Look at the immigrants rights protests. They were an order of magnitude bigger than any peace march, ever. In 2006 they even included some strike actions. The "anti-war" movement leaders can only dream of equaling the size of the immigrants rights marches. But they fundamentally changed nothing despite all the enthusiasm and sacrifice of the immigrant workers, because the movement remained "united" with the Church, and through the church and the bourgeois immigrant lobby groups, with the racist Democratic party. What's needed to effectively organize the working class is a revolutionary party that fights to break our class from all bourgeois parties. Instead, SA wants to be one of the links in the "movement" chains that tie the workers to their war-making exploiters.
What the Nat. Assembly (and the other peace coalitions) do is unite these many organizations, including openly pro-capitalist groups like the Green Party, around a common program "troops out" or some variant, that is meant to be acceptable to some sector of the bourgeoisie because it doesn't challenge the capitalist imperialist system. The National Assembly is modeled on NPAC, which had a Democratic U.S. Senator on its governing board. Now the National Assembly hasn't recruited anyone so high profile yet -- but their program is the same appeal to the war Democrats by means of pacifist "mass actions" that will never stop any war, and are not meant to. It will take mass action of the workers, centered on strikes and "hot-cargoing" of war materiel, to defeat the capitalists' war drive. But the "anti-war" popular front seeks "unity" with all the forces opposed to such a program of action, from the union bureaucrats to the church to the Democratic war party. [continued...]
Hmm I don't know how you could call our anti-war committee a "popular front." We have dozens of organizations unified that have retained their own autonomy and discipline while united for a common goal. I also don't think we have any blatantly bourgeois organizations on the movement either.
No, I have significant political differences with Socialist Action. I am a supporter of the Internationalist Group/League for the Fourth International. Have you read our comments on Socialist Action's project for a new "anti-war" popular front? What do you think? I prefer to discuss things by email. You can reach me at [email protected].
Hey comrade, are you a member of Socialist Action as well?
What do you think of Jeff Mackler's signature on this social-patriotic appeal to the imperialist butcher Obama? See The Internationalist's take on it here: "social-patriotic crap!"
Thanks for the add comrade!
