HOME
your socialist home on the internet
ABOUT US
who we are, our politics, and what we do
GET ACTIVE!
joining ysa, getting active locally, making a difference
NEWS & VIEWS
articles, fliers, statements and opinions
THEORY
what is socialism, reading lists and study guides
CONTACT US
our email, snail mail, phone number and club directory
LINKS
socialist, youth, activist, labor, feminist, anti-racist, and other important sites
WHAT'S NEW
listing of what's been recently added
which way forward
Which Way for the Anti-War Movement: Mass Action or The Democratic
Party?
The mass anti-war movement that emerged in opposition to the US War on
Iraq
affected large layers of American society, especially youth and
students.
The most significant student action in opposition to the war was the
March
5th day of action called by the National Youth and Student Peace
Coalition
(NYSPC). NYSPC’s call for nation-wide campus walk outs under the
demand
“Books Not Bombs” was taken up by student activists across the country,
culminating with actions on nearly 500 campuses on March 5th. The
March 5th
demonstrations against the then impending slaughter of the Iraqi people
expressed the broad anti-war sentiment among students and youth and
struck a
blow to the myth of campus apathy.
With the US victory over the Iraqi people and colonial occupation of
that
country, and US threats against countries ranging from Cuba to Syria to
North Korea, anti-war activists are looking for the next opportunities
to
protest the United States arrogant adventures in world domination.
NYSPC
has called on students to plan for another day of action on May 6th.
Unlike
the March 5th actions against the war, the May 6th action is calling
for
young people to register and vote for “pro-peace” candidates, in other
words
to vote for the Democratic Party. NYSPC is asking campus activists to
sign
“Peace Pledge Cards” where students pledge to “participate in a
campaign to
get out the youth peace vote in 2004.” NYSPC, whose member groups
include
pro-Democratic Party organizations such as the Young Communist League,
Young
Democratic Socialists, and the Young Peoples Socialist League, is
attempting
to steer the anti-war movement away from the actions that made it so
successful -mass demonstrations- and into the Democratic Party.
The question facing youth and students is how to build a movement that
is
capable of stopping Washington’s next invasion of another country, a
prospect that seems closer and closer every time Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, and
other assorted hacks for the ruling class speak. But is the step
forward
for the movement in supporting the Democrats in 2004 or building an
independent movement in the streets?
The Democratic Party has a long tradition of pursuing the votes of
participants of mass struggles for social justice. The mass anti-Iraq
war
movement is no different. When the movement was at its height, with
hundreds of thousands of people in the streets on four separate
occasions,
top Democrats made several high profile speeches opposing Bush’s move
toward
war. However, these same “anti-war” Democrats, including the top House
Democrat Nancy Pelosi all rallied around the war effort once the first
bombs
dropped on Baghdad. Pelosi, who represents the “left-wing” of the
Party,
said after the outbreak of war, “Saddam Hussein is a menace to his own
people, and a threat to the peace and stability of the entire region.
As our
soldiers risk their own lives to secure the lives and liberty of
others, we
pledge to repay their courage by guaranteeing that we will spare no
resource
and no effort to make sure nothing stands between them and victory.”
Is
this the peace candidate NYSPC has in mind building up to the May 6th
“Vote
Books Not Bombs” day of action?
With the current occupation of Iraq, the so-called doves in the
Democratic
Party are now advocating for a United Nations colonial occupation force
instead of the United States dominated one. This amounts to adding a
fig
leaf to the colonizing of Iraq and exploiting its vast oil resources
for the
benefit of oil profits. Before the war started, the same “doves”
called for
United Nations backing of the war effort. The “pro-peace” Democrats
major
concern wasn’t the savage shock-and-awe bombing campaign, nor was their
concern the colonial occupation of a sovereign nation. The “peace”
candidates merely wanted the sanction of the United Nations before
proceeding with the slaughter of the Iraqi people.
Many people in the anti-war movement are rightly outraged at the Bush
administration and its callous disregard for the lives of the Iraqi
people
and the cold-hearted attacks on education, health-care, workers rights
and
other social needs at home. In this context, many anti-war activists
look
toward the Democrats, not because the see them as a real alternative,
but
because they seek any alternative to the reactionary Bush
administration.
This sentiment falls into the fallacy of lesser-evil politics. The
Democratic Party is no lesser an evil then the good cop is a lesser
evil
then the bad cop. The Democratic Party represents the interests of the
real
warmongers, the ruling rich that control the oil, military, and other
corporate entities that benefit from the bombing and pillaging of the
colonial world, as much as the Republican Party. The only difference
between the two parties is in the execution of the war. That is, the
differences aren’t differences of principle but of tactics. The
Democrats,
along with some Republican and right-wing demagogues such as Pat
Buchanan,
were concerned that running over the mass opposition both here and
abroad to
a war on Iraq would cause too much instability sought the protection of
the
United Nations Security Council approval to quiet domestic and
international
criticism of the war. In addition, the Democrats and “opposition” to
the
war reflected the division in the ruling class over the risks of this
ambitious step towards total U.S. domination of the colonial world.
The
oppositionists in the ruling class were concerned that the fallout in
relations with their imperialist rivals in Europe and Japan and local
representatives in the third world was too high a price to pay despite
the
potential rewards in spoils for U.S. capital by conquering Iraq. This
opposition had nothing too do with the opposition of millions around
the
world who did not want to see the destruction of Iraq and its people
via
tomahawk missiles and cluster bombs.
Another issue where NYSPC goes wrong is the issue of U.N.
administration of
post-war Iraq. NYSPC says on its website, "While we can all agree that
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and that the Iraqi people are
better
off without him in power, it is also clear that a US occupation does
not
create true peace and security for the people of Iraq. Now is the
perfect
time to declare a ceasefire and bring the United Nations back into the
process. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration seems to have chosen to
go
it alone, putting the financial interests of corporations like
Caterpillar
and Halliburton over international law and real justice for the people
of
Iraq." While we certainly all agree that Saddam Hussein is a brutal
dictator, are the Iraqi people really better off now that a foreign
military
power has conquered the country for the “financial interests of
corporations
like Caterpillar and Halliburton?” And will “bring[ing] the United
Nations
back into then process” create true peace and security for the Iraqi
people?
Back when the United Nations was part of the process it was the
agency
that imposed the brutal sanctions that cut off basic medical, food, and
other crucial goods from coming into the country. When the United
Nations
was running the process over half a million children died as a direct
result
of the economic sanctions according to the UN’s own statistics. In
truth
the United Nations is no more interested in peace and justice then Bush
or
Cheney. The inability for the U.S. to get Security Council approval
was due
to the opposition of the United States’ imperial rivals like France and
Germany who wanted to negotiate protection of their own economic
interests
in Iraq. The same Security Council, under different conditions in
1991,
approved an invasion of Iraq that cost the Iraqi people some 250,000
lives.
Instead of voting for Democrats and demanding the imperialist “good
cop”
United Nations to take over ruling Iraq from the “bad cop” United
States,
student anti-war activists should build toward repeating the type of
actions
that took place around the country on March 5th.
NYSPC’s attempt to bring the anti-war youth and students into the
Democratic
Party is a major step backward for the movement as a whole. The
Democratic
Party will only serve to weaken the movement, not strengthen it. The
future
of the movement against U.S. aggression lies not in the Democratic
Party but
in building the groundwork for future mass actions in the streets.
The article above was written by Dave Bernt.
