak form of anti-imperialist activity because it
seemed to involve little ideological initiative by whites. In fact thestruggles themselves produce new perspectives or advance them.
There are obviously many kinds of support work, open and under
ground, which will vary as the liberation struggles advance. The possibilities are especially wide for the oppressed nations within U.S. borders to utilize whatever white support is available.
Here we take as an example the attempted expropriation by Black andwhite anti-imperialists of $1.6 million from a Brink's truck. While
charging robbery and murder, the government's main actions have obviouslybeen to raid, investigate, slander, terrorize, torture and incarcerate
New African nationalists and white supporters; not to investigate arobbery.
As supporters of New Africans' right to "expropriate" their nationalterritory from land claimed by U.S. imperialism we also support expropriation of funds as one means toward this goal. The fact that this attemptfailed does not mean it was adventurist; the strength under torture andpressure shown by all those arrested testifies to political and mental
preparedness. We express our solidarity with the captives and hope thatthrough their political defense the distinction between those who supportbreak-up of U.S. territory by New Africans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and
-51-
Native Americans and those who pretend to be anti-imperialist will
become ever clearer.
Future
It is quite possible that the U.S. will invade another nation such
as El Salvador before the struggle of the oppressed within U.S. borders
becomes all-out war. The sending of troops would arouse many of the same
elements who comprised the Vietnam anti-war movement—pacifists, people
morally opposed, those who think war a mistaken tactic. The memory of
Vietnam is fresh enough that such a movement could develop quickly.
Unlike Vietnam, perhaps due to the economy, many labor unions seem
ready to oppose sending troops. There are already support committees
for El Salvador doing useful work against U.S. imperialism's sending
advisors and military aid to the reactionary junta. With the concentra
tion of Black nationalism on the demand for land and increased unity
with similarly-oriented Mexican and Puerto Rican nationalists, any
future white anti-external-war movement will be more likely to develop
some elements who connect opposition to the external war with opposing
oppression of the nations within U.S. borders.
* * *
1. New York Times, August 21, 1981, p. A12.
2. "Money Income of Households in the United States: 1979", CurrentPopulation Reports: Consumer Income, Series P.60, No. 126, U.S.Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, p. 12.
3. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News Service, December 1981.
\• NEW BOUNDARIES PUBLICATIONS
"New Boundaries", March 1978, unnumbered.
New Boundaries No. 2, "Indochina", April 1979c
New Boundaries No. 3, "The Afro-American Nation: aCase for Liberation of the Black Belt", July 1979.
New Boundaries No. 4, "Iran", December 16, 1979.
New Boundaries No. 5, "On Native Peoples", January1981. *
New Boundaries No. 6, "Win White Support for NewBoundaries", March 1982.
Copies of New Boundaries publications are available freeof charge on request.
f
top related