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